Military Review

Armored turret Rafael Samson Mk 2

54
An International Defense Review magazine, in an article by Nick Brown "Enhanced Samson RWS readies for US trials," reports that the US Army is planning to test the new remotely controlled Samson Mk 2 turret developed by the Israeli company Rafael. Tests of the turret mounted on the M2 Bradley infantry combat vehicle are scheduled to begin in May 2013 in the US Picatinny Army arsenal.


Armored turret Rafael Samson Mk 2

The first prototype of the remote-controlled armored turret Rafael Samson Mk 2 during tests in Israel on the armored vehicle M113


Materials on the Samson Mk 2 turret were first demonstrated at the Eurosatori exhibition in Paris in June 2012. Tests of the first full-fledged prototype of the turret were started by Rafael in Israel on the M113 BTR in January 2013. The second Samson Mk 2 prototype must be supplied for the specified tests in the USA. Rafael hopes to promote a new combat module both for upgrading the existing fleet of BMX M2 vehicles and for use on promising combat vehicles developed under the program of the American Army Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).

The Samson Mk 2 turret clearly illustrates the latest trends in the development of remote-controlled weapons for armored vehicles. Structurally, the Samson Mk 2 is a further development of the famous Rafael Samson turret, differing mainly in the presence of full armor protection of the installation. In the basic version, the reservation complies with the STANAG 4569 Level 1 standard, but can be enhanced to the Level 4 level. The standard version of the Samson Mk 2 turret armament consists of an ATK Bushmaster Mk 30 44-mm automatic cannon, an 7,62-mm machine gun coupled to and a Rafael Spike retractable dual-launch launcher under armor on the right side of the module. . For the "customer" (probably the US Army), an option was also developed with the additional installation of an automatic anti-personnel grenade launcher paired with a 40-mm cannon.

Although the Samson Mk 2 turret has almost no turret compartment, however, unlike the first Samson version, it can, if necessary, be controlled manually by a crew member directly from inside the firing module (the operator in this case pushes the head over the shoulders into the module). It is also possible to replenish the ammunition from inside the troop compartment of an armored vehicle. Rafael is also working on a modified version of the fire control system for the Samson Mk 2 turret, with improved automatic target tracking capabilities.
Originator:
http://bmpd.livejournal.com
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. BARKAS
    BARKAS 3 February 2013 13: 46
    +8
    On the "TERMINATOR", too, the combat module would not be bad to close with armor, otherwise it looks vulnerable.
    1. Juga
      Juga 3 February 2013 13: 55
      0
      But I wonder what class booking on this product?
      If just from "duck shot", then does it make sense, if the hit of 30 mm holds, then yes, there is a sense ...
      1. Sergh
        Sergh 3 February 2013 14: 11
        +4
        Quote: Juha
        But I wonder what class booking on this product?

        It is written in black and white
        STANAG 4569 Level 1but can be boosted to Level 4

        It seems like Level1, this is from pebbles released from a slingshot. Although the M113 case itself is welded from aluminum plates. The side plates are mounted vertically, and the front plate has a tilt angle of 60o. Reservations 12-44 millimeters thick provide protection only against caliber bullets up to 12,7 millimeters and grenade fragments. Although there are modifications A1, A2, A3, but there are only changes to the chassis and engine, the armor remained bulletproof. In short, what is the point of booking a turret when the box itself is plywood ?! True, this is a disease of all armored personnel carriers.
        1. Juga
          Juga 3 February 2013 14: 18
          +1
          Thanks for the answer, that's what Sunday carelessness means, blinked ...
          1. Sergh
            Sergh 3 February 2013 14: 26
            +3
            Quote: Juha
            Thanks for the answer, that's what Sunday carelessness means, blinked ...

