UK confirms to buy more than 100 Bronco worths 150 m pounds
-
the discussion changed from
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/337139?page=8
to here
@@@@@@@@@@
no moron.
you realize that BaE hagglunds is in sweden ? the parent company making the BvS10 is british (originally, now its more like eurocentric) , but the vehicle itself is made in sweden. any guaruntee of UK jobs ? enough crap. lets get to the i pwn you part.
Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is
just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!
While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets
the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....
So,which one would u choose,if u were the decision maker?
do you get their procurement ? obviously not. why u dont dare reply in the Bronco thread ? reply here ?
do i object to the purchase of the bronco ? have i opposed the bronco's purchase ?why you so nationalist rah rah ? i oppose you and your crap. i have never opposed the ATTC's purchase by UK MOD. get your bloody facts right before you insinuate rubbish.
can you read english ?
the problem with the viking and its replacement by the ATTC is not because its a incompetent vehicle platform or that is so flawed that it cant be rectified. the problem with the viking / BvS10, is that it has reached the limits of its capability growth.
i.e, you can only add on so much armour to a proven platform. additional armour costs greater wear and tear on the engine and transmission. use under combat conditions implies increased wear and tear and mileage.
the viking as a platform is combat exhausted. it has reached the end of its capability upgrade curve. any further upgrades would probably NOT be cost effective and wasting money on a worn-out / overused platform.
2 years of combat wear and tear under operational conditions have probably subjected the viking to the equivalent of about 10 years worth of peacetime operations. is it worth spending on a SLEP / refurb program on something that has no future potential for growth without incurring a performance penalty ?
oh waitaminit, isnt that your poor little lion's problem ? cannot think for himself ? only copy and paste articles and information without thinking them through ?
what is right armour ? does right armour mean heavy armour ? what kinds of armour platforms are you talking about ? what qualities of that kinda armour ? what kind of terrain that armour is operating on ? how reliable is that armour under certain terrain conditions ? does that armor platform have capability upgrade options ? does it have future growth potential ?
you obviously have failed to think this through. dont waste my time with your spam. come back to get your ass pwned when you have a more thoroughly thought through nonsense idea.
do you still need further clarification dear lionnoisy ? or you cannot read ? i even highlighted the key parts so you can skip the rest of the body if you dont have time to read. cos if you have, this is
do u mean the Viking protection is too heavy for its engine?
If so,can they reduce the weight of protection or enhance the engine
or BOTH lah....
U ,as a common western defense analyst,cannot accept that Bronco was chosen.
absolute bullshit.
reduce the weight of protection, upsize engine and so ? whats your point ?
why ? dont realize that your objectives completly dont make sense ?
1) uparmour for more protection = less speed and strain on engine/transmission, ceterius paribus
2) lesser armour for lesser protection = more speed, less wear and tear on engine/transmission, ceterius paribus
3) wartime opeartions means heavier use of vehicle in comparatively more punishing conditions as compared to peacetime operations (like DUH!)
4) 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. not possible to acheive both without substantial upgrades and downtime. coupled with fact 3, which makes the expense needed to refurbish and reequip the viking for such a purpose, not cost efficient.
5) the viking has no future potential growth capacity unless it were given 1. it can be. but at great cost, downtime (and reduction in number of vikings avaliable for service in afghanistan) and little benefit for Long term plans (poor future LR prospects)
consider these 5 simple points. and you will arrive at the same conclusion i did. they are irreconcillable objectives. thats probably why the UK MOD chose the ATTC over the BvS10. your mind is as thick as mud
might as well send UK MOD soldiers on roller blade skates and equip em with kangaroo jump boots. can jump away from mines and IEDs if we follow you
Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is
just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!
While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets
the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....
another whole lot of bullshit here as well.
substantiate why better in performance and price. do you have any objective source or data that states so ?
prove the fact that ST eng was ordering materials to make the ATTC while bae was developing the BvS10 viking. BAE already had a BvS10 viking. its just that it was doing a lengthened version with a larger powerpack to suit the WARTHOG requirements.
so many inaccuracies, so much bullshit.
if you'd like more ass-whipping, continue posting. you'd get it.
Edited by sgstars 21 Mar `09, 8:52PM
Originally posted by lionnoisy:@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hi sgstars,
i have never seen a guy to defend BAE or ang mo products to
this extreme.In essences,Viking is just not up to the tasks.Full stop.
Viking is just flawless.Blame the mother nature or the commanders
expect too much from the platform.
Metal fatigue aka insufficient armor--yes!!
Engine fatigue aka insufficient power---yes!!
U can upgrade most of the stuff.But BAE just not used to upgrade!!
