₦airaland Forum

Henry120:
Nato countries apart from France, Germany and Turkey all do whatever America does. Exact replica, it doesn't matter whether it suits them or not, they just all follow.

The fvck? That is utter B.S!

Again with the unnecessary hate, again lacking substance.

EU members of NATO in general do not paint their tanks as they mostly use cammo netting

Americans dont do this

And Cammo netting > Paint

Henry, you need to work on this problem you have with NATO and the US

agaugust:
Light aircraft called FARAWA....the drone is GULMA....the NAF built FARAWA is an aircraft for light surveillance and training
.

FARAWA exists on paper alone

Gulma is reverse engineered Isrealy tech

agaugust:
PMC bush craft was useless in urban warfare, Boko caliphates were in towns not in the bush, or you ever seen an insurgent build caliphate in a bush? Caliphate is a city of people not a jungle of animals you fool

Nigeria only won the war when we decided to launch the much awaited final offensive, we won when we changed strategy from defensive to offensive.

5 PMC men do not change the cause of a hi-tech war where missile armed drones and ISTAR aircrat are dominating, Eben Barlow has said it was a totally Nigerian combat and victory.

Bush warfare? Nigeria fought 10 years in jungles of Liberia and Sierra Leone against bush rebels and same in Nigeria delta jungle against a well armed insurgent force . Nigeria has constant bush-jungle war operations for 25 years non stop.

Last time I checked, SANDF today has ZERO bush war operation in the last 20 years, your army is only available on internet
.

1. The war started in the Bush (Sambisa Forest) you couldent fight there so the war moved to the cities

2. The tide of the war was undoubtedly turned by Mercenaries

3. Your wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone were a complete fiasco and the opposition you fought against were barely militia, let alone actual insurgents or a trained force

Stop wasting my time, make a better argument

Henry120:
Saudi Arabia has deployed 45 mine-resistant ambush- protected Oshkosh M-ATVs, while the United Arab Emirates has deployed 50 Emirati-made Nimr four-wheel-drive multipurpose armored vehicles.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/03/middleeast/yemen-saudi-forces/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/07/23/saudi-yemen-land-forces-coalition-aden/30570663/

Neither say they are specifically used by SF

And no mention of the US

Henry120:
1. The JF-17 performed a vertical takeoff in Paris.

www.google.com/m?q=JF-17++vertical+takeoff+in+Paris&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new

2. From your own link you relentless r3tard

A senior Chinese aviation official has revealed that the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation FC-1/JF-17 fighter co-developed with Pakistan has been test-flown with a new Chinese medium-thrust turbofan engine.

Li Yuhai, an executive vice president with the Aviation Industries Corporation of China (AVIC), told IHS Jane's at the Paris Airshow that a new Chinese turbofan for the J-17 has been "under testing," has completed "lab tests", and that "flight testing is in progress". He also said that the new engine would have a thrust slightly greater than the 8.7-ton thrust of the JF-17's current Klimov RD-93 turbofan.



3. You are beyond pathetic, your brand new plane crashed in the desert, 2 Gripens crashed within 17 days, a malaysian F-16 moved it's runway to the sewer.

While the fifth GEN F-35 got it's a$s handed to it by a cold war relic.

So much for superior.

4. It is basic common sense actually.


5. It was designed as a low cost Fighter, it shouldn't take you over a second to figure out that both in operational and purchase cost, it is going to be cheaper than many 4 GEN fighters in it's class.


It is not an obsession, they are basic facts.

1. Yeah no - THIS is a vertical take-off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj26RKNipQA

2. And that disproves that Pakistanis will be using the RD-93 how? They said they are happy with it, so why would they change it?

3. And 6 Russian jets crashed in a month, 2 within 3 hours, one of which was a brand new Su-35.

F-35 is still in development - they said that the WVR coding was not complete and that it would be quickly remedied. Not to mention that the F16 and F35 were developed with different doctrines and roles in mind.


And in every engagement between Western Jets and Eastern Jets - western Jets have annihilated their eastern counterparts

4. No, its opinion.

5. Again, Russian and Chinese designs are known as being maintenance intensive and expensive to operate. The "simpler" Mig-29 costs $ 5500 per hour and the Sukhois 27/30 costs $ 7000 - yet the more complex Gripen NG costs only $3000

Henry120:
Patrick,

At no point did i say that, a simple google search would break your current shackles of ignorance.

Both Saudi and MARSOC extensively field the M-ATV in their current theater of operations.

Substantiate this claim

Henry120:
The Primary SPV of MARSOC personnel in their current theatre of battle is the M-ATV, same thing for Saudi special forces in Yemen.


Now, where is your evidence that proves your soft-skins are better than the M-ATV or Sandcat?

Henry

Your word is not evidence

Provide something to substantiate your claims

Until then, I am done here.

Henry120:
So if this is the case, why are the likes of MARSOC, GROM, Saudi Special forces, Czech Special forces, Croatian, Special forces deploying the M-ATV as a primary SPV?


You are yet to prove that the Soft-skin is better than the Sandcat or M-ATV.

You have yet to prove that MARSOC, GROM, Saudi's, Czech or anyone else is using it as their "primary SPV"

Unless you back that statement up with fact, I am done here.

Henry120:
1. Excerpt you are blind or have a serious case of Glaucoma affecting your eyes, it was pretty clear the Jet performed a vertical takeoff.


2. Pakistanis have an option of using the WS-17(pennant for the JF-17) or the RD-93. Why don't you prove that the WS-13 is an RD-93?

3. Brand new Iraqi F-16 that had not even been delivered to the Iraqi Airforce crashed in the Nevada desert, killing the Pilot on board. Now this is supposed to be a new Plane. It is clear that not even brand new western Jets are reliable. Malaysian F-16 flew right from the Runway straight into the sewer.


4. It is basic common sense!

5. You really seem to like "talking about stuffs you don't care about".

1. No, again, not vertical - 90 degrees is required

2. Pakistani's have said that they are satisfied with the RD-93
http://www.janes.com/article/52308/paris-air-show-2015-jf-17-fighter-flying-with-indigenous-chinese-turbofan

3. So what? 6 Russian Jets crashed in ONE MONTH!!! TWO CRASHED IN UNDER 3 HOURS!!

4. No, it is not common sense. Because something is simple does not mean it is simple to maintain and run - especially if it has to constantly over-use an engine that is known to be maintenance heavy.


5. You are the one obsessing over the JF-17 - I simply pointed out that you have no idea what its operating costs or maintenance hours are like and thus you should not say authoritatively that it is good or cheap

Henry120:
First off, except you were blind, it was pretty obvious that the fighter jet performed that maneuver in Paris.


Pakistani JF-17 would have the option of using the RD-93 and WS-13( 17 for the JF-17).

The west has always made spurious claims about their systems, especially Fighter Jets/air crafts, However with the high rate of crash with overpriced western planes, it is clear that those claims have been outright P.R lies.


It is basic common sense, the JF-17 is a low cost fighter, one doesn't need to be a nuclear physicist to discern that both in purchase/operational/maintenance cost, it would be significantly lower than other 4-Gen Fighter jets.

Henry

1. No, that is literally not a vertical take-off

2. Pakistani's themselves said in Paris that they are content with the RD-93, and in anycase, multiple sources list the WS-13 as nothing but a licence built RD-93 with minor modifications

3. Lol, 6 Russian jets have crashed in a month including their latest fighter and, again, Russian/Chinese engines are notorious for being maintenance intensive and having a short service life. This will be more of a problem considering that the JF-17 is underpowered and needs to run at 100% to complete the most basic maneuvers.

4. Its not common sense, it is a claim. Until information is available, it is best not to speculate

Dude, IDK what your obsession with the JF-17 is, and IDK why you have such a problem with blatantly superior Western Jets and I dont really care (Because its subjective) all I said, and all I really care about saying, is that it is best not to make disingenuous claims regarding things we have no facts about

Henry120:
Men sitting in an M-ATV already know where the enemy is, so the likelihood of been caught unawares is slim.

And on top of that, they have proper systems which they can deploy to neutralize targets and an added advantage of armour for cover.

The M-ATV is an all round better platform for S.F troops.

