prithvi wrote:ramana wrote:Why do you seek such respect?
no I am just curious about the process and decision behind nicknaming weapon systems by NATO.. is that a cold war era practice or still being continued today..? and what are the possible reasons behind them...
The Soviets were literally behind an iron curtaon and the West was unable to see development in the USSR but were nevertheless concerned that developments could be a threat. In the 1950s and 60s Russians used to play the same game of hide and seek about weapons development that the Chinese have played more recently. What that meant was that spy planes and telephoto lenses would capture inages in the USSR and a few of them would be recognized as "more than experimental". For example if you look at Jane's photos of the eariest MiG 21s and Su-7s and 9s - they are blurry enlarged images.
The Soviets might refer to a Type "
65Strzhny" or type "
ZhPrzxght-74ski" and both might be variants of the same aircraft. To reduce confusion among NATO forces - once a type was identified it was given a code name where the first letter of the name indicated what type it was. For example
F for fighter - Fishbed (Mig 21) , Fitter (Su-9), Flanker (Su-27)
B for bomber Badger (Tu-16), Blinder (Tu-22)
C for transport/civil Cub (An-12), Candid (IL 76), Tu 104 (Camel)
A for AAMs Atoll (K-13), Adder, Aphid etc (can't recall the designations)
S for SSMs - such as Styx
The nomenclature was an attempt to reduce confusing terminology and not a title of "respect". India, like the west has openly indicated what it is developing and has given names that people can use - and so code names are not needed. Also India uses Indic names that are easily written in English and are more easily pronounceable than Russian names by Western sources. So the need for code names does not arise.
Piskologically only Indians "respect" everyone else. Others either fear or mock. No respect shespect.
