R

R. David Steele

Guest
No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
military vehicles like the Unimog.

Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
military usage by the US military?


 

"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>
> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
> military usage by the US military?
>
>

If you are a buyer for the US Defence dept why not buy half a dozen of each
and do destructive testing to find out. Let us now when you find out.

The Land Rover, Unimog and Hummer are completely different vehicles intended
for different markets. Comparison on a 'which is best' basis seems
pointless.

M.


 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:32:05 +0100, "McBad"
<mcbad@NOSPAMglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:

|
|"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
|news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
|> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
|> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
|> military vehicles like the Unimog.
|>
|> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
|> military usage by the US military?
|>
|>
|
|If you are a buyer for the US Defence dept why not buy half a dozen of each
|and do destructive testing to find out. Let us now when you find out.
|
|The Land Rover, Unimog and Hummer are completely different vehicles intended
|for different markets. Comparison on a 'which is best' basis seems
|pointless.

The war on terrorism is creating a need for light, low cost
(relative speaking) vehicles. The LR might fill that need, even
if it needs armor. The Hummer or the Unimog could make a good
armored car but are just too big for normal use and too
expensive.

Likewise the AH-6J Little Bird helicopter (MD-500) makes a good
light attack helo that is a 10th the cost of the Apache.



 
In article <0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com>,
steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA says...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>
> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
> military usage by the US military?
>
>
>

No, the US military would require that they be reverse engineered and
redesigned then built in a US plant by US union works for a total cost
for $150,000 each.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
Button bashing in practice for another round of Daley Thompson's
Decathlon, Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> left Shakespeare
to the monkeys by typing...
>In article <0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com>,
>steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA says...
>> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
>> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
>> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>>
>> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
>> military usage by the US military?
>>
>>
>>
>
>No, the US military would require that they be reverse engineered and
>redesigned then built in a US plant by US union works for a total cost
>for $150,000 each.

You'd only be able to buy a licence to use the vehicle.
It'd be slowww
Full of bugs
Crash twice a day
People would borrow it every night for deliveries
Every so often it would head off blindly to pick up passengers without
you.
it would keep a record of everywhere you'd ever driven in it
The back door would never close properly
The front door-locks would be made of cheese
Only the manufacturer would be able to fit parts (without you watching)
(and would mysteriously make other parts break).
It would stop every so often, for no reason.
It would be built specifically to not match any standards already set,
and its own new proprietary set would be defined as the new industry
standard.
It would work best with vehicles from the same manufacturer, on terrain
approved by same, and would even prevent the occupants from seeing other
manufacturer's vehicles at all
It would have a front steamroller attachment for driving over everyone
else's vehicles


A few years ago a vehicle was built to the above specs but it failed
instantly on testing - nobody had thought to fit any cupholders <g>
--
O O :-o O O
| I so did it again |
O :-o O
Weallhatebillgates would be found at hotmail
 
Ask the US Rangers. They use Land Rover 110s

See http://www.specwarnet.com/vehicles/rsov.htm

Ron


"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>
> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
> military usage by the US military?
>
>



 

"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>


They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a
Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and
spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land.
A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do
this.
Compare apples with apples not oranges.

Huw


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.680 / Virus Database: 442 - Release Date: 09/05/04


 

|> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
|> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
|> military vehicles like the Unimog.
|>
|
|
|They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a
|Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and
|spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land.
|A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do
|this.
|Compare apples with apples not oranges.

American soldiers abuse their vehicles in ways that European
soldiers do not. The Unimog and the Hummer, being used as a
reference against what I would compare other vehicles. US trucks
will not take the operator abuse that the Unimog or Hummer take.
Can the LR take that level of abuse?

Also we have seen Army Rangers go "dune buggying" in Afghanistan.
They like to pop the vehicle into the air over the top of low
hills. Sort of like Baja. US troops are very rough on vehicles.