Why MOD cannot wait Bae NEW version.They just too slow
to repond to customers' needs.BAE just think
''i am the big brothers for few decades in ATTC and MOD sure
will continure order from us!!''
But top brass in MOD now treasure life of their soldiers than
national pride.
I have a guess.Just pure guess.Dunt charge me under OSA.
The hull of our stuff may be part of armour!ang moh may never think of
this.I read that the hull US NLOS--Canon is make of aluminmum!
Dunt tell me the following rubbish.
by sgstars --the problem with the viking and its replacement by the ATTC is not because its a incompetent vehicle platform or that is so flawed that it cant be rectified. the problem with the viking / BvS10, is that it has reached the limits of its capability growth.
i.e, you can only add on so much armour to a proven platform. additional armour costs greater wear and tear on the engine and transmission. use under combat conditions implies increased wear and tear and mileage.
the viking as a platform is combat exhausted. it has reached the end of its capability upgrade curve. any further upgrades would probably NOT be cost effective and wasting money on a worn-out / overused platform.
2 years of combat wear and tear under operational conditions have probably subjected the viking to the equivalent of about 10 years worth of peacetime operations. is it worth spending on a SLEP / refurb program on something that has no future potential for growth without incurring a performance penalty ?
oh waitaminit, isnt that your poor little lion's problem ? cannot think for himself ? only copy and paste articles and information without thinking them through ?
what is right armour ? does right armour mean heavy armour ? what kinds of armour platforms are you talking about ? what qualities of that kinda armour ? what kind of terrain that armour is operating on ? how reliable is that armour under certain terrain conditions ? does that armor platform have capability upgrade options ? does it have future growth potential ?
you obviously have failed to think this through. dont waste my time with your spam. come back to get your ass pwned when you have a more thoroughly thought through nonsense idea.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Hi sgstars,
i have never seen a guy to defend BAE or ang mo products to
this extreme.In essences,Viking is just not up to the tasks.Full stop.
Viking is just flawless.Blame the mother nature or the commanders
expect too much from the platform.
Metal fatigue aka insufficient armor--yes!!
Engine fatigue aka insufficient power---yes!!
U can upgrade most of the stuff.But BAE just not used to upgrade!!
Why MOD cannot wait Bae NEW version.They just too slow
to repond to customers' needs.BAE just think
''i am the big brothers for few decades in ATTC and MOD sure
will continure order from us!!''
But top brass in MOD now treasure life of their soldiers than
national pride.
I have a guess.Just pure guess.Dunt charge me under OSA.
The hull of our stuff may be part of armour!ang moh may never think of
this.I read that the hull US NLOS--Canon is make of aluminmum!
Dunt tell me the following rubbish.
LOL...
why ? cant read it or simply the fact that you cant stomach the truth ?
i didnt say engine fatigue or metal fatigue. you are making that up. im stating wear and tear due to operational reasons make refurbing and uparmouring the viking not worth it.
you have issues with that ? disprove it
like wise you keep telling me that they
But top brass in MOD now treasure life of their soldiers than
national pride.
hehehe.. JOKE OF THE DAY.
wat national pride to be had in a vehicle that is made in sweden ? substantiate please.
its because you cant. thats why you keep rambling about the same old nonsense of the bronco replacing the viking. do use ur brain for abit. the BvS10 was ordered up till the 2008. they even procured an additional 14 BvS10 in 2008. shows you how highly they thought of the viking
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1096
ORNSKLDSVIK, Sweden -- BAE Systems has been awarded a £14 million contract from the U.K. Ministry of Defence for 14 BvS10 Viking amphibious armoured all-terrain vehicles, including nine repair recovery vehicles, one command vehicle and four troop carriers.
The vehicles will be used by the UK armed forces in Afghanistan beginning in July 2008.
"The BvS10 Viking has proven its worth while being used by British troops in Afghanistan," said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, Marketing and Sales Director for BAE Systems. "The Afghan terrain can be quite varied and our armoured all-terrain, quick-to-deploy vehicles provide troops with protection and the ability to move wherever and whenever they are required.
The BvS10 Viking consists of two tracked vehicle units linked by a steering mechanism. The vehicle can operate in temperatures from -46C to +49C, providing it with multi-role, worldwide, rapid deployment operational capabilities in jungle, desert and Arctic conditions. The vehicles are available in four variants-the repair recovery vehicle, the command vehicle, the troop carrier and the ambulance.
The UK's Royal Marines received the first delivery of the vehicles in July 2003. This delivery brings the total number of vehicles produced for UK MoD to 143. The total number of produced vehicles is well over 200.
The contract was awarded to the company's Swedish subsidiary, BAE Systems AB through their Hagglunds unit. The vehicles will be built, assembled and completed in Örnskldsvik, Sweden.
