new 6x6 military Defender

[freeagent]

whilst loitering on the Landrover stand at the DSEi show in London last week, I spotted this...

powered by the new 4 cylinder diesel... its HUGE....

[Mo Murphy]

The was a short news article in one of the mags with an outdoors photo. It would appear that Land Rover are testing the military water with this one. They've also gone back to leaf springs on the back.

Mo

[western]

Not gone back, that's a rebuilt Australian Army Perentie 6x6 update to try for a UK Army contract for higher payloads.

[jules]

There build in Aus by Land Rover Australia.

I could be wrong but some have a 3.9 Isuzu engine diesel

[western]

There build in Aus by Land Rover Australia.

I could be wrong but some have a 3.9 Isuzu engine diesel

the originals have, but that one above has the new 2.4CRD engine & transmission of the latest civvy Defenders.

[Guest otchie1]

Isn't the Pinzgauer the pony to back for that contract?

[western]

overall length wise a Pinzgauer is shorter than a 110.

[bill van snorkle]

whilst loitering on the Landrover stand at the DSEi show in London last week, I spotted this...

powered by the new 4 cylinder diesel... its HUGE....

Did you have a look to see how the drive to the 3rd axle was arranged? The Oz Perentie 6x6's use the old LT95 transmission with PTO that was originally fitted to Forward Control 101,s when equipped with powered trailer. To the best of my knowledge the LT230 transfercases cannot be configured to have 2 rear output shafts with high and low range, so either an additional transfercase or a thrudrive middle axle would be required.

Bill.

[freeagent]

i didn't really see much underneath it... the guys on the stand were not particularly friendly, and were only interested in talking to tin-pot african generals, rather than me....

they seem to be going for the military market in a big way, they had 3 different millitary landies on the stand, 2 110's and the 6x6, along with an armoured discovery.

...but they all looked like kids toys compared to the hardware on the Oshkosh and Thales stands....

[western]

the 110's are life extension prototypes for the existing pre-Wolf & Wolf 110 fleets, cheaper than new builds for MOD, the 6x6 uses a full drive through axle similar to the HGV's use.

[biasbilt]

I had a good nose around it and spent a little while peering underneath (by starting at the far side, no-one pestered me). It's got a chassis fabricated from box section and is fairly cobbled together. It is wider than a standard Defender, no tape measure, so couldn't get accurate measurements, but I'd guess at about 4-6" wider, and the extra width was all in the grill.

Front axle used a cast centre section with tubes, and then standard corners bolt on, but then had a removable diff a la standard current axles, so probably with the same spaghetti half-shafts and CV jonts (no sign of vacuum pipe for air locker either). Rear axles used a fairly clever rocking beam arrangement whereby the front of rear axle's leaf spring mounted in front of the pivot and and the rear of the middle axle's leaf spring mounted to the rear of the pivot, so allowing longer leaves on both axles. As stated earlier, the middle axle was a through drive and looked like a nice piece of engineering (who did they buy that off then?). The front suspension was bog standard, with radius arms and Panhard rod.

The bulkhead was also fabricated, looking like box section with sheet welded between. There was no waistline buldge in it or the rear body as far as I can remember. There was no provision for a windscreen or doors. In the load bed, there was an integral roll hoop which also provied the mounting for a weapon ring, and for the first time, it actually had a bit of triangulation in it, so would actually protect people in the event of a severe roll (providing you weren't standing up in the ring).

The vehicle had obviously been driven offroad as there was a little bit of mud on one of the springs that hadn't quite been washed off. The chassis had also been dented on th left hand radius arm mount for the front axle, as you could see where the washer on the nut side of the bush had pushed into the chassis on full droop.

Overall, a nice try, but too little too late. If you were at DSEi and saw the DESO stand with the Supacat vehicle on it, you'll realise that LR aren't even on the same playing field, let alone game (I work for Supacat and know how good that vehcle is, so can afford to be a little biased), and have failed to react quickly enough to user requirements. There may well be a requirement for a battlefied load carrying platform that the 6x6 could fulfil (unlikely), but LR are out of the game with respect to military contracts otherwise, as the standard vehicle's weight carrying capacity is too limited currently, before you take into account the current requirement for every (future) vehicle to have some degree of armour.

On the other hand, it was nothing that a number of people on this forum could not have built. Indeed, given the same budget, I wager that it could have been built a great deal better, which is a sad reflection on a major vehicle manufaturer, and a massive pat on the back to a number of us.

Toby

[JST]

Otchie 1 is on the right track ref the contract, its a replacement for the WMIK contract that brought the design about, but i would also back the pinz!

[bill van snorkle]

I had a good nose around it and spent a little while peering underneath (by starting at the far side, no-one pestered me). It's got a chassis fabricated from box section and is fairly cobbled together. It is wider than a standard Defender, no tape measure, so couldn't get accurate measurements, but I'd guess at about 4-6" wider, and the extra width was all in the grill.

Front axle used a cast centre section with tubes, and then standard corners bolt on, but then had a removable diff a la standard current axles, so probably with the same spaghetti half-shafts and CV jonts (no sign of vacuum pipe for air locker either). Rear axles used a fairly clever rocking beam arrangement whereby the front of rear axle's leaf spring mounted in front of the pivot and and the rear of the middle axle's leaf spring mounted to the rear of the pivot, so allowing longer leaves on both axles. As stated earlier, the middle axle was a through drive and looked like a nice piece of engineering (who did they buy that off then?). The front suspension was bog standard, with radius arms and Panhard rod.

