UK to Buy Bronco
-
eh ?
nah , i m standing in for SGTY. once he's back i wont make an effort to pwn the lion.
i m part time temp staff
-
Originally posted by I_love_my_toilet:
Russian shrink DT-30P down to similar class like BVs n Broncos liao
seen before but cant find it now...They didn't shrink down the DT-30 ... it grew out of the DT-10 and DT-20. The numbers being the payload capability in tons.
Got the reference you looking for ... DT-5 & DT-7
http://www.bolotohod.ru/en/ecat1/ecat14/
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
eh ?
nah , i m standing in for SGTY. once he's back i wont make an effort to pwn the lion.
i m part time temp staff
KNS :D
Well, he does ask for it sometimes ...
-
Originally posted by kotay:
They didn't shrink down the DT-30 ... it grew out of the DT-10 and DT-20. The numbers being the payload capability in tons.
Got the reference you looking for ... DT-5 & DT-7
http://www.bolotohod.ru/en/ecat1/ecat14/
icic
thanks !
the company logo resembles SMRT logo sia lol!
-
btw TS, i m sorry if i hijacked your thread into a bash lionnoisy thread. pai seh pai seh.
its an interesting thread really, just that the stupid lion has to come here and ask to get whacked.
-
above posted by sgstars..
u must be kidding.Man.This is WW2 technology.
120 SRAMS is semi--auto with 'a high continous firing rate of up
to 10 rounds per min'!!
No loader is needed!!
It can be used in different platforms.
2.re your photo of going down the hill.ST brochure says 60% gradient.
U still have not told me if BvS 10 or Mk2 can do all as stated in ST brochure,
like 2 m trench crossing or 1 m high obstacle etc.
in case u over look,i put it here again.
can u read brochure and watch the video of Singapore
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System and come back and discuss.
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
can i humbly ask again what is the status of BvS 10 Mk 2?
-
http://www.stengg.com/upload/914WVBGLfb3dh4hGDkd.pdf
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/@businesses/@landarmaments/documents/bae_publication/la_hagg_brochure_bvs10.pdf
air cond ?ha ha ha!!Bronco brochure says air cond for rear cabin.
i assume drive also can enjoy air cond.
Bronco is to replace BvS 206.Right?So,it shall be better than BvS 206.
I think u guys still have a mind set Bronco is still inferior than BvS10.
I dunt know how they are compared in overall.
u can compare by the links i show above.
But one thing is sure.Bronco's payload is higher!!
BvS 10 Mk1.................Bronco
SPECIFICATION
Dimension
Length 7.6 m.......8.6m
Width 2.2 m....2.3
Height....................2.2
front car 2.2 m
rear car 2.1 m
Curb weight
front car 5000 kg.......front & rear 11,200
rear car, APC version 3500 kg
rear car, empty chassis 2450 kg
Payload (Depending on equipment/options)......enclosed 4800,flatbed 5300
front car 800 kg
rear car 2000 - 3050 kg
Passengers
front car 4....6(Bronco include driver)
rear car 8.....10
Maximum trailer weight 3000 kg
Specific ground pressurefront car 17.2 kPa.......#as light as a human foot,@
rear car 18.7 kPa#much lower than Bionix 0.69--0.76 kg/cm2.read
http://www.dsta.gov.sg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2061&Itemid=401
@http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_intro2.htm
Performance
Max. speed
on road 65 km/h...60
in water 5 km/h....5
Gradeability
hard surface 100% (45º).....60%
deep snow 30% (17º)........unknownside slope...unknown....30%
Vertical obstacle..unknown.......1m
Trench crossing..unknown......2 m
Range on roads 300km.....unknown
Operating temp
max + 49ºC
min - 46ºCBvS 10 Mk1.................Bronco
Engine
Type 6-cyl in-line
Power 202 kW (275 HP)2500 rpm.....350bhp ,2400rpm
Torque 950 Nm (700 lb.ft/1500 rpm DIN....unknownTransmission
Type Automatic 6 speed forward;1 reverse...fully automaticSteering system
Type hydrostatic, articulated, damped......hydraulic,articulated
Turning diameter 14 m...unknown
Emergency steering standardTracks
Type moulded rubber with cord
Width 0.6 m 4-track driveElectrical system
Voltage 24 V DC
Alternator 100 A
Material
armour steel Protection...................Active Defense System AMAP-ADS and .....................................................Multi-Purpose IED-Protection.read #
Direct fire 7,62 x 51 ball (basic)
