UK to Buy Bronco

lionnoisy

8 Dec 08, 12:43

One utmost factor is:

Bronco(or its enhanced version) is most likely ready for production.

BvS 10 Mk2 (sorry i forget to put Mk 2)

is ,according to reports quoted in this thread,is still under development.

Full stop.

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

Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:

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---end of quote

Thanks.U really share info here.

can i post the image from your links above.

Bronco / ST Kinetics with Active Defense System AMAP-ADS and Multi-Purpose IED-Protection

http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/news.html

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

In fact, STK displayed the Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier 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.

The Active High-Technology Survivability Solution

AMAP-ADS is an active protection system. Attacks from the most varied of weapon systems – including projectiles with speeds of up to 2,000 m/s – are opto-electronically detected and intercepted in microseconds. It therefore provides protection from attacks fired from a very close distance.

Manual system operation is unnecessary and a 360° multi-hit protection of hemispherical cover is provided. With a weight of only 145 to 500 kg (depending on vehicle), even light vehicles can be equipped with this highly-effective survivability system. The possibility of using faster and more manoeuvrable vehicles in high-threat potential situations creates completely new tactical opportunities.

AMAP-ADS provides protection against the following threats:

Anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs)

Handheld Anti-Tank weapons (including RPG-7)

KE projectiles of all calibres, mid- and large calibre APFSDS

Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs)

AMAP-ADS Brochure (1,455.9 kB)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@2

Power of intergration is not less important than power of invention.

I dunt know much about AMAP-ADS.ST Eng will not waste time to reinvent wheels.

Off the shelf products,so long it serve the purposes and value for money,

is good enough.The life of soldiers is the top priority!!

Throw away nationalism!!Please!

nnn

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 13:17

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

One utmost factor is:

Bronco(or its enhanced version) is most likely ready for production.

BvS 10 is ,according to reports quoted in this thread,is still under development.

Full stop.

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

@@@@@@@@@@@@@2

Power of intergration is not less important than power of invention.

I dunt know much about AMAP-ADS.ST Eng will not waste time to reinvent wheels.

Off the shelf products,so long it serve the purposes and value for money,

is good enough.The life of soldiers is the top priority!!

Throw away nationalism!!Please!

nnn

BIG MISTAKE LIONNOISY

till now up to this point in the thread you cant differentiate between the BV206, BVS 10 and BVS 10 ++ /warthog requirement improvement on the BVS10 ?

in case you havent compared the BVS10 and the bronco, they are both pretty similar in terms of payload and empty weight. just that the bronco has an added under carraige mine protection which has been tested up to 12kg of explosives (pretty big charge)

fact 1:
BVS 10 has been in operational service with not only the UK, but with the dutch royal marines

all pictures courtesy of http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/

all image rights and permissions solely belong to them

fact2:
BVS10 has been combat tested and proven in afghanistan.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/doublejointed-popular-the-bv-family-of-infantry-support-vehicles-updated-02656/

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

Sergeant Major Simon Williams, aged 36, one of the Royal Marines who helped Swedish firm BAE Hagglunds design the Viking, said in an interview with the media:

"It's a phenomenal piece of hardware, the most manoeuvrable vehicle in existence. Nothing matches it. We've been here three months and would've lost considerably more blokes without it.

"British soldiers are coming home to their sons and daughters without missing limbs and most importantly alive, thanks to the Viking."

"We have no complaints with this vehicle. It's hoofin' (brilliant)."

Marine Michael Robertson

Marine John Westwood, 24, also talking to the media said:

"Enemy mortars landed just two metres away from my Viking the other week and there wasn't even a scratch on her. Small arms fire rounds just bounce off her like stone chippings."

Marine Michael Robertson, 25, from Kilmacolm, Renfrewshire, said:

"We still have the odd moan about kit - not enough ammo or not enough guns - but we have no complaints with this vehicle. It's hoofin' (brilliant)."

articles to read :

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20070116.aspx

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

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/VikingsCompleteFirstConvoyMissionInAfghanistanvideo.htm

youtube to watch :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqvSHkp_wew

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1172082859&channel=1155977873

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w03yKrYG3-Y&NR=1

so lionnoisy ? VIKING / BVS10 not operational ? not in use ?

get your facts right before u post u moronic lion.

