UK to Buy Bronco
-
Singapore Technologies Kinetics has secured a deal to supply its Bronco armored all-terrain vehicle to the British military.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3849630&c=ASI&s=LAN
-
Yep, they said everything will be finalised next week. Let's keep fingers crossed for all to go well. Won't it be the first major sale by S'pore to a key NATO country (not counting the joint production of F2000 with Turkey)?
ST seems to be doing well in spite of the global downturn. They just sold an Endurance class LPD to Thai navy for $200 mil last month.
-
When I read the thread title I thought you were talking about the OV-10, and I was wondering why the UK would be investing in Vietnam-vintage technology.
-
haha
perhaps i should change the title to
UK MOD to purchase ST Engg ATTC Bronco ^^
-
-double post-
-
The deal was closed!!
If the news is true,few of the guys here will cry for few days!!
They will shout out'WHY?WHY?WHY?'
Then they will comfort themselves to explain that ST
must sell to British very cheap.They will tell u that ,
UK MOD choose Bronco just becos it is cheap,nothing else.
bah bah .......
@@@@@@@@@2
Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier by Singapore Technologies. (SINGAPORE TECHNOLOGIES)
here is updated news that the deal was closed.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3851680&c=EUR&s=TOP
UK To Announce Weapon Cuts, Delays
DefenseNews.com (subscription) - 16�时�
The Singaporeans signed a deal earlier this week to supply more than 100 Bronco vehicles to replace BAE Systems Vikings in service in Afghanistan. ...On the positive side, the MoD could also announce it will spend millions of pounds equipping the Army with all-terrain vehicles built by Singapore Technologies Kinetics.
The Singaporeans signed a deal earlier this week to supply more than 100 Bronco vehicles to replace BAE Systems Vikings in service in Afghanistan.
relevant news
http://www.defense-update.com/features/2008/november/british_tsv_0101108.html#more
British Forces in Afghanistan to Receive 1200 New Armored Vehicles
Defense Update - 2008年11月10日
MOD is evaluating several options for such a vehicle, including an improved BAE Systems Hagglunds BV206 or a Bronco, from ST Dynamics. ...@@@@@@@@@@@@@
In this bad time,every contract is important.
I will not be suprised on this news.
Rememeber Bionix Infantry Fighting Vehicle was one of the 4 finalists
in the USA Medium Armoured Vehicle billions dollars contract few years ago.
Bionix was the only tracked and the only foreign vehicle.
More than 50 platforms from the world were submitted to bid the Yankee contract.
I think STEng won a 4 th place in this Olympics!!
@@@@@@@@@@@@
Shall we dunt over estimate others capability,nor under estimate Singapore
capability?Do u think u can bribe UK MOD and get a contract?
-
its speculation, MOD hasnt confirmed anything on the Sale of the Bronco. there's no official confirmation.
tell me lionnoisy, which part does it say confirmation ? which part does it say britan MOD buying bronco ?
another OUTRIGHT LIE
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3849630&c=ASI&s=LAN
Singapore to Supply Armored Vehicles to U.K.
By andrew chuter
Published: 4 Dec 12:52 EST (17:52 GMT)LONDON - Singapore Technologies Kinetics has secured a deal to supply its Bronco armored all-terrain vehicle to the British military.
Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier by Singapore Technologies. (SINGAPORE TECHNOLOGIES)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.
unlike a certain RAH RAH SINGAH PURRR RAH lion, who's bigotry knows no limits and simply is too blind to notice his logical flaws, i prefer to take a more balanced position
+ points
- reference sale
- opportunity to combat prove the Bronco (in afghanistan, a particularly harsh environment that is known to wear down equipment and have extremely high attrition rates )
- branding : ST Eng's profile in arms sales may be taken up another notch
- potential sales : if this sale is successful, the bronco family of vehicles may be able to break into the UK market and replace the Bv206 in the future
-points
- as raised by some members in another local forum, Afghanistan isnt exactly very friendly to vehicles, either way, its going to have an impact on the performance. this might give the bronco a bad name in time to come
- 7.62 ball protection and tested protection up to 12kg of TNT mines isnt exactly going to protect the Bronco from possible larger land mines and RPG
- if ST ENG screw up this one, they probably can forget about future sales for this platform
- this may be an interim operation requirement vs a long-term procurement program. two circumstancial evidence to prove this. not really strong though,
(i) according to a poster on another forum, Britain has upgraded its bv206/bv10s to a mk2 standard for an urgent operational requirement in afghanistan
(ii) NATO uses Bv206/bv10. commonality and similarity across other armies and operators like sweden, germany, finland and norway. USMC also operates a variant. Long term wise, the Procurement of Bronco may be even on a lease agreement since UK MOD Is cash strapped following the construction of the two carriers and operations in afghanistan.
