Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 155

Thread: Eurosatory 2012 pictures and news

  1. #91
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,925

    Default

    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

  2. #92
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,925

    Default



    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

  3. #93
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,925

    Default



    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

  4. #94
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,925

    Default

    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 Debay

    ARTICLE:
    http://defense-update.com/20120613_f...uvim-cied.html

  5. #95

  6. #96
    Senior Member TG211's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,206

    Default

    Maybe it's efficient or something, but the double-barreled AR-15 is ugly !!!

  7. #97
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTa View Post
    Damian, I have a question: T-90MS or T-90SM? Reason for asking: at exhibition in India this tank was presented as "T-90S Modernized". That means T-90SM! However, Russian Internet is calling it T-90MS. It's not logical: then extended name for T-90MS must be "T-90 Modernized S"! My attempts to clear that question on Russian forums were ignored, as if I tried to troll...

    Did I miss something and thinking wrong? Or T-90SM is more logical name for that tank? Thank you.

    Attachment 181923
    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?

  8. #98
    Senior Member Az_esm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    St.Petersburg, Яussia
    Posts
    2,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTa View Post
    Damian, I have a question: T-90MS or T-90SM? Reason for asking: at exhibition in India this tank was presented as "T-90S Modernized". That means T-90SM! However, Russian Internet is calling it T-90MS. It's not logical: then extended name for T-90MS must be "T-90 Modernized S"! My attempts to clear that question on Russian forums were ignored, as if I tried to troll...

    Did I miss something and thinking wrong? Or T-90SM is more logical name for that tank? Thank you.
    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.

  9. #99
    Senior Member Silent Reader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,593

  10. #100
    Member AlexTa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    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?
    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)! Thanks a lot!

  11. #101
    Senior Member Camera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    France
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TG211 View Post
    Maybe it's efficient or something, but the double-barreled AR-15 is ugly !!!
    It's like the smartphones: you buy one you get one for free.

  12. #102
    Senior Member gunman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,383

    Default

    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

  13. #103
    Senior Member Jµµso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lahti
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    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/

  14. #104
    Senior Member Hyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    There
    Posts
    6,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Camera View Post
    More photos of the F90 anf F88

    Apart from the ergonomics and housing, what are the differences between this and the Steyr AUG? Any differences in reliability or precision?

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Harkonnen View Post
    It is you narrow understanding of what is going on, more precisely to say not understanding.
    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.


    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".
    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.

    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.


    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.
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTa View Post
    I think you noted enough differences yourself. Plus my questions pointed to where other significant differences are. My conclusion: BTR-4 is completely new APC, that has nothing to do with BTR-80. Thank you.
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jµµso View Post
    No one has taken pics of this new Chinese MBT 3000 tank?
    [/LEFT]


    http://defensetech.org/2012/06/14/ch...r-development/
    Found this on twitter:

    Last edited by Hyde; 06-14-2012 at 10:14 PM.

  15. #105
    Senior Member Jµµso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lahti
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde View Post
    Found this on twitter:
    Thanks, I guess that is the new tank seen late last year in CCTV. Nice to know that it's now officially named.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •