Replacement of ADF Land Rovers?

[Navor]

Moin,
I can not remember where but read today that the ADF plans to replace some of its 10000 Land Rovers.
Does somebody know whether this is true and if so which Vehicles are currently for the evaluation as a Replacement???

Navor

[digrar]

Most of the vehicle and trailer fleet are up for renewal.

http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/LAND121/

[playtym]

Most of the vehicle and trailer fleet are up for renewal.

http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/LAND121/


Do the old vehicles get auctioned off or something? A 6-wheel drive Landie would be pretty sweet! :)

[digrar]

I imagine they will, not sure about the LRPVs, but all the IIMVs will probably be up for tender.

[Navor]

So will the good old LRPV also go?
Will the Landi Replacements be completly unarmoured or will also somehing the line like IVECO Panther be purchased

[Opening Batsman]

So will the good old LRPV also go?

Yeah, he is over the hill anyway.p-)

[digrar]

Maybe I'm getting around with my head up my arse, but I haven't heard a word about what is on the table as far as options for replacements go.
I have however seen some 6x6 Scania trucks getting geared up to replace part of the truck fleet.

I believe the LRPVs are going (they've had a hard life), not sure if they will be released for public tender.

[0497]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20776980-5002142,00.html


Vehicle protection a priority
Daniel Cotterill | November 25, 2006

ARMIES may march on their stomachs, but these days they prefer to ride when they can. Given the array of explosive surprises that lurk in many areas where our troops are deployed, there is a strong preference for riding in well-protected vehicles.

Tenders for a $3 billion deal to supply new field vehicles and trailers for the Army are currently being evaluated. Project Overlander is not looking at tanks or armoured personnel carriers, but those more mobile, softer skinned trucks and four-wheel-drives that provide much of the vital logistic support to the fighting force.
What is clearly an enormous project has been broken down into three, hopefully, more manageable sections. A medium/heavy vehicle segment has proceeded via a restricted release request for tender (RFT) to the nine previously shortlisted companies. Respondents are known to include ADI, General Dynamics Land Systems, MAN, Mercedes and Stewart & Stevenson. A light vehicle Segment is under way via an open RFT, while the trailer segment is primarily restricted to Australian manufacturers.

The list of contenders is just as interesting for those companies not on it rather than those who are. Neither Tenix Defence nor Land Rover lodged bids for either vehicle segment, and both were expected to be active participants. Overlander acquisitions are expected to be based on military off-the-shelf vehicle platforms, and a number of well-established solutions exist. According to project documents, "The desired solution for the vehicle platform is one that is proven and preferably in-service with a major military force".

Defence's stated preference for military off-the-shelf (MOTS) vehicles has been contrasted by some in industry with the copious and detailed specifications issued to describe not just the capability desired, but specifically how that capability is to be achieved. To them, there is an apparent contradiction between procurement policy and practice or, put simply, "why all the specs on what is supposed to be a MOTS acquisition"?

These concerns were put to both Stephen Gumley, chief executive of the Defence Materiel Organisation, and Colin Sharp, head of DMO's Land Systems Division. Their position was that the project's specifications were detailed so as to give industry the chance to see if their vehicles met the requirements. They pointed to the difficulty in discriminating between the vehicles on a value-for-money basis without detailed specifications. Sharp said he consulted widely with the CEOs of various companies involved with the project, and that some had felt that Overlander was over-specified, while other felt the specs were not detailed enough.

Threat levels likely to be encountered by deployed Australian forces today are far higher in many instances than would have been the case when Overlander was originally envisaged in the 1990s. Clearly, higher levels of armoured protection are needed on a much wider array of vehicles if they are to be used anywhere near insurgents who favour roadside bombs and other improvised explosive devices. One of the key judgments that will need to be made on this project is how much armour is needed and on how many vehicles. The compromise between protection and budget will not be an easy one. Some assumptions can be made on the numbers of vehicles likely to be deployed into harm's way, and one option could be to have on that amount of vehicles fully protected with the balance of the fleet "fitted for but not with" its expensive armour.

