Air-bursting grenade in rifle,SSW & GL--What did SG achieve?
-
Is it the whole system of SAR 21 LV ABS GL ?
i think so.what is your views?
pl read my update on 27.11.2008 postings.
pl share your info asap.
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bullpup-with-cool-sight2.gif
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/exclusives/2008-eurosatory/
pl read 24.11.2008 posting.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Air-bursting grenade in rifle,SSW , & GL --What did SG achieve?
40 mm ammo will be discussed.
I am here not to overstate SG's achievement ,nor to under state
other countries/companies' achievemnets,nor to offend any one.
Air-bursting grenade in rifle---Singapore
http://zh.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/321267?page=2
ST introduced in mid 2008
40mm Low Velocity Air-Burst Munition System (LV ABMS) at Eurosatory 2008.
The 40mm LV ABMS is the latest in ST Kinetics' family of 40mm airburst munitions. It comprises a Fire Control System (FCS) and the Air-Burst Munitions (ABM), and is designed to fit all new and existing 40mm low velocity grenade launchers, including the CIS 40GL and US M203. Each ABM comes with an advanced programmable time-based fuze that allows precise detonation, thereby offering unprecedented accuracy and lethality. More importantly, it has a built-in "self destruct" feature that significantly reduces the incidence of unexploded blinds.http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
ST Kinetics Introduces New 40mm Solution - Low Velocity Air-Burst Munitions System 17-Jun-2008 ST Kinetics Showcases Defence And Disaster Relief Solutions At Eurosatory 2008 Pl read both to get the full picture.
In the press release,it did not say if the new sys can be used
together with SAR 21.But in
CIS GL 40 is decribed "with a suitable adpator,it can be adapted to
various assualt rilfes"So,i assume the new LV ABMS can be used
in SAR 21.The style of ST Engineering is to announce new products
when it is in production or in service.So,again,i assume it
is ready for production.
Air-bursting grenade in rifle---other countries
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/smith.pdf
US SCAR
FN 2000
u will say SCAR of US SOF.But are they ready to be fielded?
In mid 2007,they are still under testing.I have searched
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/releases.asp?offset=20
and cant find any update to say that SCAR and
Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module are '“Operationally Effective” and “Operationally Suitable” for fielding to US Forces.'
In Mid 2007,FH USA said:
the SCAR and EGLM can be fielded, on a limited basis, to select US Military Forces by late fall of 2007.
So ,can u guys update the status of SCAR and Enhanced Grenade
Launcher Module?
In a 12 July 2007 press release,FN USA said,
Scheduled to commence in July (2007)and be complete by mid-December, the IOT&E will consist of select US Military operators testing the weapons in simulated “real-world” mission scenarios. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected, with the ultimate and desired outcome having the weapons being designated “Operationally Effective” and “Operationally Suitable” for fielding to US Forces.
This next step comes close on the heels of the SCAR and EGLM successfully passing their Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) acceptance testing conducted February through June of 2007. Going forward, as all timelines fall into place and the weapons test successfully, the SCAR and EGLM can be fielded, on a limited basis, to select US Military Forces by late fall of 2007.
The newly designated MK 13 MOD 0 40mm Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) quickly mounts to the underside of either SCAR platform, providing additional punch to the individual warfighter’s firepower and can be easily configured for use as a stand-alone weapon as well.
JULY 12, 2007May 7, 2007I must admite that SCAR:
To conclude,SG is ready to make LV ABMS for rifle.
1.USA SCAR and Grenade Launcher is under testing as at mid 2007.
But No update for suitable for
“Operationally Effective” and “Operationally Suitable” yet.
2.Sg Ty said FN 2000 is able to fireABS GL.
But he cant give me any offical link to confirm.
-
Air-bursting grenade in SSW-Squad Support Weapon
My definition is a rilfe cum ABS grenade launcher
with a grenade magazine of minimum 3 rounds.The whole body of
SSW shall be a new design,not a Adding a FCS and launcher to existing rifle.
ABS grenade in SSW---Singapore
below---STK SSW as appeared in Strait Times.
STK of ST Engineering and Nammo have been selected by Sweden Armed Force
as two finalists for Sweden SSW.Out are Bafors and ATK (maker of XM 29 OICW).
Both of them just offered a grenade launcher only as SSW!!
here is a deleted info ST Engineering web site.
