AFAIK, gasoline is what USians call the stuff that most cars (automobiles) run on. We call that petrol. Paraffin is different: I think you may call it kerosene in the USA. It's used here in camping stoves & the like. It was once common for domestic heating, but that was many years ago.
appropiate technology for poorer nations
- Thread starter peterAustralia
- Start date
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Paraffin is indeed what the yanks call kerosene.
I can still remember the old, tall, free standing, brass/brown coloured paraffin heaters we had when I was a very young child. Even then it was just for emergency back up, as we already had central heating.
I remember the old Paraffin adds as well.
Pink Paraffin and good ole... "Boom Boom Boom Boom Esso Blue!"
I can still remember the old, tall, free standing, brass/brown coloured paraffin heaters we had when I was a very young child. Even then it was just for emergency back up, as we already had central heating.
I remember the old Paraffin adds as well.
Pink Paraffin and good ole... "Boom Boom Boom Boom Esso Blue!"
I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't intended as a ego enhancement rather than for any military application. The $124 million per unit price tag seems very excessive. Consider that two demilitarized SU-27's can be found on the net right now for $5 million each and India is building SU-30MKI's for about $34million a pop.
Uganda justified the need for these high-performance jets because regional neighbors like Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan operate MiG-29s. However, looking at the condition of Uganda's other air force buys, I expect these jets will also become hanger queens in the very near future.
Interesting article:
April 26, 2012: Ugandan Su-30 fighter pilots are leaving the air force. Two of the eight recently trained Su-30 pilots have already resigned and the other six are threatening to do the same. Ugandan Air Force fighter pilots are paid $500 a month, while foreign pilots brought in to do the same work receive $8,000 a month. The government promised its Ugandan Su-30 pilots a raise last year but the money never came through.
Oil was discovered in Uganda five years ago, so now there is something to defend and a way to pay for it. Su-30s cost several million dollars a year to maintain. The Su-30 can carry more than eight tons of bombs and hit targets over 1,500 kilometers away.
Uganda justified the need for these high-performance jets because regional neighbors like Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan operate MiG-29s. However, looking at the condition of Uganda's other air force buys, I expect these jets will also become hanger queens in the very near future.
Interesting article:
April 26, 2012: Ugandan Su-30 fighter pilots are leaving the air force. Two of the eight recently trained Su-30 pilots have already resigned and the other six are threatening to do the same. Ugandan Air Force fighter pilots are paid $500 a month, while foreign pilots brought in to do the same work receive $8,000 a month. The government promised its Ugandan Su-30 pilots a raise last year but the money never came through.
Oil was discovered in Uganda five years ago, so now there is something to defend and a way to pay for it. Su-30s cost several million dollars a year to maintain. The Su-30 can carry more than eight tons of bombs and hit targets over 1,500 kilometers away.
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
A few things, I know I am repeating myself here.
Uganda buying Su30s / Su27s does not seem smart to me. Yes as deterrance they are good assets, trouble is that they have limited utility on the battlefield when the most likely enemy is likely to be small bands of infantry. Armies in africa tend to have more infantry and less equipment, mainly because wages are so cheap. With tens of millions of people earning 1 dollar a day (or less) paying a soldier 5 dollars a day becomes better value for money that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a 155mm artillery gun or a tank.
Uganda does not share a land border with Ethiopia, though they are within air range.
Most of Ugandas neighbours are very poor countries (very very poor), eg Tanzania, DR Congo, South Sudan.
Thus in my opinion Uganda would be better off first focusing on air assets that can actually make a difference on the battlefield, and once they have that sorted out, then concentrate on a strategic deterrence. Appropiate aircraft would be recoinaisance aircraft, helicopters, STOL transports, piston engined strike aircraft. Planes that can be maintained, and would be ready to be used when the time comes.
My guess is that of the Su30s they have, only 1 or 2 would be available at any one time. Not much use against a force like the LRA, a few hundred infantry that caused massive economic, social, and personal cost.
