quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^lol, the only joke is you. Are you always this dumb or are you making a special effort? Why are you trying to wriggle away? Prove your so-called "kickass" theory.
U got schooled Next...
Posts: 2275 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only person that got schooled is you fool. Now focus and don't let your mind wander; it's far too small to be let out on its own. Why have you not yet come up with proof of your "kickass" theory? What's taking you so long?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would just like to say, to those who pointed out "where was the UN when all the attrocities occurred in the rest of Africa and all those other countries that don't have oil..."
posted
French atrocities against the people of Ivory Coast is well documented. This "halt attacks on civilians" argument is so BS.
Why is France so interested? "France lives off Francophone Africa via C.F.A franc" link
quote:Originally posted by Exiiled:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: No, I am saying your BIG-BEst theory doesn't hold water. What's taking you so long to prove your theory?
My theory was never about Big=Best. It was always abot KickAss=Best.
Stop lying bitch. Your whole argument rests on numbers, big.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
French atrocities against the people of Ivory Coast is well documented. This "halt attacks on civilians" argument is so BS. [Roll Eyes] Why is France so interested? "France lives off Francophone Africa via C.F.A franc" link.
^^The author below lists 5 types of French hegemony and intervention: (1) setting up dictatorial but friendly regimes, 2) coup de'tat and destabilization operations, 3) intervention to suppress internal rebellions that threaten French clients, (4) intervention to defend against external aggression, (5) "multilateral" intervention under the guise or cover of UN institutions. He notes that France maintains numerous bases in Africa, strategically positioned near major harbors, airports, roads, etc. The aim is to create an African security dependency the writer argues.
-------------------
France and the new imperialism: security policy in Sub-Saharan Africa - Page 65 Bruno Charbonneau - 2008 - 189 pages - Preview Their fundamental role should not be underestimated, but the cornerstone of the French security apparatus in Africa was the rapid intervention forces stationed in France. French bases in Africa are positioned near airports and harbours ... books.google.com
--------------------------------------------
Over the years France and Libya have been entangled in several ways. DO you have any info on this? What happened to French friendship or collaboration after all the oil and arms sales connections over the years?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the only way South Africa could compete against those kinds of numbers of f-16s they would have to be equipped with F-22 Raptors.
That said, if all the planes were in the air at one time facing each over a wide area and the South African Airforce had F-22s which carry 5 missiles apiece, I think, and they all hit their targets then that means only 75 F-16s destroyed. But this assumes the F-16s haven't fired any missiles of their own at the F-22s.
Even if the F-16 pilots were *ambushed,* and I can't see how that could happen with all the sophisticated electronics on board, then the F-22s have no where to hide from the remaining 165 F-16s after exhausting their missiles on the 75 destroyed F-16s. Presumably some of the F-16s have a missile or two left.
Speaking of F-16s, they have ''guns'', the Raptors don't, or so I've read from unofficial sources. Plus the F-16s are more maneuverable. So in this case sheer numbers will definitely do the trick.
But, if the Egyptians are dumbassess piloting the F-16s and their command and control continue to send up 75 F-16s to compete against the Raptors on a daily basis and they didn't catch on after about three trips up losing 225 planes then yes the South Africans will prevail--if they are using F22s that is.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
You're also taking The Explorer road? Such a shame.
Why can't you admit that Egypt's Air Force 2011 and not 1970 can wipe the floor clean with SAAF with their measely 15 Fighters and 34 measely combat pilots. Maybe they have Master Jedi Zulu wid dem.
Cha!
Oh yeah, you are that idiot who dismissed a fourth generation fighter [the Gripen] as a useless craft, supposedly out favor for a third generation fighter [F16], that is actually on its way out of use in its country of origin. A keen insight into how the military world ticks is clearly not your thing. You approach the topic with a kindergarten-like mindset. Do yourself a favor and just stick to cheerleading the ragtag opposition rebels.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think the only way South Africa could compete against those kinds of numbers of f-16s they would have to be equipped with F-22 Raptors.
The South African air force is currently refurbishing its equipment at the moment, and so, very few new aircraft are in their possession, aside from the already completed delivery of a new generation of dual trainer-fighter BAE Hawk jets. At the moment they are relying on the Cheetah C fighter jets, which are determined to be just as capable, if not even more, as the F-16s. The Cheetah C EW suit is so sophisticated that elements of it will be incorporated into the South African Gripen. The Gripen is more than capable of handling the job you are describing above, and its far lighter than the F-22 raptor, if memory serves me correctly. Word is that the South African Gripen is more sophisticated than the Swedish air force examples, because a major part of its EW suite is locally designed and produced, which will undoubtedly be on the classified list, along with its outfitting with a stock of highly potent locally designed and produced armament. South African leaders figure they don't need that many combat aircraft [i.e. more than 34 active fighters] at the moment, based on realistic estimations of external threat against their nation. In the past, the still limited amount of fighters were maintained only for use against Africans by the apartheid state. Believe me, if they actually thought they were more than like to always be under great threat, they'd swell the number of fighters in their military possession. They have the technology and means to do this if and when it is deemed necessary. Word is that South African air force is the world's second oldest independent air force!
Rookies never take into consideration that a country with a fairly well-developed and self-reliant military industry has to be a military power, because the arms industry is not like other industries. More often than not, these industries are highly protected by and subsidized by governments much more so than any other sector of industry. There are even highly competitive government sponsored espionage going on in this sector of industry, and can be cause for war, if one country deems that its secrets have been violated! Unlike some other sectors of industry, governments actually do the bidding for military ware, which means more often than not, an arms sales is politically driven.
Rookies just don't understand these issues, and so, do stupid things like simplifying military might into a competition of "headcount", never mind the quality of technology and capacity of local military industry, and comparing the sector to wine or soft drink production, LOL.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
South African National Defence Force in crisis Date: 6 April 2010
The South African National Defence Force (SANDF), once by far the most effective in Sub-Saharan Africa, is in danger of becoming moribund. The effects of 20 years of underfunding are visible in the Department of Defence's (DoD's) current three-year strategic plan, which reflects armed forces incapable of major operations and clearly in decline.
In March 2009 parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Defence warned that the SANDF was in a "downward spiral of becoming inadequate to fulfil its constitutional mandate". Analysis of the strategic plan confirms it.
The army can field one mechanised brigade; five battalions for peacekeeping, border protection and internal security; and an under-strength parachute battalion group as a defence force reserve. The navy has two frigates, a submarine, a support ship and about four smaller vessels operational. The air force will not have an effective fighter capability until well after 2012 and has only six attack helicopters operational. Airlift is limited to about four 1960s-vintage C-130s and some modernised 1940s-vintage C-47s. Only the air force's helicopter and liaison components are properly equipped.
This is hardly adequate for a country with the largest economy in Africa, and the 30th largest in the world, and that is expected to play a major regional security role. The reality is underscored by a 'selective engagement' policy, defined in the strategic plan to mean that "the SANDF will execute all the prescribed missions, but will be selective in terms of the extent to which operations and tasks emanating from these missions will be executed. This concept implies that appreciated risks will have to be taken".
Quite apart from being under-strength for its responsibilities, the SANDF cannot with present funding train properly, maintain its equipment and facilities or pay acceptable salaries. The result is an accelerating decline in effectiveness and in morale, the latter reflected by the drain of key personnel and the violent demonstration by some 2,000 soldiers in November 2009 over poor pay and living conditions in bases that were not properly maintained.