Lucky this guy copied it down:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-14321.html
ABS grenade in SSW----other countries
Nammo (now part of United Defence of USA)as mentioned above.
OICW XM 29 of US has faded from history due to weight and size etc.
Australian OICW is still on monitor aka drawing board.
Recent Korean OICW.But it looks as bulky as XM 29.
To conclude--
Singapore STK and Nammo SSW seem in the later stage of development .
Both of them are in smaller size and weight compared with XM 29 and Korean's.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf
(Sweden)SSW project schedule
Development 2006-2008
Deliveries 2009-2010http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-14321.html
(Singapore STK SSW)Designs are currently on the drawing board, and a first technical demostrator of the standard SSW is expected to be ready in 3 to 4 years' time.
ST posted the above info around 2003 to 2005.
FURTHER READING
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/328308?page=3
STK Squad Support Weapon to be delivered 2009 Military Nuts
SSW (Squad Support Weapon) by Singapore Technologies Kinetic
-
Air-bursting grenade in GL---Singapore
ST can make
Light Weight Automatic Grenade Launcher
40mm Air Bursting Munition System.
The business sense that ABS can be fitted into existing GL
make it much more marketable than other ABS.
Designed to fit on current automatic grenade launchers like the MK19 MOD 3, HK GMG, Singapore Technologies Kinetics' Lightweight Automatic Grenade Launcher (LWAGL) and CIS' 40 AGL,
The size and weight is comparable to US Striker.
Air-bursting grenade in GL---other countries
US Striker (known as CG 40 mm in Europe)was made public in 1997.
This the the first LWAGL with Fire Control Sys.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/lambrecht.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002infantry/lambrecht.pdf
-
40mm ABS grenade ammo
This small little ammo looks simple.But in reality,only two
ABS 40 mm grenades were reported in Jane's Infantry Weapons 2004/05
Jane's Infantry Weapons
under section Combat Grenade---Spin Stablised.
Another grenade is rifle grenade,the long and narrow one.
The first one is S 418 from Singapore Technology Engineering,
Jane's said about S 418 ABS grenade :
Ready for production..Selected for evaluation by Sweden .Lethal radius more than 10 m.Range---without self destruction :2200m;with self destruction :1600 m.
In JIW 2004/05,STK 40mm ABS and ST Light weight auto GL were described
in Final Development.It further said ST
40 mm ABS was developed with Oerlikan --Contravas Pyrotec AG of Switerland,
making the progammable time fuze and programming coil.
The technology came from Orelikan--C 's experience 35 mm
AHEAD gun based air --defence sys.
see the products list of ST
- 40mm High Velocity HEDP SD S413
- 40mm High Velocity Munition
- http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
Another one is Nammo Raufoss from Norway 40 mm ,
programmable and self destruction.Status as reported in 2004/05
is under development.So ,u shall not be suprised that
ST STK SSW and Nammo SSW are selected by Sweden as 2 finalists.
Pl read SSW in this posting.
@@@@@@@@@@@
ABS Grenades made for USA but technologies from overseas
Let us see how a small Yankees grenade are made from technology from
few different countries.Not a easy stuff!!
Pl note Nammo,the SSW i mentioned above,is the intergator!!
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/budget_justification/pdfs/03_RDT_and_E/OSD_BA_(All)/OSD_BA6.pdf page 105
USA just started searching for replacement for M 203 40 mm GL in FY 2003.
This project, initiated in FY 2003, is evaluating grenade launchers from Heckler and Koch of Germany, along with domestic sources,
to find a technical solution to the requirement for a more accurate and reliable weapon for Special Operations Forces as a potential
replacement for the current M203 40mm grenade launcher, which is over 30 years old and becoming logistically unsupportable.USA ABS grenade productions started from 2004 and 1st unit equipped 2007
USA first airburst 40 mm grenade ---Mk 285 Mod 0 PPHE/SD
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session4/straume.ppt
stated that "serial productios starts fall of 04".
Actually,what is the date for Mk 285 full scale production?
Here u can see First Unit Equipped in 4th Quarter 2007.
Does it mean the full scale release of Mk 285 ABS grenade from
4Q 2007?My assumption match the grapd below.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/lambrecht.pdf
SG STK S 418 40 grenade is not so far behind,if not on par or even
in advance.
