Singapore to supply Bronco ATTC to UK

[gary1910]

ST Engineering's Land Systems Arm Awarded £150m Contract By UK MoD For Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carriers

 

Singapore, 18 December 2008 - Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd (ST Engineering) today announced that its land systems arm, Singapore Technologies Kinetics Ltd (ST Kinetics), has been awarded a contract of about £150m (about S$330m) by the UK Ministry of Defence (UK MOD) for the supply of Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carriers (ATTC). Designated as "WARTHOG" by the UK MOD, the vehicles are being procured in response to an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR). The vehicle deliveries will commence in third quarter 2009, with the majority to be delivered in 2010.

 

This contract is not expected to have any material impact on the consolidated net tangible assets per share and earnings per share of ST Engineering for the current financial year.

 

The WARTHOG is a development of ST Kinetics' Bronco ATTC, a robust, reliable and proven articulated platform with many hundreds in service. The Bronco's articulated design delivers exceptional mobility across a wide range of terrain and climate, and is extensively armoured and highly survivable. Critically, it will give the UK MOD a significant increase in protection against roadside bombs. Bronco will also deliver considerable increases in range, payload and internal capacity over incumbent vehicles currently being used in Afghanistan.

 

Four WARTHOG variants will be built under the contract - Troop Carrier, Ambulance, Command, and Repair & Recovery.

 

Link

Edited December 19, 2008 by gary1910

[Guest JamesG123]

WTF over?

 

 

I don't get it...

Does this vehicle somehow possess much greater hill climbing and rough ground covering capabilities than another light tracked carrier such as the Scorpion type? What happened to "wheels wheels wheels"? I hope they don't expect those rubber tracks to last in rocky A-stan.

 

Is this an offset for something expensive the UK is trying to sell Singapore?

 

Is the MoD out of its fucking mind???!? It couldn't throw its own industry a bone here?

[T19]

the CF has a similar veh and it works well in Afghan.. so well the Americans have been looking at getting some

[kotay]

Heh ... lurvly reaction.

 

I don't get it...

Does this vehicle somehow possess much greater hill climbing and rough ground covering capabilities than another light tracked carrier such as the Scorpion type? What happened to "wheels wheels wheels"? I hope they don't expect those rubber tracks to last in rocky A-stan.

 

The Viking (BvS10) has received favourable reviews from troops over the last 2 years that it has been deployed to Afghanistan. I doubt the hill climbing, rough ground covering capabilities or durability of the rubber tracks were ever an issue.

 

If anything, the Vikings were praised for providing armoured capabilities in highly difficult terrain.

 

 

Is this an offset for something expensive the UK is trying to sell Singapore?

 

Is the MoD out of its fucking mind???!? It couldn't throw its own industry a bone here?

 

I believe MoD would have thrown the locals (BaE) the bone had they had been in a position to claim it. The Viking Mk2 with better armour and payload, to meet MoD requirements, is still in development and won't be ready for production till 1Q 2009 at the earliest.

 

The Bronco was pretty much the only contender, with the specs, ready to roll ... so I doubt that there are any offsets here.

[chino]

Actually, it is pretty amazing how consistently bad the reaction to this news had been, on nearly all forums that this news was posted.

 

 

JamesG123>

 

Help me understand something:

 

It is fine as long as we buy from the west. But the minute the west buys something from us, people like you go apeshxt.

 

"Throw the locals a bone"? WTF?

 

Is buying from Singapore SUCH an offense to your sense of .... I don't know what...

 

Are we your enemy?

 

We've been buying from England for generations. Now they buy from us. This is called trade.

 

What you are advocating is protectionism at best, racism at worse. Thanks, for letting us see your true colours.

 

(Kotay my posts do not require response from you, thanks.)

[Guest JamesG123]

I think you are over-reacting.

 

The incredulity is because if you go a few threads over, you can read about the imminent demise of the UK AFV industry, not because "we" turn out noses up at "other people". Nations, especially if they style themselves as world powers, have a vested interest in nurturing and maintaining a native and independent defense infrastructure. Surrendering that, even in this interconnected global day and age, leaves them vulnerable in a host of ways that I hope I don't have to spell out here.

 

Call it NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome, but painting the reaction as "racism" is a bit much.

[Tomas Hoting]

Wasn't the Viking a collaboration between industry - BAE Systems Hagglunds Vehicle AB - and the UK MoD, but built, assembled and completed in Örnskldsvik, Sweden (that's what I read on the net)?

 

I don't think the British industry really had a big role in the programme at all (aside from BAE being the mother company of Hagglunds), so selecting an entirely different (and maybe even better) vehicle with the Bronco / Warthog doesn't seem to make a big difference to me.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Tomas Hoting

[jmcmtank]

AFAIK the vehicle has a greater load carrying capability than Viking and can therefore carry more people under more armour. According to someone on ArRSe it has been trialled by Viking users who are happy with it.

[AlexW]

Wasn't the Viking was a collaboration between industry - BAE Systems Hagglunds Vehicle AB - and the UK MoD, but built, assembled and completed in Örnskldsvik, Sweden (that's what I read on the net)?

 

I don't think the British industry really had a big role in the programme at all (aside from BAE being the mother company of Hagglunds), so selecting an entirely different (and maybe even better) vehicle with the Bronco / Warthog doesn't seem to make a big difference to me.

 

A fair bit of the manufacturing for Viking was done at Telford with parts moving between the UK and Sweden for different stages of the manufacturing process.