            Yes, it's okay, sometimes I read articles across the diagonal.
        2. Fox
          Fox 3 February 2013 14: 56
          +1
          there is no armor there. aviation aluminum, only fragments hold but not armor-piercing bullets of a rifle caliber ..
        3. kirieeleyson
          kirieeleyson 3 February 2013 15: 24
          +2
          Quote: Sergh
          Level1, it's from pebbles

          "Dasha" can pull level 4 in this case. In general, done conscientiously, judging by the photo. But with high defense, the reaction speed and turret rotation will be lower, this will lead to an increase in the reaction time. The thing is expensive, so they protect it. It will cost like our BMP-2, which is generally not surprising. Expensive doesn't mean better! Expensive means small batches, complex service, training, with incomprehensible efficiency.
        4. AlexxxNik
          AlexxxNik 3 February 2013 16: 30
          0
          judging by the article, this joy is planned to be installed on Bradley, the M113 is just a testing platform, I think it’s not the best, at one time we couldn’t put our 30mm gun mount on the armored personnel carrier, the case played and the automation broke, plus a big spread
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 3 February 2013 14: 25
        0
        Why 30 mm? I do not think that an automatic combat module needs to be protected more than the machine itself.
        1. Juga
          Juga 3 February 2013 14: 32
          +1
          I agree, with the 30th I bent however ...
          My maximalization, what can you do.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 3 February 2013 14: 59
            +1
            There, a person will only stick out in emergency mode. So the protection is not particularly critical. I think 1 level is enough for the eyes.
            1. Juga
              Juga 3 February 2013 15: 09
              0
              That is, we shoot from the AK and deprive the BMP of the "main caliber"?
              For me, on the battlefield, the protection of both people and weapons is never superfluous ...
              1. vovas
                vovas 4 February 2013 10: 59
                0
                An interesting shooter. That's Israel did. And we have nothing to do .. Do not, or can not?
            2. bask
              bask 3 February 2013 18: 49
              0
              Quote: Spade
              o in emergency mode will stick around. So the protection is not particularly critical. I think level 1
  2. Uncle Serozha
    Uncle Serozha 3 February 2013 13: 53
    +1
    I would like to listen to the opinion of professional tankers on what matter. As I understand it, when installing an uninhabited combat module on the car, such as what is described in the article, we immediately have minus 2 hatches on the tower. The number of other hatches, it seems, also does not increase. What to do with an emergency leaving the car crew if necessary?
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 3 February 2013 14: 00
      +1
      This is not a tank module.
      1. Uncle Serozha
        Uncle Serozha 3 February 2013 14: 20
        0
        Quote: Pimply
        This is not a tank module.

        I guessed it, thanks. The question of leaving the machine remains valid. In addition, I turned to professionals.
        1. Nechai
          Nechai 3 February 2013 14: 40
          +3
          Besters and bmp have landing hatches, that's the whole crowd and bursting into them. The tanks have a drap bottom hatch, as an option hatches on the sides of the fighting compartment. BUT if there will be no regular hatches in the tower (car body), HOW to take their places every day ?! To combine an emergency exit with a regular one, Sorry, this is not a camphile. I feel so good. laughing
          1. Uncle Serozha
            Uncle Serozha 3 February 2013 14: 55
            +1
            Quote: rkka
            from the stern with the landing

            Quote: Nechai
            BUT if there will be no regular hatches in the tower (car body), HOW to take their places every day ?! To combine an emergency exit with a regular one, Sorry, this is not a camphile. I feel so good.

            Otozh! That's why I asked. I understand that the landing hatches are still here. But in the absence of tower hatches emergency exit of the car will take longer. That with a burning car is not great.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 3 February 2013 16: 11
          +1
          I was in the motorized infantry on the M113. Our specialization was precisely on supporting tanks and working with armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Therefore, I understand what I am saying. The same Bradley has a rear ramp to quickly leave the car. The size of this tower is smaller than the standard one, which, if necessary, allows you to add additional hatches on the hull.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 3 February 2013 14: 23
        0
        the operator in this case pokes his head on the shoulders into the module