In Jane's Infantry Weapons 04/05,it mentioned only two 40 mm ABS grenades,
one is from Nammo and the other from Singapore S 418.
The latter is selected by Sweden.The USA slides also mentioned
Sweden SSW.But it did not mention Singapore or ST or STK!!
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session4/straume.ppt
SG
bbbbb
-
What is the current effective range of SCAR Grenade Launcher?
It looks like a stupid questions.Right.I told u guys many times
dunt just trust info on web,even from PAP.Get into the offical
info and THINK!!My initial conclusion is currently ,the range is up to 200m!!
1.In a Feb 2008 US DOD document,it said:
Outcome: The purpose of this project is to extend the effective range of the MK47 Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM), which is affixed to the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR), from 200 to 600 meters. This project integrates the fire control and ammunition programming technology that is necessary to fire a medium velocity 40mm programmable round from the SCAR, in an effort to counter the current rocket propelled grenade threat.
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2009/OSD/0605130D8Z.pdf
THIS IS A POWERFUL US DOD SEARCH WEB SITE.
2.Then u can see here the the programme runs up to 4 Q 2010.
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/budget_justification/pdfs/03_RDT_and_E/Vol_5_Other_Defense_Agencies/SOCOM%20PB09%20RDTE.pdf page 188
Exhibit R-4, RDT&E #Program Schedule Profile
SCAR - EGLM System Engineering
#Research, Development, Test & Eval
also read here.
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/press/detail.asp?id=18
3.The" Enhanced ammunition for both SCAR and EGLM will be developed.'
Doc dated Feb 2008.for FY 2009
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2009/SOCOM/1160477BB.pdf page 4
SCAR includes the 40mm Enhanced
Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM), which replaces the M203 grenade launcher. EGLM includes a fire control unit (FCU) that provides
precision ballistic solution. Enhanced ammunition for both SCAR and EGLM will be developed. This program was increased by a FY
2007 Congressional add.@@@@@@@@@@@
so what is the stauts of Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module
in SCAR?Ready for release for operation,not just for testing and evaluation?
If so,what is the effective range.
;..
-
KE (Kinetic Energy )ie rifle from SSW
Sg Ty mentioned few times SSW KE is weaker than FN 2000
Korean and Australia OICW.
I dunt know how SG Ty gets the info when Oz OICW is still in drawing board.
Even it is true,is it a must to have very powerful rifle in today warfare?
We always want very powerful weapon.But have u considered
the size and weight and the possibility in tomorrow warfares?
Now is 2008.Not Vitenam,Korea wars!!
Pl sit down .Think how u will fight tomorrow war,before
u design the spec of your weapons for tomorrow!!
Many military experts predicts there is likelyhood
that most of military will fight in MOUT !!
There is some good reasons for SAF to build
a small town recently to train MOUT!!
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf
So rifle of SG SSW still can do a good job in MOUT,with rifle range of 200m!!
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-14321.html
This is a deleted info from ST.
Personal Defence Weapon
As a personal defence weapon, the SSW is customised for smaller and more powerful PDW ammunition such as 5.7mm. It can also be configured for 4.6mm PDW calibre, according to the customer's requirements. It comes with a 20 round magazine, and can engage targets of up to 200m.
Designed to combat the demands of urban warfare, ST Kinetics' SSW offers a lethal 2-in-1 combination, packed into a light weight, compact and ergonomic design.
Family of Weapons Concept
The SSW is built on a family of weapons concept for maximum commonality in terms of logistics and maintenance. Future variants could include a semi automatic grenade launcher using a box magazine combined with a PDW, or simply a semi automatic grenade launcher without a PDW. Designs are currently on the drawing board, and a first technical demostrator of the standard SSW is expected to be ready in 3 to 4 years' time.mmm
-
Reflections
-
Reflection
-
You're out of your mind if you think anyone would even bother reading any of that. If you have diarrhea, go to the toilet, not come to these forums. And now, we await for our resident lion-tamer.
-
You seem to forget something lionnoisy
My purpose in here is not to CONVINCE you that my position is right, it is to put down the case for my own argument, present arguments and logical evidences for it, as well as demostrate why your case is shallow and wrong.
So you can keep denying what I say to you or repeating your old arguments over and over again but it does not matter if what you say over and over again is simply wrong.
