An Indian salute for President Musharraf

harimau #591

``Why choose a long thin cylinder or a wire as the shape? I had in mind a rather squat cylinder when I said that shape doesn`t alter the mass. Of course, you could the accurate claim that a cylindrical tube wouldn`t go critical despite exceeding the critical mass for the element it is made of and try to disprove me, which incidentally is how the Little Man was designed. I was not thinking of annular shapes when I said shape doesn`t matter.``

I mentioned the most extreme example - a wire - to make it easiest to grasp why shape does matter. A critical mass sphere can be continuously deformed into a squat cylinder of the same mass, and then into an elongated cylinder. If the critical mass requirement doesn`t change between the sphere and the squat cylinder, at what point does it then change on the route to the elongated cylinder, and why? It`s easy for a neutron to escape out of the wide flat ends of a squat cylinder or the long curved sides of a thin cylinder. The solid sphere with the same volume has the longest average path length through solid matter from a point in its interior to the exterior. This is still only heuristic. I prefer not to use proof by reference to eminent authority, but if you like you can look up Robert Serber`s `Los Alamos Primer`, which is an annotated version of the lectures he gave to the experimental physicists on the Manhattan Project. It`s an easy read for anybody with a technical background and ought to be in any university library. I remember Serber works out the condition for criticality for a sphere and for a cube of the same material - the latter has a significantly higher critical mass.

``However, the fear existed that if the bomb fell into the ocean, seawater would act as a moderator and the bomb could go critical without the internal gun being fired.``

That would probably be a slow-neutron chain reaction, enough to blow the weapon apart but not to cause a full-scale explosion.

Ref AlephNull #: 590

[``Mass remains the same no matter what the shape is. So, why a spherical core? Mass doesn`t change if the same amount of plutonium is cast as a cylinder, does it?``

No, shape does matter a great deal for a critical assembly of fissile material. [So, also, does density, and whether the fissile material is surrounded by vacuum, or by neutron-reflecting materials]. A chain reaction ensues when enough of the neutrons emitted in a fission induce further fissions (emittting enough additional neutrons) instead of escaping from the material entirely. It is most difficult to escape from a given amount of fissile material when it has the shape of a solid sphere, and easiest when it has the shape of a long thin cylinder or wire.]

Why choose a long thin cylinder or a wire as the shape? I had in mind a rather squat cylinder when I said that shape doesn`t alter the mass. Of course, you could the accurate claim that a cylindrical tube wouldn`t go critical despite exceeding the critical mass for the element it is made of and try to disprove me, which incidentally is how the Little Man was designed. I was not thinking of annular shapes when I said shape doesn`t matter.

[For a sanity check, you may recall that the Hiroshima bomb used about 50 kg of high-enriched uranium - about three `critical masses` worth - split between a `projectile` and a `cup`. Thus prior to explosive assenbly, at least one of the two fissile pieces had a mass greater than the nominal critical mass. It didn`t explode then and there from stray fissions because it was the wrong shape - cylindrical or cup-shaped, not spherical.]

Little Man used 64 kg of Uranium, about 2.4 critical masses. The projectile accounted for about 40% of the uranium, just under 1 critical mass. The rest was shaped as a cylinder with a hole through the center to receive the projectile, thus effectively reducing the critical mass. That is why it didn`t explode from stray neutrons. However, the fear existed that if the bomb fell into the ocean, seawater would act as a moderator and the bomb could go critical without the internal gun being fired.

[``Design of the explosive system to compress the core was one of the most difficult aspects of the Manhattan Project. It took over a thousand experiments with explosives to come up with the final configuraion of the explosive ``lens``.``

Yes, it was apparently technically very difficult - it called on the talents of John von Neumann. The idea of using multiple neighbouring segments of two different explosive materials, with different detonation speeds, to combine expanding detonation waves into a converging implosion wave, was his. The actual configurations of explosives used to get a spherical implosion would be familiar to anyone who`s seen a soccer ball. [It`s probably non-trivial to figure out how exactly to stretch and squeeze those patches to get a satisfactorily ellipsoidal implosion.] Also critical would be timing, to ensure that the individual detonations occur essentially simultaneously. Further, the explosives used would have to be of reliably uniform performance. But these challenges once surmounted are solved for all time; they do not require anywhere near the capital investment and energy as is needed to produce each kilogram of fissile material.]

I went back to the High Energy Weapons site. It took more than 20,000 tests with the explosive lens system to perfect it. And what worked on a smaller scale did not work exactly the same when scaled up. The composition of the explosives had to be uniform across its entire mass and the parts had to fit with extremely tight tolerances so that the shock waves were uniform and would not allow the plutonium pit to ``jet``, meaning, to squirt away in the direction where the pressure was slightly less.

Regarding availability of fissile material, the fissile material in short supply was uranium, not plutonium. Not only was one plutonium bomb tested at Alamogordo but another bomb could have been dropped on Japan on August 20, 1947, 11 days after Nagasaki. The bomb assemblies were all at Tinian island and were waiting only for the plutonium core. On the other hand, there wasn`t any uranium available for another bomb. Little Man was a completely untested though theoretically sound design.

harimau #589

``Mass remains the same no matter what the shape is. So, why a spherical core? Mass doesn`t change if the same amount of plutonium is cast as a cylinder, does it?``

No, shape does matter a great deal for a critical assembly of fissile material. [So, also, does density, and whether the fissile material is surrounded by vacuum, or by neutron-reflecting materials]. A chain reaction ensues when enough of the neutrons emitted in a fission induce further fissions (emittting enough additional neutrons) instead of escaping from the material entirely. It is most difficult to escape from a given amount of fissile material when it has the shape of a solid sphere, and easiest when it has the shape of a long thin cylinder or wire. The key issue is the mean free path of a high-energy (`fast`) neutron. A critical sphere would have a radius of the same order as the mean free path (not exactly the same, but good enough for a heuristic explanation). A reduction in the radius of a fissile sphere (e.g. using explosives - even solid metals can be compressed significantly) causes a cubical increase in the density, and a corresponding cubical reduction in the mean free path - so a denser sphere requires less fissile material to go critical. Surrounding the fissile material with a neutron-reflective tamper similarly has the effect of reducing the critical mass. So the nominal `critical mass` figure quoted for a fissile material is that for a sphere of the material at normal density in vacuum.

For a sanity check, you may recall that the Hiroshima bomb used about 50 kg of high-enriched uranium - about three `critical masses` worth - split between a `projectile` and a `cup`. Thus prior to explosive assenbly, at least one of the two fissile pieces had a mass greater than the nominal critical mass. It didn`t explode then and there from stray fissions because it was the wrong shape - cylindrical or cup-shaped, not spherical.

``Design of the explosive system to compress the core was one of the most difficult aspects of the Manhattan Project. It took over a thousand experiments with explosives to come up with the final configuraion of the explosive ``lens``.``

Yes, it was apparently technically very difficult - it called on the talents of John von Neumann. The idea of using multiple neighbouring segments of two different explosive materials, with different detonation speeds, to combine expanding detonation waves into a converging implosion wave, was his. The actual configurations of explosives used to get a spherical implosion would be familiar to anyone who`s seen a soccer ball. [It`s probably non-trivial to figure out how exactly to stretch and squeeze those patches to get a satisfactorily ellipsoidal implosion.] Also critical would be timing, to ensure that the individual detonations occur essentially simultaneously. Further, the explosives used would have to be of reliably uniform performance. But these challenges once surmounted are solved for all time; they do not require anywhere near the capital investment and energy as is needed to produce each kilogram of fissile material.

Ref AlephNull #: 588

[I don`t think this was the primary reason for the spherical symmetry of the Fat Man design. The scarcest resource in this case is fissile plutonium-239. The chain-reaction-critical configuration having the smallest volume/mass is a solid sphere, rather than, say, a cylinder. This is what dictates the shape of the rest of the device. The fact that a spherical implosion is easier to achieve than, say, an prolate spheroidal or ellipsoidal one, is convenient but not the driving factor.]

Mass remains the same no matter what the shape is. So, why a spherical core? Mass doesn`t change if the same amount of plutonium is cast as a cylinder, does it?

Design of the explosive system to compress the core was one of the most difficult aspects of the Manhattan Project. It took over a thousand experiments with explosives to come up with the final configuraion of the explosive ``lens``. The details on India`s 1974 test also says that about 500 tests were done before the ``lens`` was perfected. Perhaps a spherical implosion is not that easy to obtain.

harimau #582

``There is no way you can exceed 10%-20% efficiency in a nuke, the lower number for uranium weapons and the higher number for plutonium weapons.``

Limiting attention to weapons whose yield comes overwhelmingly from fission - efficiencies in the vicinity of 30% have reportedly been attained for fusion-boosted fission bombs. [In a fusion-boosted device, a small amount of deuterium-tritium mixture is introduced into the fissile core of the bomb. This undergoes thermonuclear fusion at the high temperatures reached towards the very end of the fission process, releasing high-energy neutrons which in turn cause more complete fission of the remaining fissile material.] Varying the amount of D-T mixture introduced allows one to control the extent of boosting, hence the yield, of a fusion-boosted fission device; or the yield of a two-stage thermonuclear device whose fissile primary employs variable boosting. It appears that accurate prediction through computational simulation of the yield of fusion-boosted fission devices (say, to calibrate the output of dial-a-yield nukes) remains elusive.

