UK confirms to buy more than 100 Bronco worths 150 m pounds

last SG · 2008-12-19T23:17:30+00:00

Arguing over an idiot... Really slick guys. Pop a chill pill, and take the posts with a pinch of salt, dash of pepper and a sense of humor. =D

ktk SG

of all things holy, this thread made me LOL.

2 forumers duking it out while all of us sit back wif popcorn watch show.

thanks for the entertainment :)

touchstone_2000 SG

Lionnoisy, good job on the research.

I have a small request, can you please remove the HTML tags before you post? Makes your hardwork goes to waste. You can strip off the tags by pasting into notepad and then copy and paste from there again.

lionnoisy SG

UK parents and former defence chief said UK force is under protected.
Also,there are 300 vehicles to be sought!!

’’Under the new proposal, the Vikings will be replaced by 100 better-protected “high-mobility tracked patrol vehicles”. The 500 other new vehicles will consist of 100 Mastiffs, a huge British-modified version of the American Cougar troop-carrier, 100 Jackals, a mine-resistant open-top vehicle, and 300 light-support mine-protected vehicles, which have not yet been identified.

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, the former Chief of the Defence Staff and now a patron of the United Kingdom National Defence Association, which campaigns for better conditions for the Armed Forces, said: “Defence has been underfunded and risks have been taken with security and the size and equipping of our Armed Forces for many years. The Government has been forced by events and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to urgently find additional funding, but it is too little and too late. Despite repeated warnings our services are neglected and under-resourced. This has cost lives.” ’’ EOQ

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/articl…

lionnoisy SG

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/idex2009/

Christopher F Foss

Sunday, 22 February, 2009

First public showing for STK’s Warthog

''Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) has chosen this year’s IDEX to show for the first time in public its Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier (ATTC), with many of the modifications to be incorporated into the British Army’s Warthog configuration.

Following a competition between the BAE Systems BvS 10 Mk 2 and the STK Bronco ATTC late last year, the UK Ministry of Defence selected the latter to replace the BvS 10 (called the Viking in UK service) currently deployed in Afghanistan. Under the terms of this £150m (US$215m) contract, STK will supply more than 100 enhanced versions of the Bronco ATTC to meet the UK Warthog requirement.

First production vehicles will be completed towards the end of the year and sent to the UK for final modifications under the leadership of Thales UK, before being deployed to Afghanistan in 2010.

The British Army will take four versions into service: ambulance; command vehicle; repair and recovery; and troop carrier, which will have seats for four people in the front and eight in the rear.

The first Warthog demonstrator is being built and will be completed in mid-year. Being shown at IDEX is a standard Bronco ATTC with many, although not all, of the Warthog modifications. According to STK, the fielding of Warthog will provide the British Army with a vehicle offering enhanced volume, payload and protection. Compared with the current Bronco, Warthog will feature additional protection, especially against mines, diesel fuel tanks moved from the floor and positioned one either side of the door in the rear unit, and a gross vehicle weight of 18 tonnes inclusive of armour. It will also be slightly longer and wider.

Warthog will be powered by a Caterpillar C7 diesel developing 350hp, coupled to an Allison MD3500 fully automatic transmission, giving a top speed of 65km/h. It will be fitted with the General Dynamics UK Bowman digital communications system and devices to counter improvised explosive devices.

The standard Bronco ATTC was originally developed to meet the requirements of the Singapore Armed Forces, which have deployed significant quantities of the vehicle in numerous configurations.''--EOQ

First public showing for STK’s Warthog

all the above and below caption from Janes...

lionnoisy SG

First public showing for STK’s Warthog

touchstone_2000 SG

It is interesting to note that the Warthog's tanks are located by the sides of the rear door of the rear unit.

Warthog will feature additional protection, especially against mines, diesel fuel tanks moved from the floor and positioned one either side of the door in the rear unit,

Long fuel lines is a worry and no rear unit, the whole system stops?

