![Image](http://www.atmonline.cz/tech/obr/tech5-2006.jpg)
Photos from ACIG.
Could'nt those idiots read the details and final tables properly? There were 16 air-to-air kills by both sides, although Cooke's second kill is not mentioned in the tables, plus Sikands Gnat and Kacker's Hunter are also attributed as kills, which need to be fixed. Pakistan claims 36 air-to-air kills alone, but the official history's figure of 24 lost, includes AAA losses.Samir wrote:Indian Express does a two-page spread on the 1965 war book:
http://www.indianexpress.com/sunday/story/9548.html
Without access to all the facts and inside story, the one true surprise, which has received scant attention in the press even from defence commentators, is the exclusion from consideration of the Russian Klab missiles. These longer-range missiles, originally designed for submarine based operations, also have supersonic capability enabling them to engage sea-skimming missiles such as the Exocet. The Klab missiles are in fact coming to India along with several Kilo-class Russian submarines bought by India. Modified versions have also been fitted on to the reconditioned Russian aircraft carrier Gorshkov and on several stealth technology frigates being built in Russia for the Indian Navy. The modified frigate-mounted versions of the Klab are also vertically mounted systems like the Barak (and unlike the Trishul), making it easier to mount and operate on existing vessels. The booklet Indefensible Dealings had therefore asked: Whether there had been a comparative evaluation of the two systems or had subjective pro-Israeli biases or undue pressures been brought to bear in favour of the Israeli systems? And the question is relevant even today.
His master's voice
Shyam Saran follows the PM in attacking nuclear scientists.
11 January 2007: On one hand, the prime minister bemoans our backwardness in the sciences, promising higher compensations for scientists and boosts in research facilities. On the other hand, he does not flinch from demoralizing them, especially the nuclear scientists, because they oppose him in the Indo-US nuclear deal. In Parliament, he pointed fingers at the nuclear scientific establishment for falling back on power generation targets without giving them credit for keeping alive both a strategic and civilian atomic programme under crippling world technology denial regimes.
Because the PM forgets he is the head of the government, and must weigh his words and opinions carefully, others take license from his position. Yesterday, at an IDSA seminar, according to the papers, the PM's special envoy on the nuclear deal, Shyam Saran, ran down the scientists. Saying that India would not accept any reference to a test moratorium in the 123 agreement being negotiated with the United States, he added, somewhat superfluously, that the last word lay with the political establishment here, and not the scientists.
The buck ultimately stops with the prime minister. Shyam Saran is not being exactly educative telling is what is obvious. But why the sideswipe at the scientists? Because they stood up to the government and pointed to its blundering nuke deal negotiations? Shyam Saran reveals himself. So does the PM. Even having served the government most of their lives, neither can separate policy criticism from the personal.
In strategic research, scientists have played an extra-scientific leading role all over the world. They have been demons and also served as conscience keepers. European scientists although they had stumbled upon fission in the Thirties did not publish their results in some cases because of the potential of misuse by fascist governments. One plausible reason that Hitler's Third Reich could not make atomic weapons before the US was because the German atomic project chief, the quantum physicist, Werner Heisenberg, had a role in misguiding the research. And Niels Bohr, on the advise of Manhattan Project's scientific director, J.Robert Oppenheimer, spoke with the then US president, Franklin D.Roosevelt, about sharing the atomic bomb technology with the Soviet Union. Roosevelt accepted the great physicist's argument. But Churchill said no. Anyhow, the Soviets caught up sooner than later.
Since then, some of the strongest opponents of atomic weapons and the doughtiest supporters of deterrence and non-proliferation have been nuclear scientists, weapons' designers, and so on. Their role in the polemics of the devastating weapons they create and refine cannot be wished away. Why should the political establishment alone have a view on it and cheerleaders of that view among strategists? Why not others? Why not nuclear scientists?
We have said this before, and we repeat. If we had not tested in 1974 and 1998, shown our capability with weaponization, and succeeded with nuclear IRBMs, the United States and other powers would not have given us today's special attention. It is true our economic miracle has increased the draw. But why does in comparison to India Japan, a bigger economic powerhouse, and Germany, a leader, pale? Look jaded? Appear tired? More to the point, how would we have got US acceptance of our nuclear weapons' status if we weren't a nuclear weapons' power thanks to our scientists? And why would the US give us that status if it didn't see India as a strategic balancer in Asia? We haven't sought this role. We may not even want it, especially if it entails congruency with US foreign policy. But without our credible deterrent, would we even have come on the radar?
Now consider why the US is the world technology leader, which gives it the heft to be a hyperpower. It is its sciences that power the US, keep it ahead of Europe by at least two generations or more and ahead of us by three generations or perhaps four. From its sciences, its R and D, flow its technologies that power the world. Four reactors sold to China at a cost exceeding $2 billion each nudge down its trade deficit with the Chinese. The US hopes to sell at least eight reactors to India with the nuke deal. See the high tech cost we pay to the US because we have neglected our sciences, scorned our scientists, and run them down in public. How does the PM hope to shore up the morale of scientists by insulting them?