Most wars in Africa, and there have been a lot of them, have generally been land forces fighting eachother, with airforces not making a huge difference. Eg MPLA (name from memory) vs UNITA, Mozambique vs Renamo (name from memory), Rhodesian whites vs insurgents. DR Congo war. etc etc
As a hypothetical, the Iran-Iraq war where 1 million people died. If say Iran had built ten thousand piston engined light strike aircraft with machine guns and rockets, they could probably have made quite a differnece on teh battlefield. Sure they might have lost 2000 pilots in the sky, but that is not a lot when you compare 700,000 or so dead on the ground.
sorry for the rant,,, will move on soon
Uganda buying Su30s / Su27s does not seem smart to me. Yes as deterrance they are good assets, trouble is that they have limited utility on the battlefield when the most likely enemy is likely to be small bands of infantry. Armies in africa tend to have more infantry and less equipment, mainly because wages are so cheap. With tens of millions of people earning 1 dollar a day (or less) paying a soldier 5 dollars a day becomes better value for money that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a 155mm artillery gun or a tank.
Uganda does not share a land border with Ethiopia, though they are within air range.
Most of Ugandas neighbours are very poor countries (very very poor), eg Tanzania, DR Congo, South Sudan.
Thus in my opinion Uganda would be better off first focusing on air assets that can actually make a difference on the battlefield, and once they have that sorted out, then concentrate on a strategic deterrence. Appropiate aircraft would be recoinaisance aircraft, helicopters, STOL transports, piston engined strike aircraft. Planes that can be maintained, and would be ready to be used when the time comes.
My guess is that of the Su30s they have, only 1 or 2 would be available at any one time. Not much use against a force like the LRA, a few hundred infantry that caused massive economic, social, and personal cost.
Most wars in Africa, and there have been a lot of them, have generally been land forces fighting eachother, with airforces not making a huge difference. Eg MPLA (name from memory) vs UNITA, Mozambique vs Renamo (name from memory), Rhodesian whites vs insurgents. DR Congo war. etc etc
As a hypothetical, the Iran-Iraq war where 1 million people died. If say Iran had built ten thousand piston engined light strike aircraft with machine guns and rockets, they could probably have made quite a differnece on teh battlefield. Sure they might have lost 2000 pilots in the sky, but that is not a lot when you compare 700,000 or so dead on the ground.
sorry for the rant,,, will move on soon
10,000 aircraft on the battlefield at the same time? Yes, that would have quite an effect. That is more aircraft than the Allies ever managed to have active on any day in WWII.
Not sure how you arrived at 10,000 piston engine light strike aircraft, could it be by assuming they are 1/20th the cost of jet aircraft? And you completely ignore the logistical requirements for expanding the number of pilots 20 fold, and maintenance and the rest about 10 fold. And the facilities. Call it a 5,000,000 man air force (The Iranian air force is currently about 500 aircraft and 500,000 men), Iran just does not have the manpower, that is 3x their entire regular forces. Not very realistic.
Those aircraft are helpless against modern AAM’s, and lack the speed and operating altitude to engage jet fighters that are not dumb enough to try and dog-fight them. Let’s say 200 Iraqi fighters (both sides had more than that) x 4 missiles/fighter x 40% success rate, call it 320 losses per day, so in 30 days all 10,000 are gone. And that does not include the effects of radar guided AAA, which would be extremely effective against these machines. The heavy SAMs we can probably discount, a few hundred kills and they will be out of missiles.
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
Yeah ok mate... so it is all cool for Uganda, a dirt poor nation to spend 750 mill on Su30s, yet not have anything that could make a difference in actual conflicts they have been in. (LRA. intervention in DR Congo,,, war with Tanzania... )
10,000 was possibly a bit high, but if your saying light aircraft are not worth it, then are you aware that jets can shoot down helicopters too. Given that logic they should not have had put the Cobra attack helis in the air. Plus the good F-14s they had could have shot down any jets that got down close enough to shoot IIraqi interceptors. Much better to do nothing, have 700,000 dead on the battlefield, because if you put some planes up there, some of them might have got shot down,... way better
A single piston engined aircraft with a few MGs and a couple of rockets is not a very high tech piece of kit, the technology is 100 years old
10,000 was possibly a bit high, but if your saying light aircraft are not worth it, then are you aware that jets can shoot down helicopters too. Given that logic they should not have had put the Cobra attack helis in the air. Plus the good F-14s they had could have shot down any jets that got down close enough to shoot IIraqi interceptors. Much better to do nothing, have 700,000 dead on the battlefield, because if you put some planes up there, some of them might have got shot down,... way better
A single piston engined aircraft with a few MGs and a couple of rockets is not a very high tech piece of kit, the technology is 100 years old
You meant 10,000 single piston engine aircraft in addition to what they already had to supply CAP for them? I thought you meant instead of the air force they had. Please be a little clearer next time.
