Serious Terrex 3 not built by locals!

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/eurosatory-secret-behind-terrex/

As Singapore Technologies Kinetics announces the delivery of two prototype 8x8 Terrex 3 vehicles to Australia to participate in trials, it is not as well know where the vehicle came from.

In fact the prototypes were built in Ireland by engineering and technology firm Timoney, based in Navan, which has been better known in the past for providing drive train and axles.

Terrex 3 weighs 35t and is not amphibious, like the previous variants that were. Simon Wilkins, business development director at Timoney, told Shephard that with a staff of 35 and their workshop facility they managed to build the two prototype Terrex 3 vehicles in just eight weeks after the first parts arrived in Ireland in February.

Looking ahead to the UK’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) programme, Wilkins expects all the usual vehicle manufacturing suspects to be there and believes there is work for them here too.

He said that this reflects their business strategy, to go out and help independent countries develop their own armoured vehicles by providing design and engineering assistance and offer an entire automotive solution for ‘below the hull’.

The company is now expanding an offer of complete automotive solutions for aspiring military vehicle manufacturers through technology transfer.

The Terrex 3 was developed from the common baseline vehicle and ‘up-specced’ so that it can handle more armour.

Not only has Timoney been heavily involved in building Terrex prototypes for STK, they supported Lockheed Martin with a design in their bid for the USMC ACV1.1, which LM built in Dallas; and they have helped state-run Emirates Defence Technology build their 8x8 called Enigma that was displayed at IDEX in 2015.

Although Wilkins is not able to say where the Enigma vehicle in the UAE was built he said that the 8x8 was heading for summer trials this year.

The company also 100% designed the Bushmaster vehicle, better known as the vehicle product marketed by Thales Australia, which actually builds it under license.

Timoney is now offering an entire powerpack and build prototypes for their customers. The latest partnership announced at Eurosatory is with Yugoimport-SDPR, which is developing its new Lazar 8x8 vehicle with Timoney, which has designed the driveline, axles, steering system and transfer case.

An initial set of 12 vehicles has been contracted with further orders expected. Texelis, which is Timoney’s production partner, is building the vehicles but they hope for more work to come to Navan.

The Terrex vehicle has gone through three variations. The first that Timoney helped design was the 24t vehicle, which was then updated to a 26t vehicle, which was demonstrated in the US for the USMC ACV1.1 programme.

The result of this testing was new specifications developed for the USMC with a new driveline that brought the vehicle up to 28t.Two prototypes were built by Timoney, P1 and P2 that were funded by STK to help them achieve a downselect for ACV.

For this programme they are now building 16 vehicles for further trials and it was one of these that was displayed at Singapore.

Timoney does not just do 8x8s, the company is active in the smaller armoured vehicle markets too working on 4x4 and 6x6 vehicles. They are with Polish company PGZ on 4x4s and are taking the UAE concept further to provide a driveable rolling chassis that can be used to develop MRAP-type vehicles.

***

Congrats, your taxpayers money goes to an Irish firm.

We are Chinese in the main. Our DNA will be difficult to alter. Its in our blood to be entrepreneurial. We might have gone on scholarships to Ivy league colleges and Oxbridge but we know deep down that it is easier to get returns from setting up restaurants and eateries in malls, flipping properties by getting to know developers, by rubbing shoulders with captains of industries and by keeping our ears open to outside opportunities.

Investing your time and effort in a public service endeavour whose natural delivery timeline is more than a year or two and only if nothing changes and there is actual demand. In the case of armaments and defence where the timelines extend to 15 years and even with a captive army in SAF, it is not worth the effort. Look at Ho Ching who started life in DSO as a Scholar. She has been in fund management since 2002, that 14 years. Even Lim Siong Guan also a scholar who started Singapore Shipbuilding and Engineering for Ministry of Defence is now in GIC and into fund management.

We will never be like Isreal where their innovation and immersion in deep science is widely acknowledged. They do not draw excessive level of remuneration on appointment to a post. They actually innovate and start their own company with wonderful start given by their Armed Forces. If they were drawing $300k per year by the age of 30 in their Govt, they too would be complacent and let the pay checks roll in with having nothing to deliver. The target is making sure that you have something to show that is better than someone else and your appraisal is generally based on your personal attributes rather than what was delivered

Can anyone recall a single scholar that has contributed towards material change in the last 20 years. Can you even recall a single item of material change in the last 20 years from the Civil Service, a Govt Agencies or even a GLC.

What we can show is a list of failures over the last 20 years.

And we genuinely think we can build and sell a first rate fighting machine all by ourselves. Grow up.

