 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / March 2008UK military have to replace landrover as a supplier
From what I can remember the UK can only purchase military equipment from other NATO countries, there was a major issue when a French company got the old Racal company. Now an Indian company owns Landrover and the fact that India are not a NATO member does this mean the UK forces will have to choose a different supplier for the many Landrovers they use. > From what I can remember the UK can only purchase military equipment > from other NATO countries, there was a major issue when a French [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NATO member does this mean the UK forces will have to choose a > different supplier for the many Landrovers they use. No they can buy from whoever they like except where it would mean the transfer of sensitive technologies to a non UK or NATO country. Jeff > No they can buy from whoever they like except where it would mean the > transfer of sensitive technologies to a non UK or NATO country. That Tranny engines abit 'sensitive' so thats put the kybosh on that! Tim On Thursday, in article <9GJGj.12354$uX5.3404@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> > > No they can buy from whoever they like except where it would mean the > > transfer of sensitive technologies to a non UK or NATO country. > > That Tranny engines abit 'sensitive' so thats put the kybosh on that! A Tranny engine? I want to see Sabine driving a Defender around the Nurburgring.  SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins. > On Thursday, in article > <9GJGj.12354$uX5.3404@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I want to see Sabine driving a Defender around the Nurburgring. In a bikini or is that just me? Derek >> On Thursday, in article >> <9GJGj.12354$uX5.3404@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >In a bikini or is that just me? If she drives like that, I'm not sure it matters what she wears. On Friday, in article <skapu39hdphq8af7fso82i81jmgk6qug0v@4ax.com> austinDITCHTHISFORBETTERRESULTS@ddol-las.net > >> On Thursday, in article > >> <9GJGj.12354$uX5.3404@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If she drives like that, I'm not sure it matters what she wears. AOL. I don't think she'd look bad, but who needs the distraction. We;d all be looking at the Land Rover, anyway. Wouldn't we? SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins. > From what I can remember the UK can only purchase military equipment > from other NATO countries, there was a major issue when a French [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NATO member does this mean the UK forces will have to choose a > different supplier for the many Landrovers they use. The British military use plenty of equipment that comes from non-NATO sources. Price is, as always, the over-riding factor in the purchase process :-( Back in the 1970's, at the height of the cold war, final drive bearings for Chieftain tanks were actually made in Russia ~ they even had a hammer and sickle stamped on them :-) SignatureRegards Steve G > From what I can remember the UK can only purchase military equipment > from other NATO countries, there was a major issue when a French [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NATO member does this mean the UK forces will have to choose a > different supplier for the many Landrovers they use. I thought they'd already announced that the land Rover wasn't suitable for the replacement vehicle because of load carrying issues. On the other hand the US vehicle is too wide to fit down back alleys in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US Special Forces have bought loads of Land Rovers... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > I thought they'd already announced that the land Rover wasn't suitable for > the replacement vehicle because of load carrying issues. ISTR that it was landmines and other explosives meaning that even if vehicles like landrovers that weren't designed with explosive protection in mind had armour added, the added weight meant that the load capacity dropped down too far. > On the other hand the US vehicle is too wide to fit down back alleys in Iraq > and Afghanistan and the US Special Forces have bought loads of Land > Rovers... I don't think the special forces/SAS are so concerned with explosive devices as the regulars are, as they don't get put out on the same kind of patrol duties that make regulars such an easy target. As for size, the replacements for the landrovers all seem to be whopping great big things of 5 tonnes or more! Most of the vehicles I've seen in the military w.nk mags have independent suspension for speed across rough ground, a degree of explosive protection integrated into the design and quite large front and rear overhangs, so it seems the landy isn't suited for the needs any more. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ > As for size, the replacements for the landrovers all seem to be > whopping great big things of 5 tonnes or more! Most of the vehicles > I've seen in the military w.nk mags have independent suspension for > speed across rough ground, a degree of explosive protection integrated > into the design and quite large front and rear overhangs, so it seems > the landy isn't suited for the needs any more. The problem is that the Land Rover has turned out to be ideal for the urban fighting in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and marginal in Afghanistan, but the major NATO armies are still obsessed with the idea of fighting vast tank battles. The Special Forces people need a load carrier that has at least a three tonne lift capacity (plus four people), and the Defender can't do that and LR don't (didn't?)seem willing to try to build one that can do what they want. Tata will open up completely new markets for LR, and they're aggressive, customer focused and very very rich. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > The problem is that the Land Rover has turned out to be ideal for the urban > fighting in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, .. but sh.t for patrols, due to the explosive risk. > and marginal in > Afghanistan, but the major NATO armies are still obsessed with the idea of > fighting vast tank battles. Hmm, there's not that many tanks relatively speaking and their vehicle requirements seem to be concentrating on IED attacks and rocket-propelled grenades so not sure where this idea of an obsession about tank battles comes from. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >> The problem is that the Land Rover has turned out to be ideal for the >> urban >> fighting in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, > > .. but sh.t for patrols, due to the explosive risk. Only in area that are not pacified. They worked fine in Northern Ireland, in areas where the locals are hostile and so are the local authorities you have problems that can only be solved by armoured vehicles. The US Hummers are getting blown to bits as well, but nobody is saying 'don't buy any more, they're rubbish at something they weren't designed to do'... >> and marginal in >> Afghanistan, but the major NATO armies are still obsessed with the idea [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rocket-propelled grenades so not sure where this idea of an obsession > about tank battles comes from. The replacement is unfortunately blurred. The British army needs a family of vehicles that can do a lot of things, from Special Forces deep penetration missions to being an ambulance to being the thing the regimental policeman runs about in when they're at home to functioning as a car in rear areas. Land Rover Defenders are no longer suitable for the Special Forces mission due to a claimed load carrying requirement, and seem to have problems when used to fight heavily armed and well equipped irregulars holed up in the mountains. Mind you, nothing much ever works in the mountains of Afghanistan... Because of this the British army seems to want to introduce a series of much heavier and far more expensive vehicles to replace the thing when they'd probably be better off sourcing a few specialist vehicles and keeping the old Land Rover and using it as what it is, a light utility vehicle. The 'tank battle' thing is a legacy of the late NATO requirement to defend Western Europe, which has resulted in large numbers of American generals being obsessed with the ability to fight and win large armoured battles. The British don't suffer from this quite so badly, mainly because of the singularly British phenomenon of 'The Parachute Generals', but the USA tells NATO what to do and the US Army keeps telling its masters that NATO needs tank armies... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> .. but sh.t for patrols, due to the explosive risk. > > Only in area that are not pacified. Yep, that's true. > They worked fine in Northern Ireland, in areas where the locals are hostile > and so are the local authorities you have problems that can only be solved > by armoured vehicles. There was the conflict however recently in part of Iraq where the land rovers weren't armoured enough to stand up to occasional explosive attacks in mostly pacified areas, while the current vehicles they had that were armoured were regarded as too intimidating and so were likely to push more people over to side with the remaining insurgents! Not a nice problem to try and crack ;-) I'm not sure if things like the Panthers would be better, they're better for landmines but not so sure about side protection or rocket attacks. Stand-off armour doesn't help with a vehicle's width or make it look more cuddly! > The US Hummers are getting blown to bits as well, but nobody is saying > 'don't buy any more, they're rubbish at something they weren't designed to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the thing the regimental policeman runs about in when they're at home to > functioning as a car in rear areas. From the military mags the British special forces are rumoured to be going for the Supacats as weapons carriers while the Iveco-sourced Panther was supposedly going to be the generic land rover replacement, although I've not been paying that much attention recently so that could have all changed! > Because of this the British army seems to want to introduce a series of much > heavier and far more expensive vehicles to replace the thing when they'd > probably be better off sourcing a few specialist vehicles and keeping the > old Land Rover and using it as what it is, a light utility vehicle. Are they actually replacing all land rovers? I can't recall what was going on with that. It would appear to make sense to keep landies for general runabouts in less dangerous areas. Whether there's procurement shenanigans or not is another matter, that appears to play more of a role than perhaps it should! > The 'tank battle' thing is a legacy of the late NATO requirement to defend > Western Europe, which has resulted in large numbers of American generals > being obsessed with the ability to fight and win large armoured battles. Well, better that than them being obsessed with nuclear weaponry ;-) Mind you ISTR battlefield nukes being available.. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >> The British army needs a family of vehicles that can do a lot of things, >> from Special Forces deep penetration missions to being an ambulance to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > From the military mags the British special forces are rumoured to be > going for the Supacats as weapons carriers The Supacat can't actually carry (or pull) any more than a Defender... But it looks cool... I don't know how much better it is over the terrain they're busy fighting over at the moment. My understanding is that it was primarilly designed for European conditions and can't climb the steep bits any better than a Defender... It certainly can't cross water that's as deep as a snorkle equipped Landy can and it only floats if it's almost empty. The British Special Forces are no longer the old 'three men and a dog' outfit with less than 200 men in total but, with the Special Forces Support Group' and the 'Special Reconassance Regiment', are now pushing up to reinforced brigade strength in total and their vehicle requirements will be a matter for the MoD procurement people rather than the old 'The boss wants...' >> Because of this the British army seems to want to introduce a series of >> much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going on with that. It would appear to make sense to keep landies for > general runabouts in less dangerous areas. Production of the 'Wolf' series of vehicles has ceased. Production of the WMIK is now over as well. But... The Panther is over two meters wide, weighs twice as much, can't carry that much more (1200Kg rather than 1000Kg) and carries half the number of people. It's fine if you want to wander about in a minefield but a lousy vehicle for patroling somewhere nice and quiet... It doesn't work as a military 'car'. Whether there's > procurement shenanigans or not is another matter, that appears to play > more of a role than perhaps it should! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Mind you ISTR battlefield nukes being available.. No tactical nuclear weapons in UK service anymore... The warheads were all American anyway. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > The Supacat can't actually carry (or pull) any more than a Defender... > > But it looks cool... The military supposedly regard independent suspension as the thing to use for smaller off-roaders (i.e. not mid to heavy trucks) as they reckon it's got a 2-3 fold speed advantage over rough terrain, I know my pinz rides bumps at spee much better than my Defender off-road, and even on a local business park access road there's speed bumps so savage (they're like lengths of drainpipe rather than humps) I have to drive the Defender over at walking pace and it still thumps and jars, whereas I can hit them at 30MPH in the pinz and it just makes a thudding sound and the body moves a little, it's a huge difference. Whether the supacat's better at speed than a Defender on rough terrain I don't know. > I don't know how much better it is over the terrain they're busy fighting > over at the moment. My understanding is that it was primarilly designed for > European conditions and can't climb the steep bits any better than a > Defender... Probably not but with the honking great big front overhangs that most military off-roaders seem to have including the pinz, it looks like extreme terrain requirements are secondary to fast speed over rough ground these days. If I was going to go rock-crawling a Defender with diff locks would probably beat my pinz at a lot of things due to the overhangs and suspension travel differences between them. > It certainly can't cross water that's as deep as a snorkle equipped Landy > can and it only floats if it's almost empty. Well there's not much that can cross water as well as a truck with a snorkel but they can all normally be equipped with one, I know on pinzes old and new the fording depth is about a metre or so, but they can all have snorkels fitted to raise that as high as you need. The supacats are bound to be the same, although they probably are more likely to have snorkels for dust rather than water! > The Panther is over two meters wide, weighs twice as much, can't carry > that much more (1200Kg rather than 1000Kg) and carries half the number of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It doesn't work as a military 'car'. No, but it has been designed to resist mines and supposedly have a low radar profile and heat profile to help avoid detection, so this will result in compromises all over the place. Without those design requirements the landy is bound to be smaller and lighter. The bloody cab on the panther too! It's got more switches than a switch factory. Gawd knows what they all do. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ > Are they actually replacing all land rovers? I can't recall what was > going on with that. It would appear to make sense to keep landies for > general runabouts in less dangerous areas. Whether there's > procurement shenanigans or not is another matter, that appears to play > more of a role than perhaps it should! Their getting rid of the 90 fleet (or most of) and refurbing 110's to a Sort of half way to WOLF standard. Past some the other day all older than my ex mod 110, but they had flashy outside Roll bars over the cab. On Thursday, in article <fsg6b9$klq$1@registered.motzarella.org> > > As for size, the replacements for the landrovers all seem to be > > whopping great big things of 5 tonnes or more! Most of the vehicles [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Tata will open up completely new markets for LR, and they're aggressive, > customer focused and very very rich. 1] The Indian Army isn't a small market. 