₦airaland Forum

MikeCZAR:
Offering what systems to the market?

You first satisfy the African market. Offering systems that are already available to customers but are continent suitable.


The African market is huge enough to make any company profitable. Systems only need to suitable with the African climate and easy to maintain. Simple as that!

CH4 WHICH IS FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN CH-3 HAS A MAXIMUM CEILING OF 5300M. SO TELL ME DO YOU THINK CH-3 CAN BE ANY BETTER?


https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20131214.aspx

agaugust:
Nope, underwater time is about 100 hours maximum.

Only a fool needs days and days to find a Submarine that can only submerge for 100 hours....you think submarines are ghosts ? Fool
.

That's more than four days you realise right?

Yes they are ghosts. Sweden tried hunting a similar ghost last year.

You have nothing to counter submarines!!!!

Your navy warships will be called back to naval bases.

agaugust:
....because NAF's PL-9C missile is supersonic at about 4,000 km/h speed you dunce !

DENEL tested Umkhonto missile that has 2,200 km/h speed against a slow Sea Skua drone that has only 980 km/h speed....

#Marketing Fraud

PL-9C Has the same speed as umkhonto which is Mach 2. Both its AAM and SAM version.


http://www.deagel.com/Air-to-Air-Missiles/PL-9_a002626001.aspx


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

Henry120:
You first satisfy the African market. Offering systems that are already available to customers but are continent suitable.


The African market is huge enough to make any company profitable. Systems only need to suitable with the African climate and easy to maintain. Simple as that!

Russia, Ukraine and China dominate the African market.

SA produces systems suited for the African market but being high tech means majority of the African countries can't afford them.

That's where my worries come from where by that company would be making inferior and cheaper weapons compared to others within their class in the world to make them affordable.

MikeCZAR:
Russia, Ukraine and China dominate the African market.

SA produces systems suited for the African market but being high tech means majority of the African countries can't afford them.

That's where my worries come from where by that company would be making inferior and cheaper weapons compared to others within their class in the world to make them affordable.

They provide cost effective world class systems that are "baggage free", with a guarantee for the supply of parts for decades to come. It's called having a trustworthy supplier.

This is why China, Russia and Ukraine dominate the African market.

Henry120:
They provide cost effective world class systems that are "baggage free", with a guarantee for the supply of parts for decades to come. It's called having a trustworthy supplier.

This is why China, Russia and Ukraine dominate the African market.

But Chinese products are unreliable, even our products are much more reliable than those of China. Their products will always come with defects and will cost you more money on repairs instead of having to buy quality.

Msauza:
But Chinese products are unreliable, even our products are much more reliable than those of China. Their products will always come with defects.

Do you have any evidence that shows chinese products are un-reliable?


Hope you are aware that the Sri-Lankans prosecuted what is an effective COIN campaign against the Tamil Tigers using mainly chinese weapons.



P.S, I don't want sentiments. If there are sentiments in your answer consider this the first & last time I'll ever quote or respond to you.

MikeCZAR:
Russia, Ukraine and China dominate the African market.

SA produces systems suited for the African market but being high tech means majority of the African countries can't afford them.

That's where my worries come from where by that company would be making inferior and cheaper weapons compared to others within their class in the world to make them affordable.

Yes, S.A produces systems that are suited to the African environment. However the problem is, most of the parts used in building those systems come from European countries. It therefore means there is no parts availability guarantee/ security. It just isn't there.



Building cheap, doesn't mean inferior. Building cost effective systems doesn't mean inferior either. High cost does not guarantee high productivity.


African countries might not be as rich as those in Europe, but the fact is, they can afford to purchase these systems. A single African IFV built by an African Defence conglomerate would sell.


Nobody buys defence systems all at once. We could see for such an IFV an order that would top 1000 over a period of 5 years.


The company would not make inferior equipments, the company would make cost effective equipment. I mean look at the Oshkosh M-ATV in Yemen been blown apart left, right and center. Given it's cost, one would expect that vehicle would do better in the battlefield, but it's just not happening.


In this case, is the high-cost of the M-ATV guaranteeing success? Fvck NO!

Henry120:
Do you have any evidence that shows chinese products are un-reliable?


Hope you are aware that the Sri-Lankans prosecuted what is an effective COIN campaign against the Tamil Tigers using mainly chinese weapons.