my personal take is that, Bronco fits the bill, for now, but is unlikely to be part of projected future requirements.
Good time for ST eng, first the thai endurance and now the Bronco. good time to buy ST Stock. order book / production lines should be good for the next 2-3 years.
good time to congratulate the lion for self-pwning again.
-
some good reading for those interested in the Bv206/Bvs10 Viking
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/MarinesBackInTheVikingstheyArePhenomenal.htm
"Everyone's scared of mines," he said.
The Viking is not a tank. But then that's it strength, its mobility allows it to avoid the roads and routes where most mines are laid. And in actual fact, added LCpl Walker, it's armoured shell offers the soldiers inside as good protection as other armoured vehicles:
"Injuries do happen," he said, explaining that on one occasion a Marine was injured due to a vulnerability of the Viking, which for obvious reasons we won't specify here, but, he added, an upgrade is now in place:
"It proves the MOD is spending their money; a guy gets injured and new kit is being looked at."
another link with a supposed video ( i cant find it, can anybody find it ?) to watch the Viking in action afghanistan :
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/KeepingTheVikingsOnTheMovevideo.htm
operation Anaconda which featured a Joint canadian US force that used BV206 in combat :http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20020319.aspx
ST eng Bronco PDF brochure (originally posted by tankee1981 on another forum)
http://www.stengg.com/upload/914WVBGLfb3dh4hGDkd.pdf
ild like to raise a point here.
the Bv206 has created a pretty positive and decent reputation for itself in afghanistan. will the Bronco surpass that ? granted these sources arent exactly the most objective or transparent ones, but they do give an indication of how well percieved is the Bv206.
I seemingly find it quite hard that with so much experience and raves from crew and commanders about the Bv206, that UK MOD would simply switch to the bronco despite it offering a larger payload and being based on a Bv206.
i suggest that the news "leak" may be an orchestrated wayang wayang by UK MOD. for what reasons i m not sure, maybe to get Bae Haggelunds to cut bump it up the waiting list for its orders ? but i wont take the speculation on the Bronco being chosen too seriously. seems rather strange (despite the better payload and protection) that the UK MOD would simply disregard the established platform.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
its speculation, MOD hasnt confirmed anything on the Sale of the Bronco. there's no official confirmation.
tell me lionnoisy, which part does it say confirmation ? which part does it say britan MOD buying bronco ?
another OUTRIGHT LIE
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3849630&c=ASI&s=LAN
unlike a certain RAH RAH SINGAH PURRR RAH lion, who's bigotry knows no limits and simply is too blind to notice his logical flaws, i prefer to take a more balanced position
+ points
- reference sale
- opportunity to combat prove the Bronco (in afghanistan, a particularly harsh environment that is known to wear down equipment and have extremely high attrition rates )
- branding : ST Eng's profile in arms sales may be taken up another notch
- potential sales : if this sale is successful, the bronco family of vehicles may be able to break into the UK market and replace the Bv206 in the future
-points
- as raised by some members in another local forum, Afghanistan isnt exactly very friendly to vehicles, either way, its going to have an impact on the performance. this might give the bronco a bad name in time to come
- 7.62 ball protection and tested protection up to 12kg of TNT mines isnt exactly going to protect the Bronco from possible larger land mines and RPG
- if ST ENG screw up this one, they probably can forget about future sales for this platform
- this may be an interim operation requirement vs a long-term procurement program. two circumstancial evidence to prove this. not really strong though,
(i) according to a poster on another forum, Britain has upgraded its bv206/bv10s to a mk2 standard for an urgent operational requirement in afghanistan
(ii) NATO uses Bv206/bv10. commonality and similarity across other armies and operators like sweden, germany, finland and norway. USMC also operates a variant. Long term wise, the Procurement of Bronco may be even on a lease agreement since UK MOD Is cash strapped following the construction of the two carriers and operations in afghanistan.
my personal take is that, Bronco fits the bill, for now, but is unlikely to be part of projected future requirements.