SELF-PWNED +1

Fingolfin_Noldor

8 Dec 08, 13:26

Originally posted by sgstars:

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.

There's probably no argument (my friend in question was a Bronco driver) that the vehicle is pretty fast and maneuverable. The only problem was that the articulator unit doesn't apply enough of a counter torque to ensure the rear vehicle doesn't topple. Or they can issue orders to not go on so and so terrain but that limits the utility of the said vehicle and in a terrain like Afghanistan, it's going to be hard to justify bringing such a vehicle. If anything, the British Army should consider employing MRAPs instead if they are bloody worried about IEDs.

And according to my friend, the unit he was in suppressed the incidents involving it toppling over. I'm not sure if that applied to other units, but yeah.

I'm not sure what part of the SAR-21 LAD falls off. It was largely based off what a friend grumbled about the the SAR-21 in general. I forgot the details. It was too long ago.

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 13:27

on a side note, i cant imagine how the bronco would look like with slat armour.

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 13:32

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

There's probably no argument (my friend in question was a Bronco driver) that the vehicle is pretty fast and maneuverable. The only problem was that the articulator unit doesn't apply enough of a counter torque to ensure the rear vehicle doesn't topple. Or they can issue orders to not go on so and so terrain but that limits the utility of the said vehicle and in a terrain like Afghanistan, it's going to be hard to justify bringing such a vehicle. If anything, the British Army should consider employing MRAPs instead if they are bloody worried about IEDs.

I'm not sure what part of the SAR-21 LAD falls off. It was largely based off what a friend grumbled about the the SAR-21 in general. I forgot the details. It was too long ago.

aye.

no quibble about that. hmm, i see.

i read somewhere that they arent actually too concerened about IEDs. in fact, the IED rate in stan is much lower than in iraq, simply because of the iranian connection. while they are many shiites in Iraq, in Stan, its more tribal than about islam.

on the contrary, the reason why they are buying viking/bronco, i read somewhere, cant find the exact link now, is because Stan has alot of mines scattered everywhere. its a very heavily mined country following the soviet invasion in the 1980s. its safer for a viking to go over cross country because the viking/bronco has extremely well divided weight.

very low tread pressure.

the thread pressure of the viking/bronco's design allows it to move safely cross country even in heavily mined/unknown areas with minefields.

wonderamazement

8 Dec 08, 13:36

Originally posted by OldBird69:

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)?

F2000?

Fingolfin_Noldor

8 Dec 08, 14:24

Originally posted by wonderamazement:

F2000?

We licensed the design of the 155mm-52caliber howitzer to the Turks.

Fingolfin_Noldor

8 Dec 08, 14:25

Originally posted by sgstars:

aye.

no quibble about that. hmm, i see.

i read somewhere that they arent actually too concerened about IEDs. in fact, the IED rate in stan is much lower than in iraq, simply because of the iranian connection. while they are many shiites in Iraq, in Stan, its more tribal than about islam.

on the contrary, the reason why they are buying viking/bronco, i read somewhere, cant find the exact link now, is because Stan has alot of mines scattered everywhere. its a very heavily mined country following the soviet invasion in the 1980s. its safer for a viking to go over cross country because the viking/bronco has extremely well divided weight.

very low tread pressure.

the thread pressure of the viking/bronco's design allows it to move safely cross country even in heavily mined/unknown areas with minefields.

Well, even a MRAP would perform better, what with their V-shaped lower hulls designed to vent away the explosions from the mines. Maybe the tire pressure on the ground is too high. *shrug* I don't really know the terrain 100%.

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 14:31

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

Well, even a MRAP would perform better, what with their V-shaped lower hulls designed to vent away the explosions from the mines. Maybe the tire pressure on the ground is too high. *shrug* I don't really know the terrain 100%.

ah.. problem with MRAPs is when u have existing road infrastructure like in iraq, its perfectly fine.

but in stan, where the MRAPs are forced to go offroad to hunt for taliban, it puts a heavy strain on the suspension. IIRC, MRAPs were not designed for offroad conflicts/bush wacking like heavy armoured vehicles.

plus, MRAPs are more likely to topple over due to high centre of gravity.

kotay

8 Dec 08, 18:37

Originally posted by sgstars,

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.

