Singapore to Supply Armored Vehicles to U.K.-By Andrew Chuter (DefenceNews)

Status
Not open for further replies.

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
LONDON - 4 Dec 2008 - Singapore Technologies Kinetics has secured a deal to supply its Bronco armored all-terrain vehicle to the British military.

Negotiations on the sale of just over 100 vehicles have been completed in the last 48 hours, government sources said. The contract is expected to be announced officially by the MoD within the week.

The Ministry of Defence denied the deal had been completed.

In a statement it said, "Discussions are still ongoing as to the vehicle type to fulfill the Warthog requirement for operations in Afghanistan. We will procure over 100 new vehicles with deliveries starting at the end of next year."

A spokeswomen for STK declined to comment.

The selection is a major setback for armored vehicle supplier BAE Systems. The company's Viking all-terrain vehicle has been in service with the Royal Marines for several years. It's also been in use in Afghanistan by the British Army.

BAE's Swedish subsidiary, Hägglunds, bid a Mark 2 version of the Viking but failed to overcome its Singaporean rival who offered a higher payload and more capacity to transport troops. Bronco deliveries are expected to start next year.

The vehicles, to be known as Warthogs in British service, will replace Vikings currently being operated in southern Afghanistan by the British military.

Bronco is already in service with the Singaporean armed forces, but the British deal will be the first export win for STK. Thales UK is expected to be the vehicle integrator for the British Broncos.

As the Singaporeans prepare to conclude the deal, it emerged earlier this week that BAE had secured an urgent operational requirement to upgrade the Viking fleet in Afghanistan with increased protection against mines and roadside bombs. About 120 vehicles are having armored belly plates and other measures fitted.
Singaporeans are well aware of STK's capabilities in designing and manufacturing armored vehicles with the introduction of the Bionix in the SAF. However at the International arms sales stage, Singapore was seen in the past as a "bit part' player. This sort of perception has been slowly changing over time.

In fact, STK displayed the Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier (ATTC) with the AMAP-ADS active protection system at EUROSATORY 2008 (click on link for IBD news). You can also see a video of the Bronco on the STK website.
 
Last edited:

riksavage

Banned Member
Good news for STK, the BAE V2 option wasn't going to be ready until the end of the first quarter of 2009 anyway. These vehicles are needed right now to replace the existing Viking V1's which are not big enough or have the right level of protection against evolving roadside IED's.

This will be STK's Broncos first foray into a combat zone, and could lead to more international sales if it cuts the mustard.

The original Viking was designed as an all terrain amphibious lightly armoured vehicle suitable for use in the arctic, jungle and desert environment. It was never designed to withstand large IED's as witnessed in Afghanistan
 
Last edited:

luv2surf

New Member
Isn't the Bronco simply a beefed up copy of the Viking,like the Pegasus basically being a copy of the M777 with an APU bolted onto it ?
 

kotay

New Member
Isn't the Bronco simply a beefed up copy of the Viking,
You may as well also call the Type 90 a copy of the Leopard 2, or the Deftech AV4 a copy of the Sabiex FV4.

Sure the Bronco looks like the Viking, except that IINM, the Bronco is the largest Articulated ATTC out there with the heaviest payload capability and that is part of what MoD is looking for ... a bigger and better armoured Viking.


like the Pegasus basically being a copy of the M777 with an APU bolted onto it ?
now I think you're just trolling. What has that got to do with this thread ... ?
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
IIRC, in 2000 the SAF ordered over 600 Bronco ATTCs (to replace its Swedish Hagglunds BV 206s) and has been fully operational for several years.

The Bronco hull is made from welded steel armour with a German IBD passive armour package. Maximum payload for the front unit is 1,200kg and for the rear unit 3,000kg. It is fully amphibious, being propelled in the water by its rubber tracks at a maximum speed of 5km/h.

The endless molded rubber bank tracks were developed specially for the ATTC by Soucy of Canada and are lighter and quieter than conventional steel tracks. Mounted under the rear part of the front compartment is the power pack, which comprises a Caterpillar 3126B four-stroke turbocharged air-cooled diesel developing 350bhp, coupled to an Allison MD 3560P fully automatic transmission.

ST Kinetics developed a number of versions of the Bronco, including ambulance, repair and recovery, load carrier, troop carrier, fuel resupply vehicle and the ST Kinetics 120mm SRAMS (Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System).

