ROTFLMAO. Y’ Pakistani’s crack me up with your idiocy.
Let me get this straight:
1. A Hawk is pulling rabbits outta his hat to have more N’s pointed towards you.
2. The DRDO guy goes on record stating that a N missile is operationalized and handover to army is underway etc
3. A US report appears which would only make Indian policy makers ramp up their posture wrt y’ guys….
And y’ think all the above is grounds for pleasure? 😀
You are making senseless posts now. Go read from Hindustan Times what Aatre has said regarding the Agni nuclear delivery system. He says it is far from operational.
Karna
I will leave yoru complex explanations as to why Indias lack of missile delivery systems to yourself. I think its awfully dangerous to asume what these people are saying is wrong if I was an Indian, if they are telling the truth (which you and I cannot possibly know for certain), then India has no second strike capability whatsoever…..
just like the caption of the rediff interview reads “We are great at fooling ourselves”
Iyengar was never the head of DRDO.
All Iyengar wants is more tests- why wouldnt he? More money and funding for DAE and more Agnis cant hurt….
Nor is Karnad an established figure. He is a maverick.
No establishment figure wants to be near Karnad (not “Karanad”)- that’d be the kiss of death.. dude is waaaaaaaaaaay too jingo.Note only Karnad claims Iyengar is in his corner…but if you look up Iyengars speeches, he gives the word “diplomacy” a new meaning..:D
Ambiguity rocks!From my POV, its good to have hawks they keep the doves at bay. Balance and all that.
But from the Govt pov, with the mandate to improve the Indian nation and keep the current rate of growth sustainable…having a hawk in the NSAB asking for non required moon shine ..isnt fun either…
So Karnad exists on the fringes….asking for more N bang..
No offence, but u make it sound like a Hindi Movie. You can be a good Indian movie director.
The CIA report, the Karnad interview, and yesterdays’s DRDO confession. What else do you want?
sumaid the article u provided is very old, it doesnt come from an insider but a analyst which have always different opinions. the one i provided comes from the DRDO chief. he is saying that the agni 2 is not ready YET. but as i said agni 2 is more aimed at china then pakistan. they can cover pakistan with other missiles and delivery systems.
Arshad i know it is old. Its from 2000. I just wanted to show that all these articles do add up to DRDO’s confession that its nuclear delivery system is dysfunctional.
So u can very much claim that that interview i provided from 2000 is very much authentic in its claims. Because DRDO’s confession from the news article u provided dated AUG 31 2004 proves so.
By the way i really liked this part of the interview where Karnad says :
“I am very respectful of Pakistan, and I have always said so. Why? Because their margin of error is so little. That is why they don’t take any chances. Like the Israelis. You have to beg, borrow or steal to ensure your security. In our case, we think we are a subcontinent and who cares? The drought kills millions, but there is a billion more, so who cares?
That is the difference. I am not surprised that the Pakistanis are so motivated, so dedicated and so resolved to have what they want. Bhutto said, ‘We’ll eat grass, but we’ll have it [the nuclear bomb].’ They got it! They got it! “
Hehehe nice to see people trying to delude themselves thinking that India dosent have nukes that can bite – but its becoming a drag!!! :rolleyes:
I feel its a good thing India doesnt have nukes. It will be even a better thing if PAKISTAN doesnt have nukes too. And you know what will be best, if this whole world could become nuclear weapons free.
So we can live peacefully.
thank you.
Could it be that India may even not have ANY deliverable nukes? Not an absurd possibility cosnidering
a) They dont have warheads on there missiles
b) They withdrew their troops from the 2002 border confrontation with no official explanation
Yes it is possible. India’s nuclear dysfunctional report is not old, its yesterday’s report that Vajpayee has openly stated this in a press conference that they lag behind in nuclear delivery.
this is yesterday’s news : http://internationalreporter.net/scripts/headDetails.asp?id=274
But their withdrawal from the border in 2002 doesnt mean anything. Neither PAK nor INDIA wants to go to war. And we all know a large scalre war will harm PAKISTAN more than it will harm INDIA.
thank you.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/jun/10inter.htm
The Rediff Interview/Prof Bharat Karnad
‘We are great at fooling ourselves’
An NBC report CLICK HERE FOR THE NBC REPORT quoting intelligence sources as saying that Pakistan’s nuclear arms are greater than India’s in number, sophistication and delivery systems has sent shock waves through the country. But Professor Bharat Karnad feels vindicated. A security affairs specialist at the Centre for
Policy Research, he has been crying himself hoarse that India’s nuclear arms are not just insufficient to match China but are probably incapable of matching Pakistan too.