Perhaps the most startling illustration of under-funding is that the air force will only have 550 flying hours for its fighter force this year and 250 hours in each of the next two, just when it planned to 'work up' on the new Gripen; lead-in fighter training on the Hawk has been cut from 4,000 hours to 2,000. The South African Air Force (SAAF) had planned the Gripen to be fully operational by 2012, but that is now clearly unattainable. The transport, helicopter and maritime components are hardly better off and the precipitate decision to cancel the acquisition of the A400M transport aircraft leaves the SAAF without a C-130 replacement plan.
The strategic plan does not give total sea day figures, but reveals that the navy will have only 10,000 operational hours at sea (9,000 per year thereafter) to patrol South Africa's 2,800 km coast and enormous exclusive economic zone. Inadequate funding has also limited fuel for sea training days and made it difficult to procure spares. The army's situation is aggravated by funding that allows only one brigade exercise per year - and that with a 'brigade minus'. It will also struggle to fund re-equipment. For example, it can only acquire 264 new infantry combat vehicles against an actual requirement for more than 1,000 and several key projects, have been delayed by years.
Other issues
Quite apart from under-funding, the SANDF is also being hurt by inadequate strategic direction, which was highlighted in March by a Treasury official briefing parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He said the strategic plan set no "strategic goals and objectives", lacked "high-level focus on the desired outcomes", lacked any "credible vision of what the defence force should be doing" and that the "operational plans at the lower levels focused on support functions rather than the core strategic objectives and responsibilities". He suggested the DoD should "have military strategists who are not civilians" and who would be able to "formulate a new vision". That goes to a root problem: the Defence Secretariat has not been effective since its establishment in 1995. Few senior civil servants had defence experience and political appointments saw people with neither defence nor civil service experience placed into key posts.
One result was the attempt to update the 1997/98 Defence Review, which produced a document that blithely skipped over core strategic issues, ignored already approved army and navy force designs and contained errors of fact. It was rejected by both the Standing Committee and the defence minister, who instructed that a new paper be drafted, this time involving the services in the process.
The ultimate roots of the problem lie in the Defence White Paper of 1996, which was drafted by advisers with naïve notions of international politics and little understanding of defence and who focused on peripheral issues. The Defence Review was led by the same advisers and focused almost entirely on fitting the shrinking budget, with no regard to likely missions. At the same time the SANDF was 're-engineered' along business principles. That mistake is being reversed, but the fundamental problems of vague policy, even vaguer strategy and a dysfunctional Secretariat remain.
The SANDF continues to suffer from self-destructive personnel management focused on gender and racial quotas to the near exclusion of practical requirements. It is unable or unwilling to dispense with dishonest and incompetent officers, which has driven out experienced white officers and demoralises black officers, who are frustrated and compromised by the incompetents. Their morale is not helped by often rather frank remarks of officers from other African forces, such as: "Why do you have these people on your courses? Do they not embarrass you?"
The situation is not terminal. The SANDF has highly competent officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs); its young officers are keen; its soldiers have mostly performed well in peacekeeping operations. However, there is an urgent need for clear direction and leadership from the Cabinet, indeed from the president, to spell out what the SANDF will be expected to do and to support commanders who insist on discipline and on merit. And government must provide funding commensurate with the tasking. The best soldiers in the world cannot win wars without adequate training and equipment.
Many senior officers are optimistic that the new Cabinet will turn things around, but there is not much time - perhaps three or four years. After that the situation might become irretrievable.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: The only person that got schooled is you fool. Now focus and don't let your mind wander; it's far too small to be let out on its own. Why have you not yet come up with proof of your "kickass" theory? What's taking you so long?
No theories or outdated information that is relevant to the 50s/60s/70s, just facts, you do know what fact is?. SAAF has only 9 Trained pilots, with 3 more coming up.
Combat pilots - secret's out Date: 19 November 2010
Pretoria - The air force's "secret" about the number of qualified Gripen fighter pilots was recently made public in great detail by its own officers during a briefing.
The sudden secrecy regarding the numbers is probably the result of the growing persecution complex, which has been siphoning downward from the defence ministry, experts said on Thursday.
During a recent visit to 2 Squadron at the Makhado air force base, where the Gripens are based, the air force held a comprehensive briefing regarding its fighter pilots.
Brigadier General John Bayne, director of combat systems in the air force explained at the first solo flight of locally-trained Gripen pilots that the first six South African pilots were trained by the SAAB aviation and defence company in Sweden.
SAAB is the manufacturer of the Gripens.
Lieutenant Colonel Musa Mbhokota, the squadron's operations officer, said at the same occasion that the squadron will train a further three Gripen pilots next year.
Coincidentally, Mbhokota is one of the six who were trained in Sweden.
Solo flights
On this occasion three pilots, including the first female Gripen pilot, and a navigator conducted their first solo flights.
This brings the total number of trained pilots to nine, with another three to follow next year.
Brigadier General Wiseman Mbambo of the air force refused to say how many pilots there are at a Parliamentary briefing on Wednesday.
He said such a disclosure would involve "a threat to national security".
Lately similar excuses have been offered by the defence ministry as the reason why details about VIP flights and those of President Jacob Zuma also can't be disclosed.
According to military expert Helmoed-Römer Heitman, it is clear that the air force has no policy regarding what is classified and what not.
"Senior officers now look like fools because there's no proper, logical policy regarding what they are allowed to say. In this case they might be a little embarrassed to say there are only nine Gripen pilots.
"It's almost like a revival of the era of General Magnus Malan (former minister of defence) when no-one was allowed to release information without permission.
"Under Mosiuoa Lekota (former minister of defence) this practice gained new momentum, and now it appears to be common practice to avoid uncomfortable answers by invoking 'national security'," Heitman said.
Bayne said at a recent briefing that the air force has already received 16 of the 26 Gripens on order.
posted
The most important factor in having capable Air Force combat pilots is training which means flight hours. Poor SAAF can't afford to pay for fligt hours. So SAAF has a measely number of fighter jets and undertrained combat pilots.
Air force, navy 'just for show' Date: 4 March 2010
The expensive Gripen fighter jets, frigates and submarines which cost South African taxpayers billions of rands will mainly be on the ground and in port over the next three years, because there's no money to operate them.
The DA has called this a disgrace, while the department of defence's excuse is that its budget is hopelessly inadequate.
According to the department's strategic plan for the next three years, which was submitted to Parliament on Wednesday, their budgeting allows for the following:
- That the Gripens will spend 550 hours in flight in the current financial year, after which this will be scaled down to 250 flight hours per year for the next two years; and
- That the navy's 18 ships will have 10 000 hours at sea in 2011-2012 and 9 000 hours at sea per year in 2012 and 2013.
Operational capabilities
DA MP David Maynier said at a meeting between the parliamentary portfolio committee for defence and the department that it's clear "the defence force is being stripped of its operational capabilities".
"Look at maritime defence: Taking into account what we have at our disposal and the hours at sea which have been budgeted for, the navy's ships will spend 23 days at sea and 328 days in port. Perhaps eight ships - including the frigates at the submarines - would be more realistic: That would mean they'd spend 55 days at sea and 299 in port.
"Concerning the air force: We have 11 Gripens and 550 flight hours available this year, which means they are flying less than half of the hours required to comply with Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) standards. Most of these hours will be used during the 2010 World Cup, and between July and the end of the financial year, these fighter jets will be standing in their hangars," he said.
"It gets worse in the following years: Once all 26 Gripens have been delivered, they'll spend an average of 9.6 hours in flight per year."
Helmoed-Römer Heitman, a defence expert, described this budget as ludicrous and said if this is the way the navy and air force are run, the defence force might as well shut its doors.
According to him, Nato requires that fighter pilots log 20 flight hours per month (240 flight hours per year per fighter pilot, compared to the air force's budget of 550 flight hours) to remain operationally functional.
Bought for show
"According to these standards our air force is only barely going to be able to keep two fighter pilots in business.
