Golden_ArrowFC-1 engine is and will be RD-93. It is just an empty statment ahead of indian visit to gain some contacts. Russia will repeat these statement untill FC-1 engine deal is signed some time next year by that time it would have cough up Indian contracts.
I guess you have your conversation with Vladimir Putin to back that claim up? :diablo: :rolleyes:
Golden_Arrow2004-12-01 19:44
RUSSIA NOT TO COOPERATE WITH PAKISTAN IN MILITARY SPHERE IF INDIA CONSIDERS RUSSIAN INTERESTS
MOSCOW, December 1 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will not cooperate with Pakistan in the military sphere, if India takes into account all Russia’s interests in the field of military-technical cooperation, a source in the Russian Defense Ministry told RIA Novosti.
Otherwise, the Russian side may resume arms trade with Pakistan, the source said.
“If India does not take into account all our interests, it should make us no conditions and demand Russia not to trade with Pakistan,” the source stressed.
According to him, at the moment Russia and Pakistan do not cooperate in the military sphere.
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5158357&startrow=11&date=2004-12-01&do_alert=0
Golden_ArrowIndia to pay $2 billion for Russian weaponry
01 December 2004 14:47
President Vladimir Putin will visit India on December 3-5, when contracts for the delivery of Russian submarines and aircraft, which are worth at least $2 billion, may be signed.
A Russian delegation led by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has already arrived in New Delhi to discuss the upcoming deals in detail.
Vedomosti learned at a military complex enterprise working on Indian contracts that India was “highly likely” to sign documents on the ten-year lease of two decommissioned Project 971 Shchuka nuclear submarines, which are currently at the Amur Shipbuilding Yard. Besides this, the countries may sign a contract for the delivery of two Project 877 Varshavyanka diesel submarines and three or four Tu-22M3 medium-range bombers.The re-fitting of one Shchuka submarine is 70% complete (the other is 30%-40% complete) and will cost India at least $400 million, while the leasing fees will be around $25 million a year, according to a source with knowledge of the situation at the shipyard.
Marat Kenzhetayev, an expert at the Center for Disarmament Studies, said the refits, the construction of coastal infrastructure, and crew training may bring Russia $2 billion. The Shchuka submarines will probably be equipped with Bramos anti-ship missiles developed by Russia and India. These missiles can also be installed on Tu-22M3 bombers. According to Mikhail Barabanov, a naval expert, India’s Navy will thereby secure superiority over its neighbors, including Pakistan and China, in the Indian Ocean in the long term.
Moscow Defense Brief Editor Ruslan Pukhov said talks on the sale of another three Project 1135.6 frigates (a contract for the sale/purchase of three frigates worth $900 million was implemented this year) and Amur type submarines will begin after Mr. Putin’s visit.
Golden_ArrowAny comments on the following as to y russians r insisting on an IPR???
This is simple. Two main things:
1. Russia does not want India to integrate their stuff with Israeli an Western stuuf without getting a huge payoff. They don’t want india to buy the Patriot PAC-3 and instead the S-300 and possibly S-400 at a huge markup. They were unhappy but went through with the Phalcon deal. They want the biggest piece of the Indian pie.
2. Russia also wants India not to buy spares for Russian systems from Poland, Romania etc. and instead buy solely though Russian consortia who of course price it at a premium rate. The IPR treaty will have language to that effect that if you put in non-russian spares, we stop service or charge a higher rate etc.
It’s likely that the Russians will cave in after a face saver because they cannot afford to lose one of their biggest buyers in India. But before that, they will extract a pound of flesh somewhere.
Golden_ArrowSorry missed out the Fantans
Yes, the FI listing is not 100% accurate, but its probaly the best out there magazine wise, and why on earth would FI just throw in news about MI-35s if it did not have at least SOME info on them!
So having SOME info is the same as having aircrafts in inventory? 😀
PAF/PAA have not exactly been shy about showing off their assets, given the number of reports they allowed AFM and other aviation mags to publish – with Photos.
Do we have photos or any such report on the Mi-35s? If not, what does that tell you?
Golden_ArrowGA
You dont even have the hard copy of the FI listing do you? Yest you claimed you did? If I asked you for some figures from it you could probably not list them could you? That or you may have “mislayed” your copy!?“histocrically”!? Now you know my “history”!? Please enlighten me?
“Not looked in that section”!? The directory makes up 70% of the magazine, you missed out the entire directory?
