agaugust:


Aircraft carriers are not for surface combat, they are for air power, fleet air arm for air superiority.

Naval warfare is sub-surface, surface, and fleet air arm.

Some countries navy is in shallow waters and need no submarine like Bolivian navy.

Naval air power for air superiority, that is needed to prevent a powerful enemy air force from sinking your navy with long range aircraft launched anti-ship missiles like the Exocet and high powered anti-submarine aircraft like the ATR-72.

Britain would have lost Falkland war without aircraft carrier.

A balanced navy has at least one aircraft carrier.

There is no balanced navy in Africa.

fu@khead then go back and bring up France vs Algeria and eat the sh&t you said

MulaahEG:
I feel sorry for the Nigerians on this Blog. But sorry the South Africans is Bleep$ng you. Pls don't compare your military with theirs, you know and the rest of the world knows they are light years ahead of your military. They might even be beter then us here up North

You are a South African masquerading as an Arab.... Mulaah my foot, South African fraudster using arabic name

Keep fooling yourself
.

MulaahEG:
fu@khead then go back and bring up France vs Algeria and eat the sh&t you said

No Arab will will downgrade Algeria in favour of France, you are a South African using a false ID on a new moniker.

Likely this is still @Patches the fraudster

.

AugustineAgain:


Bwhahahaha

You are too ashamed to post it

.....Because you know the T-129 has superior targeting capability with it's ultra-modern FLIR

GAME OVER , T-129 BETTER THAN ROOIVALK


.

How is the T-129 better?

Henry120:



"If you cannot defeat an enemy that enemy is by default stronger than you"


Patchy the pirate......... quote of the day!

Shifting what goal post?

You shifted the goal-posts

We are talking conventional warfare

You then applied my statment to a completely different type of warfare.

You have moved the confines of the argument - this is known as shifting the goalposts

agaugust:


Taliban still controls a large portion of Afghanistan and rules there. America and Britain are now running away after military failure of NATO

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/world/asia/taliban-making-military-gains-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0

The best solution is for America and Britain to come and learn COIN warfare in Nigerian army academy, we will show them that a black power has can do what white powers have failed to do with all their superior technology and huge numbers of sophisticated weapons/equipment
.

NATO kicked Taliban out of Afghanistan

While NATO was deployed NATO controlled 99% of the country

NATO is withdrawing and now the Taliban are coming back

What do you want NATO to do? Stay in Afghanistan for 1000 years?

agaugust:


Any balanced navy has an aircraft carrier.

Why?? Because you say so?

agaugust:


Aircraft carriers are not for surface combat, they are for air power, fleet air arm for air superiority.

Naval warfare is sub-surface, surface, and fleet air arm.

Some countries navy is in shallow waters and need no submarine like Bolivian navy.

Naval air power for air superiority, that is needed to prevent a powerful enemy air force from sinking your navy with long range aircraft launched anti-ship missiles like the Exocet and high powered anti-submarine aircraft like the ATR-72.

Britain would have lost Falkland war without aircraft carrier.

A balanced navy has at least one aircraft carrier.

There is no balanced navy in Africa.

No, a balanced Navy does not need a carrier

A carrier is for force projection

Most Navies do not require force projection, and are defencive in nature - designed to protect their homeland.

You dont need a carrier when your jets are taking off from dry land.

You still however need submarines because they are a massive force multiplier.

Guy, you are so hilariously dense - you think like a child.

agaugust:


A balanced navy has an aircraft carrier. Simple as ABC
.

Because you say so?

42 Nations have submarines

around 6-7 Navies have operational carriers (China and UK have no combat ready carriers, Spains are also non-operational)

Are you saying that there are only 6-7 balanced navies in the world?

The Navies of Japan and Korea, both of which fall in the top 10 most powerfull in the world - are not balanced?

Same for Saudi, Egypt, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Spain (their carriers are no-more), Turkey?

Dude, you are a joke.

The ability to deploy fixed wing aircraft at sea has nothing to do with balance and is all about force projection

agaugust:


No Arab will will downgrade Algeria in favour of France, you are a South African using a false ID on a new moniker.

Likely this is still @Patches the fraudster

.

Why would I need to create a false ID?

I fvcking rap.ed you in that argument... I proudly attach my own name to it

agaugust:

A balanced navy has an aircraft carrier. Simple as ABC .

An aircraft carrier is surface vessel.

A balanced navy has surface and sub-surface capabilities.

agaugust:


No Arab will will downgrade Algeria in favour of France, you are a South African using a false ID on a new moniker.

Likely this is still @Patches the fraudster

.

Look at him resorting to accusations.