``For instance, the first plutonium design Fat Man was a sphere because it is comparatively easier to squeeze in all directions simultaneously to achieve implosion rather than along just one or two axes and not have the core behave like a ballon squeezed at one point.``

I don`t think this was the primary reason for the spherical symmetry of the Fat Man design. The scarcest resource in this case is fissile plutonium-239. The chain-reaction-critical configuration having the smallest volume/mass is a solid sphere, rather than, say, a cylinder. This is what dictates the shape of the rest of the device. The fact that a spherical implosion is easier to achieve than, say, an prolate spheroidal or ellipsoidal one, is convenient but not the driving factor.

The elongated shape of Little Boy was similarly a consequence of the cannon-based design of that device.

``Such a bomb won`t fit under the wing of an F-16 and you had to design an elongated bomb.``

Limiting oneself to implosion-based fission weapons: it is enough that the diameter of the spherical implosion assembly be small enough (say, under 18 inches, comparable with the maximum diameter of a drop tank). An elongated aerodynamic external casing can be added for the purposes of external carriage and delivery. I doubt that the reductions in maximum diameter would be worth the greater amount of fissile material needed for a fission weapon designed around, say, an ellipsoidal core; perhaps such a shape would have advantages as the first stage of a compact thermonuclear warhead such as the W-88. In the case of thermonuclear weapons, the devices possess one-axis rotational symmetry and are naturally somewhat elongated by design. In any case, weight is likely to be almost as critical as the drag of an externally-carried bomb.

harimau #587

``Finally, I saw a photograph of India`s first test bomb being lowered into the testing shaft. An elongated design that looks like an air-dropped bomb. What with all the accumulated knowledge from 1945, the Indians managed to design the bomb for today`s planes.``

What you most likely saw was the photograph of Shakti-I, the hydrogen bomb. Its cylindrical shape is a consequence of its being a two-stage thermonuclear device, not a one-stage fission device. Apart from its small gross size, `design for today`s planes` or missile nosecones is likely to have been an afterthought.

harimau #586

``Hoare is a professor of Computer Science and quite a pioneer in languages and operating systems. His comment on Algol was after he saw the popularity of Pascal and C and their increasing use``

C.A.R Hoare made that comment in 1974, before Pascal had attained widespread use and when C and Unix were in their barest infancy. It was most likely aimed at PL-1 and Algol-68, both much larger languages and neither eventually very successful. Incidentally, that comment is often originally attributed to Alan Perlis, a Turing Award winner one-and-a-half decades before Hoare.

Ref rajanjua #: 585

[``By the way, the Fat Man weighed 10,000 lbs for its 20 kiloton output, way too much to be carried on the wings of a F-16. That is why you need new designs for nukes.``

YOU as in Pakistan or India - Yes, I know - Let me also add that folks don`t take too kindly to tests these days - what with ctbt and all that.]

Finally, I saw a photograph of India`s first test bomb being lowered into the testing shaft. An elongated design that looks like an air-dropped bomb. What with all the accumulated knowledge from 1945, the Indians managed to design the bomb for today`s planes. Nobody makes B-29s anymore and even they had their bomb bays specially modified to carry the Fat Man. Just historical information.

Regards.

Ref rajanjua #: 585

[i do not know who hoare is - courant, hilbert and von neumann are the sort of people i am familiar with.

algol!! i am sure there must be something useful about algol - but imsl, lapack, blas, etc. are not written in algol.]

I should have known better than to argue with a numerical analyst as opposed to a computer science-type guy! Anyway, very few computer science departments emphasize numerical analysis and it has drifted back to the math department in many universities.

Hoare is a professor of Computer Science and quite a pioneer in languages and operating systems. His comment on Algol was after he saw the popularity of Pascal and C and their increasing use.

[I am glad you finally see the usefulness of these machines.]

Oh, I have always accepted the usefulness of these machines but I object to their high costs. If an R8000 can run at half the speed of a Cray for 5% of the cost, it would make sense to buy the R8000 and spend the rest of the money on something more useful. Like I read somewhere about American and Russian fighter jet manufacturing: Americans use the same standard for riveting body panels together on the F-16. The Russians take care in those areas where they knoe the stresses will be high and are somewhat sloppy in other places.

Interestingly, most of the superscalar aspects that you see in microprocessors such as the HyperSPARC or the Pentium were all pioneered in early machines such as the CDC6600 back in the mid-60s.

[Hennessey, perhaps, was not aware of SV1, when he wrote the above.]

Probably not but in all probability the SV-1 has more memory and higher clock speed without any major changes in architecture, both of which are available for competing non-vector-processing machines also.

[I will not declare victory or for that matter go to war in the first place with someone who last programmed 20 years back and probably falls in the category of uncle jay :-) ]

Don`t tell me you find programming fascinating. I could stand about three years of it. After that it was a drudgery for the next couple of years. And then I got out of it.

[And only way to find out would be 5 years from now - so why keep arguing about it eh?]

Agreed. Will Chowk last 5 years for us to continue the debate in 2007?

Regards.

re: harimau

``By the way, the Fat Man weighed 10,000 lbs for its 20 kiloton output, way too much to be carried on the wings of a F-16. That is why you need new designs for nukes.``

YOU as in Pakistan or India - Yes, I know - Let me also add that folks don`t take too kindly to tests these days - what with ctbt and all that.

``Yaaaawn. JAVA is a sucky language and I haven`t coded in 20 years. I agree with CAR Hoare that Algol-60 is an improvement over all of its successors as a programming language. Of course that statement presupposes that you know who CAR Hoare is. (Grin)``

you are being too rough on sun and java, man. i don`t use that language even for windows - which i find quite distasteful. i do not know who hoare is - courant, hilbert and von neumann are the sort of people i am familiar with.

algol!! i am sure there must be something useful about algol - but imsl, lapack, blas, etc. are not written in algol.

``Reagrding partial differential equations, the solution on a computer is necessarily a numerical approach. The results always approximate reality in the absence of closed-form analytical solutions and thus the need for greater precision in arithmetic as well as for vector processing to process very large number of data elements. The CDC6600 had 60-bit wide floating-point numbers for the improved precision and the Cray added vector processing facilities.``

I am glad you finally see the usefulness of these machines.

``Whether the range of applications for which the C-90 has a substantial performance advantage will remain large enough to justify the premium price for vector computers remains to be seen.``

Oye yaar - Cray ko bakhash day - tera kiya bigaRa-a us nay :-) Hennessey, perhaps, was not aware of SV1, when he wrote the above.

``What? A unilateral declaration of victory? I would want a cease-fire!``

Victory? cease-fire? I will not declare victory or for that matter go to war in the first place with someone who last programmed 20 years back and probably falls in the category of uncle jay :-) In a nutshell, let me summarise it - You think the supercomputers/vector machines will not be in use within 5 years - I disagree - I think they will be around for quite some time - These are just opinions - And only way to find out would be 5 years from now - so why keep arguing about it eh?

Regards.

Ref rajanjua #: 583

[You have no idea what you are talking about - do you? :-) That`s ok - nuclear-thingee was just one example. Do a web search on ``high performance computing`` or ``grand challenge`` and educate yourself.]

Why don`t YOU do a search on ``High Energy Weapons Archive`` and find out a little bit more about the history, physics and design of nuclear weapons?

A model of the Fat Man is on display in the lobby at Los Alamos but who knows, visitors from Pakistan may no longer be welcome there. The Fat Man design is described in detail at the High Energy Weapons site. Turn on the TV once in a while and watch the History Channel. In the show on nuclear weapons, you can see the perfectly spherical shape of the device tested at Alomogordo. By the way, the Fat Man weighed 10,000 lbs for its 20 kiloton output, way too much to be carried on the wings of a F-16. That is why you need new designs for nukes.

The High Energy Weapons site talks about the efficiency of the nuclear reactions in weapons. The Hiroshima bomb is estimated to have had a 1.2% efficiency; i.e., 1.2% of the total uranium was converted into energy.

Be prepared to spend a couple of months at least if you decide to visit the High Energy Weapons site.

[There`s a world of difference between writing a gui in java and writing code to solve multidimensional partial differential equations which model complex physical phenomenon. The need for supercomputers is not based on employment opportunities for folks at LANL.]

