kikuyu1:
Combat shotguns,anyone?

This would be an ideal weapon on our continent.
-Simple
-sturdy
-effective since nothing can resist 2.5 inch LG rounds within 25 metres regardless of environment,forested savannah or jungle

Yet few of our forces use this-why? The Germans in WW1 swore to execute and Marine with a Trench Broom,the Winchester 97 THEY USED FOR Slam Firing trench clearing.

Ideally,the military shotgun would be at least semi auto with an external box mag of min 9 rounds.
The Italian Franchi seemed to meet this criteria,but had a real s hitty build quality.

The 32 round AA 12 can fire explosive rounds,a mini grenade launcher!

I'g go with the fully auto Saiga,since the enemy will assume its just an AK til he hears the distinctive bark of 12 ga buckshot at which point he will be horribly surprised and soon dead.
The gunner allows the 3 inch rounds to escape him and really should do better controlling the recoil in this clip.

The US both regular and specops of all the triservices are big believers of the scattergun-why not us?

yeah that would be something worth taking to combat , a shotgun firing HE rounds

IMO these shotguns r not so much used becz of the combat situation prevalent in Africa nowadays-mostly medium to long distance engagement .

combat shot guns will be good for CQB scenarios, really devastating

they had these 20mm programmable air burst rounds for the OICW personal weapon system (now cancelled) only the sounth koreans have a similar system in operational use. it is called K10 i think , not sure though.

nemesis2uagain:


yeah that would be something worth taking to combat , a shotgun firing HE rounds

combat shot guns will be good for CQB scenarios, really devastating

they had these 20mm programmable air burst rounds for the OICW personal weapon system (now cancelled) only the sounth koreans have a similar system in operational use. it is called K10 i think , not sure though.

Inkuzi! Though not programmable.

MikeCZA:
Inkuzi! Though not programmable.

is it in operational use?

nemesis2uagain:

is it in operational use?

Yes!

Adminisher:
The truth is that some systems aboard the latest Super Tucano are more sophisticated ************ especially SU 30 MKI especially in the ground attack role.

can u give some pointers to the same regarding SU 30 MKI systems which r less capable than those on Super Tucano.

also i want to stress , i am not asking this question becz i am offended or something about what u said regarding SU30MKI, becz i am not.

actually i am interested to know which said systems r deficient, from purely a technical view / interest

arjun mk 2

67 of the 73 tank fittable improvements meant for arjun mk2 has been declared successful. The total number of improvements envisioned is 84. Out of which 73 are tank fittable .

T-72 from Syria with infrared camera for night driving, local modification most likely

newer avatar of INSAS -INSAS MK1C

spotted with operator belonging to SOG (special operations group) J&K POLICE

nemesis2uagain:
arjun mk 2

67 of the 73 tank fittable improvements meant for arjun mk2 has been declared successful. The total number of improvements envisioned is 84. Out of which 73 are tank fittable .

Are these more expensive than than the Korean K2 and do they incoperate hydro pneumatic suspensions ?

jakeporeshenko:

Are these more expensive than than the Korean K2 and do they incoperate hydro pneumatic suspensions ?

arjun is fitted with an advanced gas based hydro pneumatic suspension system, the ride quality was much appreciated by the Israeli test crews who called it the desert Ferrari.

yeah they cost more than korean K2 , becz believe it or not , many of the tanks electronics and capabilities r based on latest Israeli merkava MBT. arjun mk1 was secretly flow to Israel for testing. but integration was a big headache. there was a lot of hit and misses, as a result u get to see so many upgrades. that is why Germans, Russians Israelis r known as masters of tank design , they have a lot of experience under their belt unlike Indians. i believe India will need another 10 years to match the above countries in pedigree relating to tank development.

many foreign components r directly imported and few r customized local variants as it does not make sense to manufacture these components for a few arjun tanks. this leads to added costs plus becz of the economics of scale , if u have a longer production run , then the cost decreases considerably.

