What is the deeper sense in that statement?

Exploring further this issue is beyond the scope of this discussion.

This shed some more light on PAF missile deal. Although Kentron wants to hide as much as possible for fear of losing that Howitzer contract but there patience with India has running out so cooperation is going on full scale without any body knowing it.
thats why there is A-darter as an option for FC-1 as mentioned in AFM JUNE 2004.

Africa News Service, June 20, 2002
SA Arms Fan Conflict.
.

Jun 21, 2002

India and Pakistan both buy local weapons.

South African weapons companies are servicing both sides in the India-Pakistan conflict — and it has been roundly condemned by the chair of Parliament’s defence committee, Thandi Modise.

“I would be very, very upset if South Africa was in any way selling to either India or Pakistan. Both have a bad human rights record. They are virtually at war. They are neighbours. It would not be acceptable to be helping to perpetuate that conflict,” Modise said this week. She is a leading African National Congress MP.

Modise’s tough stance comes ahead of crucial committee deliberations scheduled for next week on controversial government amendments to the National Conventional Arms Control (NCAC) Bill, which would significantly reduce both parliamentary oversight and the transparency of South Africa’s international arms trade.

Already, the details of the transactions with India and Pakistan are being kept secret due to the fact that National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC) has failed to make public its reports for the past two years, despite promises to Parliament to do so.

Modise said her committee had never received any explanation for this failure.

In terms of an arrangement after 1994, the NCACC, which is chaired by Minister of Education Kader Asmal, is supposed to report each year on its decisions regarding South African arms exports, but the committee has failed to report since 1999. In that year South Africa exported Category A equipment worth R205-million to India and R36-million to Pakistan. Category A comprises conventional weapons such as explosives, large calibre arms, missiles, bombs, tanks, fighter aircraft and attack helicopters.

Asmal told the M&G the 2000 and 2001 figures had been delayed because of a lack of clarity over the detail of disclosure required, flowing from the two-year delay in the finalisation of the NCAC Bill. He said the figures would be released once they had been put before Cabinet, probably in about three weeks’ time.

The government has been fairly open about its bid to supply the Indian defence force with state armaments manufacturer Denel’s 155mm howitzer technology — weapons systems which have already been deployed in previous wars between the two countries.

In 2000 Denel delivered an emergency supply of ammunition for India’s 155mm Bofors guns following the Kargil conflict in which tens of thousands of shells were fired at Pakistani positions. Now the company is bidding to set up an ammunition plant in India. South Africa is also bidding against Sweden’s Bofors and an Israeli company to supply a new generation of 155mm towed and self-propelled weapons based on Denel’s G5 and G6 cannons.

As recently as February this year, Minister of Public Enterprises Jeff Radebe, attending a defence exhibition in India, announced that Denel was actively pursuing joint ventures with Indian defence industries for the development and manufacture of artillery systems, both for India’s needs and for export.

South African manufacturer Reutech, now majority-owned by the British company Vickers, has exported hundreds of Casspir armoured personnel carriers to India and is understood to be considering building the vehicle there.

The situation with regard to Pakistan is more murky following a Cabinet decision to suspend new arms sales to Pakistan in the wake of the 1999 coup by General Pervez Musharraf.

However, in May 2000 the government indicated in response to a parliamentary question that South Africa was continuing to honour existing contracts and that exports of category A weapons between October 1999 and May 2000 amounted to R44-million. The contracts are believed to relate to a long-term, R600-million deal to supply missile technology to Pakistan.

The authoritative Aviation Week reported in 1999 that Denel had offered Pakistan a package of air-to-air weapons for the Super 7/FC-1 fighter it is developing with China. Denel’s Kentron division is understood to be still in line to supply the Pakistanis with its Darter/Kukri range of air-to-air missiles that would counter India’s present air superiority.

Industry insiders refused to confirm or deny the supplies to Pakistan, but informal leaks from Kentron suggest that South Africa is “doing a roaring trade” with both India and Pakistan.

Asmal said India was regarded as a “strategic partner” and therefore South Africa had a responsibility to meet its long-term commitments to that country. But he said that arms exports, including those to India, were regularly re-evaluated in response to the security situation.

Asmal also confirmed that the Pakistan contract, which the government had inherited from the apartheid government, was still being implemented, though new contracts would not be entered into until Pakistan made “decisive” moves to return to democratic rule.