Yaaaawn. JAVA is a sucky language and I haven`t coded in 20 years. I agree with CAR Hoare that Algol-60 is an improvement over all of its successors as a programming language. Of course that statement presupposes that you know who CAR Hoare is. (Grin)

Reagrding partial differential equations, the solution on a computer is necessarily a numerical approach. The results always approximate reality in the absence of closed-form analytical solutions and thus the need for greater precision in arithmetic as well as for vector processing to process very large number of data elements. The CDC6600 had 60-bit wide floating-point numbers for the improved precision and the Cray added vector processing facilities.

Hennessy and Patterson in their book on Computer Architecture say: Overall, a Cray C-90 processor has a SPECfp rating that is about 1.8 times higher than an R8000 processor and a price almost 20 times higher. On some benchmarks, however, the C-90 is over five times faster; while on others it is about half the speed of the R8000. Whether the range of applications for which the C-90 has a substantial performance advantage will remain large enough to justify the premium price for vector computers remains to be seen.

[Now if you don`t mind lets give this a rest, eh?]

What? A unilateral declaration of victory? I would want a cease-fire!

[Your vision of one-super-fast-chip based computer is ofcourse very nice indeed - And I`ll be celabrating it - when that happens - untill that time I am grateful for both the beowulfs and the trusty ol` SX5s and O3Ks.]

Re-read what I quoted from Hennsessy and Patterson above.

Regards.

``The US just added fins to the sphere for stability and dropped it on Nagasaki. Such a bomb won`t fit under the wing of an F-16 and you had to design an elongated bomb. Of course, all the nuclear countries merely tested their designs in the absence of supercomputers but how many more designs does one need? I suspect that the point of diminishing returns has been reached and all this talk of simulating thermonuclear weapons is to keep the scientists at Los Alamos employed.``

You have no idea what you are talking about - do you? :-) That`s ok - nuclear-thingee was just one example. Do a web search on ``high performance computing`` or ``grand challenge`` and educate yourself.

There`s a world of difference between writing a gui in java and writing code to solve multidimensional partial differential equations which model complex physical phenomenon. The need for supercomputers is not based on employment opportunities for folks at LANL.

Now if you don`t mind lets give this a rest, eh? Your vision of one-super-fast-chip based computer is ofcourse very nice indeed - And I`ll be celabrating it - when that happens - untill that time I am grateful for both the beowulfs and the trusty ol` SX5s and O3Ks.

Ref rajanjua #: 581

[Numbers don`t count that much - Its more a matter of requirement. You can`t simulate a thermo-nuclear explosion on a beowulf right now (does`nt matter how many nodes it has) or in the near future. I don`t know the numbers for Cray/SGI - I do remember reading that the Japenese companies like NEC and Fujitsu have grabbed a big market share from the U.S. companies. As long as there is a need for these machines - governments will subsidise the companies which make these machines.]

It can be shown mathematically that a nuclear weapon blows itself up faster than it can burn all the nuclear fuel. There is no way you can exceed 10%-20% efficiency in a nuke, the lower number for uranium weapons and the higher number for plutonium weapons. All the fancy-schmancy designs that you simulate are to check if a different configuration would work. For instance, the first plutonium design Fat Man was a sphere because it is comparatively easier to squeeze in all directions simultaneously to achieve implosion rather than along just one or two axes and not have the core behave like a ballon squeezed at one point. The US just added fins to the sphere for stability and dropped it on Nagasaki. Such a bomb won`t fit under the wing of an F-16 and you had to design an elongated bomb. Of course, all the nuclear countries merely tested their designs in the absence of supercomputers but how many more designs does one need? I suspect that the point of diminishing returns has been reached and all this talk of simulating thermonuclear weapons is to keep the scientists at Los Alamos employed. Otherwise, they could be looking for jobs in the open market and we all know Col. Gaddhafi has got deep pockets.

[Sun might call their E10Ks supercomputers - but come on - compared to a NEC machine its a piece of junk.]

I HATE Sun! But the fact is they sell those machines by the millions to rake in revenues of, what, $8 billion?

[I am sure that scout is not going to buy/sell SGI stocks based on our discussion.]

I am making my prediction based on all those guys who made special-purpose computers who have gone bust. CDC, Cray, that company in the Northwest that made floating-point processors (we are talking room-sized boxes here), etc.

[re: tahmed (big blue)

I don`t know what happened to the IBM machine, tahmed - there was a big fuss about the Kasparov match sometimes back.]

The chess machine was an RS-6000SP system with a couple of hundred processor boards. Wasn`t Deep Thought the next version of it? Anyway, those machines are being sold primarily for data mining applications against humongous databases.

``Yes, but in what quantities? And what does the future look like?``

Numbers don`t count that much - Its more a matter of requirement. You can`t simulate a thermo-nuclear explosion on a beowulf right now (does`nt matter how many nodes it has) or in the near future. I don`t know the numbers for Cray/SGI - I do remember reading that the Japenese companies like NEC and Fujitsu have grabbed a big market share from the U.S. companies. As long as there is a need for these machines - governments will subsidise the companies which make these machines.

``Sun is selling workstations in the hundreds of thousands a year.``

Sun might call their E10Ks supercomputers - but come on - compared to a NEC machine its a piece of junk.

``the future seems to lie in ever faster boxes with just a couple of processors in them. No fancy-schmancy parallel processing for them.``

Yes it would be nice to have a single super-fast processor. Parallelising code is not fancy - its bloody tedious.

``I still stand by my statement that SGI will be out of business in 5 years, taking Cray and MIPS with it.``

OK yaar!! - If that makes you happy - I am sure that scout is not going to buy/sell SGI stocks based on our discussion.

re: tahmed (big blue)

I don`t know what happened to the IBM machine, tahmed - there was a big fuss about the Kasparov match sometimes back.

Ref rajanjua #: 576

[NEC SX5, Cray SV1 & SV2, IBM ASCI and SGI O3K series are some of the machines still being made, sold and bought.]

Yes, but in what quantities? And what does the future look like?

[Cluster computing is taking over, but will not replace all of the big machines any time soon.]

Agreed.

[Like I said some applications can`t be parallelised easily/efficiently and are more suited for vector machines.]

Agreed.

[The workstations, like the Sun Sparc or the IBM RISC6000 type of machines are pretty much finished.]

Sun is selling workstations in the hundreds of thousands a year. Most semiconductor companies run their chip design software on Unix boxes. Even IBM, on the RS/6000s. They have a facility in Austin with literally thousands of RS/6000s and terabytes of storage to design their next generation of chips. Nobody might have bet on uniprocessing in the 1970s as the way to speed up things but with the difficulties in parallelizing algorithms and with vector processing (the specialty of Cray computers, and earlier, the CDCs) very limited in application scope, the future seems to lie in ever faster boxes with just a couple of processors in them. No fancy-schmancy parallel processing for them.

Even companies such as Sequent with several processors used those processors for running multiple programs as opposed to single large applications such as weather prediction, nuclear explosion simulation or chip simulation.

I still stand by my statement that SGI will be out of business in 5 years, taking Cray and MIPS with it.

rjanjua#575

``Like I said some applications can`t be parallelised easily/efficiently and are more suited for vector machines.``

You are right. Only those algorithms which do not involve too much communication between module interfaces can be successfully parallelized. Actually interface between parallel machines through which the communication occurs is the rate limiting step. This is the reason the total computing time doesn`t decrease tenfold if you employ 10 machines for the same work. On the other hand if there is too much communication between the machines at every stage of algorithm, you might be better off using a single powerful machine instead of 10 parallel machines.

rajanjua: Talking of supercomputers - I dont know where IBM is with Big Blue. The information management needs of the genetic industry is outstripping the capacity of the computer industry, I understand, Moore`s Law notwithstanding. And Big Blue was IBMs Big White Hope for making some money by bridging the gap.

Romair #574 ``As for oaths I took in the military, there were so many that I cannot recall all of them: There was one towards defending our borders. One towards not lying nor cheating. One towards not disclosing secrets to the enemy. One towards obeying senior officers. One towards upholding the honor of our units. So on and so forth.....``

Any oath about protecting and defending the constitution?????

``Even the corrupt amongst the Generals, in my opinion, wouldn`t hesitate to lay down their lives to defend Pakistan. ``

Too bad destiny denied this opportunity before they took their kickbacks and stashed them in foreign banks, or purchased land in Texas and Kentucky, or real estate in Virginia, and then packed up their bags and took the next flight to New York or London or patriotically used the money to speculate in plots in Islamabad and ``Defence Colonies`` around the country.

http://atimes.com/ind-pak/DB01Df01.html

Daniel Pearl kidnapping plot thickens

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - The kidnapping mystery surrounding the Wall Street Journal`s South Asia bureau chief, Daniel Pearl, is still unresolved after more than a week. Insiders in Pakistani intelligence agencies say the case is not as simple as it appears. But the theories emanating from these agencies have one thing in common: that the kidnapping is an Indian ploy to provide American detective agencies, which are already established in the country, with a chance to discover all the strings of the Pakistani secret underworld as they investigate the case.