That assumes that Uganda's economy, foreign policy and defense needs will remained static for the next 50 years. They won't.
Events in the region can change quickly; but gaining fast jet capacity overnight can't be done. The Su-30s serve as a counter to any regional rivals who might acquire fighters as well. Plus, they give Uganda something big, splashy and unique to contribute to AU peacekeeping operations.
In buying Su-30s, Uganda is buying jet fighters. But it's also buying valuable training time and institutional knowledge that will leave it better prepared to operate other types of jet aircraft in the future.
Admittedly, it wouldn't have been my decision either. Jet trainers/light attacks might have been a more practical choice. Nevertheless, the Ugandan decision to buy fighters has some sense to it.
Iran's F-14s are aged and barely (if at all) airworthy thanks to spares shortages.
Light aircraft are worth it; but they aren't the Swiss army knife you seems to think they are.
Helicopters, light aircraft and fast movers are NOT comparable. Sure, their missions (e.g. CAS) may overlap occasionally; but their performance, roles and tactical employment all differ widely.
As other posters have said, they can't be substituted for each other.
At first glance, no. But you're oversimplifying things a bit here.
1) There's still plenty of technology and sophistication involved in a turboprop CAS/COIN platform. Dumb bombs and MGs create risk for collateral damage. Not some you want in COIN operations or low-intensity transborder conflicts.
To overcome this, you want guided weapons, sensors, avionics, etc. plus cooperating C4ISR assets and the air. We aren't talking a rehash of the Red Baron here. All this adds cost, personnel and basing needs.
Small fixed-wing air is lower cost and lower-tech, but it is far from no-cost or completely low-tech
From all the above discussion one sentence which I can determine is really valuable that is "Another little anecdote, I read that when Zanzibar became independant (became part of Tanzania) it spent a lot of money building the worlds largest outdoor swimming pool, in a swamp. It promptly sank as it was heavy and made of concrete. "
This is really inspiring.
This is really inspiring.
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
I forgot about this thread, was only 5 months ago but gee it feels like so much longer now (not sure why that is)
I wish I could recall the book about Zanzibar swimming pool and give a reference (it may have been a John Perkins book)
When the Europeans left africa , they often did so in a hurry. There were not the experts, professionals, trained officials etc left to run the country properly. Quite often the big man got into power and the country is run at his whim (generally a he), and was not very accountable. Think Tanzania was linked to the USSR in the cold war and as a result they tended to follow some of their economic policies which were pretty daft.
With bad decisions countries often got into debt and civil strife (sometimes war)
Over time africans have slowly been getting out of the whole they started with.
Examples when the Portuguese left Mozambique they were pi**** off to lose their colony and poured concrete down the elevator shafts. South africa deemed Mozambique a potential threat (they were worried about hundres of millions of blacks heading south), so they deliberately fermented civil wars in their neighbouring countries. The theory was that if they were fighting eachother they would be less of a threat to South Africa. Now ethically this is probably not very nice, from a realpolitik point of view it was quite effective. (I am not condoning what they did,,, am just saying that it did work)
Sometimes (not always though) the superpowers gave bad advice. Often the world bank was supporting big flashy projects paid for with debt (international airports, large dams, steel works etc) that were not really suitable. Over time the World Bank has got better at what it does and has learnt from its mistakes in the past.
The russians had awful economic ideas, though sometimes the US did bad things too. They would deliberatly fly their 'experts' in to a newly independent country, advise them that the way to development was flashy large projects (highways, oil refineries etc), that they could not really afford. The country would follow the advice, and end up in debt. Now the US is the creditor to the poorer nation and has huge bargaining influence over that nation which was now in a very poor position. They could use this influence to promote their cold war aims against the russians.
Not particularly ethical, but quite effective. This strategy is explained in detail in John Perkin's book.
I liked reading this thread again, because in about 20 or 30 posts it provides a huge amount on information. Here in australia we hear a lot about the US, not much about africa, even though there are many more africans than americans. Why is this, maybe because americans are rich, americans make a lot of TV and news programs, americans speak english and often come from a european background (i mean they are white)
so much to learn,, so little time
I wish I could recall the book about Zanzibar swimming pool and give a reference (it may have been a John Perkins book)
When the Europeans left africa , they often did so in a hurry. There were not the experts, professionals, trained officials etc left to run the country properly. Quite often the big man got into power and the country is run at his whim (generally a he), and was not very accountable. Think Tanzania was linked to the USSR in the cold war and as a result they tended to follow some of their economic policies which were pretty daft.