The international organisation Campaign Against the Arms Trade said South Africa was not unique in arming both Pakistan and India.

“Britain is selling enthusiastically to both sides,” a spokesperson said.

Local lobby groups have been critical of Asmal’s attempts to water down the strong oversight features proposed by Parliament. Anti-arms trade campaigner Terry Crawford-Browne says Asmal’s latest version of the NCAC Bill “reads like a gun lobby document rather than a statement of principle concerned about the proliferation of armaments and the abuse of human rights”.

“It is a disgraceful feature of this Bill that citizens

the media are threatened by 20 years’ imprisonment should they reveal unlawful conduct by the armaments industry

the NCACC.”

The issue of oversight of South Africa’s arms trade has so far resulted in a stormy stand-off between Parliament and the executive.

The NCAC Bill was withdrawn in 2000 and again in 2001 after objections by a handful of NGOs, mainly because of the lack of parliamentary oversight over arms exports and the blanket secrecy imposed over any information relating to the armaments industry. Modise’s committee played a key role in throwing out these clauses and inserting much tougher provisions for Parliamentary monitoring. These included a requirement that the parliamentary committee be consulted prior to the granting of final export permits.

Both the Ministry of Defence and Speaker Frene Ginwala claimed such a provision would be an unconstitutional interference by Parliament in executive actions, despite the fact that state law advisers had approved the committee’s wording.

This week Modise said that she would be led by her committee: “I believe that there should be this kind of oversight (of the executive). The question is whether South Africa is ready for it, whether Parliament is ready to give itself that role.”

Additional reporting by Stefaans Brummer

by Sam Sole

Who is the next customer for this Radar. looks more expensive phased array.

Recently, tests were completed of the newest “Zhuk-MS” radar with a phased antenna array on an Su-30MK airplane. The work was carried out on order of the Sukhoy Aircraft Holding Company and paid for by KnAAPO. During the complex of tests, the airplane demonstrated characteristics which exceed the SU-30MKI in some parameters. “I am boldly able to report that this is the best radar architecturally and the characteristics provided by it for range and tracking in the forward and rear hemispheres exceed worldwide indicators,” Kanashchenkov declared.

Source: 24.12.04, ARMS-TASS/royfc.com

Dont bring any economics or comparision issues into this thread.

You said u supported *u* supported westren equipments ….. but the thread I mentioned … u went all the way to prove Russian Defence industry superior
to westren Defence Industry … What does superior defence Industry churn out ….. inferior products???:D

I supported Western Equipment but it does not mean that i supported Western style private corporations who are more in business of making money rathere than adding to national strength.
China can produce far more J-10 per year as compared to F-2 of Japan but i believe F-2 is more sophisticated and better plane but Japanese production is slow and cost is too high. Same it the case with Russia industry versu Western European. Russia can produce more crude weopons

:rolleyes: Well we need not go too far to read Read THIS

There alot more richer countrie than Malaysia who had chosen F-16. Just look at Taiwan (5 times richer per capita) than Malaysia. South Korea, UAE. Mostly third world pathetic countries chose Russian equipment.
Harrier stayed in service for long period of time.
How long F-104 stayed in US service?

Oops a typo :confused: Sorry !

So Iranian/Chinese aerospace industry is superior to Russian??:D

What this has to do with Individual quality of weopons? That thread is more about mass production of Russian Industry versus Western European which despite spending money do not produce offensive weopons rather only concentrate on defensive weopons. It has nothing to do with US weopons or Industry.
And How you relate to Industry based on one specific product? One thing is for sure that there is far more MIG-21 crashes as compared to F-7 crashes. (just compare F-7 versus MIG-21 crashes between IAF and PAF for past 15 years)

So u agree that F-104 was inferior to MiG21 😀 You Prove my point :diablo:

There were F-4 and F-5 which were superior aircraft to MIG-21 at that time. US has large variety of aircraft it does not depend on any single type and USAF has lost its interest in F-104 early on so it is more like dump in export market.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Both MiG 21 & F-104 was built in 1950’s (both MiG 21 & F-104 had entry into their respective air forces at nearly same time 😉 ie 1958) Like its contemporary, the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, the MiG-21 was designed with the lessons of the jet war in Korea in mind
😀

Development at same time does not mean that you have the best version of it. And by 1970 F104 was obsolete and more concentration was on F-5 and F-4.