chkil1:
off topic : HOw torpedo launchers works on fregates , same torpedo use on the A200 , the Mu 90 torpedo on pics from a french fregate

Are you telling us ships have more torpedoes than torpedo tubes What sorcery is this!!!

"The MEKO® A-200 follows the famous MEKO® 200 series in a long line of general-purpose frigates. A fighting ship capable of full 4-dimensional warfare (AAW, ASW and ASuW, BCW)" - manufacturer

@dragon2

Nigerian navy NNS Zaria riding the waves.

kabe1:
Nigerian navy NNS Zaria riding the waves.

Good looking vessel!

Cameroon BIR on operation.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5YyLaPqjJk

Nigerian made mine resistant vehicle proudly showing battlefield scares gained from dispatching terrorists in the Northeast area of operation.

kabe1:


The problem of purchasing Russian weaponry in this trump administration is that Nigeria might fall victim to CAATSA sanctions. This is the reason we have not received our 7 remaining MI-35M helicopters.

We can only realistically purchase top of the line Russian weaponry if we get guarantees from the US that we would not be sanctioned.

Turkish weapons, Turkish drones are filled with imported Western components. Intact Canada has stopped exporting parts for Turkish drones, Turkey cannot deliver T-129 helicopters to Pakistan because of sanctions, it remains to be seen if Turkey can deliver Milgem Corvettes to Pakistan.

This leaves us with just a few options to buy from, China remains are best source for high quality weapons.

That's the reason why it's a good thing that Nigeria is investing in local production of weapons.

As sanctions were expected, Turkey has been building their own engine to be fitted with the T-129s for Pakistan.

JF17Thunder:


As sanctions were expected, Turkey has been building their own engine to be fitted with the T-129s for Pakistan.

How does Turkey, a major components importer suddenly have the know-how to build helicopter engines?

The T-129 for Pakistan is frozen, until the US can lift sanctions imposed on Turkey. Again I don't see this happening soon.

AMX10RC , and tanks (abrams, m60, t72,mbt-2000) moroccan army

mauritanian troops

KA52 + AH64 on mistral , egyptian navy

egypt

nimr II isv . algeria

kabe1:
Nigerian made mine resistant vehicle proudly showing battlefield scares gained from dispatching terrorists in the Northeast area of operation.

the ara MRAP truly is a rugged fighting machine.

jln115:
"The MEKO® A-200 follows the famous MEKO® 200 series in a long line of general-purpose frigates. A fighting ship capable of full 4-dimensional warfare (AAW, ASW and ASuW, BCW)" - manufacturer

@dragon2

A frigate can be dedicated to Aaw,can be dedicated to Asw, or AsuW or can be dedicated to 2 out of the 3 main types of warfare but does not have the tonnage to be dedicated to all three types of warfare on an independent way ( far from port).
A ship maker can say it can build a frigate that can be adapted to perform any of the three types,but not all three at the same time far from port (destroyer). It just has not got the tonnage. A frigate adapted to mainly Asw will have more torps stored but will sacrifice elsewhere e.g. anti aircraft capability. The same frigate dedicated to Aaw will probably have no torpedoes but may have an anti-submarine helicopter on board, same ship will probably have more SAM's stored.
Within the same ship type,each navy will decide what role they want their frigate to perform based on the tonnage that a frigate generally carries.

Aradu was able to carry out all 3 roles by cutting down on anti-aircraft by a small fraction(24 missiles rather than 36),and adding depth charges to increase survivability at sea far from port. That's why 'some' call it a mini destroyer. Standard destroyers will weigh in at 6-9 k tons,while performing all 3 main functions( today including land attack roles).
I never said aradu is a Destroyer in the sense of tonnage (6-9 k tons),but in the sense of function (full spectrum independent blue sea engagement.).since Aradu does not have the tonnage but could just about perform the function it was called mini.
Modified
Aradu is not a standard ship by most navy doctrines, it does not fit with NATO or russian naval doctrine of naval power, its just a specific order by Nigeria and subsequently Argentina based on cost. So it was classified by some outside commentary as a mini destroyer.