P.S, I don't want sentiments. If there are sentiments in your answer consider this the first & last time I'll ever quote or respond to you.

Your own country is the evidence to failed Chinese products such as your F7s and so called CH-3A drones.

Msauza:
You own country is the evidence to failed Chinese products such as your F7s and so called CH-3A drones.

I knew you lack the intellect to properly respond intelligently. We are done.

MikeCZAR:
Russia, Ukraine and China dominate the African market.

SA produces systems suited for the African market but being high tech means majority of the African countries can't afford them.

That's where my worries come from where by that company would be making inferior and cheaper weapons compared to others within their class in the world to make them affordable.

An African system like the IFV below. The RWS replaced with a dual 30mm cannon or 25 mm cannon would not only be cost effective, it would provide jobs across the countries that would build it, Cheap and improve commonality of systems.

Henry120:
I knew you lack the intellect to properly respond intelligently. We are done.

Running away is one form of a countermeasure. I understand.

Henry120:
They provide cost effective world class systems that are "baggage free", with a guarantee for the supply of parts for decades to come. It's called having a trustworthy supplier.

This is why China, Russia and Ukraine dominate the African market.

That's the case with any supplier.

Some of the products aren't really cost effective systems but simply cheap.

Henry120:
Yes, S.A produces systems that are suited to the African environment. However the problem is, most of the parts used in building those systems come from European countries. It therefore means there is no parts availability guarantee/ security. It just isn't there.



Building cheap, doesn't mean inferior. Building cost effective systems doesn't mean inferior either. High cost does not guarantee high productivity.


African countries might not be as rich as those in Europe, but the fact is, they can afford to purchase these systems. A single African IFV built by an African Defence conglomerate would sell.


Nobody buys defence systems all at once. We could see for such an IFV an order that would top 1000 over a period of 5 years.


The company would not make inferior equipments, the company would make cost effective equipment. I mean look at the Oshkosh M-ATV in Yemen been blown apart left, right and center. Given it's cost, one would expect that vehicle would do better in the battlefield, but it's just not happening.


In this case, is the high-cost of the M-ATV guaranteeing success? Fvck NO!

Cost effective in the class of member Mbombe IFV and RG-35 are still expensive for many African armies.

Below that you find uparmoured APCs with cannons.

Henry120:
An African system like the IFV below. The RWS replaced with a dual 30mm cannon or 25 mm cannon would not only be cost effective, it would provide jobs across the countries that would build it, Cheap and improve commonality of systems.

This isn't a cost effective system in the class of WZ551, Mbombe, RG-36 etc

There are already African RWS.

CH-3 specs as analysed by Beegeagle.


https://beegeagle./2015/01/28/special-focus-on-the-nigerian-militarys-new-chinese-built-ch-3-unmanned-air-combat-vehicles-armed-drones/


MISSION PROFILE
– reconnaissance in the combat zone,
– intelligence gathering
– precision strike missions
TECHNICAL DATA
* Cruising speed – 220 km/hr
* Loiter Time – 12 hours.
* Can be piloted as far as 200 kilometers from base
station
* Can send live feedback to the base station.
* Maximum takeoff weight – 640 kg
* Service ceiling – 5000 meters
* Maximum range – 2400 km

Umkhonto missile will kill their only one CH-3A and they will be left with nothing.

Conclusion.

Nigeria has no weapon in store to challenge SAN frigates.

agaugust:
Who told you IRIS-T was never tested in Germany before anywhere else? They can test it again for SAAF in your own land to get sales business and make you buy.

IRIS-T is not an anti-missile missile, it cannot stop a missile like the PL-9C of NAF. Period.

This clearly shows you lack any knowledge on military or missiles.

Go do your research before I will expose your stu.pidity fool. The IRST was tested OVR before it was even brought into service anywhere in the world.
http://itweb.co.za/mobilesite/defenceweb/home/item_id-39260/

agaugust:
Who told you IRIS-T was never tested in Germany before anywhere else? They can test it again for SAAF in your own land to get sales business and make you buy.

IRIS-T is not an anti-missile missile, it cannot stop a missile like the PL-9C of NAF. Period.