Errr .... NATO also operates like 6+ types of MBTs all with different powerpacks and transmissions. Let's not even start counting the other AFVs and vehicles.

What you should be talking about is the logisitics commonality within the end-user units at Division level and below. In this case, there is a point to be made that the Royal Marines are already using the Viking Mk1 and that there may be some logistics synergy to be had there.

That's of course provided that the Mk2 Viking is still using the same power plant and transmission pack as the Mk1. Given that it is going to be up sized, there is quite a chance it won't have. That'd make the Bronco less of an odd-fit than you're making it out to be

hmm, regarding the thales intergreation, i think it'd be more to do with the bowman communications system right ?

Most prob. And that's the NATO compatible bit isn't it ... ?

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 ?)

I don't get it. Yes, BaE took ST to court.

If BaE had won, would ST still be fielding the Bronco as a candidate in the UK tender, let alone the French and Finnish ones? I think not.

Which means BaE lost? If they had lost, what mileage can BaE hope to achieve by bringing up allegations of copyright infringement which was proved in a court of law to be not so? If they really do so then they're asking for eggs on their face.

I think you're 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.

The Bronco is not quite a competitor to the Bv206 market (which number in the thousands). Or even the BvS 10 for that matter (which only number in the hundreds).

True, they may have the same appearance but so does a 3-ton, 5-ton and 7-ton truck.

Think of the Bv206 as the 3 tonner, the BvS10 as the 5 tonner and the Bronco or Biking Mk2 as the 7 tonner

The UK MoD is perhaps thinking that their current mix of 3 & 5 tonners are not adequate to the task in Afghanistan and are issuing a tender for a 7 tonner equivalent - either the Bronco or the Viking Mk 2.

Viewed in this way, it's not quite the desperate fight for the same pie. A 2 ton payload ATTC is not going be in the same market fight as the 5 ton payload ATTC.

lionnoisy

8 Dec 08, 19:38

our fren here comfort u with a explanation of 2 toner to 7 toner.Very kind indeed.

But i am not so kind.can u search this www.contracts.mod.u

and tell me why UK MOD needs the new platforms.

Generally there are push and pull factors.

Push factors---the current BvS 10 ,so called tried, but not proven

and satisfied to current or future requirements.(If they are,MOD will not

look for new platform.Right?)

Or nowadays IED become bigger,

makes MOD looking for new platforms.

I do not say any platform not good.I think it is just not fitted for

the jobs,current or future.No harding feeling please.

Pull factors----They are happy with the current platforms.But

MOD just loook for a better one or bigger one.

@@@@@@@@@@@

Any platform used in wars dunt gurantee it is a ever lasting platforms.

In fact,the strengths and if any,weakness will surface!!

@@@@@@@@@@@

can any one confirm BvS 10 Mk 2 status---under development or ready

for productions.UK MOD cant wait u long long.

It is unlikely BvS get this :

http://kr.blog.yahoo.com/shinecommerce/15907.html?p=1&t=3

120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System on Bronco!!

further,can BvS 10 Mk 2 do all the followings?

dunt talk other rubbish.Just tell me relevant stuff.

I dunt like listening other irrelevant stuff-----yes or no plus explanations!!

read the spec and answer now!!

http://www.stengg.com/upload/914WVBGLfb3dh4hGDkd.pdf

Pl tell me if u dunt understanding this illustration.

@@@@@@@@

lionnoisy

8 Dec 08, 19:55

oh so sorry.

i am asking the status of BvS 10 Mk2.

lionnoisy

8 Dec 08, 20:09

these news from Jane's and reponses are useful:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160384#post160384

2. The last 2 paragraphs in the (Jane's.Pl read the above link)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:

mmmm

lionnoisy

8 Dec 08, 20:23

i get this to confirm Viking to be replaced,but bery brief:

£700m for new vehicles for operations

Defence Secretary John Hutton announced today over £700M for an extra 700 vehicles to further improve the safety and protection of our troops on operations in Afghanistan.

29 October 2008 12:34

WARTHOG: Over 100 brand new cross-country vehicles with greater protection levels, replacing Vikings in Afghanistan;

@@@@@@@@@

can u post the MOD requirements herec for Warthog?

nnnn

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 20:49

Originally posted by lionnoisy:

our fren here comfort u with a explanation of 2 toner to 7 toner.Very kind indeed.

