Lezzlie:
ACIRC is a futile duplicity of a more powerful, better resourced structure in the ASF, which has a near unanimous support from both AU and the EU.

Besides, even Zuma admits ACIRC is a stopgap and interim.

We understand Zuma wants desperately to leave a better image and reputation, aside the fact that South Africa is ever desperate for diplomatic relevance.

We see right through it.

ViceAdmiral:
SANDF

credit to Celeste Klopper Photography

IbnSultaan:
China deploys troops n assets to help syria

frumentius:


Oy mate! where'd you get that pic?

agaugust:


1. Your source proves that South Africa did NOT invent FIB, it was a UN idea.

2. Okay, but next time don't mix equipment list of ACRIC into a talk about FIB, your lack of clear distinction created confusion.

Please improve on your communication skills.....and don't tell lies again that South Africa invented Congo FIB. Thanks
.

ViceAdmiral:


https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1479565539012413.1073741850.1377552305880404&type=3

frumentius:
More Exercise Oxide 2015: my ultimate boss (love military hierarchy!), Lt Gen Mgwebi, Chief of Joint Operations.

A prize for the non-Saffer who knows the significance of his boot colour (Namibians can not enter!).

ViceAdmiral:
SANDF

credit to Celeste Klopper Photography

Patchesagain:


The African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC), a temporary standby force capable of responding quickly to crisis situations in Africa, is expected to be operational by October, South African President Jacob Zuma said at the conclusion of his working visit to Malabo, Equatorial Guinea on Thursday.

The ACIRC will serve as an interim measure ahead of the establishment of a permanent African Standby Force, which was originally expected to be operational by 2015. Zuma proposed the concept of the ACIRC at last year's African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where the proposal was endorsed.
http://www.southafrica.info/news/international/au-270614.htm#.VgqjuHqqqko#ixzz3n8g95ofl

ACRIC exists only because ASF does not and has the majority support of the AU.

Bah told delegates the African Capacity for Immediate Response to Crises (ACIRC) would become part of the ASF. This means ACIRC, which SA Army Chief Lieutenant General Vusi Masondo said would be operational this month, effectively has a shelf life of six months if the December 2015 deadline for operationalisation is adhered to.

-DefenceWeb

Now that you understand what ACRIC is, and how its fits into the ASF you can feel free to stop de-railing this thread.

My apologies to other forum members for engaging with the (self-proclaimed) troll.

overhypedsteve:
nice pics. Are your C130s medium transport or heavy lift in your airforce doctrine?

Patchesagain:


Doctrine is irrelevant

They are medium lift for everyone

Henry120:


Not entirely correct.

It all depends on the size of C-130s each country operates. The Stretch variants the Nigerian Air Force operate are classified as heavy lift, while the normal sized C-130 and G-222 are classified as medium lift.

Exact same manner some navies classify their MPVs and IPVs interchangeably.

Patchesagain:


stretched variants have only got more space, not more lift tonnage

C-17 with 77,519 kg of payload is "heavy", the C130 with only 20,400 kg of payload is not.

Henry120:


Again vehicles are classified based on each country's individual doctrine. There actually isn't a clear universal classification of vehicles. This is the same thing we see with MPVs, IPV and SDBs.

Stretched variants have more tonnage than normal sized. Variants.

Patchesagain:


Doctrine is irrelevant

They are medium lift for everyone

Patchesagain:


First off, the stretched variants - according to the reading I have done dont have more tonnage only a bigger internal volume. Afterall, they have the same engines and a heavyer fuselage.

I question the logic of a doctrine that names something a heavy lift when it quite frankly is not.

The only time countries "miss-name" something is for political considerations, such as Japans new "destroyer" (actually a flat-top which is banned) or Korea's "destroyer" (actually a cruiser, which under US Defence policy would mean no AEGIS allowed), or Russias "cruiser" (actually a carrier - called a "cruiser" because the Turks wont allow carriers through the bosphorus) or Germanys new "frigate" (actually a Destroyer - but Destroyers are too "aggressive" etc etc etc

If you were trying to say that they were classed as strategic lift v tactical lift then yes, that is a question of doctrine. But heavy v medium is a question largely of fact or other non-military considerations.

Anyway, I am tired of arguing on this thread... its not why i am here... lets just agree to disagree?

iblawi:

I really don't know if you just want to make a case out of this simple thing, Henry already gave you the best reply. Argentina consider there meko 360 a destroyer while we consider ours a Frigate. Is that political as well?
Secondly, you don't even know what a strategic lift is and what a tactical lift is. There role, size, range, speed and payload is completely different and a C-130 cannot be referred to as a strategic lift. It is plainly a tactical lift.

The payment structures often seemed designed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, eg with only the initial commitment fee being charged to the department commissioning the project, and other payments being deferred to subsequent financial years and charged to the consolidated fund, thereby reducing the likelihood of examination.