Singapore to Supply Armored Vehicles to U.K.

[sunnyamy]

By Andrew Chuter

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."

A spokeswomen for STK declined to comment.

The selection is a major setback for armored vehicle supplier BAE Systems. The company's Viking all-terrain vehicle has been in service with the Royal Marines for several years. It's also been in use in Afghanistan by the British Army.

BAE's Swedish subsidiary, Hägglunds, bid a Mark 2 version of the Viking but failed to overcome its Singaporean rival who offered a higher payload and more capacity to transport troops. Bronco deliveries are expected to start next year.

The vehicles, to be known as Warthogs in British service, will replace Vikings currently being operated in southern Afghanistan by the British military.

Bronco is already in service with the Singaporean armed forces, but the British deal will be the first export win for STK. Thales UK is expected to be the vehicle integrator for the British Broncos.

As the Singaporeans prepare to conclude the deal, it emerged earlier this week that BAE had secured an urgent operational requirement to upgrade the Viking fleet in Afghanistan with increased protection against mines and roadside bombs. About 120 vehicles are having armored belly plates and other measures fitted.

[sunnyamy]

I have just copied this post from another forum because of the followng reasons:

(i) it contains relevant information on the potential sale of the Bronco to the UK; and

(ii) it points out the bias in the reporting by Jane's (a respected magazine) - I don't think I can do better than the original author - so I set it out in full for your reading pleasure.

Just read this article on the 3 Dec 2008 issue of Jane's, which reports that:

1. The contract is not quite in the bag for ST Kinetics yet, as no trials have taken place and the lobbying by BAE Systems has just began.

2. The last 2 paragraphs in the 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:

Bronco 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.

"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.

[BD1]

British (and some other modern) armies are starting to look like Wehrmacht in 1941 , with this Bronco the British Army will operate now 3 different vehicles of that type - Bv-206, Bv-S10 and the Bronco; god-only-knows how many different wheeled vehicles - Land Rovers, 2-3 Supacat (the little carrier thingy and new truck - 4x4, WMIK, 6x6, 8x8?) versions, 2-3 MRAP-s (the Cougar 4x4/6x6), Panther, MAN trucks, older DAF/Leyland trucks, 2 Oshkosh trucks (HET and MTVR) , new Navistar über-Hummer, Duro trucks, Pinzgauers . Probably missed dozens of others .

What happened to standardization ?

[sunnyamy]

with this Bronco the British Army will operate now 3 different vehicles of that type - Bv-206, Bv-S10 and the Bronco...

What happened to standardization ?

(i) In 2000 the SAF ordered over 600 Bronco ATTCs (to replace its Swedish Hagglunds BV 206s) and has been fully operational for several years. This meant that the Singapore army began to plan to phase out our BV 206s in the late 1990s (as it could not meet our needs even then).

(ii) Singapore's DSTA & ST Kinetics bore the development costs and risks that resulted in (a) a patented coupling (allowing each unit can be transported slung under a tactical helicopter and the ability to change rear modules); and (b) active and passive armour package integration.

(iii) Using the Bronco (which is larger) means less trips to ferry the same amount of equipment. Further, the integration of a passive armour package enhances survivability. And BTW, the Bronco is heli-portable as a under slung load (as 2 loads) - thanks to its patented coupling design.

(iv) It is also ready now as an off-the-shelf solution. BAE's offer of the Viking Mk 2 (still in development and is not ready for production until 2Q 2009) is inferior to the Bronco - in protection offered, in carrying capacity (which means more supply runs with the Viking Mk 2) and in features.

(v) The lack of standardization - is a reflection of MoD's prior planning considerations. The MoD's prior specification of the inferior Viking has come back to haunt them now.

(vi) What BAE is saying to MoD is -- I know you can buy a more advanced and bigger vehicle (at about the same price) - but you should still choose our inferior product. This is because, even our improved design, we are not even going to try to match the current features of the Bronco. In fact, MoD should change its current specification to favour BAE products. This is a shambolic performance by BAE as a British defence technology company. The British army deserves better.

It's little wonder MoD is forced to look elsewhere - which leads to a lack of standardization.

[BD1]

The question is not that is SAF replacing Bv-206, but is UK doing it ? What SAf does in their home, is unimportant to the British. AFAIK british are not retiring their Bv-s, but are buying another new vehicle of similar type.

my comment was not meant to ridicule the Bronco, which is probably a really nice vehicle, but to comment how modern armies are buying rather small quantities of different vehicles, ending up with more of a collectors ´dream collection´ rather than a standardized, systematical approach. The Warthog and the rest of of the program has been described as specific for A-stan. What if the next war zone is somewhere else ? Then again spend ~700 million pounds of emergency purchases?

[Kernow]

The question is not that is SAF replacing Bv-206, but is UK doing it ? What SAf does in their home, is unimportant to the British. AFAIK british are not retiring their Bv-s, but are buying another new vehicle of similar type.

my comment was not meant to ridicule the Bronco, which is probably a really nice vehicle, but to comment how modern armies are buying rather small quantities of different vehicles, ending up with more of a collectors ´dream collection´ rather than a standardized, systematical approach. The Warthog and the rest of of the program has been described as specific for A-stan. What if the next war zone is somewhere else ? Then again spend ~700 million pounds of emergency purchases?

You need vehicles for the type of theatre one is operating in, Challenger 2 is no good for this type of theatre, Land Rover is soft skinned, the Viking is actually for use in places like Norway i.e. Snow, therefore alternatives were sought. At present the British Army has the following 'Protected Patrol Vehicles':
Vector, Viking, Mastiff, Jackal and the Panther all of which have a different role to play.