"As far as our navy is concerned, it is now clear that the frigates and submarines were only bought for show."
Thabang Makwetla, deputy minister of defence, said it isn't the department's fault and that the problem lies with the inadequate defence budget.
According to Professor Renfrew Christie from the University of the Western Cape, South Africa is currently spending about 1.2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defence, compared to 4.5% in 1989.
The World Bank recommends that a functional defence force should be allocated no less than 2% of the GDP.
No theories or outdated information that is relevant to the 50s/60s/70s, just facts, you do know what fact is?. SAAF has only 9 Trained pilots, with 3 more coming up. [Big Grin]
What facts do you have?
lol... you can't wriggle away no matter how you try. I already gave the detailed 2006 assessment. You are not fooling anyone. Why are you taking so long to prove your "kick-ass" theory? Could it be that you can't and are trying to bluster your way out with empty repetition? Why are you taking so long?
And you can;t even keep your clams straight. In one post you say:
"On paper South African Air Force has only 34 combat pilots and 15 Swedish fighter jets. On paper Egypt has 240 F-16 upgraded fighter jets. In reality what do you think the outcome of those two Air Forces going head to head? Let's get this out the way first."
but up above you now say:
" SAAF has only 9 Trained pilots, with 3 more coming up. [Big Grin]"
You are so incompetent you can't even put forward a coherent set of data.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article refers to 9 qualified GRIPPEN pilots not the entire SAAF. Even in basic reading comprehension your competence seems questionable.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Exilled:
No theories or outdated information that is relevant to the 50s/60s/70s, just facts, you do know what fact is?. SAAF has only 9 Trained pilots, with 3 more coming up. [Big Grin]
What facts do you have?
lol... you can't wriggle away no matter how you try. I already gave the detailed 2006 assessment. You are not fooling anyone. Why are you taking so long to prove your "kick-ass" theory? Could it be that you can't and are trying to bluster your way out with empty repetition? Why are you taking so long?
And you can;t even keep your clams straight. In one post you say:
"On paper South African Air Force has only 34 combat pilots and 15 Swedish fighter jets. On paper Egypt has 240 F-16 upgraded fighter jets. In reality what do you think the outcome of those two Air Forces going head to head? Let's get this out the way first."
but up above you now say:
" SAAF has only 9 Trained pilots, with 3 more coming up. [Big Grin]"
You are so incompetent you can't even put forward a coherent set of data.
You're not only dishonest but also ignorant. The only “wiggling” is by you and those attempting to hold on to the fallacy that SAAF is better than EAF. SAAF has 34 total combat pilots out of 60 full positions. BUT only 9 (10) or so who are fully trained to pilot the Gripen Fighter jets. You know, or do I have to remind you, the entire basis of this argument is 15 (16) Gripen vs 220 F-16s. You and your lot are deaf, dumb and blind and will dishonestly cling on to fallacies, despite the overwhelming evidence that prove otherwise. What the hell is up with that, such a damned mentality.
Fact is South Africa has a POS air force, and making “components" does not change this fact. The fact is your dishonesty/ignorance does not change the fact that South Africa has only 1 measly Fighter Aircraft squadron to Egypt's 22 Squadrons. The fact is what Egypt did prior to 1980 has no bearing whatsoever on today's reality. Egypt transformed from basically a Russian tactic airforce, to an America tactic Air force. Hundreds of Egyptians officers train every year in some of the most prestigious military academies in the US. The fact is EAF is under the wing of the greatest military nation on the planet, they now employ American fighting tactics. The Russian air fighting strategies they used prior to 1980 are history. You still can't accept this fact. Different air craft, different training, they are trained now in basically the same type of tactics that the US/Israel/UK uses. But you are still basing your arguement on the past.
The fact is Egypt's Air Force with US training and joint missions, quality and quantity of fighter aircraft makes it the best Air Force in all Africa and entire Middle East (after Israel). Fact is the SAAF admits it's own weakness, and while it was once formidable, South Africans themselves joke that anyone can literally “waltz in” now. But you can remain ignorant and remain dishonest, It's become a a tradmark of certain members including yourself. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Some interesting readings for the dishonest/delusional/ignoramuses.
The South African Air Force currently musters 23 operational fighter aircrew. The Ministry of Defence says the flying service musters 10 Gripen aircrew (eight pilots, two navigators) and 13 Hawk aircrew, all pilots.
Last November Sisulu stated the SAAF had 60 posts for combat pilots, of which 34 were filled at the time and 26 were vacant. The number relates to the total of fighters the SAAF should operate by 2012: 24 BAE Systems Mk120 Hawk lead-in fighter trainers and 26 SAAB Gripen advanced light fighter aircraft, the former with 85 Combat Flying School and the latter with 2 Squadron, both co-located at Air Force Base Makhado in Limpopo. This amounts to 50 aircraft. To date, all 24 Hawk have been delivered and 15 of the Gripen.
To solo on the Gripen should typically take new pilots five years, 2 Squadron's operations officer, Lt Col Musa “Midnite” Mbhokota told journalists in October. This includes basic military training (three months), officers forming course (a further three months), the Military Academy (one year) and basic pilot training (one year). The latter includes 180 hours on the Pilatus PC7 MkII. Next follows some 390 hours on the Hawk at 85 CFS before posting to 2 Squadron where conversion to the Gripen takes place, starting with six weeks in the classroom followed by 70 hours on the Squadron Level Mission Trainer (a flight simulator) and a further 70 hours on the aircraft. Both periods include 30 hours of conversion training, 20 hours of air warfare training and 20 hours of surface warfare training. It then takes a further six sorties to solo.
At the same briefing, to mark the graduation of the first locally qualified Gripen fighter pilots, officers told reporters the squadron mustered three locally qualified pilots and six qualified in Sweden, making for nine. Three more were expected to qualify next year.
In response to a question by Freedom Front Plus MP Pieter Groenewald, tabled in Parliament yesterday, the military added two of the current Gripen pilot cadre are black men, one is an Indian male, one a white female and the remaining six are white males. The Hawk aircrew comprises 11 white men and two black males.
In addition, 21 Hawk aircrew are under training - 17 as pilots and four as navigators. The racial breakdown is given as nine black males, one Indian male, one Coloured male, nine white males and 1 white female.
posted
The Explorer or Henry, do you disagree with the below as it is narrowly defined?
My comments:
quote:''That said, if all the planes were in the air at one time facing each over a wide area and the South African Airforce had F-22s which carry 5 missiles apiece, I think, and they all hit their targets then that means only 75 F-16s destroyed. But this assumes the F-16s haven't fired any missiles of their own at the F-22s.
Even if the F-16 pilots were *ambushed,* and I can't see how that could happen with all the sophisticated electronics on board, then the F-22s have no where to hide from the remaining 165 F-16s after exhausting their missiles on the 75 destroyed F-16s. Presumably some of the F-16s have a missile or two left.
Speaking of F-16s, they have ''guns'', the Raptors don't, or so I've read from unofficial sources. Plus the F-16s are more maneuverable. So in this case sheer numbers will definitely do the trick.
But, if the Egyptians are dumbassess piloting the F-16s and their command and control continue to send up 75 F-16s to compete against the Raptors on a daily basis and they didn't catch on after about three trips up losing 225 planes then yes the South Africans will prevail--if they are using F22s that is.''
And I will agree the F-16 is on the way out, unless retrofitted to perform duties like the Fa-18 Hornet from a few years ago.
That said I can't speculate on the Grippen fighter in the same scenario above, and for that matter, any of the above planes I mentioned re their ''hidden talents'' except to say what I've read over the years which isn't much. But from the aerial engagement mentioned above it seems to me sheer numbers will have to win in *this* instance.