Dude,
I’m a FI subscriber and have access to both hardcopy and online content.
Since I’m in the US, I read the material online days before my copy arrives.
When you posted the list, you did not say that it was the directory – which is why I looked at the online articles for that week and did not find them.
Now as to your history, look under the “PAF Fan” name which we all know is you. 😉
Golden_ArrowMuns
Golden Arrow accused me of exactly the same thing and implied I was lying about teh Flight Article until Steve Touchdown confirmed it,we then went very quiet, I suggest you go out and buy the 16-22nd Nov issue of its still available, if not and you dont have access to it, thats really not a concern of mine. I have it here in front of me and will be happy to supply you with any information from it. I could scan and past it here, but dont think the mods would like that.regards
You never said that it was from the FI Directory, which is a different thing altogether.
Once Steve pointed it out to me, I acknowledged that I did not look in that section which is in the hardcopy and not online.
In general, when people post claims based on published sources, they must give details to verify. I myself have scanned or linked to exact items when I make claims.
BTW, I note that you have not commented on Steve’s accurate analyses of FI’s bogus claims about many countries’ inventories.
Tomorrow if FI fails to list a particular system that you have personally seen at Chaklala, will you believe that your eyes deceived you? Heck even AFM made a mistake about F-16s being allegedly downed in Kargil. Did you beleive that when they first published it – “Hey’ it’s AFM, so it must be true”? Did you not tag along with Tom Cooper when he pointed out AFM’s mistake?
You have historically shown a tendency to interpret sources based on your fantasies but shirk away when they say things that you don’t like.
Golden_ArrowBy your logic, since the US has given India engines for the LCA, we can assume that India will get the JSFs and AESA TOT? :rolleyes:
When a country’s long serving Defense minister says on the record that we will not give product X to country Y, it ain’t a may be/maybe not situation, is it?
Golden_Arrowhttp://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/2A8EFA2813981BA765256F5C0044476C?OpenDocument
No Russian aircraft engines for Pak: Ivanov
Nov 30, 2004 05:36:00 PM
Moscow, Nov 30 (PTI) Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has denied reports about the sale of its aircraft engines to Pakistan that can be fitted to Chinese fighter jets.
Reports had earlier said that Russia is to supply RD-93 jet engines, used in advanced MiG-29 fighters, for the Chinese FC-1 fighter being jointly developed with Pakistan.
“The deal is not yet final. In any case China would have to enter End User License Agreement like on all previous deals. We will not give the engines if Pakistan is shown as end-user, although it is not a weapon system,” Ivanov told reporters before leaving for New Delhi today to finalise the defence agenda of the fifth Indo-Russian summit on December 3.
Golden_ArrowIf they actually want the Gripen as a MiG-21 replacement, what does this say about their commitment to the LCA? Isn’t the LCA the designated FISHBED replacement for the IAF?
Let’s see.
I’ve got money to buy 3 new cars to replace my current 3 cars.
I order a Mercedes for the first one. Does that mean that I’m not going to buy 2 more?
The LCA will be inducted at its own pace, about 8-10 per yearstarting in 2007-08.
That is not enough to replace ALL the MiG-21s in IAF inventory. For the rest, IAF will buy from outside.
Where is the contradiction?
Golden_ArrowI wasn’t disputing the guys credibility, just pointing out that the article says the order is expected and not yet placed, meaning star49 was technically right in saying that the order does not exist at this point in time.
By that token, we can say that Pakistan has not ordered the FC-1 because no one can show the contract. There is only a rumor of 150 requested. We can alos say that PLAAF has not ordered the FC-1 too. Can you prove otherwise?
Shall we then say that the FC-1 is a plane without orders?
Star49 is a flamer.
Golden_ArrowTiger01,
Your idiocy is showing and it ain’t pretty.
HR 4965 is not a resolution brought by Pallone. It is is bill, brought to the floor of the Congress by 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, all members of the House Internatioanl Relations Committee. Do you know what that means?
When a bill clears committee in a bipartisan consensus, it rarely deson’t become law unless the President vetoes it.
Do you know ANYTHING about American law making? India does not come into the picture here because India is not a client state of the US nor does it want any freebies, unlike Pakistan. India rarely buys anything from the US anyway.
HR 4965 IH is a bill, which upon turning law in Summer 2005, will REQUIRE Pakistan to give access to A.Q.Khan or forget about military aid.