the army is hesitant to induct the tank becz of transportation issues, Indian bridges, roads cannot handle more than 50 tonnes load , unless these r upgraded, arjun operations will be limited to the desert sector only.

presently with the mine plough and ERA it weights near 60 tonnes. but india has made a break through in developing high nitrogen steel (HNS) which will replace arjuns rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) basic layer armor, this will lead to increased protection and weight reduction by more than 5 tonnes to bring arjun mk2 weight to below 55 tonnes.

also the Israelis wanted the Kanchan Armour technology from arjun and even agreed to fund its next version .

picture : one senior Indian official among others who stayed in Israel for some months in secrecy and were issued with Israeli uniforms with ranks, before being shipped back to India with Arjun prototype.

building MBTs is a very technology intensive task especially, if it is ur first tank design. u will fail more often than succeed.

arjun evolution in pictures


pic 1 first Arjun prototype with 105mm L7 cannon and unknown FCS from 1980s

pic 2 second Arjun MK1 prototype from mid 90s with BEL FCS with new ARDE 120mm rifled gun instead of 105mm L7

pic 3 third Enhanced Arjun MK1 with unknown FCS and new turret, Never went into production

pic 4 fourth Arjun MK1 with ARDE 120mm cannon with DRDO/TATA FCS which went into production from late 2000

pic 5 Arjun MK2 prototype with enhanced features presently undergoing trials

Arjun present MTU 838 Ka-501 diesel engine

to be replaced in future with bharatpack-1500 HP engine

tdayof:


Common. Helicopters perform better than each other it's a norm. However saying the MI-35 isn't a dedicated helicopter because it carries troops is wrong. Tell me one thing the Mi-28 will do and the mi-35 won't do. Armament etc.

I'm not helicopter person so I will love to hear nemesis2u opinion on this argument.


Let us make it an intellectual argument please. We should avoid using insultive words. I know patches will Jump in soon.

missed this question of urs due to username ban.

MI35 and MI28 r 2 different purpose helicopters.

MI35 is a transport cum attack helicopter, which means
1.it can carry troops
2.it can perform attack roles

but the million dollar question would be,
can it do both concurrently without serious performance lose in either of the 2 capabilities ?

eg. if it is outfitted with full weapons load for attack missions, will it be able perform optimally with its full troop load ? or if it caries it full troop load will it hamper its attack capabilities with degradation in speed , range , rate of climb , agility and maneuverability etc ?

IMO the answer is utility of MI35 is dictated by its mission profile

situation one

NAF needs to destroy a BH base , but it can spare 1 M35 only , therefor SF troops r roped in to lead the assault complemented by the MI35.

so from a major base inland, a MI35 fitted with extra fuel tanks and ammo / fuel / support crew flies to the staging base . it now removes its fuel tanks tops up the normal ones from its transported supplies , arms up fully , gets its detachment of troops on board and proceeds towards target area.

near target area , it off loads its complement of troops, and flies off to reconnoiter its target area , radios in enemy position if required. SF troops move in for assult while 2 of them seek higher grounds to direct the MI35 assault over radio and acts as FAC.

since the MI35 is freed up of its troop complement, it regains it optimal attack characteristics. mean time ground assault begins and the MI35 initiates attack as directed by the FAC (forward air controllers)

important take away
it can do the job of 2,
one after the other for the best results and best utilization of the MI35 advantages / features.
ie. transport the troops to destination and off load them and then without its additional weight to bog it down , it performs its attack role with best results as its flight envelope expands considerably. (or vice versa)
in its attack configuration with zero cargo loadout its performance will be around 80% of a dedicated attack helicopter. a good pilot will be able to close this gap a little more. again combination of optimal operational altitude , temperature , speed , tactics , maneuvers etc will further close the gap further.
this difference is due to unique air frame design / rotor / engine / wings etc combination which gives the M35 its advantage for use as a transporter or a attack helicopter or both . simply stated it is not optimized for a specific role like a dedicated attack is optimized for attack role or a transport helicopter is optimized for transport.

