100kg?
how can he even pass the fitness test
Military Thread V17
Military Thread V17
|
|
Jun 6 2015, 12:04 PM
Return to original view | Post
#21
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
100kg?
how can he even pass the fitness test |
|
|
Jun 6 2015, 04:09 PM
Return to original view | Post
#22
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jun 6 2015, 02:39 PM) agree on that, army need ram door suitable for there mission. it not the matter as long it can be fixed, it finetrue, as long can be fix, than should be ok. it buying something that can be used properly the first time. Airbus military branch long history of nvr getting things to work properly the first time Though, it cant be blamed for a brand new products and being one of the first customers would still prefer the aw101 if not for its price and a brand new mro facility |
|
|
Jun 6 2015, 06:30 PM
Return to original view | Post
#23
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jun 6 2015, 04:52 PM) agree, anyway Eurocopter or Airbus Helicopter still keep getting sell and it control 40% Helicopter market. But wat done is done..the best is to see improvement on ec725 in the future , idle AW or Airbus Helis also got MRO facility here, plus Airbus Helis have authorize service center at sabah. yes, AW101 is best suitable for Army, purchase price is not much different, mostly issue on how your view operation and maintenance cost. mainly payload only 4+ tons, and weight is 14t, other like NH90 also can do 4t+ payload with own 10t+ which means AW101 is 30%+ cost operation and fuel. plus 3 engine means more service and parts cost. And for size/weight have pro and cons, good is more people/goods can carry, bad is it cant carry by A400M also land at our Navy ship although not necessary but who know in emergency need it. also need more bigger place to land. If no issue on budget for cost, for weight/size ,AW101 is best for Army. NH90 seems look more overall suitable if all aspect consider. idle AW101 or Nh90 have pro and cons, up to decision person view. Now a400 problem and by far the most serious i would say |
|
|
Jun 7 2015, 01:04 AM
Return to original view | Post
#24
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jun 6 2015, 09:16 PM) our EC725 still got issue? i tot only at early state, EC725 quite long service in other nations. I dont think so now. Last was manufacturer defects which caused the delays. By now should have everything up n running but for me aw101 would be better A400M need keep improve and mature, at lease for 3-4 year more. A400M should have problem there and here, just hope not much impact on daily operation to much. A400M crash seem like 3 engine stop funtion due to bug in new version software. The ram would make loading and offloading so much easier |
|
|
Jun 7 2015, 01:54 PM
Return to original view | Post
#25
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 8 2015, 07:57 PM
Return to original view | Post
#26
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jun 8 2015, 03:05 PM) Surprising Vietnam defense procurement budget for 2014 and 2015 is usd 1.5 and 1.6 billion. near double our procurement budget. no-wonder can get so many new asset. Simple They have a common enemy. China and its ppls are united on that issue. This make budget approvals for defense spending so much easier. Same to some degree in indonesia. Australia is always on the hot news. Election time? Ganyang malaysia always the hot news as well. Here? Pfffff.. one macai say use sampan enough no need spent so much. Whil another busy with their own political survival |
|
|
Jun 9 2015, 10:54 PM
Return to original view | Post
#27
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
Vietnam construction in Spratly islands
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
Jun 9 2015, 11:06 PM
Return to original view | Post
#28
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 9 2015, 11:44 PM
Return to original view | Post
#29
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 11 2015, 09:01 PM
Return to original view | Post
#30
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 12 2015, 08:34 AM
Return to original view | Post
#31
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(MilitaryMadness @ Jun 12 2015, 08:17 AM) Shooting down aircraft is simple compared with shooting down ballistic missiles. Aircrafts are relatively fragile and filled with sensitive materials, a good hit even with a small shrapnel of a HE-Frag warhead at the right place could already bring the whole plane down. But you can't use normal SAM missiles to shoot down even a small ballistic missile like the Scud. We can talk how how hitting the missile worksShooting down ballistic missiles is like shooting down a flying telephone pole, peppering it with HE-Frag shrapnel from SAM missiles designed to shoot down aircraft wont do a damn thing to change its trajectory. Worse is once the warhead is already in terminal descent, the speed and gravitational momentum ensures almost nothing can stop it. That's why specialized anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) have a solid tungsten kinetic-energy projectile instead of a HE-Frag warhead common to SAM missiles. But that in itself is a potential weakness, because if the ABM missile projectile so much as misses a ballistic missile warhead by a single inch, it's already a total miss (and believe me, a 5-foot tall nuclear warhead is not that big of a target). With a potential nuclear warhead screaming towards the earth at mach 5+, you don't get a lot of time for a second launch. But our lack of medium and long range same just make it pointless. Even our jernas i wonder still works or not. QUOTE(bereev @ Jun 12 2015, 08:22 AM) That not sam lah.Taming sari missile. Dunno what the development now? Project sudah mati kah? |
|
|
Jun 12 2015, 08:59 PM
Return to original view | Post
#32
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
Indon should be really check they can maintain those toys they purchase.