 
On Wednesday, in article
<imhma09c1llis314g1v6oo13lgncf8qaff@4ax.com>
steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA "R. David Steele" wrote:

> |> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> |> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> |> military vehicles like the Unimog.
> |>
> |
> |
> |They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a
> |Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and
> |spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land.
> |A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do
> |this.
> |Compare apples with apples not oranges.
>
> American soldiers abuse their vehicles in ways that European
> soldiers do not. The Unimog and the Hummer, being used as a
> reference against what I would compare other vehicles. US trucks
> will not take the operator abuse that the Unimog or Hummer take.
> Can the LR take that level of abuse?

I've been reading a livejournal by a US soldier in Iraq. "I can't
drive, I don't have a civilian licence, and they want me to drive the
Hummer."

> Also we have seen Army Rangers go "dune buggying" in Afghanistan.
> They like to pop the vehicle into the air over the top of low
> hills. Sort of like Baja. US troops are very rough on vehicles.

Wait until the enemy deploy AA artillery...

I've read articles in the magazines about British military training. We
apparently train our drivers not to take wild risks. It's stupid
breaking a vehicle you might need to stay alive. The off-road training
generally is maybe pretty mild, compared to stuff some of us might do
for fun. Maybe it's Ulster again -- the British Army has had to do a
lot of potentially-combat driving in the middle of civilian traffic.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
 
R. David Steele <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote:

> US troops are very rough on vehicles.

And on the troops of other nations fighting alongside them.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.
 


"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:imhma09c1llis314g1v6oo13lgncf8qaff@4ax.com...
>
> |> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> |> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> |> military vehicles like the Unimog.
> |>
> |
> |
> |They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a
> |Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and
> |spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land.
> |A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do
> |this.
> |Compare apples with apples not oranges.
>
> American soldiers abuse their vehicles in ways that European
> soldiers do not. The Unimog and the Hummer, being used as a
> reference against what I would compare other vehicles. US trucks
> will not take the operator abuse that the Unimog or Hummer take.
> Can the LR take that level of abuse?
>
> Also we have seen Army Rangers go "dune buggying" in Afghanistan.
> They like to pop the vehicle into the air over the top of low
> hills. Sort of like Baja. US troops are very rough on vehicles.
>
The US Rangers use Land Rovers for their toughest missions:

http://www.specwarnet.com/vehicles/rsov.htm


 
"Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message news:<XALqc.7015$YS4.1057@doctor.cableinet.net>...
> "R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
> news:imhma09c1llis314g1v6oo13lgncf8qaff@4ax.com...
> >
> > |> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> > |> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> > |> military vehicles like the Unimog.
> > |>
> > |
> > |
> > |They are not 'tough' in the way an Unimog is tough. For instance, a
> > |Unimog can have a lime spreader mounted to the rear body and carry and
> > |spread four or five tons of lime over ploughed but uncultivated land.
> > |A Land Rover cannot do this. The old Bedford military wagons could do
> > |this.
> > |Compare apples with apples not oranges.
> >
> > American soldiers abuse their vehicles in ways that European
> > soldiers do not. The Unimog and the Hummer, being used as a
> > reference against what I would compare other vehicles. US trucks
> > will not take the operator abuse that the Unimog or Hummer take.
> > Can the LR take that level of abuse?
> >
> > Also we have seen Army Rangers go "dune buggying" in Afghanistan.
> > They like to pop the vehicle into the air over the top of low
> > hills. Sort of like Baja. US troops are very rough on vehicles.
> >
> The US Rangers use Land Rovers for their toughest missions:
>
> http://www.specwarnet.com/vehicles/rsov.htm

Do you think with the Wolf XD we are seeing the last of the military
Land Rovers? There seems to be a growing trend towards light armoured
wheeled vehicles which Land Rover does not produce directly, and a new
military
Land Rover wouyld be based on the new Defender which will probably be
based
on the Discovery III which seem overly complex for military
operations.

Would be a bit of blow after 50 plus years of miliary service.

tim
 
Tim Wise wrote:

> "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> news:<XALqc.7015$YS4.1057@doctor.cableinet.net>...
(snip)
>
> Do you think with the Wolf XD we are seeing the last of the military
> Land Rovers? There seems to be a growing trend towards light armoured
> wheeled vehicles which Land Rover does not produce directly,

Armed forces are never going to go to all light armoured vehicles - they may
be a larger proportion of utility vehicles, but both costs and operational
difficulties (maintenance, weight, bulk) argue against using them where not
needed.