If the Grippen fighter is or will be much more advanced than any major player in the armament industry in the very near future then in order for the scenario above to *not* work the Grippen will undoubtedly have to triple or nearly quadruple its tracking and numbers of missile-firing capabilities to severely reduce the number of F-16s in the battle above to more than even the playing field.
Keep in mind I'm not favoring the F-16 at all, just the numbers against the opposition in that particular battle as decribed by me.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yemen continues to kill protesters yet American aid continues. The US is making it more difficult for you western apologists to argue they are oh so concerned about protecting Libyan citizens and spreading freedom there. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the Yemen is probably holiday destination #1 with Al Qaeda right now, the US is going to do all they can to keep a stable government in and keep buttering their toast. Are you nuts? What do you suggest as an alternative?
Is there a moral argument for intervention? Sure. Would it harm US interests to intervene? Most likely. It all boils back to Obama's speech about weighing the two up against each other - the first priority is always going to be number 1. Meh, don't know why I'm even wasting my time.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exilled says: You're not only dishonest but also ignorant. The only “wiggling” is by you and those attempting to hold on to the fallacy that SAAF is better than EAF. SAAF has 34 total combat pilots out of 60 full positions. BUT only 9 (10) or so who are fully trained to pilot the Gripen Fighter jets. You know, or do I have to remind you, the entire basis of this argument is 15 (16) Gripen vs 220 F-16s. You and your lot are deaf, dumb and blind and will dishonestly cling on to fallacies, despite the overwhelming evidence that prove otherwise. What the hell is up with that, such a damned mentality.
Your aren't fooling anyone. I never said the SAAF was "better" than the EAF. I said that bigger aircraft numbers do not necessarily translate into the "assured" victories in aerial warfare that you claim - and provided several historical examples why, including current data that shows Egypt's current reliance on numbers is flawed. You still are trying to escape your dismal failure to prove your big-best or (lol) "kick-ass" = best theory. Why are you ducking and dodging? WHat's taking you so long to prove your precious "kick-ass" theory?
Now you are trying to backtrack to cover your incompetence. First you wave around the 34 pilots then you say it is 9 pilots in the entire SAAF. Exposed in incompetence, you have resorted to a "red herring" strategy. NO, the entire basis of this argument is not 15 Grippens vs 220 F-16s. The basis is what you have been trying to avoid- namely your claim that big "kick-ass" numbers automatically mean assured victory. They don't.
Fact is South Africa has a POS air force, and making “components" does not change this fact. The fact is your dishonesty/ignorance does not change the fact that South Africa has only 1 measly Fighter Aircraft squadron to Egypt's 22 Squadrons. The fact is what Egypt did prior to 1980 has no bearing whatsoever on today's reality. Egypt transformed from basically a Russian tactic airforce, to an America tactic Air force. Hundreds of Egyptians officers train every year in some of the most prestigious military academies in the US. The fact is EAF is under the wing of the greatest military nation on the planet, they now employ American fighting tactics. The Russian air fighting strategies they used prior to 1980 are history. You still can't accept this fact. Different air craft, different training, they are trained now in basically the same type of tactics that the US/Israel/UK uses. But you are still basing your arguement on the past.
I have made no 'component' argument that SAF beats EAF. Take that up with Explorer if you think he made such an argument. I have said this though and will say it again- indigenous component development is ONE of the factors bearing on a successful air campaign, as Israel has proved. It is not the ONLY one. There are many OTHER such factors, but you keep naively insisting that numbers are all, your so-called "kick-ass" numbers. And yet, you have failed to provide any credible proof of your theory. What's taking you so long? Why are you ducking and dodging on proving your own "kick-ass" theory, that you so boldly proclaimed?
As for "basing my argument on the past", where else does one get empirical evidence to support a position but on established data? Why do you think every military in the world studies past campaigns? They do so to identify mistakes to avoid, and lessons learned for the future. Your implied notion that the past doesn't count is hilarious. If the past doesn't count, why do you yourself keep bringing up the 1980s developments implemented by the EAF? You keep saying, no no do not look back, then you do the same thing. Your arguments and approach are inconsistent. And I have already given the 2006 Defense assessment shoiwng where that one CURRENT central weakness of the EAF is a reliance on numbers, and not enough proficieny in the OTHER factors that make for air success.
I long ago "accepted as fact" changes in the EAF. Who doesn't? And who doesn't accept that the EAF has much greater numbers? Saying people are "denying" these obvious facts is a desperate strawman. Via paper numbers, the EAF is superior. This is news? But there are OTHER factors besides numbers, that shape air campaigns. A modernized or big EAF is not the crucial issue. We all know the EAF is no longer flying MiG-17s and that it has big numbers. The crucial issue is whether such big "kick-ass" numbers automatically translate into victory against an opponent, including SAAF. As I have repeatedly shown, big numbers do not mean automatic victory. Arab wars against Israel prove my point. In Yom Kippur the Arabs could field about 800 jet planes compared to about 400 by Israel (Addington 1994). According to your theory of "kickass" numbers, they should have won. They did'nt. Now why is that? In the Battle of Britian, the Luftwaffe outnumbered England overall by about 4 to 1 in aircraft. According to your "kickass" numbers theory they should have one because of the "kickass" numbers. They didn't. WHy are you taking so long in proving your "kick-ass" notion? Where is your empirical evidence?
And your simple number to numbers comparison is naive. A great deal depends on the tactical sitaution or objective. Over Vietnam the US possessed air superiority, and superior numbers, but about 95% of its combat losses were to LAND based guns and missiles. Communist planes accounted for only about 4% of the almost 2,000 US aircraft lost in combat. This again shows us that mere numbers, even by a superpower do not tell us everything about an aerial campaign.
Communist forces husbanded and hoarded their relatively smaller Air Force, while still preserving a credible aerial threat, and let land-based systems do most of the killing. It was a very smart approach to take in terms of preserving their air capabilities. Why wouldn't the SAAF do likewise in any theoretical conflict- lure EAF on to a land-defense umbrella where guns and missles decimate its aircraft, then pop up to finish off survivors, decoy more to their doom, or attack when conditions were very favorable such as when the EAF pilots were running out of fuel? There is no rule that says the SAAF must conveniently line up all their planes like Boy Scouts on Day 1 for a dogfight. Why do you assume this? Why would any sane air commander do this if he were outnumbered 10 to 1?
There are OTHER, repeat, OTHER factors that shape air campaigns not the naive "kick-ass" number theory you keep promoting.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Monkey: Given that the Yemen is probably holiday destination #1 with Al Qaeda right now, the US is going to do all they can to keep a stable government in and keep buttering their toast. Are you nuts? What do you suggest as an alternative?
Is there a moral argument for intervention? Sure. Would it harm US interests to intervene? Most likely. It all boils back to Obama's speech about weighing the two up against each other - the first priority is always going to be number 1. Meh, don't know why I'm even wasting my time.
So instability (i.e. taking sides with al queda elements in a civil war) in Libya is a better option? You were one of dumb ones who thought it was going to be all over in a couple of days with army going over to the girls in Benghazi... until there was a need for a no fly zone, then arms to "rebels", then agents to train said "rebels". So there you have it, both sides hardening and arming...in fact the "opposition" cant even agree amongst themselves...a future holiday destination for al queda? another failed state in the making like Iraq. You are the dumbest of American apologists.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What 'al qaeda' elements? Was there a 'whisper' was there? Ah right. That'll be why they bailed out then. Nothing to do with wanting to be re-elected for a second term and not needing a long term bombing campaign and the accompanying expense hanging over his head to put off the voters? Nah. It was all because there was a whisper. I'll believe you...
