Nitin_VWhy? Does Turkey hate Iran’s guts? Dont see why the turks would attack another Muslim country- last time around their parliament scuttled assistance to the US vs Iraq right?
I’d wager that the US has bitted off more than it could chew if it attacks Iran. The situation in Iraq is not too stable and the Iranians can definitely make it much worse!
Till now the fight is Sunni dominated- you dont want Iraqs considerable Shia population actively abetting the insurgency.
Paks aid against Iran is understandable. Pak’s Sunni majority has had many issues with Irans Shia’s over Afghanistan and Baluchistan.
Nitin_VUS vs Iran with Pakistani aid
Seems things are heating up- now if any of the stuff in this article is true, it explains why the insurgency in Pak controlled Baluchistan is flaring, apparently the Iranians are hitting back!
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/iran-05c.html
Cat And Mouse Game Over Iran
DigitalGlobe file photo of Iran’s Parchin suspected nuclear site.
by Richard Sale, UPI Intelligence Correspondent
New York (UPI) Jan 26, 2005
The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran’s ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said.
“We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them,” said one, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The flights, which have been going on for weeks, are being launched from sites in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are part of Bush administration attempts to collect badly needed intelligence on Iran’s possible nuclear weapons development sites, these sources said, speaking on condition of strict anonymity.
“These Iranian air defense positions are not just being observed, they’re being ‘templated,'” an ad ministration official said, explaining that the flights are part of a U.S. effort to develop “an electronic order of battle for Iran” in case of actual conflict.
However, a Pentagon spokesman told UPI he was unaware of any such actions.
“We are not aware of any incursions into Iranian air space,” said Cdr. Nick Balice, chief of media at the U.S. Central Command.
In the event of an actual clash, Iran’s air defense radars would be targeted for destruction by air-fired U.S. anti-radiation or ARM missiles, he said.
A serving U.S. intelligence official added: “You need to know what proportion of your initial air strikes are going to have to be devoted to air defense suppression.”
A CentCom official told United Press International that in the event of a real military strikes, U.S. military forces would be using jamming, deception, and physical attack of Iran’s sensors and its Command, Control and Intelligence (C3 systems).
He also made clear that that this entails “advance, detailed knowledge of the enemy’s electronic order of battle and careful preplanning.”
Ellen Laipson, president and CEO of the Henry L. Stimson Center and former CIA Middle East expert, said of the flights, “They are not necessarily an act of war in themselves, unless they are perceived as being so by the country that is being overflown.”
Laipson explained: “It’s not unusual for countries to test each other’s air defenses from time to time, to do a little probing — but it can be dangerous if the target country believes that such flights could mean an imminent attack.”
She said her concern was that Iran “will not only turn on its air defense radars but use them to fire missiles at U.S. aircraft,” an act which would “greatly increase tensions” between the two countries.
The air reconnaissance is t aking place in conjunction with other intelligence collection efforts, U.S. government officials said.
To collect badly needed intelligence on the ground about Iran’s alleged nuclear program, the United States is depending heavily on Israeli-trained teams of Kurds in northern Iraq and on U.S.-trained teams of former Iranian exiles in the south to gather the intelligence needed for possible strikes against Iran’s 13 or more suspected nuclear sites, according to serving and retired U.S. intelligence officials.
Both groups are doing cross border incursions into Iran, some in conjunction with U.S. Special Forces, these sources said.
They claimed the Kurds operating from Kurdistan, in areas they control. The second group, working from the south, is the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, operating from southern Iraq, these sources said.
The use of the MEK for U.S.-intelligence-gathering missions strikes some former U.S. intelligence officials as bizarre. The State Department’s annual publication, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” lists them as a terrorist organization.
According to the State Department report, the MEK were allies with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in fighting Iran and, in addition, “assisted Saddam in “suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime.”
After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, U.S. forces seized and destroyed MEK munitions and weapons, and about 4,000 MEK operatives were “consolidated, detained, disarmed, and screened for any past terrorist acts, the report said.
Shortly afterwards, the Bush administration began to use them in its covert operations against Iran, former senior U.S. intelligence officials said.
“They’ve been active in the south for some time,” said former CIA counterterrorism chi ef, Vince Cannistraro.
The MEK are said to be currently launching raids from Camp Habib in Basra, but recently Pakistan President Pervez Musharaff granted permission for the MEK to operate from Pakistan’s Baluchi area, U.S. officials said.
Asked about the Musharaff decision, Laipson said: “Not a smart move. The last thing he (Musharaff) needs is another batch of hotheads on Pakistani soil.”