Don't attack Mulaah deal with his opinion and facts!

pavri:


I don't know. The guy who shared photo, has introduced it as Nigerian students in Turkey. I just quoted what He typed as a source. Anyhow, Turkish military has been training more than 30 countries students under NATO regulations. They may be some of them.


Nigerian Turkish relations have been improving every passing years. The leaders are occasionally meeting with eachothers and creating a market for mutual benefits. It is planned to increase total trade to 2 billion $. Who knows What they have signed in last visit


but It is understood that Nigerian leaders are seriously interested in Turkish military gears, especially land sector such as armoured vehicles. In this circumstances, Otokar Tulpar IFV may serve perfect to Nigeria, since It has a Stanag 6 level protection and best choice to hunt terrorists.




+ Otokar Altay MBT 64 tonnes with Akkor active protection system against anti-tank missiles

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

So, isn't obvious that you Nigerians are big liars on mother earth

lezz:
a due apology has been issued by BBC.

it doesn't add for you.

A damage control to try to save the face of Nigerian food outlets internationally. They had to downplay the scandal so that it would not harm the fast food selling market especially for international prospective patrons. The damage is already done and I wouldn't see myself eating at any Nigerian restaurants, heaven knows I wouldn't dare to do such thing. See me in Nigeria and know that I will be eating only cornflakes three times a day. No meat stuff at all.

jln115:

You fckers just cant read can you?I said the older Apache were not able to preform backflips, its irrelevant when they were introduced.

And u bitch can't provide a link or citations that states early apache where not able to perform back flips do u think we r dummies like U !
The 1st set of apache can do back flips and they where not even a match for ur fucken rooivalk's !
Can't u read this is the 3rd time am saying it give us proof that the early apache's where not able to do back flips !

jln115:

Dude!! The Airframe of the older lynx couldn't handle the G-Forces caused as a result of a backflip, it also didn't have a powerful enough engine to preform such a manoeuver, same thing with the Apache

Secondly I provided no less than 2 sources that prove my claims, why don't you post a citation that 1970 Lynx helicopters were able to preform backflips.

U never provided any source that claimed other wise and someone as shown u a video of a 1970 lynx doing a back flip what else do u want ?

Dude!! The Airframe of the older lynx couldn't handle the
G-Forces caused as a result of a backflip, it also didn't have
a powerful enough engine to preform such a manoeuver,
same thing with the Apache
Secondly I provided no less than 2 sources that prove my
claims, why don't you post a citation that 1970 Lynx
helicopters were able to preform backflips

And here is my source that states ;The Lynx has the distinction of being the world's first fully
aerobatic helicopter. In 1986, a specially modified ..........

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

bidexiii:

U never provided any source that claimed other wise and someone as shown u a video of a 1970 lynx doing a back flip what else do u want ?

The early versions of Apaches could not backflip and even the current version could only fly upside down for not longer than it should, let say two minutes. The Rooivalk was undoubtedly the first ever gunship to be incorporated with the unique art of flying upside down. The first ever helicopter on its ranks to display such exclusive abilities of flying with that magnitude of immense aptitude. I will prove it to you in a short while. Be calm and wait for the evidence that will explode your head.

bidexiii:

U never provided any source that claimed other wise and someone as shown u a video of a 1970 lynx doing a back flip what else do u want ?

I positively dont think that was in 1970 since the Lynx made their first production late in 1970s. Moreover, the Lynx that was seen back flipping was somehow supposed to have been modified, very different from the one originally purchased from the manufactures.

The early versions of Apaches could not backflip and even
the current version could only fly upside down for not
longer than it should, let say two minutes. The Rooivalk was
undoubtedly the first ever gunship to be incorporated with
the unique art of flying upside down. The first ever
helicopter on its ranks to display such exclusive abilities of
flying with that magnitude of immense aptitude. I will prove
it to you in a short while. Be calm and wait for the evidence
that will explode your head.


I positively dont think that was in 1970 since the Lynx made
their first production late in 1970s. Moreover, the Lynx that
was seen back flipping was somehow supposed to have
been modified, very different from the one originally
purchased from the manufactures.


I am telling u that the early apaches do backflip's and the apache as the best performance when it comes to aerobatic's !
Secondly from the source given the early lynx that where made in the 1970's where able to do backflips/aerobatic's
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx

bidexiii:

And u bitch can't provide a link or citations that states early apache where not able to perform back flips do u think we r dummies like U !
The 1st set of apache can do back flips and they where not even a match for ur fucken rooivalk's !
Can't u read this is the 3rd time am saying it give us proof that the early apache's where not able to do back flips !

I provided 2 links r3tard, one wasn't even South African, both state that when the Rooivalk first came out it was the only helicopter in the world able to fly inverted/do a backflip. Thus the sources prove 2 things 1The Rooivalk was the only helicopter able to preform a backflip and 2 The Apach Ah-64A was not able to preform a backflip, because both sources state only the Rooivalk was able to preform such a manoeuvre at that time.