With bad decisions countries often got into debt and civil strife (sometimes war)
Over time africans have slowly been getting out of the whole they started with.
Examples when the Portuguese left Mozambique they were pi**** off to lose their colony and poured concrete down the elevator shafts. South africa deemed Mozambique a potential threat (they were worried about hundres of millions of blacks heading south), so they deliberately fermented civil wars in their neighbouring countries. The theory was that if they were fighting eachother they would be less of a threat to South Africa. Now ethically this is probably not very nice, from a realpolitik point of view it was quite effective. (I am not condoning what they did,,, am just saying that it did work)
Sometimes (not always though) the superpowers gave bad advice. Often the world bank was supporting big flashy projects paid for with debt (international airports, large dams, steel works etc) that were not really suitable. Over time the World Bank has got better at what it does and has learnt from its mistakes in the past.
The russians had awful economic ideas, though sometimes the US did bad things too. They would deliberatly fly their 'experts' in to a newly independent country, advise them that the way to development was flashy large projects (highways, oil refineries etc), that they could not really afford. The country would follow the advice, and end up in debt. Now the US is the creditor to the poorer nation and has huge bargaining influence over that nation which was now in a very poor position. They could use this influence to promote their cold war aims against the russians.
Not particularly ethical, but quite effective. This strategy is explained in detail in John Perkin's book.
I liked reading this thread again, because in about 20 or 30 posts it provides a huge amount on information. Here in australia we hear a lot about the US, not much about africa, even though there are many more africans than americans. Why is this, maybe because americans are rich, americans make a lot of TV and news programs, americans speak english and often come from a european background (i mean they are white)
so much to learn,, so little time
Greetings everyone im new here.
My one cent worth of opinion is that S.Africa should have not bought the grippens and hawks but rather should have formed a joint venture with Pakistan on acquiring the jf-17 from China. This would have enabled the country to get skill and technology transfers on jet manufuctring, considering that we have fledging aircraft maintenance industry, this would have taken the industry to new hights!
Furthermore Pakistan has formed partnerships with the French in building subs, our country should have sought similar ventures because these help with skills and technology transfers, but the Mbeki cabinet was too pre-occupied with bribes that bae was paying them than getting invloved in deals that would increase defense skill base in the country.
My one cent worth of opinion is that S.Africa should have not bought the grippens and hawks but rather should have formed a joint venture with Pakistan on acquiring the jf-17 from China. This would have enabled the country to get skill and technology transfers on jet manufuctring, considering that we have fledging aircraft maintenance industry, this would have taken the industry to new hights!
Furthermore Pakistan has formed partnerships with the French in building subs, our country should have sought similar ventures because these help with skills and technology transfers, but the Mbeki cabinet was too pre-occupied with bribes that bae was paying them than getting invloved in deals that would increase defense skill base in the country.
Yes you are new here but you must first, read the posting rules and secondly, if you make allegations against the Mbeki cabinet, you must provide some source material that supports that claim.
Cheers and welcome.
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
I will chose my words very very carefully.
I might be unpopular (or should I say more unpopular), but here goes. I dont know if that specific company and that administration were involved in undesirable behavior, what I do know is that questions were asked in regard to that specific contract. (link below).
Military sales are prone to corruption because of the huge sums involved, and the complication of the sale. Example you sell a plane to a customer. Do you charge the price just for the plane, or a much, much larger price that involves training, spare parts, maintenance, upgrades, higher end components, offset deals etc etc. The opposite might be say buying a tractor, you can just shop around, look at tractor prices and get an idea of what they cost. With a complicated militray sale it becomes harder to work out what a standard price should be. You can always say well, this tank cost more but it has a longer range, better gun, better optics etc etc. With a truck, a tractor, a shed it is harder to complicate things.
I know that at my last workplace, trying to send a tiny amount of steel to Indonesia, caused real headaches. We ended up sending fake invoices. For $50 of steel, we would add a fake invoice for $100, and just pay the 100 percent import tarriff of $100. Just not worth the aggravation
Anyone recall the Bofors contract to sell 155mm guns to India?
Why are there unconfirmed reports that Vladimir Putins personal wealth is in the tens of billions of dollars.