Ok Herny

You, the civilian internet warrior, are right

All the special forces in the world, with millions of hours of operational experience and a history dating back to light vehicle based raids and recon in WW2, are wrong

1. SAS - WRONG

2. Australian 2nd Commando Regiment - WRONG

3. German Kommando Spezialkräfte - WRONG

4. Green Berets - WRONG

I am not wasting my time if you are just going to repeat the same nonsense over and over. This isnt a discussion, this is you being pointlessly stubborn.

Henry120:
I hope you know the new chinese WS-17 engine for the JF-17 provides greater thrust than the RD-93, the RD-93 which did the vertical takeoff in paris?

Again, it is designed as a low cost fighter in broad terms. This means, it is likely going to have low operational cost.

Firstly, that was not a vertical take-off in Paris

Secondly, Pakistani JF-17 is still going to be useing the RD-93, only Chinese JF-17's will be using the WS-17

Russians and Chinese have claimed "low cost" many times, but the fact of the matter is that they have an international reputaion for being unreliable and maintenance intensive designes

Anyway, this is moot and a I dont actually give a sh1t about the JF-17... what I was simply pointing out is that with no accessible data on the topic, it is disingenuous to say the JF-17 has better maintenance, cost (operational) or availability than anything else

agaugust:
They did not come from the bush, Bokos include Nigerians who live inside those same cities.

Most Bokos came up from sleeper cells inside the city, your RSA country has zero knowledge of war on terrorism, so you think Islamic terrorists come from inside a bush....I guess ISIS in Iraq is from the jungle too....fool

1. Impying BH does not train and operate mainly in the bush
1a. Implying BH did not spend its formative years operating in isolated rural areas
1b. Implying Northern Nigeria is heavily urbanized

2. Implying desert Iraq is the same as Arid Northern Nigeria

3. Implying BH is an urban insurgency

4. IMPLYING THAT THE MAIN FOCUS OF FIGHTING HAS NOT BEEN THE SAMBISA FOREST SINCE DAY ONE


Face it, the insurgency moved into the cities because you lack the feild craft, equipment, command and control and doctrine to effectively combat the insurgency in its formative days.

Our mercenaries trained you how to fight semi-conventionally against BH, now let us teach you how to operate in the bush

agaugust:
Nigerian military says Boko Haram holds no land in Nigeria today, can you name the city?

The state governors gave no names of the towns....ghost towns in dreamland ?


CLAIMS OF BOKO-HARAM HOLDING TERRITORY A RUSE BY POLITICIANS TO ATTRACT FUNDING

“Military sources who spoke to THISDAY yesterday dismissed the claims that were made during the National Economic Council meeting held in Abuja on Thursday as “alarmist and a political gimmick for patronage”.

“They noted that politicians were trying to mislead members of the public by falsely claiming that five LGAs are under the control of the terrorists.”

“One of the senior officers clarified that the prevailing situation on ground, saying, “in some towns, Boko Haram have some presence and launch guerrilla attacks from time to time, which is different from holding a town.”

He added: “I don’t know where they get such LGAs from. I mean they should have named the local governments and let us verify, if they are sure of their claims. That Boko Haram makes a hit and run attacks in one or two towns does not in any way translate to holding any ground.

http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/military-silent-on-captured-local-govts-in-yobe-borno/215573/

#DEMOLISHED
.

So your state governers are telling lies?

And your Army are not?

What proof do you have?

Henry120:
Operatives are able to identify and eliminate their targets from kilometers away in any weather or climatic condition.

Which they can also do in an open topped vehical

And on top of that, an open topped vehical provides better close-in situational awareness

Henry120:
They are a recon or a kill/capture team, the chances of them entering into an un-predetermined fire fight are much much lower than regular infantry.

The systems on-board the vehicles provide the operatives un-matched situational awareness. This is a statistical fact!

Henry

The "fact" is the complete opposite

Men sitting in an ENCLOSED space will have less situational awareness than men sitting in an OPEN space

Henry120:
The JF-17 cost between 25 -30 million. It is also designed to be a low cost(operationally) fighter. In terms of availability, actual numbers in service would determine how available the fighters would be.

I am just saying, we have no idea what its operational and maintenance costs are

Since its a Chinese design using Russian engines - then by reputation it is neither cheap nor reliable

agaugust:
Truth ! Hot truth !!

