Singapore to supply Bronco ATTC to UK

[gary1910]

Yes, I read some where that Bronco patented Active Articulated Vehicle (AAV) concept could be decoupled and operated separately and also able to "plug & play" to the configuration you want.

 

No sure whether it is already in the UK sales though.

 

ST Kinetics is approaching the Finnish concept study with the readiness to embark on innovative and in-depth component or subsystem-level proofs of concept which will be required in the course of the development. One example is the Active Articulated Vehicle (AAV) concept, which allows articulated platforms to couple and decouple quickly to form two separate and smaller driven vehicles, each operating independently from the other. The concept offers a “plug and play” convenience, allowing the swapping of abilities even while the vehicle is in operation. The AAV features prominently as part of ST Kinetics’ proposal, and offers a technology that is ready and working, and can be easily integrated or adapted for requirements in the near future.

 

Read the Finland & French reports at the bottom.

[Colin]

Now if they wanted to put the MGS turret on this, you might have an interesting vehicle, not to mention close firesupport in areas that normal preclude armoured vehicles.

[LeoTanker]

Now if they wanted to put the MGS turret on this, you might have an interesting vehicle, not to mention close firesupport in areas that normal preclude armoured vehicles.

 

Will it be RPG or 14,5/12,7 HMG proof? If not, why bother with this extra armour compared to what the Viking already gives you?

Ok ok, I know I shouldnt be bitter about this one since Hägglunds is a British company (owned by Alvis, right)? nowadays anyway, but still...

[gary1910]

Will it be RPG or 14,5/12,7 HMG proof? If not, why bother with this extra armour compared to what the Viking already gives you?

Ok ok, I know I shouldnt be bitter about this one since Hägglunds is a British company (owned by Alvis, right)? nowadays anyway, but still...

 

The problem is , the Viking Mk 1 simply did not meet the protection requirement that the Brits want!

 

According to JDW by Tim Ripley just before official annoucement & I quote:

 

"More than one company was looked at but only one company met the requirement," said the source. "The Viking has reached the limit of its capabilities to add on armour and other enhancements. Only one manufacturer fitted the bill when we put down the requirement."

 

This contract is part of the UK Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) which is for deployment in Afganistan and the WARTHOG will replace the Viking in Afganistan, as for protection level, I believe it will be certainly be better than the Viking Mk1, otherwise there is no need for the contract at all.

 

BTW, I believe STK is only providing the various basic variant of Bronco to the UK, where Thales UK is expected to be the vehicle integrator, probably the one that will be doing the uparmouring and other vehtronics and I quote the UK MoD announcement:

 

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

 

The extra armour could be IBD AMAP or some British designed armour, and the so called "specialist electronic counter-measure equipment " could very well be IBD AMAP-ADS, because at Eurosatory 2008, STK and IBD displayed a Bronco equipped with AMAP-ADS & AMAP-IED, which could very well design to meet the requirement of the UK contract.

 

Link

 

So if the above is true, British soldier will have a vehicle that could have certain degree of protection against IED and RPG!

 

Anyway , this contract benefits STK, Thales UK and possible IBD and many more.

[DanielStarseer]

Now if they wanted to put the MGS turret on this, you might have an interesting vehicle, not to mention close firesupport in areas that normal preclude armoured vehicles.

 

Over here, about 2/3 down the page (pdf, app 1MB), NEMO for the win!

[LeoTanker]

This contract is part of the UK Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) which is for deployment in Afganistan and the WARTHOG will replace the Viking in Afganistan, as for protection level, I believe it will be certainly be better than the Viking Mk1, otherwise there is no need for the contract at all.

 

Sure, i dont doubt you for a second. But my question remains unchanged (and unanswered); Will it be RPG and/or 14.5/12.7 mm HMG proof? If not, what are you paying extra for? And its not like carefuly aimed indirect fire like art is the premier threath to coalition forces in A-stan anyway (havent been there since 2006 though). And if you do happend to be in the receiving end of a Taliban arty attack the shrappnel would tear through the walls of both vehicles most likely.

Edited December 21, 2008 by LeoTanker

[gary1910]

Sure, i dont doubt you for a second. But my question remains unchanged (and unanswered); Will it be RPG and/or 14.5/12.7 mm HMG proof? If not, what are you paying extra for? And its not like carefuly aimed indirect fire like art is the premier threath to coalition forces in A-stan anyway (havent been there since 2006 though). And if you do happend to be in the receiving end of a Taliban arty attack the shrappnel would tear through the walls of both vehicles most likely.

 

 

No one could answer you that unless UK MoD release the info of so called "extra armour" & "specialist electronic counter-measure equipment " , even they have released the names of those upgrades, the actual protection level will probably be classified.

 

Btw, Bronco itself w/o any additional modular armour is already 7.62mm proof and protected against arty shrappnel.

 

The ATTC consists of two fully armoured units, front and rear, connected by a specially designed hydraulic articulated joint that features two steering cylinders and two damping cylinders.The all-welded steel armoured hull provides the occupants with protection from 7.62 mm ball small arms fire and shell splinters but an enhanced modular passive protection package has been developed for the ATTC by IBD of Germany.

 

Link