eh bummer. me post got deleted.
ild just post a short summary of what i posted
so lionnoisy, test drive a car = ownership of it ? pretty good
understanding of it right ? so ild go test drive a lambrohingi
gallardo tomorrow and write a book about its engineering and its
flaws and good points k ? dont worry, when i write the book , if
you purchase a copy, ild definitely autograph for you first.
lol.. u certain afghanistan terrain can be simulated ? let me
introduce you to something you've never met before, its called
EMPIRICAL evidence
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/20thcentury/articles/sovietexperience.aspx
Providing adequate logistics support in
Afghanistan was a constant problem for the 40th Army. The
harsh climate and rugged terrain
quickly wore out vehicles and equipment. Vehicle fuel
systems, cooling systems, and road wheels were particularly
susceptible to the harsh conditions. As a result, Soviet
maintenance personnel were forced to accelerate scheduled maintenance and services
on a variety of weapon systems and vehicles. Although the
40th Army had a Material support Brigade and separate tank, motor
vehicle, and artillery repair battalions, it still "lacked
sufficient maintenance personnel and facilities during the entire
war."[38] The inadequate support resulted in poor readiness, poor
maintenance procedures, unsafe repairs, cannibalization of repair
parts and a tendency not to conserve the use of vehicles
dont talk to me about testing and field experience. two complete
different matters altogether. another factor which distinguishes
armchair generals from the field commander, or the pimply, acned 16
year old kid from a trained soldier.
field testing and trials are only meant to simulate the
conditions that a vehicle is supposed to encounter. they are not
meant to replicate or test the abuse a vehicle gets from a 6 or 9
months tour of duty. think about that for a second and you ought to
come to the conclusion of how idiotic that sounds. u wont buy a car
without giving it a test drive or putting it through some spins to
test and try to find out the weaknesses of the car would you ? but
maybe you would, given your intellect, cant say for sure. classic
self-pwn from you.
MOD just find
Viking not suitable lah..BAE is just waiting for order.
BAE should develope a better version ,after Bvs 10 in
production.
They just think there will be no competitor and forget
Singapore.
This can be a Havard Biz School case study---How u can lose a
long
the day u start planning harvard's syllabus and curriculum,
that will be the day harvard's ranking drops like a stone flung
from taipei 101. if its never going to happen, dont try to
exaggerate it as a means of boosting your credibility. you are only
going to paint yourself further as an idiot.
this is not a clear cut issue. its complicated and involves many
layers. bad case study if you asked me.
for instance, observe the Bv206 and BvS10 procurement process
1) royal marines are one of the largest Bv206 and BvS10 operators.
note the procurement of the ATTC is breaking away from this
tradition. anyone asked them what they felt about this ? anyone
come out openly to say if the ATTC is more competent than the BvS10
under combat situations ? till the day they do, my belief is still
in the BvS10. this is a understory/careful layer that has yet to be
played out or explored in detail by anyone yet.
2) according to deagel, BvS10 are expected to have a service life
of 20 years. but even with its planned procurement of the ATTC, 14
BvS10 were procured just this january (just before the
announcement). previously, the RM ordered a command and control,
ambulance and special use variants just the year before in
june.
tell me what does this mean ? is the BvS10 going to be phased out
completely ? why risk capital investment in old stock/supersceded
stuff or weak underarmoured things ? thats a pretty strong hint of
service rivalry and disagreement over procurement if you ask me. im
not privy to any information more that what you have access to. but
the sheer fact that i use my brain to think allows me much more
information about this than you do.
'29 Oct 2008 : Column
WS91
and firepower. It is for this reason that we are procuring over 100
additional Jackal, costing around £75 million, to augment our
current fleet, bringing the total to over 300.
Viking has provided an excellent capability in
Afghanistan, giving us unparalleled access to areas around the
Helmand River. But, although we are providing some further
enhancements to its protection, we have reached the limit of its
ability to carry extra
weight and protection. This is why we intend to
replace Viking in Afghanistan with an alternative, better
protected, high-mobility vehicle, to be known as Warthog; work is
under way to identify the right vehicle to fulfil this role. We
will procure over 100 new vehicles with deliveries starting at the
end of next year.''
Lords
Hansard text for 29 Oct 200829 Oct 2008 (pt 0001)
thanks for repeatedly reiterating my point. you have quoted it
repeatedly and yet still fail to understand why i keep lambasting
your rubbish posts that the BvS10 is inferior to the ATTC. it is
not. it has been replaced simply because of it reaching the limit
of its upgrade capability. you love flogging dead horses (or to be
precise, broncos) in this case do you ?