If no wrong we already going direction to other 6 unit DSME corvetter
2 project already 12 unit in planing ....
next 10 year maybe hard to get any new warship. at lease 5 year later

This post has been edited by waja2000: Feb 19 2015, 09:47 PM

Yes you can. Vietnam era M-16 vs ak47, the m16 is prone to jam. Both lack accuracy and more for short range straffing. The 5.56x45mm round flies faster & further would sunk into vietcong soldier's body inflicting serious injury. Ak47 is reliable, tough and packs better firepower with its 7.62x39mm big diameter but shorter round causing it to fly slower..

M-16a2 vs ak74 during 90's, the M16a2 has better range but reliability still goes to ak. AK74 feeds on 5.45mm rounds to improve bullet speed. Both equal, nobody wins.

Newest ak107 uses 5.45mm round while ak108 uses nato 5.56mm rounds. M16a4 been modernised many times now, waiting for replacement. Had improved its reliability with more lightweight materials. The line of replacement rifles are all superior than ak but price wise not so attractive. Lightweight, less prone to heat and no worry using in hot desert. Notable possible replacement are SCAR, bushmaster ACR, Barrett's 5.8, etc. Suddenly many new rifles.

if me, i'll be more happy like this (& this is if the battle were in our soil);


General A have Abram platoons, lots of it

General B have a several companies of trooper comprises of gunner & rocketeer (let say RPG29), 1 small team of commandoes that gets behind enemy line who will not just have sniper & spotter but also bringing along laser target designator (hornet waiting for them), several Kornet-E/Bhaktar Shikan mounted G-wagons, a few astross standing by far from battlefield, & Adnans with troops inside as the last sweeper

PT-91M? sorry, they're not interested in this abram-suicidal fiesta..there's other battlefield thats suits them more

like i said befur..only stupid general will fight tanks vs tanks head on

This post has been edited by keown83: Feb 19 2015, 10:18 PM

K2 can mount the 150mm without much modification haha

The length will roughly the 155mm cannon shorter

now adays, a large proportion of Tanks killing is be done by ATGM fired from Attack Helicopter or large IED. Current model of modern warfare brought us into a new Infantry era again. Unless WW III happened between a two large conventional armies like US and China

Saya pilih m16 sebab puluru dia lagi ringan so boleh bawak lagi banyak.tehuhihihi

Lockheed Martin and Indonesia seek to progress radar programme

Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - IHS Jane's Defence Industry
17 February 2015

Lockheed Martin and senior Indonesian defence officials met on 17 February with a view to progress the Indonesian Air Force's (TNI-AU's) requirement to procure ground-based air-surveillance radar systems.

The Indonesian Ministry of Defence (MoD) said representatives of Lockheed Martin met with Defence Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu in Jakarta to "determine the continuation" of the radar requirement, which the MoD is undertaking in co-operation with the TNI-AU and local industry. The MoD said the procurement is being progressed, but did not elaborate.

The MoD added that Lockheed Martin, should it win the contract, is aiming to support the local production of radar systems by transferring technologies to Indonesia as per the terms of the country's Defence Industry Law 2012, which requires all foreign contractors to involve local industry in all major defence programmes.

http://www.janes.com/article/49072/lockhee...radar-programme

What makes you think general A doesn't have IFV, troops and air support behind his abrams? Check some of the war, the mbts are usually on front line be it open field battle or urban warfare. In Iraq, abrams leading the assault before making way for troops, hummers, ifv through. Same goes to Chechnya war.

Whatever you said, you think your enemy won't do the same? They won't be stupid enough to advance blindly with all their vehicles moving in straight line waiting for you to destroy first and last vehicle trapping the rest for you to finish off.

If it's Indonesian, we prefer to inserting a small scale recon troops and militia to cause a disruptions and confusion in enemy ranks then they can make a way for a much larger armies. The process is long usually, gradually and contentious. Indonesia army is an infantry minded army. Even our army modernization today is revolving in and around infantry support unit first.

This post has been edited by madoka: Feb 19 2015, 10:40 PM

Meh.. ima just gonna give hint that russian sticks to the things that won them the world war 2

Bradley is ahead of the abrams cuz the mbt needs to stop and refuel every 3-5 hours and their filter cleaned of sands before moving again, so the bradleys dun wanna wait for the slowpoke tanks move ahead to take the most kill possible. lol habis cerita. true story believe meh~

Abrams out of fuel, the apache & cobra took over protecting the platoons & brigade. A-10s will be called to attack iraqi tank column when spotted large enemy forces. Sometimes with hornets, falcons, harriers too taking out high threat targets in simultaneous attacks.

why we must think situation & environment in our soil will be as same as situation & environment in Iraq..??? for me, we cant take every details in Iraq to compare with what we have here, on our own ground..Iraq is a land vast with plain flat desert, which is a very good advantage to send tanks as a the main assault team..& this is also why Iraq have 5000+ tanks (sadly most of them cant be used plus its a monkey assad babil model of basic T72 tank btw) standing by

while in Afghanistan, abrams are not the main assault team..afghanistan are not like Iraq..too many hills & mountains, too many hidden places, not a good advantage for tanks..same goes to vietnam, also not a good place to let tanks lead any assult

btw, for chenchen war;


Chenchen war sos

u see..its not a battle of tanks vs tanks..yes of cos its about the weakness of T-72, but the most important thing is u must not rely too much on tanks vs tanks..yes PT-92M is inferior to abrams, leopard & other western tanks, but the most important thing is how the tanks suits ur doctrine & ur strategy..

for me, it would be better to choose a tank that is not too heavy, high-mobility & maneuverability, fast, easy maintenance & logistic support, have lower height than other modern mbt (actually T-90 would be better, but T-91M also ok la), & most important thing, can fire any modern shell (DU, KE whatever shit) effectively & accurately, while on static or while moving..other than that, wont mind to compromise here & there la

This post has been edited by keown83: Feb 19 2015, 11:01 PM

US Navy: 4 LCSs to Operate Out of Singapore by 2018

SINGAPORE — Four US warships designed to fight in coastal areas similar to Southeast Asian waters will be operating out of Singapore by 2018, up from one currently, a senior US Navy official said Tuesday.