Whey when russians sell arms they go through a holding company, Rosoboronexport, they mark up the price massively, where does all the money go.
Iran's Qods forces is invloved in many business deals and is sometimes thought of as a state within a state.
Transperancy.org says that 20 billion dollars is lost annually in military sales corruption. I assume most of this is done in third world countries where accountability standards are not as high, and wages for officials are much, much less and thus the temptation so much greater. Also with miltary sales, there is the 'advantage' of not revealing all aspects of the contract due to military secrecy issues.
For what its worth, BAE seems to have made an effort to get things good. My understanding was that it was involved in the huge contract to sell arms to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s (questions were asked and then dropped when it threatened to jeapordise british interest - assume this means future british arms sales). However now transperancy.org rates it a B on a scale of A to F. Dassualt rates a D. To quote transerancy.org "while 47 companies from countries ranging from China and Russia to Pakistan rate an F". A new study had rated BAE higher that EADS in anti-corruption measures
apparently BAE was fined 400 million for middlemen deals in 2010, quote below and (link below)
In 2010, the US Department of Justice fined BAE $400m for lying about its payments to middlemen but noted that the company had since made progress in putting in place mechanisms to prevent a repeat of its transgressions. (full link below).
Corruption by topic - Defence and security
BBC News - Defence firms 'not open about anti-corruption measures'
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_scandal"]Agusta scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
BAE tops EADS in anti-corruption study - FT.com
The Arms Trade is Big Business
allAfrica.com: Zimbabwe: 'ZDI in Secret Diamond Sales'
Saudi Arabia & America: Arm Sales & Corruption | Worldwide Info Forum | Global Information Exchange Network
Greece - Corruption in Defense Procurement
I think BAE is working to improve its issues. It may/maynot have had issues in the past. It must be very difficult for smaller time officials in a large company, to know that they can win huge contracts, and all they have to do is pay a few commissions. With so many sales, with such huge money to be made, when dealing with countries that have huge levels of internal corruption, to claim that all companies (or all western companies) conduct every deal in a squeaky clean manner is asking a bit much.
I know this topic is perhaps not one that many are keen to talk about, but just because people dont talk about it, does not mean that questionable things dont happen.
I might be unpopular (or should I say more unpopular), but here goes. I dont know if that specific company and that administration were involved in undesirable behavior, what I do know is that questions were asked in regard to that specific contract. (link below).
Military sales are prone to corruption because of the huge sums involved, and the complication of the sale. Example you sell a plane to a customer. Do you charge the price just for the plane, or a much, much larger price that involves training, spare parts, maintenance, upgrades, higher end components, offset deals etc etc. The opposite might be say buying a tractor, you can just shop around, look at tractor prices and get an idea of what they cost. With a complicated militray sale it becomes harder to work out what a standard price should be. You can always say well, this tank cost more but it has a longer range, better gun, better optics etc etc. With a truck, a tractor, a shed it is harder to complicate things.
I know that at my last workplace, trying to send a tiny amount of steel to Indonesia, caused real headaches. We ended up sending fake invoices. For $50 of steel, we would add a fake invoice for $100, and just pay the 100 percent import tarriff of $100. Just not worth the aggravation
Anyone recall the Bofors contract to sell 155mm guns to India?
Why are there unconfirmed reports that Vladimir Putins personal wealth is in the tens of billions of dollars.
Whey when russians sell arms they go through a holding company, Rosoboronexport, they mark up the price massively, where does all the money go.
Iran's Qods forces is invloved in many business deals and is sometimes thought of as a state within a state.
Transperancy.org says that 20 billion dollars is lost annually in military sales corruption. I assume most of this is done in third world countries where accountability standards are not as high, and wages for officials are much, much less and thus the temptation so much greater. Also with miltary sales, there is the 'advantage' of not revealing all aspects of the contract due to military secrecy issues.
For what its worth, BAE seems to have made an effort to get things good. My understanding was that it was involved in the huge contract to sell arms to Saudi Arabia in the 1980s (questions were asked and then dropped when it threatened to jeapordise british interest - assume this means future british arms sales). However now transperancy.org rates it a B on a scale of A to F. Dassualt rates a D. To quote transerancy.org "while 47 companies from countries ranging from China and Russia to Pakistan rate an F". A new study had rated BAE higher that EADS in anti-corruption measures
apparently BAE was fined 400 million for middlemen deals in 2010, quote below and (link below)
In 2010, the US Department of Justice fined BAE $400m for lying about its payments to middlemen but noted that the company had since made progress in putting in place mechanisms to prevent a repeat of its transgressions. (full link below).