Why don't YOU provide a source to prove the AH-64A was able to preform a backflip. I provided 2 sources that prove it couldn't.

bidexiii:
The early versions of Apaches could not backflip and even
the current version could only fly upside down for not
longer than it should, let say two minutes. The Rooivalk was
undoubtedly the first ever gunship to be incorporated with
the unique art of flying upside down. The first ever
helicopter on its ranks to display such exclusive abilities of
flying with that magnitude of immense aptitude. I will prove
it to you in a short while. Be calm and wait for the evidence
that will explode your head.


I positively dont think that was in 1970 since the Lynx made
their first production late in 1970s. Moreover, the Lynx that
was seen back flipping was somehow supposed to have
been modified, very different from the one originally
purchased from the manufactures.


I am telling u that the early apaches do backflip's and the apache as the best performance when it comes to aerobatic's !
Secondly from the source given the early lynx that where made in the 1970's where able to do backflips/aerobatic's
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx

No where does it say in your source/Wikipedia that it was able to do a backflip. And I'm telling you earlier Apaches could not do backflips

bidexiii:

U never provided any source that claimed other wise and someone as shown u a video of a 1970 lynx doing a back flip what else do u want ?

I provided 2 sources that state only the rooivalk was able to do a backflip, thus the older lynx couldn't

bidexiii:
The early versions of Apaches could not backflip and even
the current version could only fly upside down for not
longer than it should, let say two minutes. The Rooivalk was
undoubtedly the first ever gunship to be incorporated with
the unique art of flying upside down. The first ever
helicopter on its ranks to display such exclusive abilities of
flying with that magnitude of immense aptitude. I will prove
it to you in a short while. Be calm and wait for the evidence
that will explode your head.


I positively dont think that was in 1970 since the Lynx made
their first production late in 1970s. Moreover, the Lynx that
was seen back flipping was somehow supposed to have
been modified, very different from the one originally
purchased from the manufactures.


I am telling u that the early apaches do backflip's and the apache as the best performance when it comes to aerobatic's !
Secondly from the source given the early lynx that where made in the 1970's where able to do backflips/aerobatic's
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx

That is a green lie young man.

mzilakazi:


A damage control to try to save the face of Nigerian food outlets internationally. They had to downplay the scandal so that it would not harm the fast food selling market especially for international prospective patrons. The damage is already done and I wouldn't see myself eating at any Nigerian restaurants, heaven knows I wouldn't dare to do such thing. See me in Nigeria and know that I will be eating only cornflakes three times a day. No meat stuff at all.

the western press do not issue apologies except when genuinely wrong. they are not like the south African press. believe it, a BBC apology looks bad on them not us; it has gone down as another classic western media stereotype of africa.


and who really cares if you eat or not. your opinion isn't considered to be of note.

mzilakazi:


The early versions of Apaches could not backflip and even the current version could only fly upside down for not longer than it should, let say two minutes. The Rooivalk was undoubtedly the first ever gunship to be incorporated with the unique art of flying upside down. The first ever helicopter on its ranks to display such exclusive abilities of flying with that magnitude of immense aptitude. I will prove it to you in a short while. Be calm and wait for the evidence that will explode your head.

Yes mate I do agree that the earlier versions of the Apache were not able to do backflips and the Rooivalk was the only helicopter able to do a backflip at that time, BUT no helicopter in the world can fly upside down for more than a few seconds, not even the Rooivalk, Its scientifically impossible!! even for the most advance choppers in the world!

patches689:


You shifted the goal-posts

We are talking conventional warfare

You then applied my statment to a completely different type of warfare.

You have moved the confines of the argument - this is known as shifting the goalposts

Fool, you did not think before you wrote that garbage, you trapped yourself with your own senseless words

Iran and Iraq fought a conventional war that ended with no winner, so because Iran could not defeat Iraq, then Iraq is stronger than Iran according to your M0RONIC LOGIC OF STUPIIDITY ?

Full time fool
.

patches689:


NATO is withdrawing and now the Taliban are coming back

They should have defeated and disarmed Taliban. That is what success means. NATO failed.

See the bolded part of your comment, you have admitted that Taliban is gaining more control of Afghanistan, thanks.

NATO failed, no winner. You just admitted that
.

patches689:


NATO kicked Taliban out of Afghanistan

While NATO was deployed NATO controlled 99% of the country

Citation needed for that 99% figure, prove it !
.

jln115:

I provided 2 links r3tard, one wasn't even South African, both state that when the Rooivalk first came out it was the only helicopter in the world able to fly inverted/do a backflip. Thus the sources prove 2 things 1The Rooivalk was the only helicopter able to preform a backflip and 2 The Apach Ah-64A was not able to preform a backflip, because both sources state only the Rooivalk was able to preform such a manoeuvre at that time.

