More photos of the F90 anf F88
Thales has developed a new version of the Australian Assault Rifle designated F88 Enhanced. About half a kg lighter than the current F88. It has 3 picatinny rails, lighter materials and a lighter barrel. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
Thales unveiled the F90 today at Eurosatory 2012. This export oriented assault rifle weighs only 3.25 kg,at 700 mm length and 407 mm long barrel, it is claimed to be the shortest in the market. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
Hercule exoskeleton robot is designed to assists humans in lifting heavy loads. I uses mechatronic legs to walk about 20km on batteries each arm can lift 20 kg - this soldier is lifting 16 kg at ease. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
a different view of Hercule. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
Rafael 30mm turret system on Piranha 3. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
IMI is on contract to deliver rocket systems worth several hundred million dollars - to foreign customers and, most likely to the Israel Defense Forces. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
Milicam30 sensor was developed to detect human presence behind walls or under debries. It can also detect objects inside walls or screen passengers or baggage at airport security checks. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
France Transforms Counter-Mine System for Counter-IED Missions
SOUVIM 2 is equipped with a complex array of sensors and countermeasures designed to defeat different types of IEDs and activation systems - rollers, pressure, passive infrared deceptors, magnetic sensors and, in the future, also ground penetrating radar. Photo: Tamir Eshel, Defense-Update
Above: The SOUVIM 2 system comprises two vehicles, the one at the front is fitted with the low pressure tires which are not being used with the counter-IED mission in Afghanistan.
The first two SOVIM 2 (VDM) converted for counter-IED missions are currently supporting the French forces in Afghanistan. More vehicles are to be delivered within a year. Photo: Yves Debayhttp://defense-update.com/20120613_f...uvim-cied.html
ARTICLE:
Maybe it's efficient or something, but the double-barreled AR-15 is ugly !!!
As far as I know, designation is still T-90MS, however in fact the vehicle was not standarized by Russian Armed Forces, so it should be rather be designated only by GABTU designation Object 188M. Yeah I know, it is confusing.Originally Posted by AlexTa
If it would be standarized by Russian Army then the most logical designation code would be T-90M, while designation code for export should be T-90MS, now it is logical eh?
It's like with "SR-71 RS-71"...no matter how it was called first, the matter is what designation was duplicated by media
Btw SM could also be expanded as stroyevaya modernizacia(for our non-Russian speakers: modernized version of serial tank) like it's so in Su-27sm.
So in English it's more logical to call it MS, but in Russian it's СМ(SM). Hence we have a little misunderstanding in logic of designation.
All clear now! You're right: "If it would be standarized by Russian Army then the most logical designation code would be T-90M, while designation code for export should be T-90MS". My logic was: since tank haven't gone throurgh Russian Army testing/acceptance program, tank should have had designation S (export) first, and M (modernized) -in second place. Anyway, it's now clear for me! T-90MS! ...and object 188M (to put aside marketing name - real tankman use GABTU designations)!As far as I know, designation is still T-90MS, however in fact the vehicle was not standarized by Russian Armed Forces, so it should be rather be designated only by GABTU designation Object 188M. Yeah I know, it is confusing.
If it would be standarized by Russian Army then the most logical designation code would be T-90M, while designation code for export should be T-90MS, now it is logical eh?Thanks a lot!
It's like the smartphones: you buy one you get one for free.
Paris, 12 June 2012 - ST Kinetics and Paramount Group today announced a strategic collaboration to market a family of high mobility armoured wheeled vehicles.
Under the agreement, the two companies will pool their expertise to jointly market, manufacture and support a family of protected wheeled vehicles. ST Kinetics and Paramount Group recognise that modern conflicts demand highly protected wheeled vehicles with superb mobility that can increase the survivability of the crew and ensure mission success.
