M777 vs. Pegasus
-
SP is very useful!!
''What it (lion note--Pegasus)does have, is an unusual feature that allows the towed gun to be moved limited distances, at up to 12 km/h, under its own power. This is a very useful feature when trying to sidestep return fire cued by artillery tracking radars.''
Murky Competition for $2B India Howitzer Order May End Soon… Or Not
16-Mar-2009
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
SP is very useful!!
''What it (lion note--Pegasus)does have, is an unusual feature that allows the towed gun to be moved limited distances, at up to 12 km/h, under its own power. This is a very useful feature when trying to sidestep return fire cued by artillery tracking radars.''
Murky Competition for $2B India Howitzer Order May End Soon… Or Not
16-Mar-2009
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
lion noisy
quite contrary
why does your nose grow ?running away
out of the fray
of your bronco story crap ?
wont you just stay
before i spring the trapnonoono please wait and stay
ive got a nice little present for you today
go on please, make my day. -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
SP is very useful!!
''What it (lion note--Pegasus)does have, is an unusual feature that allows the towed gun to be moved limited distances, at up to 12 km/h, under its own power. This is a very useful feature when trying to sidestep return fire cued by artillery tracking radars.''
Murky Competition for $2B India Howitzer Order May End Soon… Or Not
16-Mar-2009
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
really really
filppy floppy
lionnoisy sounds like
a certain John kerryPegasus good
pegasus not so good
please noisy lion
kindly learn to iron
out the kinks
before u get kinky
and get caught in a finkcounter-battery fire
will come like hellfire
just a matter of
what kind of fire
astros saturation
conventional cluster ammunition
counter battery airstrike
special forces deep strike
take a pick
stop being a dick
you are such a prick -
When it comes to India buying military hardware, nothing is confirmed till the fat lady sings and then maybe.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
lion noisy
quite contrary
why does your nose grow ?running away
out of the fray
of your bronco story crap ?
wont you just stay
before i spring the trapnonoono please wait and stay
ive got a nice little present for you today
go on please, make my day.In fact,the Warthog/Bronco replacing Viking shall be discussed in Bronco thread.
What is the meaning ''replace''?Of course,it is on par and most likely
better than the stuff u are going to replace .Right?
So,in the eyes of UK MOD top brass,Bronco is better than Viking.
The article u quote come from UK MOD.There are few more
praising Viking.But wat is the fzzking use of these articles?
Paper and lip services alone cant save the ass of UK soldiers.Right?
Only the right armour can save their ass.
read wat did MOD say--
Over 100 brand new cross-country vehicles called Warthog which, with greater protection levels, will replace Vikings in Afghanistan, and over 100 more Jackals, the extremely agile all-terrain vehicles which include high-levels of off-road mobility and firepower.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NewArmouredVehiclesForAfghanistan.htm
''with greater protection levels,''mean Bronco is better than Viking
in protection lah,stupid!!
The road side IED kills a no. of UK soldiers in Viking.U know.
Latest soldier killed named by MoD - Telegraph
-
''As Cpl Deering approached the stricken vehicle to assess the damage a second device went off killing him instantly. He is the sixth soldier to be killed as a result of enemy action against Viking armoured vehicles.
The tactic shows that the Taliban are now capable of not only defeating the armour of the Viking's but are also aware of the British tactics in dealing with disabled vehicles. It appears that the second device was deliberately planted to target troops who would have to deal with the damaged vehicle.
It has also shown the weakness of the Viking to roadside bombs at a time when commanders are attempting to rapidly get a more robust vehicle into service.''
@@@@@@@@@@
u can say ST sell at very cheap price lah or wat ever reasons that
MOD choose this little red dot products.
UK empire cease to buy ATTC from BAE--aka British Aerospace (BAe)--
,indicating MOD put the lifes of soldiers over national pride.
This is very rare for a big country like UK to buy this kind of
platform or product from a small country.They cant find any better ATTC,
with better protections etc.