Did repeating your old "what if lone LCS meets threat it can't fight" argument help in your LCS thread? It didn't one bit. The USN never intended to operate the LCS in this way in the first place.
The only thing it helped to do was to make you look stupid, and that was at your doing.
You are so fixed on wanting to tear something down that you'll try everything without even considering if the thing you are trying will work.
Think about it, is it really me pwning you or is it you pwning yourself with your own mistakes that you make over and over again?
The FN2000 was a prime example, you tried to argue black to white by saying the FCS and ability to fire ABM did not exist because you can't find that information on their official webpage, but the vast majority of literature out there supports this capacity. Unfortunately you were so insistent on it simply because you WANTED it to be NOT true rather then it actually being untrue that you only make yourself look stupid.
You forgot that it's not my intention to convince you, it is to show to others how stupid your way of thinking and doing things in here really are, and to that end you've really helped me alot.
A lot of the literature on the FN2000 being able to use an FCS has long been out there since 2001, if this wasn't true the official sources that propagate this, like Janes, Guns.ru and the like will be liable to LEGAL trouble if they keep up this myth. Unlike you they have a VESTED interest in NOT reporting the wrong stuff.
Even it is true,is it a must to have very powerful rifle in today warfare?
We always want very powerful weapon.But have u considered
the size and weight and the possibility in tomorrow warfares?
Now is 2008.Not Vitenam,Korea wars!!
Pl sit down .Think how u will fight tomorrow war,before
u design the spec of your weapons for tomorrow!!
Many military experts predicts there is likelyhood
that most of military will fight in MOUT !!
There is some good reasons for SAF to build
a small town recently to train MOUT!!
Please don't try to argue black to white.
And I trained in urban warfare before, don't try to smoke me.
Is the SSW only meant for urban warfare?
Shorter range does not mean you can use a weaker weapon. In fact if anything it requires a STRONGER weapon as a margin of error is now smaller. The harder hitting AK-47 is a more valued weapon in short range ambushes then the M-16 in Iraq, and that's no surprise why.
In fact the problem with PDW is that compared to full AR is they have poorer barrier performance as well as stopping power. This is CRUCIAL in MOUT as the short ranges mean that you jolly well be able to shoot through cover as well as put your opponent down in one short.
This is why PDW is called a Personal DEFENCE Weapon, and not an ASSAULT rifle. It is something for the SSW user to DEFEND himself with, as opposed to attacking.
Additionally, the SAF does not just fight in MOUT, a lot of the training still involves operations in jungle as well.
So why did the SSW use a PDW?
Simple, it's a compromise. Instead of trying to figure out the weight issue of a multi-shot grenade launcher with a full rifle they are simply slapping a PDW as a lightweight backup just in case something goes wrong and the user needs to defend himself... but the PDW is
But make no mistake, it can't compare to a fully modular AR with MPRS. The Israeli concept will simply be far more flexible then the SSW.
This is why:
Firstly the MPRS setup is based on the outset to be MODULAR and can be used with any modern firearm with a P-Rail and a GL. It can be used with underslung grenade launcher, bullet trap rifle grenades as well as other kinds of smart munitions. The SSW is just stuck with it's format.
Additionally, the failure of an MPRS outfield will not disable the entire system. Instead of sending back the entire weapon for repair, the modular nature means that field replacement can simply be done just like changing sights for the P-Rail.
Even better, being modular, this means that the users of the MPRS system will be able to take advantages of advances in technology, such as different caliber grenades without extensive retooling, this modular advantage also means that the soldiers can share parts and ammunition.
The SSW however, is unable to share parts or ammunition with normal SAR-21 or Ultimax 100 users. This further complicates the logistics line by needing to issue PDW ammo. In addition the SSW cannot be used like a normal AR, and if it's out of grenades it's a grossly overweight and oversized PDW.
-
Originally posted by Obersturmfuhrer:
You're out of your mind if you think anyone would even bother reading any of that. If you have diarrhea, go to the toilet, not come to these forums. And now, we await for our resident lion-tamer.
65 hits so far not bad.
It shows the thread is not boring!
Pl pin point what is wrong in my contents.
-
We always want very powerful weapon.But have u considered
the size and weight and the possibility in tomorrow warfares?