7,62 AP (option) with
add-on protection
Air-conditioning system Yes
NBC protection Option
Fire extinguishing system OptionVariants
repair recovery vehicle....Field worhshop
command vehicle,.........unknown
troop carrier ....troop carrier
ambulance.....ambulance
unknown...............120 mm SRAMS
end of quote
# read page 2 of this thread.
http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/news.html
http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-ads-active-defense-systems.html
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
above posted by sgstars..
u must be kidding.Man.This is WW2 technology.
120 SRAMS is semi--auto with 'a high continous firing rate of up
to 10 rounds per min'!!
No loader is needed!!
It can be used in different platforms.
2.re your photo of going down the hill.ST brochure says 60% gradient.
U still have not told me if BvS 10 or Mk2 can do all as stated in ST brochure,
like 2 m trench crossing or 1 m high obstacle etc.
in case u over look,i put it here again.
can u read brochure and watch the video of Singapore
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System and come back and discuss.
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
can i humbly ask again what is the status of BvS 10 Mk 2?
LOL...
ST eng brochure and you cant even quote it properly ? ST brochure says its 18. but they have subsequently revised it down to 10. see ? ST lies.
you must be moronic. you claimed the Bv206/BvS10 cannot fire mortar. when faced with the truth in pictures what claim have you ? you now want to compare SRAMS when you know SRAMS is a propertairy ST technology which they will not release for sale to everyone ? hhaaha are you an idiot ? what do you take us all for ? noisy lions like you ?
now very cunning right ? when pwned u straight away adopt a, "oops, i meant something else" when you clearly cannot differentiate ?
maybe can ask britney to teach you the oops i did it again
cannot tell propertairy technology from functional capability ? cannot seperate colour from category ? my idiot lion, you said BvS206 and BvS10 cannot fire mortar, i proved you wrong and now what say you ?confuse when you cannot answer ? obfusticate when you cannot illustrate ?
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!!
and WWII did not have that calibre of mortar. WWII they preferred a platform called the self propelled gun. more effective that mortar.
you cant handle the truth.admit it.
i provided pictures that show the BvS10 handling slopes of at least 60 degress. what have you got save for the ST brochure ? any pictures of Bronco doing it in real life ?
so if i post this picture, you going to believe that bronco can fly to the moon lah ? are you that imbecilic to the point where you believe everything that is fed to you ?
whats a queene ?
what happened to your official source and records ? why quote from someone's posting from another forum ?
why cannot think independently ? why still flogging a dead horse ?
why when quote from ST brochure also cannot quote properly ? dunno how to differentiate from BvS10 specs and Bronco specs ?
why post some specs from Bronco dont post some specs from BvS10 ? cannot find right ? self-pwn +3
why talk about passive IBD armour when it dosent come standard ? why talk about AMAP-ADS when no operational version of the Bronco uses it ? why dont talk about intergreation issues ? why dont talk about the lawsuit ST got slapped over with the Bronco ?
why dont admit that the Bronco is a blatant rip off of the Bv206 design and hydraulic link to the point that Bae Hagglunds sued ST ? why dont criticize ST for not innovating and ripping it off ?
WRONG ABOUT AIRCON. for SAF broncos in service, air con is not a standard stock option. some variants have aircon. most dont have.
Janes however indicates that the export version is likely to have aircon for both front an rear carriage
so applying from your logic about OFFICIAL SITES AND OFFICIAL PROOF and I WANT YES OR NO ANSWERS, I DONT WANT TO HEAR IRRELEVANT STUFF
so when ST features this on their webpage, it means they must be developing an advanced flying man concept ? ai say, not bad leh ST. pity its a shame they forgot about icarus some 4,000 years ago.
i say , ai seh lionnoisy, maybe you can join them in their flying man aspiration right lionnoisy ?
