Reply With Quotefunniest thing in this picture is that building on the back is "Voenmeh" university and everyday lots of students see what to expect if they wont pass exam session
funniest thing in this picture is that building on the back is "Voenmeh" university and everyday lots of students see what to expect if they wont pass exam session
Is Erawa ERA used on PT-91M equivalent to Kontakt-5, or it is just a supped up first generation ERA?
We see T-90 with K-5 ERA, on what vehicles are Kaktus and Relikt used? Why aren't they used on T-90?
I don't understand. Care to explain.Originally Posted by Pantsyr
funniest thing in this picture is that building on the back is "Voenmeh" university and everyday lots of students see what to expect if they wont pass exam session
as you know russian army is based on conscript system, when you're 18 years old you're taken to army if you dont have postponement reason
so if you're a student of university you get postponement until end of education, but if you fail at exams->kick from university-> you're in the army now
here military base stands right next to university, so students see what to be afraid of
clear now?
...........................
In Russia, if you are healthy and not a student, you should go in army.
On that photo, behind soldiers, there is building, it is part of "Voenmeh" university. And it is very close.
These guys were on 30 metres more to the left of a place whence this photo were made
Place where they train it is perfectly visible (and audible)) from audiences:
So student can see his future, if he will not pass exam)))
Besides we always remember that Ustinov observes our achievements:
few more pics:
Last edited by GDS; 08-30-2009 at 07:13 PM.
g
I don't understand. Care to explain.
Its not because of the Arabs. Wheeled versions are cheaper to own and maintain. They also don't chew up roads.
Can anyone explain the weird muzzle break/flash cage on the Tunguska guns? I know there are two barrels, but one has a cage thing and the other one doesn't. What is the deal with that?
Edit: merge with above please
Any info on that new AESA for the pak fa? anyone?
Erawa is improved 1st gen ERA, it should be superior to K-1 but it's not intended to defeat kinetic rounds like K-5.
Kaktus was to be used on Object 640 Black Eagle. The project died together with bankrupcy of Omsktransmash,We see T-90 with K-5 ERA, on what vehicles are Kaktus and Relikt used? Why aren't they used on T-90?
Relikt was to be used on T-72 Rogatka Upgrade. The upgrade was too expensive so the army decided dor minor T-72BA upgrade programm.
Therefore none of this new 3rd gen ERA-modules is in serial production (the only 3rd gen ERA in serial production is, funny enough, Ukrainian "Nozh". However it's only a low-level production for their small numbers of T-84)
those things on the end of barrel check projectile speed and give this info to ballistic calculator to improve accuracy
If Relikt can be mounted on the turret of T-72, I don't see why they don't mount it T-90. I suppose it is either not needed or money is any issue.
....where you have hot showers, three appetizing meals per day, a nice clean bunk, air conditioning, no dust/dirt, and currently a very tiny chance of becoming plain ol' filling for a body bag.
GO NAVY!!
and slippery soap...
There's no difference to me whatsoever.
That's because you're not looking properly. Look at the first Mi-28N prototype and a series production version, specifically, the left-hand side of the airframe (looking at it from the front). It's really obvious.I fail to see how.
All I see is the added equipment under the nose.
If you read any articles about development of the Mi-28N over the years, you'd know for example that they incorporated IIRC hundreds of changes in between the original Mi-28N prototype and the series production version, including new rotor blades, new transmission, new tail rotor gear, new swash plate/ rotor hub, and improved automatic controls for the engine and fuel system.
Between the Mi-28 and Mi-28N, it was even more. It's just flat out false they merely added sensors, the Mi-28N is an entirely different beast. Look it up, it's not a controversial fact- in comparison to the Mi-28, the Mi-28N had new composite rotor blades, upgraded transmision, more ammunition for the cannon, intergrated flight/weapon aiming system, datalinks, glass cockpit, and an intergrated DASS.
The gunner isn't going to be concerned with trying to see what's beneath the Mi-28Ns nose in any realistic scenario - that's what his optics are for. You say it must be awful, but have you heard any complaints from Night Hunter pilots? Don't you think Mil, who designed the Mi-24, are well aware of making sure the visibility out of the Mi-28 is not practically inferior, given the lesson they quickly learned with the glasshouse cockpit of the original Mi-24 versions?For example the visibility from the front seat must be awful, they dod nothing to change that. The mickey mouse nose and equipment in the front is too long and cutting into the gunners view, like on the South African SuperHind. Take a look at the Mi-24 or the Ah-64, they have good visibility and large glass-surfaces around the pilots, so they can have a good look around.
Because it was superior, yes.That's the point, they did not have to because their design was chosen anyway.
Of course they have.Have they been tested on trials one against the other, in direct competition?
Posting Permissions
