Talk:Saeqeh (warplane)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 This is not a new plane 2 This Article is in Need of a Major Rewrite 3 Aircraft Photograph 4 Mock Attack and Saegheh Missile 5 ACIG FORUM 6 Aircraft's Name

[edit] This is not a new plane

This is clearly an F-5. And not a copy of an F-5, but an actual, original F-5 (or T-38) with the single vertical stabilizer replaced with canted, twin stabs. Maybe they enlarged the nosecone a little to fit a larger Russian radar, but that's an extremely trivial "development". --JJLatWiki 16:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Article is in Need of a Major Rewrite

I will update most of the info, ASAP... Technajunky 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I wish you luck. Availability of authoritative information is exceedingly limited. --JJLatWiki 15:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Perhaps, but there really is not that much to know. It clearly is a modified F-5E airframe, almost certainly an example of the original U.S made production run, with twin tails and the addition of some composite material. What most Western sources have either wildely guessed at, or even mistranslated in many cases, seems rather contradictory in nature. The real question is, how many such aircraft have been modified, and to what end? As of yet, only this single example has been shown. Technajunky 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • My personal opinion is that this is the best that the Iranian military industry can do. Western intelligence agencies believe that Iran doesn't possess the expertise or technology to build an actual fighter, but the pressure to produce results under tyrannical leadership like that in Iran forces the individuals given the responsibility to scramble together anything for their own self preservation. They recognize that twin canted tails seems to be a very popular design detail these days, and so if they can graft such a detail onto an already solid and robust airframe, it might prolong their jobs if not more. Other than that, the total lack of changes to the rest of the airframe means that there is insignificant aerodynamic improvement and insignificant improvement to the radar cross section. --JJLatWiki 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, and I respect that, for whatever it is worth. As far as the Iranian military industry is concerned, it is a classic example of both resource management, and perhaps mismagement in many cases. What the Iranian industrial base can produce, and what it can realistically afford and is politically feasible, are very different things entirely. I have come across a rather diverse plethora of opinions regarding both modern Iranian military and industrial capabilities, none of which seem to agree or concur on the majority of elements required to build and accurate picture of current Iranian technical capability and investments. Western intelligence on Iran(I.E American intel), as well as in many public circles, could best be described as a lack of such. Can the Iranians produce aircraft of various sorts? It would appear to be the case, to a limited extent. They seem to have built a limited number of helicopters and light aircraft(I can site these, if you like), and even a handful of reversed F-5E airframes. They certainly have a developed capacity to produce may of the badly needed components to keep many of their aging U.S(and even Soviet) aircraft operational. How you view this as relating to the "tyrannical leadership that in Iran", etc, etc...Seems to go against any logic I understand, and shows a lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.

The reality of the situation is actually quite the opposite. This modified F-5E is an IRIAF project, and really nothing more than a technology demonstrator at that. It, at the most, could never be anything more than an upgrade package for the existing (and perhaps even newly built) F-5E airframes in the Iranian inventory. Even in that case, I found it to be highly unlikely. The vast majority of the Iranian defense budget has gone towards the IRGC(Revolutionary Guard Corp, which shares a very different view of the military reality it faces), as well as programs such as locally licensed produced and reversed engineered Ballistic Missiles, MANPADS, ATGM's, etc. After all, why would Iran invest in developing a very limited number of somewhat modern(though in no comparison to the latest U.S examples) fighter aircraft(which it probably could), at the expense of other deterrents that might actually be of real value in a war with the U.S.A, such as IRBM's, nuclear weapons, modern ASM's and ATGM's? The simple reality is, such "new" aircraft would quickly be destroyed in any conflict with the United States(its most likely opponent in the next decade). From the Iranian standpoint, locally built fighter aircraft are a waste of money and time.

This particular aircraft was not meant to be anything more than an experiment by the Iranian Air Force, and the emerging Iranian aerospace industry. If the Iranian government wishes to showcase this plane as something that it is not, and various "western"(mostly American) sources wish to lambaste it as a failed something it was never meant to be, that is really not the concern of this article.

If you would like a more accurate view of what the Iranian military-industrial complex can and cannot do, I would highly recommend joining the forum of the website.

http://www.acig.org

It is free, and is without a doubt the best source of information on the Iranian military and its related local industry, hands down. Technajunky 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is based on my experience in the US Marine Corps, both in various Security and Intelligence positions and in various F/A-18 maintenance positions, and my continued affiliation with current and former military personnel in Intelligence and military pilots. I've been specifically trained in weapons system recognition, especially aircraft, and data mining for intelligence on domestic and foreign weapons systems. I have considerable knowledge of many weapons systems and the politics at play in Iran. I've studied and been trained in aerodynamics, electronics and electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering, turbine engine technology, and stealth technology. In the articles I've edited, I don't include any information that I can not find in publicly available sources. My comments above about the capabilities of the Iranian military industry are based on publically available information but they reflect the opinion of all western (free) intelligence agencies, and most other intelligence agencies. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Iran is misdirecting the world with the demonstrations of planes like a twin-tailed F-5 to hide a vastly superior design. I try to keep my personal knowledge out of these articles and restrict my edits to information that I can easily find on the public internet, but there is much more about these planes that I can tell just from the pictures and the video that is not available to the public. Unfortunately for Iran, and unlike nuclear weapons, even the best aircraft in the world has to be proven in the open sky, where spies in space, in the air, and on the ground can witness it.

Well, if it even matters, I was in Army intel myself, 96B. If you notice, we are not arguing over the facts of the aircraft(we both agree its an American made F-5E with two tails instead of one, etc), but rather over semantics. Technajunky 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No information outside that fed by Iran's government suggests that they have the ability to build an entirely new F-5. True F-5's were "assembled" once in Iran, but from major components built elsewhere, so I doubt they have the ability to build an entirely new airframe. They certainly have the ability to rebuild and manufacture completely new parts as replacements, maybe even major subsystems like an entire engine, but not much more. If they had the ability, why would they choose to build an F-5? It was never a spectacular airplane and extremely primitive in terms of aerodynamics and stealth. A couple of their trainers are more advanced and would be much better fighters with some, albeit, significant redesigns.

Well, as I commented earlier, it is almost irrelevant if they can build the entire F-5 airframe or not. The Iranian government is not going to fund any program that will do that anytime soon, as I stated above. I have spoken with a few ex-Iranian AF officers here in the U.S who seem to correlate that no more than between one, and at the most six(not proabable in my opinion) airframes were completed between 1996 and 2002, before the project was simply ended, and all funding cut. Is it the truth? Who knows. Iran is still technically a developing nation, something many people lose sight of. Technajunky 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you, sincerely, for the invitation to ACIG. I will watch it and consider joining. --JJLatWiki 00:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't thank me! I don't even post there. It is a great place to watch both Iranians who mistakingly believe that their nation is building F-22's, and Americans who believe that Iran can't mix anything more than clay and mud with water, get humbled by raw facts. Technajunky 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Photograph

Why was the previous image of this aircraft removed? Technajunky 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• I believe it was due to the lack of copyright permission. Which is why I linked the multiple images. --JJLatWiki 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ironic, when you consider that MEHR did not even take those photgraphs, but rather they originated with the IRIB. Either way, I will secure a non-copyrighted photograph of this aircraft, so at the very least, readers will have an idea of what the "new look" for this Iranian F-5E actually is. Technajunky 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Are you sure about MEHR? The air show and demonstrations seemed to have been fairly widely attended by many different press outlets. I don't know the politics of MEHR, so I don't know if they would have been allowed or not. A good, permitted picture would be nice to show though.

• • Politics aside, everyone steals everyone elses photographs, when it comes to the subject of the Iranian military. AP, AFP, MEHR, Payvand, IRBN, and even Jane's and GlobalSecurity.org(Just look up Globalsecurity's fradulent, photoshopped picture of the "Azaraksh" fighter). I will find a good, public, legit photo of this particular Saeqeh aircraft for this article, though. Technajunky 21:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mock Attack and Saegheh Missile

I removed the term "Mock", for the simple reason that this aircraft actually fired ordnance in a training excerise(unguided rockets), and can clearly be seen in the article's video. It is better described as a "practice exercise", than a "mock" one. I also require a source that shows the existance of a "surface to surface" missile known as the Saegheh missile/rocket. Technajunky 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See my reply to your accusations [1]

