Mercedes-Benz enlists with the ADF
October 30, 2008 by Matt Brogan
With Mercedes-Benz having just taken the Australia Post fleet by storm, ending a thirty year reign for the humble Transit, it would seem they’re out to conquer all and sundry with news today the Australian Defence Force (ADF) has signed a contract with Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific (MBAuP) for the supply of 1,200 G-Class units.
The vehicles are being purchased to replace the ADF’s aging tactical fleet and the G-Class managed to win the tender against some long fought rivals (such as Land Rover), a feat more than five years in the making.
The first deliveries of the G-Class off-road vehicles to the ADF will commence in 2009, which coincidentally marks thirty years of the vehicle’s production, and will run through to at least 2014.
The military-specification G-Class vehicles will be built in two platforms at a dedicated factory in Graz, Austria for both 4X4 (for the lightweight component of the tender) and 6X6 configuration (for the light component).
All of the units supplied to the ADF will be fitted with different cargo platforms or modules. The modules will be supplied and delivered by Newcastle firm Varley with a total of nine vehicle variants supplied across the two (4X4 and 6X6) platforms.
Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific President & CEO Wolfgang D. Schrempp with Australian Federal Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon MP and Brigadier David O’Brien from the Australian Defence Force.
In addition to the vehicle supply contract there is also a 15-year strategic agreement which covers servicing, parts and support with an option for an extension beyond this time frame. The total value of the contract is $350 million (AUD).
The CarAdvice team wish the geländewagen well in its new role.
Print it: 
I hope they are more reliable then mercedes vans! I use to work at aust post and subsequently still know alot of people there, and the old transits although being rubbish to drive where always reliable. The mercedes they tell me is the complete opposite! Great to drive… when they’re working!
das ist gut ja?
I wonder if the ADF has to pay the luxury car import tax :p
Also on the math thats $291,660 per vehicle (parts, service, blah blah)
That seems rather expensive?
They’re pretty heavy duty peices of equipement Ra, and the army will flog the crap out of them so they will all probably get rebuild about 4 times over the 15 years
love the luxury car tax jab though!
Here is some facts to put some truth into this story:
This was almost a closed tender; someone, in their wisdom, decided that all of the ADF light vehicle contracts should be rolled into one, thus making it almost impossible for a single manufacturer to tender.
As Land Rover weren’t able to supply the full range af vehicles, and did not ahve a suitable tendering partner, therefore their tender wasn’t really even eligible.
Very few tenders were recieved, MB knew that they had a captive market, as their only opposition could be from tendering consortiums, which are always compromised.
Finincially the ADF could have achieved a better deal if they maintained individual tenders, but the common supply base has logistical advantages.
Very interesting Bret, how did you find out?
What, no LandCruisers? Awwwwwwww… how sad for the big T.
VW Freak, even sadder for ford and holden!!
Spider what have Ford and Holden got to do with it? They were never in it before and don’t have vehicles to suit? It’s only sad for LR who lost their current deal.
Devil666,
Everything I wrote is common knowledge within the defence industry, and has been quite widely reported in defence industry publications, such as Aust Defence Magazine.
BTW neither Landrover or the makers of the Hummvee tendered as the tender was considered too complex for the quantity of vehicles that would be required within thier “range”
VW freak,
Landcruisers don’t even come into it. They are “domestic” vehicles not army equipment. The ADF treats them just the same as a Commodore or Falcon sedan or wagon etc.
Bret, just because ADM might of leaked it, doesn’t mean you should be talking about it like that. ADM gets lots of stuff they shouldn’t. Given the issues consortium contracts cause with inter-company fighting which always leave the customer worse off, these single company contracts, though more expensive initially, tend to not suffer the same contract blowouts with through-life support.
Yeah true Bret. Mind you, the Army seem to be still using a hell of a lot of poverty pack barn door LandCruiser standard 100s.
Tom,
I have said nothing out of place. This isn’t a “leaked” story, it’s been widely reported in a lot of print media, that is also available online, to ANYONE who cares to look.
