wilhelmDeino, is there any indication of when on Saturday this announcement will be made?
Thinking of the use of the word “indiginized”, the 2 platforms that make up the bulk of the numbers are the F-5 Tiger and F-4 Phantom.
Through the various programmes, it appears as if overhauling with a degree of “indiginizing” of the F-5 Tiger has been taking place.
I wonder if this new programme somehow involves the Phantom in some way?
Perhaps a deep modernisation?
They certainly have enough airframes to make it worthwhile.
wilhelmThis was posted somewhere else..
wilhelmA word of caution.
It may not be a new figher per se.
Translations are always messy things, with misunderstandings easily taking place.
I note that it says it will be an indiginized fighter, as opposed to indigineous.
It will be different to the previous fighters Iran has produced.
From this, if the translations are correct, which they notoriously often are not, one can gather that either:
1.It will be one of the other fighters in the Iranian stable that has been indiginized, such as the F-4, F-14, Mirage F-1, Mig 29, or F-7.
2. It will be a further extrapolation of the F-5 to Azarakhsh to Sa’eqeh to Qaher 313.
3. It will be different from the above, and be a new design borrowing heavily from others.
It may be either 3, but I’m leaning cautiously toward either 1 or 2.
The importance of indiginizing should not be underestimated for a country under sanctions like Iran. It is actually a step in the right direction.
wilhelmHi Wilhelm, i figure I didnt make my point well. Thing is that your points are correct re: the importance of the Kaveri, all I am saying is that the IAF has been ok to the idea of the US for the engine & not just for the LCA but for the Jaguar program as well. So, times have changed. Personally, I agree with you, and don’t think the US should have been rewarded for its sanctions by such mega deals, but the current Govt in India, for the past 8 odd years, is pretty much as proUS as it gets. Even our foreign policy is at times reflective of that.
Having said that, from the strategic point of view, India is a bit more stronger now geopolitically and hence sanctions (again) from the US, would hurt them more than India. It would just permanently freeze their rep & Europe/Russia would benefit.
Coming to the Kaveri, thing is the project is not dead, so India does have a choice. A lot of the bad press about Indian defence programs is because India is very open with regards to many developmental programs and plus there is a colonial hangover, in that whatever is done locally, is often never as good for the media etc as “imported”. Homegrown stuff is simply not glamorous, and scandal sells.
But the actual programs are pursued with grit. For Kaveri for instance, plan is now to develop a MK2 for the MRCA with the latest tech., while the MK1 will be fielded in number using different variants for civil and military purposes.
Some 3-4 other jet engine programs are underway per public reports but mostly for small aircraft/missiles etc.
What I am trying to say is that per se, the Kaveri program is not dead, and will continue. Its disappointing that it can’t be used on the LCA itself, but then again, launching a program of this magnitude & hoping it would be done within the budget/tech constraints India had then (and still does today), was being unrealistic.
Unfortunately, the MiG-29 experience soured the IAF on the Klimov engines from the maintenance and MTBF point of view, initially, otherwise using them might have been an option. The Su-30 acquisition also came too late for the AL-31 to have been a strategic choice, and again the LCA would have had to be heavily redesigned to accomodate that engine.
Cheers Teer.
wilhelmNonsense. There were hundred of nukes tested over the decades. To stay serious it is not the limited physical destruction by a nuke but the ban of the world community after the use of a single one today.
How many of those hundreds of nukes were tested at the same time?
Anyway,they have always generally been tested singly, away from populated areas and all the attendent things such as farmlands and water supplies that humans depend on..
If a country resorts to nukes, the receipient will respond in kind.
The physical destruction will be massive…
wilhelmIt’s interesting that out of smaller air forces, only the Israelis seem to have truly embraced electronic warfare.
The SAAF actually had quite a comprehensive electronic warfare capability in the late 1980’s.
They were able to eavesdrop at will on communications between Russian and East German advisors, and Cuban and FAPLA forces.
The same communications were not only eavesdropped upon, but were also jammed at critical times.
For example, there was only one instance of the quite comprehensive radar/SAM network managing to briefly lock onto a Buccaneer, and this lock was swiftly broken.
Buccaneer and Mirage F1-AZ carried underwing jamming pods. The F1-AZ also was equipped with the indigineous RIMS (Radar and Infra-Red Misleading System).
Electronic warfare aircraft also involved were the Boeing 707’s and Douglas DC-4’s that supported strike packages.