Good time for ST eng, first the thai endurance and now the Bronco. good time to buy ST Stock. order book / production lines should be good for the next 2-3 years.
good time to congratulate the lion for self-pwning again.
I like your mindset to get official confirmation.Thats why i put few "If" in my reply
which u may miss them all.
2.Unfortuntalety,this is a typical example of Singapore is bad mindset.
It seem to me that u are saying even Bronce is chosen ,
this is a transition replacement.U mean Bronco is not good for permanent
replacement.What a logic!!
Well well well.We know your true color!!
3.Do u know the spec of these two platforms?
Payloads?
-
the news mentions payloads of these two platforms:
If the followings are true,then u know one of the reasons why bronco is chosen!!
Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier---enclosed 4800;flat bed 5300kg
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
(i) according to a poster on another forum, Britain has upgraded its bv206/bv10s to a mk2 standard for an urgent operational requirement in afghanistan
I think you read wrong.
Correct - Britain is upgrading the BvS10 via an Urgent Operational Requirement contract to add belly armour plates and improved crew seating arrangements.
Wrong - This does not result in a new Mk 2 designation for the existing BvS10 in service. The Mk 2 designation is specifically for an uparmoured and upsized model for the competition tender against the Bronco ATTC. This is based on the existing BvS10 but will be different vehicle altogether ... even if only in dimensions and specs.
i suggest that the news "leak" may be an orchestrated wayang wayang by UK MOD. for what reasons i m not sure, maybe to get Bae Haggelunds to cut bump it up the waiting list for its orders ?
The Viking Mk2 is still in development stage and will not be ready for production until 1Q-2Q 2009.
Which means that there is no waiting list for the order to be bumped up. This will be a new model for Bae/Hagglunds and the Royal Marines will be the launch customer ... so to speak.
There may well be other reasons for the leaked news and MoD supposed denial. All will be made clear pretty soon.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
the news mentions payloads of these two platforms:
If the followings are true,then u know one of the reasons why bronco is chosen!!
Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier---enclosed 4800;flat bed 5300kg
Oh STFU already ... can't you contribute to a thread without your rah-rah parochialism?
The Bronco is in competition with the BvS10 Viking Mk2 ... not the Mk 1. Get the payload figures for the Mk 2 before you start making conjectures.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
I think you read wrong.
Correct - Britain is upgrading the BvS10 via an Urgent Operational Requirement contract to add belly armour plates and improved crew seating arrangements.
Wrong - This does not result in a new Mk 2 designation for the existing BvS10 in service. The Mk 2 designation is specifically for an uparmoured and upsized model for the competition tender against the Bronco ATTC. This is based on the existing BvS10 but will be different vehicle altogether ... even if only in dimensions and specs.
The Viking Mk2 is still in development stage and will not be ready for production until 1Q-2Q 2009.
There may well be other reasons for the leaked news and MoD supposed denial. All will be made clear pretty soon.
Which means that there is no waiting list for the order to be bumped up. This will be a new model for Bae/Hagglunds and the Royal Marines will be the launch customer ... so to speak.
_________________________________________________________________________
hmm, i m not sure. In any case, my bad for confusing the mk2 and the Urgent operating requirement in afghanistan
isnt the Mk2 viking supposed to be built at the same plant as the Bvs10 ? As in they are not opening a new production line for it, germany has an order for 75 Bvs 10 to be built .
which pushes the Mk2 to a delayed production and delivery timeslot. but all this on the assumption that they are using the same plant/production line
I m not sure about the Offset package as well, Bae Hagglunds has threatened to cut jobs in the UK and closure of some facilities if they lose the viking deal (not sure how credible this can be as the viking upgrading program is still in the works.
