₦airaland Forum

jl115:
they literally don't have the resources

jl115:
France don't have the capability to sustain an invasion of Nigeria........Yes they can seriously hurt you but they ain't invading a country that is as big and economically strong as Nigeria...

jl115:
I disagree....Not the fact that African countries shouldn't invest in modern equipment BUT your notion that Nigeria should invest based on the Ukraine-Russia conflict for fear of "cruise missiles" and/or invasion..........None of Africa's 4 regional powers have the power projection capability to invade the other and only China, USA and Russia have the capability to launch a meaningful and sustained invasion across the ocean.....

Nigeria should continue focus on a more COIN based approach to procurement like it has lately hence the success against BH.

Nemesis4you:
My take is different

How much weapons will u buy ? that will guarantee u security , it will never be enough bro

( That doesn't mean one should not invest , imo what one should do is invest in local MIC )

Biggest need is economic might and well being of citizens , which allows for diplomatic might, military might and might of nationalism

Spending on military without spending on infrastructure is harakiri , in that case own citizens will turn hostile or exploited by enemies to win without firing a single bullet

Don't get fooled by events they are misleading due to erroneous perceptions , we see only a small part of the picture which interests us , hence we miss bigger picture

Eg in the context of current events Russia will loose to china going forward ie became totally dependent on them , what did Russia gain by invading Ukraine ? land ? Which it already has in abundance but cannot exploit ( Russians in Siberia is outnumbered by Chinese 1:10 as of now) threat of NATO will remain , NATO is not disappearing post Ukranian invasion is it

Nations with weak military's in geoproximity should band together for mutual defence imo.

Nemesis4you:
Ukrainians from the beginning made foolish decisions

How could they overlook their geographical proximity ie vulnerability is beyond me

If one is weaker one must never incite the immediate next door stronger neighbour bec his one foot is inside ur home already , u will definitely suffer

A nation which is militarily and economically weak should never ask for or trust any guarantees of protection from other countries bec no nation however powerful will risk its own for a weak nation unless it itself is at risk next

Ukraine should have instead concentrated on building up its military and local MIC while engaging west for economic growth , after that only it should have done anything which would have allowed it to stand on its own feet against any aggression

Their leaders were too jigniostic overlooking ground realities as to where Ukraine stood with respect to capabilities to deter any aggression, banking on so called support from West or anyone is height of foolishness

I don't support Russia in this bec of the ramifications of their actions will interest replication of same by other countries , only country to benifit in all this is china, Russia will wither away gradually over the years and end up as a shadow of china bec of huge sanctions

If china tries to replicate Russia and Taiwan falls , Japan Korea will scramble for nukes and this will cascade worldwide

If ind.. gets attacked 2 front another Pandora's box will open

No a small country need not pick sides , it depends on them , if they r clever enough they can manage

IMO Russia made the first step to digging it own grave which is unfortunate , they will now never be able to break out of Chinese grip unless something drastic happens

GreenandGold:
The lesson is simple; don't weaken you military to gain popularity votes like Ukraine leaders did.

They had 770k soldiers in the 90s, the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world and thousands of tanks.

They gave up the nucles, shrank the military (even though they had a constant threat from Russia) and then allowed their hardware to be outdated. This was all in the name of social and infrastructural programs.

See what they got now? This is the same problem that could happen to my own country as well, too much social and useless infrastructure programs eating up on defence money.

Nemesis4you:
Anyways what the biggest lesson from the Ukraine and Russia conflict ?

Don't become a pawn for others / a pawn in a game between giants, when elephants dance ants get killed

Nemesis4you:
Anyways what the biggest lesson from the Ukraine and Russia conflict ?

Don't become a pawn for others / a pawn in a game between giants, when elephants dance ants get killed

Stormtrooper11:
Chief, the Cuban 1961 missile crisis comes to mind. If Ukraine is allowed to join NATO today, the possibility of the United States having military bases in Ukraine is 90%. Kiev is approximately 800km from the Russian border. That's a threat to the Russian Federation existence.
We all know the US. They don't mind their business. They like poking into the internal affairs of nations of the world. If the US is in Ukraine, it will be only be a matter of time before the US starts sponsoring movements to topple the Russian government and destroy the Russian state as we know it. The likes of Navalny will spring up in Moscow. Russia will then be ruled by puppets. In that stage, war will be unavoidable.

The Americans are hypocrites. E.g.They cannot let allow Mexico join something like a Warsaw pact or allow the Mexicans to be Pro-Russian but they want Ukraine to join NATO in the name of "Freedom". The Cuban missile crisis showed us that. Russia has to invade because it's threatened.

Lurker4Long:
There's also no rule that states 3 helicopters deployed must be replaced by 3 helicopters.
Actually, all decent militaries apply this rule: 1 in the field/ops, 1 in maintenance and 1 in training.

I don't think I've seen RSA fast jets used in any sort of combat before.
Why would you have, when we've not been fighting any war since Angola?

Are you saying all maintenance must be done by Denel, what do SAAF engineers do then?

You do know what depot maintenance is right, after a 6 month deployment?

Another why out should be arming of SAAF AW-109 helicopters, this would help in increasing the number of SAAF combat helicopters in service.
The A109 in SAAF service is a light utility/transport chopper.

23 dead for the loss of 1 is not a bad odd.
Scores more dead, several bases raided and destroyed in many months now, with no fatalities on SAMIM side.

jl115:
extra protection around the cockpit

Lurker4Long:
No, I don't.
Don't know the official reason. But where will those attack helis come from? The SADC plan included them, which just means Angola or SA.
Don't know about Angola, but here's the situation in SA:
For the DRC mission:
- 3 Rooivalk currently deployed in DRC; rotated every 6 months
- 3 Rooivalk at Denel depot for maintenance, having come back from DRC deployment
- 3 Rooivalk at 16 Squadron, next in line for DRC deployment and being used for pre-deplyment training.
That's 9 Rooivalk tied up for the DRC mission.

That leaves 2 Rooivalk available to the Squadron for everyday training.

In short, they'd have to withdraw Rooivalk from DRC, to efficiently deploy to Mozambique without cutting corners.

Personal opinion: If Denel were in better shape, depot time could be cut by half, allowing one to insert a 3-month deployment cycle into the 6-month DRC one.

That's before we even consider the perennial question, where would the money come from?

Toju200:
#A29
#A jets

Lurker4Long:
Statement on the Botswana Government facebook page:
BWgovernment
Yesterday at 12:00 ·
MEDIA RELEASE: SAMIM KILLS TWENTY-THREE TERRORISTS
In support of Forḉas Armadas de Defesa de