Please lah, get some facts first. The relationship between Timoney and ST is much longer then that. They have had a hand in the development of most ST AFVs, going back to the 1990s when they participated in the upgrade of the AMX-13 to SM1 standard. The hydro-pneumatic suspension for example was from Timoney, put in to replace the original torsion bar system. They also had a hand in the Bronco and of course now the Terrex. did you really think the idiots at ST have the brains to do it? By the way, ST is a major shareholder of Timoney, so its logical to use them for design work.

Papsmearer said:

Please lah, get some facts first. The relationship between Timoney and ST is much longer then that. They have had a hand in the development of most ST AFVs, going back to the 1990s when they participated in the upgrade of the AMX-13 to SM1 standard. The hydro-pneumatic suspension for example was from Timoney, put in to replace the original torsion bar system. They also had a hand in the Bronco and of course now the Terrex. did you really think the idiots at ST have the brains to do it? By the way, ST is a major shareholder of Timoney, so its logical to use them for design work.

Click to expand...

Oh really? Then why aren't you writing this up and sending it to SDP?

Why cannot? Half of our population are Foreigners.

Unless you are Baba, you are not native Singaporeans lah!

Dun be picky! Be thankful we have such a fine ICV!

http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-best-armoured-personnel-carriers-4142101/

Who designed the Ultimax 100?

Old man remember only this......

steffychun said:

Oh really? Then why aren't you writing this up and sending it to SDP?

Click to expand...

If the SDP had half an ounce of brain, they would be regulars on this forum, just like the PAP and the WP are. That will save me the time to send anything to them.

Debonerman said:

Who designed the Ultimax 100?

Click to expand...

Leroy James Sullivan. An american who was on Eugene Stoner's design team for the M-16. Hired by Chartered Industries to design the Ultimax-100. Maybe they should have made him the chief weapons designer for CIS, then you wouldn't have horror stories like the SAR-80.

You wan design by locals? You not scare outfield breakdown like MRT?

Papsmearer said:

Leroy James Sullivan. An american who was on Eugene Stoner's design team for the M-16. Hired by Chartered Industries to design the Ultimax-100. Maybe they should have made him the chief weapons designer for CIS, then you wouldn't have horror stories like the SAR-80.

Click to expand...

Sullivan was paid USD 1,000,000 and he was fighting CIS on the patents which are nothing more than laws of physics....

SAR 80 was designed by rookie called Daniel Goh, a arsehole who studied mining engineering and has zero experience in weapon design!! Like many dorks in ST he got promoted many times........each time just before his old mistakes catch up with him. Such is the culture of CIS which morphed into ST Engrg

mojito said:

You wan design by locals? You not scare outfield breakdown like MRT?

Click to expand...

got got........ SAR 80 was designed by rookie Daniel Goh
SMRT din design the trains, rolling stock, signalling n related systems............. they came from Saw PH's cunt hairs n she is a Malaysian

Pls lor. Proton should b able to build this in under 3 weeks doing 5 prayers a day. Why pay extra 5 weeks for lazy angmoh to get drunk1/2 way through the job

Papsmearer said:

Leroy James Sullivan. An american who was on Eugene Stoner's design team for the M-16. Hired by Chartered Industries to design the Ultimax-100. Maybe they should have made him the chief weapons designer for CIS, then you wouldn't have horror stories like the SAR-80.

Click to expand...

the u-100 is a fairly lightweight and accurate weapon. saw it being demonstrated in the mid-80s. this is proof that sg needs foreign talent.

Hans168 said:

Sullivan was paid USD 1,000,000 and he was fighting CIS on the patents which are nothing more than laws of physics....

SAR 80 was designed by rookie called Daniel Goh, a arsehole who studied mining engineering and has zero experience in weapon design!! Like many dorks in ST he got promoted many times........each time just before his old mistakes catch up with him. Such is the culture of CIS which morphed into ST Engrg

Click to expand...

Dr Daniel Goh from Nottingham U was also multiple promoted till he became EVP of Singapore Cable Vision during which he backstabbed his angmoh boss and took over the top job in SCV. He din last too long as his experience is as short as his armpit hair and his knowledge in mining engrg cannot be used. he was soon sacked by Khaw Boon Wan who was Chairman SCV and Perm Sec MTI......... thereafter he was never seen nor heard - cud it be living on the greases he had accumulated????? huat ah...............

eatshitndie said:

the u-100 is a fairly lightweight and accurate weapon. saw it being demonstrated in the mid-80s. this is proof that sg needs foreign talent.

Click to expand...

if the rifle so gangho, why it was not used as std army issue??? yes it was light n hv almost no mule kick unlike Lee Enfield 303

Hans168 said:

got got........ SAR 80 was designed by rookie Daniel Goh
SMRT din design the trains, rolling stock, signalling n related systems............. they came from Saw PH's cunt hairs n she is a Malaysian

Click to expand...