But i am not so kind.can u search this www.contracts.mod.u

and tell me why UK MOD needs the new platforms.

Generally there are push and pull factors.

Push factors---the current BvS 10 ,so called tried, but not proven

and satisfied to current or future requirements.(If they are,MOD will not

look for new platform.Right?)

Or nowadays IED become bigger,

makes MOD looking for new platforms.

I do not say any platform not good.I think it is just not fitted for

the jobs,current or future.No harding feeling please.

Pull factors----They are happy with the current platforms.But

MOD just loook for a better one or bigger one.

@@@@@@@@@@@

Any platform used in wars dunt gurantee it is a ever lasting platforms.

In fact,the strengths and if any,weakness will surface!!

@@@@@@@@@@@

can any one confirm BvS 10 Mk 2 status---under development or ready

for productions.UK MOD cant wait u long long.

It is unlikely BvS get this :

http://kr.blog.yahoo.com/shinecommerce/15907.html?p=1&t=3

120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System on Bronco!!

further,can BvS 10 Mk 2 do all the followings?

dunt talk other rubbish.Just tell me relevant stuff.

I dunt like listening other irrelevant stuff-----yes or no plus explanations!!

read the spec and answer now!!

http://www.stengg.com/upload/914WVBGLfb3dh4hGDkd.pdf

Pl tell me if u dunt understanding this illustration.

@@@@@@@@

crap i cant believe in.

1) you couldnt differentiate between the Bv206, Mk I viking and mk2 viking and you think you can cover your sorry ass with this lousy phathetic statement ?

i m sorry lionnoisy, you are taking your stupidity to another level. one which i wont stand for.

Bronco(or its enhanced version) is most likely ready for production.

BvS 10 Mk2 (sorry i forget to put Mk 2)

is ,according to reports quoted in this thread,is still under development.

Full stop.

reading your posts is like watching someone who rolls in a spot where he has just relieved himself of shit.

oh so sorry.

i am asking the status of BvS 10 Mk2.

2) MOD requirements do not state IED protection. they are more worried about mines in afghanistan rather than IED.

relevance ? IRAQ not = afghanistan moron.

which part of MOD says they not happy with the viking ? everything ive posted here seems to suggest otherwise.

dont be a clown and persist on your one-track logic. you want relevance ? its staring right in your face. relavance which you cant deny or run away from lionnoisy.

fact : BvS10 combat proven, combat tested, well regarded
unknown : Bronco, not combat proven, not combat tested. operational use yes. but operational use under extreme conditions, NO.

fact : Lionnoisy cannot differentiate between BvS10 and BvS10 mark II and tries to cover up for it by editing post later

3) why cannot answer my point about not being combat proven / climate conditions ? too stupid to think ? post other people's post without thinking ?

why cant u read and differentiate the difference between viking mk I and mk 2 ? after pwnage then change the original post ?

(self-pwn)(self-pwn) = self-pwn²

why are you asking me about the specs of ST eng brochure ? if ST eng PDF say bronco can fly to the moon and come back you'd believe ? if ST eng say it produce AMAP-ADS would you believe ? if ST eng brochure tells me that Lionnoisy is a dumbass would i believe ? sure certainly ! i can believe that.

how about this :

any proof of the bronco doing this in real life ?

quoting a ST eng brochure isnt evidence. it isnt facts. its just shows your level of desperation when u cant find stuff to post.

flogging a dead horse again my dear lion ? or should i quote you on this ?

dunt talk other rubbish.Just tell me relevant stuff.

I dunt like listening other irrelevant stuff-----yes or no plus explanations!!

explaination : Yes, its OBVIOUS you DONT K(NO)W ANYTHING.