BAE Systems
02.07.2008kindly justify your posts. you want to post something, post something fresh. at least give me the benefit of having something fresh to work with. dont give me your same old stale crap, its getting boring. you are just mindless repeating rubbish you dont understand. what does the ATTC have to do with the NLOS-C ?
you are spouting rubbish. dont waste me time any further. remove yourself.
-
i dont think Lionnoisy is a singaporean. just at the way he writes, sound like he is a PRC.
-
He ain't writing. He is jsut CnP from everywhere in the world. N the worse thing is that his CnP skills are really as good as his writing skills.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
LOL...
why ? cant read it or simply the fact that you cant stomach the truth ?
i didnt say engine fatigue or metal fatigue. you are making that up. im stating wear and tear due to operational reasons make refurbing and uparmouring the viking not worth it.
you have issues with that ? disprove it
hehehe.. JOKE OF THE DAY.
wat national pride to be had in a vehicle that is made in sweden ? substantiate please.
its because you cant. thats why you keep rambling about the same old nonsense of the bronco replacing the viking. do use ur brain for abit. the BvS10 was ordered up till the 2008. they even procured an additional 14 BvS10 in 2008. shows you how highly they thought of the viking
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1096
kindly justify your posts. you want to post something, post something fresh. at least give me the benefit of having something fresh to work with. dont give me your same old stale crap, its getting boring. you are just mindless repeating rubbish you dont understand. what does the ATTC have to do with the NLOS-C ?
you are spouting rubbish. dont waste me time any further. remove yourself.
u mention before Viking is ok for 10 years for peace time services,but
2 years in Afgan wear them out.
Can i ask what is the expected performance limit for Viking--for military or civilian use?
May be Viking is not designed for Afagn like terrain and weather.
2.BTW,have u heard Bronco have been tested in variuos terrain and weather
before it is commissioned?Have UK MOD test drive Bronco before
they dumped the long established relationship with BAE?
When Bronco first rolled out fr factory ,the pay load alreday exceed
Viking(5000 kg v max 3850 kg),not to mention if some improvement has been made!!
http://www.one35th.com/attc/attc_pioneer4.htm
MOD just find Viking not suitable lah..BAE is just waiting for order.
BAE should develope a better version ,after Bvs 10 in production.
They just think there will be no competitor and forget Singapore.
This can be a Havard Biz School case study---How u can lose a long
time client if u dunt match your client's needs!!
''29 Oct 2008 : Column WS91
and firepower. It is for this reason that we are procuring over 100 additional Jackal, costing around £75 million, to augment our current fleet, bringing the total to over 300.Viking has provided an excellent capability in Afghanistan, giving us unparalleled access to areas around the Helmand River. But, although we are providing some further enhancements to its protection, we have reached the limit of its ability to carry extra weight and protection. This is why we intend to replace Viking in Afghanistan with an alternative, better protected, high-mobility vehicle, to be known as Warthog; work is under way to identify the right vehicle to fulfil this role. We will procure over 100 new vehicles with deliveries starting at the end of next year.''
Lords Hansard text for 29 Oct 200829 Oct 2008 (pt 0001)
-
eh bummer. me post got deleted.
ild just post a short summary of what i posted
so lionnoisy, test drive a car = ownership of it ? pretty good understanding of it right ? so ild go test drive a lambrohingi gallardo tomorrow and write a book about its engineering and its flaws and good points k ? dont worry, when i write the book , if you purchase a copy, ild definitely autograph for you first.
lol.. u certain afghanistan terrain can be simulated ? let me introduce you to something you've never met before, its called EMPIRICAL evidence
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/sovietexperience.aspx
Providing adequate logistics support in Afghanistan was a constant problem for the 40th Army. The harsh climate and rugged terrain quickly wore out vehicles and equipment. Vehicle fuel systems, cooling systems, and road wheels were particularly susceptible to the harsh conditions. As a result, Soviet maintenance personnel were forced to accelerate scheduled maintenance and services on a variety of weapon systems and vehicles. Although the 40th Army had a Material support Brigade and separate tank, motor vehicle, and artillery repair battalions, it still "lacked sufficient maintenance personnel and facilities during the entire war."[38] The inadequate support resulted in poor readiness, poor maintenance procedures, unsafe repairs, cannibalization of repair parts and a tendency not to conserve the use of vehicles
dont talk to me about testing and field experience. two complete different matters altogether. another factor which distinguishes armchair generals from the field commander, or the pimply, acned 16 year old kid from a trained soldier.
field testing and trials are only meant to simulate the conditions that a vehicle is supposed to encounter. they are not meant to replicate or test the abuse a vehicle gets from a 6 or 9 months tour of duty. think about that for a second and you ought to come to the conclusion of how idiotic that sounds. u wont buy a car without giving it a test drive or putting it through some spins to test and try to find out the weaknesses of the car would you ? but maybe you would, given your intellect, cant say for sure. classic self-pwn from you.