Use of the Bronco is already being expanded, including use as a robotic vehicle, as well as being fitted with a new advanced patented coupling that links the front and rear units. This unique feature allows the user to “plug and play “ so that different units can be attached as required by the mission. In addition, each unit can be transported slung under a tactical helicopter and then rapidly linked at their final destination.

BTW, does anyone have any news update on the ST Kinetics Finnish Study Contract awarded in 2004?
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Just read this article on the 3 Dec 2008 issue of Jane's, which reports that:

1. The contract is not quite in the bag for ST Kinetics yet, as no trials have taken place and the lobbying by BAE Systems has just began.

2. The last 2 paragraphs in the article reads like Jane's lobbying on behalf BAE Systems, especially since:

(i) it is clear that the Viking has reached the limit of its capabilities (to add on armour) and that only ST Kinetics' Bronco ATTC fit the bill of the UK's Warthog requirements;

(ii) Jane's obscures the fact (in it's reporting) that what BAE Systems is offering to MoD is not what UK wants (even after the proposed upgrade). What BAE Systems is lobbying for is a change in the requirements on the Warthog contract;

(iii) Jane's focuses instead on the fact that the Viking is battle-proven and is easier on the current logistic support system - in fact, Jane's managed to subtly weave in the ideas that this is the Bronco's first export sale - neglecting to mention that the Bronco has been in service for 8 years;

(iv) Jane's also fails to mention the Bronco's advanced patented coupling that links the front and rear units (allowing each unit can be transported slung under a tactical helicopter). This unique feature allows the user to 'plug and play' so that different units can be attached as required by the mission - a feature not available in the Viking; and

(v) people like luv2surf telling us that "the Bronco simply a beefed up copy of the Viking", when the Bronco ATTC hull is made from welded steel armour with a German IBD passive armour package (and for good order, ST Kinetics has shown a Bronco ATTC with an AMAP-ADS active protection system).​

3. I say, shame on your quality of reporting - Mr Tim Ripley.

4. I also say, shame on you - Mr ' luv2surf' - for flame bating and trying to say that a readily available military off-the-shelf (MOTS) solution is just a cheap imitation.

5. As I have pointed out in my earlier post, there are 600 Bronco ATTCs in service and ST Kinetics developed a number of versions of the Bronco. ST Kinetics is even working on a robotic version of the Bronco ATTC. In the interest of fairness, I've set out the article in the 3 Dec 2008 issue of Jane's below:
Bronco on brink of winning UK's Warthog contract
by Tim Ripley (JDW Correspondent)

Singapore Technologies (ST) Kinetics appears to be on the verge of securing the British Army as the first export customer for its Bronco armoured all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

This comes after UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) procurement officials withdrew from negotiations with BAE Systems Hagglunds in relation to the UK's Warthog requirement. In a statement to Jane's, the MoD said it had narrowed the choice for the Warthog down to a single contractor.

"Warthog must be a readily available military off-the-shelf (MOTS) solution, available for delivery of a capability ASAP," the MoD said. "[We] are negotiating with a manufacturer on a potential order to fulfill the Warthog requirement in Afghanistan. Should they be successful, the department will procure 100 vehicles with delivery starting in 2009." Sources close to the Warthog programme team in the MoD confirmed to Jane's that officials had now decided to talk only to the Singapore-based company.

Jane's understands that a team from ST Kinetics visited the UK earlier this month to talk to ministry officials and a UK delegation has also visited Singapore to view the vehicle. The aim is to award a contract by the end of the current year.

The source said ministry staff were not using the term 'preferred bidder' in relation to ST Kinetics but that it appeared they were no longer looking at purchasing the upgraded variant of the BAE Systems Hagglunds Viking Mk 2 vehicle.

"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."

The source confirmed that no trials of the Bronco had yet taken place, commenting: "It is too early to talk about trials."

BAE Systems told Jane's: "We are offering the Viking Mk 2, which offers proven reliability and maneuverability, as well as the fleet commonality benefits of simplified logistics and training. In addition, Viking Mk 2 has an increased payload of six tonnes and built-in mine protection to at least the same level as the urgent operational requirement mine-protection upgrade we are currently carrying out for the existing Viking fleet."

In a comparison document drawn up by BAE Systems and seen by Jane's, the company claims that, although it can only carry eight passengers compared to the Bronco's 10, the Viking Mk 2 is battle-proven in Afghanistan, has demonstrated 88 per cent reliability in theatre and has a proven logistic support system. The Viking Mk 2 also has greater climbing performance and better ability to be upgraded with additional armour, says the report.
 