it is very difficult to go into each and every specifics, out of my scope , so i am giving a totally generalized idea.


situation two

1 MI35 lightly armed with 2 rocket pods and its gun is tasked to transport troops from point A to point B , en route it comes under fire ,with radio calls rom HQ asking to eliminate target on priory basis or loose them for ever. the MI 35 with its troop load evades and then engages in combat maneuvers within the limitations imposed by its addition weight to hit the targets , the heavy armor saves the troops inside from small arms fire , while the MI35 hampered with its troop complements, gets it nose down by 8 degree and uses its wings to gain speed to make running fire passes to hit its targets and pull away with less than preferred tight turns (due to additional weight penalty).

after everything is over , the troops inside r totally wasted from heli sickness and swear that they will never take a helicopter ride ever again.

important take away
compared to conventional transport helicopter, MI 35 provides advantage of safety to its troop complement and good acceleration and adequate flight characteristics to engage and suppress threats for defensive and curtailed offensive action, provided there is a optimal balance between the cargo load out and troop load out.
(plz note its combat capabilities while in transport mode will not be up to the level of a dedicated attack helicopter but will hover anywhere from 40-70 % , which again will be determined by its combination of cargo/weapons loadout, full troop complement + full weapons load will lead to worse performance ) incase somebody forgets : compared to MI35, a dedicated attack helicopters carries zero troops/cargo (1 or 2 helis r exception as they have stowage compartment for downed crew.)

Tell me one thing the Mi-28 will do and the mi-35 won't do. Armament etc.

MI 28 can hover without penalty, but MI 24 suffers from unstable hovering due to rotor downwash on the wings- a necessary trade off for increased speed and additional lift ( by the way MI24/35 have awesome speed ) . the problem was mitigated to some extent by newer powerful engines in the MI35 but still hovering places additional burden on the engines as the wings disrupts the ground effect leading to higher power demand from the engine to maintain hover.so hovering is possible but it is advised not to go for it unless in emergency.additionally it reduces engine life.

in real life MI35 operate in pairs or multiples of pairs.

in short i tried to give 2 hypothetical examples in order to highlight MI35 advantages / disadvantages according to mission profile


note : this is my Opinion , so plz use ur discretion

T-72 B3 futher upgraded based on Syrian Experience

x

Russian Air Force SU-34 full-backs refuelling

nemesis2u:


missed this question of urs due to username ban.

MI35 and MI28 r 2 different purpose helicopters.

MI35 is a transport cum attack helicopter, which means
1.it can carry troops
2.it can perform attack roles

but the million dollar question would be,
can it do both concurrently without serious performance lose in either of the 2 capabilities ?

eg. if it is outfitted with full weapons load for attack missions, will it be able perform optimally with its full troop load ? or if it caries it full troop load will it hamper its attack capabilities with degradation in speed , range , rate of climb , agility and maneuverability etc ?

IMO the answer is utility of MI35 is dictated by its mission profile

situation one

NAF needs to destroy a BH base , but it can spare 1 M35 only , therefor SF troops r roped in to lead the assault complemented by the MI35.

so from a major base inland, a MI35 fitted with extra fuel tanks and ammo / fuel / support crew flies to the staging base . it now removes its fuel tanks tops up the normal ones from its transported supplies , arms up fully , gets its detachment of troops on board and proceeds towards target area.

near target area , it off loads its complement of troops, and flies off to reconnoiter its target area , radios in enemy position if required. SF troops move in for assult while 2 of them seek higher grounds to direct the MI35 assault over radio and acts as FAC.