-
Did i see that he went BACK to compare BvS10 MK1 and Bronco together ???
Anyway, lion, i am not sure if u knew and asked around. The SRAMS is more difficult to maintain becasue the mortar barrel is 'fixed' at that position. New technology is not always better. Hey, the LCS is new technology, but i remembered u said it sux ... -
Originally posted by gd4u:
Did i see that he went BACK to compare BvS10 MK1 and Bronco together ???
Anyway, lion, i am not sure if u knew and asked around. The SRAMS is more difficult to maintain becasue the mortar barrel is 'fixed' at that position. New technology is not always better. Hey, the LCS is new technology, but i remembered u said it sux ...yeap.
he is just being an idiot again.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
LOL...
ST eng brochure and you cant even quote it properly ? ST brochure says its 18. but they have subsequently revised it down to 10. see ? ST lies.
you must be moronic. you claimed the Bv206/BvS10 cannot fire mortar. when faced with the truth in pictures what claim have you ? you now want to compare SRAMS when you know SRAMS is a propertairy ST technology which they will not release for sale to everyone ? hhaaha are you an idiot ? what do you take us all for ? noisy lions like you ?
now very cunning right ? when pwned u straight away adopt a, "oops, i meant something else" when you clearly cannot differentiate ?
maybe can ask britney to teach you the oops i did it again
cannot tell propertairy technology from functional capability ? cannot seperate colour from category ? my idiot lion, you said BvS206 and BvS10 cannot fire mortar, i proved you wrong and now what say you ?confuse when you cannot answer ? obfusticate when you cannot illustrate ?
and WWII did not have that calibre of mortar. WWII they preferred a platform called the self propelled gun. more effective that mortar.
you cant handle the truth.admit it.
i provided pictures that show the BvS10 handling slopes of at least 60 degress. what have you got save for the ST brochure ? any pictures of Bronco doing it in real life ?
so if i post this picture, you going to believe that bronco can fly to the moon lah ? are you that imbecilic to the point where you believe everything that is fed to you ?
whats a queene ?
what happened to your official source and records ? why quote from someone's posting from another forum ?
why cannot think independently ? why still flogging a dead horse ?
why when quote from ST brochure also cannot quote properly ? dunno how to differentiate from BvS10 specs and Bronco specs ?
why post some specs from Bronco dont post some specs from BvS10 ? cannot find right ? self-pwn +3
why talk about passive IBD armour when it dosent come standard ? why talk about AMAP-ADS when no operational version of the Bronco uses it ? why dont talk about intergreation issues ? why dont talk about the lawsuit ST got slapped over with the Bronco ?
why dont admit that the Bronco is a blatant rip off of the Bv206 design and hydraulic link to the point that Bae Hagglunds sued ST ? why dont criticize ST for not innovating and ripping it off ?
WRONG ABOUT AIRCON. for SAF broncos in service, air con is not a standard stock option. some variants have aircon. most dont have.
Janes however indicates that the export version is likely to have aircon for both front an rear carriage
so applying from your logic about OFFICIAL SITES AND OFFICIAL PROOF and I WANT YES OR NO ANSWERS, I DONT WANT TO HEAR IRRELEVANT STUFF
so when ST features this on their webpage, it means they must be developing an advanced flying man concept ? ai say, not bad leh ST. pity its a shame they forgot about icarus some 4,000 years ago.
i say , ai seh lionnoisy, maybe you can join them in their flying man aspiration right lionnoisy ?
dddd
1.what do u mean?---ST brochure says its 18. but they have subsequently revised it down to 10. see ? ST lies.
