₦airaland Forum

agaugust:
Nope, I proved it with reputable source. I know the 35 km range is causing widespread high blood pressure now in South Africa.

Shock of the year...Revealtion of the year...Final nail in the coffin of SAAF Gripen jets with their 22 km range pop-corn missiles

http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_army_missile_systems_vehicles/pl-9c_shorad_short_range_ground-to-air_missile_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html

.

PL-9C Shorad SAM has a range of 35 km and altitute of only 6.5 km.

PL-9 AAM has a range of 22km.

Your source proves it.

agaugust:
Nope, I proved it with reputable source. I know the 35 km range is causing widespread high blood pressure now in South Africa.

Shock of the year...Revealtion of the year...Final nail in the coffin of SAAF Gripen jets with their 22 km range pop-corn missiles

http://www.armyrecognition.com/china_chinese_army_missile_systems_vehicles/pl-9c_shorad_short_range_ground-to-air_missile_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html

.

PL-9 SAM has a range of 35 km

PL-9 AAM has a range of 22km.

Your source proves it.

EVarn:
i do too,crude oil is chemical segmented into diesel{and others} by fractionalization of hydrocarbon.The same way raw uranuim is chemically bombarded to form enriched radioactive substance capable of mass destruction.we have raw uraniun,and we can acquire necessary facilities needed for producing nuclear weapons.

Why can't you stop embarrassing yourself because you hardly know nothing about Nuclear together with your entire country.

Osibanjo lashing at Nigeria for using mercenaries.



http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/2015/03/in-us-osinbajo-condemns-use-of-mercenaries-in-boko-haram-fight/

EVarn:
33 pound of weapon grade uranium will build a nuclear bomb effective enough to wipe out a cluster of towns,dont agrandize your meagre nuclear materials,you talk as if 200kg of uranium is enough to sink a galaxy.
How many kilograms of enriched uranium did the first atomic bomb contain?.hiroshima is barely the size of maiduguri.
We also have high caliber uranium,even if it isnt enriched,it is still highly radioactive; if oscillated at a supersonic speed,at a very high temperature in a supercharged atmosphere,the resulting detonation will be very devastating.

The little boy, the bomb that was dropped in Hiroshima contained only about 60Kg of nuclear weapon fuel. However, the SA (HEU) has more recharged molecules than the one that filled the little boy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!! Man you are confused get some education, but please let it not be Nigerian. At least, try your neighbors GHANA, they will give you a good quality education other than that circus education you are on about.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA…

@Evan- This is another lecture. Not all nuclear weapons are Atom Bombs (AB), some are just encapsulated in small packages the size of missiles with reduced charges to reduce the damage/explosion. With SA currently ready-to-use nuclear weapon fuel, it could instead be converted into many nuclear-type weapons other than half a dozen atomic bombs which can cause catastrophic damage which will harm the earth.

EVarn:
we have the later under our earth crust,waiting to be harvested for the greater doom of our enemies.

Man I can see that your knowledge concerning nuclear technology is severely limited. Natural uranium does not only surface out of the ground as highly enriched uranium good enough as weapon grade uranium. It needs expertise and isotopes to treat it. Where will you get all that? SA or Canada. It takes a lot of energy, money and time to achieve all that especially when the international law concerning proliferation of Nuclear weapons is so tight. If you didn't get it before the law was enforced then forget it.

[size=18]Countries that have produced
weapons-grade nuclear
material[/size]

Relatively few countries have produced
weapons-grade nuclear material. The only
countries known to have done so are China,
France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan,
Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and
the United States.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

EVarn:
we have the means.

You don't have the means, not at all. You must have to learn a lot about low-enriched uranium (LEU), reactor grade and highly-enriched uranium (HEU) which is a weapon grade. It is not easy to acquire the latter. There are currently only ten countries which have the skill and technology to do that, SA being one of them.

