DieVluit:


In the Chambers Thesaurus, it does though. You use the Thesaurus to check for synonyms. Not the dictionary.

In Nigeria, when a student asks for a Thesaurus, his teacher responds with "Oga, de dinosaur be extinct!"

agaugust:


Why are you afraid of the Angolan man on this forum? All because he comes with his Su-30 Flanker against your Gripen jet . LOL !!!

You ask him to go away from the forum because the debate is not honest here, so why are you here then? You love the 'dis-honest' debate, so let him love it too....Fool !

Yes I am the one who said F-7 and Gripen are on par in maneuverability, I have proved it here last year with videos of both jets in the air.

You need to prove me wrong with infallible proofs, not your private dishonest opinion.

SAAF and NAF are also on par with air to air missiles, we both arm our jets with short range missiles, both pilots will fly into 'NO-ESCAPE KILL-ZONE' and die together in 10 seconds.

You need solid technical analysis to prove me wrong, but you won't be able, I work with some of the best ex-USAF pilots in the world with combat experience, I know the secrets of real combat, you don't !

Welcome to the slaughter house built by Nigerians on this forum, challenge us if you dare !
.

1. Yes, a twin engine air-superiority fighter like the Su30 should be able to defeat the Gripen.
2. Video's dont prove anything. Provide statistics
3. Our missiles are better (i have shown this)
4. You dont work with anyone, you live in your parents basement.

Give us stats augugubgugug

No one is talking about Su30's... we are talking about F-7's and we want to know how you prove it is more maneuverable than the Gripen

And as for video's... show us the F-7 doing this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwVJY5TyW0&t=42

Patchesagain:


Ok.

surveillance
Line breaks: sur|veil¦lance
Pronunciation: /səˈveɪl(ə)ns/ /səˈveɪəns/
Definition of surveillance in English:

Close observation , especially of a suspected spy or criminal:
he found himself put under surveillance by British military intelligence

Origin: Early 19th century: from French, from sur- 'over' + veiller 'watch' (from Latin vigilare 'keep watch').
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/surveillance

Jackass

You are the Jackass, the oxford dictionary calls the surveillance man an OBSERVER....observation satellite....then calls the target a suspected spy....So Oxford defines surveillance as CLOSE OBSERVATION not spying

Your definition is the exact OPPOSITE of Oxford dictionary, that was why I asked you to use it.

So I let you wreck your own claims....according to oxford dictionary :

Surveillance satellite = Observer

Target being watched = Suspected spy

CASE CLOSED
.

DieVluit:


And his most famous word - obsolete - showing up in all the wrong places. Of course, this is Agauby.

Is it true that you are female ?

Patchesagain:


Augustus

Who said that planes die at the same rate in WVR?

Who said the Gripen is only as maneuverable as an F-7?

Are you seriously saying your COPY of a jet that first flew in 1955 is as maneuverable as a 4th Gen fighter?

Dude, this is just beyond delusional.

F-7 is NOT = MiG-21.

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

agaugust:


You are the Jackass, the oxford dictionary calls the surveillance man an OBSERVER....observation satellite....then calls the target a suspected spy....So Oxford defines surveillance as CLOSE OBSERVATION not spying

Your definition is the exact OPPOSITE of Oxford dictionary, that was why I asked you to use it.

So I let you wreck your own claims....according to oxford dictionary :

Surveillance satellite = Observer

Target being watched = Suspected spy

CASE CLOSED
.

Ok, since i am having to teach you what you should have been taught primary-school English class

Spying and Surveilance are synonyms

What is a synonym?

syn·o·nym
ˈsinəˌnim/Submit
noun
a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a synonym of close.

Get it into your skull

agaugust:


F-7 is NOT = MiG-21.

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

The Soviets licenced the manufacture of the MiG-21F and its engine to China in 1961, and assembly of the first J-7 (Jianjiji-7 Fighter aircraft 7) using Chinese-made components began early 1964
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mig-21.htm

J-7 = F-7
F-7 = Mig-21

Have fun in your 60 year old jet

And, FYI, the first delta wing flew in 1931
http://books.google.co/books?id=ESgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

agaugust:




Su-30 Flanker was NOT built for air shows or aerobatics, it was built for combat and air superiority. At air shows, every combat aircraft displays the tactics it will use to win real life combat. Cobra movement shows how Su-30 will evade enemy missiles or turn it's gun on an enemy, it also means in ground attack mode an Su-30 can stand almost stationary in the air like a helicopter.

Any Gripen jet that attempts super-maneuverability will be broken into pieces by it's own force of movement.

No 4th generation aircraft in this world can beat an Su-30 in cannon/gun fight

SAAF Gripen jet is crap....a waste of billions of dollars
.

Yet the Cobra trick is only done for shows and it has never been explained how it is of any use in combat.

Patchesagain:


Give us stats augugubgugug

No one is talking about Su30's... we are talking about F-7's and we want to know how you prove it is more maneuverable than the Gripen

Nope, someone is talking about Su-30 jets here and you South Africans are running away from the new Angolan man here. LOL

Any time South Africans hear the word 'ANGOLA' they shake and tremble

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

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

.