2] Some Wolf and other military features could become standard. Roll protection and 24v electrics come to mind. 3] The British Army still uses a lot of civvy-spec Land Rovers, some on those lease/private-finance deals that let the accountants do some magic handwaving. 4] Some bush-mechanic elements that the Army has liked in the past, might sell well in India. I can see Tata developing a model in the Defender niche which better fits military needs without being a limited-run special design. If the miltary wants armoured vehicles, converting an existing civvy vehicle rarely works well. If they want useful GS vehicles, which are tough enough to drive into a field to deliver supplies, an out-of-the-box Land Rover is still pretty good. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins. > On Thursday, in article > <fsg6b9$klq$1@registered.motzarella.org> >> Tata will open up completely new markets for LR, and they're aggressive, >> customer focused and very very rich. > > 1] The Indian Army isn't a small market. And, I happen to know, they're in the market for a replacement for their Mahindras. > 2] Some Wolf and other military features could become standard. Roll > protection and 24v electrics come to mind. I doubt the 24V electrics will happen. they've been on FFR vehicles for years and everyone hates it. > 3] The British Army still uses a lot of civvy-spec Land Rovers, some on > those lease/private-finance deals that let the accountants do some magic > handwaving. The British army still needs a 'car' that looks military. They will be very reluctant to abandon Land Rovers in that role as it's a major image change. > 4] Some bush-mechanic elements that the Army has liked in the past, > might sell well in India. That's an absolute dead certainty > I can see Tata developing a model in the Defender niche which better > fits military needs without being a limited-run special design. If the > miltary wants armoured vehicles, converting an existing civvy vehicle > rarely works well. If they want useful GS vehicles, which are tough > enough to drive into a field to deliver supplies, an out-of-the-box Land > Rover is still pretty good. I have a suspicion that they'll try to sell the current Land Rover Defender/Wolf to the Indian army right out of the box and use the cash to develop a new model. It would get their investment back and Tata is not noted for squandering money before they do that. They specialise in good industrial relations rather than technical innovation... The Indian market for a decent medium-weight civilian 4x4 that will function in a foot of water is huge as what they've got at the moment (Mahindras, aWillys retread, the Gypsy, a Suzuki with a crap engine and the Qualis, an old Toyota with the 4x4 gear removed) is all rubbish. The local rich kids/politicians/film stars all drive imported Range Rovers or Land Cruisers if they want to go anywhere rural, or anywhere at all much in the monsoon... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > I have a suspicion that they'll try to sell the current Land Rover > Defender/Wolf to the Indian army right out of the box and use the cash to > develop a new model. I hope they don't re-brand them.. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/ >> I have a suspicion that they'll try to sell the current Land Rover >> Defender/Wolf to the Indian army right out of the box and use the cash to >> develop a new model. > > I hope they don't re-brand them.. They'll almost certainly not do that in the UK market, where their cars are already sold under the 'Rover' badge . In India the LR will almost certainly get a 'Tata' badge, especially if they flog it to the army or the cops... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > From what I can remember the UK can only purchase military equipment > from other NATO countries, there was a major issue when a French [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NATO member does this mean the UK forces will have to choose a > different supplier for the many Landrovers they use. The procurement have been buying elsewhere http://www.armedforces.co.uk/projects/raq3f55efc5e2e42 looking at requirements I think this would be best described as project "poisoned chalice " http://www.armedforces.co.uk/projects/raq40f79a3cde5af not something that land rover would want to touch with a long stick I reckon technology is past the stage where a road vehicle manufacturer would want to risk a huge budget with the prospect of being royally shafted when politically opertune. Derek > From what I can remember the UK can only purchase military equipment > from other NATO countries, there was a major issue when a French [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NATO member does this mean the UK forces will have to choose a > different supplier for the many Landrovers they use. Three years ago the MoD started a project to look at replacing military wheeled vehicles (the Land Rover). It used an online voting system whereby relevent people from different areas of defence could list what they needed from the vehicle. For example, quick evacuation in a fire fight, able to load a casulaty etc etc. The analysis and results of this project should all be due this year. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.