SA nuclear weapons fuel worries the US.


http://www.thesouthafrican.com/south-africa-is-sitting-on-a-chunk-of-nuclear-weapons-fuel-and-its-stressing-the-united-states-out/

WHY IS NIGERIA KNEELING BEFORE SA MERCENARIES.


http://scroll.in/article/715689/why-nigeria-is-turning-to-south-african-mercenaries-to-help-fight-boko-haram

EVarn:
Your antagonistic stance is indeed amusing.tell me what is untrue about anything i said.

Everything that you mentioned was immature and childish. You are thinking like a child and none of your government officials can think so childish.

Iran/North Korea were also accused to have acquired nuclear weapon technology from South Africans, dummy. Both countries are still struggling to acquire technology fully.

EVarn:
33 pound of weapon grade uranium will build a nuclear bomb effective enough to wipe out a cluster of towns,dont agrandize your meagre nuclear materials,you talk as if 200kg of uranium is enough to sink a galaxy.
How many kilograms of enriched uranium did the first atomic bomb contain?.hiroshima is barely the size of maiduguri.
We also have high caliber uranium,even if it isnt enriched,it is still highly radioactive; if oscillated at a supersonic speed,at a very high temperature in a supercharged atmosphere,the resulting detonation will be very devastating.

You are uneducated indeed concerning nuclear technology. SA currently has an already prepared 200 KG of Nuclear weapon fuel hopefully extracted from the nuclear bombs SA once had and that is excluding the weapon grade weapon grade uranium that could be converted anytime into nuclear weapon fuel .

I say again, only one atom bomb will demolish the whole of Abuja beyond recognition, remember Hiroshima. The radiation itself leave nothing behind. believe it or not.

SA BY FAR AFRICAS LARGEST PRODUCER OF NUCLEAR RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES AND THE SECOND WORLD PRODUCER ONLY AFTER CANADA.


http://www.bloomberg.com/bcom/iframe/user-proxy#reg|service|{"state":"ready"}

EVarn:
Iran has the skills and equippments needed to discover a nuclear weapon,it doesnt matter if they dont yet have nuclear bombs,they will soon.
Yes,North Korea will offer us nuclear training and capacity,infact,they could even sell dozens of nuclear warheads to us,afterall they once offered us missile technology.if we had taken up their offer,we would have been able to pound saudi arabia,morocco,south africa and even the US from the comfort of our parlours.

YOU STATEMENT ABOVE IS GROSSLY UNTRUE. THERE IS NO SALES OF NUCLEAR WARHEADS.


WHY IS IT THAT YOU NIGERIANS LACK QUALITY EDUCATION?

EVarn:
half a dozen nuclear weapons hardly makes any nation a nuclear powerhouse.a concerted barrage of precision airstrikes will destroy every single particle of nuclear substance you have left{if the burglars dont get it first}.

You are sick, only 33 pounds of weapon grade uranium is enough to make a single atom bomb. SA has over 1300 and over 600 pounds of of weapon grade uranium. That is more than enough to make SA a world nuclear power along with other 9 nuclear powers and that include over 200 kg of Nuclear weapon fuel.


Do you even know that only a single nuclear atomic bomb can tear the whole of Abuja apart beyond recognition.

andrewza:
Did you not watch the video from the air show? The gripen is super agile able to pull insane turns and maintain speed.


By 2km. Still in weapons range.

You will miss every shot. Since you useing a missile we have the seekerhead for.


NAF. A bloody joke even Angola in the 80s was better.

@agaugast is just a piece of wood that would never listen to you. You are just wasting your time, but the world knows that the Gripen jet is by far better fighter than J7/F7. the J7 does not even come any closer nor even the J10 all of those do not stand a chance.

In terms of twin engined fighters

@agaugust is just like some of the people who thinks that just because the fighter comprises twin engine will be a better fighter than fighters with single engine. There are some of the aspects that will need to be taken into consideration. A twin engined fighter with poor avionics, detection radar ranger and weapon system will still be a bad fighter.

agaugust:
Patriotism?

