The Warthog aka Bronco

[HTOLAS]

Back in 2008 and 2009, many Bronco all-terrain vehicles were refitted and sold as the Warthog to the British army with much fanfare.

Britain was then ruled by Labour. When the Conservative Lib-Dem coalition came to power last year, they cancelled quite a few defence contracts. Was the Bronco / Warthog one of them? If so, what has been the impact on ST?

 

[vamjok]

don't think so, they are using it in Afghanistan

 

[Papsmearer]

Back in 2008 and 2009, many Bronco all-terrain vehicles were refitted and sold as the Warthog to the British army with much fanfare.

Britain was then ruled by Labour. When the Conservative Lib-Dem coalition came to power last year, they cancelled quite a few defence contracts. Was the Bronco / Warthog one of them? If so, what has been the impact on ST?

No, it has not been cancelled. ST won the contract almost by default. The Brit foot soldier likes it, and the politicians are sensitive to what the soldiers want.

 

[kukubird58]

hahaha....let's give credits where credits are due.
british/european/us defence industries are not as open as 1 thinks.
you can bet the last dollar there will be strong lobbies and hence it is definitely a breakthrough.

stk warthog won the contract because:
1. it met the tech specs and performance specs.
2. it passed all the field tests and trials
3. able to meet delivey date by apparently procuring materials before contract.

 

[HTOLAS]

That's good to know because I think this is one of the best products of its class in the market.

 

[Char_Azn]

That's good to know because I think this is one of the best products of its class in the market.

Yes lives are at stack, the Brits don't mess around with what they buy. It is good to know that we are capable of producing combat worthy equipment locally.

It is also interesting to note that the Warthog is actually a slightly modified version of the Bronco, they added more armor on it. I wonder if SAF will start doing the same modifications to the existing Bronco when it's due for it's next upgrade cycle

 

[HTOLAS]

Indeed, lives are at stake. I wonder why they did not purchase this Scandi model instead.

Yes lives are at stack, the Brits don't mess around with what they buy. It is good to know that we are capable of producing combat worthy equipment locally.

It is also interesting to note that the Warthog is actually a slightly modified version of the Bronco, they added more armor on it. I wonder if SAF will start doing the same modifications to the existing Bronco when it's due for it's next upgrade cycle

 

[cleareyes]

Indeed, lives are at stake. I wonder why they did not purchase this Scandi model instead.

The brits did use The Vikings at first but the Vikings cannot takke the punishment which the Warthog could handle.

As for SAF, we did have some Vikings in our inventory before as well but find it not suitable for jungle.

 

[Char_Azn]

Indeed, lives are at stake. I wonder why they did not purchase this Scandi model instead

Can't see your video but in any case, they did. They used the Swedish Viking. It failed in similar incidence before in Afghanistan which was what prompted them to purchase the SG model in the first place. Like it or not the Bronco have provide

Families call for Viking early replacement

And our model have at least proven to be combat capable

Welwyn Hatfield-born soldier survives Afghanistan bomb blast

Just becoz it's made in SG doesn't mean it's bad

 

[HTOLAS]

If I've given the impression that 'made in Sg is no good' I apologise - it was never meant that way.

Can't see your video but in any case, they did. They used the Swedish Viking. It failed in similar incidence before in Afghanistan which was what prompted them to purchase the SG model in the first place. Like it or not the Bronco have provide

Families call for Viking early replacement

And our model have at least proven to be combat capable

Welwyn Hatfield-born soldier survives Afghanistan bomb blast

Just becoz it's made in SG doesn't mean it's bad

 

[Papsmearer]

hahaha....let's give credits where credits are due.
british/european/us defence industries are not as open as 1 thinks.
you can bet the last dollar there will be strong lobbies and hence it is definitely a breakthrough.

stk warthog won the contract because:
1. it met the tech specs and performance specs.
2. it passed all the field tests and trials
3. able to meet delivey date by apparently procuring materials before contract.

Please lah, nothing can be further from the truth. U don't know how to give credit, better don't. The Vikings the Brits were using were turning out to be not suitable for the Afghan theatre. They has a smaller engine than the Bronco, smaller payload and range, and had an aluminum armour type body which was not as good as the Broncos steel armour construction. The IEDs and roadside bombs were making their Vikings vulnerable in A-stan. Things got so bad, (u can read the article the other poster attached), the UK MOD issued a UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) for a better version of the Viking. Hagglunds, the maker of The Viking was actually developing the Viking 2, but that was just on the boards in development stage. The parent company in Sweden, hagglunds, was not doing any more work on their articulated all terrain vehicle.