Patchesagain:


1. Yes, a twin engine air-superiority fighter like the Su30 should be able to defeat the Gripen.
2. Video's dont prove anything. Provide statistics
3. Our missiles are better (i have shown this)
4. You dont work with anyone, you live in your parents basement.

Give us stats augugubgugug

No one is talking about Su30's... we are talking about F-7's and we want to know how you prove it is more maneuverable than the Gripen

And as for video's... show us the F-7 doing this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwVJY5TyW0&t=42

Something to take in to acount is the gripen both turning out of guns aim or a lock from a seeker while maintaining speed. The flankers cobra drops the air speed to stall speed and does not manvour any where. It is a trick. Like a my um boats ability to do donoughts. Not usefully in combat at all.

agaugust:


Nope, someone is talking about Su-30 jets here and you South Africans are running away from the new Angolan man here. LOL

Any time South Africans hear the word 'ANGOLA' they shake and tremble



.

Angola is our ally. We more likely to fly with them than against them.

agaugust:


Nope, someone is talking about Su-30 jets here and you South Africans are running away from the new Angolan man here. LOL

Any time South Africans hear the word 'ANGOLA' they shake and tremble



.

Su30 is a monster, a twin engined air superiority fighter.

No one denies this, america developed the F-22 simply to counter it (even though the F-15SE is more than capable of doing so)

But, the argument is no longer who is the strongest in africa (that was settled in the second post of the first page)

It is now about who is better, South Africa or Nigeria

andrewza:



Yet the Cobra trick is only done for shows and it has never been explained how it is of any use in combat.

Cobra is for evasion, dog fight and gun fight.

You call it a trick only because your Gripen cannot do cobra
.

andrewza:


Angola is our ally. We more likely to fly with them than against them.

Is Nigeria going to war against South Africa? We are both allies under AU, we saved your Mandela and Mbeki.

The Angolan man has challenged you, answer his Su-30 vs Gripen question.

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

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

.

agaugust:


Cobra is for evasion, dog fight and gun fight.

You call it a trick only because your Gripen cannot do cobra
.

How does dropping your air speed to stall levels, maintain your flight path and exposeing more of aircraft including the pilot to danger aid in a fight.

agaugust:


Is Nigeria going to war against South Africa? We are both allies under AU, we saved your Mandela and Mbeki.

The Angolan man has challenged you, answer his Su-30 vs Gripen question.




.

Angola would be brought to heel with a submarine

Why SA’s nuclear stash worries US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post

agaugust:


Cobra is for evasion, dog fight and gun fight.

You call it a trick only because your Gripen cannot do cobra

Its a trick done at low altitude at low airspeed

LOW ALITUTDE

LOW AIRSPEED

Plus, Gripen can do the High Yo-Yo which counters the Cobra

Patchesagain:


Its a trick done at low altitude at low airspeed

LOW ALITUTDE

LOW AIRSPEED

Plus, Gripen can do the High Yo-Yo which counters the Cobra

Citation Needed
.

andrewza:


Angola would be brought to heel with a submarine

Angolan army and air force will invade your country will capture Jacob Zuma alive and South Africa will surrender in 7 days
.

agaugust:


Angolan army and air force invade your country will capture Jacob Zuma alive and South Africa will surrender in 7 days
.

Yeah

Because they did so well last time

Patchesagain:


Yeah

Because they did so well last time

Yeah, RSA surrendered at UN peace meeting last time

agaugust:


Yeah, RSA surrendered at UN peace meeting last time

We forced the Cubans out of Angola and got the Russians to stop supplying aid to them. We got what we wanted.

agaugust:


Angolan army and air force will invade your country will capture Jacob Zuma alive and South Africa will surrender in 7 days
.

Through thousands of kilometres of nothing they will have to March. Being harrased all the way. SA fights a mobile warfare doctrine. Never hold ground longer than need only fight when you want to where you want to. Why do you think we need the largest shooting range in the southern hemisphere and The second largest. Our army is about mobility.

frumentius:
There is such a page! Ridiculous! For the idiots here - and I've gathered there are many- GDP is meaningless, and so are the weapons systems country A possesses versus country B. It's all about much more than that, GDP per capita for exammple!. Bloody hell, are some of you teenagers on play-station?
Grow up! There are 5 countries that matter in Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa and all have not paid attention to what's going on. This dick-measuring contest is precisely the reason this continent will always be a playground for such fallen powers as France. For example, why is France still a permanent member of the Security Council when Germany runs Europe? Because France still owns some African votes, FFS!

Nigeria set up ECOWAS to oppose French neo-imperialism; what's happened to that?

Mbeki in SA set up IBSA, a union of democracies in the South; what's happened to that?

SA, Naija, Algeria, Ethiopia set up NEPAD to develop African infrastructure on her own terms; what's happened to that?