Sources say that in the past few days the course of investigation into Pearl`s kidnapping has suddenly changed, and all fingers are now pointing toward outfits that are little known but have been operational in India. One of these organizations, Jamiatul Faqurah, is alleged by India to have carried out terrorist activities, and now, strangely for the first time, its connections to underworld Muslim groups have been established by the United States.

After Pearl`s kidnapping, the first suspect was Harkatul Mujahadeen, an organization banned by the US several years ago. However, aware of the entire structure of this militant group, Pakistani investigators did not pursue the idea. Pakitani intelligence agencies have inroads into all Pakistani militant groups, and believe that had Harkat or any other known militant group kidnapped Pearl, they would have found a clue no matter how secretly the kidnapping was carried out.

Just three days after the incident, Pakistani intelligence agenicies reported to the country`s leadership that no Pakistani militant group was behind the incident. They could find no suspect nor match the modus operandi with those of militant groups operating in Pakistan. The way Pearl was snatched, and the way the kidnappers` demands were made known via email, are not characteristic of Pakistani groups.

The intelligence agencies have therefore concluded in their reports that the kidnapping was a plot hatched by an Indian agency or proxies infiltrated into militant organizations. The motive? To imply that Osama bin Laden`s al-Qaeda network is operating in Pakistan. Once this became recognized, the US would conduct an operation that would not only eliminate Pakistani underworld groups but also discover and destroy their links in India.

This thesis presented by Pakistani intelligence agencies is given weight by several events. Initially, it was stressed that Pearl was staying in Karachi near the beach in a rented property, along with his wife and an Indian friend. He was investigating cyber-crimes and militant organizations. He met with some senior US officials at the US consulate in Karachi, and was not seen again. His kidnapping was registered at Clifton Police Station in Karachi.

However, in the past few days it has emerged - or been claimed - that Pearl managed to meet some senior members of Harkatul Mujahideen in Rawalpindi, who promised him they would arrange his meeting with Shiekh Mubarrak Jillani, a leader of Jamiatul Fuqarah. Jamiatul Fuqarah is said to be operative in Kashmir. It was also implied that Jamiatul Fuqarah has links with some underground groups in the US. The theory then changed to Pearl being kidnapped not in Karachi but in Rawalpindi, and that an organization like Jamiatul Fuqarah was behind the kidnapping.

The US Federal Bureau of Investigation and Pakistani agencies then conducted raids in Rawalpindi, searching for Shiekh Mubarak. Mubarak put an end to that by appearing before the senior superintendent of police in Rawalpindi last Wednesday.

The implication that Jamiatul Fuqarah was involved in Pearl`s kidnapping is strange, because the group has never been accused of conducting terrorist activities in Pakistan. However, New Delhi has blamed the outfit for many incidents that have occurred in India.

Pakistani intelligence sources say that the kidnapping is likely to be a blow for Pakistani secret services` operations in India. There are many such operations, designed to keep India entangled in its internal affairs to the extent that it would not bother to attack Pakistan. Many of these operations were hatched during General Zia ul Haq`s tenure, with the intention of encouraging Indian separatist movements of any hue, Muslim or non-Muslim.

The Sikh Khalistan movement and the Muslim Kashmiri movement are now widely known, but there are other militant structures that the Indian intelligence agencies know about but have not managed to crack. One of them is Dawood Ibrahim`s underworld mafia in Mumbai, which now draws its support from across India.

However, the most important underground structures include Sufi outfits. Traditionally, the Sufis have always kept themselves apart from worldly affairs, preferring to focus on spritual matters. But Zia ul Haq`s spies traced and cultivated some Sufi groups which had a tradition of combat and which struggled against British colonialism. One such outfit is Mian Mir (named after a famous Sufi saint) of Lahore, which has followers in India. These days, the custodian of Mian Mir`s tomb is none other than Skeikh Mubarak Jillani, now under investigation for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl.

Sources say that many of the facts of the kidnapping are yet to unfold, but they are likely to make life difficult for the Pakistani secret agencies, both inside and outside Pakistan.

``As to supercomputers not being extinct, when was the last one sold? I think SGI is running on vapors right now, meaning sale of graphics machines to Hollywood for special effects; we can see them closing down in another couple of years.``

NEC SX5, Cray SV1 & SV2, IBM ASCI and SGI O3K series are some of the machines still being made, sold and bought. Cluster computing is taking over, but will not replace all of the big machines any time soon. Like I said some applications can`t be parallelised easily/efficiently and are more suited for vector machines. The workstations, like the Sun Sparc or the IBM RISC6000 type of machines are pretty much finished.

Urstruly #569: Seriously speaking, it is good to see that you are concerned about Pakistani security.

As for oaths I took in the military, there were so many that I cannot recall all of them: There was one towards defending our borders. One towards not lying nor cheating. One towards not disclosing secrets to the enemy. One towards obeying senior officers. One towards upholding the honor of our units. So on and so forth.....

Perhaps due to the oaths, or due to the training, or due to something else, the most dedicated and patriotic Pakistanis I have ever met in my life, by a large margin, are in the Pakistani military. Even the corrupt amongst the Generals, in my opinion, wouldn`t hesitate to lay down their lives to defend Pakistan. That is more than what one can say about the corrupt amongst the Pakistani politicians, beaurecrats, journalists, businessmen etc.

All the information I have is well known to everyone, not to mention that it is outdated by five to ten years. I am sure the Indian intelligence agencies have much more detailed information. That is why India is not attacking Pakistan. If one were to go by Indian newspapers and public opinion, Pakistan is a pushover. But I am sure the Indian military intelligence knows otherwise.

The attack plans, targets, radio frequencies, etc., troop and aircraft movements, missile locations etc. (i.e. things that really matter in war) are decided right before the wars start, and I would have no access to them. All other stuff, like aircraft systems, peacetime locations, are well known to everyone (true for India and for Pakistan about each other). Even Sunny Deol seems to know them in his movies.

Stuka #562: ``why is Romair saying that it is a big deal about the super computers being acquired.``

I am thinking of suing in the highest court in the US :-). I have been misquoted (yet again). I have never seen a supercomputer in the Pakistan military, in my life. All the aircraft are still flying quite well.

I don`t really know what effect supercomputers would have on the PAF. So, unless I am mistaken, I don`t think I made any statements about supercomputers.

Ref rajanjua #: 568

[One of the bottlenecks in building clusters is latency/bandwidth issues. You will not get anywhere with pc`s connected by ethernet. And high-speed interconnects are probably on the export control list also. Clusters can also be inefficient if the application size is very large. Supercomputers may not be extinct yet but workstations will be extinct pretty soon. Cray BTW was bought by SGI, a couple of years back.]

You are right about the high-speed interconnects. Shortly after the 1998 nuclear tests and after the ban on technology was announced by the US, IBM was investigated for shipping additions to the RS-6000 SP cluster that the Indian Institute of Science has.

As to supercomputers not being extinct, when was the last one sold? I think SGI is running on vapors right now, meaning sale of graphics machines to Hollywood for special effects; we can see them closing down in another couple of years.

Ref #: 567

[harimau #565, `` In the good old days when 66 MHZ 80386s ruled, the simulation of a flying head (read-write heads used in disks, called , called flying heads because they literally ``fly`` over the disk surface on an air-bearing) took 20 minutes on the PC and a minute and a half on a mainframe. 20 minutes is plenty of time for the science babus to go to the cafeteria for a cup of chai.``

ummm, what kind of language is that? Geekspeek?]

Well, I WAS addressing computer geeks. But, surely you got the part about chai? ;)

[what happened to all the normal people in this world (sigh)]

You will be glad to know that my propeller cap is nowhere to be seen on the ``The Identity Crisis of a Modern Muslim`` board.

re: scout

{{ummm, what kind of language is that? Geekspeek?}}

don`t provoke computer nerds...they will threaten to knock you out with their disk drives...i saw 2 of them in the elevator get into a fist fight over which operating system was better...

Romair

I think you shoud be very cautious about elaborating on the capability of Pak Airforce in such details on a public forum. I hope you still consider yourself bound by the oath you took when you were with PAF.