Corruption by topic - Defence and security
BBC News - Defence firms 'not open about anti-corruption measures'
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_scandal"]Agusta scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
BAE tops EADS in anti-corruption study - FT.com
The Arms Trade is Big Business
allAfrica.com: Zimbabwe: 'ZDI in Secret Diamond Sales'
Saudi Arabia & America: Arm Sales & Corruption | Worldwide Info Forum | Global Information Exchange Network
Greece - Corruption in Defense Procurement
I think BAE is working to improve its issues. It may/maynot have had issues in the past. It must be very difficult for smaller time officials in a large company, to know that they can win huge contracts, and all they have to do is pay a few commissions. With so many sales, with such huge money to be made, when dealing with countries that have huge levels of internal corruption, to claim that all companies (or all western companies) conduct every deal in a squeaky clean manner is asking a bit much.
I know this topic is perhaps not one that many are keen to talk about, but just because people dont talk about it, does not mean that questionable things dont happen.
And WHY is a long post about defence company corruption at all relevant to the thread (or even this forum area at all?) at hand?
The link is tenuous at best
The link is tenuous at best
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
One last little quote before I bow out for a few months and move onto other things (building rowing boats, more rowing, building outrigger canoes, sailing and bushwalking)
The first post in this thread mentioned a Gripen buy for South Africa
here is another link
Politicsweb - Why hasn`t Mbeki been called on testify on arms deal? - PARTY
It seems SA (south africa) cant afford to buy fuel for these planes, cant afford to train pilots, cant afford to maintain them, here is an extract
No less than Admiral Alan Green, the SANDF's head of strategy, confirmed in Parliament on November 28, 2012 that all four frigates and three submarines aircraft are functionally useless. Similarly, Green confirmed that the Air Force has insufficient funds even to keep the BAE Hawk and BAE/Saab Gripen fighter aircraft in the air
They predicted, rightly as it transpired, that these extremely expensive vessels would consequently be fit only for scrap within five years after delivery.
What I am getting at (my main premise), is this. If an economy is strong, and can afford to maintain high end equipment then sure go for it. I have zero problems with Korea, Australia, Japan etc buying expensive equipment,
But some nations have extreme levels of poverty and just dont have the funds to maintain expensive equipment. They may be better off buying less capable, cheaper and easier to maintain pieces of equipment that can actually be used. There does not seem much logic in SA buying submarines if they sit on the concrete year in year out and dont get wet (well that is my humble logic,,,, but hey what do I know,, I am not employed as a military procrument specialist)
Just maybe they (SA) would have been better off with more BAE Hawks (I think there is an attack verssion of this plane). Maybe they would have been better off buying simple OPVs with a simple SSM and SAM capability, that they could afford to get to sea, as opposed to high end frigates which dont leave dock.
I cant really see Zimbabwe or Botswana being a strategic threat to SA. Zimbabwe might have a few chinese versions of the mig 21 they can get into the air, plus maybe a couple of Hind attack helicopters, but SA's land forces would far exceed Zimbabwe's and the damage they could do would be limited (IMHO). My guess is the main thing that would make a difference on the ground is the Hinds, doubt the F-7 jets would do much damage. I am going to bow out for a few months, get on with the rest of my life,,, do some sailing . Aside,,, sailing outrigger canoes are cool (my personal interest, this last comment is an absolute fact, definately not opinion!!!!)
The first post in this thread mentioned a Gripen buy for South Africa
here is another link
Politicsweb - Why hasn`t Mbeki been called on testify on arms deal? - PARTY
It seems SA (south africa) cant afford to buy fuel for these planes, cant afford to train pilots, cant afford to maintain them, here is an extract
No less than Admiral Alan Green, the SANDF's head of strategy, confirmed in Parliament on November 28, 2012 that all four frigates and three submarines aircraft are functionally useless. Similarly, Green confirmed that the Air Force has insufficient funds even to keep the BAE Hawk and BAE/Saab Gripen fighter aircraft in the air
They predicted, rightly as it transpired, that these extremely expensive vessels would consequently be fit only for scrap within five years after delivery.