        Step back?
    2. rkka
      rkka 3 February 2013 14: 35
      +1
      Quote: Uncle Seryozha
      How to deal with emergency leaving the car
      from the stern with the landing
    3. bask
      bask 3 February 2013 14: 40
      0
      Quote: Uncle Seryozha
      I would like to listen to the opinion of professional tankers on what matter. As I understand it, when installing on a car uninhabited

      In Russia, a combat module was developed back in 99 ,, Cleaver, Not inferior to the Israeli one.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 3 February 2013 14: 56
        +3
        Cleaver concedes. First of all, the open location of the ATGM. Further, the lack of remote control.
        1. bask
          bask 3 February 2013 16: 27
          0
          Quote: Spade
          open location ATGM. Further, the lack of remote control

          Naturally, it was developed in the 90s. Israel didn’t have anything like that then. Modernization is necessary, with the elimination of your shortcomings. And the price, I think, of Cleaver is much lower than Rafael.
      2. Uncle Serozha
        Uncle Serozha 3 February 2013 14: 58
        0
        Quote: bask
        In Russia, a combat module was developed back in 99 ,, Cleaver

        Thanks, of course, but I didn’t ask about that.
  3. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 3 February 2013 14: 28
    +2
    "that the US Army is planning to test the new Samson Mk 2 remote-controlled turret developed by the Israeli company Rafael."

    And it’s interesting to the question of the purchase of foreign models of military equipment by our Defense Ministry. Probably, after all, one country cannot be a leader in all areas, spot purchases of the best foreign models should be in order to know what the enemies are breathing. wink
    1. Sergh
      Sergh 3 February 2013 14: 58
      +4
      Quote: Vladimirets
      Probably, after all, one country cannot be a leader in all areas, targeted purchases of the best foreign

      And the meaning of these purchases? We invented a bicycle On the BTR-82A, why go down below the baseboard, it remains only to steer the joystick on a computer, well, it’s already more convenient for someone.





      And perhaps someday the 90th will be adopted.

      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 3 February 2013 16: 27
        +2
        Quote: Sergh
        And the meaning of these purchases? We invented a bicycle On the BTR-82A, why go down below the baseboard,

        In general, I am not talking about this type of weapon, but in a broader sense. Even the widely engaged US military industry and its face of the Ministry of Defense do not hesitate to buy someone else's weapon, if it is more profitable or it is obviously better.
        1. Sergh
          Sergh 3 February 2013 19: 02
          0
          Quote: Vladimirets
          if it is more profitable or it is obviously better

          Well, they can afford it, they are all in one block, although Israel is not in NATO, but he is not going to fight with amers in any way. But we always need to worry that supplying their products, in any case, they block the oxygen, and they won’t give us normal samples. An example with the slop Israeli drones that flies wherever they want, or it’s not clear who controls it. But amers on their Fe-35s do not even give onboard programs to their druganov, misfortunes.
          1. Vladimirets
            Vladimirets 3 February 2013 19: 22
            +2
            Quote: Sergh
            Well, they can afford it, they are all in one block, although Israel is not in NATO, but he is not going to fight with amers in any way.

            Yes, stop, if there is an opportunity to buy and explore advanced models of Western military equipment, then why not do this, especially in those areas where we are lagging behind. It’s not necessary to put them into service, but like the Chinese, it’s sometimes cheaper and faster to buy and research than to steal secrets from the security services.

            Quote: Sergh
            An example with the slop Israeli drones that flies wherever they want, or it’s not clear who controls it.