The A200 is based on proper NATO doctrine and are designed to perform well on one or two roles. However, AFAIK NATO won't used them in packs far from home.(enemy territory)They would simply build destroyers that can function independently in all spectrum of warfare with tonnage to survive a long campaign until replenished.
In essence frigates are mainly for defence while destroyers are for offensive action. Smaller navies will probably carry frigates with complementary roles to enemy positions to carry out task.

At this point in respect for other commentators I rest my case . If you still don't agree..fair enough. \thumbsup

dragon2:


A frigate can be dedicated to Aaw,can be dedicated to Asw, or AsuW or can be dedicated to 2 out of the 3 main types of warfare but does not have the tonnage to be dedicated to all three types of warfare on an independent way ( far from port).
A ship maker can say it can build a frigate that can be adapted to perform any of the three types,but not all three at the same time far from port (destroyer). It just has not got the tonnage. A frigate adapted to mainly Asw will have more torps stored but will sacrifice elsewhere e.g. anti aircraft capability. The same frigate dedicated to Aaw will probably have no torpedoes but may have an anti-submarine helicopter on board, same ship will probably have more SAM's stored.
Within the same ship type,each navy will decide what role they want their frigate to perform based on the tonnage that a frigate generally carries.

Aradu was able to carry out all 3 roles by cutting down on anti-aircraft by a small fraction(24 missiles rather than 36),and adding depth charges to increase survivability at sea far from port. That's why 'some' call it a mini destroyer. Standard destroyers will weigh in at 6-9 k tons,while performing all 3 main functions( today including land attack roles).
I never said aradu is a Destroyer in the sense of tonnage (6-9 k tons),but in the sense of function (full spectrum independent blue sea engagement.).since Aradu does not have the tonnage but could just about perform the function it was called mini.
Modified
Aradu is not a standard ship by most navy doctrines, it does not fit with NATO or russian naval doctrine of naval power, its just a specific order by Nigeria and subsequently Argentina based on cost. So it was classified by some outside commentary as a mini destroyer.

let me just make it short and simple for you to understand.

Aradu is in the exact same class as the Meko200.... If A Navy classifies Aradu as a destroyer then that same navy will also classify the Meko200 as a destroyer.......the Meko360 is in no why more independent than the Meko200 neither is it better in ASW,.... EOD

dragon2:
The A200 is based on proper NATO doctrine and are designed to perform well on one or two roles. However, AFAIK NATO won't used them in packs far from home.(enemy territory)They would simply build destroyers that can function independently in all spectrum of warfare with tonnage to survive a long campaign until replenished.
In essence frigates are mainly for defence while destroyers are for offensive action. Smaller navies will probably carry frigates with complementary roles to enemy positions to carry out task.

chkil1 apparently your Navy bought duds that can't function independently and far from ports.....

One wonders why the manufacturer built the Meko200 with a range of 7200nm(almost double than most destroyers and frigates) when according to this arm chair General they can't function far from home

jln115:
chkil1 apparently your Navy bought duds that can't function independently and far from ports.....

One wonders why the manufacturer built the Meko200 with a range of 7200nm(almost double than most destroyers and frigates) when according to this arm chair General they can't function far from home

Why do you force me out of retirement
Oil tankers have more range. Do you now understand? I am talking about fighting independently without assistance,in enemy territory far from home for prolonged period .Not sailing range. Back to retirement on the issue.

kabe1:
Nigerian made mine resistant vehicle proudly showing battlefield scares gained from dispatching terrorists in the Northeast area of operation.

Do you have more clearer pictures??

chkil1:
egypt

This looks like a video, do you have the link??

dragon2:

Why do you force me out of retirement
Oil tankers have more range. Do you now understand? I am talking about fighting independently without assistance,in enemy territory far from home for prolonged period .Not sailing range. Back to retirement on the issue.