What I am getting at (my main premise), is this. If an economy is strong, and can afford to maintain high end equipment then sure go for it. I have zero problems with Korea, Australia, Japan etc buying expensive equipment,
But some nations have extreme levels of poverty and just dont have the funds to maintain expensive equipment. They may be better off buying less capable, cheaper and easier to maintain pieces of equipment that can actually be used. There does not seem much logic in SA buying submarines if they sit on the concrete year in year out and dont get wet (well that is my humble logic,,,, but hey what do I know,, I am not employed as a military procrument specialist)
Just maybe they (SA) would have been better off with more BAE Hawks (I think there is an attack verssion of this plane). Maybe they would have been better off buying simple OPVs with a simple SSM and SAM capability, that they could afford to get to sea, as opposed to high end frigates which dont leave dock.
I cant really see Zimbabwe or Botswana being a strategic threat to SA. Zimbabwe might have a few chinese versions of the mig 21 they can get into the air, plus maybe a couple of Hind attack helicopters, but SA's land forces would far exceed Zimbabwe's and the damage they could do would be limited (IMHO). My guess is the main thing that would make a difference on the ground is the Hinds, doubt the F-7 jets would do much damage. I am going to bow out for a few months, get on with the rest of my life,,, do some sailing . Aside,,, sailing outrigger canoes are cool (my personal interest, this last comment is an absolute fact, definately not opinion!!!!)
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
To Rob
I am buying out. I think forever, please feel free to end my membership (would prefer to be called a former member as opposed to a banned member, but thats not my call)
Part of the context was that high end equipment that may not be appropiate is at times linked to corruption. Additionally ASSAIL asked for some sources on the assertions about the SA cabinet. Some simple internet search provided a lot of information.
To a person from SA, I can see that spending billions on dollars on planes that dont fly and submarines that do not get wet to be fairly important. In my humble opinion is more relevant information than the armour thickness of tank X vs tank Y
Goodbye forever, please feel free to end my membership please.
I am buying out. I think forever, please feel free to end my membership (would prefer to be called a former member as opposed to a banned member, but thats not my call)
Part of the context was that high end equipment that may not be appropiate is at times linked to corruption. Additionally ASSAIL asked for some sources on the assertions about the SA cabinet. Some simple internet search provided a lot of information.
To a person from SA, I can see that spending billions on dollars on planes that dont fly and submarines that do not get wet to be fairly important. In my humble opinion is more relevant information than the armour thickness of tank X vs tank Y
Goodbye forever, please feel free to end my membership please.
Why do you want your membership ended? I'm not sure I see so much trouble in this thread that it would necessitate something like that.
peterAustralia
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #38
To move on with my life
less time on the internet, more time in the real world
I would appreciate it
time to move on with my life
less time on the internet, more time in the real world
I would appreciate it
time to move on with my life
Well, that's fair enough mate, but I don't see why you'd want your membership gone. It's easier for all parties to leave you as a member here, that way if you ever feel like participating again, you can use the same login. But if you wish to move on, simply not visiting the forums is the way to do it. There's no point in burning bridges though - I'm not going to ban you for feeling that way.
Best of luck with whatever you choose to do, and maybe I'll see you around some time.
Cheers
Wrt thread title, wouldn't troop/equipment movement be the biggest challenge - all three modes?
1. Plenty of basic 4x4 vehicles for bulk troop/equipment movement.
2. Affordable(non-cutting edge technology type, i.e.: fine if it comes back in one piece, fine if it doesn't type) UAV/UCAV for recconaisance/attack.
3. Fighter pilot embedded in foreign airforce/army, wouldn't that person be a mercenary?
4. In which case, wouldn't it be cheaper(perhaps even more effective), to 'award' assignment contracts to such outfits, with local troops in supporting roles - pretty much like what the French forces are doing in Mali(not necessarily based on this modal of course)?
1. Plenty of basic 4x4 vehicles for bulk troop/equipment movement.
2. Affordable(non-cutting edge technology type, i.e.: fine if it comes back in one piece, fine if it doesn't type) UAV/UCAV for recconaisance/attack.
3. Fighter pilot embedded in foreign airforce/army, wouldn't that person be a mercenary?
4. In which case, wouldn't it be cheaper(perhaps even more effective), to 'award' assignment contracts to such outfits, with local troops in supporting roles - pretty much like what the French forces are doing in Mali(not necessarily based on this modal of course)?