Instability is better than what would have happened in Benghazi that day if no one from the outside had lifted a finger. You don't sound clever calling them 'girls' you know. It doesn't make you appear a smartass. What's the most courageous thing you ever did, huh? Stay up all night playing World of Warcraft?
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There could be a number of factors why they "bailed out", an upcoming election is surely one of them. The rest of your post is typical BS "preemptive strike" argument used to justify what is now an obviously stupid decision to go to war with Libya.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you like. You see it as such, I don't. There is no war with Libya. There is a war for Libya against one fruit loop and a bunch of just-about-ares but soon to be has-beens.
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Monkey: There is no war with Libya. There is a war for Libya
Thanks for reminding me that I should reread my copy of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four ..."no war with Libya"...LOL!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
So what would you suggest should have happened? No intervention? The west should have backed up Gadaffi? Minded their own? What?
Posts: 1678 | From: New Egypt Forum - http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what would you suggest should have happened?
Mind your own fuking business. That would have helped...and would have been alot cheaper I might add. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Rebel" on CNN complains they dont have arms and leadership. This is odd, I thought they had a "government" that Italy, Qatar et al. recognized? LMAO!!!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the Egyptian equivalent of these OEMs?...
Mine-resistant Vehicles or MRAPs...
So far, more than 1 600 RG31s have been supplied to the US armed forces through GDLS-C, with another 566 supplied to the American military under separate contracts...
Land Systems South Africa’s current vehicle range comprises the RG12 protected police vehicle, the RG31 Mrap, the RG32M light armoured and mine hardened vehicle, the RG34 multipurpose armoured and mine- protected vehicle (all of these being 4 × 4 designs), and the RG35 6 × 6 multipurpose armoured and mine protected fighting vehicle as well as the RG41 8 × 8 armoured combat vehicle. There is also the jeep-type unarmoured Wasp 4 × 4 light reconnaissance vehicle. The company also designed and developed the RG33 Mrap, which comes in 4 × 4 and 6 × 6 versions and which is manufactured in North America, for the US armed forces.
Customers for RG range vehicles include Canada (RG31), Finland (RG32M), Ireland (RG32M), Italy (RG31), Sweden (RG32M), the United Arab Emirates (RG31) and the United Nations (RG31), as well as the US (RG31 and RG33). Predecessors of the RG range, such as the Mamba, are in service in South Africa. - Engineering News, - Engineering News, 11th February 2011 .
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is for the delusional clown who upholds Egyptian superiority. What Egyptian equivalents of these technologies come to mind? for starters...
The ability to marry west European craft with Russian technology...
The first major contract involved the re-engining of the Mirage F1 Fighter with the Klimov RD33 engine used in the Mig 29 fighter. - Aerosud
Production of submarine EW suite and submarine periscopes, night-vision goggles, laser rangefinders, etc...
19 April 2008
Following Denel’s recent restructuring, Eloptro (www.eloptro.co.za) is now part of Denel Optronics, which also includes many activities from the previous Kentron. As in this series we have covered Kentron as an entity under the old structure, this article refers to Eloptro as it was, and its main activities at its Kempton Park site. Eloptro was established in 1974 with funding from Armscor and technical assistance and transfer of key people from the CSIR’s Optical Sciences Division.
The product range offered by Eloptro, a Denel company whose activities were significantly curtailed following the end of the apartheid era; include submarine periscopes, laser rangefinders and laser target designators. Eloptro used to produce second generation image intensifiers together with a full range of night vision products for the then SADF. These products included riflescopes, goggles, observation sights, driverscopes and night vision devices for fire control.
There are only a small group of countries (and companies) where submarine periscopes are produced. These countries include the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Russia and now South Africa. South Africa required such a facility to upgrade the obsolete periscopes on its old Daphne submarines and so a state-of-the-art periscope facility, including a vertical test tower, was constructed at its site.
After the Daphne project was completed, the company found that a large number of other countries (mainly in South America) also required such upgrades, and Eloptro adopted this business and became a submarine upgrade facility, a unique niche as the other manufacturers in the world did not want such business, preferring to sell new periscopes! 'Upgrading' incidentally, includes a complete redesign and improvement of the optical system, integration of a passive rangefinder, television display capability (day and night), attachment of a still camera to the periscope and continued logistic support.
When the major arms purchases came about, Zeiss used the opportunity to form an alliance with Eloptro for the design and manufacture of new periscopes for the U-109 boats. The units for our submarines will be constructed here and Zeiss will pass orders on to Eloptro for other vessels of this class.
Eloptro's 'Nightowl' laser designator is integrated into the Rooivalk attack helicopter.
More recently, the company constructed a state-of-the-art manufacturing and assembly facility for laser designators. This facility includes a 250 m² Class 100 cleanroom and a 300 m² Class 100 000 cleanroom with integrated laminar flow design. The reason for this is a project named 'Brightstar' - where Eloptro has a major contract to manufacture laser designators for an overseas company.
Eloptro manufactures both standard and eye-safe laser rangefinders. The standard product is the LM30 which was specifically designed for integration into the gunner and commander sights of armoured vehicles. The LM30 uses the standard Nd:YAG laser rangefinder, powered by the vehicle itself and provides ranging from 300 to 10 000 m. The equivalent eye-safe product is the LP16 module that has been designed for integration in airborne, naval or land-based optronic systems and it uses a single-pulse erbium-glass laser operating at 1,54 μm. Range is 80 to 20 500 m with a range resolution of 5 m and a standard measuring rate of one measurement every six seconds. For short periods, this can be increased to one measurement every three seconds.
Eloptro also offers a range of handheld eyesafe laser rangefinders, these being the LH 40, LH40C and LH41C. All of these products have a range of 80 to 20 500 m with a resolution of 5 m. The LH40CF and LH41C have built-in digital magnetic compass with an accuracy in azimuth and elevation of ±0,5 and ±0,2° respectively. These two models also have an RS232 interface as compared with the RS422 for the LH40. The 40C and 41C are compatible with GPS with different standards. There are also differences in the tripod interface for the three devices. Sales of these laser rangefinders have been very successful in Europe.
The latest laser device from Eloptro is the Eagle Eye target acquisition binocular. This system has a 7 x 42 binocular with an integrated eyesafe laser with a measurement range of 80 to 20 km. The binocular itself has a built in laser filter to combat 1,06 μm radiation. Integrated with the system are a digital compass, GPS, a digital camera and a voice recorder. The compass has an azimuth and elevation accuracy of 0,6° and 0,2° respectively. The GPS is of SPS type with an integrated receiver antenna. The digital camera offers a 640 x 480 line resolution and a field of view of 1,16° x 0,87°. Video output can be NTSC or PAL. The voice recorder allows 15 seconds of audio to be stored with each photograph. Eloptro hopes that the Eagle Eye will be even more popular in Europe than even its standard range of eyesafe laser rangefinders.
Eloptro offers optical design services and has the capability of producing spherical lenses, prisms and mirrors from visible or IR materials. A fully-equipped precision mechanical workshop is available to produce mounting components or optical system bodies. A wide range of coating plants can produce anti-reflection coatings, beamsplitters, filters and metal-coated mirrors.
Eloptro has now been combined with Kentron's previous Cumulus activity and the group responsible for the wide range of KENIS thermal imagers which operate in the 3 to 5 μm waveband. These cameras incorporate an integrated Stirling cooler and the standard KENIS has a dual field of view of 2,25 μ x 3 μ (narrow) and 13,5 μ x 18 μ (wide).
Today, Denel Optronic Systems (DOS) consists of the activities of the previous Kentron Cumulus, Eloptro and the Kenis thermal imaging cameras activity. The portion previously known as 'Eloptro' is charged with designing and manufacturing optical systems as required by the rest of the group. - Dataweek
Conversion of Boeing 707s into Electronic Warfare/drag & hose tankers...