MOD just find Viking not suitable lah..BAE is just waiting for order.
BAE should develope a better version ,after Bvs 10 in production.
They just think there will be no competitor and forget Singapore.
This can be a Havard Biz School case study---How u can lose a long
time client if u dunt match your client's needs!!the day u start planning harvard's syllabus and curriculum, that will be the day harvard's ranking drops like a stone flung from taipei 101. if its never going to happen, dont try to exaggerate it as a means of boosting your credibility. you are only going to paint yourself further as an idiot.
this is not a clear cut issue. its complicated and involves many layers. bad case study if you asked me.
for instance, observe the Bv206 and BvS10 procurement process
1) royal marines are one of the largest Bv206 and BvS10 operators. note the procurement of the ATTC is breaking away from this tradition. anyone asked them what they felt about this ? anyone come out openly to say if the ATTC is more competent than the BvS10 under combat situations ? till the day they do, my belief is still in the BvS10. this is a understory/careful layer that has yet to be played out or explored in detail by anyone yet.
2) according to deagel, BvS10 are expected to have a service life of 20 years. but even with its planned procurement of the ATTC, 14 BvS10 were procured just this january (just before the announcement). previously, the RM ordered a command and control, ambulance and special use variants just the year before in june.
tell me what does this mean ? is the BvS10 going to be phased out completely ? why risk capital investment in old stock/supersceded stuff or weak underarmoured things ? thats a pretty strong hint of service rivalry and disagreement over procurement if you ask me. im not privy to any information more that what you have access to. but the sheer fact that i use my brain to think allows me much more information about this than you do.
'29 Oct 2008 : Column WS91
and firepower. It is for this reason that we are procuring over 100 additional Jackal, costing around £75 million, to augment our current fleet, bringing the total to over 300.Viking has provided an excellent capability in Afghanistan, giving us unparalleled access to areas around the Helmand River. But, although we are providing some further enhancements to its protection, we have reached the limit of its ability to carry extra weight and protection. This is why we intend to replace Viking in Afghanistan with an alternative, better protected, high-mobility vehicle, to be known as Warthog; work is under way to identify the right vehicle to fulfil this role. We will procure over 100 new vehicles with deliveries starting at the end of next year.''
thanks for repeatedly reiterating my point. you have quoted it repeatedly and yet still fail to understand why i keep lambasting your rubbish posts that the BvS10 is inferior to the ATTC. it is not. it has been replaced simply because of it reaching the limit of its upgrade capability. you love flogging dead horses (or to be precise, broncos) in this case do you ?
-
more info fr Army News
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/etc/medialib/imindef_media_library/graphics/army/army_news/download_our_issues/pdf.Par.0064.File.tmp/feb09.pdf
''To fully appreciate the strengths and versatility of the Bronco, one needs to look at its ability to be configured for a wide range of deployment duties. Leveraging on its cross-terrain capability,
the Bronco can be converted into a mobile-ambulance, in which stretchers and other medical equipment are installed into the rear unit. Another important usage is in the general recovery of other vehicles or equipment. In this instance, the rear unit can be converted into a general recovery unit. The Bronco can also be converted into a mortar carrier, where the weapon is mounted onto the rear unit.
When deployed to Afghanistan, the British Army’s Broncos (which will be renamed ‘Warthogs’) will provide enhanced protection
from mines and improvised explosives. This protection is critical given that the British Army’s current ATTCs operating in Afghanistan have suffered heavy losses from such explosives used by the Taliban forces. The first shipment of Broncos will arrive on British shores in the middle of this year. They will be further modified and reconfigured to meet the operational demands
of the Afghan battlefield.'' -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
This is a peanut deal.Neither ST Kinetics nor SG gavaman need the profits.
I am afraid all these ammo and weapons exports will create enemy
to Singapore and people.I dunt want any Singaporean,touch wood,
will be targeted in any hostage!!I repeat my serious appeal
to ST Kientics NOT to bid for US rifle M 4 replacement !!
No singaporean want to associate with US army who carry a SAR 21,
and a 40 mm GL with ABSM!!This will create troubles for SG when
people watching news and see Yankee carring a SAR 21!!
Then they remember Oh Singapore.
I salute top brass of UK MoD who put their heads on chopping board
They risk their carrer for the lifes of British soldiers.
...................................
cant stop laughing when i read this ... hahahahhahahah
mate, WAKE UP! dont sleep!!!!! I THINK U R DRUNK AND U DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT U ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!! GO TO BED LAH.... GO.....
Reply/Quote