Orcishwarrior SG

thats better.Thanks Noisylion.

Shotgun SG

Bravo! Finally a proper "looking" post from our resident noisylion.

lionnoisy SG

The discussions in Pegasus and M777 lead me post to here.

I think this shall be the correct thread to talk Warthog.

http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/337139?page=8#post_8924255

read this forum then u know more.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-145098.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@

www.stengg.com went into extra mile by ordering materials

before they got the contract of Warthog aka Viking replacement,

The tender came from UK urgent operational requirements (UOR) procurement system.

This shows ST has high confidence and think for the customer--

UK MOD.Becos MOD needs Warthog very urgently to protect

their soldiers' life.

BAE Mk 2 is a little too late.They were still under development.

Bronco has been in operation for a no. of years.I think some

improvement has been done.So,if u were MOD top brass,

will u trust a proven platform like Bronco or the promoised

Mark 2?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-145098.html

Hagglunds Designs New Viking

''By andrew chuter
Published: 17 Oct 12:21 EDT (16:21 GMT)

LONDON - A new version of the Viking tracked armored vehicle offering enhanced protection to crews is on the drawing board at BAE System Hagglunds in a bid to beat competition from Singapore aiming to unseat the Swedish company as the supplier of all-terrain vehicles to the British military.

A spokeswoman for the Sweden-based subsidiary of BAE said the company hopes to have a prototype Viking Mk2 running early next year with the vehicle available for delivery in the summer.

Earlier this year, the British announced a competition for between 47 and 212 vehicles to replace earlier Hagglunds BV206s in their fleet. A contract is scheduled to be awarded at the end of next year as part of the MoD's standard equipment procurement process.######

Singapore Technologies Kinetics' Bronco vehicle is also a strong contender. The Singaporean and Swedish vehicles are tracked and consist of two linked armored units.

The new Swedish vehicle would offer protection up to Stanag 2 level and have a better payload than the current Viking used by British forces in Afghanistan.''

The procurement has been upgraded to

urgent operational requirements (UOR) procurement system,due

to heavy loss in road side IED.

lionnoisy SG

i need repeat this MOD article to clear the air--

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/TheWarthogIsOnItsWay.htm

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said:

"Warthog will be true to its name as a beast of a vehicle that can manoeuvre across difficult terrain, power-up steep gradients and even cling to slopes. Warthog will provide improved protection to our troops in Afghanistan's Green Zone, where water and a fragile infrastructure make it difficult for other vehicles to operate. It will be able to move through deep water while carrying troops at the heart of our operations."

A protected gun mount, extra armour, specialist electronic counter-measure equipment and communications tools will be added before Warthog is deployed on operations.

@@@@@@@@@@

lionnoisy SG

i like Bronco 3 in 1 package.

http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=530

lionnoisy SG

this is interesting why Viking is used--

''On tracked vehicles, the Viking was used because the Marines had nothing else. It will be replaced by a larger version of the same type, the Warthog. There are advantages and disadvantages to tracks versus wheels, but I cannot understand why if a mine-protected tracked vehicle is required, it cannot be produced quickly—to say it cannot be done is simply absurd.''

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Jan 2009 (pt 0008)

@@@@@@@@@@@

Viking is good,but not good enough.Or u can say there is better alternative.

House of Commons Hansard Ministerial Statements for 29 Oct 2008 (pt 0001)

''Viking has provided an excellent capability in Afghanistan, giving us unparalleled access to areas around the Helmand river. But, although we are providing
29 Oct 2008 : Column 29WS
some further enhancements to its protection, we have reached the limit of its ability to carry extra weight and protection. This is why we intend to replace Viking in Afghanistan with an alternative, better protected, high mobility vehicle, to be known as Warthog; work is underway to identify the right vehicle to fulfil this role. We will procure over 100 new vehicles with deliveries starting at the end of next year.''

so u see MOD alreday announces the deliveries date in Oct 2008,

before the announcement of the award of contract to ST in mid DEc.