And how is the Aradu better than the more heavily armed, longer ranged Meko 200?

jln115:
And how is the Aradu better than the more heavily armed, longer ranged Meko 200?

SMH, is your meko200 the same with Algeria's? How can i compare ships that can be modified by the builder for each customer to 1 ship?
Should I compare it to the new Zealand, turkish or Portuguese A200 that only has 8 anti aircraft missiles? Have you not been listening to the trade-off each navy must make? Are you saying I should compare with that of South Africa that has 8 antiship missiles and no torpedo's atm apparently. Though it is fitted to have topedoes. or is it the Algerian and SA a200 with just 4 torpedoes.

The issue is which is close to a destroyer in design, not more powerful or armed in a certain area of warfare.
24. Sam missiles is enough far out at sea where it is hard for aircrafts to reach.
8.antiship missiles are enough for independent operations against other ships.
4. Torpedoes in submarine territory far from home?
I will take 6 and depth charges any day. If not to kill at least ward off subs QED.

dragon2:


SMH, is your meko200 the same with Algeria's? How can i compare ships that can be modified by the builder for each customer to 1 ship?
Should I compare it to the new Zealand, turkish or Portuguese A200 that only has 8 anti aircraft missiles? Have you not been listening to the trade-off each navy must make? Are you saying I should compare with that of South Africa that has 8 antiship missiles and no torpedo's atm apparently. Though it is fitted to have topedoes. or is it the Algerian and SA a200 with just 4 torpedoes.

The issue is which is close to a destroyer in design, not more powerful or armed in a certain area of warfare.
24. Sam missiles is enough far out at sea where it is hard for aircrafts to reach.
8.antiship missiles are enough for independent operations against other ships.
4. Torpedoes in submarine territory far from home?
I will take 6 and depth charges any day. If not to kill at least ward off subs QED.

We are not talking about the Valour class we are Talking about the Meko200 and yes besides some weapon systems like the main gun, ASMs and dual purpose guns the Meko200SAN and Meko200AN are basically the same ship.

And how many times must I explain that 4 tubes doesn't mean 4 torpedoes.......just like a rifle doesn't have just one bullet because it has 1 barrel. Also depth charges are obsolete hence why no modern destroyers have them, So your argument about having depth charges holds no water.

In terms of armament the Meko200 is closer to a destroyer than the Meko360.........although both are just frigates and small frigates to be honest.

jln115:
Are you telling us ships have more torpedoes than torpedo tubes What sorcery is this!!!

You and chkil1 must stop spreading lies! 4 torpedo tubes means 4 torpedoes carried!

jln115:

We are not talking about the Valour class we are Talking about the Meko200 and yes besides some weapon systems like the main gun, ASMs and dual purpose guns the Meko200SAN and Meko200AN are basically the same ship.

And how many times must I explain that 4 tubes doesn't mean 4 torpedoes.......just like a rifle doesn't have just one bullet because it has 1 barrel. Also depth charges are obsolete hence why no modern destroyers have them, So your argument about having depth charges holds no water.

In terms of armament the Meko200 is closer to a destroyer than the Meko360.........although both are just frigates and small frigates to be honest.

You are arguing in circles again, going back to obsolence to determine if a ship can still play its role as a Frigate or destroyer. O.k. in 10 years time you ship maybe reclassified as a fishing vessel based on its weapons.
The ship was designated a mini destroyer by some in the 80s,thats its class based on its ability.
Even now,Chinese anti-ship missiles(YJ-18) have made your frigates anti ship missiles obsolete,should we called the frigates fishing vessels?

Aradu has 6 torpedo tubes, how many torpedoes does it have? You cant cheat on tonage. It is the 6-9k tonage ships that can have storage for more torpedoes.