"The system was developed by little-known South African electronic warfare specialists Sysdel, which also developed equipment for the SAAF's electronic intelligence configured Boeing 707."
"The same firm [Grintek] was involved in the conversion of two SAAF Boeing 707s for COMINT operations in the early 1990s. One of these was also displayed for the first time at the show."
"The 707 COMINT aircraft displayed featured a palletised Grintek signals processing suite with four multifunction operator consoles and a twin display command console." - Flight International, September, 2000.
Navigation and EW systems of fighter aircraft and helicopters...
The new Hawk Navigation and Weapon System (NWS), the first of its type to be developed outside the United Kingdom, has required numerous software developments (especially algorithms in real time) in order to meet international standards (critical safety Level A, critical mission Level B). The software developed specifically for the Hawk aircraft has been certified by BAe Systems and Armscor.
ATE has also developed a new cockpit for the Hawk Mk 50/60 which is based on proven technology currently mounted on the Mk 120.
Equipped with ATE’s new system, the Hawk has become an advanced trainer aircraft for combat pilots, providing the latest generation sophisticated systems. In addition to the advanced training capacity, the new Hawk also has certain multirole fighter functions of a latest generation fighter aircraft.
24 Hawk Mk 120 systems have been delivered to the South African Air Force
A new system which can be integrated on the complete Hawk family of aircraft and which can be adapted in various configurations depending on the aircraft type: Hawk 60, 100 or 200 series.
The new Hawk 50/60 cockpit was presented to a delegation of Hawk users in Oman. - ATE
ATE has designed a modern avionics system for the C-130. To do this a dynamic simulation bench was used during the Man Machine Interface (MMI) design phase.
Concretely, this dynamic simulation bench makes it possible to evaluate and qualify the MMI before proceeding with flight testing. This approach was intentionally adopted to ensure that pilots could accept the proposed functional definition right from the start of the programme. - ATE
The upgrading of the Navigation and Weapon System (NWS) for the Mirage F1 was the first NATO contract for ATE.
ATE was selected by Thales (then Thomson CSF) for this contract for the Spanish Air Force.
ATE was responsible for the development, integration and production of the new NWS, alongside other major industrial partners, such as SABCA Belgium (Flight Testing) and CASA Spain (Fleet Embodiment).
The development of bombing algorithms in real time was specifically carried out by ATE in order to guarantee the accurate delivery of bombs. ATE established a successful transfer of technology which allowed its client to carry out future modifications to his system independently.
ATE has developed an upgrade concept for Mirage 5 aircraft constituting a new NWS, new radar and new 80km Beyond Visual Range missiles. - ATE
Systems for helicopters:
Denel Aviation’s Oryx helicopter with its Puma fuselage and Super Puma power plant is a military helicopter which has been in operation since 1989.
Started in 2008, the integration of the Oryx Communication Management System for the South African Air Force fleet involves:
• Tactical ECCM Communications (Voice and Data)
• Intercom functionality including use of caller groups
• Stored Speech, Warning and Caution Tones
• Tactical text and situational awareness messaging using the Link-ZA Protocol.
The building blocks created on this programme allows for its application on other helicopter - ATE
Multimission integration kit
The Helicopter Division has numerous cooperation programmes with leading helicopter manufacturing companies. One such programme is the SAWS (Stand Alone Weapon System), a multimission kit which can be integrated on any of the light to medium lift helicopters commercialised by Eurocopter.
This system includes:
• A day/night sighting system • A selection of unguided ballistic weapons • A selection of guided weapons (missiles and rockets), including the Ingwe missile Main functionalities of the Ingwe missile:
• Laser guidance • Effective range: 5000m • Target hit probability: greater than 90% • Missile weight : 27,5 kg
The HELLFIRE (SAL Semi-Active Laser) and Mokopa missiles are also an option of the SAWS kit. - ATE
Manufacture Tank Turrets and Towed and Self-propelled Artillery systems...
Turret systems:
Structural Design
Turret structures, weapon platforms and gun cradles are integral parts of the system control design and require state of the art design tools and capabilities. Denel Land Systems has successfully integrated these as well as Finite Element analysis (FEM), fatigue analysis and thermal analysis capabilities into its expert knowledge base and products...
Gun Drive Integration
Both electric and hydraulic gun drives have been successfully integrated with artillery, infantry, naval and armour turrets. These turret traverse and barrel elevation drives are specified and developed in conjunction with CWAT of Switzerland. System integration and assembly into the turrets are done at Denel Land Systems.
Project Management
Denel Land Systems skills to manage complex programs have been honed over many years. Thanks to the depth of its program management capabilities and state of the art management tools, Denel Land Systems has built an excellent track record to deliver on time and within budget.
Aiming, Pointing and Navigation Integration
Integrated fire control systems for stabilised turrets are specified and developed at Denel Land Systems. New systems have been developed that can be retrofitted to existing combat systems such as the T72 tank. The inertial gyro platforms required for the aiming and navigation of artillery systems are specified and developed in conjunction with Selex and Litef and integrated by Denel Land Systems. Fire Directing Systems are designed to be able to incorporate a range of Sight Systems.
Turret Management System
A proprietary Turret Management System, which is used to link diverse turret subsystems in a modular fashion, enables flexible turret configurations as cost-effective solutions. This affordable hardware forms the main building block of all Denel Land Systems armour, naval and infantry turrets. - Denel Land Systems
Towed and self-propelled artillery systems:
Weapon System Design and Integration
Denel Land Systems is a world leader in the design and manufacturing of towed and self-propelled artillery weapons, infantry systems, combat turrets and a range of infantry weapons. The capability to define, design and integrate these systems with small, medium and large calibre guns has been established over more than 30 years of practical experience and battlefield feedback. This has lead to world class products such as:
G5 155 mm towed Artillery system
G6 155 mm self-propelled Artillery system
Rooikat 76 mm and LMT 105 mm Armour combat turrets
Olifant 1B Optimised tank turret
12,7 mm, 20 mm, and 35 mm light combat turrets
35 mm Air defence and Naval turrets
The New Generation Infantry Combat Vehicle System (Badger)
A range of Infantry Weapons such as the SS77 General Purpose Machine Gun, 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher, NTW 20 Anti-material Rifle, 60mm and 81mm Mortars
Main Weapon Design
Gun design experience, gained over the past 30 years, is now firmly established in the technological know-how and design capabilities at Denel Land Systems. These capabilities are applied over a wide spectrum of gun development, from 20mm to155 mm calibre. The elements related to Main Weapon design are:
Barrel design
Energy transfer and recoil systems
Cradle systems
Muzzle brake design
Breech and obturation systems
Ballistics
Cooling concepts
Dynamic simulation
Comprehensive test capabilities
Infantry Weapon Design
Infantry weapon design capability is firmly established in the technology and know-how gained over the years. These capabilities are applied over a wide spectrum of weapons development, such as:
Mini SS 5,56 Light Machine Gun
SS77 7,62 General Purpose Machine Gun
NTW 20 x 82mm and 110mm Anti Material Weapons
60mm and 81mm Mortar Systems variants
40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) - Denel Land Systems.
....
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a another question to stump the rookie with: What will happen to Egyptian American-made equipment, if the Muslim brotherhood were to assume power?
How about the Egyptian equivalent of these OEMs?...
South Africa’s acquisition of the Gripen fighter is far more than a plan just to buy new aircraft. Instead, the programme has become a carefully crafted vehicle to bring new skills, new capabilities and new opportunities across South Africa.