Sharp told The Australian that he had heard industry views suggesting that the DMO was not looking for the most capable vehicles that industry can produce, but he countered with his position that, "the DMO is looking for the most capable vehicles we can afford". The DMO is expecting to keep the evaluation on schedule, and that will see detailed options on numbers, types of vehicles, levels of protection and cost put before government for second pass approval mid next year.

Simple logic suggests that those offering the most highly protected vehicles are likely to come in at the higher end of the scale so far as cost is concerned. Little wonder that some of the companies bidding for elements of Land 121 are anxious about the bid evaluation process. With $3 billion up for grabs it is only to be expected that people will be critical of anything they feel could adversely affect their chances.

[0497]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,21754656-5002142,00.html


Tough trucks, big and small, vie for $3b army fleet deal
Gregor Ferguson | May 26, 2007

EUROPEAN and American truck manufacturers are fighting for a share of the $3 billion which the Army expects to spend replacing its entire fleet of trucks, light utility vehicles and trailers.

Defence will shortlist two contenders in each category whose products will be tested mercilessly for the rest of the year by drivers, logisticians and demolition experts before a final choice is made in early-2008. Deliveries are due to begin in 2009.

Tenders for this project, code-named Overlander, closed last year. The department's recommendations have been drafted and the federal cabinet will choose its shortlist next month.

Its choice will be determined in large part by lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. In two separate incidents this month alone Australian troops survived attacks by terrorists using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) largely because they were in armoured vehicles: one an ASLAV and the other an Australian-designed Bushmaster.

Soldiers in conventional trucks would have been killed or badly wounded, as many other coalition troops have been when ambushed in either ordinary trucks or vehicles fitted with rudimentary "bolt-on" armour. Iraq has demonstrated that modern warfare permits no safe rear areas: every soldier and every vehicle is a potential target, so a high proportion of the vehicles ordered by the Army will be capable of being fitted with survivability enhancement kits (SEK) -- armour plate to protect against small arms fire, IEDs and mines.

Some within Defence are advocating that instead of SEKs, some of the vehicles should be fully armoured before they leave the factory to ensure maximum protection in high-threat environments.

Building a winning tender for this contract has been as difficult as choosing between the bidders.

The ADF operates 7200 vehicles and 3200 trailers, ranging from Landrover 4x4s to Mack trucks. It wants to replace these over the next 10 years or so with families of light/lightweight utility vehicles to replace its Landrover Perentie 4x4s and 6x6s, and medium/heavy trucks to replace its 4-tonne Unimogs, heavy Mack and International Harvester trucks and prime movers.

This is no simple spreadsheet exercise. For a start, Project Overlander requires a complex mix of up to six separate vehicle "lines" and nine separate trailer types with 18 different payload modules -- water and fuel tankers, generator sets and the like. The project is cost-capped: the more expensive the vehicles (and armour isn't cheap), the fewer will be bought.

The initial requirement is for 1300 vehicles between 2009 and 2011 for high-readiness army units. Many will be armoured or able to carry SEKs. The second phase will deliver 4000-7000 vehicles between 2011 and 2015 to replace the rest of the current fleet, but the contenders need to put forward a common cost base for both phases.

The contenders are all blue-chip military vehicle manufacturers, including Daimler Chrysler, Mack, Oshkosh, MAN, Terex, Stewart & Stevenson, Pinzgauer and General Dynamics. Only three of them can offer a complete range of light/lightweight, medium and heavy vehicles -- Daimler Chrysler, Mack (which draws on corporate stablemate Renault), and US company Armor Holdings (which now owns both Stewart & Stevenson and Pinzgauer, and earlier this month was bought by BAE Systems).

Preparing a tender for Overlander has proved so complex and expensive that a couple of iconic brands are missing -- American firm AM General (builder of the Humvee) and Britain's Landrover did not bid. A source close to AM General told The Australian the cost and complexity of the bid process was simply too great for the relatively small number of Humvees required. Apparently it was a similar story at Landrover.

The smaller specialists have found it too hard.

[0497]

In short, looks like no Hummers nor Landies in future. IMO the light role possibly may go to Daimler-Benz's (didn't they just sell Chrysler?) G-wagen, since it's available with armour albeit limited- http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-gwagon-armour.htm

One thing I'm pretty sure about is that there'll be more Bushmasters or Bushmaster-variants (eg. 6x6 ute). Mine protected and has a proven trailer towing capability (could be used for howitzers).