Meanwhile, Boko Haram is now ravaging Cameroon, Niger Republique and Chad, their boasting armies cannot stop Shekau in their own backyard, the story of saving Nigeria has dried up from their mouths

Nigeria told Chad, Niger Republique, Cameroon to use their armies to block their own side of the borders while Nigerian army and air force demolishes Boko Haram, yet they did not listen, they were busy boasting to BBC that they are liberating towns in Nigeria, now they cannot save themselves....Boko Haram passed between their two legs and entered their countries....francophone fools

http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Boko-Haram-fighters-behead-3-in-Cameroon-raid-20150727

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/niger-us-gives-show-support-boko-haram-fightback-militants-expand-bloody-campaign-1510282

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/27/us-nigeria-violence-chad-idUSKCN0Q11XA20150727

.

[size=15pt]And yet - according to Nigerian Governers, Boko Haram still holds land!
http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Boko-Haram-holds-territories-in-Nigerias-NE-governors-20150724-5


I thought the war was over?[/size]

best SANDF video i have seen in a while


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFHgmNxWIBI

(Dat fire and maneuver at the end)

Looking good boys, looking good.

We will find out by the end of the year if the Rooivalk production line will be re-opened

Word is that an order of 70 is needed to make it economically profitable (i assume by this they mean "break even")

Brazil is interested (according to defenceweb) and so is SAAF (again, defenceweb)... maybe there is an opportunity in here for Nigeria and other African countries

Henry120:
So why are special forces around the world switching to M-ATVs?

The Supacat jackal in it's basic shape provides virtually no protection for it's crew, excerpt for IEDs.

What sort of protection does the Panhard SPV provide?

There is no evidence that the vehicles are more mobile or provide better situational awareness than the M-ATV or Sandcat.

So again I ask, why are Special forces now switching to vehicles like the M-ATV and Sandcat?

They arent switching - not at all. Infact, Ze Germans have just adopted (last pic) for their paratroopers as a APC

Infact, as I have just shown, Force Recon has just adopted a specially designed light vehical... the M1161

Your obsession with protection is unwarranted - speed, maneuverability, a small signature and situational awareness are its armor

I have shown that the Jackal is more maneuverable, and logically, an open topped vehical provides better situational awareness than one that is closed.

Henry120:
No it does not reduce situational awareness, on the contrary, it greatly improves it.

What's a Wasp?

It does because instead of the whole crew being able to see what is going on

Only the driver can see what is infront of him

And one guy can see what a screen shows him

Pic related is a Wasp, its what our special forces use (Note the MRLS)

Henry120:
Situational awareness, the Vehicles provide situational awareness for both men and machine.

U.S marine Special Forces seem to be fighting and raiding camps well from their M-ATVs. I don't see them complaining, infact the poles have even ordered units for GROM.

Problem is

MARSOC and their special snowflake unit Force Recon specially developed the M1161 Growler just for themselves

And they were using the IFAV before the M1161

PIc 1/2: M1161
Pic 3/4: IFAV

So yeah, even the unit you cited agrees with us

Henry120:
The vehicles i prefer all have gun ports from which troops can fire from.

Those vehicles(SPVs) carry 3 guys operationally. Main gunner, secondary and driver.

This is beyond ludicrous

I think your problem is that you are not realizing:

Special Forces =/= Special Operations forces =/= Light Infantry =/= Motorized Infantry

The fact that Special Forces as we know it exist because some guys in WW2 decided to strap some .303 machineguns on their Jeeps and go raid some airfeilds kind of gives it away

Henry120:
Yet the British have also developed the Foxhound aka Ocelot for their commandos. Don't you find it ironic?

Nope

They developed the Foxhound as a general purpose "light" MRAP

Henry120:
Weight of the Plasan Sandcat is 8,800kg
Top speed : 120km/H
Can carry weight : 2,300KG
Engine generates : 325hp

It is also easily air transportable by a Ch-53, CH-47 or C-130

The vehicle also provides all round better protection for it's crew. It is also very affordable as $17 million can provide a SOF command with 27 vehicles, while same amount can only get 9 Supacat Jackals.

On situational awareness, the crew doesn't need to actually step out of their vehicle as on board systems provide all round 360 degrees view for Kilometers away.

These so called SPVs really do not provide any real advantage for the costs they offer. It is much much better to have my crew in a Plasan Sandcat or an Oshkosh M-ATV than a Panhard SPV or Jackal.

Marines Special forces agree with me. Their personnel drive in M-ATVs.

This is getting infuriating, you are just repeating the same thing over and over again

Your whole argument revolves around "Cost, Protection and [i]They only use it to look coo[/i]l"

Cost: Cost is irrelevant, some platforms are cheaper than others, some more expensive. If you can afford it you can afford it, if you cant you buy something cheaper.

Protection: Portection difference between SandCat and Jackal is a whole 4kg of TNT... wow

"They only do it to look cool": Yeah, I dont think this requires a response.

Fact is, these vehicles are more mobile, have a lower signature, and better situational awareness.


So I shall leave you with this:

- Special forces around the world use vehicals such as the Jackal for a reason, the reason being that they are professionals and they know what they are doing. Indeed, special forces only exist BECAUSE of these vehicals.

If you wish to second guess them, then go ahead

WHAT THE FVCK IS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD??

Henry120:
Again I ask, is there any evidence that the Plasan Sandcat, Oskosh M-ATV do not provide enough situational awareness?

Because the Jackal was developed specifically because the British found that recon soldiers inside of MRAP's lack situational awareness

Henry120:
You keep mentioning these countries, however with these priced SPV's, there is a problem if Special forces on these platforms need to call in Tiger gunships to neutralize 2 targets.

That is a doctrinal issue

That is also why they can get away with being lightly armored

Their purpose is high mobility recon

Henry120:
Superior mobility = wrong! Both the Panhard SPV and Plasan Sandcat have very good mobility.

The Plasan Sandcat in addition to been better protected has a very reduced battle signature.

Air deployable, everything including LAV-25's are air deployable. So in addition to the Sandcat's air deployability, 79 units of the Plasan only costs 14 million dollars.

14 million dollars would get you only 16 Panhard SPVs.

1. They dont have the mobility of the much lighter Jackal, or "technical"

Jackal
-- Weight: 6t
-- BhP: 185
--- Bhp/Weight = 32


Snadcat
-- Weight: 11t
-- BhP: 325
--- Bhp/weight = 28

The Jackal is a more powerful vehicle and thus, is more mobile (Top Gear Rules apply)

2. An 11 tonne vehical, which is higher and wider than the Jackal with a bigger engine (thus louder) DEFINITLY has a significantly bigger signature than the Jackal.

3. Protection:

SandCat: STANAG 4569 Level 4

Jackal: STANAG 5469 Level 2A

So, the IED protection difference between the two is only 4kg of explosives.

4. Air-deployable:

Sandcat approaches the maximum payload of the Chinhook, and exceeds the payload of all other military helo's (except the crazy ones).

Whilst in comparison, a Chinhook can carry 2 Jackal.

What you dont understand about airdeployability, is we are not talking about tactical airlift here, not strategic.

5. Situtational awareness, the crew of an enclosed vehical will never have the visibility and awareness of a crew in an open vehical

6. Weapons mount.

Jackal: Mounts for up to 2 gpmgs and 1 HMG/GPMG
Sandcat: One mount

Look Henry, special forces have been using high mobility light vehicals and ATV's since the very INVENTION of special forces - infact, if it wasnt for the existance of the light vehical or ATV THERE WOULD BE NO SUCH THING AS SPECIAL FORCES

These generals and officers know what they are doing.

Henry120:
Far from it, I'm not deflecting. The cost of these vehicles have always been one of the core issues with them, as well as the zero protection they provide.

So let's look at cost,

Panhard SPV : €800,000
Supacat jackal : £1.2 million
Dutch AATV : € 800,000

The costs are not commensurate with the services they provide. There are multiple vehicles which can perform the roles of these SPVs and at only a fraction of the price, list includes Oshkosh M-ATV, Plasan Sandcat, Streit cougar, Black scorpion LAV and a host of other LAVs.

Fact is you or anyone who supports the use of these vehicles have failed to provide clear cut advantages they have, over other vehicles.

Advantages:

1. Superior mobility
2. Reduced battlefield signature (sight and sound)
3. Air deployable

Again, you are failing to see the different needs between SOF/SF (speed, mobility, stealth, firepower) over regular infantry (protection)

.