From the very beginning South Africa’s Gripens have been shaped by very clear national requirements. They were not bought ‘off the shelf’ or in a configuration dictated by the manufacturer. Project Systems Engineer Lt Col Mike Edwards explains, “we were involved in the Gripen programme from the earliest stages. We influenced the entire design process [of our aircraft] where we added our own requirements and made specific changes for South Africa.”
Col Chris Skinner, one of the two senior managers in the 10-strong South African Gripen Joint Project Team (GJPT) living and working Sweden, along with their families, is clear about how that development process is going. “We are here to make sure the user requirements are being met,” he says. “If you break the contract down into detail functional requirements, then there are thousands of points that have to be addressed and eventually verified. Is that happening? Yes.”
South African input into the evolution of the Gripen as an ever more sophisticated platform has been considerable. Nearly every aspect of aircraft functionality has been tailored to meet a long list of South African Air Force (SAAF) requirements. This includes the radar, weapons, electronic warfare gear, navigation fit, communications systems, datalink, mission planning computers, even the ejection seats. South Africa has had access and input to the Gripen at every level.
As a result, all Gripens – not just the aircraft for the SAAF – have the potential to adopt and integrate improved systems, designed in South Africa. South Africa itself is leading the field in adopting sophisticated mission systems such as the helmet-mounted display, for which the SAAF is the first Gripen customer.
Quite apart from acquiring the most modern combat aircraft in service anywhere in the world today, the associated benefits for South Africa have been considerable. Under Saab’s commitment to the DIP through the Gripen contract, $808 million will flow into the South African economy by 2012. That economic co-operation is actually running ahead of schedule with some $430 million invested in South Africa already. This takes the form of both direct orders from local industry and the far-sighted skills and technology transfer programme (STTP) that is building up a wide base of new capabilities across a number of South African industries, not just defence and aerospace.
Saab’s Eva Söderström provides a few practical examples of this co-operation to date. “Saab transferred manufacturing of the Gripen “Main Landing Gear Unit” fuselage section to South Africa’s Denel, which is now an important supplier to Saab Aerostructures. The Gripens delivered to NATO air forces are already flying with essential South African supplied components. Saab Avitronics won an important order for helicopter electronic warfare equipment from Switzerland which incorporates key technology from South African-based Avitronics, now merged into the greater Saab Avitronics business. That has given a South African company which previously had limited market reach, access to lucrative new export markets while expanding Saab’s product range, enabling it to win more orders. South Africa has become Saab’s second home market, all because of Gripen and the DIP.”
There is obvious harmony between the South African team overseeing the programme and their Swedish partners. With South Africa holding a position of honour as the first export customer for Gripen, the drive within Saab and Gripen International to deliver total customer focus and commitment has been unceasing. There is great pride in what has been achieved, but also a confidence that the Gripen team can continue to meet all of its customer’s needs.
Mike Edwards sums it up saying, “Our Swedish experience has been very positive. Of course we’ve had our differences here and there but in the big picture things are going well. The programme is well-managed within Saab, everything is pretty much on schedule – which is really saying something for a project this size.”
Project Test Pilot Lt Col Charl Coetzee notes that being in place in Sweden means “you can go straight to the guys who are doing the work and talk to them. That way we always get the ‘real’ answer. Never the company version”.
Looking back to the launch of South Africa’s next-generation fighter programme, which dates to 1994, Mike Edwards has the final word. “One of the main criteria for our new aircraft was the standing of the company that supplied it. I mean this in the widest sense, because we were entering into a 30-year relationship and it had to be with a company that we trusted – and one that was going to be around for all those years to come. Saab is that company. And with the delivery of the first aircraft our relationship is really only just beginning.” - by af.mil.za.
More EW technology...
South Africa lifts lid on Oryx special mission platforms
THE SOUTH AFRICAN Air Force (SAAF) has displayed for the first time two Denel Oryx helicopters, separately fitted as communications interception (COMINT) and jammer platforms. The jammer aircraft is fitted with twin flat antenna arrays mounted sideways across the cabin on a steerable platform supported on air-cushion bearings. The main jammer array operates in L-band with the secondary array in S-band. The helicopter's side doors have been replaced by sliding blisters enabling steering of the antenna across an arc of around 110°. The system is claimed to have an output capacity of up to 80Mhz but is about to be upgraded.
The system was developed by little-known South African electronic warfare specialists Sysdel, which also developed equipment for the SAAF's electronic intelligence configured Boeing 707. A steerable electronic support measures (ESM) antenna is located beneath the rear fuselage on a mechanically retractable mount. The rear of the cabin houses a twin operator console supporting separate ESM and techniques roles. The COMINT Oryx features a Grintek-developed fold-away dipolar antenna array projecting from the starboard side of the aircraft with a palletised signals processing and analysis suite fitted into the cabin. The system has a single operator.
The same firm was involved in the conversion of two SAAF Boeing 707s for COMINT operations in the early 1990s. One of these was also displayed for the first time at the show. The Oryx jammer is primarily designed to support strike operations against enemy air defence sites by SAAF Denel Cheetah fighters. An initial version was probably in operational service during the final twelve months of operations against Angola in 1989.
The proposed upgrade programme will see the introduction of digital RF memory based signals processing and to provide improved performance against low probability of intercept radar emitters. The upgrade will also introduce a co-processing capability to handle more sophisticated signals environments. - Flight International, September, 2000.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Staff from the human rights charity inspected 35-bunker weapons dump on the eastern outskirts of the Libyan city, which is currently in the hands of rebel forces, which Western intelligence agencies fear are infiltrated by Islamist terror groups.
Peter Bouckaert, a senior Belgian HRW official, found that no guards were defending the depot, allowing civilians to haul away munitions including hundreds of Soviet "Strela" SA-7 anti aircraft missiles.
"When ordinary civilians, even children, can walk into a weapons depot and remove surface-to-air missiles capable of shooting down a civilian aircraft, you have a real problem," he said.
"Once they are fired, these weapons find the heat of jet engines. You can take out low-flying aircraft, including passenger jets taking off."
Mr Bouckaert fears that the chaos in the front line town means that the missiles have fallen into terrorist and referred to a previous 2002 al-Qaeda attempt to shoot down an Israeli jet in Mombasa with an SA-7 weapon.
"The missiles were simply there to be grabbed. Had I wanted, then I could have put one in our car and driven away," he said.
Western intelligence agencies are concerned that terrorists will benefit because the rebel Libyan transitional council is too busy fighting for survival to safeguard munitions depots in areas under its control.
As the Gaddafi regime lost control over eastern Libya last month, anti-government rebels and civilians gained access to massive military weapon and munitions depots, abandoned by government forces.
Human Rights Watch inspected 20 of 35 weapons bunkers in Ajdabiya, as well as heat seeking missiles were thousands of rockets, anti-tank weapons, guns and ammunition.
----------------------------------------
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^And yet we are told there is "debate" about "arming" the rebels. They are ALREADY well armed save in heavy weapons and have oil money on hand to get those. What bogus "debate"?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are a few here against an Al Qaeda Libya, or so it seems? They can drive out the westerners to a lot of peoples satisfaction. What's the problem with that? I don't recall Al Qaeda having anything to do with the Lockerbie, Scotland bombing; that was the Colonel's intelligence agency's doings, according to what I've read. But that may not be true either.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We keep hearing how poorly armed assorted rebels are, and "debates" about arming them, but the Voice of America stories show a possible mistaken NATO airstrike against rebel TANKS! Tanks? If so, NATO airstrike would be understandable since according to the press, only Ghadaffi's boys are supposed to have such heavy weapons as tanks.
And in the previous stories above Surface-Air missles were within easy reach of all and sundry including Islamists.
What this previous press mantra then we kept hearing about re - supposed "weapons starved" rebels?
Libyan Rebels: Deadly Airstrike Likely Friendly Fire A Libyan opposition commander says a deadly airstrike on rebel tank positions may be a case of friendly fire.