> and a new military
> Land Rover wouyld be based on the new Defender which will probably be
> based
> on the Discovery III which seem overly complex for military
> operations.

Sounds very like the comments made twenty years ago with the introduction of
a coil sprung utility vehicle based on the Range Rover (which it was as far
as suspension and drive train were concerned). The armed forces round the
world seem to have coped with that.

>
> Would be a bit of blow after 50 plus years of miliary service.
>
> tim

JD

 

"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>
> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
> military usage by the US military?
>
>

If you are a buyer for the US Defence dept why not buy half a dozen of each
and do destructive testing to find out. Let us now when you find out.

The Land Rover, Unimog and Hummer are completely different vehicles intended
for different markets. Comparison on a 'which is best' basis seems
pointless.

M.


 
JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> wrote in message news:<40ad185a@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
> Tim Wise wrote:
>
> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
> > news:<XALqc.7015$YS4.1057@doctor.cableinet.net>...
> (snip)
> >
> > Do you think with the Wolf XD we are seeing the last of the military
> > Land Rovers? There seems to be a growing trend towards light armoured
> > wheeled vehicles which Land Rover does not produce directly,
>
> Armed forces are never going to go to all light armoured vehicles - they may
> be a larger proportion of utility vehicles, but both costs and operational
> difficulties (maintenance, weight, bulk) argue against using them where not
> needed.
>
> > and a new military
> > Land Rover wouyld be based on the new Defender which will probably be
> > based
> > on the Discovery III which seem overly complex for military
> > operations.
>
> Sounds very like the comments made twenty years ago with the introduction of
> a coil sprung utility vehicle based on the Range Rover (which it was as far
> as suspension and drive train were concerned). The armed forces round the
> world seem to have coped with that.
>
> >
> > Would be a bit of blow after 50 plus years of miliary service.
> >
> > tim
>
> JD

This sounds like the basis for the case that Land Rovers could continue
in military service. Yes or No?

If so what are we likely to see? The current Defender with an improved TD5
and modified to meet modern safety requirements ie. airbags, roll over etc
or something based on the DIII?

Tim
 
Tim Wise wrote:

> JD <jjd@SPAMLESS.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<40ad185a@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
>> Tim Wise wrote:
>>
>> > "Exit" <exit@nomore.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<XALqc.7015$YS4.1057@doctor.cableinet.net>...
>> (snip)
>> >
>> > Do you think with the Wolf XD we are seeing the last of the military
>> > Land Rovers? There seems to be a growing trend towards light armoured
>> > wheeled vehicles which Land Rover does not produce directly,
>>
>> Armed forces are never going to go to all light armoured vehicles - they
>> may be a larger proportion of utility vehicles, but both costs and
>> operational difficulties (maintenance, weight, bulk) argue against using
>> them where not needed.
>>
>> > and a new military
>> > Land Rover wouyld be based on the new Defender which will probably be
>> > based
>> > on the Discovery III which seem overly complex for military
>> > operations.
>>
>> Sounds very like the comments made twenty years ago with the introduction
>> of a coil sprung utility vehicle based on the Range Rover (which it was
>> as far
>> as suspension and drive train were concerned). The armed forces round
>> the world seem to have coped with that.
>>
>> >
>> > Would be a bit of blow after 50 plus years of miliary service.
>> >
>> > tim
>>
>> JD
>
> This sounds like the basis for the case that Land Rovers could continue
> in military service. Yes or No?
>
> If so what are we likely to see? The current Defender with an improved TD5
> and modified to meet modern safety requirements ie. airbags, roll over etc
> or something based on the DIII?
>
> Tim
In my view, the answer is yes.
What we would like to see?
Would like: a little wider and with more room for and aft. Maintain
commonality with previous Defenders as far as possible. Very important to
maintain flat glass for easy replacement and near vertical windows (reduces
glasshouse effect more than just about any other vehicle sold today). Less
plastic, or at any rate plastic that stands up to sunshine.