A former senior Iranian diplomat told United Press International that the Kurds in the Baluchi areas of Pakistan can operate in freedom because the Baluchis “have no love for the mullahs of Iran.”
In fact, in the early 1980s, there were massacres of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the area by Baluchi militants who wish to be independent, he said.
Both covert groups are tasked by the Bush administration with planting sensors or “sniffers” close to suspected Iran nuclear weapons development sites that will enable the Bush administration to monitor the progress on the program and develop targeting data, these sources said.
“There is an urgent need to obtain this information, at least in the minds of administration hawks,” an administration official said.
“This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation,” a former long-time CIA operator in the region told UPI. In addition to the air strikes on allegedly Iranian nuclear weapons sites, the second aim of the operation is to secure the support in Iran of those “who view U.S. policy of hostility towards Iran’s clerics with favor,” he said.
The United States is also attempting to erect a covert infrastructure in Iran able to support U.S. efforts, this source said. It consists of Israelis and other U.S. assets, using third country passports, who have created a network of front companies that they own and staff. “It’s a covert infrastructure for material support,” a U.S. administration official said.
The network would be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside Iran, he said. The covert infrastructure could also provide safe houses and the like, he said.
Cannistraro, who knew of the program, said: “I doubt the quality of these kinds or programs,” explaining the United States had set up a similar network just before the hostage-rescue attempt in 1980. “People forget that the Iranians quickly rolled up that entire network after the rescue attempt failed,” Cannistraro said.
The administration’s fear is that by possessing a nuclear weapon, Iran will gain a new stature and status in the region strengthening its determination to remove the U.S presence from the region and making its hostility seem more credible, U.S. officials said.
There is also the administration’s fear that Iran, with Syria’s help, will accelerate Palestinian terrorism as Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip, these sources said.
So the United States, backed by Israel, is deadly earnest about neutralizing Iran’s nuclear weapons site. “The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution,” said John Pike, president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org.
“Like the Israelis, the Bush administration has decided that forces of sweetness and light won’t be running Iran any time soon, and that having atomic ayatollahs is simply not acceptable.”
Said Cannistraro of the administration’s policy: “Its very, very, very dangerous.”
Nitin_VNithin surely you have enough brains to understand what i was meaning 😉
I’d say it’d be the other way around. I’d have thought you would have had the brains to read what I had mentioned half a dozen posts back …but..
About those engines i was just commeneting on this sentence of yours “What happened to all the US ally thang you keep telling us about?”, but never mind. lets move on.
No, I was serious. I see many threads in which its easy to see the importance attached by you blokes to US supply via FMS, how sensible the constant demand for F-16’s is…and now you tell me a handful of engines from the US are a problem? Talk about contradictory responses.
Nitin_VThis is the funniest thread in a long time. Brute , LOL!:D
Nitin_VSo now its the engine which is the issue? Do make up your mind guys. Its ok, its not, its ok, its not..
Nitin_VThe T37 were upgraded in the past so it was not economical to dump them.
Which is what I have been saying. :rolleyes:
K8 was introduced to replace Ft5 and T37.
Wow!
Pakistan will replace those planes but very slow.
Really????
The reason is US engine in the K8.
What happened to all the US ally thang you keep telling us about? :confused:
But Pakistan will increase production for export.
Doesnt appear so.
It will not setup assmebly line for just a few planes.
Well they did, and thats why I had the Qn. But then, never mind.
Purely economical, Nothing has to do with K8. And do remember that India still flies Kiran which is T37 of IAF. Isn’t the Kiran still flying around?
Thanks for rehashing what I stated several posts back. Again.
Nitin_Vthe Agni, Pinaka MLRS and Brahmos TELs were done by L&T I believe. the Tatra trucks are made under license by Govt owned BEML (bharat earth movers Ltd.) and around 10,000 are in service with the army of various models. another co Godrej has a Pinaka TEL also, looks the same but the internal motors etc are different.
Like I posted on BR, the Russians were asking for an arm and a leg so went and developed the TEL plus several critical aspects of the C3I ourselves. Was one way to keep the costs reasonable.
Nitin_VHow is the Brahmos a LO missile, as claimed by Indians? Look at the photos.
The Brahmos is an old-fashioned design with a MiG-21 style nose intake.
It is not even a modern missile design. How is it LO?
For one, we dont know the materials used in construction.
Second, usage of RAM can reduce the RCS.
Both India and Russia have RCS measurement facilities and are hence well qualified to make value judgements upon this aspect.
