Search results

No such a thing! Ever! Beside a real tank!

US Navy opted for 57 mm Bofors guns instead of 76 mm. In the future all new will have 57 mm.

We should buy some with Aselsan upgrades.

If Air Force Command and/or Navy Command (to use with Marine Patrol aircrafts) wishes to have a sea-skimming ASuW than there’ll be air-launched Atmaca (sans booster).

It smells that BAE ordered a custom variant of Tulpar. They must be happy with Rabdan.

Aselsan is not main assembler on that project but subcontractor. Aselsan finished the production of electronic components for 100k. What a pity for twitter owner!

Do you have man count?

At the end we see retracting land gear (front & aft)

Does it mean lower weapon load and higher endurance-range?

The only missing one is DIRCM

What the hell is that?

Guys, SOM-C1 will have tactical datalink but her warhead won’t designed to as a truely anti-ship aka semi-penetrating HE, unlike SOM-J. This is not mean that SOM-C1 can’t be used as ASuW weapon but this is the SOM-J’s main aim.

SOM is not designed to hit naval targets, but SOM-J

IR seeker of Standard missile is on the right side just below the cone.

Technically 105 mm is mainly antipersonnel, 203 mm is mainly antistructural and 155 mm is in between and more versatile 90 kg warhead is a magical point within existing warheads. Think unitary MLRS and SDB-1 of Americans “It’s sufficient to destroy a single floor structure without damaging nearby”

Is TS-7500 coming? PS: Engine of CH-53K

Navalization of current design is more logical for me

155 mm ammo weights 45 kg whereas 203 mm is 90 kg. You need a heavier platform

Syria experiences has been shown their effectiveness against buried structures. It’s not easy.