I hope you take some time, learn about American laws, know the difference between statements made by lobbyists and bills with bipartisan support.
Next post, please tell me what you know about:
1. What’s the role of Congress in terms of US FMF (Foreign Military Financing)?
2. What is the difference between a BILL and a RESOLUTION?
3. What is the role of Congressional Committees?
4. What authority does a US President have to overrule laws and reject bills that clear Congress?
Or best, pipe down and let the knowledgable people discuss the topic. Like I said, idiots should keep their mouths shut because silence is their best argument.
Golden_ArrowGolden Arrow. No need to hide behind the mask. As for any other nation deliveries are attached yet you love to point at one nation. I favour even these conditions to keep Pakistan on track and let the fundamentalist be scared if they tend to destroy the co-operative movement at the moment. Your remarks are ungrounded BS. Indonesia met same faith as lots of others. Both India and Pakistan had faced serious boycots and there is a reason for that. I am not talking about Indian nuclear contact with Iran so you keep it cool and return to aviation logic. Khan isn’t an important person in reality. And it is stupid to keep on trying to flame.
In the world of forums, there is an unwritten rule. Idiots and ignorant people are better off without posting.
You say AQ.Khan is unimportant?
Why have some republican congressmen brought up a bill titled “Nuclear Black Market Elimination Act”?
BTW, there are 3 other bills dealing with aid to Pakistan which also make aid conditional on A.Q.Khan access. The main one is posted below, which has republican sponsors.
It clearly says that US cannot give any aircrafts or ships to any nation that does not fully cooperate on eliminating the A.Q.Khan network.
It also specifically singles out Pakistan 😉
Nuclear Black-Market Elimination Act (Introduced in House)
HR 4965 IH
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4965
To impose sanctions on foreign entities that engage in certain nuclear proliferation activities, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
…
[B]SEC. 208. LIMITATION ON AIRCRAFT TRANSFERS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States may not transfer any excess defense article that is an aircraft to any country that has not provided written assurances to the United States that it will support and assist efforts by the United States to interdict items of proliferation concern.
TITLE III–ROLLBACK OF KHAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION NETWORK
SEC. 301. COOPERATION OF PAKISTAN.
(a) Limitation- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not provide, in any fiscal year, more than 75 percent of United States assistance to Pakistan unless the President determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that Pakistan–
(1) has verifiably halted any cooperation with any state in the development of nuclear or missile technology, material, or equipment, or any other technology, material, or equipment that is useful for the development of weapons of mass destruction, including exports of such technology, material, or equipment; and
(2) is fully sharing with the United States all information relevant to the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, and has provided full access to A.Q. Khan and his associates and any documentation, declarations, affidavits, or other material that bears upon their proliferation network activities and contacts.
(b) Waiver-
(1) AUTHORITY- The President may waive the requirements of subsection (a) in a fiscal year if–
(A) the President has certified to the appropriate congressional committees that–
(i) the waiver is in the vital interest of the national security of the United States;
(ii) the waiver will promote Pakistan’s cooperation in achieving the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a); and
(iii) Pakistan’s lack of cooperation is not significantly hindering efforts of the United States to investigate and eliminate the Khan proliferation network and any successor networks; and
(B) 30 days have elapsed since making the certification under subparagraph (A).
(2) BRIEFING- Within 5 days after making a certification under paragraph (1), the Secretary of State shall brief the appropriate congressional committees on the degree to which Pakistan has or has not satisfied the conditions set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a)(1).
(3) LIMITATION- The waiver authority under paragraph (1) may not be exercised in two successive fiscal years.
The full bill can be seet at:
Golden_ArrowThanks Steve. I usually see it online before I get my hardcopy delivered. The world airforces directory 😀 That’s almost as bad as SIPRI 🙂
I’ll take it a look at it when I get it today or tomorrow.
Golden_Arrowwell so far the C-130s, AH-1s, and new radars have come with no congrssional strings attached, so if this is the Indian strategy, its not working so far…
How do you know that my fella? Do you think your President allowed Goerge Tenet to interview A.Q.Khan on February 12, 2004 out of the goodness of his heart?
Or did Musharraf allow US a free hand to monitor all electronic traffic in and out of Pakistan as a Christmas gift?
Every thing has a price. Some times in cash, other times in terms of sovereignty. 😉
Sign In