since the MI35 is freed up of its troop complement, it regains it optimal attack characteristics. mean time ground assault begins and the MI35 initiates attack as directed by the FAC (forward air controllers)

important take away
it can do the job of 2,
one after the other for the best results and best utilization of the MI35 advantages / features.
ie. transport the troops to destination and off load them and then without its additional weight to bog it down , it performs its attack role with best results as its flight envelope expands considerably. (or vice versa)
in its attack configuration with zero cargo loadout its performance will be around 80% of a dedicated attack helicopter. a good pilot will be able to close this gap a little more. again combination of optimal operational altitude , temperature , speed , tactics , maneuvers etc will further close the gap further.
this difference is due to unique air frame design / rotor / engine / wings etc combination which gives the M35 its advantage for use as a transporter or a attack helicopter or both . simply stated it is not optimized for a specific role like a dedicated attack is optimized for attack role or a transport helicopter is optimized for transport.

it is very difficult to go into each and every specifics, out of my scope , so i am giving a totally generalized idea.


situation two

1 MI35 lightly armed with 2 rocket pods and its gun is tasked to transport troops from point A to point B , en route it comes under fire ,with radio calls rom HQ asking to eliminate target on priory basis or loose them for ever. the MI 35 with its troop load evades and then engages in combat maneuvers within the limitations imposed by its addition weight to hit the targets , the heavy armor saves the troops inside from small arms fire , while the MI35 hampered with its troop complements, gets it nose down by 8 degree and uses its wings to gain speed to make running fire passes to hit its targets and pull away with less than preferred tight turns (due to additional weight penalty).

after everything is over , the troops inside r totally wasted from heli sickness and swear that they will never take a helicopter ride ever again.

important take away
compared to conventional transport helicopter, MI 35 provides advantage of safety to its troop complement and good acceleration and adequate flight characteristics to engage and suppress threats for defensive and curtailed offensive action, provided there is a optimal balance between the cargo load out and troop load out.
(plz note its combat capabilities while in transport mode will not be up to the level of a dedicated attack helicopter but will hover anywhere from 40-70 % , which again will be determined by its combination of cargo/weapons loadout, full troop complement + full weapons load will lead to worse performance ) incase somebody forgets : compared to MI35, a dedicated attack helicopters carries zero troops/cargo (1 or 2 helis r exception as they have stowage compartment for downed crew.)



MI 28 can hover without penalty, but MI 24 suffers from unstable hovering due to rotor downwash on the wings- a necessary trade off for increased speed and additional lift ( by the way MI24/35 have awesome speed ) . the problem was mitigated to some extent by newer powerful engines in the MI35 but still hovering places additional burden on the engines as the wings disrupts the ground effect leading to higher power demand from the engine to maintain hover.so hovering is possible but it is advised not to go for it unless in emergency.additionally it reduces engine life.

in real life MI35 operate in pairs or multiples of pairs.

in short i tried to give 2 hypothetical examples in order to highlight MI35 advantages / disadvantages according to mission profile


note : this is my Opinion , so plz use ur discretion

More proof that you're the best poster here!

The 8 most elite special forces in the world


http://pulse.ng/bi/politics/politics-the-8-most-elite-special-forces-in-the-world-id6540268.html

bidexiii:
The 8 most elite special forces in the world


http://pulse.ng/bi/politics/politics-the-8-most-elite-special-forces-in-the-world-id6540268.html

Our guys train alongside SSG

J20 and J-15

http://pulse.ng/bi/politics/politics-the-8-most-elite-special-forces-in-the-world-id6540268.html

a big lolzzz

author is Mian Khursheed

why doesn't it surprise me that SSG made it to the list even at number 8 and german KSK Kommando Spezialkräfte was kept out to do so.

pretty damn convenient

lol the germans will eat them for breakfast

FYI, some 200 SSGs who were air dropped during indo-pak war were captured and killed by villagers armed with sticks , many had to be saved by the policeman. only 2 of them escaped back .

stupidity and propaganda is like water and alcohol, they mix well.