In a brief interview to Amberish K Diwanji, he explains his position and his fears about India’s nuclear arsenal and its strategic weaknesses. Excerpts:
First question. Are Pakistan’s nuclear weapons superior to what India has?
I have been saying this for almost two years, since the May 1998 tests. The case I am making is that unless we test, and do so repeatedly, we will not be able to have deployable or usable weapons. We will have computer-designed weapons which can be exploded in computer simulations. But that is not the same as the real thing. Without physical testing, we will never know whether our nuclear weapons work.
We don’t have that amount of data, especially on the thermonuclear device. The one thermonuclear explosion we had was a fizzle, which has now been admitted by our top scientists like P K Iyengar. So what data do we have for the thermonuclear weapon, which is a decisive weapon in any nuclear arsenal?
And I have said that if we don’t test more, not only are we going to be no match for the Chinese, but we will find it difficult to match even the Pakistanis when it comes to deployable arms. After all, the Chinese have conducted some 50-odd tests and have a whole battery of data to use for comparing their computer simulations and to constantly upgrade their weapons.
Even the Pakistanis have conducted very few tests.
Look, the Pakistanis have imported their entire design and delivery systems from China. They don’t need to test. I made this point in great detail at a recent seminar where I said we are not a match for even Pakistan, so why are we talking about China?
Now that the NBC report has come out, everyone is talking about it [Pakistan’s superiority]. But earlier it was evident to a few of us. In the nuclear scientific community, many of them know this. But outside that group, I think I am the only one who kept saying [that we are no match for Pakistan]. I then persuaded P K Iyengar for almost a year to go public, which he did recently. He was very reluctant and required a lot of coaxing. But I needed him to back what I had been saying because no one was believing me. I knew I was right, but needed an independent corroboration, which Iyengar provided.
Both the Indian government and the Pakistani government have denied the NBC report.
Let’s look at the motivation of the Pakistanis to say they have only a modest arsenal. It is simple: they do not want India to go ahead. It is better for them to say that India is great and has a huge arsenal compared to their small collection, and thus lull us into complacency at which India anyway is very good.
Look at our complacency. We conduct one test and think we have a huge inventory. But it is just the beginning. The 1998 tests were just the beginning because we had a 24-year hiatus when we did literally nothing.
We are great at fooling ourselves. We have deluded ourselves into believing that we don’t need to do any of the things others did to achieve deterrence. This has been the Indian tradition, a habit of mind that is difficult to contest.
And it is this habit of mind that makes us believe we have achieved weaponisation?
Very true. When, in fact, the processes of weaponisation are very distinct, very detailed, very rigorous, and ultimately, very physical. Which means that you may do all kinds of computer simulations and sophisticated testing, but ultimately they have to be physically tested.
Arundhati Ghose, former representative at the Disarmament Conference, has said that India does not even have data for computer simulations.
That’s right. But you know, ultimately, Arundhati, I and others, we don’t have much credibility. But people know we are right.
Do you think there is a witch-hunt against you?
No, not a witch-hunt. I don’t want to get into the conspiratorial stuff. But the fact is that my views are not convenient for the government, for the people, for the mainstream leaders of the strategic community. The Jasjit Singhs and K Subrahmanyams have been proven wrong so consistently and so often that they don’t think anything is wrong when something like this [the NBC report] is pointed out. They are the ones who opposed any testing after 1974, saying that one test was enough. Jasjit Singh wrote that and Subrahmanyam said before the [May 1998] tests that we don’t need any more tests.
Then, after the tests, oh yes, they said that is good and now we don’t need any more tests [laughs]. Now, after the ground under him has been weakening, he has said that we may need some tests.
The lesson of this is that the government has advisers who give advice that they think the government wants to hear. This, of course, assumes that these advisers can give that kind of advice. What, after all, are retired officers? They have somehow managed to survive 35 years in service because they do not want to go too much against the grain. So it is clods like us who don’t know how to play the game. We give our assessment based on analysis and if the analysis says this is how the chips fall [that is what we say]. If someone can refute the analysis, do so.