I post technical facts not patriotism.

Bros, sorry to say you are jumping into a forum with a thread that has almost 2,000 pages . Do you know what we have discussed here in the past 5 years of this same topic? No, you don't.

You have too many leaking holes in your above comment. Does Angola have any air force pilot with air to air combat experience? Have you worked with any combat experienced jet fighter pilot before? Be honest.

Well, I have ex-USAF pilots working in my office, they have shot down enemy jet fighters before in combat.

Last year on this forum, I posted a report from an American jet fighter test pilot who proved that in close range air to air combat, the 3.5 generation jets and the 4 generation jets are both going to die together in combat if pilot skills are equal.

Reason is that you have only about 10 seconds to make decisions when missiles speed to k.ill at 3,000 km per hour and the enemy launch jet is within visual range just 20 km away from you! Sudden death!

There is something in air to air combat technically called NO ESCAPE ZONE....you enter that close range, you both die.

Now you say SAAF Gripen C/D is better than Su-30 MKI of India? Big error!

The Su-30MKI radar range is 400 km against the weaker Gripen radar range of 120 km. Dude, I don't know you but you sound like a comedian.

In WVR combat, the Su-30MKI has vector thrusting capability which is totally missing on Gripen . The supermaneuverability of the Su-30 gives dogfight superiority for missile evasion and gun fight edge, it will kill the poorly maneuverable Gripen.

Your other mistake is that you limited air combat to just the machines, you omitted pilot skill, previous combat experience, and pilots intelligence or sense and speed of judgement/decision making.

Also you said the old Gripen of South Africa is better than the latest Su-30 Flanker, I just pity you, the latest version is Su-30SM of Russia and it is built to challenge the F-22 Raptor, it switches off radar and uses long range Video TV camera to detect and attack stealth jet fighters that are invisible to radar. You don't even know about Su-30SM, try ask questions when you don't understand things.

Dude, you need more than one head to take on Nigerians, the South Africans here can show you all their bruises and wounds they have suffered in this slaughter house
.

Judge by yourself and stop your illusions.



http://www.rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.com/the-flanker-g-killer-the-jas-39c-gripen-versus-the-su-30mkkmk2-flanker-g/

EVarn:
the F7 can penetrate and withdraw from an airspace in total lockdown at half the time it takes a a fully armed gripen.

F7 is inferior to Griffin, so let us stop comparing the two.

DieVluit:
Why SA’s nuclear stash worries US

March 17 2015 at 10:32am
By Douglas Birch and R Jeffrey Smith
The US is concerned about the security of a quarter-ton of uranium stored near Pretoria, which it fears could fall into the wrong hands, write Douglas Birch and R Jeffrey Smith.

Washington - Enough nuclear explosive to fuel half a dozen bombs, each powerful enough to obliterate central Washington or most of Lower Manhattan, is locked in a former silver vault at Pelindaba, the nuclear research centre near Pretoria.

Technicians extracted the highly enriched uranium from the apartheid regime’s nuclear weapons in 1990, then melted the fuel down and cast it into ingots.

Over the years, some of the cache has been used to make medical isotopes, but roughly 220kg remains, and South Africa is keeping a tight grip on it.

That gives this country – which has insisted that the US and other world powers destroy their nuclear arsenals – a theoretical ability to regain its former status as a nuclear-weapons state.

But what really worries the US is that the nuclear explosives could be stolen and used by militants to commit a catastrophic terrorist attack.

Senior current and former US officials say they have reason to be concerned.

On a cold night in November 2007, two teams of raiders breached the fences at Pelindaba, which is set in the rolling scrubland half an hour’s drive west of Pretoria.

One group penetrated deep into the site unchallenged and broke into the site’s central alarm station. They were stopped only when a substitute watch officer summoned help.