My source says, "mock bombing mission". Your source says, "bomb virtual enemy targets". Do you have information that says the 2 sources are describing the exact same actions? Please cite it. Otherwise, they could be describing 2 individual events during the same exercise. One could have used live ordnance in a practice bombing of virtual enemy targets, and one could have used practice dummy bombs or no bombs at all in a mock bombing mission. --JJLatWiki 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have A SINGLE QUOTE from a non-military, translated source. This is not a very hard concept to understand. A "mock bombing" would imply no weapons were used. Cleary, one need only watch the video, or view various pictures to see that weapons were used. A better description would be a practice mission/run, but my guess is that you will not except that, due to personal bias issues. Mock, naturally implies fake. Technajunky 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So your dispute is with the source, and not with me. The source says, "mock bombing mission" as an apparent paraphrased quote from an Iranian military spokesperson. If you have documentation that there was not a "mock" bombing mission in addition to a "practice" bombing mission, please provide it. Clearly the video shows the Saegheh using live ordnance, but there may have been other demonstrations using no ordnance, which would explain the "mock" description. And if you want to use the video as the strict evidence of "bombing", the Iranian spokesperson must have been lying because the Saegheh did not drop bombs. The Saegheh in the video fired rockets, which would be best described as "engaged in a rocket attack on virtual enemy targets". Later in the video, two standard F-5's are shown dropping bombs. --JJLatWiki 00:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really require the numerous sources I cite in the Saegheh missile article to be reduntantly cited here? If you feel I am not justified in my sentence that says there is an Iranian surface-to-surface missile system named, "Saegheh", do you want to debate that here or in the discussion section of that article? --JJLatWiki 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You only use a link to another wiki article(a small one) that claims the existance of a missile called the Saegheh. An article which you modified and added onto, within the last few minutes. Facts are needed, and the existance of such a missile/rocket must be substantiated by an external source. My issue is not with what a possible missile is named, but rather that it really exists. This missile used to be show-cased by it's Iranian manufacturer at Iran-AIO's website, but that website does not seem to exist anylonger. If I can find it, I will post it. Technajunky 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I modified the missile article before I removed your ^{[citation needed]} tag. I removed the ^{[citation needed]} tag at 11:12. My last reference addition to the missile article was at 9:03. All the sources in the missile article are "external sources". Do you need the source cited in the warplane article? I think one of the sources says that the missile system was demonstrated during the same exercise as the warplane. Other than your lack of documentation that disputes the existance of the missile system, I think the existance of the missile system is acceptably established. --JJLatWiki 00:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I removed the "fact tag" citation alittle while ago, either way. Technajunky 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --JJLatWiki 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you! Technajunky 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIG FORUM

The ACIG forum is just as much a valid external link as is "abovetopsecerte", and will be returned. Technajunky 21:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The links to other forums at least seem to be directed toward specific discussions within those forums. I haven't actually looked at them, so that's an assumption. I didn't make the same assumption about ACIG because it was only recently added and it was to a home page, and it seemed unlikely that a homepage anywhere on the internet would be dedicated to this warplane. To be honest, I found only 2 discussions where Saeqeh was mentioned. It's hardly worth mentioning here. Are you "RzA-ReCtioN" on that forum by any chance? --JJLatWiki 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hence, why your best bet for information on this aircraft is the ACIG forum, which has a very large section dedicated to the Iranian Air Force, and aerospace developments, in a very non-biased manor(either for or against Iranian interests). As far as other forums are concerned, I have no idea who "RzA-ReCtioN" is, nor do I post on the forum "abovetopsecrete". I do not even post on ACIG. Technajunky 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant that I found only discussions on ACIG that involved the Saegheh warplane. And the link in this article to ACIG to the homepage, not to anything specifically dealing with the Saegheh warplane, like the other link in the article appear to do. Hence, the link doesn't seem to be appropriate as it is. --JJLatWiki 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There may be a journal article on it, since it is technically a "journal" with a forum attached. Technajunky 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. If you find that journal article, that would be an appropriate link, otherwise, the link is just a spam advertisement for some random web site that discusses subjects similar to this article. Should we also post links to every homepage of every web site that at some point in time mentioned the warplane? There are many such websites and many forums with much more in-depth discussions about this particular airplane.

Then no forums should be linked to this article, by your logic. I will go ahead and remove both the ACIG forum, and abovetopsecrete. After all, then there is really no fundamental differerence between the two. Technajunky 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so, Technajunky. The link to abovetopsecret is to a specific discussion thread within their forum that is specifically discussing the Saeqeh warplane. The link you placed to ACIG is to their homepage where there is no information whatsoever regarding the Saeqeh warplane. If ACIG has a specific Saeqeh discussion thread or a journal article on the Saeqeh or related to the Saeqeh in some way, a link directly to those pages is more appropriate. --JJLatWiki 18:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Forums are a bad source of info(ever changing and opinionated). Lets keep things at the very least somewhat offical, shall we? Technajunky 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with it. You're the one who insisted on having ACIG listed. I have one argument in favor of forums in this case: these Iranian planes seem to be very popular topics of discussion on these forums and can be an excellent starting point for further research. I'm not suggesting that a forum be used as a cited source, but for someone researching such topics, a relavent link to a specific forum thread can be helpful. But since you've changed your mind on the subject, I won't restore the links. --JJLatWiki 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, it would appear that a good working consenus seems to have been achieved. Technajunky 04:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft's Name

Many western sources seem to be writting this aircraft's name as the Saeqeh, as opposed to the Saegheh, even though the later is perhaps closer to the actual Persian pronounciation.