 

One can only assume that Bronco was the only vehicle available in the short timescales necessary for deployment to Afghanistan.

[Ariete!]

What are the advantages of two-piece APCs over more traditional, M113-style box-on-tracks?

 

I can certainly see that it must be a more complicated system?

 

On the plus side, the capacity of the 'front' unit is not too bad for patrolling/liason duty/weapon carrier. I'm surprised they haven't been introduced.

 

IIRC, the BvS10 was adopted by the Royal Marines. Any other UK users? I believe some other orders have come through. Anyone nut the UK order the Bronco yet? (I guess Singapore?).

[AlexW]

Personally I wouldnt mind us buying some Bionix to help spread the load on the Warriors. I looked one over at the 2002 Larkhill show and its quite an impressive vehicle.

Bionix is a bit tight inside for western crews and has a few other 'habitability' issues.

[Sikkiyn]

the CF has a similar veh and it works well in Afghan.. so well the Americans have been looking at getting some

 

We already use them in the Balkans. We call it the SUSV M973A2.

It works very well, especially during heavy snow periods.

[LeoTanker]

Oh boy, what a Bv-206 ripp off! Damn..

[kotay]

Actually, it is pretty amazing how consistently bad the reaction to this news had been, on nearly all forums that this news was posted.

 

(Kotay my posts do not require response from you, thanks.)

 

Just out of curiousity ... which forums?

[kotay]

Oh boy, what a Bv-206 ripp off! Damn..

 

Looks like the 206, comes from Asia ... so it must a rip-off?

 

[edit] FWIW, Timoney developed and supplies the Drive train.

Edited December 20, 2008 by kotay

[Archie Pellagio]

WTF over?

 

 

Humv-GAV!N?

[nigelfe]

IIRC, the BvS10 was adopted by the Royal Marines. Any other UK users? I believe some other orders have come through. Anyone nut the UK order the Bronco yet? (I guess Singapore?).

 

IIRC after the RM order for Viking (remembering that RM have been and continue using the original unarmoured versions for decades so there are some logistic advantages) a few more were ordered for the Watchkeeper batteries.

[baboon6]

What are the advantages of two-piece APCs over more traditional, M113-style box-on-tracks?

 

I can certainly see that it must be a more complicated system?

 

On the plus side, the capacity of the 'front' unit is not too bad for patrolling/liason duty/weapon carrier. I'm surprised they haven't been introduced.

 

IIRC, the BvS10 was adopted by the Royal Marines. Any other UK users? I believe some other orders have come through. Anyone nut the UK order the Bronco yet? (I guess Singapore?).

 

The Dutch Marines have also got the BVS 10.

 

Re why this kind of vehicle- I suppose it must have something to do with its oversnow and amphibious capability, which is presumably better than a traditional "box".

[gewing]

I would still love to see what could be done with a vehicle of this basic configuration, with the front having a 3 or 4 man crew and armed and armored more or less as a light tank/well protected recce vehicle, and the rear being interchangeable modules for anything from flatbed cargo to artillery.

 

Make the whole thing a hybrid drive, and have the connection be a relatively simple quick release electrical connection. Put auxiliary power unit in the rear if the module adds significant weight. This would help keep the overall power to weight ratio and manueverability up. If the front portion suffers engine damage, the apu in the rear might be able to provide enough power to limp it home...

 

I really need to draw my idea up for grits and shins. What is a generally accepted volume for a crewman under armor?

 

Wasn't there a Brasseys book on Armored vehicle design? I have never been able to locate a copy, iirc. then there is price... maybe inter library loan?

[BansheeOne]

Can you decouple this sort of articulated vehicles and just drive the forward cab BTW?

[Bearded-Dragon]

You mean a bit like this, the UDES-XX prototype (except reversed):

 

[Steelspear]

Re the Bronco:

I cannot imagine that the Bronco has had the same weight constraints during the development that the Viking might have had since the Viking is intended (but not solely) for uses in sub-arctic environments such as Scandinavia. Therefore the Bronco has grown compared to it´s father (the Viking) and therefore managed to fill a need that the Viking couldn´t fill at this time.

Does anybody know what the ground preassure of the Bronco is? It is from what I´ve read about 5000 kg heavier but only about a meter longer.

 

 

gewing: Sweden already tested a tank with articulated steering. For the Strv 2000 program IIRC. The gun on the picture is a mockup but was intended to be a 140 mm.

Edited December 20, 2008 by Steelspear

[geronimo]

Does anybody know what the ground preassure of the Bronco is?

 

According to Jane's, 60 kpa.

[gewing]

You mean a bit like this, the UDES-XX prototype (except reversed):

 

 

 

 

Yes, much like a reveersed UDES-XX

 

and current ones cannot separate.

[gewing]

There was a Brasseys book circa 1979 on Nato VS Warsaw Pact AFV design, is that the one you mean? I can look the title out if you are interested. Its dated, but a lot of very interesting information in it.

 

Dont know if you can decouple Bronco, but you couldnt with Viking, at least on the battlefield. As I say, 2 had to be demolished when the linkage was damaged.

 

Im curious, has there been any word of fitting Bronco with Selex Enforcer? I would imagine it might prove impractical to fit to Viking, since with a full load of troops and ammunition its apparently operating at its upper weight limit.

 

 

 

iirc someone recommended a Brasseys book if I wanted to know more about the numbers that would be needed for dimensions and weights...

 

Maybe I'll stick with sci-fi Wild assed guesses.