Due to their fleet numbers as a result of the embargo, and waiting for projects such as the Cheetah C, and ultimately the Carver, they were forced to adopt high-technology procedures to husband the current fleet until those projects could be realised.
wilhelmSorry, but that only shows you are not tracking Indian defence programs in detail. The Tejas was both an attempt to get India the tech to make its own fighters and also, give the IAF a credible fighter.
In the process, India took heavy risks. The Kaveri was the biggest and went against the usual axiom of taking a proven engine to develop an airframe around, which would be the usual method attempted by first timers/relatively smaller aircraft industries.
Firstly, thank you for your impassioned and detailed reply.
Secondly, in the Tejas thread I said:
It was awfully ambitious to do a new, completely-from-scratch airframe, engine, and avionics programme without a systematic build-up, or seamless transition from a previous programme.
I’m quite aware of the what the programme was to achieve.
Replacement for the Mig-21 primarily.
As important was a completely indigineous fighter.
I have been following Indian defence programmes quite nicely, thank you.
No matter how excruciatingly torturous and dodgy some of them have been.
We all remember the sanctions that were put in place against India by the US after the nuclear tests.
The reliance on a US engine knocks the pillar down from one of the key fundemental aims of the entire Tejas – a completely indigineous fighter jet.
I for one am sad that the Kaveri will not be put into the Tejas.
I quite like the project.
The Kaveri engine has been a massive issue over the projects lifespan.
I am happy Kaveri development for non-Tejas use will continue, but to say it doesn’t matter that it will no longer be fitted to the Tejas is disingenoius.
It is a sensible decision to get the airframe operational though.
India may not previously have exported, but if they want to compete against China, Russia, the EU, and the US, commeasurate with her size, then India needs to make that progression to exports at some stage.
wilhelmThey undercut one of the justifications for its existence, i.e. independence.
Precisely.
It also impacts upon future exports, having to get the okay from the US first.
In a tight market, any single possible sale having to get the okay from Washington, among the other issues and conditions that come with this dependence, will be a crucial thing.
wilhelmChinese Z8( Super Puma) is about the same size of the Mi-171, and a high altitude version was immediately developed after the Sichuan earthquake. But i dont think many Z8s have been deployed in Chengdu Military District(where we need high altitude helicopters the most) yet. i bet the testing & evaluation process is not over.
The Z-8 is actually the Super Frelon.
The Z-8 has been developed into the Avicopter AC313 for civil use.
I actually think this development, with suitable modifications, would make a really useful military helicopter.
wilhelmI am sorry but you cannot possibly say that; as you say yourself gun-crime depends on the way society operates.
What you seem to be saying is that gun-control has no effect on gun-crime but that is impossible to say unless you compare two identical countries (or states) with different gun-control policies.
I would maintain that in any of the countries that have been mentioned, the US, the UK, Chile, Switzerland or Mexico, that if you relaxed gun-control there would be an increase in gun-crime and if you tightened gun-control there would be a reduction in gun-crime.
I think that is a more reliable model than simply making selected gun-control / gun-crime comparisons.
I can possibly say that, as I just did.
It seems possibilities are an issue for you?
Perhaps a broadening of the mind would be useful at times.
You want to relax gun control laws in Chile and Switzerland?
Are you actually reading the figures correctly?
They have well above average gun ownership, and well below average gun crime.
In Chiles case once again, they have a firearm ownership rate twice that of Britain, with gun crime that is 3 times lower.
They have a lower gun crime rate than Japan, who has one of the strictest gun control legislations on the planet.
They have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, in a firearm-ownership permissive environment.
How would banning legally owned firearms from licenced owners prevent criminals from carrying on indulging themselves there?
I presented those figures so some on the thread may perhaps re-examine what they percieve to be their overly righteous truths.
You’re quick to say that certain things I say are impossible, then quickly slap in your own opinions as if these are set in stone truths.
They are not.
It is rarely as simple as people think.
I suspect you prefer the Britain of some of the worlds highest CCTV camera monitoring, and the seeking of banning certain types of knives.
As if a bread knife were any less lethal.
Britain has always liked intrusive government.
Others may not.
It’s that simple.
You are entitled to have the society you want, just as others choose.
My last post on the matter, as I’ve realised long time ago that depending on the society, people think their way of doing things is generally correct. You cannot change peoples opinions who think thusly.
It’s a pointless argument really.
wilhelmI am sorry but you cannot possibly say that; as you say yourself gun-crime depends on the way society operates.
What you seem to be saying is that gun-control has no effect on gun-crime but that is impossible to say unless you compare two identical countries (or states) with different gun-control policies.
