₦airaland Forum

Whyem15:
As for the M-346, an official of the ministry of defense mentioned it in a documentary produced by the airforce, the airforce wouldn't include it if it wasn't true.

shadowprimezero:
The US has tried, and for the most part succeeded to keep the monopoly on UAV technology to itself for decades, since the debut of the MQ-1 Predator in Bosnia, 1995. The cat is now fully out of the bag and with the way Turkish drones in particular, are shifting the dynamics on multiple battlefields across the globe. The US naturally fears what it can't control and has come to the realisation that its options are limited in countering UAV proliferation on the geopolitical scene.

Lurker4Long:
Speaking of PR, dominating the narrative means the Nigerian military has to be first in documenting its annual progress, and not have to react to something like this, which is now being referenced far and wide.

https://www.calibreobscura.com/the-weaponry-of-is-west-africa-attrition-continues/

shadowprimezero:
Looks like Africa Intelligence is once again vindicated

Lurker4Long:
You guys have snow in December in Nigeria?

Nemesis4you:
IMO optional RCWS would be good

Also the optics would double up for providing surveillance

Increases the appeal for any end user

kabe1:
Senegalese marines and French Marines conduct joint beach landing exercise.

Lurker4Long:
Meanwhile, in Mozambique.
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/featured/south-african-soldier-killed-during-combat-in-mozambique/

Our 1st casualty. RIP soldier, you've done your duty, and more strength to your team.

Faithti:
that's a risky move putting a gun hole in the front windscreen when the turret got that location covered...a RPG shot through there when they are firing from it will be catastrophic.

RiceProducers:
The original reason for large OPVs might be having a long coastline that needs to be patrolled by larger ships that can take enough fuel and larger crews.
The alternative to this would have been smaller Patrol boats and many small naval bases which would be uneconomical.

The more strategic reason is to [b]pretend you have no expansionist ambitions and that your massive but under-armed warship (that can be refitted with more offensive weapons in just 2 weeks) is just to patrol your EEZ.
So you're playing the 'good boy' country.[/b]

Sometimes geography and defence doctrines dictate..like for Israel and Russia who field a large number of smaller than OPV vessels that are armed to the teeth and can suppress and destroy medium power countries' navies.
There is no need to pretend. The vessels are platforms for destroying enemies along their small coastlines.
When they build larger vessels, it is because those large vessels are part of their countries air defence or nuclear deterrent systems.

oyinpr:
bro this is an AW189 and not the 139

Lurker4Long:
I'm not saying the arms industry is saintly. I'm saying Paramount has been very unsophisticated, and greedily grasping about it all.
Charging almost $1-million, and getting it, for a $150K Marauder means you're going to piss off your competitors, and attract negative publicity for such normal things as what happens during prototype tests.

And that's exactly what happened throughout the Barys program. From the Marauder to the Barys 8x8, these guys just made off like bandits. The losing competitors actually have a case on corruption, not product quality.

Lurker4Long:
Mozambique bought 12 and paid $220K/vehicle. Nigeria's price has to be closer to that. Singapore bought more, negotiated better terms and therefore paid less.
That's why the Kazakh Marauder deal from years ago is dodgy: countries buying less units are paying less, only because Paramount SA sold products to Paramount Bermuda, who then did business in Kazakhstan. They ended up paying over $500K/marauder.
Clear corruption in Khazakstan, and frankly, anybody paying more than $150K/Marauder has a corrupt deal involving both buyer and seller.