Daniel Goh could not design a toilet if his life depended on it. SAR-80 was originally a Sterling design, by their chief engineer Frank Waters. Stirling at that time was famous for its Sterling Mk 4 9mm submachine gun. They decided to get into the 5.56mm game as that was the future universal NATO calibre. Their design was so crap that they decide not to pursue it and instead licensed with Armalite to build the AR-18 in their factory. Along came CIS who had capacity in its AR-15/M-16 factory, after having fulfilled the SAF's order. Because they could not sell the AR-15 to other countries due to the licensing agreement, they decided to look around for other weapons they could manufacture and sell overseas as well as sell to the SAF.

They decided to buy the Stirling design and call it the SAR-80. The design was crap. It was ergonomically bad, it was heavy and it was poorly made. Even the version with the folding stock was heavier then the AR-15. I was in the first unit to trial this weapon. The original idea was to issue the compact version (folding stock) to the Commandoes and to Armour. But it was decided to quickly kill the whole project because it was crap. Only 20,000 was ever build. The morons at CIS (might have been Whore Jinx by this time) should have asked themselves why if this design was so damn good would Sterling give up on it and instead get a license from Armalite for a totally different gun. In the end, Frank Waters was no Eugene Stoner, and we can chalk this up to yet another in a long series of CIS/ST blunders.

P.S. I forgot to mention to that one of the main reasons for CIS getting the STirling design was the cost. CIS was making the M-16 under license in those days for USD$540 per gun, part of the cost being the licensing fee for each gun. They were making the SAR-80 for $200 less, big difference if you intend to sell 200,000 to the SAF.

eatshitndie said:

the u-100 is a fairly lightweight and accurate weapon. saw it being demonstrated in the mid-80s. this is proof that sg needs foreign talent.

Click to expand...

I have used the Ultimax 100 myself. Its not light at all compared to a M-16/AR-15. Its at least 1.5kg heavier. But compared to other SAWs (Squad automatic Weapons), its fairly light. Its only accurate if you fire selective. Full auto is as accurate as other full autos, which is to say not good at all. The weapon has been perfected now. Earlier teething problems included multiple jams due to the drum mag and also the weak recoil spring. As well, the barrel heated up to fast. But the Mk 2 and Mk3 are much improved.

Hans168 said:

if the rifle so gangho, why it was not used as std army issue??? yes it was light n hv almost no mule kick unlike Lee Enfield 303

Click to expand...

Its a SAW (squad automatic weapon), not a riflemen's weapon. You need an assault rifle for that. So, that you can hang things on it like grenade launchers, scopes etc. which you cannot do on a Ultimax.

scroobal said:

We are Chinese in the main. Our DNA will be difficult to alter. Its in our blood to be entrepreneurial. We might have gone on scholarships to Ivy league colleges and Oxbridge but we know deep down that it is easier to get returns from setting up restaurants and eateries in malls, flipping properties by getting to know developers, by rubbing shoulders with captains of industries and by keeping our ears open to outside opportunities.

Investing your time and effort in a public service endeavour whose natural delivery timeline is more than a year or two and only if nothing changes and there is actual demand. In the case of armaments and defence where the timelines extend to 15 years and even with a captive army in SAF, it is not worth the effort. Look at Ho Ching who started life in DSO as a Scholar. She has been in fund management since 2002, that 14 years. Even Lim Siong Guan also a scholar who started Singapore Shipbuilding and Engineering for Ministry of Defence is now in GIC and into fund management.

We will never be like Isreal where their innovation and immersion in deep science is widely acknowledged. They do not draw excessive level of remuneration on appointment to a post. They actually innovate and start their own company with wonderful start given by their Armed Forces. If they were drawing $300k per year by the age of 30 in their Govt, they too would be complacent and let the pay checks roll in with having nothing to deliver. The target is making sure that you have something to show that is better than someone else and your appraisal is generally based on your personal attributes rather than what was delivered

Can anyone recall a single scholar that has contributed towards material change in the last 20 years. Can you even recall a single item of material change in the last 20 years from the Civil Service, a Govt Agencies or even a GLC.

What we can show is a list of failures over the last 20 years.

And we genuinely think we can build and sell a first rate fighting machine all by ourselves. Grow up.

Click to expand...

i think sinkies are a failure even when it comes to entrepreneurship and business.how many world class businesses or companies have we build?or mncs with a global presence?the biggest company we have is singtel with a market cap of 60 bil,even then singtel only has a market presence or interest in regional countries.most of our big name singapore companies are state funded companies and most of them were derived from fundamental needs and already had a ready market in need of their services,things like transportation,banking,telecommunications,utilities,waste disposal,real estate etc etc.how many companies were derived from innovation or high tech industries that needs to stay ahead of the curve or are able to compete in the global markets?all we have are monopolies grown in a isolated cacoon,a insulated bubble.

but lucky the only saving redemption of singapore is chinks love money,otherwise we be a stinking shithole like indoland and mudland.