ST eng is pretty liberal with offsets and joint production as can be seen in the Ottakar terrex join deal. but offsets and production in the Uk for 100 broncos ? maybe yes, maybe no.
I really find it dubious that the bronco has won. for the record, i still think its a good thing if the Bronco has won. Just that upon examination of the big picture, how the Bronoco dosent really fit into the picture.
any speculation on the MOD denial and release results ? i think it has to do with political pressure with BAE land systems. In bad times like this they cant cut production lines and jobs
@ moronic lion
yes i do know the payload differences and i have taken into account the difference. must i remind you of what exactly you posted ?
your If dosent preclude your statement so it dosent represent anything.
Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier by Singapore Technologies. (SINGAPORE TECHNOLOGIES)
here is updated news that the deal was closed.
what about NATO compatability / NATO inter operability ?
What about BAE hagglunds lawsuit against ST ENG over the bronco bv206 in the past ? any infringement of the settlement ?
I m suggesting a possibility and not a fact. i dont go around shooting my mouth off saying that this has happened when its non-existent. i am merely offering a educated guess, calculated speculation if you'd like.
not empty verbosity like you.
in any case, i think smart money will be on the BVS10. 2 reasons, Nato interoperability, improved protection and job offsets in EU. Bronco is not by any means, a lesser platform, just that it looses out in the political aspect out the deal.
-
it seems to be deja vu or smth... i think there was a similar argument about this some time ago? like very long ago.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:Originally posted by kotay:
I think you read wrong.
Correct - Britain is upgrading the BvS10 via an Urgent Operational Requirement contract to add belly armour plates and improved crew seating arrangements.
Wrong - This does not result in a new Mk 2 designation for the existing BvS10 in service. The Mk 2 designation is specifically for an uparmoured and upsized model for the competition tender against the Bronco ATTC. This is based on the existing BvS10 but will be different vehicle altogether ... even if only in dimensions and specs.
The Viking Mk2 is still in development stage and will not be ready for production until 1Q-2Q 2009.
There may well be other reasons for the leaked news and MoD supposed denial. All will be made clear pretty soon.
Which means that there is no waiting list for the order to be bumped up. This will be a new model for Bae/Hagglunds and the Royal Marines will be the launch customer ... so to speak.
_________________________________________________________________________
@ moronic lion
yes i do know the payload differences and i have taken into account the difference. must i remind you of what exactly you posted ?
your If dosent preclude your statement so it dosent represent anything.
what about NATO compatability / NATO inter operability ?
What about BAE hagglunds lawsuit against ST ENG over the bronco bv206 in the past ? any infringement of the settlement ?
I m suggesting a possibility and not a fact. i dont go around shooting my mouth off saying that this has happened when its non-existent. i am merely offering a educated guess, calculated speculation if you'd like.
not empty verbosity like you.
in any case, i think smart money will be on the BVS10. 2 reasons, Nato interoperability, improved protection and job offsets in EU. Bronco is not by any means, a lesser platform, just that it looses out in the political aspect out the deal.
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/@businesses/@landarmaments/documents/bae_publication/la_hagg_brochure_bvs10.pdf
Nato interoperability, improved protection
Pl tell us what are each of the items above?
bbb
-
I am not sure if BvS 10 can do all the followings?
BvS 10 brochure may show the gradient,but not the others.
Pl check carefully and discuss.Pl do not assume nor depend on non--official
sources.
http://www.stengg.com/upload/914WVBGLfb3dh4hGDkd.pdf
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/@businesses/@landarmaments/documents/bae_publication/la_hagg_brochure_bvs10.pdf
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_landa_bv206sbrochure.pdf
Nice brochure.
www.stengg.com
Products-----Land-----Bronco ATTC
gggg
-
intergrated with 120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System
able to shoot charge 9 without preparation.
Enable Shoot and scoot operations.read brochure.jjjj@@@@@@@@22
More Upgrades for UK Vikings in Afghanistan
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3845508&c=ASI&s=LAN
More Upgrades for U.K. Vikings in Afghanistan
By andrew chuter
Published: 2 Dec 12:08 EST (17:08 GMT)The Mk II carries 12 crew and passengers, has a payload of 6 metric tons and a gross vehicle weight of 14.2 metric tons. The Bronco can fit in 16 crew and passengers, has a gross weight of 18 metric tons and a payload of 6.8 metric tons.