Now is 2008.Not Vitenam,Korea wars!!
Hmmm... let's see.
So the SSW can only be useful in short ranges and only in MOUNT?
Hmmm let's see what the kind of terrain the SAF will be getting a LOT of in it's potential battlegrounds:
-
Why PDWs cannot replace Assault Rifles in MOUNT:
The PDW concept has not been widely successful, among other reasons because PDWs are not significantly cheaper to manufacture than full sized assault rifles, and are more expensive than most SMGs while being less effective in scenarios where armor-piercing ammunition is unavailable or unnecessary (such as most civilian and law enforcement applications). The potential military market for PDWs has been dampened, due to the introduction of carbines based on full-size assault rifles (such as the M4 carbine variant of the M16A2) that retain most features of and compatibility with their full-sized relatives.
What PDWs are good for:
Though they have never become very popular for military applications, many personal defense weapons have found their way into the hands of security forces and some special forces as direct replacements for submachine guns. Like submachine guns, PDWs are ultra-light weapons, and their high rate of fire and lower recoil from pistol-sized cartridges enable higher accuracy. Assault rifles and carbines, by comparison, are generally heavier and have higher muzzle blast and recoil and may overpenetrate due to their rifle rounds.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
65 hits so far not bad.
It shows the thread is not boring!
Pl pin point what is wrong in my contents.
I am lionnoisy's inflamed sense of rejection.
-
you create a new thread about the freaking same topic mr lion.
-
i see no purpose of this thread.
-
Have you guys wondered how much time it takes our dear lionnoisy to dig up all those nice looking pictures,links, charts n diagrams to substantiate his post?
There's really quite a lot of stuff there really.
Lionnoisy, r u a full time forumer or something?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Have you guys wondered how much time it takes our dear lionnoisy to dig up all those nice looking pictures,links, charts n diagrams to substantiate his post?
There's really quite a lot of stuff there really.
Lionnoisy, r u a full time forumer or something?
i think he's a professional nuisance
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You seem to forget something lionnoisy
My purpose in here is not to CONVINCE you that my position is right, it is to put down the case for my own argument, present arguments and logical evidences for it, as well as demostrate why your case is shallow and wrong.
So you can keep denying what I say to you or repeating your old arguments over and over again but it does not matter if what you say over and over again is simply wrong.
Did repeating your old "what if lone LCS meets threat it can't fight" argument help in your LCS thread? It didn't one bit. The USN never intended to operate the LCS in this way in the first place.
The only thing it helped to do was to make you look stupid, and that was at your doing.
You are so fixed on wanting to tear something down that you'll try everything without even considering if the thing you are trying will work.
Think about it, is it really me pwning you or is it you pwning yourself with your own mistakes that you make over and over again?
The FN2000 was a prime example, you tried to argue black to white by saying the FCS and ability to fire ABM did not exist because you can't find that information on their official webpage, but the vast majority of literature out there supports this capacity. Unfortunately you were so insistent on it simply because you WANTED it to be NOT true rather then it actually being untrue that you only make yourself look stupid.
You forgot that it's not my intention to convince you, it is to show to others how stupid your way of thinking and doing things in here really are, and to that end you've really helped me alot.
A lot of the literature on the FN2000 being able to use an FCS has long been out there since 2001, if this wasn't true the official sources that propagate this, like Janes, Guns.ru and the like will be liable to LEGAL trouble if they keep up this myth. Unlike you they have a VESTED interest in NOT reporting the wrong stuff.
Please don't try to argue black to white.
And I trained in urban warfare before, don't try to smoke me.
Is the SSW only meant for urban warfare?
Shorter range does not mean you can use a weaker weapon. In fact if anything it requires a STRONGER weapon as a margin of error is now smaller. The harder hitting AK-47 is a more valued weapon in short range ambushes then the M-16 in Iraq, and that's no surprise why.
In fact the problem with PDW is that compared to full AR is they have poorer barrier performance as well as stopping power. This is CRUCIAL in MOUT as the short ranges mean that you jolly well be able to shoot through cover as well as put your opponent down in one short.
This is why PDW is called a Personal DEFENCE Weapon, and not an ASSAULT rifle. It is something for the SSW user to DEFEND himself with, as opposed to attacking.
Additionally, the SAF does not just fight in MOUT, a lot of the training still involves operations in jungle as well.