Third, the seeker has been designed to be more discreet and optimized for the same. I think Brute had posted the detail earlier.
Last, the very nature of the beast makes it hard to detect. It is hard for any modern ADGES without AWAC’s to detect a low level, subsonic target and the Brahmos is supersonic, further reducing the time available for putting up a credible defense- whether SAM’s or MANPAD’s.
As regards the Brahmos not being modern, that is such a silly assertion that I wouldnt touch it with a pair of tongs. You are welcome to believe that it is equivalent to a bow and arrow, if it pleases you!
Nitin_VJED 2005.
Portuguese aircraft refitter OGMA has been chosen by Lockheed Martin (Marietta, GA) to refit for service Pakistan’s two remaining P-SCs – grounded since 1999, when a third crashed during training. In addition, Pakistan is reportedly ready to buy eight P-3B aircraft, most likely the TACNAVMOD version of the “B” last flown by the US Navy.
The recovery and rebuild of the two P-3Cs will be performed by Pakistani technicians under OGMA’s supervision at Naval Air Station Karachi.
The P-3B TACNAVMOD aircraft uses the same basic airframe, engines, and flight systems as the P-3C, but the mission systems, sensors, sensor stations, and interior layout are very different. The P-3C model now owned by Pakistan is the Update II.5. The II.5 was an improvement on the Update II, first delivered in 1977, and differentiated by new navigation and communications equipment. The II.5, in turn, was supplanted in the US Navy in 1984 by the P-3C Update III.
The Pakistani announcement followed a 10-day visit to the US by Pakistani Navy (PN) Chief Adm. Shahid Karimullah in late July. Pakistan’s elderly fleet of Atlantique 1 aircraft is at the end of its rope. Rather than just replace them, Pakistan also wants to increase the size of its maritime-patrol fleet from its current six airplanes. The PN had ordered three P-3C Orions from the US in 1991, but delivery of the aircraft was not completed until 1996.
OGMA’s dealings with Pakistan have included work on Socata Epsilon primary trainers, CASA 212 turboprop transports, and Aerospatiale Alphajet advanced trainers. OGMA has completed contract work on P-3s for the Portuguese and Norwegian air forces and for the Dutch Navy and is a Lockheed Martin-approved service center for the Orion.
The rework of the Pakistan P-3Cs is to include airframe and sensor overhaul and upgrade at an estimated cost of $9.8 million, not including unspecified spare parts. The cost of the eight P-3B aircraft, which would be acquired from the US’ mothballed fleet at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, has not yet been estimated..
Nitin_Vnitin
PAF is slowly replacing FT-5s with K-8. Its more like swaping of 6 with 6 aircraft as needed.
I always wondered why do Indians here always think that it didn’t meet the requirement if it wasn’t done on time or change of plans. I have seen the same logic vis-a-vis Khalid tank when army bought T-80s, Tow-II with respect to baktar shikan etc….
recentl 6 more K-8 were assembled at masroor and handed over to the academy, PAF didn’t want to replace ~80 trainers in one or two years. Most of the T-37s are being replaced first, some were sold to bangladesh AF.
Mav,
Pak originally wants to acquire x K-8’s and then decides it’ll settle for ‘y’ where y is less than x.
Its rather obvious that either the K-8 has some issues or PAF found a replacement in terms of cost. The T-37 Life Ext gives the PAF fiscal breathing space.
As regards the Bakhtar Shikans- theres a person on tanknet who has first hand info that it performed very poorly in the Bosnian-Serb conflict.
It makes sense to buy TOW2’s since the TOW2A is clearly superior to the BSh., it is tandem warhead equipped whereas the BSh. is not.
As regards the Al Khalids, why were the T-80’s purchased if there were no issues with the program!
Both incidents have been widely posted on many fora on the internet and repeated ad nauseum, so I see no reason for a surprise?!
Anyway, lets not divert the thread further.
Nitin_VWell, 9K38 Igla is their best. Actually, Igla-S is their best, and has already been sold to an “unidentified country”. Hmmm. Igla-S kicks so much arse. 🙂
Hey Vympel, this is for you. 🙂
JED, Jan 2005
Russia’s Kovrov Plant (Kovrov, Russia) announced in mid-November that it had begun series production of the 9K338 Igla-S man-portable airdefense system (MANPADS) for the Russian Army, which sources say is acquiring about 100 such systems.
The system was developed by KB Mashinostroycnia (Kolomna, Russia). It passed state trials in December 2001, but a lack of funds caused a delay in launching production. Along with the 9K338, the plant is also producing the 9F589 simulator to allow training without live-firing the missiles.