I salute to UK MOD.They are as brave as USA teachers and principals
who pioneer to use Singapore Maths text books.
@@@@@@@@
references
-
Originally posted by touchstone_2000:
When it comes to India buying military hardware, nothing is confirmed till the fat lady sings and then maybe.
If India buy,she is another big country to buy small country product.
This is very easy for decision maker to convince their people and MP
that they need buy Pegasus,not M777.
They just need to read
M777 vs. Pegasus then the answer is pretty obvivious.
U dunt need to be a PhD to understand the reasons.
The decision makers are also very brave and may have to
answer questions fr theri MP.
Due to the records of corruptions in India,she is not a reference customer
in defense procurement,but SG is.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
In fact,the Warthog/Bronco replacing Viking shall be discussed in Bronco thread.
What is the meaning ''replace''?Of course,it is on par and most likely
better than the stuff u are going to replace .Right?
So,in the eyes of UK MOD top brass,Bronco is better than Viking.
The article u quote come from UK MOD.There are few more
praising Viking.But wat is the fzzking use of these articles?
Paper and lip services alone cant save the ass of UK soldiers.Right?
Only the right armour can save their ass.
read wat did MOD say--
Over 100 brand new cross-country vehicles called Warthog which, with greater protection levels, will replace Vikings in Afghanistan, and over 100 more Jackals, the extremely agile all-terrain vehicles which include high-levels of off-road mobility and firepower.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/NewArmouredVehiclesForAfghanistan.htm
''with greater protection levels,''mean Bronco is better than Viking
in protection lah,stupid!!
The road side IED kills a no. of UK soldiers in Viking.U know.
Latest soldier killed named by MoD - Telegraph
-
''As Cpl Deering approached the stricken vehicle to assess the damage a second device went off killing him instantly. He is the sixth soldier to be killed as a result of enemy action against Viking armoured vehicles.
The tactic shows that the Taliban are now capable of not only defeating the armour of the Viking's but are also aware of the British tactics in dealing with disabled vehicles. It appears that the second device was deliberately planted to target troops who would have to deal with the damaged vehicle.
It has also shown the weakness of the Viking to roadside bombs at a time when commanders are attempting to rapidly get a more robust vehicle into service.''
@@@@@@@@@@
u can say ST sell at very cheap price lah or wat ever reasons that
MOD choose this little red dot products.
UK empire cease to buy ATTC from BAE--aka British Aerospace (BAe)--
,indicating MOD put the lifes of soldiers over national pride.
This is very rare for a big country like UK to buy this kind of
platform or product from a small country.They cant find any better ATTC,
with better protections etc.
I salute to UK MOD.They are as brave as USA teachers and principals
who pioneer to use Singapore Maths text books.
@@@@@@@@
references
angry angry
whimsy pansy
wishy washY
flippy floppy
viking replacement
extraordinary procurement
but not a matter of protection
but rather a case of armour protection
wearing out the auto transmissionsimply put
it aint worth a toot
operational armour needs
outgrow what the viking can feed
and place stress
upon the vehicles asshttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/doublejointed-popular-the-bv-family-of-infantry-support-vehicles-updated-02656/#popular
so noisy noisy so damned noisy
make sure you have the courage of a lion
for when the truth comes
prepared to be torn asunderkindly read
its like daily bread
you need it to breed
some form of intellect. -
Best of luck to ST if and when it gets this order !
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
angry angry
whimsy pansy
wishy washY
flippy floppy
viking replacement
extraordinary procurement
but not a matter of protection
but rather a case of armour protection
wearing out the auto transmissionsimply put
it aint worth a toot
operational armour needs
outgrow what the viking can feed
and place stress
upon the vehicles asshttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/doublejointed-popular-the-bv-family-of-infantry-support-vehicles-updated-02656/#popular
so noisy noisy so damned noisy
make sure you have the courage of a lion
for when the truth comes
prepared to be torn asunderkindly read
its like daily bread
you need it to breedsome form of intellect.
do u mean the Viking protection is too heavy for its engine?
