LOL...
ST eng brochure and you cant even quote it properly ? ST
brochure says its 18. but they have subsequently revised it down to
10. see ? ST lies.
you must be moronic. you claimed the Bv206/BvS10 cannot fire
mortar. when faced with the truth in pictures what claim have you ?
you now want to compare SRAMS when you know SRAMS is a propertairy
ST technology which they will not release for sale to everyone ?
hhaaha are you an idiot ? what do you take us all for ? noisy lions
like you ?
now very cunning right ? when pwned u straight away adopt a,
"oops, i meant something else" when you clearly cannot
differentiate ?
maybe can ask britney to teach you the oops i did it again
cannot tell propertairy technology from functional capability ?
cannot seperate colour from category ? my idiot lion, you said
BvS206 and BvS10 cannot fire mortar, i proved you wrong and now
what say you ?confuse when you cannot answer ? obfusticate when you
cannot illustrate ?
and WWII did not have that calibre of mortar. WWII they
preferred a platform called the self propelled gun. more effective
that mortar.
you cant handle the truth.admit it.
i provided pictures that show the BvS10 handling slopes of at
least 60 degress. what have you got save for the ST brochure ? any
pictures of Bronco doing it in real life ?
so if i post this picture, you going to believe that bronco can
fly to the moon lah ? are you that imbecilic to the point where you
believe everything that is fed to you ?
whats a queene ?
what happened to your official source and records ? why quote
from someone's posting from another forum ?
why cannot think independently ? why still flogging a dead horse
?
why when quote from ST brochure also cannot quote properly ?
dunno how to differentiate from BvS10 specs and Bronco specs ?
why post some specs from Bronco dont post some specs from BvS10
? cannot find right ? self-pwn +3
why talk about passive IBD armour when it dosent come standard ?
why talk about AMAP-ADS when no operational version of the Bronco
uses it ? why dont talk about intergreation issues ? why dont talk
about the lawsuit ST got slapped over with the Bronco ?
why dont admit that the Bronco is a blatant rip off of the Bv206
design and hydraulic link to the point that Bae Hagglunds sued ST ?
why dont criticize ST for not innovating and ripping it off ?
WRONG ABOUT AIRCON. for SAF broncos in service, air con is not a
standard stock option. some variants have aircon. most dont
have.
Janes however indicates that the export version is likely to
have aircon for both front an rear carriage
so applying from your logic about OFFICIAL SITES AND OFFICIAL
PROOF and I WANT YES OR NO ANSWERS, I DONT WANT TO HEAR IRRELEVANT
STUFF
so when ST features this on their webpage, it means they must be
developing an advanced flying man concept ? ai say, not bad leh ST.
pity its a shame they forgot about icarus some 4,000 years ago.
i say , ai seh lionnoisy, maybe you can join them in their
flying man aspiration right lionnoisy ?
dddd
1.what do u mean?---ST brochure says its 18. but they have subsequently
revised it down to 10. see ? ST lies.
2.can they install a manual mortar sys on ATTC?---SRAMS is a
propertairy ST technology which they will not release for sale to
everyone
3.I quote all BvS 10
data.pl fill in the data for both which are missing.i will change
Bronco to red.thanks----why when quote from ST brochure also
cannot quote properly ? dunno how to differentiate from BvS10 specs
and Bronco specs ?
why post some specs from Bronco dont post some specs from
BvS10 ? cannot find right ? self-pwn +3
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I find this cancelled procurement from UK MOD for a
ATTC to replace
BV 206 and in a support role to VIKING!!But MOD UK was looking
for a
"a fully developed military off the
shelf solution "ONLY!!
If they go ahead for this
procurement,i think BvS 10 Mk 2 will be out.
http://www.eda.europa.eu/EbbWeb/bycountry.aspx
search UK ,go to page 2.
EDA-1783 Cancelled
Expired
18/07/2008 12:00 CN Requirement for an All Terrain Military vehicle
that is armoured, amphibious and fiited with ( or fiited for but
not wirh) weapon systems, in a supporting role to VIKING, to replce
the existing BV206.
END OF QUOTE
Do u think Bronco fit the bills ?
The system
shall aslo be able to: a) Operate in the most diverse climatic and
topographical conditions worldwide. b) Deploy and operate in all
terrain and weather conditions and climates, 24 hrs a
day.
c) Be
transported and ready for operations, using all current operational
and tactical land, sea nad air assets.
d) Opeate in
an asymetric medium threat environment. e)Deploy, operate and be
sustained until at least 2025.
f)Operate on
varying terrain throughout the battle-space in an operational state
with system loads and aides.
g) Operate as
an amphibious vehicle.
h) Carry
user-endorsed loads for each identified variant in order to provide
the required support capability to enable manoeuvre
operations.
i) Undertake
a Battlefield Mission with a probability of completion without
expereincing a mission critical failure. j) Communicate with other
call signs in its formation and unit to facilitate the most
effective use of the ATV(S) capability.
k) Operate
safely with its identified load within current manpower
levels.
Currently the
requirement exists for the provision of between 47 and 212 systems. Duration of the
project from placement of contract to delivery of final system is
estimated at 4 years followed by a further 20 years of in-service
support.
@@@@@@@@@@
so u see.In July 2008,UK MOD was initially looking for
replacement of BV 206.
Later,they cancelled this procurement and advanced one step
further
to replace BvS 10,the successor of BV206!!The BvS 10 was in
services
in UK from 2003.Is it very strange that UK looks for
replacement
after 5 years of services?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/
vvvvv
