Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
116 Pages « < 7 8 9 10 11 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Military Thread V15, Gong Xi Fa Cai; Huat ah

views
     
lulz
post Jan 27 2015, 11:04 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
25 posts

Joined: Jul 2008


I dont think we going to buy russian aa complex no? WIth their support of the rebels in ukraine partly responsible to the downing of our aircraft some more. Maybe aster gbad? Can interchange the missile with our future ships no? hohoho.
thpace
post Jan 27 2015, 11:11 AM

Rising Star
******
Senior Member
1,210 posts

Joined: Aug 2011
QUOTE(lulz @ Jan 27 2015, 11:04 AM)
I dont think we going to buy russian aa complex no? WIth their support of the rebels in ukraine partly responsible to the downing of our aircraft some more. Maybe aster gbad? Can interchange the missile with our future ships no? hohoho.
*
Will why not? Buk was already in short listed candidate for medium range system

It not confirm who shot down the aircraft. Both side have buk system placed within close proximity. The western media is blaming russia but so far produce no solid evidence.

The one they say is proved is a buk with one missle missing. But anyone also can take out a missle and claimed it been fired. One way to confirm is through satellite photo during the lauch. But russia and america should have tat capacity but both are not revealing.
thpace
post Jan 27 2015, 11:14 AM

Rising Star
******
Senior Member
1,210 posts

Joined: Aug 2011
QUOTE(yinchet @ Jan 27 2015, 10:59 AM)
Your reasoning?
*
No ldp no immediate need for marine deployment..


Look like sepanggar base getting alot of goodies.. untung lah LTZ

Lumut shall remain naval maintenance base? While sepanggar foward deplyoment base?

Do we have any naval base on east coast?
lulz
post Jan 27 2015, 11:16 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
25 posts

Joined: Jul 2008


QUOTE(thpace @ Jan 27 2015, 11:11 AM)
Will why not? Buk was already in short listed candidate for medium range system

It not confirm who shot down the aircraft. Both side have buk system placed within close proximity. The western media is blaming russia but so far produce no solid evidence.

The one they say is proved is a buk with one missle missing. But anyone also can take out a missle and claimed it been fired. One way to confirm is through satellite  photo during the lauch. But russia and america should have tat capacity but both are not revealing.
*
I know that, but if confirmed they will be bought asap, the timing isnt good. Sure we all know it shouldnt matter but malaysian like to hoo ha about this to the end of time. Hell even the submarine issue is still played out till today, who knows got crazies try to interview the family victims later.
SUSMrUbikeledek
post Jan 27 2015, 11:24 AM

On my way
****
Senior Member
580 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


QUOTE(yinchet @ Jan 27 2015, 10:59 AM)
Your reasoning?
*
In order to be amphibious, vehicle weight must not exceed certain limit. This mean's limited armor and limited firepower. Lack of amphibious capability can easily be rectified with the use of mobile bridges and crossing barges. But there's no way to rectify the lack of protection. Most amphibious armored vehicle have a thin armor which can be easily pierce by a shell fragments and 50 cal bullets. They are also vulnerable to RPG.
thpace
post Jan 27 2015, 11:27 AM

Rising Star
******
Senior Member
1,210 posts

Joined: Aug 2011
QUOTE(lulz @ Jan 27 2015, 11:16 AM)
I know that, but if confirmed they will be bought asap, the timing isnt good. Sure we all know it shouldnt matter but malaysian like to hoo ha about this to the end of time. Hell even the submarine issue is still played out till today, who knows got crazies try to interview the family victims later.
*
Neh.. it was shortlisted together with pantsir system..come in package or so but it have not gone trial here. Therefore decision are still not made

Even if they hoo haa wat they can do once contract signed?

The only one will bising is the macai... want spotlight on them on even minor issues
azriel
post Jan 27 2015, 11:31 AM

New Member
*
Newbie
4 posts

Joined: Jan 2012
QUOTE
Boeing awarded Indonesian Apache contract

By: Ellis Taylor Singapore
9 hours ago

The US government has formally awarded Boeing a contract to build eight AH-64E Apache attack helicopters for Indonesia.

The Department of Defense says in a statement that the “firm-fixed-price” foreign military sales (FMS) contract is valued at $296 million. The helicopters will be built in Mesa, Arizona, and are expected to be completed by February 2018.

US defence secretary Chuck Hagel announced the sale of eight Apaches to Indonesia in August 2013. That announcement came nearly one year after a notification to Congress a year earlier of the proposed FMS sale.

At that time, the total deal was valued at $1.4 billion and included the sale of four APG-78 Longbow fire control radars, an armaments package including 120 Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, plus a training and crew support package.

The helicopters are expected to be used by Indonesia’s military in counterpiracy and maritime awareness roles.


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...ontract-408325/
atreyuangel
post Jan 27 2015, 11:44 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
406 posts

Joined: Jun 2007
From: 3°50'**.**"N - 103°16'**.**"E



QUOTE(thpace @ Jan 27 2015, 11:14 AM)
No ldp no immediate need for marine deployment..
Look like sepanggar base getting alot of goodies.. untung lah LTZ

Lumut shall remain naval maintenance base? While sepanggar foward deplyoment base?