Therefore, ST Engineering, by the purest of ass luck was the default winner, as no one else in the world makes articulated armour vehicles on the scale we do. Basically, the UOR is issued so they can buy off the shelf equipment, and hence called it the Warthog. SInce ST was already making the Bronco, it was really off the shelf. When I read the price,($330 million for 110 vehicles) I knew ST would lose money on the deal, but they did it to just get their feet in the door of the western armoured vehicle business. Even than, what they sold to the Brits was the base vehicle. Thales in the UK added on 2 tons of armour to the Bronco and did other mods required by the British army, and the fucking thing could not handle it. ST Eng. paiseh like shit, since their stated specs on the vehicle given the power to weight ratio allowed for the uparmour of the vehicle. as a result, the actual issue to the troops was delayed a few months until they worked out the kinks. But still faster than the waiting for the new Viking 2.

Right now, issued to troops in A-stan, and seems to be doing good there. But once the Viking 2 is ready, they may replace the warthogs. Also, if the SAF was smart, they should take note of the British mods, in particular the additional armour and learn from them and retro fit all the existing Broncos. So, there u have the story, I call it providence.

 

[Papsmearer]

The brits did use The Vikings at first but the Vikings cannot takke the punishment which the Warthog could handle.

As for SAF, we did have some Vikings in our inventory before as well but find it not suitable for jungle.

We had the Vikings so they could be copied by ST and turned into the Bronco.

 

[Char_Azn]

Therefore, ST Engineering, by the purest of ass luck was the default winner, as no one else in the world makes articulated armour vehicles on the scale we do.

1)Like kukubird stated that the following 3 issues were not met:
1. it met the tech specs and performance specs.
2. it passed all the field tests and trials
3. able to meet delivey date by apparently procuring materials before contract.
Do you really think they would waste $300million on this deal?

It was all just down to pure luck and that Bronco was the only freaking vehicle available that's why they were awarded the deal then the Brits would probably have looked for other better alternative solution instead of throwing 300million our way. The fact that they actually spent that much money on the deal proves that the Bronco is a superior unit to the Viking in the first place.

2)Yes there was a delay between sale of vehicle to combat in Afghan which was widely reported. Reason being as U said due to problems adding extra armor onto the vehicle. Is that even surprising? You don't add 2 extra wheels on your car and expect it to work just fine without having to plan and test it. The extra armor cause some wear and tear issue which were eventually resolved

3)And in the first place the entire deal had already involve the extra armaments. The deal was closed with Thales involvement whom ST had contracted to add the extra Armor onto the Warthog. It's not a 1 sided deal where the Brits bought the thing realize its not good and decided the change it. ST doesn't need to "learn" from Thales, they were involved in the entire modification process in the first place

 

[kukubird58]

1)Like kukubird stated that the following 3 issues were not met:
1. it met the tech specs and performance specs.
2. it passed all the field tests and trials
3. able to meet delivey date by apparently procuring materials before contract.
Do you really think they would waste $300million on this deal?

hahaha...nvm...forget it lah....it is difficult and a waste of time to argue with somebody who lacks basic comprehension skills.

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Yes lives are at stack, the Brits don't mess around with what they buy. It is good to know that we are capable of producing combat worthy equipment locally.

It is also interesting to note that the Warthog is actually a slightly modified version of the Bronco, they added more armor on it. I wonder if SAF will start doing the same modifications to the existing Bronco when it's due for it's next upgrade cycle

Why did STK listen to Engineering Consultancy Diesenroth in having the armour in Al Oxide instead of Moh hardness 9.7 silcon carbide which is the top grade passive armour of the day????

How stupid to put on Al Oxide tiles only to have Thales either add on or strip them replacing with SiC armour. WTF way of wasting money! The dept responsible for makeing such moronic decision ought to be shot... heard the same guy is now ST CTO - wow wee.... true or not?

 

[sleaguepunter]

looking the youtube, the warthog is a different vehicle from the bronco. in saf, the bronco was never meant to be a troop carrier so there no need to better armour for it as it was not meant to be fighting at the front. That also why the vehicle commander have to man the 7.62GPMG unprotected wheras the warthog have a armoured cupula. Not sure if the engine plant is the same as the bronco.

a bit surprise BA even consider the bronco, not much different from the BV206. Bronco is just a copy of the BV, abit being bigger and can carry a bigger payload. Why the BA use it as a troop carrier, for it aircon? If i a trooper in the BA, i rather sit in FV510 Warrior.