``Ok, I wasn`t that kosher on the technical details, but yes, that is the gist of my thought as well. Hence, why is Romair saying that it is a big deal about the super computers being acquired.``

One of the bottlenecks in building clusters is latency/bandwidth issues. You will not get anywhere with pc`s connected by ethernet. And high-speed interconnects are probably on the export control list also. Clusters can also be inefficient if the application size is very large. Supercomputers may not be extinct yet but workstations will be extinct pretty soon. Cray BTW was bought by SGI, a couple of years back.

harimau #565, `` In the good old days when 66 MHZ 80386s ruled, the simulation of a flying head (read-write heads used in disks, called literally ``fly`` over the disk surface on an air-bearing) took 20 minutes on the PC and a minute and a half on a mainframe. 20 minutes is plenty of time for the science babus to go to the cafeteria for a cup of chai.``

ummm, what kind of language is that? Geekspeek?

what happened to all the normal people in this world (sigh)

I HEARD BB SAID INDIA AND PAKISTAN SHOULD HAVE A CONFEDERATION AND A SINGLE CURRENCY ANY THOUGHTS IM ASTOUNDED THAT SHE WOULD MAKE SUCH A OPPURTUNISTIC STATEMEMT

Ref Stuka #: 562

[Shammi:

``-- today you can string together a supercomputer from Xeon chips -- fairly widely available everywhere.``

Ok, I wasn`t that kosher on the technical details, but yes, that is the gist of my thought as well. Hence, why is Romair saying that it is a big deal about the super computers being acquired. Isn`t it fairly common to achieve that level of processing capability?]

Do you guys -- and this includes Romair as well -- understand computer architecture?

The last major parallel processing computers were the Cray-2. I guess they sold less than 100 worldwide.

The other machine I can think of is The Connection Machine with 65K 1-bit processors tied together. I think they made one for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. And I guess Intel made one with 10000 processors, again for Los Alamos.

Other than these, parallel computers are dead, dead, dead.

For your information, the Apple G4 was embargoed for sale to China, India, Pakistan and other countries on the Department of Commerce list, because the G4 has sufficient computational power for simulating nuclear explosions. And the G4 was based on an IBM PowerPC chip running at 1GHz(?). Just one processor chip, guys. No parallel processing super-duper computer, the G4.

Before you guys get all excited about getting supercomputers so that you can design your fighter planes, remember that you have to have the design expertise as well as manufacturing ability to produce what you design.

You can get 2GHz Intel machines today. They are cheaper and will do nicely for any design work you want to undertake. The Yankees built their airplanes and nukes without much of these fancy-schmancy computers you are all getting an orgasm over. You guys have to learn to crawl before you can walk or even think of running.

PS. In the good old days when 66 MHZ 80386s ruled, the simulation of a flying head (read-write heads used in disks, called flying heads because they literally ``fly`` over the disk surface on an air-bearing) took 20 minutes on the PC and a minute and a half on a mainframe. 20 minutes is plenty of time for the science babus to go to the cafeteria for a cup of chai.

Harimau:

I have not been on Chowk regularly for the past few weeks, so I apologise for the delay in writing to you. I actually just noticed this post:

``What was that about a hypothetical invitation to a dinner date some time in the future in Boston with a Pakistani person of the opposite sex when I asked if you were trolling for dates on Chowk? ``Huh? Huh?? And you went all the way to the Wagah border! I know you kept hinting about the trip to Wagah and all that in your posts. And we all know that Lahore is lot closer to Wagah than Delhi is.``

I think you are confusing Lahore and Boston. You described the Boston ``date`` in the best way yourself..HYPOTHETICAL..

Did the expected person show up? Were halwa, jalebis, samosas and pakoras traded across the border? Were you able to reach through some narrow opening and pour tea for the young lady, getting a scratch on your hand from the barbed wire fence?

Wow, talk about a creative instinct. Wwere you a scriptwriter for Tamil movies in an earlier incarnation? I did manage to have a conversation with a feminine Chowkie. You might be familiar with her...Lajwanti...Infact she claims to have a Tamil paramour, who she supposedly met through Chowk. Any guesses on who might that be??

``Whassup my man?? The Chowk readership is curious and wants to know the details!``

Trust me, you really don`t want me to give out details about Lajwanti and her Tamil paramour. Aakhir decency bhee koi cheez hoti hai :)

Shammi:

``-- today you can string together a supercomputer from Xeon chips -- fairly widely available everywhere.``

Ok, I wasn`t that kosher on the technical details, but yes, that is the gist of my thought as well. Hence, why is Romair saying that it is a big deal about the super computers being acquired. Isn`t it fairly common to achieve that level of processing capability?

Ref shammi #: 486

[Re: Harimau

Having noticed how you quietly dropped out of the `Mansarovar` debate...]

Since you have refused to provide ANY evidence to backup your claim that Hindu pilgrims to Mansarovar and Mt. Kailash get free food, transportation and medical assistance during their pilgrimage, I investigated the story a bit more. I actually dug deeper into the Indian Ministry of External Affairs webpage and came to the application form at

http://www.kmvn.com/kailash02.htm

Here is what it looks like:



GOVERMENT OF INDIA *

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (EAST ASIA DIVISION)



KAILASH MANSAROVAR YATRA 2002

FORMAT FOR APPLYING FOR KAILASH MANSAROVAR YATRA 2002

(TO BE FILLED IN ENGLISH OR HINDI ONLY)

NAME (AS IN PASSPORT) :

FATHER`S/HUSBAND`S NAME :

DATE OF BIRTH :

RELIGION :

PROFESSION :

SEX :

PASSPORT NO. :

DATE OF ISSUE :

PLACE OF ISSUE :

(Please enclose copy of personnel particulars page of your passport)

FULL ADDRESS OF APPLICANT :

STATE :

PINCODE :

TELEPHONE NO. (WITH STD CODE) :

NAME, ADDRESS & TEL NO. OF

NEXT OF KIN TO BE INFORMED

IN CASE OF EMERGENCY :

Have you been on Kailash Mansarovar

Yatra before? If yes, indicate the year :

Please provide two recent passport size photographs one to be affixed here

DECLARATIONS

1. I understand that Kailash Mansarovar Yatra is high altitude trekking expedition under inhospitable conditions, which may involve serious risk to the person or property of the Yatris. I am undertaking the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra at my own volition, cost, risk and consequences.

2. In the event of being disqualified on medical grounds at Gunji, I shall not claim the refund of the charges levied by Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam (KMVN).

DATE :

PLACE :

SIGNATURE

* For acknowledgement please attach a self-addressed post card.

* * Applications accompanied by a medical certificates should reach Under Secretary (China), Room No. 271(a), South Block, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi - 110 011 latest by 12.03.2002

For Official Use only

Registration No. :

Batch No. :

Remarks :



Let me re-state what one declares in Declaration #1: ``I am undertaking the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra at my own volition, cost, risk and consequences.``

And in Declaration #2: ``In the event of being disqualified on medical grounds at Gunji, I shall not claim the refund of the charges levied by Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam (KMVN).``

Now at least will you stop writing facts made up as you go along?

Rajanjua

``i have been under the impression that pak involvement with A5 was a bit more than ordering adjustments to the cockpit``

Hey man, I think you are being a bit too disparaging here. As pointed out for the A5C and by ROmair these are quite substantial upgrades (mainly because chinese planes of that generation were c *ap) but still a far sight away from joint development. The first such joint development of an end-to-end new plane was the K8 ``Karakoram``. And is now being attempted for the FC-1/Super 7.

ROmair #552

A much more informative and realistic post, thanks :-)

Romair,

A man from the pak military can talk so much of crap is indicative of the bluster and sheer incompetance of the pak military. If you held any officer position in the pak militay is only indicative of the inevitability of 90,000 pows.

Yoy claim that pakistan has developed fuel pumps for the a/c engines. CFM engines powering the B737s, the GE engines are fitted with fuel pumps by Arkwin, the Trent engines of the Rols Royce are fitted with Lucas lumps, Pratts engines have Hamilton standard pumps. Why so many little suppliers, simply because no one wants to take the risk of tinkering with fuel pumps. If there is any cavitation in the pumps, the little metal particles will go and block the fuel nozzles, that will alter the spray pattern, it can spray fuel towards the sides, there will be a burn through and the a/c will catch fire. That is what precisely happened to an A320 when arkwin did not alter the design to accomodate the increaed frel nrrds of CFM56-5A! engines compared to CFM56-3B2 powering B737s.

Pakitan designing fuel pumps, my foot. If you like the military do not make a foll of yourself. Stick to left right, left right.

Romair, Alphanull

The first two prototypes of super 7 are ready - I passed on the photo as it appeared in ``Air Forces Monthly`` to a fellow Chowkie, several months ago.

All the stuff about technical delays, engines, etc - rubbish - As long as the funding can be generated, so will the engines and the technology transfer. The important aspect of any War aircraft is the avionics suite and knowing the capablity, training and weapons suite of the adversary.

Romair - send me an email address and I will send you the photo and info on Fc1 - for Feb. ``Air Forces Monthly`` is featuring Agra AFB - They finished doing a write on PAF Academy and Kamra, also they just did Peshawar and A5`s , last month they did Pakistan Navy Aviation.