The PL-9C is not even in the class of the top ten missile systems in the world yet the IRS-T and 5th gen A-Datar is. Where is your PL-9C outdated missile on this list of top 10 missiles.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-most-effective-air-to-air-missiles-4167934/

DictatorZAR:
This clearly shows you lack any knowledge on military or missiles.

Go do your research before I will expose your stu.pidity fool. The IRST was tested OVR before it was even brought into service anywhere in the world.
http://itweb.co.za/mobilesite/defenceweb/home/item_id-39260/

Perhaps agaugust does not even know that many missiles in the world, some of the best today were tested in South Africa because some of those countries do not have test range that fit the same requirements as Overberg.

jl115:
1. Daks will be replaced by 2018
2. Ratels have been upgraded to mk3 status, and are also being partly replaced by the Badger IFV.
3 Only a handful of Olifants are not upgraded to MK1B and MK2 standard
4 Nothing Wrong with our Casspirs, even today they are still considered as one of the best MRAPs on the market, they have also been upgraded to MK3 status.
5 Nothing wrong with our Samil trucks, even you said you like them!!
6 Still one of the longest firing 127mm MLRS systems in the world!!
7 Nothing wrong with our Cessna's, they are perfect light transports for our conditions and have been upgraded throughout the years.
8 Vulture UAVs are part of the G5 and G6 artillery system and work perfectly.

[size=13pt]According to your own Defence minister and military experts :

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/09/15/SANDF-goes-shopping

The report actually confirms that :

"Some of the equipment that must be replaced dates back to the 1950s, including trucks and aircraft."

Helmod said "Critical equipment, including trucks and armoured infantry vehicles, need to be replaced. We desperately need light anti-tank
weapons and reconnaissance vehicles. Our artillery and antiaircraft weapons systems need upgrading."

Stupart agreed that a lot of SANDF equipment had to be replaced
. [/size]

jl115:
How many days are there in a 100 hours Augustine?

Far too few days for a naval sea blockade

MikeCZAR:
That's the case with any supplier.

Some of the products aren't really cost effective systems but simply cheap.

This isn't the case with all suppliers. Suppliers from the East are generally more trustworthy than suppliers from the U.S and Europe, hence the pivot of many African countries to the East. This is and the fact that many eastern systems are generally easier to maintain.


-Is a T-72B3 or T-90A not cost effective?

-The MI-17 is another cost effective system, same as the MI-24.

- Same as the MI-28N, CH-3A, CH-4, ......... And various other chines Tank destroyers, MRLS, that are popular with African armies.


Cost effective is not cheap.

MikeCZAR:
Cost effective in the class of member Mbombe IFV and RG-35 are still expensive for many African armies.

Below that you find uparmoured APCs with cannons.

The Jordanians are paying $1 million per unit for the 50 units of Mbombe IFV they plan to procure, and this cost include local manufacturing. What this means is, the Mbombe IFV is much lower than the $ 1 million price tag the Jordanians are paying for.



For an African country, $ 1 million dollars per unit is cheap, and if this IFV was developed by an African consortium with parts built in different countries, same as the Eurofighter, cost would be cheaper than the $ 1 million, and orders would be more.

MikeCZAR:
This isn't a cost effective system in the class of WZ551, Mbombe, RG-36 etc

There are already African RWS.

-That's the sort of system i want developed. A proper heavily armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

- I specifically mentioned that I'd want the IFV to carry a dual 30mm or 25mm as main armament. The vehicle should also be able to fire ATGMs. Only the BMPT best describes the sort of system i want.

Msauza:
BWAHAHAHA… SA IS THE FIRST TO INTRODUCE THE COMPLEX TECH OF SAM MISSILE THAT CAN LOCK ON TO OTHER MISSILES AUTOMATICALLY AND SHOOT AT THEM DOWN. UMKHONTO MISSILE CAN DO THE PIONEER OF SM-6 YET THEY ARE BOTH NOT CALLED ANTI-MISSILE MISSILE. YOU ARE STILL BACKWARD WITH TECHNOLOGY.

From manufacture:



http://www.deneldynamics.co.za/products/missiles/air-defence-missiles/umkhonto

I quote:

The missile ishigh-velocity and infrared homing, providing all-round defence against simultaneous attacks from missiles and aircrafts. Although, this is a surface to air missile, it is also capable of taking out stationery surface targets. The Umkhonto was designed with a 23 kg warhead for High-kill probability, unlike other SAM missile systems in its class. Quote closed.