The Bronco vehicle is currently in service with Singapore's military, while the Viking Mk II is in development.
Release of the performance comparison between the Viking Mk II and the Bronco vehicle was part of a rearguard action by BAE to salvage a deal for around 100 vehicles, which was heading Singapore's way.
The vehicles will replace Vikings currently in service in Afghanistan.
The Singaporeans are tied up here with Thales UK, who would be the Bronco vehicle integrator if the deal with the British is confirmed.
French defense newsletter TTU and others have been reporting in the last few days that the Bronco had been selected for the British requirement to provide a vehicle to be known as the Warthog.
The MoD spokeswoman said, "Discussions are still ongoing as to the vehicle type to fulfill the Warthog requirement for operations in Afghanistan. We hope to make an announcement shortly."--end of quote
Singapore Technologies declined to comment.
http://www.ttu.fr/english/ttuonline.html
@@@@@@@@@
Bronco ATTC
-
Lionnoisy is like
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
Isnt the Mk2 viking supposed to be built at the same plant as the Bvs10 ? As in they are not opening a new production line for it, germany has an order for 75 Bvs 10 to be built .
which pushes the Mk2 to a delayed production and delivery timeslot. but all this on the assumption that they are using the same plant/production line
No idea. But as it is, it is a definite that the development of the Mk 2 will not be finished till end 1Q Y09 at the earliest. Which has the same effect on the timeline issue and can't be hurried up much ... leaked press reports or not.
I m not sure about the Offset package as well, Bae Hagglunds has threatened to cut jobs in the UK and closure of some facilities if they lose the viking deal (not sure how credible this can be as the viking upgrading program is still in the works
Won't make sense to do so. The BvS 10 will still be an ongoing product line ... why throw the toys out of the pram and jeopardise an existing revenue stream?
what about NATO compatability / NATO inter operability ?
NATO inter-operability and compatibility is more an issue of electronics (specifically comms and IFF) then physical logistics.
Thales will be handling the integeration of the Bronco (if it does get approved) and that should solve the NATO issue.
What about BAE hagglunds lawsuit against ST ENG over the bronco bv206 in the past ? any infringement of the settlement ?
I have heard that it has been resolved in ST's favour but don't have any definitive reference for this.
On the surface, it would appear that the above is true given the non-issue about any copycat-ing in this competition.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blahWhat a waste of bandwith ...
-
lionnoisy = yakkity yakkity yak yak publicity sheeks yakitty yakkity
its thinking here that counts. if i wanted to put up ST eng PDF's i would have done so, but clearly i m not shameless enough to cut and paste it and upload it to my photobucket album.
Lionnoisy, Mediacorp emailed me and are asking for your name and contact details, i told them i didnt know. matter is beyond me. they say they are investigating.
please remember that taking images without permission and proper consent and claiming ownership is THEFT. under the copyright law 1987 in the republic of singapore.
seems like you havent learnt your lesson. is a email to ST eng in order as well ? you are asking for it
you want me to rebuke you ?
- why you cite only ST eng sources ? will you buy a car based on the manufacturer's claims ? seems like you are the one in need of a reality check. so if ST eng claims bronco can fly to the moon you believe ? that is a OFFICIAL SOURCE AND OFFICIAL CLAIM ?
- why you dont mention the fact that the bronco has no combat record unlike the Bvs10 and Bvs 206 ? why dont you cite and provide conclusive proof of Bronco's performance ? why no other country purchase aside from SG ?
applying your first time buyer logic/ first buyer for a platform and orphan platform logic from the 737 wedgetail and collins class and anzac class does that mean SAF made a retarded decision buying the bronco ? bronco was first fielded when, why up till now no other purchase ? bronco also has civillian version, why not popular ?
- why dont you mention the fact that the bronco is significantly based on the Bv206 to a large extent that a lawsuit was brought against ST eng because of the hydraulic link ?
-bv206/bvs 10 proven under harsh operating condition from temperate tundra/boreal type forests with extremities ranging from below zero operating conditions to above 40 degrees in hot and high conditions in dusty and desert conditions in iraq and afghanistan.