Do we have any naval base on east coast?
*
Mawilla 1, PL Tanjung Gelang Kuantan
waja2000
post Jan 27 2015, 11:51 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
137 posts

Joined: Oct 2006
QUOTE(thpace @ Jan 27 2015, 11:11 AM)
Will why not? Buk was already in short listed candidate for medium range system

It not confirm who shot down the aircraft. Both side have buk system placed within close proximity. The western media is blaming russia but so far produce no solid evidence.

The one they say is proved is a buk with one missle missing. But anyone also can take out a missle and claimed it been fired. One way to confirm is through satellite  photo during the lauch. But russia and america should have tat capacity but both are not revealing.
*
do matter who is firing, at the end BUK missile still Russia product shot down jet.
malaysian/politis will be hoo ha about this to the end of time..... even more bullet to hoo ha with mh17 (alot touching) wink.gif

This post has been edited by waja2000: Jan 27 2015, 11:55 AM
TSyinchet
post Jan 27 2015, 11:58 AM

If you wish for peace, prepare for war
Group Icon
Elite
1,157 posts

Joined: Jul 2008
From: Petaling Jaya

QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jan 27 2015, 11:51 AM)
do matter who is firing, at the end BUK missile still Russia product shot down jet.
malaysian/politis will be hoo ha about this to the end of time..... even more bullet to hoo ha with mh17 (alot touching)  wink.gif
*
I think we might go for mica-vl.
azriel
post Jan 27 2015, 12:02 PM

New Member
*
Newbie
4 posts

Joined: Jan 2012
PLA WZ-10 Attack Helicopter with missiles.

user posted image
madoka
post Jan 27 2015, 12:45 PM

New Member
*
Newbie
0 posts

Joined: Jan 2015
QUOTE(MrUbikeledek @ Jan 27 2015, 11:24 AM)
In order to be amphibious, vehicle weight must not exceed certain limit. This mean's limited armor and limited firepower. Lack of amphibious capability can easily be rectified with the use of mobile bridges and crossing barges. But there's no way to rectify the lack of protection. Most amphibious armored vehicle have a thin armor which can be easily pierce by a shell fragments and 50 cal bullets. They are also vulnerable to RPG.
*
CMIIW, we had tested some of BMP-3F before we bought it and they can stand against 14,5 AP munitions at 100 to 200 meter range.



SUSMrUbikeledek
post Jan 27 2015, 12:50 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
580 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


QUOTE(madoka @ Jan 27 2015, 12:45 PM)
CMIIW, we had tested some of BMP-3F before we bought it and they can stand against 14,5 AP munitions at 100 to 200 meter range.
*
What about against RPG?
madoka
post Jan 27 2015, 12:53 PM

New Member
*
Newbie
0 posts

Joined: Jan 2015
QUOTE(MrUbikeledek @ Jan 27 2015, 12:50 PM)
What about against RPG?
*
doesn't know, they never share the whole result of the test to public, only partial information.
waja2000
post Jan 27 2015, 01:02 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
137 posts

Joined: Oct 2006
QUOTE(yinchet @ Jan 27 2015, 11:58 AM)
I think we might go for mica-vl.
*
let wait and see how Mica-vl, since gowind also possible using it.
got news update on mou LY-80?

SUSMrUbikeledek
post Jan 27 2015, 01:10 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
580 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jan 27 2015, 01:02 PM)
let wait and see how Mica-vl, since gowind also possible using it.
got news update on mou LY-80?
*
MICA-VL is not really medium range.
thpace
post Jan 27 2015, 01:18 PM

Rising Star
******
Senior Member
1,210 posts

Joined: Aug 2011
QUOTE(MrUbikeledek @ Jan 27 2015, 01:10 PM)
MICA-VL is not really medium range.
*
same as pantsir minus the gattling gun

would prefer we get pantsir at least when missile fail.. we still have the 30mm cannon to fall back. Plus, can shoot intruder coming to base tongue.gif
TSyinchet
post Jan 27 2015, 01:34 PM

If you wish for peace, prepare for war
Group Icon
Elite
1,157 posts

Joined: Jul 2008
From: Petaling Jaya

QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jan 27 2015, 01:02 PM)
let wait and see how Mica-vl, since gowind also possible using it.
got news update on mou LY-80?
*
If gowind use mica vl there is very high chance we also using land based mica vl.
Anyway I would prefer we go for NASAMS
waja2000
post Jan 27 2015, 01:46 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
137 posts

Joined: Oct 2006
user posted image

Archer artillery system for Army also look good.
easy to drive using our road,
Just a bit longer, not sure will affected mobility in our forest road unsure.gif
Frozen_Sun
post Jan 27 2015, 02:13 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
41 posts

Joined: Sep 2013
QUOTE(MrUbikeledek @ Jan 27 2015, 12:50 PM)
What about against RPG?
*
BMP series isn't meant to withstand RPG fires....like most IFV, it should be able to resist autocannon fire on the frontal armor. BMP-3F is amphibious vehicle, so can't add thick armor on it. Slat armor will also compromise its amphibious performance.

Even M-60 tanks can be penetrated with RPG-7; we need level of protection provided by modern MBT to resist RPG fire.

Even so, modern RPG like RPG-29 can still shatter the armor of Abrams

www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1e_1263769845

116 Pages « < 7 8 9 10 11 > » 
Bump Topic Topic ClosedOptions New Topic
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0314sec    0.20    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 6th December 2025 - 03:57 PM