The "rotational deployment" of the vessels, called littoral combat ships (LCS), comes as China continues to flex its muscles in the South China Sea and tensions remain on the Korean Peninsula.

"We will soon see up to four LCS here in Singapore as we rotationally deploy Seventh Fleet ships," said Rear Adm. Charles Williams.

"We envision four ships here by May 2017 to sometime in 2018 ... but I think what you have is that by 2018, four LCS ships will be rotationally deployed here to Singapore."

Williams, commander of the Seventh Fleet's Task Force 73, was speaking to reporters aboard the USS Fort Worth, an LCS on a 16-month deployment to Southeast Asia.

It replaced another LCS, the USS Freedom, which recently ended an eight-month tour of duty.

The USS Fort Worth is set to take part in exercise Foal Eagle, a joint military drill with South Korea from Feb. 24-March 6.

It will also join regional navies in the annual Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training exercises and the International Maritime Defence Exhibition.

Fast and agile, LCS vessels can be adapted for specific missions through a system of interchangeable modules and crew.

The US Navy plans to build 52 LCS vessels at a total cost of $37 billion but the program has become controversial due to cost inflation, design and construction issues.

In 2012 the then-US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that Washington would shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020 as part of a new strategic focus on Asia.

China is embroiled in a maritime dispute with four Southeast Asian countries — Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam — as well as with Taiwan over territorial claims in the South China Sea.

While not a claimant, the United States has said it has an interest to ensure freedom of navigation in the area

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/n...apore/23619799/




Attached thumbnail(s)

CRYSTAL CITY: In three years the US military could have a prototype laser weapon blasting out 300 kilowatts of energy, a jump that could ignite a revolution in missile defense, a Lockheed Martin engineer told me today,

A 300-kw laser could kill cruise missiles. For comparison, that’s 10 times the power output of the Laser Weapons System (LaWS) currently being field-tested aboard ship in the Persian Gulf. LaWS can shoot down slow-moving drones at relatively short ranges.

Lockheed Martin is currently on contract to upgrade the Army’s High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) from its current 10 kilowatt output to 60 kw, with delivery sometime late next year. But Lockheed senior fellow Rob Afzal wants to go beyond 60 kw.

“We believe that system itself can go to 100,” he told reporters this afternoon at Lockheed Martin’s annual media day. “We think that, with today’s technology, fiber lasers will scale to 300, arguably beyond 300.” With future improvements in the underlying laser technologies, he said, “we think we can get well beyond 500 kw.”

Under current plans, Afzal said, “we’re dollar-limited to a 100 or 150 kw. We’re not technology-limited. And we’re probably about two to three years from being able to go to 300 [kw] if funding is supplied.”

“We can build 100-kw class systems today [that] can go onto LCS [the Navy Littoral Combat Ship],” Afzal said. (100 kw is enough to kill cruise missiles at short ranges or drones at long ranges, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments). “It can go onto Army trucks,” he continued. “We can go into large aircraft. We’re probably not ready for fighter aircraft today.”

At 30 to 35 percent efficiency — the current cutting edge with fiber-optic lasers — 300 kw of output would require just under a megawatt of electrical power. By contrast, older laser technologies managed about 10 percent efficiency, so that same megawatt of electricity would only get you 100 kilowatts of laser power, with the other 900 kw coming out as waste heat. You could build big lasers for experiments, but the power and cooling requirements were untenable for any tactical use.

The big difference today is small fiber lasers. Each fiber individually generates at most 10 kw, but you can combine their beams to get greater power output. Yet you can still cool each fiber individually, which prevents the overheating problems that bedeviled older lasers. (As an object grows hotter, the difficulty of getting rid of that heat increases exponentially).

The Navy’s LaWs simply sticks together six commercial cutting lasers and points them all at the same target. Lockheed’s technology goes further and combines all the lasers into a single, coherent beam, which allows much sharper focus at long ranges.

“We’re very comfortable combining hundreds of fibers,” Afzal said. The process is basically the reverse of how a prism splits a single beam of sunlight into a whole rainbow of colors: Using “spectral beam combining,” you take many lasers and combine them into one beam.

Lockheed’s already proved this beam-combining technology on a 30 kw laser the company built with its own funds, Afzal said. Now they just need to scale it up to the 60 kw the Army requires — and beyond.


http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/are-mis...rge-of-reality/


Attached thumbnail(s)

for the bold parts, i think that's why Sing and Indo chose Leopard. They have an excellent Weight to power output ratio and their maintenance is easy to be done. As an example you can change and replace the block engine of Leopard in less than an hour meanwhile you need at least 8 hour to replace the block engine in T-72 series.

Aero India 2015

http://defense-update.com/20150218_aero-in...ml#.VOX8F4bXerV

This post has been edited by BorneoAlliance: Feb 19 2015, 11:12 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)

PT-91M French RENK 1000hp engine also need less than an hour to replace, deswai we choose it rather than the default engine

that is after u've successfully secured the airspace..things will be very different if the enemy still hold the airspace

for that we have to ask those who knows well bout PT-91M as it use a whole different powerpack even compare to original polish PT-91

which doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things when both tanks require 5-6 hours of downtime for every hour in the field