Last edited:

Red

New Member
So thats a confirmation ?
I would have thought the two companies engaged in competition in the UK and elsewhere(India, for example) is confirmation enough of distinctive vehicles/items. ;)

ST is a smaller but growing firm with an eye on the Asian market and then elsewhere. Hopefully, they clinch this deal.

That they were shorlisted as one of the final 3 companies in the IFV competition(which went to the Stryker) in the US with thier Bionix IFV many years ago is prove enough of the quality of goods it churns out.


In the context of what I wrote, everything...
You mean your speculation. That certainly means a lot.
 

luv2surf

New Member
If it wasn't for speculation etc. most (public) military forums would have very few posts.

However,the general consensus is that Pegasus is based on a M777 which Singapore got it's hands on for a trial (I'm not sure of the date someone here in the know can probably advise ? )
Court action was considered but,and I'm guessing here,the fact that it was seen as a lesser product and as no export orders were gained it never eventuated.

Bronco is another matter however,BAE,Hagglunds is cosidering taking ST Eng. back to court. (I think ST won the first round)

Singapore is not exactly a virgin in this area

The main thing in ST's favor is time and this is why the Bronco MAY get the order over the Mk II.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
If it wasn't for speculation etc. most (public) military forums would have very few posts.
You remind me of another person who posts by the handle of lionnoisy in another forum. If you take this sort of attitude - you are going to be corrected my fellow Singaporean forum members. In fact, I'm sure they are going to make 'mince meat' out of your poorly reasoned and illogical arguments.

However, the general consensus is that Pegasus is based on a M777 which Singapore got it's hands on for a trial (I'm not sure of the date someone here in the know can probably advise ? )
A general consensus of ??? ??? = <ignorant people / people who can't read> (I'm sure nobody wants to be part of your consensus).

1. Let's explain why you are wrong:

(i) M777 ≠ M777A2

As Abraham Gubler had explained in DT and has kindly shared an article (which he wrote) from the July-August Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. I quote Abraham below:

Abraham Gubler said:
Artillery that’s actually a radio

The US Department of Defense’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified US Congress of the possible FMS sale of M777A2 LWHs to Australia on July 17, 2008. The total value for up to 57 M777A2s including their integral radios and other supporting equipment and services is US$ 248 million. The M777A2 and the M777A1 are fundamentally different towed artillery system to all others including the original M777 and the current Army inventory of the M198 and Hamel 105mm guns. In a first for towed artillery systems the M777A1/A2 incorporates a radio, digital fire control system and electronic training and elevation controls. In effect and operation it is a complete stand-alone unit whereas legacy towed artillery systems require support from artillery surveyors, signallers and fire direction centres(FDC) to do anything other than direct fire.

Mounted above and below the M777A1/A2’s ordnance and recoil recuperators are the Top Cradle Electronics Assembly (TCEA) and the Under Cradle Electronics Assembly (UCEA). The TCEA racks the Communications/ Location Enclosure (CLE) for a AN/VRC-91F Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS) radio with its power supply and amplifier and a Defense Advance GPS Receiver (DAGR) with its antenna. Also on the TCEA is a separate box for the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU). The UCEA holds the mission computer, battery and the Power Conditioning and Control Module (PCCM). Also mounted on the artillery system is a radio antenna, vehicle motion sensor (VMS) and displays for the gun layers (left and right of the breach) and a mobile display for the Gun No. 1 in charge of the detachment.

The M777A2 adds software improvements over the M777A1 allowing the artillery system to send limited variable message format (VMF) back into the battle management system – fires (BMS-F) updating its status. Objective software improvements will add full send/receive VMF capability able to update the gun detachments location and ammunition status, integrated muzzle velocimeter to improve accuracy and the ability of the gun to calculate all of its own fire missions. This would enable a M777A2 with the new software load to communicate directly with a forward observer or (more likely) the BMS-F without the need of an intervening FDC to provide fire mission calculations or manage its complete status. This will give the M777A2 a BMS-F(FCS) [BMS-F Fire Control System] en par with that planned for the SPH.
(ii) I also understand that from Abraham Gubler that the Australians (before buying the M777A2) did survey of the heli-portable 155mm artillery market (which includes the Pegasus) before choosing the M777A2.

2. So please explain to me how did the M777 come into the picture (in a discussion involving the Bronco)? Pure ignorance? Or an attempt at slander?