Why MOD has confidence in the delivery date?

One of the reasons may be ST had showed them the order for the Warthog materials

sgstars SG

does this

we have reached the limit of its ability to carry extra weight and protection. This is why we intend to replace Viking in Afghanistan

equate with this ?

It only will be proved if it is up to the task after assessment.

In UK ATTC,The BAE Viking is proved not up to the

requirements of UK MOD!!

kindly prove which part of this says that BAE viking is NOT UP TO THE REQUIREMENTS of UK MOD ?

simply because you lack the mental capacity to think, or the logical faculties to process this information, dosent mean the BAE viking is not up to requirements.

rather, it means that the mission requirements, have increased to the point where the viking as a platform, is unable to meet or service these requirements. dosent point to the viking as a flawed platform. points to the fact that mission requirements have escalated.

and it points to this, quote you

''with greater protection levels,''mean Bronco is better than Viking

in protection lah,stupid!!

exactly my point. its better in protection but does that make it a more combat effective platform. how stupid can you get ? make a point but dont get what it means.

being better in protection dosent make it a combat effective platform for that matter. i can put you in a battleship grade armour, but if you cant fight and if you are not reliable, you can be shitting in your pants like what you're doing now.

flawed, stupid and almost criminal ignorance. sad lionnoisy. a new low for you ?

look at the sherman M4. inferior in gun, inferior in armour, inferior in crew but in sufficient numbers to ovverun the german mark IV panzers. its sheer virtue of strength in numbers, allowed the americans to overcome superior german armour.

does this mean the m1 abrams is a weak tank ?

on the contrary.

combat experience has allowed the platform manufacturers to find out the weaknesses of the m1 abrams as a weapons platform and improve on it.

the m1 as a platform has evolved to include new urban combat variants and improved baseline performance in the m1A2 SEP and the M1A2 TUSK

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/street-fighters-m1-abrams-tusk-tank-conversions-updated-02546/

so let me settle this once and for all.

why are combat proven platforms so in demand ?

simply because like in the case of the M1, they have met the threat, experienced the danger and have had upgrades/improvements that allows them to overcome their weaknesses. simply put, a combat platform with combat experience, allows the FLAWS within a platform to be recognized and solved. it is a more competent vehicle with lesser known / existing flaws.

the problem with the viking and its replacement by the ATTC is not because its a incompetent vehicle platform or that is so flawed that it cant be rectified. the problem with the viking / BvS10, is that it has reached the limits of its capability growth.

i.e, you can only add on so much armour to a proven platform. additional armour costs greater wear and tear on the engine and transmission. use under combat conditions implies increased wear and tear and mileage.

the viking as a platform is combat exhausted. it has reached the end of its capability upgrade curve. any further upgrades would probably NOT be cost effective and wasting money on a worn-out / overused platform.

2 years of combat wear and tear under operational conditions have probably subjected the viking to the equivalent of about 10 years worth of peacetime operations. is it worth spending on a SLEP / refurb program on something that has no future potential for growth without incurring a performance penalty ?

oh waitaminit, isnt that your poor little lion's problem ? cannot think for himself ? only copy and paste articles and information without thinking them through ?

well, ild like you to think about this

But wat is the fzzking use of these articles?

Paper and lip services alone cant save the ass of UK soldiers.Right?

Only the right armour can save their ass.

what is right armour ? does right armour mean heavy armour ? what kinds of armour platforms are you talking about ? what qualities of that kinda armour ? what kind of terrain that armour is operating on ? how reliable is that armour under certain terrain conditions ? does that armor platform have capability upgrade options ? does it have future growth potential ?

you obviously have failed to think this through. dont waste my time with your spam. come back to get your ass pwned when you have a more thoroughly thought through nonsense idea.

gd4u SG

sgstars, too chim he no unsderstand (as if he would understand simiplicity)

but just to add on to ur point. Lion, do u think RSAF would choose F-15E over Eurofighter or Rafale if not for the combat proven record ???