2.can they install a manual mortar sys on ATTC?---SRAMS is a propertairy ST technology which they will not release for sale to everyone
3.I quote all BvS 10 data.pl fill in the data for both which are missing.i will change Bronco to red.thanks----why when quote from ST brochure also cannot quote properly ? dunno how to differentiate from BvS10 specs and Bronco specs ?
why post some specs from Bronco dont post some specs from BvS10 ? cannot find right ? self-pwn +3
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I find this cancelled procurement from UK MOD for a ATTC to replace
BV 206 and in a support role to VIKING!!But MOD UK was looking for a
"a fully developed military off the shelf solution "ONLY!!
If they go ahead for this procurement,i think BvS 10 Mk 2 will be out.
http://www.eda.europa.eu/EbbWeb/bycountry.aspx
search UK ,go to page 2.
EDA-1783 Cancelled Expired 18/07/2008 12:00 CN Requirement for an All Terrain Military vehicle that is armoured, amphibious and fiited with ( or fiited for but not wirh) weapon systems, in a supporting role to VIKING, to replce the existing BV206. END OF QUOTE
Do u think Bronco fit the bills ?
The system shall aslo be able to: a) Operate in the most diverse climatic and topographical conditions worldwide. b) Deploy and operate in all terrain and weather conditions and climates, 24 hrs a day.
c) Be transported and ready for operations, using all current operational and tactical land, sea nad air assets.
d) Opeate in an asymetric medium threat environment. e)Deploy, operate and be sustained until at least 2025.
f)Operate on varying terrain throughout the battle-space in an operational state with system loads and aides.
g) Operate as an amphibious vehicle.
h) Carry user-endorsed loads for each identified variant in order to provide the required support capability to enable manoeuvre operations.
i) Undertake a Battlefield Mission with a probability of completion without expereincing a mission critical failure. j) Communicate with other call signs in its formation and unit to facilitate the most effective use of the ATV(S) capability.
k) Operate safely with its identified load within current manpower levels.
Currently the requirement exists for the provision of between 47 and 212 systems. Duration of the project from placement of contract to delivery of final system is estimated at 4 years followed by a further 20 years of in-service support.
@@@@@@@@@@
so u see.In July 2008,UK MOD was initially looking for replacement of BV 206.
Later,they cancelled this procurement and advanced one step further
to replace BvS 10,the successor of BV206!!The BvS 10 was in services
in UK from 2003.Is it very strange that UK looks for replacement
after 5 years of services?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/
vvvvv
-
This is the right time UK MOD throw away all the burdens,if any,
of nationalism and faces.The life of soldiers on the ground is No.1
priority!!
Brigadier blames equipment failures for soldiers' deaths
Independent - 2008年11月25日
... MoD is "delay- inclined, anti-innovative and lacking in firm leadership". That, he says, "continues to place the lives of UK servicemen at greater risk. ...
British service personnel lives 'put at risk by MoD cost-cutting' Telegraph.co.ukNew bookChanging the Dinosaur's Spots: The Battle to Reform UK Defence Acquisitionswritten by
written by Brigadier Bill Kincaid – who spent 19 years dealing with weapons acquisition for the Ministry of Defence – and published by the think-tank RUSI (Royal United Services Institute).
I think many countries shall read this book to save life and potential
loss of lifes by the same mistakes!!
caution-----conflict of interest
It was the lack of vital supplies and communication that caused the death of his son (the author's son)Tom, along with five other Royal Military Policemen, massacred by a mob in Iraq.
@@@@@@@@@@@
'Dinosaur's Spots' threaten British troops
Haber 27 - 2008年11月28日Troops Die As Army 'Wastes Cash'
UK, Wednesday November 26, 2008
British lives have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan because of waste and inefficiency in the way equipment is procured, according to a new book.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/UK-Military-Lives-Lost-As-Money-Wasted-On-Extravagant-Projects-Not-Basic-Equipment/Article/200811415161614?lpos=UK_News_News_Your_Way_Region_3&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15161614_UK_Military_Lives_Lost_As_Money_Wasted_On_Extravagant_Projects_Not_Basic_Equipment
He claims that waste of up to £3bn a year includes:
:: The RAF's Typhoon Eurofighter, which started 20 years ago but is only now in service. It has more than doubled in cost to £20bn and is over four years late.