The episode remains a source of contention between Pretoria and Washington because no suspects were ever charged with the raid, and South African officials dismissed it as a minor, bungled burglary. US officials and experts – backed up by a confidential South African security report – say to the contrary that the assailants appeared to know what they were doing and what they wanted: the bomb-grade uranium. They also say the raid came perilously close to succeeding.

The episode still spooks Washington, which as a result has waged a discreet diplomatic campaign to persuade South Africa to get rid of its large and, by US reckoning, highly vulnerable stock of nuclear-weapons fuel.

But President Jacob Zuma, like his predecessors, has resisted the White House’s persistent entreaties and generous incentives to do so, for reasons that have baffled and enormously frustrated the Americans.

President Barack Obama, in a previously undisclosed private letter sent to Zuma in August 2011, went so far as to propose that South Africa transform its nuclear explosives into benign reactor fuel, with US help.

Zuma was allegedly unmoved, however, and in a letter of his own, is said to have insisted that South Africa needed its nuclear materials and was capable of keeping them secure.

He did not accept a related appeal from Obama two years later, current and former senior US officials said.

Over nine years ending in 1965, Washington helped South Africa build its first nuclear reactor under the Atoms for Peace programme and then trained scientists to run it with US-supplied, weapons-grade uranium fuel. Washington finally cut off the fuel supply in 1976, after becoming convinced the apartheid regime had used nuclear research to create a clandestine bomb programme, fuelled by its own highly enriched uranium.

By the end of the Cold War, apartheid leaders ordered the weapons destroyed and the production facilities dismantled, while holding on to the explosive fuel.

Raising the threat of nuclear terror, South African officials say, is an excuse to restrict the spread of peaceful and profitable nuclear technology to the developing world, and to South Africa in particular. But this demand for enrichment rights – which Tehran, too, wants enshrined in an agreement with six great powers – is hardly South Africa’s alone. Although the Obama administration has tried to discourage uranium enrichment everywhere, leaders in Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Jordan and South Korea say they see nuclear power, along with the ability to enrich uranium, as their right.

Unlike Iran, however, South Africa already possesses highly enriched uranium – nearly a quarter-ton of it. That’s why current and former US officials say South Africa is now the world’s largest unco-operative holder of nuclear explosives, outside the nine existing nuclear powers.

Few outside the weapons states possess such a large stockpile of prime weapons material, and none has been as defiant of US pressure to give it up.

In response last week, the South African government reaffirmed its view that the November 2007 break-in was a run-of-the-mill burglary and asserted that the weapons uranium was safe.

“We are aware that there has been a concerted campaign to undermine us by turning the reported burglary into a major risk,” said Clayson Monyela, spokesman for the Department of International Relations and Co-operation.

He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had raised no concerns, and that “attempts by anyone to manufacture rumours … are rejected with the contempt they deserve”.

Highly enriched uranium is the terrorists’ nuclear explosive of choice. A bomb’s worth could fit in a five-pound sack and emit so little radiation that it could be carried around in a backpack with little hazard to the wearer.

Physicists say a sizeable nuclear blast could be readily achieved by slamming two shaped chunks of it together at high speed.

Just nine non-nuclear weapon states besides South Africa still have enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon, although mostly not in a readily usable form.

For South Africa, though, maintaining a grip on its bomb fuel is tangled up with national pride, its suspicion of big power motivations and its anger over Washington’s past half-measures in opposing apartheid.

“It’s a technical issue with an emotional overhang,” said Donald Gips, the US ambassador to South Africa from 2009 to 2013.

Other South Africans have said that by refusing to let go of its uranium, the country retains the higher political and scientific stature of a country such as Japan, which is considered “nuclear weapons-capable” while possessing none.

Obama raised the nuclear issue again during a trip to Pretoria in June 2013. This time, he privately asked Zuma to relinquish the uranium trove in exchange for a free shipment of 350kg of fresh, non-weapons-usable reactor fuel, valued at $5 million (R60m).