LRPV replacement from Tenix? http://www.primeportal.net/trucks/mike_hughes/pinzgauer_6x6_weapons_platform/

[Navor]

Wasnt there a Unimog like Bushmaster in the 2-2.5 Class. That would be the way to replace Unimog. An Concerning the Landies. Was there any measurements disclosed. Sure G-Wagon is nice but the Iveco seems to better armored

[bruiserau]

There is an article in the Jan/Feb edition of 'Defence Today' about Land 121 - Project Overlander (where all this info is from).

Mercedes is offering the 1 tonne G-Class 4x4 280 CDI light vehicle and (speficially designed for Overlander) the 2 tonne G-Class 320 CDI 6x6. Both are air transportable and readilly up-armoured without reduction in range or performance.
Mercedes is also offering the S-2000 ACTROS trucks ranging from 18 - 41 tonnes and available in 4x4,6x6,8x8 and a 6x6 truck/trailor combo.

Armour Holdings is Offering the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) and the Pinzgauer 6x6. The FMTV is available in 15 different configs, with bids for both light and medium trucks.

Thales Australia (maker of the Bushmaster) is offering the tray-back version of the Bushmaster called the Copperhead and the Oshkosh Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR). Both offers are already armoured with additional armour able to be installed.

Mack Trucks is offering the French Renault Sherpa Tactical Trucks range of vehicles. The trucks range from 2 to 20 tonnes inc the Sherpa 2,3,5,10 and 15.

MAN Military Vehicles (18 MAN H76 TGA 8x8 Heavy Tank Transporters already in service) is offering the MAN range of HX High mobility Trucks inc. the 8115 tipper, 8116 + 8117 Tray with crane,6x6 8111+8211 Container Handling System, 8102 HX 81 8x8 and the 8100 HX77 8x8 Heavy Recovery Vehicle.

[PJSRAAC]

Land 121 has been in the pipe works for some time, at the present its being made more difficult by the wide ranging requirements of the ADF, a one size fits all approach can have its draw backs. It would be prefered that something is purchased that can be fitted out mission specific , but thats a neat trick in itself.

Bushmasters are expensive as a solution to the medium vehicle although it does perform well and is well protected for its role.

G-Wagon was in the last round against LR, what will influence the purchase is how local road laws and also risk acceptance for passenger carriage. If the status quo remains the new vehicles will need to meet stringent standards in offering military utility but also passenger protection not only in case of being fired upon but also normal day to day traffic hazards.

Warning the ADF may just get it all wrong and it end up with a pile of junk, but lately with much critique of recent projects it should be a decent outcome.

Lastly if you really want a 6x6, I would not recommend the ex Army LR, they have been nothing but trouble since they were purchased they are underpowered, and are unreliable. The LRPV's have been extensively modified to enusre usability but I am not sure how those would be disposed of, and they have been trashed in training and operations.

[LRPV]

Yeah, he is over the hill anyway.p-)

*....just adjusting for windage and elevation*...ya cheeky buggerp-)

[LRPV]

I imagine they will, not sure about the LRPVs, but all the IIMVs will probably be up for tender.

The LRPVs and RFSVs are buggered. The RFSV fleet was grounded but I'm not sure of the current status. The chassis cracks were to be repaired asap and the vehicles individually brought back on-line. Certain high profile units have already received their new toys, but at $500 000 each they will remain limited to the high speed fellas. There was talk of rebuilding the RFSVs at $65 000 each. However I believe that was resisted due to the fact that the 20+ year old vehicles are too worn.

[LRPV]

Maybe I'm getting around with my head up my arse, but I haven't heard a word about what is on the table as far as options for replacements go.
I have however seen some 6x6 Scania trucks getting geared up to replace part of the truck fleet.

I believe the LRPVs are going (they've had a hard life), not sure if they will be released for public tender.


Your head is clear. Army is debating options but every option gets defeated by cost. Last word (as of July) RFSU fleet is facing a 50% cut. Army just can't afford any replacement on one-for-one basis. Having a look at the budget and options, I've already signed onto a horse-riding coursep-)