:: The Nimrod spy plane - £800m over budget and delayed by eight years.
:: The Astute nuclear submarine programme - £1bn overspent and four years behind.
Reg Keys agrees that extravagant projects diverted money from basic equipment like radios and ammunition.
It was the lack of vital supplies and communication that caused the death of his son Tom, along with five other Royal Military Policemen, massacred by a mob in Iraq.
"The military don't place enough value on human lives," he told Sky News.
"They just regard them as so much expendable hardware."
Armoured trucks like the well-regarded Mastiff have reached the front line in record time, part of £6bn spent on new kit this year.
The MoD has dismissed claims of under-funding as "outdated, sensational, nonsense".
bbbb
-
Dunt say BvS 10 went through wars then it is good.
Nor Bronco is not so good for it has not in war.
I dunt buy this logic.
Any platform will expose the good and bad after in actions,like BvS 10.
i am still wandering why UK MOD looks for replacement of
a major platform which only in service for 5 years.
@@@@@@@@@@@
Branco may has some merits which other dunt has.
The Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier’s
versatility for example is being enhanced
with a quick “coupling/decoupling”
capability to improve its operational
effectiveness. This radical concept allows
each of the Bronco’s twin cabins to be
airlifted for quick insertion/withdrawal,
as well as flexibility in adapting the vehicle
by swapping roles and capabilities while
in the field.page 192
Pushing the limits of our products: the Bronco ATTC
thriving under harsh desert conditions at Sand
Mountain in Nevada, US.--page 19http://www.stengg.com/AR2002/images/pdf/act4.pdf
nbnnn
-
wow.If Jane's info is correct and updated,then the good news will be very soon!!
BAE is out and leave ST Kinetics only!!
Publication date
Nov 27, 2008Bronco 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.(lion note:pl read below for verification#)
"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.http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=160384#post160384
thank for our fren here to provide this link.
Vertified by this:
http://www.janes.com/extract/jdw2008/jdw38431.html
Appearing in
Jane's Defence WeeklyPublication date
Nov 27, 2008
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), after UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) procurement officials withdrew from negotiations with BAE Systems Hägglunds 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.Jane's Defence Weekly
The ready to go requirement kicks BAE out of this game!!
"Warthog must be a readily available military off-the-shelf (MOTS) solution, available for delivery of a capability ASAP"
@@@@@@@@@
pl read again if u miss my today posting:
http://www.eda.europa.eu/EbbWeb/bycountry.aspx
page 2
EDA-1783 Cancelled Expired 18/07/2008 12:00 CN Requirement for an All Terrain Military vehicle that is armoured, amphibious and fiited with ( or fiited for but not wirh) weapon systems, in a supporting role to VIKING, to replce the existing BV206.
bbbb
-
Would the fucking idiot lion and sorry excuse for a Singaporean please shut the fuck up and stop posting? It's hard to have an intellectual discussion with the amount of spam and noise coming from you.
-
UK MOD is still not happy with Viking with UOR and looks for replacement.
Why??
The six VIKINGS ordered include three troop carriers and three command post vehicles. Deliveries will begin at the end of 2008 and will include the most current Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) equipment – extra armour, driver’s night vision equipment and infra-red headlights.
BAE Systems Awarded Contract For Additional Viking Vehicles14.08.2008
dd
-
However,there are only 4 variants in BvS 10!
The vehicles are available in four variants-the repair recovery vehicle, the command vehicle, the troop carrier and the ambulance.