The NBC report says India lacks a credible delivery system while Pakistan has one.
I think that is overstating the case a bit. I don’t really know…
But the DRDO [Defence Research and Development Organisation] does not have a good track record.
I have said that DRDO does not have a good track record. We have made A P J Kalam into an icon, and the trouble is that in doing so he becomes invulnerable to criticism. Kalam is a tremendous leader of the integrated defence missile project, but you can’t then say that he is God’s gift to the country.
But you do believe we have a delivery system?
Yes, a rudimentary delivery system, not as rudimentary as the report claims.
But not as sophisticated as what Pakistan has?
No, because Pakistan has been getting Chinese missiles. Everything there is imported. It is a bit like comparing a calculator made in Ghaziabad with one made in Germany. They have imported their stuff whereas we have put together something.
But in the end what matters is the final system.
That is right. What finally matters is whether you have something to use or not, not how good your research base is or how great you are.
Ultimately the bomb has a utilitarian value. It does not have a metaphysical value. We give it metaphysical values such as equating it to the Indian stake in high science. What the heck!
Do you think this report will be a wake-up call to the government?
I am not too sure. Our writings have not done the trick, but as usual, some foreigner says the most banal things and we take it seriously.
How would you place this report in context?
I have been saying the same things, so naturally I won’t say this report is wrong. It states all these things that I know and I have written about.
Most of our indigenous weaponisation programmes have not done very well. What needs to be done?
We have very, very good scientists. But we have to let them loose to do the things that they can do. We have the finest physicists, engineers and metallurgists, but we have to give them incentives, you have to get them cracking, not restrain them by holding back funds. After all, nuclear arms do not come cheap.
India wants to achieve superpowerhood on the cheap. Why should anybody accord you big-power status? What are you? You are a beggarly country. You don’t even know what your national interests are.
I am very respectful of Pakistan, and I have always said so. Why? Because their margin of error is so little. That is why they don’t take any chances. Like the Israelis. You have to beg, borrow or steal to ensure your security. In our case, we think we are a subcontinent and who cares? The drought kills millions, but there is a billion more, so who cares?
That is the difference. I am not surprised that the Pakistanis are so motivated, so dedicated and so resolved to have what they want. Bhutto said, ‘We’ll eat grass, but we’ll have it [the nuclear bomb].’ They got it! They got it!
Incidentally, the defence minister has said that India will sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. What do you think?
I doubt it. This government will fall.

The impressions evolved with the 1.42. Note the change of the 2D nozzle of original Al-41F (right) to 3D (left panel). Flight International.
How Well Can you Draw?
Western sources published number of ever evolving artists’ impressions of the 1.42 which can be sorted in two groups. The first shows an aircraft with two engines with vectored-thrust nozzles, inward-canted twin tails, slightly downturned wingtips, Rafale-like rounded intakes, and possibly foreplanes. The second group describes a more conventionally looking delta-winged twin-engined aircraft with outward-canted twin tails and MiG-29 style intakes. Some of the impressions show the elements of the low observable technology – flattened front fuselage and nozzle shape.
Another clue to a possible appearence of the 1.42 was published in the Flight International and Air Fleet Herald. The photograph taken at Fulkovo test range shows the mockup of the front end of the fighter aircraft mounted on the high speed cart used in the ejection seat tests. From the picture it is clear that the fighter’s forward fuselage is a triangular in crossection with large sets of the canards behind the cockpit line. No indication of the developed leading edge extension similar in appearence to that of the MiG-29 or Su-27 can be found. While it is tempting to link this mockup to 1.42, Moscow sources indicate that it has little or no relevance at all. The forward section may also be one of the evolutionary steps with eventually led to the 1.42. Nevertheless, all post-Fulkovo artist impressions of 1.42 show an aircraft with triangular cross section of the forward fuselage.

The Canard Delta
The origins of the 1.42 aerodynamic configuration can be traced back to November 1945, when Mikoyan test pilot Grinchik took in the air ungainly looking MiG-8 Utka (Duck, Canard). First flown just half year after the end of the war, MiG-8 was build to tests the canard-swept wing combination as a potential future fighter configuration. Although build by a team of students with little or no interference from OKB MiG, Utka provided Mikoyan with low-speed data of unusual layout.
