komekn:



You are fixated with your view not with facts, substance and or rational, you really come across like a politician who evades all substance in favour of misrepresentation mixed with conjecture , to call it an opinion implies substance it is simply a view. Like a typical politician, you avoid the substance and highlight the suggestive, you adopt argument over appraisal and conclude with the whimsical.

Your personal self-birthed perception does not create the definition of a word, you have used the word disinformation and gloating to describe my write up. Let me remind you, disinformation refers to false or misleading information and to gloat is to derive malignant pleasure. I do neither.

You delight in arguement and rancour that is the DNA of a politician and proving yourself as the winner even if it is deluded your singular quest.

That is not the purpose of this forum and this particular discourse you have deviated so far from the core critical question in your personal quest to prove, I do not know what You are derailing matters and murdering balanced discussion. Lets take quite a few steps back to the critical core question, i reiterate, "Best value and the most efficient use of resources for the greatest impact in the NE"

Now hopefully you would have had cool ice cold drink of coca cola to cool your hot head down, and hopefully a smile now ask yourself have you addressed any of the items, questions and or issues in that core subject question


In the bold you allude to the core question albeit very slightly but do not address it directly or with a substantive approach . Now once again I implore you to look at what you have written with a cool head. Consider what you have written, "NATO said it's role doesn't fit their battlefield doctrine" So if an air frame does not meet the particular requirements of my air force delivery strategy, that air craft is not fit for my purposes, i.e. not fit for purpose According to you i quote you verbatim, "thats a concocted rubbish you made up" Do you know you are effectively confirming my substansive view. You claim that I am confusing myself, now with your head bowed down look in the mirror, and ask yourself, Who is confused

Everything else you have said is befuddled delusion in your misguided quest to prove, I do not know It is ignominious deviation from the core subject question, nonetheless I will indulge you.

For instance if NATO thought the A10 was so good why did nobody not one NATO procure this aircraft

You introduced the comparison of the $115k USA missile creating a unit of comparable measurement for cost benefit analysis but you have decided to completely avoid this in considering short and long term sustainability for the A29 in comparison to the Wing Loong II UAV and other alternative options with regards to the $600 million total package procurement price . I wonder why

I was specific, measured, with a structured methodology of cost and substantively rational under the heading of Best value and the most efficient use of resources for the greatest impact in the NE. You have not reciprocated but rather have chosen to be insultingly dismissive.

NATO declined procurement of the A10 as being not fir for purpose. At the time there was unequivocal agreement that the A10 was not better than the existing NATO assets and that included the Jaguar, Mirage and F16'S. That there other precision weaponry that could be brought to the conflict that was more efficient for close support such as with attack , helicopters and guided munitions.

jpphilips:

Xbee007:

Your write-ups may be long but they lack essence. lt's your type that lecturer will give assignment you will write 20 pages, meanwhile someone with just 4 pages will still get a better score than you. Information that could be contained in a single paragraph, you somehow manage to stretch it to a dozen.

BTW, the lockdown is not an excuse for you to be writing like a broken record. For weeks now, you've been arguing back and forth over a single topic and no amount of quality info to cmounter your stance seems to change anything. It's like pouring water in a drain!

komekn:


Two issues here.

Your educational experience and the quality of it will reflect your ability to deduce, analyse and comprehend.

It's the mentality above highlighted in bold that's so regressive and stifles innovation and therefore progression in our country. That you are a advocate for by default and now adhere too.

Contradicting the lecturer even with substantive approach and by mistake you show more knowledge and insight on the context of Nigeria will get you a FAIL and get you ostracised literally by your lecturers.

So l appreciate your inability to appreciate the substantive over the emotive whimsical. No be your fault.

Texman21:
Esquire the third I hail you

jpphilips:


Perhaps I put it mildly when I said you spread disinformation now, I have to be more brutal, you are a Liar, you peddle lies to score cheap points.
These were your words;



The purpose of the A10 Warthog is to provide the US type of CAS, it is 100% fit for that purpose. One of the best in the world for that role reason US military has kept it in service for 43yrs with just 7 combat mishaps & planning to keep it longer, you are not smarter than the USAF.

NATO refused to buy it because its "Purpose" does not fit their battlefield doctrine, it doesn't mean the A10 isn't fit for purpose its a ridiculous conclusion.

Let me enlighten you before you type your next long gibberish, the Purpose of an aircraft is based on design not useage.
An Aircraft designed for CAS can still perform other roles, however, those secondary roles are not its purpose.

NATO has a BAI doctrine while the A10 is designed for CAS, NATO has several excellent platforms for BAI, so they didn't need A10 at the time, recently, they did and called for it, I have proven that already.
If it wasn't fit for purpose, NATO would've called for another platform.

The next thing I want to read from you is proof where NATO said A10 isn't fit for purpose, till then you remain a Liar.

There is no point discussing long & short term cost analysis from what you have typed so far, you don't know jack in that subject.

komekn:



You too quick to respond as l was correcting my initial write up.

Lol

Texman21:
had to look for dictionary

komekn:

Ignorance is bliss.
Evasion and now rancour calling a person a LIAR.

blacKDalia:



One of the best alternatives we've is the tucano, ready at all times responding to own military distress call. My only misgiving about the tucano deal is the time of delivery, which doesn't show the exigency in the North East and seriousness of the top military hierarchy.

Xbee007:

The crux of the matter is not really the length of his write-ups but the content. I read New York Times articles daily that are certainly longer.

He has been arguing about the Super Tucano deal for days now complaining about the price and the delivery date. He kept mentioning that the delivery starts on 2024 even after he has been told it starts 2021.

komekn:




I challenge you to give one post not two a simple screenshot will suffice , where l said contract delivery starts in 2024.

If you can not what does that make you. ❓❓

I am specific with language not assumptive and my diction not ambiguous but very clear.

komekn:


In all honesty l have zero interest in the rational of the USA's over priced arms industry cost benefit analysis. And the comparison benefits of the F35, A29 & A10.

It's a deviation from the core discussion, which is essentially what's best for Nigeria.

In that context is it best value to buy 12 turboprop A29 Tucano for $600 million that will not be delivered until 2024 for supposedly poorer partner countries. It's an absolute waste of money IMO.

Consider how much the over priced precision ordinances and missiles that the A29 will require to be effective. Do you think it's sustainable in the long term❓

It essentially it makes a nonsense of the claimed operating cost of $500 an hour when you are paying $600 million to procure just 12 aircraft.

But back to the original discourse which was to look at alternative options and consider best value for the greatest delivery outcome.

A consideration of other platforms which l did with the immediately available Wing Loong II UAV. And its much cheaper precision ordinances and missiles and 30 hour endurance for ISTAR. As well as the SU25 which has a comparable operating cost to the A29 and far more adapt to the CAS role which people feel, not me is intrinsic for succes in the NE.

But a quite a few consider the discussion to be antagonistic and contentious. Which it really should not be.

Xbee007:


Here you go.

Fynline:
Do we really have the EE-9 Cascavel from Brazil?

There is no picture or evidence of it anywhere

LTGEN:

Why are you interested in something that it’s no longer being produced in Brazil anymore?

bidexiii:
RANDOM

ugo4u:

Guy in the second pic (name withheld) was one of our students in flying school together with the late Kalto Silka. Good to see him grow more wings.

bidexiii:

2nd picture right ?

bidexiii:
#NA

nemesis8u:


What happens to the captured ammo ?

bidexiii:


Most of them go back into use instantly !!!!!

bidexiii:
#NA

kemicalreact:
Really?