3) so now you resort to 3rd hand postings , not even acknowledging the user who posted the content and the poster who posted the link ?

lol... whatever happened to your OFFICIAL SOURCE and OFFICIAL SITE and OFFICIAL evidence ?

you realized that this is about credible as wiping your soiled bottom with a tissue paper and trying to pass it off as currency ?

the poster's point (i) is rendered moot, the mk2 viking has an added capacity to carry and have more heavy armour

(ii) i cant contest since i havent read the Jane's article

(iii) the poster entirely discounts the fact that operational conditions under combat fire affect a vehicle's SOP and management quite differently from normal situation.

i.e , if you have a viking, you more or less know where the quirks/flaws/weaknesses are, rather than a untested/ unfamiliar platform whose reliability under combat strain and conditions are not known.

i.e u cant compare operating lim chu kang Area D with Afghanistan Helmland province. you have so many other variables like

-threat level

-environmental

-humidity

and many others i cant be bothered to mention for the sheer straightfowardness of it.

would they rather have a platform when the realize the 2nd vehicle/coupled module may roll over in battle conditions ? would they have a platform when they realise that the hydraulics may fail under certain temperature conditions ?

combat proven and tested is a invaluable factor that shows that the platform is stable and tested and can be relied upon to function when called to duty. Why you make so much noise about Wedgetail and orphan platforms in the australia thread when you dont acknowledge the Bronco being in the same position ?

why the bigotry lionnoisy ? why ? double- standards ? answer the fucking qn here.

point (iv) no contest. its one of te selling points of the Bronco, modularity = versatality

point (V) : i m sure that knowledgeable poster would be aware of that AMAP-ADS dosent come standard on all broncos.

I m equally sure that the german IBD passive armour package is neither standard issue and is avaliable as a modular add on.

suffice to say, its like saying, WOW, this car has all these accessories, but in reality, you have no interest in acquiring all of them. big deal really.

ive rebutted your points and supposedly non "OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION AND PROOF" nonsense.

now, tell me, whats a queene ? i m still eagerly awaiting that one. tell me the performance of the BvS 10 ?

and yes you idiot, the Viking Mk2 can do all that and more. even the current viking can haul a SR mortar. simply proves my point you never ever read the links you post or what others post ?

can the bronco haul an ATGM team behind ? is the Bronco Air conditioned ?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/

Front and rear cabins

The front cabin of the Viking accommodates the driver at the front left, plus three fully equipped marines.

The rear and forward cabins are linked by a two-way voice communications unit. The rear cabin can carry eight fully equipped marines. Alternatively, the rear cabin can carry a mortar section, a heavy machine gun section or a fully equipped anti-tank detachment with Milan anti-armour missiles and firing posts. Both cabins are fully air-conditioned.

The vehicles are fitted with the General Dynamics UK Bowman digital communications system.

even the BV206 can function as a mortar carrier.

your talk about the viking lacking these capabilities is a NON-issue. their class of vehicles offer a degree of modularity and flexibility in operations.

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 21:19

Originally posted by kotay:

The Bronco is not quite a competitor to the Bv206 market (which number in the thousands). Or even the BvS 10 for that matter (which only number in the hundreds).

True, they may have the same appearance but so does a 3-ton, 5-ton and 7-ton truck.

Think of the Bv206 as the 3 tonner, the BvS10 as the 5 tonner and the Bronco or Biking Mk2 as the 7 tonner

The UK MoD is perhaps thinking that their current mix of 3 & 5 tonners are not adequate to the task in Afghanistan and are issuing a tender for a 7 tonner equivalent - either the Bronco or the Viking Mk 2.

Viewed in this way, it's not quite the desperate fight for the same pie. A 2 ton payload ATTC is not going be in the same market fight as the 5 ton payload

right, i see, so the bit about logistics commonality is ovverated.

i see what you mean about capacity/capability.fulfilling a niche ?

I dont mean it in that sense, i was thinking in broader terms about how the Bronco's entry represents a new competitor for Bae hagglunds/ Bae Land systems.

yes, the Bronco may fill a niche now, but if it does well, it opens the doors to other variants and other european countries. Its like a backdoor entry for ST eng into the european market ? previouslly there wasnt really an alternative for the other countries, e.g no Bv206, means going for BvS10.

in that sense ST eng is providing the consumer (all the other MODs) with an alternative. The Bronco may be bigger and larger than the Bv206. but if Lifetime costs and operational costs are affordable, it represents a viable alternative to whatever Bae Has to offer?

in that sense, Bae's product "monopoly" could be broken. there is nothing quite exactly in the category of Bv206/Bvs 10 and its possible Mk2 version and the Bronco.

i was suggesting the potential of ST eng breaking into the category. But yes, i do acknowledge that the Bv206, BvS10 and the bronco/BvS mk II are not substituable products. imperfect substitues.

using your tonner analogy, irregardless of the weight class of a tonner, all 3 can fulfill logisitcal roles and purposes right ? similarily the "class" of Bv206/Bvs10 and Bvs10 mk II/bronco overlap more than they actually compete right ?

in that sense, yes while they are differntiated market products, they practically fulfill the same role/function across the board ? 3 ton 5 ton 7 ton each class got its limitations but all serve the function to varying degrees and limitations/

the Bronco's ability to fulfill that function is the real threat to Bae's market share, not so much of its class or its niche

Fingolfin_Noldor

8 Dec 08, 22:08

Did BAe really brought Singapore Technologies to court over it? There's also a Russian version, which is blockier and larger I think and it carries 30 tonnes.

I_love_my_toilet

8 Dec 08, 23:13

Yea, i saw russian version

of coz, only good things pple copy ma :D

sgstars

8 Dec 08, 23:25

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

Did BAe really brought Singapore Technologies to court over it? There's also a Russian version, which is blockier and larger I think and it carries 30 tonnes.

30 tonnes ? thats 6X the payload of the Bronco.size wise would be a much much larger beast.

plus, at that kinda weight, should definitely be not aircraft portable. unlikely to be amphibuous. thats one feature of the Bv206/BvS10 and Bronco class.

whats the vehicle / model ?

kotay

9 Dec 08, 00:18

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

Did BAe really brought Singapore Technologies to court over it? There's also a Russian version, which is blockier and larger I think and it carries 30 tonnes.

Dude, the DT-30 is not even in the same product category as the Bvs lah. Like that we might as well talk about the articulated tracked prime movers that move houses and rockets ;)

sgstars - the DT-30P is amphibious.

I_love_my_toilet

9 Dec 08, 00:25

Russian shrink DT-30P down to similar class like BVs n Broncos liao

seen before but cant find it now...

sgstars

9 Dec 08, 00:32

an interesting addition to the original article:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3845508&c=ASI&s=LAN

The MoD recently contracted BAE Systems to undertake a reliability demonstration on a Viking in the United Kingdom. Working at a high gross weight, the vehicle is testing performance and reliability against various parameters.

Data released by BAE in mid-November said the existing Viking's reliability under combat conditions stood at 88 percent.

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.

i wonder if the performance comparison is available online. cant seemed to find it. maybe my google-fu isnt strong enough.

sgstars

9 Dec 08, 00:36

Originally posted by kotay:

Dude, the DT-30 is not even in the same product category as the Bvs lah. Like that we might as well talk about the articulated tracked prime movers that move houses and rockets ;)

sgstars - the DT-30P is amphibious.

ah. i stand corrected :) but the DT-30 seems like a monster. its HUGE !

I_love_my_toilet

9 Dec 08, 00:36

not easy to obtain those comparison online sia

in fact the 3rd para gave a glimpse of the comparison already ?

kotay

9 Dec 08, 00:42

Originally posted by sgstars:

right, i see, so the bit about logistics commonality is ovverated.

Not sure if you're referring to logistics commonality as a concept or vis the BvS 10 Mk1 and Mk2.

Logistics commonality, as a concept, can never be overrated. It's good to have and is sometimes why a lesser capable platform is chosen over another more capable but uncommon one.

Logistics commonality vis the Viking Mk1 and Mk2 ... well ... will there be any?

using your tonner analogy, irregardless of the weight class of a tonner, all 3 can fulfill logisitcal roles and purposes right ? similarily the "class" of Bv206/Bvs10 and Bvs10 mk II/bronco overlap more than they actually compete right ?

in that sense, yes while they are differntiated market products, they practically fulfill the same role/function across the board ? 3 ton 5 ton 7 ton each class got its limitations but all serve the function to varying degrees and limitations/

That's oversimplifying it a tad.

In a pinch, they can perform each other's role. But you'd still purchase the various platforms and maintain seperate fleets of them to provide hi-lo capabilities.

the Bronco's ability to fulfill that function is the real threat to Bae's market share, not so much of its class or its niche

Let's not get carried away here.

Yes, it be hubris for BaE to rest on it's laurels and not pre-empt competition. But it really should be worrying about other bigger competitors/markets/platforms.

Anyhow, there's too much hair splitting going on to be worth continuing ... you and LN have fun :D