If so,can they reduce the weight of protection or enhance the engine
or BOTH lah....
U ,as a common western defense analyst,cannot accept that Bronco was chosen.
Do u think why UK MOD top brass stuck their heads on the chopping
board to pick Bronco?They were drunk?ST gave them lot of ang mo
or feed them ton of chille crab?This is a very political incorrect
decision,in this bad economy.UK need jobs badly,but MOD choose ST.
Have u read any objections from UK Opposition party or
other defense analysts or from public?
wat did janes comment on this sale?
This dead just can protect the life of UK soldiers better than Viking.
Their lifes are damn important than national pride,jobs,political
risks etc.Do u get it?
Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is
just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!
While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets
the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....
So,which one would u choose,if u were the decision maker?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Do u think why UK MOD top brass stuck their heads on the chopping
board to pick Bronco?They were drunk?ST gave them lot of ang mo
or feed them ton of chille crab?This is a very political incorrect
decision,in this bad economy.UK need jobs badly,but MOD choose ST.
Have u read any objections from UK Opposition party or
other defense analysts or from public?
wat did janes comment on this sale?
This dead just can protect the life of UK soldiers better than Viking.
Their lifes are damn important than national pride,jobs,political
risks etc.Do u get it?
no moron.
you realize that BaE hagglunds is in sweden ? the parent company making the BvS10 is british (originally, now its more like eurocentric) , but the vehicle itself is made in sweden. any guaruntee of UK jobs ? enough crap. lets get to the i pwn you part.
Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is
just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!
While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets
the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....
So,which one would u choose,if u were the decision maker?
do you get their procurement ? obviously not. why u dont dare reply in the Bronco thread ? reply here ?
do i object to the purchase of the bronco ? have i opposed the bronco's purchase ?why you so nationalist rah rah ? i oppose you and your crap. i have never opposed the ATTC's purchase by UK MOD. get your bloody facts right before you insinuate rubbish.
can you read english ?
the problem with the viking and its replacement by the ATTC is not because its a incompetent vehicle platform or that is so flawed that it cant be rectified. the problem with the viking / BvS10, is that it has reached the limits of its capability growth.
i.e, you can only add on so much armour to a proven platform. additional armour costs greater wear and tear on the engine and transmission. use under combat conditions implies increased wear and tear and mileage.
the viking as a platform is combat exhausted. it has reached the end of its capability upgrade curve. any further upgrades would probably NOT be cost effective and wasting money on a worn-out / overused platform.
2 years of combat wear and tear under operational conditions have probably subjected the viking to the equivalent of about 10 years worth of peacetime operations. is it worth spending on a SLEP / refurb program on something that has no future potential for growth without incurring a performance penalty ?
oh waitaminit, isnt that your poor little lion's problem ? cannot think for himself ? only copy and paste articles and information without thinking them through ?
what is right armour ? does right armour mean heavy armour ? what kinds of armour platforms are you talking about ? what qualities of that kinda armour ? what kind of terrain that armour is operating on ? how reliable is that armour under certain terrain conditions ? does that armor platform have capability upgrade options ? does it have future growth potential ?
you obviously have failed to think this through. dont waste my time with your spam. come back to get your ass pwned when you have a more thoroughly thought through nonsense idea.
do you still need further clarification dear lionnoisy ? or you cannot read ? i even highlighted the key parts so you can skip the rest of the body if you dont have time to read. cos if you have, this is
do u mean the Viking protection is too heavy for its engine?
If so,can they reduce the weight of protection or enhance the engine
or BOTH lah....
U ,as a common western defense analyst,cannot accept that Bronco was chosen.
absolute bullshit.
reduce the weight of protection, upsize engine and so ? whats your point ?
why ? dont realize that your objectives completly dont make sense ?
1) uparmour for more protection = less speed and strain on engine/transmission, ceterius paribus
2) lesser armour for lesser protection = more speed, less wear and tear on engine/transmission, ceterius paribus
3) wartime opeartions means heavier use of vehicle in comparatively more punishing conditions as compared to peacetime operations (like DUH!)