I aggree with consortium contracts there is usually someone getting “done over”.
I did make the point that commonality of equipment meant logistic and other long term advantages.
Bret,
Just a quick question. If the LC’s are considered “domestic” vehicles how come the UN uses them as their primary transport vehicle? Granted, lots of these are for transporting fat diplomats, but id presume some would be used in combat situations?
Sam that is true…
The Toyotas are used by armies around the world, propably as much if not more as the g-wagons… The g-wagons aren’t any stronger then the landcruiser… Look up “hilux war”….
Anyway, too bad they don’t sell the g-wagon in australia anymore…. a True classic 4×4, my fav of all time…
Hey Richo given your previous association with Austpost do u know how I could go about getting a contract delivery run?
MB built like no other car!
Does this mean there will soon be a large number of ex-service LANDROVERS for sale to the public. And will the 6wheeled Perentie LRPV be available.
Sam & Thomas, correct, LandCruisers are used extensively as light TRANSPORT vehicles. The G-wagons are much more robust and are intended for active service, with multiple platform configurations.
The design philosophy behind each is quite different.
The G-wagon is designed as military equipment and is quite easily modularised, whereas the LandCruiser is really just a tough commercial vehicle, with quite a diffetrent background.
Possibly the easiest comparison might be the difference between the original Humvee and the Hummer H3.
BTW haven’t seen many 6×6 Landcruisers lately.
Bret, so how many engineering tests have you conducted on the robustness of g-wagons and land cruiser to claim that??
They both come from the same basic spec brief, and they both have military versions and civil versions!! The land cruiser can be just as well modularized for a customer with the budget of the ADF….
Spider, I think that you are letting your Toyota bias cloud you judgement.
These two vehicle are quite dissimilar in a number of ways with regard to their design and construction.
I’m sorry but your comments show a real lack understanding of their origins and of hands-on experience of these vehicles.
And just to answer your first question, yes I have had engineering experience with both vehicles, and one has lots of “strong points” for equipment mounting and the other is a crude oversized car – no prizes which way round that is.
(LOL anti-spam word “Jeep”)
So I guess this means good by to roll up side curtains 80km/h top speeds and rear view mirrors that shook that much we were just better taking them off :-(
Wonder how the Indians felt? They probably claim it was a racist decission.
Just for the info Spider, Both Landrover and G-Wagon were specifically designed for military rolls and modified / bastardised for Civilian work. Hence the reason the average person who goes 4×4 once every now and then but drives his truck on the roads 70% of the time, regards the Cruiser as a better vehicle. The military forces around the world prefer Landrover. G-wagon (IIRC) is the sceond most widely used in Europe after Land Rover.
Frontman,
Racist decision?
Landrover did NOT tender, nor did AM general (Hummvee)
Your taxes at work?
This is a total piss-off and total waste of MY/OUR money.
The 110 L/Rover’s that they currently use would have hardly had any use and still be like new.
Could have built many hospitals and financed schools and more things that need assistance.
For mine they should just lease them.
All tjhe same soon as they come up for auction might buy one, mised out on a L/R S3 last time, wont happen again
Cheers
F-0
Land Rover was invited to tender for the contract and denied it. I would rather drive a G wagon than a Toyota, around 1985 the Australian army tried the Landcruiser wagons and they failed misserably and couldnt get ride of them fast enough, this was when they purchased the Defenders with the isuzu power plants.
Intersting reading. I am still using my X-British Army
1951 Land-Rover.It has only ever had maintenance.It was the only vehicle not to break down in a group of old 4wds
crossing the Simpsom Desert and beyond on 1989.This LandRover has proved to me that the Engineering basis for
the vehicle is sound.Low centre of gravity,and basic concepts often prove better when the going gets tough.
I am concerned that the replacement vehicles are too early
in the life of the fleet.I shunt a 5-1/4 ton WW2 radar set
with a SWB 1961 model LandRover – around the house.I have a friend with a rebuilt X-Army 110 that was rolled over in the Army.It is like new now.6×6 Army version was around $110 000 each back then [yesterday].Farewell Rovers.