            That's exactly how our Iranian friends showed wink Any super-duper drone can be planted and used to their advantage.
            1. Sergh
              Sergh 3 February 2013 19: 46
              0
              Quote: Vladimirets
              Yes, stop, if there is an opportunity to buy and research advanced samples

              Well, who-stop? You are no longer here alone. They shout at me in a shout: Who are you to give or sell to you? advanced technologies??? In addition to the castrated deer, we are not even shown dead, they repeat, they won’t even give us a sniff. And you rolled your lip, advanced, and even technology, and even prototypes, upsurge.
            2. Pimply
              Pimply 3 February 2013 23: 26
              +2
              No one sells the only way - to buy and explore. First you need to buy a large batch. Do you think why China is almost not selling modern weapons?
    2. g1kk
      g1kk 3 February 2013 18: 43
      0
      Why is that burning? In September, our gunsmiths will introduce the remote module, while the armament will be an order of magnitude more powerful:
      http://gurkhan.blogspot.de/2013/02/blog-post_2.html
  4. Nechai
    Nechai 3 February 2013 15: 10
    +3
    Quote: Vladimirets
    spot purchases of the best foreign models should be in order to know how the enemies breathe.

    And who is against SPOT purchases? The conversation went on and things went on EQUIPMENT with foreign weapons and equipment. And the purchase of samples will NOT completely allow to establish "WHAT the adversary is breathing":
    - The latest FIG who will sell us. They are not us, with their perestroika-reforming common-sense and widespread betrayal of the leading instances;
    - the possession of the product DOES NOT DISCOVER the technologies of its design and production, the algorithm of its operation. What to say about modern weapons and equipment, even if we met before the age of 41, then there were still such incidents. The Japs got our ShKAS machine gun on Khalkhin Gol. The fastest in the world. for those times! Copied, began to experience - the fastest melting of the trunk and other "troubles". The most "tasty" for the enemy is in the design bureau, laboratories and technological production chains. If there is a hope that it is necessary to learn about foreign technology through its purchases, then this is, albeit an indirect recognition, but recognition of the fact that both the SVR and the GRU are doing anything, just NOT their own business. Which, in general, is not surprising!
    Remember the rejection of the T-95. among other things, based on the fact that
    they didn’t bombard probable partners with BaR (everything is interesting to me, the word “porter” is used by the elite on a little by little or there is hidden meaning - without indicating which partner they have - active, passive) repeat ,
    His gun was not fired at armored obstacles, analogues of armored protection of the main tanks of their partners.
    And the blame for this was assigned to the developers and manufacturers. And the state, in the person of the tandem, just came to take a look, and here it is, you know, indecency! Yeah. and decided STATE Research Institute, where the tests of this type. The ONLY in Russia to transfer to private hands. I even know where these playful little hands come from!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 February 2013 18: 20
      0
      We just had a dispute with "Bumpy" the other day about this issue, "he pointed out such an arrangement of the operator as a big drawback
  5. rudolff
    rudolff 3 February 2013 15: 22
    +3
    Interestingly, and such kind of remote modules of the test for massive shelling from a manual rifle pass? Armor is armor, but how vulnerable are external devices of television, thermal imagers, sighting and rangefinder equipment?
    1. Akim
      Akim 3 February 2013 15: 47
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      but how vulnerable are external devices of television, thermal imagers, sighting and rangefinder equipment?

      And what are other examples when the devices were super-protected. A 5 mm cover or flap is all.
    2. bask
      bask 3 February 2013 16: 39
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      How vulnerable are external devices of television, thermal imagers, sighting and rangefinder equipment?

      Here I am about that. Better habitable module ((triplets (((BMP-3 is not. Remote control should be, but everything should be duplicated, manually controlled. Finnish ,, Paria ,,
      1. DDR
        DDR 3 February 2013 22: 59
        +1
        Correctly! All the main nodes must be duplicated by the mechanic, because with the modern development of electronic systems there are also means of dealing with them.
  6. Nechai
    Nechai 3 February 2013 15: 59
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    the operator in this case pokes his head on the shoulders into the module