4) 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. not possible to acheive both without substantial upgrades and downtime. coupled with fact 3, which makes the expense needed to refurbish and reequip the viking for such a purpose, not cost efficient.
5) the viking has no future potential growth capacity unless it were given 1. it can be. but at great cost, downtime (and reduction in number of vikings avaliable for service in afghanistan) and little benefit for Long term plans (poor future LR prospects)
consider these 5 simple points. and you will arrive at the same conclusion i did. they are irreconcillable objectives. thats probably why the UK MOD chose the ATTC over the BvS10. your mind is as thick as mud
might as well send UK MOD soldiers on roller blade skates and equip em with kangaroo jump boots. can jump away from mines and IEDs if we follow you
Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is
just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!
While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets
the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....
another whole lot of bullshit here as well.
substantiate why better in performance and price. do you have any objective source or data that states so ?
prove the fact that ST eng was ordering materials to make the ATTC while bae was developing the BvS10 viking. BAE already had a BvS10 viking. its just that it was doing a lengthened version with a larger powerpack to suit the WARTHOG requirements.
so many inaccuracies, so much bullshit.
if you'd like more ass-whipping, continue posting. you'd get it.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
do u mean the Viking protection is too heavy for its engine?
If so,can they reduce the weight of protection or enhance the engine
or BOTH lah....
U ,as a common western defense analyst,cannot accept that Bronco was chosen.
Do u think why UK MOD top brass stuck their heads on the chopping
board to pick Bronco?They were drunk?ST gave them lot of ang mo
or feed them ton of chille crab?This is a very political incorrect
decision,in this bad economy.UK need jobs badly,but MOD choose ST.
Have u read any objections from UK Opposition party or
other defense analysts or from public?
wat did janes comment on this sale?
This dead just can protect the life of UK soldiers better than Viking.
Their lifes are damn important than national pride,jobs,political
risks etc.Do u get it?
Viking is good,very good ,according to the articles.BUT Bronco is
just a little bit better,in overall performance and price!!
While www.stengg.com was ordering the materaials BEFORE they gets
the order,BAE was still developing the Viking....
So,which one would u choose,if u were the decision maker?
-
u can see the automatic flick ramming by machine at 4.45 to 4.55 min.
This 10 min long video show u Pegasus,FH 2000 and Primus SPH,
all well ahead in operation than the future weapons!!
pl compare with future weapon manually ramming!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRxOaR0uAUU&NR=1
King of the Battlefield - The Singapore Artillery
cyberpioneertv
December 04, 2008 -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
u can see the automatic flick ramming by machine at 4.45 to 4.55 min.
This 10 min long video show u Pegasus,FH 2000 and Primus SPH,
all well ahead in operation than the future weapons!!
pl compare with future weapon manually ramming!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRxOaR0uAUU&NR=1
King of the Battlefield - The Singapore Artillery
cyberpioneertv
December 04, 2008whats the use ?
redland just doubled its battery of astros. saturation strike and we are dead.
-
Its not only the 36 Astros launchers & the not insignificant quantities of 155 mm & 105 mm guns, 120 mm & 81 mm mortars but also "belt buckle " tactics that can neutralize any perceived advantages that blueland thinks it possess.
Remember that blueland's strategy is well publicised and well known & there are always ways of countering it - and easily too.
Back to the drawing board !
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Best of luck to ST if and when it gets this order !
i hope they wont get it. -
Noisy Lion... please serve in the SAF and find out what the heck you're talking about.
I'm frigging cheesed off by all these little schoolboys thinking they know every bloody thing about our glorious SAF.
-
touchstone_2000 said "" When it comes to India buying military hardware, nothing is confirmed till the fat lady sings and then maybe.""
also its based on who is paying the biggest bribe
-
This was an interesting press release (jun 2008).
http://www.punjlloyd.com/admin/spaw2/uploads/files/STK%20PLL%20final%20press%20release.pdf
-
I wish STK the very best of luck.