In addition to manned aircraft, the Igla-S can also be used against unmanned aerial vehicles (LJAVs) and cruise missiles. The system’s kill probability against such targets has been dramatically increased (according to company information, threefold against UAVs and fivefold against cruise missiles) compared to the previous 9K38 Igla. Such an increase was also possible because the original Igla was much less effective against UAVs and cruise missiles than it was against manned aircraft .
Production of the Igla-S MANPADS got underway this month. Russia is said to be acquiring about 100 of the new system, which includes a missile that is much improved over previous versions.
The most interesting feature of the new variant is its much-improved missile, designated the 9M342 (previous missiles were the 9M39 Igla/SA-18 and 9M313 Igla-1/SA-16), with fully digital, solid-state electronics. Since the new electronics blocks are much lighter, it was possible to introduce a larger (2.5-kg) warhead with the new design to increase lethality.
The first attempt at a larger warhead was undertaken with the IgIa-N variant, with its 3.2-kg but old-fashioned fragmentation warhead. Despite the lighter warhead, the IgIa-S is more lethal due to the directional laser proximity fuze used in the 9M342 missile. The fuze ignites the explosion within 5 meters of the target, and the warhead’s explosive energy is directed toward it. As in the previous variants, the remaining fuel is also ignited to enhance the killing power.
In addition, the use of two independent infrared seekers in the seeker, working in different wavelengths, greatly increases the new system’s resistance to jamming. The new missile’s digital electronics also enable the use of the more modern proportional-navigation method for missile guidance instead of line-ofsight guidance, which also helps to greatly increase the kill probability, especially against agile, maneuvering targets. Also, just before a hit, the autopilot redirects the missile from the aiming point (usually a nozzle) toward the target’s center to increase damage.
Compared to the legacy variant, the range of the new system has been increased from 5,500 to 6,000 meters. The maximum target altitude is 3,500 meters, while maximum target speed is 400 m/sec. in a head-on engagement and 320 m/sec. in a chase engagement. The IgIa-S is also offered with the 9S520 nightvision and command-and-control system (though it is not clear if this system entered production along with the Igla-S), enabling not only night operations but also the integration of a section of four IgIa systems into C4I systems like the 9S80 Sborka, the 9S737 Ranzhir, or the older 9S482 (PU-12).
The new missile is very rugged. It can, for example, be put in the water (up to a half of a meter in depth) for 30 minutes and used immediately after taking it out. The missile tube also will not lose its hermetic seal at altitudes up to 12,000 meters in the non-pressurized cargo compartment of a transport aircraft. It can be also dropped on a concrete surface from 2 meters up and still work normally. Needless to say, such features would certainly be appreciated by terrorists, if they were ever to get their hands on the new MANPADS.
Fifty Igla-S systems have been already delivered to Vietnam. It has also been officially announced that Brazil, India, and Malaysia are interested in purchasing the new system, though no mention was made of Singapore, which has already negotiated a purchase of Igla-S systems. Michal Fiszer
———————————————————-
So India is to lic produce the Igla- S (per Bharat Dynamics Ltd ) and that makes the country you were talking about Vietnam.
Nitin_VMushak & Super Mushshak for Flight training.The K8 is going to be used for Basic Jet training, now the Fc-1 is advancing the Fc-1b is also going to be used for Advanced Jet training. Good to see that they are going to “localize ” the whole “training Industry/fighters” . T-37 and Ft-5 will be retired soon if i a remember it correctly.
The T37’s arent being retired anytime soon. Those lovely old geezers went through a life extension program and thats probably why there arent going to be anymore K-8’s on order at present.
Nitin_VThe military themselves, like militarys all over the world, its in there interests to play up any threat to secure an increase in budgets….
Its the China factor, but the MOD cant mention China explicitly.
Mind you, in some areas though the “edge” India has is being eroded thanks to US supplied equipment….
Not really. The only US supplied eqpt which is yet to find a more numerous, equal or more sophisticated counterpart is the probable supply of P3’s.
The rest is pretty much taken care of by the IAF modernisation and outweighed in terms of quantity.
Nitin_VBut why 32 *only* vis a vis earlier plans of 50? Thats a shortfall of 18 a/c- a squadron plus. They could have purchased more outright from China if it was FC1 assembly which hogged up all the resources.
Its presumable though that the T-37 Structural enhancement program (life extension) reduced the number of K-8’s.
Nitin_VSo the K-8 didnt meet PAF specs or what?
Sign In