    In my biased opinion, the developers of Rafael Samson Mk 2 are trying to combine different things in general - a remotely controlled weapon module, AUTONOMOUS in its essence and reducing the protruding dimensions of the TOWER above the car body.
    The whole original meaning of the DUMV is that it can be arranged so where it is convenient. Without steaming layout, etc.
    But in terms of reducing the protruding dimensions of the tower, they would turn to our developments for the URovtsy. There are such sweets! Download it! One FCT with a crooked barrel is worth it ... good Which is very consistent with the national spirit and traditions of Israel ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 February 2013 18: 24
      +1
      I’m interested in something else, what is this BC module.
      Judging by the size of the turret and take into account the fact that everything in it is cartridges, shells, and even 2 ATGMs, it seems that it’s very small, and the module is designed exclusively for self-defense of an armored object.
      1. bask
        bask 3 February 2013 19: 11
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Goy interesting, what is this module BC.
        Judging by the size of the turret and take into account the fact that everything in it is cartridges, shells, and even 2 ATGMs, it seems that it’s very small, and the module is designed exclusively for self-defense of an armored object.

        Sorry, I don’t know how to call. Shovels. You fought, you’re a practitioner. ,,, 9, mm ,,,, triad ,, Just an opinion., Who fought in the mountains and the military city.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 3 February 2013 20: 05
          +2
          According to the BTR-BMP, I would have brought the Belarusian tower (from Stalker 2T) to mind. Caliber - perhaps 40mm. 57- for BMPT and other fire support vehicles. Of course, with the appropriate ammunition.
          Well, the rest of the machines are universal remote remote modules.
          For me, the main thing is to remove the infantry from the armor. This is the main thing. The rest is secondary.
          1. bask
            bask 3 February 2013 20: 25
            +1
            Quote: Spade

            According to the BTR-BMP, I would have brought the Belarusian tower (from Stalker 2T) to mind. Caliber - perhaps 40mm. 57-

            I. Also. Thoughts agreed 100%. If 2T ,, Stalker ,, There was aft entrance of 8 fighters + crew. The front location of the MTO. It was a BMP of the 21st century. And you need to remove the fighters from the armor. This is task number 1. I agree with the 57mm gun. It has already been modernized at the Research Institute ,, Petrel, N. Novgorod. By order of Vietnam.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 3 February 2013 20: 44
              +2
              "Stalker" is expensive. it costs almost like a tank. And yet it was protected rather weakly, and it was not required to carry the infantry across the battlefield. But I like the principle of the tower layout.
              1. bask
                bask 3 February 2013 21: 42
                0
                Quote: Spade

                "Stalker" is expensive. it costs almost like a tank. And yet it was protected rather weakly, and it was not required to carry the infantry across the battlefield. But with

                Throw out excess electronics 2 times cheaper. Yes, and the case, if you also have nothing to pericompand.
  7. rudolff
    rudolff 3 February 2013 16: 02
    +2
    Akim, in addition to the armored shutters, you can also make (and make) external devices telescopic retractable, but this does not solve the problem! It's a shame if, due to one stray bullet, the entire combat module will be disabled. Why asked, I remembered how in the tests of a 30mm rapid-fire gun on an infantry fighting vehicle the tank was disabled. It is due to damage to external devices (also the tower is jammed). As I understand it, manual forced control of remotely controlled modules through viewing windows is not provided?
    1. bask
      bask 3 February 2013 16: 42
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      It's a shame if, due to one stray bullet, the entire combat module will be disabled.

      And without a combat module, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, they immediately become targets. In the USSR, there were opportunities to create an uninhabited infantry fighting vehicle, but they didn’t go for it.
  8. kontrol
    kontrol 3 February 2013 16: 15
    0
    slap eyes and that's it wink
    1. Pimply
      Pimply 3 February 2013 23: 27
      +1
      Yeah. Do you think how simple it is and how much it is not envisioned?
  9. rudolff
    rudolff 3 February 2013 17: 04
    +5
    Bask, two conclusions arise here. Or to make transparent armor protection for the "eyes" comparable in resistance to the armor of the module itself, or still somehow preserve the possibility of "manual" control, i.e. autonomously manned combat module. Is this possible?
    1. bask
      bask 3 February 2013 23: 57
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      to save the possibility of "manual" control, ie. autonomously manned combat module. Is this possible