African countries, in what should be the African century, have never had worse leaders! And what are you onanists arguing about?
Who is better utilising the crumbs from East vs West when it comes to exploiting our continent.
You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Shame on you all!

Yes bro, i dont know if you read the topic of this thread but here we discus only military related issues or issues that have an impact on respective militaries around the word...so you can take your political bullsh1t to the appropriate thread, which btw isnt this one.

agaugust:


Yeah, RSA surrendered at UN peace meeting last time

? We agreed to agreement where all none Angolan forces would leave Angola. Including Cuba. They had more men and longer distance hence there time table was greater. But they all so agreed to pull out. So how was is a surrender.

Patchesagain:


1. Yes, a twin engine air-superiority fighter like the Su30 should be able to defeat the Gripen.
2. Video's dont prove anything. Provide statistics
3. Our missiles are better (i have shown this)
4. You dont work with anyone, you live in your parents basement.

Give us stats augugubgugug

No one is talking about Su30's... we are talking about F-7's and we want to know how you prove it is more maneuverable than the Gripen

And as for video's... show us the F-7 doing this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwVJY5TyW0&t=42

Yes mate the Gripen has a much much lower wing loading than any 4+ Fighter on the market including the EF,Rafale,f22,su35 ect ect
An Aircraft with a lower wing loading will have more lift available at any given speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster and have a better claim rate.

Thus twin engine or not, the gripen is one(if not thee) of most maneuverable fighters today, and Definitely more maneuvrable than the Su30

agaugust:


[s]Why are you afraid of the Angolan man on this forum? All because he comes with his Su-30 Flanker against your Gripen jet . LOL !!!

You ask him to go away from the forum because the debate is not honest here, so why are you here then? You love the 'dis-honest' debate, so let him love it too....Fool ![/s]

Yes I am the one who said F-7 and Gripen are on par in maneuverability, I have proved it here last year with videos of both jets in the air.

You need to prove me wrong with infallible proofs, not your private dishonest opinion.

SAAF and NAF are also on par with air to air missiles, we both arm our jets with short range missiles, both pilots will fly into 'NO-ESCAPE KILL-ZONE' and die together in 10 seconds.

[s]You need solid technical analysis to prove me wrong, but you won't be able, I work with some of the best ex-USAF pilots in the world with combat experience, I know the secrets of real combat, you don't !

Welcome to the slaughter house built by Nigerians on this forum, challenge us if you dare ![/s]
.

Oh my God! You PROVED it by watching videos?? Oh my goodness....how embarassing . How amazingly embarrassing...wow.

So when the Nigerian Air Force generals look for a new jets to replace F-7 they go onto youtube? Lmao!

Gripen and F-7 are not in the same class at all. Completely different generation of jets. Fact. Waste your own time and google it. Even Beegeagle says your F-7's are crap. Waste of time. So waste your own time, not mine.


Gripen will utterly and completely r.ape F-7. Any missile you manage to fire at us will be shot down in self defence, which Iris-T and A-Darter can do.You will be r.aped....fact.

Add to that....Nigeria has 3rd generation PL-9C missiles. Range is 22km. IRIS-T has a range of 25km. We will shoot you down before you even have the chance to fire at us.


SA Airforce safe if missiles fired from max range
SA Airforce safe if missiles fired from close range
SA Airfirce safe if guns are needed at close range

CASE CLOSED

andrewza:


Need is based on role and the Oryx can do every thing the a109 can do and better. There is no need for the A109. A cheaper easier to maintain and fly chopper would have been far more useful.

You cant compare the Oryx and A109.The A109 is a small LUH were as the Oryx is a medium transport helicopter.
And SAAFs A109 as they are fitted currently, can carry out tasks such as light passenger and cargo transport, patrolling and reconnaissance, liaison and command, medical evacuation, even light attack and antitank, escort and area suppression.

If you want to do that with the Oryx you are going to have to spend millions on modifications, not to mention the impact it will have on its primary role as a medium/troop tranporter.

And the operating costs for the Oryx per hour is more than double than that of an A109.

jl115:

You cant compare the Oryx and A109.The A109 is a small LUH were as the Oryx is a medium transport helicopter.
And SAAFs A109 as they are fitted currently, can carry out tasks such as light passenger and cargo transport, patrolling and reconnaissance, liaison and command, medical evacuation, even light attack and antitank, escort and area suppression.

If you want to do that with the Oryx you are going to have to spend millions on modifications, not to mention the impact it will have on its primary role as a medium/troop tranporter.

And the operating costs for the Oryx per hour is more than double than that of an A109.

In terms of run cost and complexity they pretty close. All those jobs can be done by the Oryx. Most of the ground work was done when developing the rooivalk. The Oryx can all ready load a 20mm has a door gun. All systems the French and other pumas can have so can ours.

A cheaper to run simply to fly chopper was what we needed. The A109 is none of those.

DieVluit:


And his most famous word - obsolete - showing up in all the wrong places. Of course, this is Agauby.

DieVluit is it true that you are female ?
.

agaugust:

DieVluit is it true that you are female ?
.

What are you on about?