Obama followed up with a three-page letter in December 2013, two days after he spoke to Zuma at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service in Soweto. According to a copy of the letter, he urged Zuma to seal this new deal at a March 2014 nuclear summit in the Netherlands. Although technical experts held preliminary talks, Zuma never accepted the swop.

South Africa has used some of the former bomb fuel to make medical and industrial isotopes – generating more than R1 billion in income a year. But about six years ago, it started making the isotopes with low-enriched uranium that poses little proliferation risk – a development that removed its long-standing rationale for keeping the materials.

South Africa says it is retaining the weapons uranium partly because some day someone may find a new, as-yet-undiscovered, commercial application. If and when one was found, a senior South African diplomat said in an interview, “it’ll be like Opec to the power of 10” – states without the material would be at the mercy of a cartel of foreign suppliers.

Abdul Minty, who served for most of the past two decades as South Africa’s top nuclear policymaker and who is now South Africa's ambassador to UN agencies headquartered in Geneva, said rather it was the US that was recalcitrant.

Even as it campaigned to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, he said, it refused to part with its own.

Stocks of fissile materials held by countries outside the small club of nuclear-weapons states, he said, were just “not that important” a threat, compared with the thousands of nuclear weapons held by the bigger powers. “People who smoke can’t tell someone else not to smoke,” Minty said.

Waldo Stumpf, a long-time atomic energy official in South Africa who presided over the dismantling of the apartheid-era bomb programme, said in an interview that handing over the highly enriched uranium “was never part of the thinking here”.

“Not within Mr de Klerk’s government. Not afterwards, when the ANC took over,” he said.

“Why would we give away a commercially valuable material that has earned a lot of foreign exchange? Why would we do that?”

* This article comes from the Centre for Public Integrity, a non-partisan, non-profit investigative news organisation.

** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

Washington Post

THAT IS FOR NIGERIYOOO, ONLY ONE OF IT AT THE CENTER OF ABUJA WILL BRING THE WHOLE OF NIGERIA TO A STAND STILL AND RUN TO WASHINGTON FOR HELP.

agaugust:
Prove it with Oxfords dictionary
.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surveillance


This also might help you. LOSER!!


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellphone_surveillance

agaugust:
F-7 is NOT = MiG-21.

Gripen has canards. F-7 has new swept delta wing and vertical fin stabilizer
.

The MIG-21 performs way better than F7s, Compare:


http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Fighter-Attack/

agaugust:
You Southies are a bunch of illiterates, F-7 jets have had all-weather combat capabilities since 1988 ! Fools !

"The J-7M's design was certified and adopted in 1988, giving the J-7 family an aircraft with all-weather capabilities. The successful development of the J-7M shows that it is feasible to import advanced foreign airborne equipment to improve the performance of domestic aircraft and thus to promote exports."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/j-7m.htm

You think Pakistan will field a jet that is not all weather against mighty India?

You think Nigeria will buy a $ 15 million jet that is not all weather capable? Mumu domingoes, all of you in Soweto are mumustic mumus

F-7 jet is all weather with Italian Grifo Radar.

A-Darter cannot destroy a small air to air missile, it was tested ONLY against a Skua drone, big drone !

SAAF has ZERO A-Darter missiles today, so no argument, you DON'T have it.


Nigeria too has ground radars with 500 km range, so don't bring ground radar to this air to air battle.

SAAF Gripen jet missile range 25 km .

NAF F-7 jet missile range 35 km....almost BVR.

South African air force is dead from a near BVR distance, your pilots wont even see Nigerian F-7 jet from our BVR position 37 km away, we fire missile at 35 km away.....Mandela will weep inside his grave as we demolish his air force
.

PL-9C has a range of 22 KM.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-9



Your obsolete F7 has a poor detection radar, a very important element in any fighter jet. Any fighter with poor detection radar it means it can not be good for offensive and thus is a bad dog fighter.