      On MRAPA RG-35. BDM is duplicated by manual control. And this is BAE Systems .. The combat module could easily be made uninhabited. ,,,,,, sorry that in white pants ,, soldier
  10. Nechai
    Nechai 3 February 2013 17: 58
    +1
    Rudolf. Why give birth to a hedgehog, if optical-electronic devices make it possible to do everything much, ultimately, easier. Moreover, with duplicating (streaming). In fact, DUMV is an idea - a platform for placing an ADDITIONAL weapon point. That is, if "Maxim is dead, well, to hell with him!"
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 3 February 2013 18: 27
      +2
      He died, drove to the rear, pulled off the crane, picked up another, connected the connectors and the apparatus again in the norm of 15 minutes of leisurely work.
      1. bask
        bask 3 February 2013 20: 45
        0
        Quote: Spade
        - drove off to the rear, pulled off a crane, picked up another, connected the connectors and the apparatus is normal again. 15 minutes of unhurried work

        And if the militants clamped a column in the mountains. Undermining the 1st and last cars .. On .... BMP. Armored personnel carrier only, towers with duplicated manual control. On patrol cars and MRAPS it is possible and PM. .Example RG-35 with PM ..
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 3 February 2013 21: 35
          +1
          If they clamped it, then, I'm afraid there will be much more damage. The remote module with remote weapons is still rather a thing for self-defense, for short-term clashes.
          1. bask
            bask 3 February 2013 23: 40
            +3
            Quote: Spade
            there will be much more. The remote module with remote weapons is still rather a thing for self-defense, for short-term clashes.

            We need to take into account the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya .. BMP and armored personnel carriers. Which can be kept offline from the supply and repair units for at least 2, 3 days. With large ammunition, and a medical assistance machine. Yesterday, the wind wrote about the use of self-propelled guns ,, Reno ,, So they acted in conjunction with the APC ,, Ratel ,, up to 7 days. In raid operations Each armored personnel carrier has a tank for 100 liters of drinking water. Why world experience is not taken into account - advanced., Wars. ???
        2. bask
          bask 3 February 2013 21: 46
          0
          In the RG-35 package, the combat module is duplicated ..
  11. rudolff
    rudolff 3 February 2013 18: 47
    +2
    Nechai, so if you believe the rumors (the thing is not grateful, of course), then on all promising platforms (Kurgan, boomerang, armata) it is planned to use uninhabited combat modules, and this is already talking about the main weapons, and not about additional weapons. It’s a bit dumb to somehow give everything to the electronics and mechanisms.
  12. rudolff
    rudolff 3 February 2013 22: 55
    +5
    Bask, did you see this Stalker live? At one time he was often taken to exhibitions. Regarding combat capabilities, the question is somewhat controversial, but the car is interesting. And very aesthetic! Especially fun to touch her! A radar absorbing coating was applied over the armor, very similar to green moss! It is a pity that no one wanted to buy. In principle, this was expected. An attempt to make a stealth machine on BRDM armor meant that there would be more Apaches on the battlefield than idiots with KPVT or RPG. Alas..!
    1. bask
      bask 3 February 2013 23: 22
      +3
      Quote: rudolff

      Bask, did you see this Stalker live? At one time he was often taken to exhibitions. Regarding combat capabilities, a few questions

      I completely agree Rudolph. I haven’t seen him alive. An RPG costs a hundred $$$ A 2C ,, Stalker 4.5 ml. $$$ They created it for a big war. It’s a pity the late Gaddafi did not buy a couple of hundred. Maybe he has fought in the desert.
  13. Allegedly
    Allegedly 4 February 2013 01: 01
    +3
    Quote: bask
    sorry for the late cadaffy


    The late Gaddafi, of course it’s not so good about the dead man, but there were few scammers. Yes, I understand, he tried for his people. I bought various equipment, including air defense, so what about this? Everything was on the heap, Soviet equipment, Italian, French and so on, but together it did not work. Because it is simply simply incompatible. Either he ordered billions of equipment, then he threw everyone. I certainly feel sorry for him, but I must admit that he himself is to blame. I do not want to rummage and link here every case of his scammer. Their sooooooooooooooo ...