As a ex reservist of the singapore armoured regiment, i am not impress the the quality of both the equipments and leadership of the armour corp. As i was enlisted during the transition period, my experience started from M113 and ended in bionix. I still prefer the old M113 over the overweight and oversize bionix. A piece of shit that is still end user UNfriendly.

 

[Papsmearer]

Why did STK listen to Engineering Consultancy Diesenroth in having the armour in Al Oxide instead of Moh hardness 9.7 silcon carbide which is the top grade passive armour of the day????

How stupid to put on Al Oxide tiles only to have Thales either add on or strip them replacing with SiC armour. WTF way of wasting money! The dept responsible for makeing such moronic decision ought to be shot... heard the same guy is now ST CTO - wow wee.... true or not?

Actually, I am not sure whether what u say is accurate or not. As far as i know, Bronco/Warthog supplied to UK was base model with no applique armour from Disenroth or anyone else. They are shipped to the UK like that. Permali is the one that was contracted to make the applique armour for the Warthog, and also the spall liners. Permali is already the supplier to the UK army for applique armour for Scorpions, and their IFVs. I believe they use a composite armour rather than hardened steel. Permali makes all the applique armour and spall liners for the Warthog, and they are shipped to the Thales facility to be integrated. So, as far as I know, they do not strip any armour out from the Broncos. I believe they want it like this to have commonality with their other AFVs so that any damage can be repaired easily. If they use the ST supplied applique armour, I believe its a Mexas variation, than its a logistics problem for them. This is also one of the reasons why ST can win the contract because they do not have to supply the vehicles with the armour.

Anyway, In the matters of applique armour, ST always listen to Diesenroth. ST had no experience in this area whatsoever. Diesenroth was the one who helped ST with the Mexas for the Bionix and what not. In fact, I think the relationship between ST and Disenroth is a good one. Their technology in this field is way ahead of anything in Asia.

 

[Papsmearer]

looking the youtube, the warthog is a different vehicle from the bronco. in saf, the bronco was never meant to be a troop carrier so there no need to better armour for it as it was not meant to be fighting at the front. That also why the vehicle commander have to man the 7.62GPMG unprotected wheras the warthog have a armoured cupula. Not sure if the engine plant is the same as the bronco.

a bit surprise BA even consider the bronco, not much different from the BV206. Bronco is just a copy of the BV, abit being bigger and can carry a bigger payload. Why the BA use it as a troop carrier, for it aircon? If i a trooper in the BA, i rather sit in FV510 Warrior.

As a ex reservist of the singapore armoured regiment, i am not impress the the quality of both the equipments and leadership of the armour corp. As i was enlisted during the transition period, my experience started from M113 and ended in bionix. I still prefer the old M113 over the overweight and oversize bionix. A piece of shit that is still end user UNfriendly.

I am armour appointment holder too. Sad to say, I agree with you. Armour as a fighting arm has fallen a lot. In fact when the SAF bought the BV 20 and than later copied it into the Bronco, I even venture to ask why a tracked articluated supply/troop carrier was needed in the projected battlefield. Look around, this region is well served with highways and roads, and with the most powerful air force in the area, we control the skies. there is no need for this vehicle, and there is nothing it can do that a 3 tonner with all wheel drive cannot do in this region.

Having said this, u must understand the BA's decision process here. As mentioned above, they had almost no choice but to award the contract to ST. Something like the Warthog is very useful in A-stan wherethe roads are bad, or none existent, and there is always threat of IED, and ambushes all around. A Warrior cannot transport the same amout of troops/cargo that a warthog can. Actually, the BA wanted to buy the improved version of their Viking, the Viking 2, but that was years away from development. Than they wanted to buy more Mastiffs, but the US cornered the market on those too. In the end, the only one ready to deliver on short notice was ST. That is why they issued the Urgent Operational requiremnt. The public backlash was getting too much for the UK govt. from all the perceived weaknesses of the Viking. But it appears the Warthog is doing quite well there.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear PAP

The Viking is the BVS 10 which is a different model from the BVS 206. Both the brits and SH had the 206 but wanted something larger. BAE created the 10 Sg the Bronco. they were both in the same time frame.

The Bronco won because ST with the Army had a clear set of operational requirements vis sa vis mobility fire power and armour protection trade offs. which has proven more suitable for Atan. Luck perhaps but also a better planned operational concept. BIgger is better



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear S

The Warrior was to heavy for the Tans. If they could have used it they would have



Locke