The use of depth charges today as a tactic will not be to hunt subs, but to ward off subs from attacking a ship, allowing the ship to survive in a hostile environment. So while it wont be used in an offensive posture it definitely can be used in a defensive tactic against enemy torpedoes and ships.

dragon2:


You are arguing in circles again, going back to obsolence to determine if a ship can still play its role as a Frigate or destroyer. O.k. in 10 years time you ship maybe reclassified as a fishing vessel based on its weapons.
The ship was designated a mini destroyer by some in the 80s,thats its class based on its ability.
Even now,Chinese anti-ship missiles(YJ-18) have made your frigates anti ship missiles obsolete,should we called the frigates fishing vessels?

Aradu has 6 torpedo tubes, how many torpedoes does it have? You cant cheat on tonage. It is the 6-9k tonage ships that can have storage for more torpedoes.

Nothing about the Meko360 puts it in another class as the Meko200 literally nothing, in fact its slightly smaller, carries less weapons and has a shorter range, nothing about the Meko360 makes it a Deystroyer or more independent vs the Meko200. And I said depth charges are obsolete hence you can't say Aradu was better equipped wrt ASW than the Meko200 because the Meko200 doesn't have depth charges.

And Aradu is designated as a frigate........only Argentina designated their ships as Deystroyers ..........Even the manufacturer classifies the Meko360 as a frigate.

Is the YJ-18 better than the Exocete mk3 or RBS-15?? debatable............

How many tubes does the Arleigh Burke class Destroyer have ? 2.........Does that make the Aradu better at ASW than a Destroyer?

By your own logic the Meko200 should have more torpedoes because its heavier............is this not what you said?

jln115:
Nothing about the Meko360 puts it in another class as the Meko200 literally nothing, in fact its slightly smaller, carries less weapons and has a shorter range, nothing about the Meko360 makes it a Deystroyer or more independent vs the Meko200. And I said depth charges are obsolete hence you can't say Aradu was better equipped wrt ASW than the Meko200 because the Meko200 doesn't have depth charges.

And Aradu is designated as a frigate........only Argentina designated their ships as Deystroyers ..........Even the manufacturer classifies the Meko360 as a frigate.

Is the YJ-18 better than the Exocete mk3 or RBS-15?? debatable............

How many tubes does the Arleigh Burke class Destroyer have ? 2.........Does that make the Aradu better at ASW than a Destroyer?

By your own logic the Meko200 should have more torpedoes because its heavier............is this not what you said?

Destroyer
ASuW,ASW,AAW.
The moment a ship is hindered in any of these abilities,no matter the tonnage,range,the lethality of the weapon system.It is not a destroyer. It maybe a powerful frigate ship,it maybe capable sinking many destroyers,but it is not a destroyer. That is classification for you.
Even if it is heavier than a destroyer but lacks in one of those abilities,it is not a destroyer.
Aradu was classified in the 80s not 2020 as a destroyer based on 80s warfare,the most you can say is that its outdated as a destroyer.
yes or No, when Aradu was built and designated by some as a destroyer, was its depth charges effective to keep it operating at sea for a long period without help?
Yes or no is the current Meko200 (depending on configuration)as effective in full spectrum warfare far from home as Aradu was in its day?

Do you have the Excocert mk3 on your ship? Hence your ship is outdated.

Frigates are designed for different tasks, if an A200 for AAW for example weighs at 4000 tons the vast majority of its systems will be SAM. it could even have no torpedoes. Tonnage says nothing about what is stored in a frigate,rather the role it plays says a lot e.g. the south african A200 is AAW hence 0-4 anti-ship missiles.

The Arleigh burke was built a destroyer from the beginning,and averages 9k tonnes with 6 torpedo tubes just like Aradu.