Rebel military commander Abdelfateh Yunis said four people died and 14 were wounded in Thursday's strike near the eastern town of Brega. Earlier, Libyan medical officials put the death toll at five.
Some opposition leaders blamed the strike on NATO, accusing the alliance of hitting the wrong targets. Others placed responsibility on pro-Gadhafi forces.
But the military commander, Abdelfateh Yunis, later said planes struck rebel tanks killing four troops and wounding 14. He said it appeared to be another NATO error and demanded answers. But earlier, medical officials reported five troops have been killed in the attacks.
He says if the attack was by NATO then it was a mistake. But if the attack was by the Gadhafi forces then it was an even bigger mistake since the no-fly zone is meant to protect his troops from the Gadhafi air force.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
''Well you believe the jewish holocaust, so you will believe anything.''
Interesting. Do you think Lamin is right about just a few thousand people killed in Rwanda in 1994 intead of 800 hundred thousand? What is your view on this? And do you think George Bush advised Obama to go into Libya?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Groups of Libyan rebels and civilians have fled from the eastern town of Ajdabiya after a rebel armoured unit was hit by apparent NATO air strikes, allowing government troops to advance... Rebels had informed NATO that they were moving around 20 T55 and T72 heavy tanks from Benghazi to Brega, he said, while another commander, Ayman Abdul-Karim, told the AP news agency that rebels had followed NATO advice to avoid friendly fire and painted the tops of their vehicles with yellow markings.
General Abdelfatah Yunis, the rebel commander, said in Benghazi that four people - two fighters and two medics - were killed in the Brega attack, 14 wounded and another six people were missing.
He said "we think it was friendly fire, carried out in error by NATO," adding that the rebels had informed NATO that they were moving T55 and T72 heavy tanks from Benghazi to Brega.
"We suffered a setback today," he added, but said the rebels have 400 tanks and will get more.
^^ Several press stories in past weeks talk about "poorly armed" rebels.. But where on earth did the fictional "poorly armed" rebels get so many heavy tanks? El Commandante above is taking 400 tanks for the allegedly "poorly armed" rebels..
With this kind of firepower coming at them supported by NATO airstrikes, why on earth would any sane military commander who is told to fight on, comply with the "Coalition" demand to pull out of cities? Pull out? So rebel tanks can be massed to destroy one's troops? If anything, the COlonel's men will need every inch of urban landscape to defend themselves. In fact, it makes excellent sense for loyalist troops to step up attacks on the rebels, while they are still disorganized. To allow the rebels to consolidate and regroup, means that they will be able to gather even more heavy iron like tanks, and will have Coalition planes overhead. No sane military commander doing his job would withdraw from the cities or ease up on pressuring the rebels. His troops have a much better chance of survival fighting as close to the rebels as possible, and/or using built up urban landscape in defense.
Meanwhile, the United Nations called for a halt to hostilities in Misurata, around 215km east of Tripoli, saying several weeks of "heavy shelling" by Gaddafi's forces had killed or wounded hundreds.
UN chief Ban Ki-moon made a new "urgent call for an immediate cessation of the indiscriminate use of military force against the civilian population," his spokesman said.
"Conditions in Misurata are especially grave, with reports of the use of heavy weapons to attack the city, where the population is trapped and unable, as a result of heavy shelling that has continued over several weeks, to receive basic supplies, including clean water, food, and medicines," he said.
NATO said government troops are using civilians as human shields in Misurata, making its task more precarious.
Why doesn't "NAtO" admit that the rebels, their own anointed proxies, are themselves using "human shields" in Misurata, embedding strongpoints and weaponry amid civilians to avoid Ghadaffi's forces? Why does the press keep uncritically repeating the NATO line without examining the other side of the fence?
And if, as UN officials keep telling us, Ghadaffi's forces have been engaging in "heavy shelling" of Misrata "for weeks", where are the massive casualties that typically would result from such shelling? Where are the pictures of hundreds of bodies laid out, that the rebels can easily transmit via cell phone or Internet to the rest of the world? Something doesn't add up about NATO and UN pronouncements.
ANd why would loyalists simply keep pumping shells randomly at civilians as assorted press reports and UN/NATO bulletins imply? That is not only a waste of ammunition with little tactical gain, but such shelling, if it were so indiscriminate as claimed, would quickly attract swarms of airstrikes. Could it be that we are not being told the whole story? Could it be that the "heavy shelling" is in response to rebel fire at loyalist troops, and rebels embedding themselves in apartment buildings, houses, schools and other civilian areas and using civilians as human shields? If the whole point of the "humanitarian mission" is to protect civilians, why doesn't NATO/UN insist that the rebels remove themselves from high density civilian areas, and stop placing and using weaponry in such areas?
Then "UN Officials" tell us that the "population is trapped and unable.." to receive basic supplies, including clean water, food, and medicines.."
They blame it all on "heavy shelling for weeks" but could it be that the reason the population is "trapped" is that the rebels will not allow said population to leave? This was a typical cynical tactic of the Viet Cong in Vietnam, forbidding a population in an area under attack to leave, so that the population would suffer more from US bombs, and then "imperialist atrocities" could be claimed.
If food and water were a problem, one solution is for Ghadaffi troops to leave. BUt another equally valid solution to getting food and water to the populace is for the rebels to leave, or not hinder the free movement of civilians out, while allowing food, water & medicine in. As it stands now, the rebels have plenty of incentive to keep the population hostage. Atrocities can be claimed, dwindling air strikes can be once more ramped up for "humanitarian protection" and additional arms, cash and supplies can be lobbied for, using civilians as a bargaining chip.
The Ghadaffi regime seems very inept in not forcefully pointing out these things far and wide, and making them part of its negotiations. As propagandists or simply spokesmen making a case to world opinion, the regime is dismal. Or perhaps, or they are, and the media filter is not telling us.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the report below, a ship full of food and other supplies has arrived in Misrata. So supplies are getting through despite claims by the UN/NATO implying some sort of mass starvation going on. And the BBC report below shows little of the alleged "heavy shelling", and few civilian casualties, despite the UN/NATO "spin" implying a Nazi like holocaust inside. See the video yourself below.
Even more interesting, the BBC reporter asks the rebel spokesman, who the rebels are? Ex- Khadaffi troops or "ordinary civilians with guns?" The answer was "civilians with guns." So again, let's get this straight. NATO keeps implying some sort of "humanitarian crisis" is going on in Misrata, but supplies are flowing in by ship, immune from Ghadaffi aricraft or artillery.
And supposed "innocent civilians" are walking around with AK-47s, RPGs and machine guns. SO then "innocent" civilians include those shooting at you? Does anyone expect Khadaffi troops to stand idly by when they are shot at, by allegedly "innocent" civilians? If "protecting civilians" was the NATO mission, why is it not only arming but egging on its own favored civilians to kill? Does anyone really beleive the fictional "cover stories" spun by the "Coalition" anymore?
Note the "peaceful civilians" under "heavy" Khadaffi attack, therein...
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
More, or less? How many? I say it never happened at all.
''And Obama has his own court joos.''
I thought Obama kicked them out a long time ago?
Do you think, now that the Colonel has given Obama a letter that Obama will reconsider his actions in Libya?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
I think Lamin says around 15,000. Maybe he meant 150,000?
''And what never happened?
The genocide, or whatever it's called. And did you see this first hand? Not all of it of course, just a little.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
A civil war is more accurate. You dont think it happened, ok old man, whatever floats your boat. All this stupidity just to defend joos and their myths? Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Next...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
The US is making it more difficult for you western apologists to argue they are oh so concerned about protecting Libyan citizens and spreading freedom there. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic