OFFICIAL: Singapore to Supply Bronco Amd Vhls to U.K

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by fantassin, Dec 5, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 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.

    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."

    More at:


    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3849630&c=ASI&s=LAN
     
  2. Are these things more mine resistant? V shaped hull or any of that?
     
  3. This seems ridiculous to me, why bring in a completly new vehicle, won't that just complicate logistics? :?
     
  4. Having had contact with the team involved with WARTHOG, there will be a full ILS solution offered as well with whatever is offered. Its just as important as the vehicle itself. Now whether or not its chosen BRONCO does give that added capacity.
    I could say more but cant!!!! :threaten:
     
  5. R mannuals included within the purchase or do they come much later on...
     
  6. Manuals??? Pah!! Its all CDROM/Online nowadays to go with that lack of IT to view the things!!!! :x
     
  7. So viking wasn't up to the job on Herrick then ? So Warthog will be ? :roll:

    If Warthog is a better vehicle why did we purchase the Viking ?

    I asked a friend of mine, Mr J.Lydon and he said, "Cos it's British !"

    This vehicle can carry more troops but will still be as vulnerable as the viking.

    Are any of our vehicles being fitted with front mounted anti mine rollers as an additional protective measure ? Even the Danes have got specialised mine flails in the Stan (Although, the two I saw seemed to be on permanent "park.").
     
  8. VIKING was up to the job until the IED's got bigger.
    Careful, WARTHOG is the project name and not the actual vehicle. If its BRONCO that is chosen to provide the WARTHOG solution, then its bigger and therefore can more than likely handle more armour.
    VIKING is only British because BAe own Hagglunds.
     
  9. Probably because the Viking was selected in 1999 and the Bronco was released in 2000.
    The time travel machines are still awaiting shipment.
     
  10. I never profess to being an expert !

    I thought Viking was finally approved in 2003ish ?

    That's just an aside !

    Any info on front fitted mine rollers ? Why rely on a vehicle to survive a detonation at possible risk to the occupants when a simple device would detonate IED's/mines (edit) instead and therefore creating less of a risk ?
    There are pro's & cons I'm sure.

    Maybe this should be a new topic ?
     
  11. I would hazard that the Viking (BvS 210) had sufficient commonality to the unarmoured Bv 206, which was already in service with the Royal Marines, that it offered some logistical benefits.
     
  12. It's like the government are going for the 'made in china' cheap option.
     
  13. If you are on about the "proposed" VIKING replacement, BRONCO, then it has been driven by VIKING experts and its pretty good.....i have been told :roll:
     
  14. The Americans did this on some of their vehicles as a solution to the PIR threat. All the enemy did was alter the configuration of the IED to ensure that the main vehicle was targeted.
     
  15. They are from Singapore, which ain't exactly SEA cheap.