In spite of the success of the winged delta MiG-21 Fishbed, which proved to be an exceptional platform for the second-generation Mach 2.0+ fighter, Mikoyan continued tests of destabilizing canard (Ye-6T/3, Ye-8, Ye-152M) and pure delta (MiG-21I Analog) configurations.
The Roots
In early 1980s the Soviet Design bureaus were to start development of replacements for the forth-generation MiG-29 Fulcrum and Su-27 Flanker, capable of challenging the future Advanced Tactical Fighter (AFT) planned as a successor of F-15 Eagle. Analysis of the scarce ATF data provided a set of requirements for the Soviet fifth-generation air-superiority fighter, materializing in MFI. The Mikoyan’s entry, designated Istrebitel’90 (Fighter 90), was built around the Soviet projections of ATF advances. After selection of the Mikoyan project over competing Sukhoi (very little known about Sukhoi’s MFI), the MFI was reshaped and assigned new index — 1.42. The first blow came with a cancellation of the related Project 7.01 (Project 701) in mid 1980s, a heavier and stealthier interceptor designed along similar lines and intended as a replacement of MiG-31 and MiG-31M. The 7.01 was to become vPVO (Soviet air defence forces) new interceptor, taking vPVO to new qualitative level the very same way as 1.42 was to change VVS (Soviet Air Force) potential. It is speculated that both 1.42 and 7.01 had similar origins, owning much to a MiG-31 Foxhound based canard-delta platform. Due to the lack of the performance required by VVS for its fourth-generation fighter, this heavy twin-engined MiG-31 based project lost to Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker.
Another early iterations of Mikoyan 1.42 and 7.01. MiG-25 influence is clearly seen in this wind tunnel scale model.
On again, Off again…
Although its schedule has apparently been slowed by shortage of funds as well as technical problems, the first airframe is reported to be already complete, but problems with the engines have delayed the first flight. The 1.42 is one of the few Mikoyan projects which survived the multiple waves of defence budget cuts from the Kremlin, up until late spring of 1997 when it was announced that the funding for the unspecified fighter program is officially terminated. Many analysts suggested that this unspecified fighter program is Mikoyan’s Project 1.42. However, at Le Bourge 97 MAPO MIG officials made it clear that the project is far from being dead and it proceeds at affordable pace funded by MAPO. In a separate event another MAPO official announced that the 1.42 (the fligh-test airframe(s) is often referred to as the 1.44) made its maiden flight at Zhukovsky and the aircraft might be revealed to public at upcoming Moscow Aerospace in two month (MAKS 97) pending on the decision of the Genshtab. This news was quickly picked by western aviation magazines and by the late summer 1997 it was believed that 1.42 (1.44) logged about 100 flight hours. However, several alternative sources suggested that 1.44 never left its hanger at Zhukovsky where two prototypes are stored other than for the high speed taxi tests. Its appearence at MAKS 97 as well as two years earlier at MAKS 95 failed to materialize, although it is known that the aircraft was shown to the government officials on both occasions. According to some sources MAPO MIG printed a brochure about new fighter, to be distributed at MAKS 97, but last moment changes kept both fighter and fliers from daylight. It is anticipated that first flight of the rival Sukhoi S-37 will accelerate “declassification” of the 1.42.
The 1.42 remains under the veil of secrecy but expected to made its first flight by the end of the 1997 piloted by Roman Taskayev. MAPO stated that the project will became advanced technology demonstrator and testbed for further MAPO MIG project such as LFI (Legkii Frontovoij Istrebitel’).
Does anyone have pictures of Iran iraq war planes in combat ?
Nice post but it could be equally plausible that the official PR would rather that an Anza was seen to do the job and tom tommed that.
Similarly, regular army units use the Stinger as well, dont they?
You missed his point KARNA. He provided a very valid fact. Please read Muhammad Ali’s post again.
Usman can provide you with the interview of the person who shot down the Mig-21. It was an Anza .
thank you.
Does this plane look stealty aerodunamically to you guys ? :confused:

dont hate me for this; Iaf mig-27? @ start of Kargil by SAM Anza
Nice pictures GRIFFIN_PAK 😀