3. ST Kinetics makes a whole range of 155mm artillery (including the FH88, the FH2000, the Primus) and also the 120mm SRAMS (Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System). I suppose you will consider all of them as cheap copies? Why have you not mentioned the other artillery systems? Is it because there are Singapore patents in the artillery systems made by ST Kinetics?

4. In fact, not everything designed is patentable (it must fulfill certain legal tests for a patent to be granted and for that patent to be worth defending). For example, the Turkish built 155mm/52calibre PANTER towed howitzer system is based on Singapore's FH2000. So, ST Kinetics has the expertise to assist Turkey in the design and manufacture the PANTER (Hmm... How can a company who makes cheap copies have the design expertise to share with other companies?).

5. luv2surf, it's fine to speculate - however, it is polite to identify it as such.

6. At some point in time, most of us will get some of our facts wrong. I do admit to mistakes when I make them - that's how we learn. Learn my friend. However, if you are still not convinced of your ignorance by now - I can't help you.
 
Last edited:

luv2surf

New Member
1. Let's explain why you are wrong:

(i) M777 ≠ M777A2

As Abraham Gubler had explained in DT and has kindly shared an article (which he wrote) from the July-August Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. I quote Abraham below:
What has any of that got to do with the Pegasus and the M777 ?

(ii) I also understand that from Abraham Gubler that the Australians (before buying the M777A2) did survey of the heli-portable 155mm artillery market (which includes the Pegasus) before choosing the M777A2.

2. So please explain to me how did the M777 come into the picture (in a discussion involving the Bronco)? Pure ignorance? Or an attempt at slander?

3. ST Kinetics makes a whole range of 155mm artillery (including the FH88, the FH2000, the Primus) and also the 120mm SRAMS (Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System). I suppose you will consider all of them as cheap copies? Why have you not mentioned the other artillery systems? Is it because there are Singapore patents in the artillery systems made by ST Kinetics?

4. In fact, not everything designed is patentable (it must fulfill certain legal tests for a patent to be granted and for that patent to be worth defending). For example, the Turkish built 155mm/52calibre PANTER towed howitzer system is based on Singapore's FH2000. So, ST Kinetics has the expertise to assist Turkey in the design and manufacture the PANTER (Hmm... How can a company who makes cheap copies have the design expertise to share with other companies?).
This is just more of the usual from you, ie:finding the most obscure excuses to bleat on and on about Singapore Defence,try to stay on point and who said anything about cheap ? :D

As for the rest of your post, I can see that you have taken it all very personal, so it's probably best if we continue this via PM ? (you can Link me to death)
 

riksavage

Banned Member
If the UK wants to start fielding a hundred units commencing early 2009 then the Bronco is the only serious option.

I'm sure BAE will come up with an excellent alternative based on lessons learnt with the smaller Viking I in due course, but time is not on their side. Valuable operational lessons would have most certainly been fed back to the design team by the Commando operators on the ground. After all the original Viking I was designed in close consultation with 3-Commando Brigade before the threat of IED's raised its ugly head in IRAQ & A-STAN.

Singapore Technology didn't copy the Viking they simply decided to build a like-for-like armoured replacement for the original soft-skin BV206. Both Viking and Bronco where on the drawing board around the same time, its just Viking was rolled out first.
 

Red

New Member
If it wasn't for speculation etc. most (public) military forums would have very few posts.
But I was not talking about the preponderance of speculation on public forums now am i?

However,the general consensus is that Pegasus is based on a M777 which Singapore got it's hands on for a trial (I'm not sure of the date someone here in the know can probably advise ? )
Court action was considered but,and I'm guessing here,the fact that it was seen as a lesser product and as no export orders were gained it never eventuated.
How did you come to "your" general consensus? You counted the online "posts"?

No, ST is actually actively marketing the Pegasus as a viable alternative to the M777. That said, why would they(BAE) not consider court action given that the M777 is being pitted against the Pegasus in several instances; India, for example, which is a very big order.

Bronco is another matter however,BAE,Hagglunds is cosidering taking ST Eng. back to court. (I think ST won the first round)
Yes. ST won the court case. And it was pretty clear then that the Bronco is a distinctive design as is the Bionix IFV. So, where is it that the BAE hugglunds is considering to take St to court "again"? Or this is more of the same speculation from you ?

The main thing in ST's favor is time and this is why the Bronco MAY get the order over the Mk II.
Why is time not always on the more competitive side in this competition? ST could always come up with a better Bronco; seeing as such that they already have a myriad of versions.