Actually it doesn`t matter what kinds of technical problems or dealys of funding are incurred - each makes the facilities stronger - as the manufacture of Griffo has evidenced.

Detractors, we have many - but let the dogs bark, the caravan will continue to proceed.

Romair # 552.

This post is on the whole a good deal less objectionable; for one thing you didn`t invoke the authority of Brian Cloughley.

``Fighter aircraft are actually just weapons platforms. It is the avionics, missile systems and the reliability of the aircraft that is important. How fast it can go is secondary nowdays (the Pakistani F-7P is faster than the F-16, but is much inferior in capability).``

Granted.

``That is why aircraft with the same airframe are upgraded for decades (like the US B-52, F-16s etc.) becoming completely different aircraft which still look nearly identical to their original versions. So the Pakistani F-6 is far far superior to the Mig-19 it originally used to be. This is is different than taking a French aircraft and replacing a radar or two (which is what Pakistan does with the French Mirage).``

True in general, though I would add that the MiG-19, despite upgrades, will always have the limitations of the sweptback-wing design. Similarly the MiG-21 will always be limited in radar selection by its nose intakes; change that, as in the Chinese F-7 MF, and you arguably have a different configuration entirely.

However, your statement talks about continuing development and enhancement on a fundamentally sound, tried and trusted, platform. This is not (yet) the case with the Super-7, which hasn`t yet taken to the air (or for that matter with the LCA, which is still early in its flight testing phase).

``It is important to keep in mind that even the Chinese have just started the full end to end process of aircraft development. India has very unsuccessfully attempted it for 25 years, and has now given up on it by buying out and out systems from France (Mirage 2000), Russia (Su-series) and England (Hawk).``

The Chinese have been at it for about as long as India. They lost a whole decade to the Cultural Revolution, just as India lost a decade or more starting in the 70s, and had to restart laboriously in the mid-80s. The Mirage 2000s (and MiG-29s) were acquired in the 80s, around the time LCA feasibility studies were begun. The Su-30 is in a completely different class from the LCA; it will be the high end of the high-lo mix. The LCA, if viable, will be produced in numbers to replace the MiG-21s.

``So this brings us back to the original debate: will the Super-7 be successful. My guess is that, if there is enough money available, then it should be even more successful than the above.``

The original debate did mention something about a time-frame. It is wise to make projections from the date when the prototype makes its first flight, which so far as we know is still in the future. Apart from that, I don`t doubt that PAF is a knowledgeable, demanding end-user with experience, though not possession, of the best Western equipment that Arab money can buy. And I`d equally expect them to be quite resourceful in trying to integrate all the various systems that they have to make do with.

Here is a fairly recent article (dated 2001) by John Fricker. The first half talks about recent Chinese developments to the MiG-21/F-7 platform; the second half addresses the prospects of the Super-7/FC-1. I`m sure you`ll agree that Fricker is a more credible aviation writer than Brian Cloughley!

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/om/200103/om61.htm

``By your standards I could call the Mirage 2000 a joint Indo-French project :-)``

sure - why not, if that makes you happy :-) my info on the PAF is restricted to what i heard from relatives/friends in the air force. and i have been under the impression that pak involvement with A5 was a bit more than ordering adjustments to the cockpit - but then again, these fly boys do have a tendency of exaggerating - in any case pak-chinese collaboration on military projects is nothing new.



p.s. thanks for that url on pak military.

re: alephNull #553

nice job cutting our resident delusionist romair to pieces...in case you`re new to chowk, let me advise you that it gets boring and pointless after a while...this man has a lot of trouble dealing with reality, and then when he`s often caught LYING, he won`t even have the integrity to own up to it...

rjanjua/bong-dongs: The Pakistani Aircraft Development Process vis-a-vis China:

Chinese aircraft are the mainstay of the PAF now. These include FT-5, F-6, A-5, F-7P and K-8, and eventually the Super-7. Pakistan started this process in the late sixties when the US started imposing restrictions on US aircraft purchases. Since that time, Pakistan has slowly converted from being a US aircraft dominated Air Force to a Chinese and French aircraft dominated Air Force.

The procurment of these Chinese aircraft has progressed in four stages over the past thirty years:

Initially, Pakistan just purchased the aircraft outright (F-6, FT-5), and flew them.

In the second stage, Pakistan completely overhauled a major portion of the systems in the aircraft. This includes: 1) Fixing many of the design defects in the systems (fuel, hydraulics etc.). 2) Converting the avionics to US and British systems. This include installing and integrating HUDs, radars, radios, Tail Warning Systems, Missile systems etc. 3) Making additions to the airframe, engine (in some cases replacing it), and fuel systems (like adding indigenous fuel tanks internally and externally, redesignign fuel lines, pumps etc). By the end, the aircraft ends up being just the Chinese airframe, perhaps engines and a few systems, and cockpit instruments. All of this requires Pakistani refurbication and flight testing. The main combat weapon systems are all new.

Making airframe changes like adding boundary layer fences on the wings or adding the ability to carry external fuel tanks, or adding a new ejection seat (requiring a change in the canopy design) isn`t like adding a new radio. It requires extensive wind tunnel and flight testing, etc.

Fighter aircraft are actually just weapons platforms. It is the avionics, missile systems and the reliability of the aircraft that is important. How fast it can go is secondary nowdays (the Pakistani F-7P is faster than the F-16, but is much inferior in capability). That is why aircraft with the same airframe are upgraded for decades (like the US B-52, F-16s etc.) becoming completely different aircraft which still look nearly identical to their original versions. So the Pakistani F-6 is far far superior to the Mig-19 it originally used to be. This is is different than taking a French aircraft and replacing a radar or two (which is what Pakistan does with the French Mirage).

The third stage was the devlopment in China of two different versions of the same aircraft. This is what happened with the F-7 (and A-5, I believe). The F-7P was designed spefically for Pakistan (even a completely different cockpit layout) in China, with Pakistani assistance.

The fourth stage is the complete co-devlopment of a brand new aircraft, from end to end. This is what Pakistan has done with the K-8 and Super-7. Pakistani and Chinese engineers are involved from the blueprint stage. The Chinese are learning a lot from Pakistani on this also, as Pakistanis have far better knowledge of Western avionics and aircraft than the Chinese.

It is important to keep in mind that even the Chinese have just started the full end to end process of aircraft development. India has very unsuccessfully attempted it for 25 years, and has now given up on it by buying out and out systems from France (Mirage 2000), Russia (Su-series) and England (Hawk). The previous version of Chinese aircraft development were actually Russian designs. China will be using a Russian engine in the Super-7. Even the Russians have only recently mastered the art of building highly reliable engines. That is why the Mig-29 and Su-27 are finally in the same league as the best US aircraft systems (Mig-25s and Mig-21s were cheap, but not in the same league as their US counteparts like F-4s, F-15s etc.). There are actually only three or four countries that can develop every system of an aircraft. These are the USA, Russia, France, and England.

So these are the four stages. One could make a good argument that the FT-5 (being purely a training aircraft in the PAF, with no weapon systems) hasn`t really had too many additions made by the PAF, apart from the addition of a newer air conditioning system and a few other odds and ends systems. It is thus no better than the original Mig it was designed after. So the FT-5 isn`t really a co-development. I will give you that one. Primarily because it is ancient and Pakistan does not want to redesign anything in it.

However, aircraft like the F-7P are far superior to the original Mig-21 which they grew out of, and with which they now just share the airframe (even in that, I believe Pakistan has installed its own flap system).

I hope this clarifies the query. All the above have been big successes. So this brings us back to the original debate: will the Super-7 be successful. My guess is that, if there is enough money available, then it should be even more successful than the above. Pakistan will end up with a partly indigenous aircraft, with performance close to the F-16, at a fraction of the cost.

If someone in India would like to feel it will be a failuire, they are more than welcome to feel that way. But they would only be underestimating joint Pakistani-Chinese development.

bong-dongs #539/550: In the first reply you state, `` thought we had a discussion on this and there is abosuletly no evidence that Cloughley was a consultant on the Hawk deak.``

In the second reply, you state, ``His reply evaded the question completely.``

If, in your opinion, he evaded the question, then I am not sure how you could initially state that there is absolutely, ``no evidence.`` At best, it means he may or may not have been a consultant. Wouldn`t you agree?

I remember reading that he was. Maybe he wasn`t. But I think from the information you have, you cannot tell one way or the other.

Romair # 536

``I have worked on fighter aircraft that are Pakistani hybrids of Chinese designs in Pakistan. So I am going to assume I know quite a bit more about them than you, and that this is only your emotion talking.``

I wrote # 528 to briefly indicate why hobbyty`s hopes in #502 that the Super 7 variants might start being manufactured within the next 2 or 3 years are, shall we say, wildly unrealistic. It seems to have touched a raw nerve in you, judging by your lengthy response. You do say:

``All the technical areas and challenges you have mentioned are accurate.``

which is the only acknowledgement of the difficulties and unavoidable delays involved.