WHAT ABOUT BRONCO ? proven ? tested in jungle singapore. sure wow, i m aware of that. i m sure an annual climatic variation from 24deg C to 35 deg C counts for EXTREME TOUGH CONDITIONS. what about extreme climatic variations under combat operational stress ? like afghanistan ? exceed 40 deg C in summer, below 0 in winter. a big fat fucking zero.
see lionnoisy ? maybe a person with your illogic can concieve to buy a vehicle who's manufacturer can claim it flies to the moon and can do everything including roll over and begging for a bone. you might believe it, i m sure some might be inclined to believe in you. but please, spare me your bullshit.
ild critically examine the issue from all sides. if it were up to me, and money and politics were not any limiting factor, ild be pretty damned sure that bae haggulands / bae land systems would win the warthog deal.
@kotay
i was thinking more in terms of physical logistics / commonality. seeing that the BVs 10 and the BV206 is present or in service in sweden, germany, US, UK.
the bronco would stick out in terms of parts and serviciability.it would be supporting a unique platform that is nowhere else in service in the world. i.e you dont exactly see cadillacs all over the world.
hmm, regarding the thales intergreation, i think it'd be more to do with the bowman communications system right ?
i mentioned the lawsuit part since apparently lionnoisy and his rah rah singapura idiocity seems to overlook the fact that Bae hagglunds considered the bronco to be a sufficient rip off of its Bv206 patent that it took ST eng to court
still, on the sheer basis of the lawsuit, Bae land systems could always screw the ST eng deal by highlighting the copyright case to the media. Even if they lose the subsequent 2nd lawsuit or legal hoo-haa about the Bronco/Bv206, they could derail or scupper the procurement schedule by opening a political can of worms, which would make the Bvs 10 mark II avaliable in time. (over reading too much into it ?)
the bronco represents an interesting prospect in the sense that its intruding into Bae land systems traditional backyard. imagine if the Bronco surpasses expectations. who's next ? sweden germany greece ? it represents the potential opening of a entirely fresh market for ST eng and a potentially aggressive intrusion into BAE's home turf. the way i see it, its a defence industry turf war.
plus with the increased pressure on MOD finances and Obama expected to declare a surge in afghanistan, the warthog procurement might be delayed further due to troop pullback and cutdowns.
i m speculating that either way, the odds are stacked against ST eng. not that i believe the bronco is by any means the lesser platform.
-
I hope they have gotten around to fix the problem with the articulator. I was told by a friend that there were incidents where the back part of the vehicle would topple over when going over certain rocky terrain. And Afghanistan is a far worse and harsher environment than where we conduct Wallaby.
And color me unimpressed. ST has a very bad reputation for Quality Control and I am still hearing of incidents where the laser pointer on the SAR-21 would fall off. -
I am thrilled by the fact that our locally made Bronco has pushed BAE/Hagglunds BV S10 hard enough.
There must be a huge reason behind why UK MOD is considering more Broncos where they could upgrade their existing S10.
As export sales are hugely influenced by political factors, it will be interesting to see how this develop.
Some interesting read as follow
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160384#post160384
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=110979.html
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
I hope they have gotten around to fix the problem with the articulator. I was told by a friend that there were incidents where the back part of the vehicle would topple over when going over certain rocky terrain. And Afghanistan is a far worse and harsher environment than where we conduct Wallaby.
And color me unimpressed. ST has a very bad reputation for Quality Control and I am still hearing of incidents where the laser pointer on the SAR-21 would fall off.interesting. i got a tankie mechanic friend and he tells me all sorts of stories about individual platforms.
aside from the fact there is a bumpy ride, he's all raves about the bronco. apparently the bronco is a really fast mover.
rolling over is a hazard for any armoured vehicle i suppose, cant really do much about that.
hmm where and whom did you hear the laser pointer for the SAR21 will fall off ? seems quite dubious.
the SAR 21 LAD (laser aiming device) is one module that is placed entirely within the handgrip / plastic casing of the SAR 21. ive never heard of it falling off. maybe the battery cap ? i know battery caps get lost and fall off pretty easily but definitely not the LAD module. its entirely embedded within the rifle.