Im not going to PM you. I would like to see solid justification for what you have insinuated and said rather than mere speculation.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
1. We post here and we learn from others here. However, the same cannot be said for you. You refuse to learn. Show some respect - luv2surf.
All male Singaporean citizens have served in the military or in homeland defence (ie. military professionals). Many of us are commanders in the reserves and are in possession of classified data that we are not going to reveal to a hobbyist like you.
2. According to you, any information not supporting your case is now irrelevant (how convenient). You've managed to to commit slander against a Singapore company (I don't really care - because I don't work for them). However, I must say that you are the one who has lost the plot.
luv2surf said:
....finding the most obscure excuses to bleat on and on about Singapore Defence, try to stay on point...
3. You attempt to reduce my arguments to "most obscure excuses". In the process, you have also managed to insult most citizens of a country with these words:
luv2surf said:
Bronco is another matter however, BAE,Hagglunds is cosidering taking ST Eng. back to court. (I think ST won the first round)

...Singapore is not exactly a virgin in this area...[you should be more specific with your slander - direct it at the company not the country]
4. Gee wiz... You accuse me of being emotional, when you are rude and dismissive.

5. Please show me some basis for what you have insinuated. Like Red, I'm not going to PM you. However, you may want to consider sending us your email and contact details via PM - so we can forward the same to ST Kinetics - so that they can clarify with you directly.

6. ST Kinetics and members of the SAF's armour development team are really very responsive. About 10 years ago - I made a little complaint during one of our joint armour training in a vehicle not declassified at that time (something to the effect that this sucks), then next thing I know - they are taking notes - and from their response, I soon realized they had provided for the senario - but were guarded in their reply.

7. Fundamentally - you don't understand the reason for my links - it's not for you. It's for other Singaporeans (which says to them, hey Mindef has declassified this - we can now talk about it). I am not trying to bleat on and on about Singapore defence (as a Singaporean, I'm much more interested in its weaknesses). I am speaking about what I know in the manner that the information has been declassified (hence the links and obscure references). Please consider adjusting your attitude - we are here to make friends not to argue with each other.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing - so generally I'm harsher to the flanker supporters. Don't be like that.
 
Last edited:

Sawadi

New Member
What has any of that got to do with the Pegasus and the M777 ?

As for the rest of your post, I can see that you have taken it all very personal, so it's probably best if we continue this via PM ? (you can Link me to death)
This is my second post - so go easy on me guys.

luv2surf is a bad guy with an attitude - that anything that is made in Asia must be a copy. Let him continue to be deluded. He posts rude comments and then says what you are rude. Nice trick. Red/OPSSG ignore what luv2surf wrote. He is just flame bating.

He does not understand that there are different sizes from the Bronco to the Viking ranges.

The BV206 is the smallest of the range (like a compact car) and the Viking (like a mid-sized car) is only slightly bigger. The Viking Mk2 being developed by BAE is much bigger (like a SUV). The Bronco is even bigger than the Viking Mk2 (an even bigger SUV), so it does not compete in the same marekt segment (as the Viking).

What has happened is that in Afgahnistan: The need to up armour the Viking has resulted in the vehicle to exceed its initial design parameters. So the MoD is concerned about how long the Viking will last. The Bronco is larger than the Viking Mk 2 (which is not ready for production).

The MoD's concern is the room for up armouring the vehicles - such that they do not exceed the initial design specifications - which would have an adverse effect on the life-span of the transmission. BAE's release of the reliability figures reflect that concern.

Therefore while the Viking is a good design - it is operating outside its initial design parameters. Hence not a good choice in the long run. They will be replaced by the Wathog (i.e. the Bronco if it is selected under the Wathog contract). The Viking will remain in service with the UK forces - but just not in Afgahnistan - this will ensure that their lifespan is not too adversely affected by the uparmouring.
 
Last edited:

lobbie111

New Member
Can anyone fill me in on the Active Protection Thingo they have installed, seems very promising, how does it work etc. Thanks...
 

kotay

New Member
Can anyone fill me in on the Active Protection Thingo they have installed, seems very promising, how does it work etc. Thanks...
There is a link to the manufacturer's page in the first post of this thread.

http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-ads-active-defense-systems.html

There's a .pdf brochure and video on the manufacturer's page that gives more details about the AMAP-ADS. It is speculated that the "focused energy beam" is a DIME warhead.

AFAIK, UK MoD has not specified this for the Warthog replacement. If the SAF has this installed ... they also certainly aren't telling.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The respected UK military's order of our 40mm munitions and now the Bronco, is yet another stamp of approval on the quality of STK's products.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top