So why did the SSW use a PDW?
Simple, it's a compromise. Instead of trying to figure out the weight issue of a multi-shot grenade launcher with a full rifle they are simply slapping a PDW as a lightweight backup just in case something goes wrong and the user needs to defend himself... but the PDW is
But make no mistake, it can't compare to a fully modular AR with MPRS. The Israeli concept will simply be far more flexible then the SSW.
This is why:
Firstly the MPRS setup is based on the outset to be MODULAR and can be used with any modern firearm with a P-Rail and a GL. It can be used with underslung grenade launcher, bullet trap rifle grenades as well as other kinds of smart munitions. The SSW is just stuck with it's format.
Additionally, the failure of an MPRS outfield will not disable the entire system. Instead of sending back the entire weapon for repair, the modular nature means that field replacement can simply be done just like changing sights for the P-Rail.
Even better, being modular, this means that the users of the MPRS system will be able to take advantages of advances in technology, such as different caliber grenades without extensive retooling, this modular advantage also means that the soldiers can share parts and ammunition.
The SSW however, is unable to share parts or ammunition with normal SAR-21 or Ultimax 100 users. This further complicates the logistics line by needing to issue PDW ammo. In addition the SSW cannot be used like a normal AR, and if it's out of grenades it's a grossly overweight and oversized PDW.
"A lot of the literature on the FN2000 being able to use an FCS has long been out there since 2001"
well said! well said ! Sg Ty.999999 articles on the net dunt mean
too much.Like Hilter said"A liars told thousand times become truths"
i just know how to copy and paste and quote.
The Jane's Infantry Weapons 2004/05 said about FN Herstal 2000
Modular Assualt Weapon.
Fire control sys requirement passed to NOPTEL
of Finland for development...
The production version with grenade FCS was due to be ready within
a further 2 years.....So,u can see from 2001 to 2004/05,probably up
to 2006/2007 ,all the info on net about FN ABS
was not true.
Some times,when u read the stuff on net,either from Official and
unofficial web site,i cant be sure they are describe the facts or just
the intended results.
@@@@@@@@@@
Who on earth dunt want to make another weapon like XM 29 ,
but much lighter and smaller ?If any one make it and dunt put it
on web site,he must be very stupid.
Tell me what are the possible reasons they dunt shout out,
if thay can make another OICW,but much lighter,smaller and possibly more
powerful!!
mmmmm
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Have you guys wondered how much time it takes our dear lionnoisy to dig up all those nice looking pictures,links, charts n diagrams to substantiate his post?
There's really quite a lot of stuff there really.
Lionnoisy, r u a full time forumer or something?
U need to know how to search then u can get the info u want.
Full time forumer?do u mean i am paid to surf or post
pro--SG info here? Ha ha!
Just state the facts,without fears and favours.
-
Dunt blame SG need foreign talents.no matter they work in SG or overseas.
The 300 million USA also need few Europe countries to make
ABS grenade.
http://www.nammo.com/templates/Technologies.aspx?id=185
Nammo has successfully developed the 40mmx53 MK285 PPHE Air-Burst ammunition, which is qualified by US Government for the MK47 Striker 40 ALGL. Several contracts has been signed for delivery of this round.
A 30mmx173 Air-Burst round is currently under development. Nammo also produces the 40mm L/70 and 57mm L/70 3P ammunition.............
read all companies involved in the posting above:
ABS Grenades made for USA but technologies from overseas
nn
...
-
Yawn. This is worse than flogging a dead horse. I don't think the flogger even knows the horse is dead.
-
I'd be surprised if he was aware of the horse's existence.
-
you mean he can even possess the mental capabilities to flog a horse ?
wow.
so far lionnoisy has demonstrated absolutely no grasp of reason or logic whatsoever. period. inferring from this, i deduce that he cant logically realise the horse is dead, and the act of flogging is redundant.
+1 Ultimate BORING lionnoisy thread.
-
Well you know why he has to create a new thread?
Because he got pwned so badly in his previous thread on this topic that he cannot post on in there liao, because he'll be forced to answer to all that.
Weird right, suddenly in this thread he anknowledges that that Striker is capable of using Air Bursting Munitions, a complete reversal from his previous position when he keeps trying to deny it despite overwhelming evidence.
Hmmm...