Initial cost is cheaper than a few years operating cost. |
|
|
Jun 14 2015, 12:11 AM
Return to original view | Post
#33
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
Chinese PLAN Type72 II Yuting LST (Haiyang Shan 936) observed recently docked at Huayang Jiao (Cuarteron Reef)
![]() ![]() https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=8.862538,11...mapclient=embed the news of possible mobile artillery at those island china built might just be true. it a landing ship which designed to transport vehicles |
|
|
Jun 14 2015, 12:15 AM
Return to original view | Post
#34
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
|
|
|
Jun 14 2015, 01:23 AM
Return to original view | Post
#35
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(yinchet @ Jun 14 2015, 01:08 AM) We just stated that we are interested only. i think it was uk who asked us if we are interested, and we were still evaluating the SGPVnot even enter into discussion. Anyway I wont be surprise if it was chosen for tgpv. in end, we decide to go for a ready design rather than the one that even builder canot finalized Plus, it designed for gast tubine engine, I heard our navy swore nvr to go turbine anymore |
|
|
Jun 14 2015, 01:49 AM
Return to original view | Post
#36
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(yinchet @ Jun 14 2015, 01:37 AM) Nah, it was not even in the sgpv. I know it not even on the sgpv project.If we were to go in it will be in differ deal probably they would put under disguise of lekiu batch2. There is no fixed design for engine and it still depend on customers requirements. ready design? That is quite bs if you look at our sgpv project. Tat time we already have in mind what we wanted I think it more bullshit when builder can decide what to be on the ship rather than the client own request. Anyway, the global ship was in design almost 20 years. Requirements change design also changed. Compared to our sgpv, it really fast already |
|
|
Jun 14 2015, 10:47 AM
Return to original view | Post
#37
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(waja2000 @ Jun 14 2015, 08:55 AM) not sure what design requirement, the 2500t is based on our redesign layout.i See DCNS own design Gowind 2500t more than enough, all weapon and spec we want also can fit it. than it can start built faster, no to own copyright 3000t (extra cost), unless future AAW version base on this. |
|
|
Jun 15 2015, 01:29 PM
Return to original view | Post
#38
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(Gregyong @ Jun 15 2015, 01:15 PM) Not source code but rather political restrictions imposed by us.You cant freely bom where you want especially foreign land. If not agree to US T&C, they will stop give product support like what happened to iran. |
|
|
Jun 15 2015, 02:47 PM
Return to original view | Post
#39
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(MilitaryMadness @ Jun 15 2015, 02:09 PM) Well that's a strange stipulation to attach to a weapon sale. That have been the case all the long. It must a enemy US themselves recognise. If they dont and you bom them, there surely setbacks imposed by them.As for Iran, I'd imagine overthrowing the most favored US-sponsored ruler in the middle east at the time (The Shah), launching an Islamic revolution and holding US embassy staff and civilians for years is a much more potent excuse for US to stop military aid to Iran rather than Iran breaking some BS military product's T&C. |
|
|
Jun 16 2015, 11:25 AM
Return to original view | Post
#40
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,210 posts Joined: Aug 2011 |
QUOTE(MilitaryMadness @ Jun 16 2015, 10:45 AM) They all have MRAP-level armor protection (and thus weight and bulk), so I guess no more off-roading for the US Army. From now on all US army operation will be only on paved roads. I rather be in a mrap style vehicle than in hummerI think the only time we will still see light armour is for sf operation |
| Bump Topic Topic ClosedOptions New Topic |
| Change to: | 0.0275sec
0.52
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 1st December 2025 - 07:21 PM |