Again, Destroyer is based on capable full spectrum warfare on one ship with the endurance to fight that war away from home lacking in no area of warfare.It should be able to hold its own at sea far from home. Most Meko 200 can do this in the AAW and ASUW area,but compared to a destroyer,they lack this in ASW. Can the maker design an A200 closer to Aradu?Yes definitely,but nobody asked for it.
Edit.
Even though Aradu can be classified as a destroyer by its function,its tonnage re-classifies it as a light/mini destroyer with moderate endurance. I have said this in my earlier post.
The Arleigh Burke is a standard destroyer because it has a weapons cache for extended warfare.

dragon2:

Destroyer
ASuW,ASW,AAW.
The moment a ship is hindered in any of these abilities,no matter the tonnage,range,the lethality of the weapon system.It is not a destroyer. It maybe a powerful frigate ship,it maybe capable sinking many destroyers,but it is not a destroyer. That is classification for you.
Even if it is heavier than a destroyer but lacks in one of those abilities,it is not a destroyer.
Aradu was classified in the 80s not 2020 as a destroyer based on 80s warfare,the most you can say is that its outdated as a destroyer.
yes or No, when Aradu was built and designated by some as a destroyer, was its depth charges effective to keep it operating at sea for a long period without help?
Yes or no is the current Meko200 (depending on configuration)as effective in full spectrum warfare far from home as Aradu was in its day?

Do you have the Excocert mk3 on your ship? Hence your ship is outdated.

Frigates are designed for different tasks, if an A200 for AAW for example weighs at 4000 tons the vast majority of its systems will be SAM. it could even have no torpedoes. Tonnage says nothing about what is stored in a frigate,rather the role it plays says a lot e.g. the south african A200 is AAW hence 0-4 anti-ship missiles.

The Arleigh burke was built a destroyer from the beginning,and averages 9k tonnes with 6 torpedo tubes just like Aradu.

Again, Destroyer is based on capable full spectrum warfare on one ship with the endurance to fight that war away from home lacking in no area of warfare.It should be able to hold its own at sea far from home. Most Meko 200 can do this in the AAW and ASUW area,but compared to a destroyer,they lack this in ASW. Can the maker design an A200 closer to Aradu?Yes definitely,but nobody asked for it.
Edit.
Even though Aradu can be classified as a destroyer by its function,its tonnage re-classifies it as a light/mini destroyer with moderate endurance. I have said this in my earlier post.
The Arleigh Burke is a standard destroyer because it has a weapons cache for extended warfare.

OMG you are ignorant!!

Firstly since you forgot: The MEKO® A-200 follows the famous MEKO® 200 series in a long line of general-purpose frigates. A fighting ship capable of full 4-dimensional warfare (AAW, ASW and ASuW, BCW) - Manufacturer

Secondly you have yet to show me how the Meko200 lacks in ASW compared to Aradu or any other destroyer for that matter

Thirdly the Arleigh Burke-class only has 2 torpedoe tubes not 6 and you get different types of destroyers like the Type 45 destroyer which is an anti air destroyer and doesn't fit your narrative of what a destroyer is in the slightest since it has 0 torpedo tubes.... Does this make it a frigate??

Again I'm not talking about the Valour class which is currently fitted with 8(not 4 as you mentioned) exocet Mk2 ASMs I'm talking about the Meko200 in general which has been fitted with up to 16 RBS15 ASMs.

And yes the Meko200 is just as effective(if not more) in full spectrum warfare than Aradu was back in the day. The Meko200 was built to replace the Meko360.... In simple terms it's just an upgrade from the Meko360.

There is nothing we will not see here. Meko 200 vs Meko 360. The ship builders chose the numbers 200 and 360 for a reason.

I don't know when 200 becomes greater or equal to 360.

Or is Meko 130 better than Meko 200?

Or iphone 5 is greater than iphone 8. Funny men everywhere.

For information purpose, the title of "Africa's most powerful ship" has not been taken from Aradu. Even modern ships of North African countries do not sufficiently beat the Aradu to win over that title. A Nuclear, Biological, Chemical defence capable ship.

Back to hibernation mode.