It is typical in the US for half-a-dozen or more years to pass between the first flight of the prototype of a new fighter/attack aircraft and the entry of initial variants into squadron service. This is despite the unparalleled wealth of design expertise and production resources available to the US, the proven system integration and project management skills, the ability to multiple-source various components, the deep pockets to build a dozen full-scale development aircraft to cover the various aspects of a flight-test program and if necessary to lose a few in testing mishaps. It is normal for flight testing to uncover various problems which even today cannot be accurately predicted in wind-tunnel testing or through computational simulation; these may require modifying the shapes of various surfaces, strengthening structural members, changing the position of store racks, etc. Engines are often sensitive to conditions of disturbed airflow such as result at high angles of attack or when weapons are fired. Even an apparently mundane procedure like the release of external fuel tanks need to be verified to ensure that they separate cleanly. All this takes years to test and make the necessary modifications. Readying production tooling takes still more time.

It isn`t even clear that the first prototype of the Super 7 has been fabricated, though a full-scale mockup has been displayed. To expect manufacture in 2 to 3 years requires a large-scale willing suspension of disbelief.

``Easily the most successful technologoy devleopment in military aircraft in South Asia is the co-operation between Pakistan and China. There is one success story after another. F-6, A-5, F-7, K-8, FT-5 (not to mention the nuclear missiles) etc. Can you name one joint PAk-China project that has failed due to technical reasons (the only delays and stoppages have been due to finances; and nearly all of these were started up and completed successfully, once the finances were available)? If you cannot (which you will not be able to), then how can you make an assumption that Super-7 will fail?``

Let`s see. The F-7 is the unlicensed reverse-engineered Chinese version of the MiG-21, which the Chinese have been tinkering with for 40-odd years, because for decades they had no better options available. The F-6 is a Chinese copy of the MiG-19; the A-5 is an attack version of the same aircraft. The FT-5 is a two-seat trainer based on the MiG-17. All of these are based on sound Soviet designs from the early 1950s; they were not designed from scratch by the Chinese, but incrementally modified for decades, integrating the capability to fire Western missiles, etc. The K-8 is a basic jet trainer.

Completing a fresh design of a frontline fighter aircraft in the same ballpark as the F-16, is an entirely different proposition.

``But China (and China in cooperation with Pakistan) have an extremely strong track record of success in joint developments in these areas.``

The Pak-China relationship is clearly symbiotic, in that Pakistan has provided access (often illicit, as with the F-16 and the Stinger) to leading-edge Western technology for the Chinese to attempt to reverse engineer. But is there any reason to believe that Pakistan`s role in `joint development` is anything other than that of a knowledgeable end-user?

``China does not develop aircraft for Pakistan. It primarily develops these aircraft for its own Air Force.``

Bingo! So much for `joint development` of the F-7 etc.

`` ... If China is willing to fly ancient aircraft like A-5s (without the Pakistan upgrades), why in the world would it reject something state of the art like the new Super-7? Could you please answer that quesiton.

Most the development of the Super-7 is being done in China, while a smaller amount is being done in Pakistan. Why in the world would China put so much money into this project, if it was going to reject the aircraft? Pakistan only wants 150 of these aircraft, what is China going to do with the rest of investment, if it doesn`t want to fly these aircraft or export them? ``

The Chinese seem to have pinned their hopes for a replacement to the J/F-7 and Q/A-5 on the Israeli Lavi-derived J-10, which seems actually to have been test-flown. Meanwhile they are buying/building the Su-27 (J-11) in numbers of several hundred (unfortunately for the PAF, they have not been granted an export license). That would provide them with a viable high-low mix of fighter/attack aircraft. It makes little sense for them to waste their scarce design and production resources on yet another aircraft whose niche in their own air force is uncertain. That would explain why they countenanced the various delays and changes in specifications for the Super-7, and why funding has been so uncertain. Pakistan of course insists that the PLAAF also buy the FC-1, to lower unit costs. If it happens, it will mean that the Chinese are subsidising the PAF to the tune of billions of dollars.

``I have a feeling that you are not going to believe me, since I am a Pakistani. So I would like to direct your attention to Brian Cloughley, ...``

I don`t believe you, not because you are a Pakistani, but precisely because you quote Brian Cloughley. He plays the role of house-gora adding his byline to newspaper articles designed to boost morale and lend support to the official Pakistani line. He seems to have this lucrative market cornered. I have never seen a keener student of the Indian CAG reports. Quite a nice racket, if you ask me. If you see him as `neutral`, you will no doubt regard Eric Margolis as similarly impartial.



``Ten ruppees bet with you that India will not dare attack Pakistan, and that the Super-7 will be flying the PAF inventory as a replacement for the F-16 and F-6 roles, and that the LCA is the project which will never see the light of day. Put your money where your mouth is, my friend.``

The diabolically cunning baniya may not attack for reasons other than `successful projects` like the F-7, having achieved his aims in other ways. I am sure that the FC-1, if it finally fructifies, will readily outperform the F-6 (a MiG-19, for crying out loud!). As to the rest, I`ll believe it when it finally happens.

Hey ROmair,

Since any westerners word is the word of god how about swallowing this one (From LA times):

Despite its denials, Pakistan controls most Kashmiri insurgent groups. On May 29, 1999, shortly after the Pakistani army launched its offensive across the cease-fire line at Kargil, Indian intelligence intercepted a revealing international telephone conversation between then-Gen. Musharraf, who was in Beijing, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Mohammed Aziz. CIA sources have validated the authenticity of the intercept. Nawaz Sharif, then prime-minister, had expressed concern, Aziz said, that Kashmiri insurgent groups fighting with the army might get out of hand and force an escalation, but that ``there need be no such fear, since we have them by the scruff of the neck and whenever desired, we can regulate the situation``

The author is a S Asia expert by any standards:

By SELIG S. HARRISON, Selig S. Harrison has reported on South Asia since 1951 and written five books on the region. He is director of the National Security Project at the Center for International Policy and a senior schola

ROmair

``If you recall, you were the one who had stated that Brian Cloughley was not a consultant on the Hawk deal, on your own. I had then taken the trouble to actually corresponding with Brian Cloughley, and posted his email response to your question``

My assersion: ``there is no proof that Brian Cloughley was a consultant to the Indian government on the Hawk deak``

His reply evaded the question completely.

From:

http://pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/a5.html

A-5C/A-5III

``Export version for Pakistan Air Force (and later customers), involving 32 modifications from Q-5 I, notably upgraded avionics, Martin-Baker PKD10 zero/zero seat, and adaptation of hardpoints for 356 mm (14 in) lugs compatible with Sidewinder missiles and other PAF weapons; three prototypes preceded production programme; in service with Nos. 7, 16 and 26 Squadrons of PAF, by whom designated A-5-III. Ordered also by Bangladesh and Myanmar.``

So the A-5C/A-5III is the PAF version modified to carry sidewinders, Martin Baker ejection seats and some western avionics. So the A-5C development can be called a ``joint`` development (as I guess PAF was involved in designing this upgrade) but not the original A-5 development.

rajanjua

AFAIK, only the last version of the A5 (A5III?) had some modifications according to PAF specs. This is very standard when any country buys aircraft. There was no design input or no shared manufacturing. By your standards I could call the Mirage 2000 a joint Indo-French project :-)

regards

bd

(PS this is from open literature, maybe you know something which isnt there in which case i would love to be enlightened)

DISARMAMENT AND MORE INVESTMENT IN HEALTH

AND EDUCATION AND WELFARE - INDIA AND PAKISTAN.

We need to work jointly towards reducing tensions and curtailing defense related expenditures in both countries. More money for the social sectors will bring more prosperity and happiness. There are too many fat Generals in both countries wanting to spend and spend and waste resources...

bong-dongs #540: I have only quoted Brian Cloughley in my reply. Pak news and Piad are the sites that presented his article. These sites did not write the article themselves. The other source I quoted was www.fas.org (The federation of American Scientists). I did not quote a single Pakistani source to avoid biases. Yet you have mysteriously found these non-Pakistani sources to be biased also, without providing a single source of your own. I am amazed at your tenacity at not accepting obvious facts, without providing any counter facts :-) You are arguing a subject (pakistani-chinese joint aircraft production) about which you have absolutely zero knowledge. Yet you are unwilling to accept facts provided by non-Pakistani sources.

If you recall, you were the one who had stated that Brian Cloughley was not a consultant on the Hawk deal, on your own. I had then taken the trouble to actually corresponding with Brian Cloughley, and posted his email response to your question. At which point I believe you accepted the fact that he was a consultant. Now you seem to have flipped back to the other side, when I have quoted him from an article of his, as a counter argument to incorrect information that had been presented.