I would maintain that in any of the countries that have been mentioned, the US, the UK, Chile, Switzerland or Mexico, that if you relaxed gun-control there would be an increase in gun-crime and if you tightened gun-control there would be a reduction in gun-crime.
I think that is a more reliable model than simply making selected gun-control / gun-crime comparisons.
I can possibly say that, as I just did.
It seems possibilities are an issue for you?
Perhaps a broadening of the mind would be useful at times.
You want to relax gun control laws in Chile and Switzerland?
Are you actually reading the figures correctly?
They have well above average gun ownership, and well below average gun crime.
In Chiles case once again, they have a firearm ownership rate twice that of Britain, with gun crime that is 3 times lower.
They have a lower gun crime rate than Japan, who has one of the strictest gun control legislations on the planet.
They have one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, in a firearm-ownership permissive environment.
How would banning legally owned firearms from licenced owners prevent criminals from carrying on indulging themselves there?
I presented those figures so some on the thread may perhaps re-examine what they percieve to be their overly righteous truths.
You’re quick to say that certain things I say are impossible, then quickly slap in your own opinions as if these are set in stone truths.
They are not.
It is rarely as simple as people think.
I suspect you prefer the Britain of some of the worlds highest CCTV camera monitoring, and the seeking of banning certain types of knives.
As if a bread knife were any less lethal.
Britain has always liked intrusive government.
Others may not.
It’s that simple.
You are entitled to have the society you want, just as others choose.
My last post on the matter, as I’ve realised long time ago that depending on the society, people think their way of doing things is generally correct. You cannot change peoples opinions who think thusly.
It’s a pointless argument really.
wilhelmAh, the break-up of Yugoslavia…
…the perfect example of armed citizens taking the law into their own hands for the good of their fellow man! :rolleyes:
Yes.
I suppose it would have been far better to have witnessed the JNA crushing the voted-for will of the people.
Wouldn’t it be preferable to actually post a post of substance on the matter, rather than a quick sarcastic quip?
It does you a disservice.
wilhelmAh, the break-up of Yugoslavia…
…the perfect example of armed citizens taking the law into their own hands for the good of their fellow man! :rolleyes:
Yes.
I suppose it would have been far better to have witnessed the JNA crushing the voted-for will of the people.
Wouldn’t it be preferable to actually post a post of substance on the matter, rather than a quick sarcastic quip?
It does you a disservice.
wilhelmI’m amused by those who claim they don’t care what we do with our gun laws on this side of the pond, and in the same breath they make remarks that are very condescending when referencing American beliefs in our 2nd Amendment.
If what we do doesn’t bother you then why put such passion behind such remarks? A better question is below…
Why not just accept it, and move on? There are many things I don’t understand about all nations on this Earth. I don’t spend much time worrying about it though, and I just chalk it up to the idea that we are all different. What is important to some is not important to others. That is just the world we live in.
I can only speak for myself, but in my opinion the 2nd Amendement is important because it is an easily visible example of a freedom that my Constitution has given me that allows me to defend myself and my family if necessary (I pray it never will be), and it allows me to partake in other such activities if I so choose such as hunting (which I don’t do much of I admit) or more commonly target shooting at the range (or a friend’s land). Additionally, my guns are a hobby to me in that I take the time to learn about each gun I’ve purchased. Just as some people like to learn all about their car or perhaps their motorcycle, I do the same with my guns. Cleaning them and taking care of them is something I very much enjoy.
Many of you may consider me some ignorant redneck for my chosen hobby and that is your right to believe so. I would disagree with that assertion. Additioanlly, I’m no danger to anyone in my society provided they don’t threaten me or my family. I just have a hobby that I greatly enjoy when it comes to my firearms.
In addition to my personal reasons, I’d argue that most Americans who support the 2nd Amendment do so because if it is taken away (however unlikely) they see that as yet one more thing that the government is attempting to take from its citizens. I realize that much of the intent of the Amendment itself is outdated, but the principle behind the government taking away some of our freedoms is something that isn’t viewed upon kindly. You may think its an archaic viewpoint, but tight government control and socialistic policies aren’t popular with most here. Perhaps that is different in Europe or the U.K., but please don’t mistake popular forms of governance in your own respective areas as something that we will necessarily accept on this side of the Atlantic.
In short, I’m simply saying that everyone has their own viewpoint. You have yours. We have ours….