FYI ROC (Taiwan) Special Forces is an often overlooked SF they r capable of giving any SF a run for their money.

jakeporeshenko:
J20 and J-15

the j20 looks good

but the rear portion seems to put me off (the engine section)

nemesis2u:


the j20 looks good

but the rear portion seems to put me off (the engine section)

I noticed, what engines are on the J-20 are they Chinese developed or somthing similar to the Su-35s ?

jakeporeshenko:

I noticed, what engines are on the J-20 are they Chinese developed or somthing similar to the Su-35s ?

they use Russian engines ( SU 30 )

Latest Ghatak UCAV configuration - from ADA's annual report 2015-16

cessna combat caravan

nemesis2u:
http://pulse.ng/bi/politics/politics-the-8-most-elite-special-forces-in-the-world-id6540268.html

a big lolzzz

author is Mian Khursheed

why doesn't it surprise me that SSG made it to the list even at number 8 and german KSK Kommando Spezialkräfte was kept out to do so.

pretty damn convenient

lol the germans will eat them for breakfast

FYI, some 200 SSGs who were air dropped during indo-pak war were captured and killed by villagers armed with sticks , many had to be saved by the policeman. only 2 of them escaped back .

stupidity and propaganda is like water and alcohol, they mix well.

FYI ROC (Taiwan) Special Forces is an often overlooked SF they r capable of giving any SF a run for their money.

In reality there's no such thing as the "best or most elite".

As proven by some units deployed in Africa to find a certain warlord but are often schooled by the local forces.

Training differs and covers areas of possible(current and future) deployment.

MikeCZA:
In reality there's no such thing as the "best or most elite".

As proven by some units deployed in Africa to find a certain warlord but are often schooled by the local forces.

Training differs and covers areas of possible(current and future) deployment.

ur 101 % correct.

this type of ranking is just to bring in feel good factor, nothing else.

in real life things r much different.

there will always be a good and a bad day for any SF or for the matter any unit.

at least theoretically one can judge on the basis of training , operational exposure, equipment's and support resources, but that wont touch even the tip of the iceberg and needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

LCU Mk. IV (landing craft utility)

@ kikuyu1


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI3FsHMVEec

HTT-40 is a Basic Trainer aircraft being developed by HAL for Indian Forces and other customers.
The project is entirely funded by HAL internally. Close to 500 Cr (approx 90 million dollars ) are being invested.

Length = 11.3m
Span = 11m
Height = 3.7m
Take-off Weight = 2800kg
Internal Fuel = 450kg
TO roll at SL = 1000m
Landing roll at SL = 1000m
Max speed CAS at SL = 400kmph
Stall speed = 140kmph
Service ceiling = 6000m
Ferry Range = 1000km
Max speed = 450 kmph (240 knots)
Operational ceiling = 6000 m (20000 ft)
Climb rate = 6 m/s (20 ft/s)
G-limit: +6/-2.5
Price tag: INR 42 Crore (~ $ 6.2 M) Cheapest in the category

Tandem cockpit design. Front for the Trainee and back seat for the Trainer. Both cockpit are similar, except that the Trainer can override controls from the back cockpit.

Weaponised version of HTT-40 is planned, mainly keeping the export in mind. A 12.5mm gun, 250lb, 500lb bombs planned to be integrated and make the aircraft ready for CAS and Recce role. Since cost of flying per hr for HTT-40 is fairly lower than weaponised helicopter or dedicated fighter, it has economic advantage here. Weaponisation would start once the Stall and Spin tests are finished.

Entire glass-cockpit, 3 smart MFD - 6"x8" MFD, 5"x7" ECAS, standby instrument disply, GPS. Can be upgrades to have HUD and cater for weaponised platform. Planning to add one more display so that it could replicate a front end fighter. Thus systems training time from a front end fighter (~30% of total training time) can be carried out on HTT-40, reducing valuable airframe time on the costly fighters. It has got HOTAS in it with the intention of integrating weapons sooner or later.

Confirmed orders of 70 aircrafts which are planned to be delivered to IAF by 2021.will increase later

note: HTT-40 is still in prototype stage , it will get upgrades as per requirements later on eg. EO pods ,missile and PGM firing capability etc

LCA Navy Mk2 schematics