Why don't YOU provide a source to prove the AH-64A was able to preform a backflip. I provided 2 sources that prove it couldn't.

Mad man on the loose show me source that states the rooivalk was the 1st attack helicopter that can do back flips !
Your fake source even states that it might be the best attack helicopter then ? Mumu south africans !
Then show me source that states an apache can not do back flips and what they do is they turn up-side down ?
And the up-side down does not last more than 2 mins,give me citation that states so ?
Mumu's you can even tell me that the roovialks was even better than the apache then in every thing ?

patches689:


NATO kicked Taliban out of Afghanistan

After 10 years of NATO war in Afghanistan, Taliban is still s.hooting down US Navy Seals special forces helicopter and killing American commandos like houseflies. You said Taliban has been kicked out, yet in 2014 same Taliban controls huge lands and kills NATO troops at random, does an enemy you have kicked out still exist where you kicked them out, control land, make laws, and kill the same person that 'kicked them out' ?

You fvcking liar !

BY BILL ROGGIO | October 22, 2014 |

"The Afghan Taliban took control of three districts, one in the province of Wardak which is just south of Kabul, and the other two in the northern province of Kunduz, that were heavily contested during the US troop surge that began in 2010 and ended in 2011. One of the districts was the scene of the Taliban’s shoot down of a US helicopter that resulted in the deaths of 31 special operations personnel, including 17 US Navy SEALs.

Reports from Afghanistan indicate that the district of Sayyidabad in Wardak as well as the districts of Chahar Darah and Dasht-i-Archi in Kunduz province are under the Taiban’s thumb.

A reporter from the BBC recently visited the Tangi Valley in the district of Sayyidabad and noted that the Taliban fully control the district. He was given a tour by Said Rahman, the Taliban’s shadow district governor who is “popularly known as Governor Badr.”

Taliban fighters openly patrol the district during the daytime, while Afghan troops are confined to a small hilltop outpost.

Taliban judges mediate land and other disputes. Taxes are collected. Schools, which are funded by the Afghan government, teach the Taliban’s curriculum, while girls are not allowed to attend. [See BBC report, Life inside a Taliban stronghold.]

Further north, in the province of Kunduz, Afghan officials admit that “the Taliban controls virtually all of two out of seven districts in Kunduz – Chahar Darah and Dasht-i-Archi,’ Reuters reports.

“It is gaining influence elsewhere, and residents say it has been able to because what little state authority exists is viewed with deep mistrust,” Reuters continues.

In Kunduz, the Taliban collects a 10 percent tax from farmers and business, mediates disputes in its courts, and runs the local schools."

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/10/taliban_control_3_di.php

MikeCZAR:
An aircraft carrier is surface vessel.


A balanced navy has surface and sub-surface capabilities.

An aircraft carrier is NOT an ordinary surface vessel, it is a surface vessel with full air to air combat capabilities, air power at sea.

Your navy in Soweto does not have one.....sorry o
.

patches689:


Because you say so?

42 Nations have submarines

around 6-7 Navies have operational carriers (China and UK have no combat ready carriers, Spains are also non-operational)

Are you saying that there are only 6-7 balanced navies in the world?

The Navies of Japan and Korea, both of which fall in the top 10 most powerfull in the world - are not balanced?

Same for Saudi, Egypt, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Spain (their carriers are no-more), Turkey?

Dude, you are a joke.

The ability to deploy fixed wing aircraft at sea has nothing to do with balance and is all about force projection

Force projection capability is part of a balanced military force. Reason why armies have amphibious armoured vehicles to operate on water.

A balanced navy can hold it's own and survive in a high threat environment of sub surface, surface, and air borne threats.

Thus a balanced navy has an aircraft carrier for air cover and air superiority off their coastline beyond help of their own air force.

That is what the military world calls COMPLETE FLEET AIR ARM.

Does not matter is only 10 countries of the world have aircraft carriers, fact is that a balanced navy has at least one aircraft carrier.

Many countries who don't want to use their own do keep it in reserve like China and Britain.

India has bought aircraft carrier and is using it now.

British navy has an aircraft carrier not in use, yet it was the balance of that single aircraft carrier that saved the British navy from total defeat in war with Argentina.

If the British had no aircraft carrier, the Argentine air force would have sank all their entire navy fleet and Britain will lose the war.

Yes, it proves my point from war history, a balanced navy has an aircraft carrier or else it will lose war to air threat.

You want to remove aircraft carrier from naval requirement because South Africa does not have one, fact is that your navy is NOT balanced until you have aircraft carrier, deal with it
.