Umkhonto kills other missiles as proven and tested.

Case-closed.

Show me source that says South Africa is the first country to produce a missile that can lock on to other missiles, there is NOTHING like that in the weblink you posted, fraudster !

For your info, USA was the first in the world to test a partially effective anti-missile missile called the PATRIOT, and it still missed target many times during Iraq gulf war.

However, what you do not know is that missiles are different, the class of missiles that are usually stopped with missile are slow speed cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

Cruise missiles can have average speed of about 800 km/h, then you can attempt a stop with a 2,200 km/h Umkhonto missile.

PL-9C missile has speed of about 4,000 km/h and so how does a much slower Umkhonto stop that, by magic and juju?

You don't know that there are subsonic and supersonic missiles, and the speed difference can be as different as 800 km/h to 4,000 km/h.

If you cannot catch up with somebody running at double your speed, you cannot stop him.

Msauza:
Your F7 is handicapped.

Your Gripen is crippled.

agaugust:
Far too few days for a naval sea blockade

Two submerged subs in your waters for two days is enough to take out your two OPVs and Thunder the rest of your gun boats are useless creek vessels not meant for high seas.

agaugust:
[size=13pt]According to your own Defence minister and military experts :

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/09/15/SANDF-goes-shopping

The report actually confirms that :

"Some of the equipment that must be replaced dates back to the 1950s, including trucks and aircraft."

Helmod said "Critical equipment, including trucks and armoured infantry vehicles, need to be replaced. We desperately need light anti-tank
weapons and reconnaissance vehicles. Our artillery and antiaircraft weapons systems need upgrading."

Stupart agreed that a lot of SANDF equipment had to be replaced
. [/size]

Samil trucks aren't 50 years old, Neither are our Ratels, Casspirs, Mambas ect ect ect As we speak our Samils are being refurbished, they are excellent military vehicles with a great track record!! You yourself said they are great trucks and as far as I know the Nigerian army also field a number of Samil trucks.

Personally I would just refurbish/Upgrade our current Samil fleet, as I see no real benefit in replacing them with a new fleet which will cost millions and wont really bring anything new to the table.

As for our Casspirs and Mambas, there are projects in place that seek to replace them around 2018-2020, even though they will be replaced in the next few years, our Casspirs and Mambas still provide the same(if not better) ballistics protection than their modern counterparts.

The only equipment that HAS to be replaced asap is our Daks, they are 50 odd years old, but the good thing is that there has been budgeted for new light and medium transport aircraft in the current financial year.

patches689:
1. Citation needed that snorkeling submarine cannot use radar

2. Citation needed that ATR can detect an object witg the RCS of a snorkel

Until you post proof for these two things, your entire argument falls flat

You don't need a citation to tell your dumb head that a properly snorkelling submarine only protrudes a snorkel, the radar is on the submarine hull or conning tower underwater and radar does not work through water, it's an air wave you fool ! Your physics teacher told you that radar waves travel trough water, or radar is used from ships to detect submarine under water? Why was sonar invented to replace radar for scanning through water? Mumu !

You show me the RCS size of your subs snorkel, lets see if it's as tiny as you think.

ATR-42 has high power Gabbianno radar, it has long range TV camera, and FLIR for detecting the massive diesel engine heat pouring out of your snorkel's exhaust pipe, the RCS does not matter to a visual TV or thermal detector you dunce !
.

agaugust:
Far too few days for a naval sea blockade

1 SAN sub= No more NN......admitted by you yourself!!

agaugust:
You don't need a citation to tell your dumb head that a properly snorkelling submarine only protrudes a snorkel, the radar is on the submarine hull or conning tower underwater and radar does not work through water, it's an air wave you fool ! Your physics teacher told you that radar waves travel trough water, or radar is used from ships to detect submarine under water? Why was sonar invented to replace radar for scanning through water? Mumu !

You show me the RCS size of your subs snorkel, lets see if it's as tiny as you think.

ATR-42 has high power Gabbianno radar, it has long range TV camera, and FLIR for detecting the massive diesel engine heat pouring out of your snorkel's exhaust pipe, the RCS does not matter to a visual TV or thermal detector you dunce !
.

Holy SH!T!!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

You just made my day mate!!!!!! you really did!!!