The collaboration, which brings together the strengths of these two companies, will address the market needs for such highly protected and vastly manoeuvrable vehicles. It will allow their respective customers to enjoy highly cost effective solutions through global best sourcing and localised through-life support.
http://tinyurl.com/ckxxd5s
No one has taken pics of this new Chinese MBT 3000 tank?
China’s North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) also displayed their Main Battle Tank 3000 the company hopes to deliver to the Chinese Army in two years, Cheng said. It’s one of the few, if not the only, company to be developing a main battle tank.
http://defensetech.org/2012/06/14/ch...r-development/
Apart from the ergonomics and housing, what are the differences between this and the Steyr AUG? Any differences in reliability or precision?
Contrary to you, I have an understand of these things. You don't seem to have one, otherwise I can't explain how you could make the misconceptions you make and not see the obvious.
Yes, that is the main feature, an other turret. So, when I put another turret on a Patria AMV, can I claim that I have made a completely new vehicle that is a new development? Laughable.No, they are not copy as they have, for example, different hull with is higher and longer. But the main feature is armament battle module "shturm".
The hull is "higher" because (as you can see from these and these pictures) they have welded a few cm's of steel on top of the regular BTR-80 hull. Everything else is the same, even the shape of the "side walls" of the hull.
Another analogy, maybe you'll understand it: If I perform a chop-job on my old car to lower the roof, or if I heighten the roof on a van to get more space, I have not made a new vehicle. Similiarly, if I change the front and back bumper to a "fatter" one which would lenghten the overall lenght of the vehicle by a few cm's when measured from end to end, I have also not made a new vehicle. Also, if I change the engine and, because my car has become too heavy, change the suspension and axles to cope with the heavier weight, I have also not constructed a new vehicle.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the BTR-4 without several tons of bolted on steel plates (add-on armor) is around 17 t. And those 2 tons are in the heavier turret, larger (=heavier) welded on front section with doors and the higher side "walls" for the heightened roof. It is certainly not in a wider/larger/longer or better protected hull.If you call it modification of BTR-3...94...80 you may try to find out the combat weight of these vehicle. BTR-4 is within 25 t. and BTR-80 is 15 t.
It is visible to the naked eye that the "Wanne" (hull, chassis, the whole part around/between the wheels, the size of the wheels, the track width, the lenght of the hull from wheel-end to wheel-end) is from the BTR. All they did were the modifications that I mentioned before (new front end welded on, moved the three sections (engine, turret, troops) around, made new back side for entry and exit of troops and a new engine enclosing inside the vehicle, a new turret and the "walls" from above the wheel-arch are now higher. It is a large modification, but it is not a completeley new vehicle. And that's fine, there is nothing wrong with that. The goal was to offer an affordable 8x8 APC vehicle with back entry and different variants (ambulance etc) that protects from small arms and small explosives and to make money off of it: mission accomplished. But to claim that this is a newly developed vehicle...please.
Also, the Romanians already did both of these things (BTR-80 with a heightened roof and a new turret, and a further evolution of that, a BTR-80 with a relocated engine and thus troop compartment in the back and a new front end and heightened roof with new upper-side-walls), they're called Zimbru-2000 and SAUR-1/SAUR-2.
I know you want to brag (Ukraine STRONG! and all that patriotism) when you say that it is "a completely new APC that has nothing to do with the BTR-80", but in reality it would be rather embarassing if they had started at zero somewhere in the late 2000s and all they could come up with is that, a vehicle that is pretty much identical to a 30-40 year old vehicle (in the vital aspects) and which's interior looks like something from the 1940-1980 time period. A look at how serious vehicles from today (or after 1995) look (inside and out) gives a pretty good idea about what a newly developed vehicle should/would look like.
You could stop unknowningly dissing the Ukrainian engineers who did a successful job at a large modification and stop calling it a newly developed vehicle. Thank you. (...to borrow your snappishness)
Found this on twitter:
Last edited by Hyde; 06-14-2012 at 10:14 PM.
Thanks, I guess that is the new tank seen late last year in CCTV. Nice to know that it's now officially named.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