In either case, he is a neutral source, whether he was on the hawk deal or not. Not to mention the fact that he is a widely consulted source on Indo-Pak military affairs by bbc and other sources.

You do not believe Pakistanis, and you do not believe neutral sources. You only believe Indian sources. This is quite unfortunate. It is thus not worth my time to convince you but I will make one more attempt. So I have sent another email to Mr. Cloughley. Let`s see if he responds.

Let`s assume for the fact that Brian Cloughley is actually a Pakistani in disguise. Let`s go to the extreme and assume he is an agent of the ISI, and was actually the person who planned the Indian parliament attack. So lets disregard what he says. I would still like to ask you one simple question: Why do think some form or hybrid of the Super-7 induction will fail, when all the previous inductions of hybrid Chinese aircraft have been so successful in the PAF? Do you even know how this induction process works? I have detailed knowledge of it. If you do not understand this process, (which I doubt you do), then aren`t you the one blowing hot air?

``A-5, FT-5 joint Pak-China projects, really now :-``

Don`t know about FT-5, but A-5 can be characterised as a joint project. Why are you so skeptical about this. Pak-Chinese collaboration on joint defense projects is nothing new.

From the latest AFM (air forces monthly), are the following observations about Pakistani naval aviation after 3 years of sanctions:

1)2 Seakings have been grounded and are being cannibalized for parts.

2)Of the 3 Lynx helicpters for the Type-21 frigates only 1 is operational.

3)The P3C fleet is serverly affected by sanctions and is partly operational.

Romair 525 . . you are correct about the fact and way that Indians and Pakistanis are treated with equality in the Arab countries.

Can we have more details and info on this ``Arab Kut`` day?

Lets look at ROmair`s source:

1)Brian Cloghley

2)PIAD`s

3)Pakinfo

4)His own hot-air

ROmair

``So I would like to direct your attention to Brian Cloughley, who was hired as a consultant by the Indian Air Force, on the 1 billion dollar Hawk deal``

I thought we had a discussion on this and there is abosuletly no evidence that Cloughley was a consultant on the Hawk deak.

The rest of your article is mostly BS. A-5, FT-5 joint Pak-China projects, really now :-)

Re: Tahmed321

``...Take a walk on the streets of any Indian city and see how 90% Indians live. The day hundreds of millions of people in India dont live hand to mouth, that day you can start feeling proud...``

Yes -- that is why I am not so impressed by these achievements -- much bigger problems lie unsolved. Building devices is one of the smaller ones -- giving everyone the opportunity to build one on their own is a much bigger problem.

harimau #531 ``The way to get good treatment with Customs and Immigration in Saudi Arabia, according to a friend, is to fly First Class and dress in a suit no matter what the outside temperature is. Or one could do what Michael Jackson did: bleach one`s skin.``

Let`s not get ahead of ourselves - Your recipe applies as easily in India (or Pakistan for that matter) as it does to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabians are third world people who happen to be rich, and the rest of us dont like that.

AlephNull #528: I have worked on fighter aircraft that are Pakistani hybrids of Chinese designs in Pakistan. So I am going to assume I know quite a bit more about them than you, and that this is only your emotion talking. At least that is what is indicated from your comment.

Easily the most successful technologoy devleopment in military aircraft in South Asia is the co-operation between Pakistan and China. There is one success story after another. F-6, A-5, F-7, K-8, FT-5 (not to mention the nuclear missiles) etc. Can you name one joint PAk-China project that has failed due to technical reasons (the only delays and stoppages have been due to finances; and nearly all of these were started up and completed successfully, once the finances were available)? If you cannot (which you will not be able to), then how can you make an assumption that Super-7 will fail? The whole orientation of the Pakistan Air Force is towards French Mirages and primarily towards Pak-China aircraft with US avioinics and missiles, and British radars and HUDs. All of them are flying successfully the last time I checked.

Also, can you name any of the above describe aircraft that are not flying in the Chinese Air Force, also. China does not develop aircraft for Pakistan. It primarily develops these aircraft for its own Air Force. Pakistanis have more expertise than Chinese on Western aircraft technology and provide input into those areas, which China lacks. If China is willing to fly ancient aircraft like A-5s (without the Pakistan upgrades), why in the world would it reject something state of the art like the new Super-7? Could you please answer that quesiton.

Most the development of the Super-7 is being done in China, while a smaller amount is being done in Pakistan. Why in the world would China put so much money into this project, if it was going to reject the aircraft? Pakistan only wants 150 of these aircraft, what is China going to do with the rest of investment, if it doesn`t want to fly these aircraft or export them? That is something that even India does not do. India has been putting in hundreds of millions into the LCA project, and is still unwilling to give up on it, even though it is a proven white elephant.

I have a feeling that you are not going to believe me, since I am a Pakistani. So I would like to direct your attention to Brian Cloughley, who was hired as a consultant by the Indian Air Force, on the 1 billion dollar Hawk deal:

``The Pakistani rolling upgrade programme for Mirage and F-7 aircraft at Kamra (my note: I worked there), near Islamabad, is efficient. Several western countries have provided advanced avionics and, in spite of sanctions, it appears there has been little or no cessation in either materiel or foreign technician expertise. Pakistan is semi-manufacturing the Chinese K-8 training aircraft which may be a reasonable basic jet trainer (the project seems to have ground to a halt; my note: this project was successfully started again and there are K-8 training Pakistani pilots now in Risalpur), but has not fallen into the trap of attempting to build a combat aircraft, as has India.

The Indian LCA (the Light Combat Aircraft) is a disaster. Western intelligence sources estimate that costs, in European equivalents over its years of development, in conjunction with normal budgetary provisions, would have provided India with a rolling programme of advanced combat aircraft and air defence ground systems equal in capability to those of NATO air forces. The LCAs` capabilities were dubious when it was projected, simply because the designers could not see far enough forward to envisage advanced displays and attack radar. In the short time in which such developments became commonplace, yet further technological leaps took place, leaving the LCA far behind. US sanctions involving technology transfer have affected power plant development, but even had this not occurred the LCA would be well behind schedule. In the quarter century of development the project has diverted enormous research and development resources from more worthwhile fields (like clean water in towns and villages), all in the name of national pride.`` (http://paknews.com/articles/1999/feb/art1feb-10.html)

Here is what Brian writes about the Super-7:

``These, together with other upgraded aircraft, have plugged the PAF`s gap to a considerable extent. Their improved avionics, and those of the Super 7 (a development of the F-7P) from China, raises much of the aircraft inventory to what the Pakistani air chief calls ``multi-role medium-tech`` capability.`` (http://www.piads.com.pk/users/piads/cloughley1.html)

It is, of course, possible for any project to fail, due to lack of planning, money etc. But going by the history, the Super-7 project should be actually more successful than even the previous joint Pakistani-China projects, which were actually initiated over fifteen to thirty years ago. In those thirty years, Chinese engineering and Pakistani maintenance and engineering have made great progress (specially the Chinese engineering capabilities).

The Super-7 has actually gone through three phases. It was originally to be purely a Chinese aircraft. Then a new project was initiated, with Pakistan, called Saber-2. This was changed back to Super-7 when Grumman of the US refused to provide the engine. This Super-7 was supposed to be an enahancement of the F-7P (this aircraft did actually make a test flight). However, this has been furthur enhanced to a third project over a few years ago, when it was clear that India was going to be purchasing Su-27s.

``The FC-1 was to make it`s first flight in 1996, but the project was delayed when Pakistan sought to upgrade the performance characteristics of the FC-1 to respond to India`s acquisition of Su-30MKIs. After several years of stagnation, the Pakistani Prime Minister`s February 1998 trip to China resulted in an agreement to continue development of the fighter. Currently Pakistan is interested in acquiring at least 150 fighters, with the Chinese contemplating acquiring over 200.`` (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/fc-1.htm)

It has in no way been rejected by China. They are spending nearly all the money on it (far far more than Pakistan). It is infact supposed to be the first aircraft that China (and Pakistan) plan to consider a competitor to Western export model of fighters. Exactly the opposite of what you are stating.

All the technical areas and challenges you have mentioned are accurate. But China (and China in cooperation with Pakistan) have an extremely strong track record of success in joint developments in these areas. Infact the PAF has one of the best flight safety records in the world, on these Chinese/Pakistan/US hybrids. I would thus be interested in finding out why you feel this particular project will fail, when all the previous ones between China and Pakistan were very successful? If it is because you dislike Pakistani projects, and that is the only reason, then I understand (but do not agree).

If projects like these had failed, India would not be hesitating to attack Pakistan. It would have done so by now. It is only due to successful projects like these that after having piled up its forces on the border, Ind