This is not alone the case of nuclear scientists. Following the Barak scandal, the DRDO was targeted wholesale. There are obvious problems with DRDO as there are bound to be problems with all monopolies working under a blanket of secrecy. It is perhaps true that DRDO spread itself too thin. As we have published before, it should have concentrated on select areas, missiles for example, and withdrawn from other sectors. In fact, our solution for optimizing defence research is to part privatize it or join it with science universities or create internal competition, which the Russians have successfully modeled. But DRDO was so heavily shelled that Western weapons' manufacturers were suspected behind it.
When did the attacks cease? When DRDO stunned with a successful missile interception test. Naturally, it is a beginning. Missile defence is a hazardous enterprise. The US, for example, is painfully overcoming failures. But it needed such DRDO success to still the critics. Objective criticism is valid and welcome. But the attack on DRDO was motivated. Yesterday, the ISRO proved itself all over again by putting four satellites into orbit. We probably still haven't fully understood the enormity of this success. But big powers like the US which are intimate with the consequences of such strategic high leaps would get a complete measure of where we are headed space-wise and missile-wise. Bumptious bureaucrats like Shyam Saran would scorn its significance unless it is accidentally revealed in the course of diplomacy. The same is unfortunately true of Manmohan Singh.
This is not to suggest that scientists ought to have a veto on strategic policy. The political establishment is the ultimate arbiter of it. But the establishment must accept and appreciate that in strategic negotiations, strategic R and D is the driver. The technical side of negotiations must always feature scientists. When scientists foresee an erosion of or compromise with national interest, they will speak out. In the nuke deal negotiations, it verily looked that DAE objections were being passed over or suppressed. Retired scientists were probably forced into the role of opposing the deal. This must not happen again. And the PM is lowering himself, and disserving his office, by targeting strategic scientists without a care for past services rendered. In his lead, others follow. The Congress party has no tradition of this.
I can't imagine that they are treating Bana Singh, PVC in this manner. Really shameful. Let me speak to the admin team and find out if BR can do anything. Thanks.Philip wrote:Has anyone seen the article in the Week Apr.6th. on the misserable plight of one of the country's most decorated and famous heroes,Naik Subedar Major Bana Singh? The name Bana Singh and Siachen are synonomous in the history of the Indian Army.He was awarded the PVC forcapturing along with his colleagues Pak's Qaid Post at an alt. of 6,500m!
20 yrs. later "Singh is a forgotten hero",says the Week.In retirement,the GOI turned down his requests for a petrol pump and a liquor shop licence.To sustain his 6 member family he has taken to farming in his village,Kadyal.says Bana Singh,"This is how the govt. treats a soldier who sacrificed everything for it".He also says,upset with the civvies in South Block,"I would like them to serve in Siachen alongside the troops for some time.Then they would realise what it takes to defend Siachen".
Shameful and outrageous.Words fail me as to the unfogivable attitude of the GOI.Is there anything that we at BR can do for bana Singh?
Rakesh wrote:I can't imagine that they are treating Bana Singh, PVC in this manner. Really shameful. Let me speak to the admin team and find out if BR can do anything. Thanks.Philip wrote:Has anyone seen the article in the Week Apr.6th. on the misserable plight of one of the country's most decorated and famous heroes,Naik Subedar Major Bana Singh? The name Bana Singh and Siachen are synonomous in the history of the Indian Army.He was awarded the PVC forcapturing along with his colleagues Pak's Qaid Post at an alt. of 6,500m!
20 yrs. later "Singh is a forgotten hero",says the Week.In retirement,the GOI turned down his requests for a petrol pump and a liquor shop licence.To sustain his 6 member family he has taken to farming in his village,Kadyal.says Bana Singh,"This is how the govt. treats a soldier who sacrificed everything for it".He also says,upset with the civvies in South Block,"I would like them to serve in Siachen alongside the troops for some time.Then they would realise what it takes to defend Siachen".
Shameful and outrageous.Words fail me as to the unfogivable attitude of the GOI.Is there anything that we at BR can do for bana Singh?
Could it be that this is usually a State Government's function, and his particular state - Jammu and Kashmir - is playing some local politics that we cannot grasp? Different states play different politics with regard to armed forces (especially Army). Captain Singh himself juxtaposed Punjab government's generous offer with J&K's. Obviously Punjab government stands to gain a lot of soldiers' goodwill - who make up a significant portion of the politicians' constituency. While most other state governments stand to get fewer points... might it be that J&K actually sees negative points in this? If so, it may be an alarming trend indeed!Jagan wrote:First time I am hearing about Naik Subedar Major![]()
Regarding the petrol pump and land eligibility, it depends. Many states have passed some rules ensuring 'rewards' and 'benefits' to soldiers who are killed in action and as well as to those who get gallantry awards.
The petroleum companies themselves have rules that promise special treatment to ex servicemen, with the kin of the killed in action getting the highest priority , wounded next, normal retired next etc.
I dont remember if the gallantry awardees rank above or below the killed and disabled in action but the set of rules do promise some benefits to the decorated soldiers, both at the state govt level and at the petroleum company level. As long as Bana Singh is not asking to jump the line within the ex-servicemen quota, he is well within his rights to complain if his application has been delyaed or is being sat upon.
The article goes on to describe the mechanics of this "assured kill strategy" in detail. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it's definitely worth a read.. . . could expect to defeat the F-15C "every time". Not most engagements, not even the majority of engagements - all of the engagements.