As for the statistics people keep quoting, I think that is largely a wasted effort. Statistics are like polls. They can be modified to suit the needs of the person using them as evidence. Again, I can only speak from my experience, but being in the USAF, I can safely say that I’ve lived in a large variety of different locales, some upscale and others not so much. I’ve never felt guns as a threat to my well being. There are places you don’t go in every city on Earth. If you are smart about where you go, and what you do then you will be fine. I realize that incidents like Aurora, CO and Sandy Hook in CT are possible, but the implementation of new gun laws will do little to stop a tragedies like those. Columbine took place five years after the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. A 100% safe existence is impossible to achieve in my opinion and no new set of legislation will ever change that.
Just my two cents…
Good post.
And for those who assume that, because a government flies jet fighters and has overwhelming firepower, an amendment like the US 2nd is archaic and obsolete, I beg to differ.
There is actually a recent example of this happening right here in Europe.
When Croatia and Slovenia decided to fight for their freedom and seccession from Yugoslavia, it is instructive to find that when hostilities kicked off and escalated, there were many instances in the beginning of civilians armed with civil or sporting firearms managing to over run smaller local army bases that had armouries, thus managing to equip themselves a little more appropriately to face the approaching Federal Yugoslav army columns.
I’d imagine you wouldn’t find much criticism of the US 2nd amendment in those two countries…..
wilhelmI’m amused by those who claim they don’t care what we do with our gun laws on this side of the pond, and in the same breath they make remarks that are very condescending when referencing American beliefs in our 2nd Amendment.
If what we do doesn’t bother you then why put such passion behind such remarks? A better question is below…
Why not just accept it, and move on? There are many things I don’t understand about all nations on this Earth. I don’t spend much time worrying about it though, and I just chalk it up to the idea that we are all different. What is important to some is not important to others. That is just the world we live in.
I can only speak for myself, but in my opinion the 2nd Amendement is important because it is an easily visible example of a freedom that my Constitution has given me that allows me to defend myself and my family if necessary (I pray it never will be), and it allows me to partake in other such activities if I so choose such as hunting (which I don’t do much of I admit) or more commonly target shooting at the range (or a friend’s land). Additionally, my guns are a hobby to me in that I take the time to learn about each gun I’ve purchased. Just as some people like to learn all about their car or perhaps their motorcycle, I do the same with my guns. Cleaning them and taking care of them is something I very much enjoy.
Many of you may consider me some ignorant redneck for my chosen hobby and that is your right to believe so. I would disagree with that assertion. Additioanlly, I’m no danger to anyone in my society provided they don’t threaten me or my family. I just have a hobby that I greatly enjoy when it comes to my firearms.
In addition to my personal reasons, I’d argue that most Americans who support the 2nd Amendment do so because if it is taken away (however unlikely) they see that as yet one more thing that the government is attempting to take from its citizens. I realize that much of the intent of the Amendment itself is outdated, but the principle behind the government taking away some of our freedoms is something that isn’t viewed upon kindly. You may think its an archaic viewpoint, but tight government control and socialistic policies aren’t popular with most here. Perhaps that is different in Europe or the U.K., but please don’t mistake popular forms of governance in your own respective areas as something that we will necessarily accept on this side of the Atlantic.
In short, I’m simply saying that everyone has their own viewpoint. You have yours. We have ours….
As for the statistics people keep quoting, I think that is largely a wasted effort. Statistics are like polls. They can be modified to suit the needs of the person using them as evidence. Again, I can only speak from my experience, but being in the USAF, I can safely say that I’ve lived in a large variety of different locales, some upscale and others not so much. I’ve never felt guns as a threat to my well being. There are places you don’t go in every city on Earth. If you are smart about where you go, and what you do then you will be fine. I realize that incidents like Aurora, CO and Sandy Hook in CT are possible, but the implementation of new gun laws will do little to stop a tragedies like those. Columbine took place five years after the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. A 100% safe existence is impossible to achieve in my opinion and no new set of legislation will ever change that.
Just my two cents…
Good post.
And for those who assume that, because a government flies jet fighters and has overwhelming firepower, an amendment like the US 2nd is archaic and obsolete, I beg to differ.
There is actually a recent example of this happening right here in Europe.
When Croatia and Slovenia decided to fight for their freedom and seccession from Yugoslavia, it is instructive to find that when hostilities kicked off and escalated, there were many instances in the beginning of civilians armed with civil or sporting firearms managing to over run smaller local army bases that had armouries, thus managing to equip themselves a little more appropriately to face the approaching Federal Yugoslav army columns.
I’d imagine you wouldn’t find much criticism of the US 2nd amendment in those two countries…..
Sign In
