Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IF its AFV then it would t have anti tank capability ....Heavier than 30 mm ? but no ATGM capability
As you sayIF its AFV then it would t have anti tank capability ....
nope it not that I know anything about this new project but its obvious to expect an AFV with anti-tank capability ...... otherwise it will be just a fancy troop carrierAs you say
@SignalianYet another HIT project that'll later be abandoned. The list of failures is growing.
Well these projects are meant fot that.Yet another HIT project that'll later be abandoned. The list of failures is growing.
...or the HIT will get much needed experience and lessons in project + product management.Yet another HIT project that'll later be abandoned. The list of failures is growing.
Failure is an important teacher. After every failure, we will see improvements.Yet another HIT project that'll later be abandoned. The list of failures is growing.
Not sure what it really is but caliber above 30 mm could mean IFV in conjunction with other specs. The MBT side seems covered with AK and VT-4 whereas M-113 and Talha are standard APCs and TDs.nope it not that I know anything about this new project but its obvious to expect an AFV with anti-tank capability ...... otherwise it will be just a fancy troop carrier
?
I would have liked a MRAP as standard troop carrierWe need lynx type ifv or some wheeled based ifv
I think HIT produces as per PA requirements, still to see if an IFV fits the doctrine. Large caliber has large recoil so bigger turret which would mean an accordingly bigger hull, increase weightFailure is an important teacher. After every failure, we will see improvements.
aap ki mrap wali huwahish bhi shayad poori ho jayey , a improved variant of Hamza 6x6 MRAP with modifications suited to PA? requirements was being trialed it seems.Not sure what it really is but caliber above 30 mm could mean IFV in conjunction with other specs. The MBT side seems covered with AK and VT-4 whereas M-113 and Talha are standard APCs and TDs.
?
I would have liked a MRAP as standard troop carrier
I think HIT produces as per PA requirements, still to see if an IFV fits the doctrine. Large caliber has large recoil so bigger turret which would mean an accordingly bigger hull, increase weight
PA has been looking for an IFV for a pretty long time now PA trialed FMC AIFV based on the M113 Chassis in the 90s and according to a western author it was going to be locally produced similar to how the turks and the dutch produced but that didnt happen for unknown reasons. i think PA has always been interested in IFVs but procurement costs may become a problem thats why there hasnt been much progress in regards to IFV procurement or development.I think HIT produces as per PA requirements, still to see if an IFV fits the doctrine. Large caliber has large recoil so bigger turret which would mean an accordingly bigger hull, increase weight