Sepecat SG

Following up on gd4u's diversion, I think F15E, Eurofighter and Rafale are all very excellent aircraft although they are also very different aircraft. A combat proven record is a good criteria for selection but it really depends on what were the SAFs requirements.

Winning the Warthog order from UK is an unparalled achievement for STK. Obviously there were no other contenders besides the Bronco ( & a modified one at that ) that cud have met UKs requirements in the short time that they required the vehicle. Only time will tell ( & it will be soon ) if the Bronco will be proven a combat worthy ATTC.

Additional orders from UK for STK's Bronco soon after they are fielded and battle tested will be the litmus test.

lionnoisy SG

the discussion changed from

http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/337139?page=8

to here

@@@@@@@@@@

show

Do u think why UK MOD top brass stuck their heads on the chopping

board to pick Bronco?They were drunk?ST gave them lot of ang mo

or feed them ton of chille crab?This is a very political incorrect

decision,in this bad economy.UK need jobs badly,but MOD choose ST.

Have u read any objections from UK Opposition party or

other defense analysts or from public?

wat did janes comment on this sale?

This dead just can protect the life of UK soldiers better than Viking.

Their lifes are damn important than national pride,jobs,political

risks etc.Do u get it?

no moron.

you realize that BaE hagglunds is in sweden ? the parent company making the BvS10 is british (originally, now its more like eurocentric) , but the vehicle itself is made in sweden. any guaruntee of UK jobs ? enough crap. lets get to the i pwn you part.

Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is

just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!

While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets

the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....

So,which one would u choose,if u were the decision maker?

do you get their procurement ? obviously not. why u dont dare reply in the Bronco thread ? reply here ?

do i object to the purchase of the bronco ? have i opposed the bronco's purchase ?why you so nationalist rah rah ? i oppose you and your crap. i have never opposed the ATTC's purchase by UK MOD. get your bloody facts right before you insinuate rubbish.

can you read english ?

the viking as a platform is combat exhausted. it has reached the end of its capability upgrade curve. any further upgrades would probably NOT be cost effective and wasting money on a worn-out / overused platform.

oh waitaminit, isnt that your poor little lion's problem ? cannot think for himself ? only copy and paste articles and information without thinking them through ?

you obviously have failed to think this through. dont waste my time with your spam. come back to get your ass pwned when you have a more thoroughly thought through nonsense idea.

do you still need further clarification dear lionnoisy ? or you cannot read ? i even highlighted the key parts so you can skip the rest of the body if you dont have time to read. cos if you have, this is

do u mean the Viking protection is too heavy for its engine?

If so,can they reduce the weight of protection or enhance the engine

or BOTH lah....

U ,as a common western defense analyst,cannot accept that Bronco was chosen.

absolute bullshit.

reduce the weight of protection, upsize engine and so ? whats your point ?

why ? dont realize that your objectives completly dont make sense ?

1) uparmour for more protection = less speed and strain on engine/transmission, ceterius paribus

2) lesser armour for lesser protection = more speed, less wear and tear on engine/transmission, ceterius paribus

3) wartime opeartions means heavier use of vehicle in comparatively more punishing conditions as compared to peacetime operations (like DUH!)

4) 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. not possible to acheive both without substantial upgrades and downtime. coupled with fact 3, which makes the expense needed to refurbish and reequip the viking for such a purpose, not cost efficient.

5) the viking has no future potential growth capacity unless it were given 1. it can be. but at great cost, downtime (and reduction in number of vikings avaliable for service in afghanistan) and little benefit for Long term plans (poor future LR prospects)

consider these 5 simple points. and you will arrive at the same conclusion i did. they are irreconcillable objectives. thats probably why the UK MOD chose the ATTC over the BvS10. your mind is as thick as mud

might as well send UK MOD soldiers on roller blade skates and equip em with kangaroo jump boots. can jump away from mines and IEDs if we follow you

Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is

just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!

