Made in Pakistan
- Thread starter safriz
- Start date
So the ammo belt's just going to hang out in the open like that as the AGV moves around? All that dust and branches and battlefield debris in the receiver... eek. Better have a soldier on hand to clear any jams. It's not like that's abnormal since the MG3, FN MAG and machine guns of similar lineage are fed by a second crewman generally, but it seems less ideal for a mobile scout like those AGVs which aren't always supported by a crewman who can feed it more ammo or clear jams.
The AGV already has an optical system, how hard would it be to balance that with an ammo box on the MG3?
The MG3's cyclical rate of fire is massive and it eats through ammo quick. At about 1200 RPM resupply is going to be a problem for any system adorned with one.
Otherwise a nice like AGV there
.
The AGV already has an optical system, how hard would it be to balance that with an ammo box on the MG3?
The MG3's cyclical rate of fire is massive and it eats through ammo quick. At about 1200 RPM resupply is going to be a problem for any system adorned with one.
Otherwise a nice like AGV there
.
Its for border patrolling and terrorist situations not battlefields.So the ammo belt's just going to hang out in the open like that as the AGV moves around? All that dust and branches and battlefield debris in the receiver... eek. Better have a soldier on hand to clear any jams. It's not like that's abnormal since the MG3, FN MAG and machine guns of similar lineage are fed by a second crewman generally, but it seems less ideal for a mobile scout like those AGVs which aren't always supported by a crewman who can feed it more ammo or clear jams.
The AGV already has an optical system, how hard would it be to balance that with an ammo box on the MG3?
The MG3's cyclical rate of fire is massive and it eats through ammo quick. At about 1200 RPM resupply is going to be a problem for any system adorned with one.
Otherwise a nice like AGV there
For actual battles we have plenty of real soldiers and dont need robots.
Howevr you did raise a valid point. The videos are from testing phase and not the finished product.
Most likely a remote optic, and actuated remotely through a data link.
I would be keen on actual battlefield usability for this. The tracked system seems to have quite a bit of vibrations for firing. ANd then there is limited range and visibility (i think i saw some kind of a mobile phone based viewing unit for targeting.
Good but it think I have seen the platform (chassis ) before in the brochure of a private Chinese OEM dealing with UGVs.
Will try to find it and post it
I think these types of gizmos are stepping stone for honing and developing remote systems and have limited tactical use. What it does is provide a viable limited use system and then some engineer picks it up and starts testing and improving the system. New cots system become available and then you see better products emerge based on such platforms.
In the video one can clearly see the guy with remote control, driving the unit. The camera is for targeting and of course live video feed to operator for driving. Its not an autonomous robot. Its remote control.
In a hostage situation such as it was in APS attack and many other similar attacks where we had to send in our soldiers to clear outthe buildings or areas. Instead this remote controlled vehicle can do the job withour loss of our soldiers. Also can act as a force multiplier on borders to scare away infiltrators, if not accurately target them.
NRTC is not far from my house in Pakistan. Its part of TIP or telephone industries of Pakistan.
Mainly it makes circuit boards for radios used by Pakistan army.
National Radio & Telecom Corporation - Pakistan
Made in Pakistan ACMI pod. (By GIDS)
This pod will be used during PAF air combat exercises. Carriedunder a wing,It will relay realtime data to ground and PAF pilots on ground will watch realtime prformace of the jets taking part in an exercise.
So far PAF only had instuments to store combat exercise data on the Fighter jet's onboard computer and later after landing the data was downloaded and de-breifed.
With this pod the training missions will be exponentially expanded. The performanceof polits flying the jet will be shown live in an auditorium full of hundreds of other pilots and staff.
All speed,altitude, maneuvering, missile firing, bomb dropping, machine gun firing and all the accuracy data will now be relayed by this pod directly to the ground and shown live on a big screen.
![48361716_1840940256018150_3350514823812087808_n[1].jpg](https://strategicfront.org/forums/attachments/48361716_1840940256018150_3350514823812087808_n-1-jpg.3806/ "48361716_1840940256018150_3350514823812087808_n[1].jpg")
This pod will be used during PAF air combat exercises. Carriedunder a wing,It will relay realtime data to ground and PAF pilots on ground will watch realtime prformace of the jets taking part in an exercise.
So far PAF only had instuments to store combat exercise data on the Fighter jet's onboard computer and later after landing the data was downloaded and de-breifed.
With this pod the training missions will be exponentially expanded. The performanceof polits flying the jet will be shown live in an auditorium full of hundreds of other pilots and staff.
All speed,altitude, maneuvering, missile firing, bomb dropping, machine gun firing and all the accuracy data will now be relayed by this pod directly to the ground and shown live on a big screen.
Why not appraise this "state of the art " Piece, beginning with the IPR? I'm sure iron brother must be burning with envy with this innovation.
It also means, you have no answer.I like this way of trolling. At least it is funny
I believe I have had a chat with the deterrent long time back on it (when I was new at PDF).
The CHIC-4 design link to Pakistan NWP is based on CIA intelligence, non-disclosed interviews etc...as with everything regarding nuclear weapons proliferation, there is little smoking gun stuff (which tend to happen only when you disarm a country like was done with Libya and attempted with Iran) as to where the original designs etc came from officially.
More on CHIC-4 and Pakistan, can just be googled using "CHIC-4 Pakistan" as search terms etc....can find material like this:
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Precise details about Pakistan’s nuclear warheads are not publically known, but its initial warhead design was most likely based on an HEU fission implosion configuration. It is generally believed that Beijing provided Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan with blueprints for the uranium implosion device that China detonated on October 27, 1966 (the so-called CHIC-4 test/design). It is also suspected that on May 26, 1990 China tested a Pakistani derivative of the CHIC-4 at its Lop Nor test site, with a yield in the 10 to 12 kiloton (kt) range.3 That yield estimate accords with recorded yields of Pakistan’s 1998 nuclear tests, which are somewhere between 5 and 12 kt.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/a...like-pakistan-north-korea-build-nuclear-bombs
Why , as you say in the book, did the Chinese give the technology to Pakistan?
Pakistan can be explained by a balance of power: India was China's enemy and Pakistan was India's enemy. The Chinese did a massive training of Pakistani scientists, (just like the Russians had done for them) brought them to China for lectures, even gave them the design of the CHIC-4 device, which was a weapon that was easy to build a model for export. There is evidence that A.Q. Khan used Chinese designs in his nuclear designs. Notes from those lectures later turned up in Libya, for instance. And the Chinese did similar things for the Saudis, North Koreans, and the Algerians.
Did the Chinese further assist in the Pakistan program?
Under Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto, the country built its first functioning nuclear weapon. We believe that during Bhutto's term in office, the People's Republic of China tested Pakistan's first bomb for her in 1990.There are numerous reasons why we believe this to be true, including the design of the weapon and information gathered from discussions with Chinese nuclear experts. That's why the Pakistanis were so quick to respond to the Indian nuclear tests in 1998. It only took them two weeks and three days. When the Soviet Union took the United States by surprise with a test in 1961, it took the U.S. seventeen days to prepare and test, a device that had been on hand for years. The Pakistani response makes it clear that the gadget tested in May 1998 was a carefully engineered device in which they had great confidence.