-
PLA get 155mm gun with auxiliary power to hit ships --
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2009-05-02/1013550658.html
range 50 km
em/displacement less than 4 min
speed--towed 90 km/h ,Self propelled 20 km/h.
岸防155æ¯«ç±³åŠ æ¦´ç‚®æ˜¯æ¦å™¨ç³»ç»Ÿçš„主è¦�作战å�•å…ƒï¼Œå®ƒæ˜¯åœ¨åŽŸ155æ¯«ç±³ç‰µå¼•åŠ æ¦´ç‚®çš„åŸºç¡€ä¸Šï¼Œå¢žåŠ äº†ä¸€å¥—è¾…åŠ©åŠ¨åŠ›ç³»ç»Ÿå’Œæ¶²åŽ‹ç³»ç»Ÿï¼Œå¹³æ—¶è¡Œå†›ç”±ç‰µå¼•è½¦ç‰µå¼•ï¼Œè¿› å…¥ã€�撤出阵地和展开ã€�撤收ç�«ç‚®è‡ªä¸»å®Œæˆ�，行军战斗转æ�¢æ—¶é—´å°�于4分钟，机动ç�µæ´»ï¼Œå�¯ä»¥åº”付å�„ç§�çª�å�‘情况，进行应急作战。其最大牵引行军速度90å�ƒç±³ï¼�å°� 时，自行速度20å�ƒç±³ï¼�å°�时。å�‘射底排ç�«ç®å¢žç¨‹æ�€ä¼¤çˆ†ç ´æ¦´å¼¹çš„最大射程å�¯ä»¥è¾¾åˆ°50å�ƒç±³ï¼Œç�«ç‚®å°„界范围宽，ç�«åŠ›è¦†ç›–é�¢å¤§o
ä¸å›½å¼€å�‘出新型155毫米岸防æ¦å™¨ç³»ç»Ÿ(组图) 兵器知识
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/hotnews/Daily/index.shtml
http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/#jtjx
-
i have said here that in all current versions of M 777 ,
there is no engine to provide power for ramming and movement.
Here is the proof.We may have to wait at least few more years
for development and installations of engine and rammer in M777.
I cant understand why the mighty Yankees cannot do this simple
things in 21 st century,when this red dot country
could give power engine to F 88
howitzer some 20 years ago.
i highly recommend u to read the info from here,Very updated in yankees
and sometimes foreign countries developments.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/337783
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
i have said here that in all current versions of M 777 ,
there is no engine to provide power for ramming and movement.
Here is the proof.We may have to wait at least few more years
for development and installations of engine and rammer in M777.
I cant understand why the mighty Yankees cannot do this simple
things in 21 st century,when this red dot country
could give power engine to F 88
howitzer some 20 years ago.
i highly recommend u to read the info from here,Very updated in yankees
and sometimes foreign countries developments.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/337783
So senseless, i'm speechless. -
Originally posted by Crazydeezee:
So senseless, i'm speechless.can u tell me more?Which words are senseless?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
can u tell me more?Which words are senseless?
How 'bout:WALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAP
WALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAP
WALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAPWALLOFCRAP
NOISYPUSSY IS TALKING CRAP
[REPEAT AD INFINITUM, AD NAUSEAM]
Get my drift?
Even a monkey with a brain tumour can tell that you're just pushing your mindless hate OZ and anything not SG agenda on this forum.
Get out. Please. For everyone's bloody sake.
Noisy Pussy, you don't need one more person telling you what a wasted excuse for humanity you are. Your kind truly occupies the lowest rung of our evolutionary ladder.
-
No one's going to explain to you just how senseless your words are because even after being exposed for the mindless jackhole you are, you refuse to even *listen.
I'm not about to burst a blood vessel educating you because you're too damn dense to learn for *yourself.
Anything in there, sport? Or are you just a blighting spambot?