While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets

the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....

another whole lot of bullshit here as well.

substantiate why better in performance and price. do you have any objective source or data that states so ?

prove the fact that ST eng was ordering materials to make the ATTC while bae was developing the BvS10 viking. BAE already had a BvS10 viking. its just that it was doing a lengthened version with a larger powerpack to suit the WARTHOG requirements.

so many inaccuracies, so much bullshit.

if you'd like more ass-whipping, continue posting. you'd get it.

show

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Hi sgstars,

i have never seen a guy to defend BAE or ang mo products to

this extreme.In essences,Viking is just not up to the tasks.Full stop.

Viking is just flawless.Blame the mother nature or the commanders

expect too much from the platform.

Metal fatigue aka insufficient armor--yes!!

Engine fatigue aka insufficient power---yes!!

U can upgrade most of the stuff.But BAE just not used to upgrade!!

Why MOD cannot wait Bae NEW version.They just too slow

to repond to customers' needs.BAE just think

''i am the big brothers for few decades in ATTC and MOD sure

will continure order from us!!''

But top brass in MOD now treasure life of their soldiers than

national pride.

I have a guess.Just pure guess.Dunt charge me under OSA.

The hull of our stuff may be part of armour!ang moh may never think of

this.I read that the hull US NLOS--Canon is make of aluminmum!

Dunt tell me the following rubbish.

by sgstars --the problem with the viking and its replacement by the ATTC is not because its a incompetent vehicle platform or that is so flawed that it cant be rectified. the problem with the viking / BvS10, is that it has reached the limits of its capability growth.

oh waitaminit, isnt that your poor little lion's problem ? cannot think for himself ? only copy and paste articles and information without thinking them through ?

you obviously have failed to think this through. dont waste my time with your spam. come back to get your ass pwned when you have a more thoroughly thought through nonsense idea.

sgstars SG

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Hi sgstars,

i have never seen a guy to defend BAE or ang mo products to

this extreme.In essences,Viking is just not up to the tasks.Full stop.

Viking is just flawless.Blame the mother nature or the commanders

expect too much from the platform.

Metal fatigue aka insufficient armor--yes!!

Engine fatigue aka insufficient power---yes!!

U can upgrade most of the stuff.But BAE just not used to upgrade!!

Why MOD cannot wait Bae NEW version.They just too slow

to repond to customers' needs.BAE just think

''i am the big brothers for few decades in ATTC and MOD sure

will continure order from us!!''

But top brass in MOD now treasure life of their soldiers than

national pride.

I have a guess.Just pure guess.Dunt charge me under OSA.

The hull of our stuff may be part of armour!ang moh may never think of

this.I read that the hull US NLOS--Canon is make of aluminmum!

Dunt tell me the following rubbish.

LOL...

why ? cant read it or simply the fact that you cant stomach the truth ?

i didnt say engine fatigue or metal fatigue. you are making that up. im stating wear and tear due to operational reasons make refurbing and uparmouring the viking not worth it.

you have issues with that ? disprove it

like wise you keep telling me that they

But top brass in MOD now treasure life of their soldiers than

national pride.

hehehe.. JOKE OF THE DAY.

wat national pride to be had in a vehicle that is made in sweden ? substantiate please.

its because you cant. thats why you keep rambling about the same old nonsense of the bronco replacing the viking. do use ur brain for abit. the BvS10 was ordered up till the 2008. they even procured an additional 14 BvS10 in 2008. shows you how highly they thought of the viking

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1096

ORNSKLDSVIK, Sweden -- BAE Systems has been awarded a £14 million contract from the U.K. Ministry of Defence for 14 BvS10 Viking amphibious armoured all-terrain vehicles, including nine repair recovery vehicles, one command vehicle and four troop carriers.