New £14 Million Contract for BvS10 Viking Vehicles27.06.2008
nn
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Would the fucking idiot lion and sorry excuse for a Singaporean please shut the fuck up and stop posting? It's hard to have an intellectual discussion with the amount of spam and noise coming from you.
aye.
maybe if we ignore him enough , like they do on Defence news forums to the clone he created there, he'd learn to STFU. he's a dickhead through and through.he dosent understand half of what he's saying.
i'd do my part and stop egging him in responding. i shall only use anti lionnoisy pictures from now on
btw fingoldin_noldor what is it you want to say ?
i think Kotay's analogy of a 3. 5 and 7 tonner quite explains it all. like in the same way the 3 ton was phased out due to changing demands, the BvS10 is being phased out not because it isnt capable enough, its performing above and beyond its weight clas.
they like the functionality of the BvS10 so much but they want a larger supersized version. which therein, the bronco comes into the picture. as its readily avaliable
i think price is another major factor in this acquisition. UK MOD extremely cash strapped after the 2 carriers in construction and operations in iraq/afghanistan.
@ MODS :
flag another potential country bashing thread. lionnoisy has shifted from his "i want to hear only relevant stuff" to an all round britain bashing fest.
first australia, now britain ? next : world ? human race ?
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Would the fucking idiot lion and sorry excuse for a Singaporean please shut the fuck up and stop posting? It's hard to have an intellectual discussion with the amount of spam and noise coming from you.
I am waiting for your valuable input.
2.Can i ask where is the official info about BAE suing STK for
Bronco?In appearance?In engine?In internal layout?
Will STK buy the used BvS 10 or BV 206 from UK MOD?
This is one of the option to take the burden out from UK MOD.
It can save MOD $$ too.
3.UK MOD will not be so stupid to look for replacement if BvS 10
is good for enhanced to a bigger version.The replacement,if any,
will create logistic problem.But u have to balance risks,benefits
and costs.May be they dunt have confidence on bigger or more armour
BvS 10!!We will know the reasons soon!!
4.can u posts the MOD procurement of BvS 10 replacement ASAP??
-
Just ignore him will yeah? He is just an attention whore. For awhile i was experiencing peace and quiet here until some idiot comes hijecking the thread with his senseless post and spoiling everyone's mood here. So just freaking ignore him.
-
from my dear friend, SGTY
Well, I think he is just about to compartmentalize very well... which is not surprising given he has long shown an keen ability to be selective about what he percieves and believes... or maybe he simply reconstructs reality to whatever he wants to believes and part of that is needing to shout that out to other people to allow his unreality to have an "effect" in the real world.
If you have been here for a while you would be aware that he was caught for using clones once. He created a thread under a false account and then started talking to himself, trying to give people the impression that at least there were people supporting.
When caught for he, he panicked and made up several bizzare excuses, accusing me of hacking his account to make him post under the false account (which by the way does not explain how he talks to himself), and then going away for a while.
Till this day if you ask him about the clone incident, he will not dare to talk about it... in fact he treats it like it didn't exist at all... which is basically what he has been doing all the while. When something crops up or a rebuttal comes up that he cannot answer (which is very often), he simply treats it like he never asked the question in the first place and moves on, and then later when enough time has passed he'll raise the same issue in the same way, as if letting a dead point lie low long enough will allow it to have any effect at all.
Not suprisingly, we've seen so many of his methods in here that nobody is really impressed by them anymore, but I suspect he keeps doing what he does is to snare the newcomers to this forum who do not know his history so he can lure them into some pro-Singapore, anti-rest-of-world monologue...
But of course if we note recently his posts have been becoming more and more ineffective, I've requested the mods personally to take action against him if he decides to troll in this forum, so they're watching him careful.
I wonder if he'll learn any lesson from the latest incident of his threads getting pwned.
But in any case this remains the same- he's all noise and no bite... i mean has he ever won anybody to his side after 3 disasterous years in here?
Nope, he's just wasting his energy venting and trying to create a picture of Singapore that isn't... in the meantime he's just providing us with entertainment and target practice.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
aye.
maybe if we ignore him enough , like they do on Defence news forums to the clone he created there, he'd learn to STFU. he's a dickhead through and through.he dosent understand half of what he's saying.
i'd do my part and stop egging him in responding. i shall only use anti lionnoisy pictures from now on
btw fingoldin_noldor what is it you want to say ?
i think Kotay's analogy of a 3. 5 and 7 tonner quite explains it all. like in the same way the 3 ton was phased out due to changing demands, the BvS10 is being phased out not because it isnt capable enough, its performing above and beyond its weight clas.
they like the functionality of the BvS10 so much but they want a larger supersized version. which therein, the bronco comes into the picture. as its readily avaliable
i think price is another major factor in this acquisition. UK MOD extremely cash strapped after the 2 carriers in construction and operations in iraq/afghanistan.