Expect to see: A completely new design with a common platform with the
Disco (not necessarily the D3 - might introduce a new platform for its
successor). New design will be optimised for modern production methods, but
will not do away with meccano type construction entirely, so as to allow
multiple body types. Will meet all current and foreseen safety and
environmental requirements, and this will probably include a rounded front,
although it may not look very rounded. Will have a lot of parts, possibly
including engines and drive train components common with other Ford
vehicles. It will still be a serious utility vehicle with capabilities at
least equal to the current Defender, despite being designed with an eye to
the SUV market.
JD
 
On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:32:05 +0100, "McBad"
<mcbad@NOSPAMglobalnet.co.uk> wrote:

|
|"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
|news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
|> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
|> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
|> military vehicles like the Unimog.
|>
|> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
|> military usage by the US military?
|>
|>
|
|If you are a buyer for the US Defence dept why not buy half a dozen of each
|and do destructive testing to find out. Let us now when you find out.
|
|The Land Rover, Unimog and Hummer are completely different vehicles intended
|for different markets. Comparison on a 'which is best' basis seems
|pointless.

The war on terrorism is creating a need for light, low cost
(relative speaking) vehicles. The LR might fill that need, even
if it needs armor. The Hummer or the Unimog could make a good
armored car but are just too big for normal use and too
expensive.

Likewise the AH-6J Little Bird helicopter (MD-500) makes a good
light attack helo that is a 10th the cost of the Apache.



 
In article <0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com>,
steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA says...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>
> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
> military usage by the US military?
>
>
>

No, the US military would require that they be reverse engineered and
redesigned then built in a US plant by US union works for a total cost
for $150,000 each.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
Button bashing in practice for another round of Daley Thompson's
Decathlon, Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> left Shakespeare
to the monkeys by typing...
>In article <0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com>,
>steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA says...
>> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
>> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
>> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>>
>> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
>> military usage by the US military?
>>
>>
>>
>
>No, the US military would require that they be reverse engineered and
>redesigned then built in a US plant by US union works for a total cost
>for $150,000 each.

You'd only be able to buy a licence to use the vehicle.
It'd be slowww
Full of bugs
Crash twice a day
People would borrow it every night for deliveries
Every so often it would head off blindly to pick up passengers without
you.
it would keep a record of everywhere you'd ever driven in it
The back door would never close properly
The front door-locks would be made of cheese
Only the manufacturer would be able to fit parts (without you watching)
(and would mysteriously make other parts break).
It would stop every so often, for no reason.
It would be built specifically to not match any standards already set,
and its own new proprietary set would be defined as the new industry
standard.
It would work best with vehicles from the same manufacturer, on terrain
approved by same, and would even prevent the occupants from seeing other
manufacturer's vehicles at all
It would have a front steamroller attachment for driving over everyone
else's vehicles


A few years ago a vehicle was built to the above specs but it failed
instantly on testing - nobody had thought to fit any cupholders <g>
--
O O :-o O O
| I so did it again |
O :-o O
Weallhatebillgates would be found at hotmail
 
Ask the US Rangers. They use Land Rover 110s

See http://www.specwarnet.com/vehicles/rsov.htm

Ron


"R. David Steele" <steele.david@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:0rvfa0peucq73811lphlo8g3e0fe42ckjv@4ax.com...
> No one has given me a clear answer on how tough Land Rovers are.
> Especially compared to the Hummer (military version) or the other
> military vehicles like the Unimog.
>
> Would the LR be able to be a cheaper replacement for normal
> military usage by the US military?
>
>



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ovalandrover
6x6 110
Replies
1
Views
1K
Wolf Pack
W
rugbynut129
Military tool kit?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Bix
Bix
C
Freelander 2 – Sudden heavy judder/stall-like jolt under load after clutch/flywheel & driveshaft seal replacement
Replies
12
Views
579
Bounty
Bounty
L
N/A 2.5 DIESEL - DRIVING EXPERIENCE- WHAT ARE THEY LIKE?
Replies
13
Views
4K
yfo866
yfo866
L
Learning to fix Land Rovers like a pro - career advice wanted
Replies
10
Views
3K
kevstar
kevstar