    Libya signed multi-billion dollar contracts for the purchase of Russian weapons, in return for which it received more than $ 7 billion written off. debt still to the Soviet Union. That is, for this amount, Gaddafi had to buy weapons from the Russian Federation. It was concluded for 2 billion dollars. Initialed - for another 2 billion dollars. But almost nothing was delivered. Because pulled, pulled, pulled. And it was Gaddafi who pulled. Parallel negotiating with the West. And in the end - he threw himself. I would not bargain with everyone, as in the bazaar, and would not throw everyone - I would already have 4 S-300PMU-2 divisions, and a bunch of Torov-M2E, and Buki-M2E, and Su-35SE (maybe Su -30MKA, but also great), and the T-90SA, and the modernized T-72M1K, and boats, and boats, and Yakhonts, and the new air defense ACS ... And everything that it has would have been modernized long ago. Over the years since the sanctions were lifted, I would have done everything. And who would stick at him? French people? Yeah, right now! Even amers would think a hundred times and change their minds.
    All that was done by Russian defense enterprises was a few penny contracts for the repair of Libyan military equipment (like a couple of million dollars). These concluded repair contracts were executed by us in advance, without payment, as a sign of friendship and good intentions. But even these nonsense amounts Gaddafi paid only partially! Therefore, by the way, Lavrov said that let Gaddafi first pay. Like a word, we don’t believe him! (And by the way, right!)
    In response to the cancellation of debt, Gaddafi also promised Russia and the naval base in Libya. But the question about it by the Libyans was postponed and postponed ... So they postponed.
    In addition, in early 2011, Gazprom bought from the Italian Eni 33% in one of the largest oil and gas fields in Libya Elephant, the documents went to the Libyan government, but the deal was never completed, as the documents were quietly buried in the Libyan ministries. Again, there is somehow no "friendly attitude" on the part of Libya.

    Now let's look at the cooperation of Libya with Western countries:
    In December 2007, during Gaddafi’s visit to Paris, a memorandum was signed on the purchase by Libya of a large batch of French arms worth up to 4,5 billion euros. This package previously included 14 Dassault Rafale fighters, 10 Eurocopter Tiger combat helicopters, 15 Eurocopter EC 725 Caracal (Cougar) transport helicopters, 10 Eurocopter AS.550 Fennec light helicopters, two Gowind project corvettes, eight patrol boats, 13 wheeled armored combat vehicles ERC90 Sagaie, 25 light armored VBL vehicles, 60 wheeled VAB armored personnel carriers, as well as the MICA air-to-air missile defense (and possibly in the form of air defense systems), 155-mm CAESAR self-propelled howitzers and air defense radars. In addition, the repair and modernization of another 17 Libyan Air Force Dassault Mirage F.1 fighters (in addition to the 12 being repaired under a 2006 contract) was mentioned. According to the memorandum, final purchases were to be agreed upon by both governments by July 1, 2008.
    In fact, Gaddafi actually threw the French and did not buy anything from them in this package (although there were separate contracts for any small things with the French).
    Gaddafi signed contracts with the United States, and the SAS even trained him to guard in 2010, but in the end he threw everyone again.
    1. Allegedly
      Allegedly 4 February 2013 01: 06
      +5
      to be continued...

      Western companies that worked in Libya, their PSA share ranged from 20% to 55% (for comparison: Russian companies worked for 10,5%). PSA - roughly speaking, the profitability ratio, more precisely the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA)

      And yet - Gaddafi only language much work. What kind of speeches did he make? Like, just popping in - I'll blow up half the world and what is really? There was only one chance - the transfer to the territory of the enemy of the actions of reconnaissance and sabotage units, just like Yugoslavia had such a chance. Why they did not use it - I do not know. Probably scared. And so the war is without a chance ...