I strongly disagree joining... why should we get involved in something half a world away. Plus, we no obligation to help the Saudis in such operation which mighy involved the lifea of our own troops

I wonder what saudi offers in return of our participation

If only involved in peace keeping after the wars.
I think it is okay.

it will be up to the cabinet to decide
plus no harm in peace keeping mission

There risk attached to peace keeping also

But in particular, i dont favour involving in middle east issues. That issues might spill over massively anytime

Malaysia involvement in Peace Keeping mission is no strange
in fact that is one of the reason Malaysia forces were invited

new video for MBT3000 ....

All ops have risk, and we have been long involved in middle east peacekeeping anyway (lebanon, iran, iraq, kuwait, afghan)
Just that this could be one the biggest deployment to date if we really do participate in the peacekeeping effort

Another vids on military ranking, based on a research by globalfirepower.

Apparently to six in SEA is

6. Singapore
5. Malaysia
4. Phlippines
3. Thailand
2. Vietnam
1. Indonesia

Hahaha, I don't not about the top 3, could be true, but Malaysia and Singapore is behind phillippines!!

Please tell me this is a joke.

Quite bizarre.
This MBT-3000 represents probably the best MBT design and technology NORINCO can offer the PLA currently (it has better armor system, engine and greater range per fuel tank than the Type 99), but they insist on offering this MBT only to export customers. If I was them I'd keep this under a lid and deploy it to my own forces.

They should really sell these to african customer, at least can test on how these tank would work under harsh condition and maybe get some actual combat experience

273 Drone Aircraft Carriers? New DARPA Contract Could Be a Game Changer





http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015...ntract-cou.aspx

Morocco already got MBT2000 VT1 ....

After a gas stop, Navy’s first carrier drones fly off to history



This week, "Salty Dog 502"—one of the Navy's two X-47B carrier-based unmanned aircraft— did something no other drone has ever done: it lined itself up behind a human-flown tanker plane and pulled up for a fill-up. While the technology used for the refueling had been previously tested and demonstrated on a manned Lear jet acting as an "unmanned aircraft surrogate testbed," this was the first time that a drone had completely autonomously flown in behind a tanker plane and completed an actual refueling.

In-flight refueling extends the range of military aircraft, allowing them to stay in the air longer while on patrol and fly extended long-range missions. The refueling plane used in the test, a modified Boeing 707, belonged to Omega Air Refueling, a DOD contractor that provides refueling to Navy and Marine Corps planes and the air forces of other countries. The test was important because of the roles envisioned for carrier-launched drones in the future: combat air patrol around carrier groups, persistent surveillance, and long-range attack missions.

The X-47B flies autonomously, guided by commands from a desktop application rather than by a pilot with remote controls. It was the first unmanned aircraft to ever perform a carrier landing with a tailhook capture (though other drones have been flown from ships, they have either been unmanned helicopters or were small drones captured by hook or net). And while drones have conducted in-flight refueling tests before—DARPA and NASA performed a test using two Northrop Global Hawks—those unmanned aircraft have been piloted by humans remotely.

With that first test completed, both X-47Bs are headed to retirement. Because of the differences in size and performance between the X-47B and the as-yet-to-be-finalized Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) combat drone, the Navy has decided to stick with surrogate aircraft for further tests of systems that might be adapted for UCLASS. So the only future flying that Salty Dog 501 and Salty Dog 502 will be doing will be aided by cables in a museum display. While the drones have dodged retirement in the past—they were nearly mothballed in 2013—it's unlikely that they will be called back into service.

They will be fairly pricey museum pieces: the X-47B program was awarded to Northrop Grumman in 2007, under a $635.8 million contract that would eventually grow to $813 million by 2012. The refueling test flights were part of a $63 million "post-demonstration" development contract.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technol...off-to-history/

China is now a Pacific naval power — and we’re not ready for it





http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/04/17/china-i...t-ready-for-it/

It based on the improved system of the soviet era T72 and newer technology from china type 99
so it the in between tank of the t72 and type 99. That is why it specifically for export

country that does not want old T72 design and limited budget to get their hand on latest gen MBT, the MBT3000 is their best option

This MBT has way too much high-tech gear to simply sell to the kind of countries that are used to basic lower-tier,rough and tumble tanks like the T-72. The technical learning curve would be quite steep, I imagine. Countries with good technical knowhow like Pakistan probably could handle this issue, but I don't see countries like Kenya or Nigeria having the necessary tech to deploy and maintain a fleet of these effectively.

Also, it might be cheaper than some tanks, but it's hardly T-72 kind of cheap. Some sources say it will nominally cost about $4.5-5 Million USD per unit. Even later versions of T-72s usually cost something like $1.5-2 Million USD only.

This post has been edited by MilitaryMadness: Apr 19 2015, 01:18 AM

read between the lines

it based on the knowledge learnt from T72 and incorporated more modern technology from the type 99. (so it wont be as cheap as a t72 nor will it be as equip similarly as the type 99)

Dont be mistaken by its outer appearance, Its internal layout is very similar to Russia T-series tanks and its autoloader design, although the later type98/99 is more closely related

The type 98/99 is essential china using western design turret with slopes but onto a T-series hull and dump in an autolader

Type 99 I like the optics lazer dazzler thing, can burn enemy optics



This post has been edited by KYPMbangi: Apr 19 2015, 01:42 AM

I've been reading about the smart s mk2 radar for the sgpv, i noticed it mention the radar is suitable for essm but i remember last time in this thread someone mention that the radar only suitable for essm and mica but not for aster.

can someone explain why aster not suitable for smart s mk2 radar?

Aster system needed paams/saams compliant system environment to work and they only work with sampson/empar/herakles/kronos radar and a compatible combat management system

The aster needs a whole package to work with, not just the radar itself though the smart-s is not compatible with such system

This post has been edited by KYPMbangi: Apr 19 2015, 03:56 AM