Griffin has an important element which will detect F7 from over 120 KM away.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS-05/A


A Gripen jet will detect your F7 Jets from over 60KM away without your poor pilots realising that the gripen jets are on the nearby. That will serve as an advantage for gripen pilots to launch an attack first. F7 are not a good platform to launch BVR because of the detection radar which has severe limitations. A gripen jet will still defeat F7 jets even if they were armed with BVRs.


The BVR require stealth fighters which can detect an enemy aircraft from far distances and often earlier than before it could be detect. Tell me how will it help you to be armed with 60 KM range BVR when your radar is only 25 KMs? That does not make sense.

mzilakazi:
surely you have never seen gripen in the air. It is fast, manoeuvrable and powerful. The gripen has advantage over SU-3O because of its seize and detection system. Gripen is as well a stealth fighter and thus I will give it a win over the SU-30.

The ranking will go as follows:

South Africa- Gripen
Angola- SU-30
Nigeria- F7

GRIPEN IS A WINNER.



GRIPEN JAS 39 is generally a better fighter than SU-30 flanker in terms of Manuevrability, Radar detection system and stealth capability. That means the gripen pilot will detect SU-30 about 30KM before the SU-30 pilot can ever realise that Gripen is there. That means a Gripen pilot has an advantage over SU-30 over stealth and thus can plan his attack ahead





http://www.rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.com/the-flanker-g-killer-the-jas-39c-gripen-versus-the-su-30mkkmk2-flanker-g/

dacostaANG:
We lack BVR capability.


I know a Russian system will be evaluated in the next 2 years including upgrades for canards on our SU-30's.

Only because of the SU-30s versatility over F-7s you will have an upper hand to delete them from the surface of the earth in a dog fight.

dacostaANG:
I wanna start of by comparing current Air power of Angola, South Africa, Nigeria.

First of all I would like to ask my brothers from Nigeria if there air force has the capability to take Angola on in a dogfight between SU-30K's vs F-7 currently in service of our respective nations.

ANGOLAN AIRFORCE WILL SEND NIGERIA STRAIGHT TO HELL.

dacostaANG:
I wanna start of by comparing current Air power of Angola, South Africa, Nigeria.

First of all I would like to ask my brothers from Nigeria if there air force has the capability to take Angola on in a dogfight between SU-30K's vs F-7 currently in service of our respective nations.

ANGOLAN AIRFORCE WILL SEND NIGERIA STRAIGHT TO HELL.

agaugust:
Russia built your satellite 100% . No single South African engineer was involved. Russia kept away all the technical secrets from your ugly faces.

Nigerian engineers built Nigeria's second satellite, we know all the technological secrets.

South Africa got export version which makes it an inferior MONKEY MODEL and just an ordinary surveillance satellite NOT a spy sat.

Many countries around the world have radar cloud penetrating satellites and they are not telling lies that it is a spy satellite.

SIPRI clearly lists those who got Spy satellites called Recce satellites....Morocco, Taiwan, Turkey etc.

According to SIPRI military experts, South Africa got an ordinary Surveillance satellite like other countries like Nigeria did before you, the only problem is that yours is an inferior MONKEY MODEL that produces BABOON IMAGES

Transfers of major conventional weapons: sorted by supplier. Deals with deliveries or orders made for year range 2014 to 2014 can be found at URL <http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/at_data.html>.

Source: SIPRI Arms Transfers Database
Information generated: 21 March 2015


Supplier/ Year Year(s) No.
recipient (R) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/
or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments

Supplier/ Year Year(s) No.
recipient (R) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/
or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments


France
R: Morocco 2 Helios-2 Recce satellite 2013 EUR500-585m deal; designation uncertain (reported as 'observation satellites'); delivery 2017-2018

Peru 1 Astrosat-300 Surveillance satellite 2014 PEN597 m ($203 m) deal (offsets incl technology transfers); delivery 2016

Taiwan (ROC) 1 ROCSAT-2 Recce satellite 1999 2005 1 $70 m deal;

UAE 2 Helios-2 Recce satellite (2013) EUR700 m deal; Pleiades version


Israel
R: Italy 1 Ofeq Recce satellite 2012 $182 m deal; OPTSAT-3000 version; delivery 2015

Italy
L: Turkey 1 Göktürk Recce satellite 2009 EUR250 m 'Reconnaissance Satellite System Project'; delivery 2015

Russia
R: South Africa 1 Kondor-E Surveillance satellite 2006 ZAR1.2 b 'Project Consolidated Flute' deal; delivery 2015

SOURCE : http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php

================================================================================


Surveillance NOT Spy satellite.... MONKEY MODEL inferior surveillance satellite for poor Soweto
.

SURVEILLANCE IS MUCH BETTER THAN RECONNAISSANCE. IT IS VIRTUALLY MORE DEEPER.
SURVEILLANCE HAS TO DO WITH BEING WATCHED OVER 24% HOURS. YOUR BEHAVIOUR, YOUR PLANS, YOUR MOVEMENTS, ETC.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance


KONDOR-E IS A SPY SATELLITE.
NIGERIAN MILITARY IS JUST ONLY USING AN ORDINARY CIVILIAN SATELLITE FOR MILITARY USE. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF SA.


NIGERIA HAS ZERO SAR (SYNTHETIC APERTURE RADAR) SATELLITE.


SA KONDOR=RUSSIAN KONDOR.


READ MORE ABOUT KONDOR SATELLITES OPERATED BY BOTH SA MILITARY AND RUSSIA. SURVE



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondor_(satellite)

agaugust:
You have no insurgency yet, wait till you get one. Your Rhino poaching solution is to run away to Botswana, that is how you will handle any threat like an insurgency, same thing in Bangui, run away from Seleka, always run like a springbok....South African military solution
.

SA had many insurgency in the past, yet positive insurgency but had never ran to neighbours to ask for help, instead it bottled them up with impunity.


Well about Seleka, I think we have touched it for longer than needed. SANDF can never fear rag tag Seleka. Parliament of RSA intervened and decided that troops should be retreated even though their first was to regroup and attack Seleka. South Africans are born with the spirit of warriors, that's why they are liberating Nigeria today from Boko Haram.

Henry120:
List 10 currently operated by South-Africa?

That is the most s.tupid answer I had ever come across.

agaugust:
Nigeria has a state-of-the art cloud penetrating high resolution day/night radar satellite.

Does your monkey model Kondor E have same power? Show us
.

[size=18] NIGERIA HAS ZERO MILITARY SATELLITE[/size]


KONDOR E is by far more advanced that all satellites that Nigeria ever had. It uses the latest technology of not only penetrating the cloud but also the water surfaces, the bush and earth. It can detect land mines and bunkers as well through its SAR capabilities. Nigeria does not have SAR (Spy) capable satellite. Your satellite is only capable to do earth observations only, that's why civilians can access it as well to do their academic research.

SANDF kondor E is on par with that of RUSSIAN military and only two so far were built.

SA always go for the best, while Nigeria would always go after the droppings left behind by China.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_aperture_radar

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondor_(satellite)

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1418994925/last-1418994925/Russia+launches+Kondor-E+SAR+satellite+for+S.African+DoD+--+their+first+SAR+sat

agaugust:
You actually kneeled down to beg your neighbor Botswana to show you mercy after South African Rangers, Army and Air Force combination FAILED to defeat local Rhino poachers who now control Kruger Park and land size of Israel inside your homeland, yes Botswana helped you hide Southie 500 Rhinos inside Botswanan territory where they have a better army.

That means if terrorists invades South Africa, all of you will run to Botswana for protection
.

That is untrue. Rhinos were transfered to Botswana because there was some evidence that poaching was facilitated by people within. So, that was a tactical move to root out the moles out of their holes.


However, we are still saying SA does not need any military help from its neighbours to fight insurgency.