The bulkhead was also fabricated, looking like box section with sheet welded between. There was no waistline buldge in it or the rear body as far as I can remember. There was no provision for a windscreen or doors. In the load bed, there was an integral roll hoop which also provied the mounting for a weapon ring, and for the first time, it actually had a bit of triangulation in it, so would actually protect people in the event of a severe roll (providing you weren't standing up in the ring).

The vehicle had obviously been driven offroad as there was a little bit of mud on one of the springs that hadn't quite been washed off. The chassis had also been dented on th left hand radius arm mount for the front axle, as you could see where the washer on the nut side of the bush had pushed into the chassis on full droop.

Overall, a nice try, but too little too late. If you were at DSEi and saw the DESO stand with the Supacat vehicle on it, you'll realise that LR aren't even on the same playing field, let alone game (I work for Supacat and know how good that vehcle is, so can afford to be a little biased), and have failed to react quickly enough to user requirements. There may well be a requirement for a battlefied load carrying platform that the 6x6 could fulfil (unlikely), but LR are out of the game with respect to military contracts otherwise, as the standard vehicle's weight carrying capacity is too limited currently, before you take into account the current requirement for every (future) vehicle to have some degree of armour.

On the other hand, it was nothing that a number of people on this forum could not have built. Indeed, given the same budget, I wager that it could have been built a great deal better, which is a sad reflection on a major vehicle manufaturer, and a massive pat on the back to a number of us.

Toby

Your description of the chassis, front axle and rear suspension is exactly the same as the OZ perentie 6x6, even the dents in the chassis from the radius arms sound familiar as when I worked on a couple I didn't think they provided enough clearance in that area.Each rail of the mid and rear section of the chassis were made from an upper and lower rail of 3''x3'' box section spaced 3' apart by the crossmembers. The front axles used aeu2522 CV joints from early Defenders and 110's. The front diff was naturally a 4 pinion 24 spline job. The Crownwheel and pinion was 4.7:1 but were a different tooth profile known as Alicon (Sp) which is reputed to be very much stronger than standard spiral bevel gears. The axle housing is cast and fabricated in OZ. The use of a thrudrive axle on this latest example makes sense as even 8 years ago Jaguar/Rover Australia were scrounging around trying to source enough LT95 transmissions to keep the army fleet runnng. I hope the thrudrive is not based on Rover type differentials.

Bill.

[freeagent]

I did overhear one of the salesmen telling somebody that it is basically a perentie copy....

I did see the supercat, and many other awesome trucks so know exactly what you mean about landrover

[FridgeFreezer]

They've also gone back to leaf springs on the back.

It's the future

[bill van snorkle]

Overall, a nice try, but too little too late. If you were at DSEi and saw the DESO stand with the Supacat vehicle on it, you'll realise that LR aren't even on the same playing field, let alone game (I work for Supacat and know how good that vehcle is, so can afford to be a little biased), and have failed to react quickly enough to user requirements. There may well be a requirement for a battlefied load carrying platform that the 6x6 could fulfil (unlikely), but LR are out of the game with respect to military contracts otherwise, as the standard vehicle's weight carrying capacity is too limited currently, before you take into account the current requirement for every (future) vehicle to have some degree of armour.

Toby

I agree with you that LandRover have missed the boat with this rig, especially at a time when many military forces around the world are giving LandRover a miss in favor of other brands and the Defender Marques future is under a cloud. The 6x6 Parenties could never be described as a high mobility vehicle. The ones sent to Afganistan with the OZ military required Detroit lockers fitting to both rear axles and the centre diff to cope with the conditions over there.

I am not at all familiar with Supacat. When I googled it I came up with Argo style Atv's and a 6x6 with what appears to be an excessive amount of front overhang. Is there something else in the range that compares broadly in specification to the 6x6 Defender?

Bill.

[biasbilt]

I agree with you that LandRover have missed the boat with this rig, especially at a time when many military forces around the world are giving LandRover a miss in favor of other brands and the Defender Marques future is under a cloud. The 6x6 Parenties could never be described as a high mobility vehicle. The ones sent to Afganistan with the OZ military required Detroit lockers fitting to both rear axles and the centre diff to cope with the conditions over there.

I am not at all familiar with Supacat. When I googled it I came up with Argo style Atv's and a 6x6 with what appears to be an excessive amount of front overhang. Is there something else in the range that compares broadly in specification to the 6x6 Defender?

Bill.

Here'sa link to an average article. For obvious reasons, I can't tell you too much about the vehicles (beyond that which is already in the public domain).

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/a...amp;expand=true

Toby

[nicks90]

they seem awfully exposed to me. There is zero protection from any type of shrapnel, even tiny slivers that could/would be stopped by the paper thin landy door skins.....

not only that, but you can guarantee that it would be the central target for a huge amount of incoming if that thing turned up on the battlefield. Every raghead would see the 2 .50cal and gimpy and just spray and pray.....

[Guest otchie1]

I'm guessing that picture is of a development unit rigged up for weapons mounts testing. Perhaps it'll look more like a supapig than a supacat when it's clothed?

[western]

Nope, tha's as it'l be when they go into service, for remote area ops & quick to get in/out of bodywork just gets in the way & makes it difficult to fight on the move.