Thrust to ’empty’ weight means nothing. Empty weight = no fuel, no fuel = no thrust; no thrust = meaningless comparison (since zero divided by any number is still zero).

Further that 1st table divides Newtons by kilograms for TWR. To have any meaning both units have to be in either newtons or kilograms.

Wing area to weight ratio will provide wing aspect ratio. Which can be used to calculate corner velocity, which can be used to calculate ITR. Those numbers by itself have little use other than stating the aspect ratio of the wing.

I, too, have never signed a treaty that I would be voluntarily paying taxes but I still have to.. This is what I call law – mandatory for all even without their agreement.

In return for your taxes you get Police, Fire, Ambulance, Road and rail networks, health and education , defense and other assorted services from your country. Further you (hopefully) elect your government who pass the laws.

Who passes “International Laws”? Who elects the representatives? There is no such thing as an International Parliament, and there is no such thing as “International Law”. Your comparison is ridiculous. Individuals are not countries.

There are only international treaties to which countries sign on or decline. If countries sign the treaties they agree to abide by its rules and reap the assigned benefits – if they don’t they are not obligated to abide by that treaty and hence they do not get the benefits of that treaty.

obligatory,

How does that matter why or when Iran signed it?

Iran implicitly agrees it is a signatory when it insists the NPT allows it to enrich Uranium up to a certain level. The treaty obligations restrict a signatory from enriching Uranium to weapons grade level, and/or stepping down the path towards developing nuclear weapons. The level of enrichment, and designing nuclear weapon, is what this contentious issue is all about.

Any signatory can withdraw from the treaty by citing supreme national interest and providing 90 days notice. Iran can do the same – at that time it would face similar sanctions wrt nuclear technologies and fuel that are faced by other non-signatories. It clearly has not chosen to opt out (yet?).

When the israelis would have handed over their last nuclear warheads … and they will adhere to all the international non-proliferation treaties and abide by them,….

Iran has all the right to develop nuclear wepons if they want to, …

You’ve got that backwards.

Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty and has no obligation to allow IAEA inspectors into its country or not develop atomic weapons.

Iran OTOH has signed the NPT and is obligated NOT to develop atomic bombs. It gave up its right to develop nuclear weapons when it signed the treaty.

The color in Indian Tri-Color is Saffron and not orange and it is a known fact that America really hates the Saffron brigade in India. So maybe….it was a deliberate act???

:rolleyes:

Or it could just be an incorrect WB setting, or differently post-processed. Cool down my hypertensive friend.

Mk1 Eyeball test clearly shows that the 800L are installed and the 1200L at on the ground, with the latter representing only a pair is possible to carry. The display placards are clearly in the wrong places.

Its a wide-angle shot – with wide-angle shots objects closer to the lens appear larger than they really are.

Not saying the eyeball test is wrong but this should be considered before drawing conclusions.

This YouTube video shows the LCA with 800 ltr drop tanks – these are red nosed. In the image above the tanks are black nosed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v–5oSqA1nQ

Common sense would indicate there would be some way of visually differentiating drop tanks of different capacities, without having to walk up to each one and read the specifications individually.

Unlikely – not with St. Anthony as Raksha Mantri.

Pure speculation, an Indian ICBM programme doesn’t exist.

Presently India’s missile policy is limited to 5000-7000 km. GoI has explicitly stated they do not want an ICBM, and there is no policy in place for longer ranged missiles.

If an ICBM was under development, it would have been stated as part of the nuclear policy, and DRDO would have published it as a development project in its reports to parliament.

Consider; it never hid the development efforts put into developing the K15 for the Arihant. Neither were they circumspect about mentioning their 5000-7000 km missile goal, which the DRDO states as a variant of he Agni.

If the GoI decides in the future to develop an ICBM it would probably show up as a development project in DRDO’s annual report to parliament as an Agni variant. Long before that the GoI would have stated their desire to have an ICBM.

I would ignore reports from organizations such as NR, FAS etc… they have no connections within India, and their speculations are based on their contacts within the US intelligence community. 2nd and 3rd hand information is unlikely to be reliable.