The vehicles will be used by the UK armed forces in Afghanistan beginning in July 2008.

"The BvS10 Viking has proven its worth while being used by British troops in Afghanistan," said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, Marketing and Sales Director for BAE Systems. "The Afghan terrain can be quite varied and our armoured all-terrain, quick-to-deploy vehicles provide troops with protection and the ability to move wherever and whenever they are required.

The BvS10 Viking consists of two tracked vehicle units linked by a steering mechanism. The vehicle can operate in temperatures from -46C to +49C, providing it with multi-role, worldwide, rapid deployment operational capabilities in jungle, desert and Arctic conditions. The vehicles are available in four variants-the repair recovery vehicle, the command vehicle, the troop carrier and the ambulance.

The UK's Royal Marines received the first delivery of the vehicles in July 2003. This delivery brings the total number of vehicles produced for UK MoD to 143. The total number of produced vehicles is well over 200.

The contract was awarded to the company's Swedish subsidiary, BAE Systems AB through their Hagglunds unit. The vehicles will be built, assembled and completed in Örnskldsvik, Sweden.

BAE Systems
02.07.2008

kindly justify your posts. you want to post something, post something fresh. at least give me the benefit of having something fresh to work with. dont give me your same old stale crap, its getting boring. you are just mindless repeating rubbish you dont understand. what does the ATTC have to do with the NLOS-C ?

you are spouting rubbish. dont waste me time any further. remove yourself.

fishbuff1 SG

i dont think Lionnoisy is a singaporean. just at the way he writes, sound like he is a PRC.

gd4u SG

He ain't writing. He is jsut CnP from everywhere in the world. N the worse thing is that his CnP skills are really as good as his writing skills.

lionnoisy SG

LOL...

why ? cant read it or simply the fact that you cant stomach the truth ?

i didnt say engine fatigue or metal fatigue. you are making that up. im stating wear and tear due to operational reasons make refurbing and uparmouring the viking not worth it.

you have issues with that ? disprove it

hehehe.. JOKE OF THE DAY.

wat national pride to be had in a vehicle that is made in sweden ? substantiate please.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1096

you are spouting rubbish. dont waste me time any further. remove yourself.

u mention before Viking is ok for 10 years for peace time services,but

2 years in Afgan wear them out.

Can i ask what is the expected performance limit for Viking--for military or civilian use?

May be Viking is not designed for Afagn like terrain and weather.

2.BTW,have u heard Bronco have been tested in variuos terrain and weather

before it is commissioned?Have UK MOD test drive Bronco before

they dumped the long established relationship with BAE?

When Bronco first rolled out fr factory ,the pay load alreday exceed

Viking(5000 kg v max 3850 kg),not to mention if some improvement has been made!!

Product Leaflet

http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_pioneer4.htm

MOD just find Viking not suitable lah..BAE is just waiting for order.

BAE should develope a better version ,after Bvs 10 in production.

They just think there will be no competitor and forget Singapore.

This can be a Havard Biz School case study---How u can lose a long

time client if u dunt match your client's needs!!

''29 Oct 2008 : Column WS91

and firepower. It is for this reason that we are procuring over 100 additional Jackal, costing around £75 million, to augment our current fleet, bringing the total to over 300.

Viking has provided an excellent capability in Afghanistan, giving us unparalleled access to areas around the Helmand River. But, although we are providing some further enhancements to its protection, we have reached the limit of its ability to carry extra weight and protection. This is why we intend to replace Viking in Afghanistan with an alternative, better protected, high-mobility vehicle, to be known as Warthog; work is under way to identify the right vehicle to fulfil this role. We will procure over 100 new vehicles with deliveries starting at the end of next year.''

Lords Hansard text for 29 Oct 200829 Oct 2008 (pt 0001)

« Previous Page Next Page »