@ MODS :
flag another potential country bashing thread. lionnoisy has shifted from his "i want to hear only relevant stuff" to an all round britain bashing fest.
first australia, now britain ? next : world ? human race ?
The only reason other buy ST products is CHEAP!!
When UK MOD drops a platform of only few years in service,
u will give few good reasons.BAE like to hear and may quote what u say
if they lose in the BvS 10 replacement contract.
2.according to u,the only reason that they buy Bronco is CHEAP!!
This is one form of bashing Singapore.Is it anti--Singapore?
Can BAE just make BvS 10 bigger in few months?
u says
they like the functionality of the BvS10 so much but they want a larger supersized version. which therein, the bronco comes into the picture. as its readily avaliable..
There are two points.
1.Payload
If they like BvS 10 but want higher payload,can they ask BAE make a new one
with higher payload?What are the difficulities to make a bigger platform?
2.readily avaliable
If MOD choose Bronco,according to u,off the shelf is one of the reasons.
BAE is also able to provide off the shelf,even they need to make
a higher payload platform.
U like to defend foreign products but look down Singapore products.
This is very common in this forum.This is ok.I am used to it.
@@@@@@@@@
I dunt say ST stuff are best or first.While u ask people not to bash
other country, pl dunt bash Singapore.
WHAT IS OR ARE THE DAMN TRUE REASONS that UK MOD needs
a BvS 10 replacement?
-
tx sgstars.This is lovely.
-
Originally posted by CenturionMBT:
Just ignore him will yeah? He is just an attention whore. For awhile i was experiencing peace and quiet here until some idiot comes hijecking the thread with his senseless post and spoiling everyone's mood here. So just freaking ignore him.
dunt ignore me.I am very lonely!
Pl bear in mind i have contributed some info for this thread.
Like MOD drops for replacement of BV 206!!Now MOD wants to replace
BvS 10.this is very interesting and very rare.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
i asked on 7 Dec if BvS 10 can perform all of the followings and
no one can tell me the answers,but just BS!!
Now i challenge u guys again:(i like foreign products,u may
say in your heart!!)
pl note capability of Bronco has been improved since 2001 debut:
crossing vertical obstacle from 0.6 m increase to 1 m.(Leo 1.15m.)
trench crossing increase from 1.5 to 2.0 m.(Leo 3 m)
This is not bad compared with MBT which is much bigger and more
powerful!!
Main Battle Tank
Leopard 2A5
http://www.enemyforces.net/tanks/leopard2a5.htm
again,can u tell me performances of other ATTC in crossing obstacle
and trench or ditch.
In order to avoid i am accused wrongly to bash other countries or products,
pl restrict your answers and discussions to individual items.
Pl dunt give overall assessment like A is better than B etc Thanks.
Coming On.....Tell me lah..
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
I am waiting for your valuable input.
2.Can i ask where is the official info about BAE suing STK for
Bronco?In appearance?In engine?In internal layout?
Will STK buy the used BvS 10 or BV 206 from UK MOD?
This is one of the option to take the burden out from UK MOD.
It can save MOD $$ too.
3.UK MOD will not be so stupid to look for replacement if BvS 10
is good for enhanced to a bigger version.The replacement,if any,
will create logistic problem.But u have to balance risks,benefits
and costs.May be they dunt have confidence on bigger or more armour
BvS 10!!We will know the reasons soon!!
4.can u posts the MOD procurement of BvS 10 replacement ASAP??
I don't give a fuck about giving you input. You are by and far the worst pest I have seen on this forum, barring the usual moronic elements that come along. So shut the fuck up and get the fuck lost.
