Talk:HESA Azarakhsh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

hey, does any one know what possibly the armament of this aircraft is?

That info has not been released by Iran, but it is almost certainly older Russian weapons such as the R-60 missile, since these are the only armaments readily available to Iran. Edrigu 22:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"In addition, an air-ground weapon called Zulfiqar was designed and developed with North Korea
specifically for the Azarakhsh and later aircraft. It is reportedly a missile employing multiple
separating warheads to hit several targets simultaneously. Other weapons for the Azarakhsh
include AIM-9 Sidewinders, Mk.80-series of bombs, Chinese PL-5s, and the the R-73 (AA-11) “Archer”
and Iranian built version of the AIM-7 Sparrow, which being a semi-active radar homing missile
would give the Azarakhsh a BVR combat ability."

ArmanJan 22:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is removing additional info I put there

Someone is removing additional info I put there. Stop removing it without any reason. The info is well cited and there is no reason to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.56.253 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

People add and remove stuff all the time for every article in Wikipedia. Could you be more specific? --JJLatWiki 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Citation has been requested for things aparent from the picture (the same picture on this page)

The first photo given to journalists reveals considerable differences from the F-5.[citation needed] Completely new wings, a longer body, different tail-planes are among these differences.[citation needed]

It's just a comparison of this picture with the F-5's picture. Do we need citation yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.168.132 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Respected independent analysis would be nice, but I'll acknowledge the position of the wing and stabilators is a significant change. However, except for the strakes, the new wing shape doesn't look significantly different, so the total lift is now reduced with a mid-body placement. Obviously it's hard to tell anything from this single picture, but based on this picture, I would say that the take-off and landing speeds have increased, the turning radius has decreased, the max take-off weight has decreased, and the top speed and acceleration remains low. With the higher wing placement, it probably has a wider range of weapons to mount. Also based on this one picture, I wouldn't bet any money that the photo itself is not faked. --JJLatWiki 18:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The Azarakhsh is the same thing as the Saeqeh. The two pages should probably be merged. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No - they are related projects, but they are quite definitely not the same. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

They are the exact same aircraft; a modified F-5 with dual vertical stabilizers. Notice that Saegheh and Azarakhsk both mean "Lightning" or "Thunder." People got confudes by Farsi synonyms and thought there were two different aircraft. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Azarakhsh - reverse-engineered F-5 (note the single vertical stabiliser). Saeqeh (originally designated Azarakhsh 2, then Saeqeh 80, then Saeqeh) - substantially revised design with twin tails, a new larger wing, and a redesigned nose. Depending on who you listen to, it may also incorporate fly-by-wire, composite construction for the wing at least, and new engines of local design (still derived from reverse-engineered technology though). So, related - yes, "exact same aircraft" - no. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your source that says the Azarakhsh has a single vertical stabilizer? ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source with information similar to what you are saying. It's pretty reliable so I'll keep researching. For now, you have my apologies. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries - there's good evidence provided by pictures: this in Iran Daily (also carried by the BBC here, larger version on a forum here), and this. Note that this is distinctly not an F-5 or exact F-5 clone: look at the position of the wing and intake, and (less significantly), the shape of the fuselage behind the cockpit. Actually, looking at those makes me realise that the wing/intake configuration of the Saeqeh is a lot more like the original F-5 design than it is of the Azarakhsh. Finally, consider that Iran Daily talks about the Azarakhsh and Saeqeh as two distinct types (but of course doesn't discuss the detail differences we're interested in). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Count speculation

I have changed the counts for the "Number built" in the Infobox back to 6 and left 2nd and 3rd generations as "unknown". There is no cited source that says any number other 6. Back in 2001, there apparently was a claimed production schedule for 30 over the next 3 years, but no source has ever said that any more 6 have been built. Iran appears to now be saying that Saeqeh is the 2nd generation of the Azarakhsh line, but only through original research of released photos can a minimum count be assumed. I don't know if such photoanalysis is valid for a couple reasons: 1) The photos themselves don't say explicitly what generation of Azarakhsh they represent and 2) The are still photos that are provided FOR the press, not BY the press, and so the credibility and meaningfulness is questionable. If they said, "3 have been built", then the article could at least say, "they claim to have built 3". Please use reliable sources. --JJLatWiki (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's forget the other figures and talk about those of the 1st generation. 30 where estimated to be built in the next 3 years meaning Iran would have 30 by 2004, it's 2008 now... You also seem to be forgetting that there is not t a single figure we posses about any figure of the Iranian military that is official, everything is a specualtion. You have no source which said this didn't happen (about the 30 built), and the page where it sais has been updated, they did not remove it, so 30 is the figure. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not - there's a huge difference between a source in 2001 speculating that 30 are expected to be built by 2004, and a 2008 source speculating that 30 were built by 2004 (which is what you're making the Wikipedia article say). Aircraft programmes are frequently delayed, cancelled, or simply don't live up to expectations. Unless a single reliable source says that any more than six were (past tense) actually built, the most we can say is that Iran had been hoping to build 30 by 2004 - we can't say anything stronger than that. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The list on global security (which is a very faulty list) puts 6 in 2005 and 30 in 2010, it's 2008 now, so can we put 6-30? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't say anything that's not in the original source - so we can say 6 as the number built, and in the article mention that at one time, it was planned to have 30 built by 2010. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It sais 30 within the next 3 years so 2004. And the source was last modified 25-09-2007... Anyway, it comes down to this, the 2001 estimates where 6 and the estimae for 2004 was 30, so we should put the figure 30. BTW, why do you want to assume the production has stopped? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All we know (from any reliable source) is that 6 were built, and that it was estimated (in 2001) that another 24 would be produced over the next few years. There's no assumption involved. It would, however, be an assumption to state that production had been completed as originally scheduled, when there is no evidence to support this. As you point out, the source we're relying on was updated in 2007. Clearly, at that time, they had no evidence that any more had been produced, either. Governments, businesses, and individuals frequently plan to do things that they don't actually achieve; the burden of proof, therefore, lies with whoever wants to claim that this particular plan was indeed carried out. I'm not saying that production has stopped - I'm just saying that we have no way of knowing what happened to production after 2001. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't know what happened in 2001 either as these figures are all estimates. As it has not been announced the production has halted we should make the figure 6-30, so even if it was delayed the number is anywhere from 6 to 30, which could also mean 6 if nothing has been produced. BTW, what do you think about the mention of the twin seat variant, see below.The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be deceptive. The source that we're relying on gives 6 as the number "known" to have been produced (however they arrived at that figure - they don't actually tell us), while they're not claiming that the other 24 were ever produced - they just claim that there were plans to do so. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely, except that the source did not actually claim the plans for 30. The source simply passed on Iran's claim to have plans to build 30 in the next 3 years. Iran has apparently never publically claimed to have built any of those 30 and the fact that the plans for 30 remains in the updated analysis at GlobalSecurity changes nothing in regards to the actual number built or claimed. To put "6 to 30" in the Infobox, in my opinion, requires Iran to make an official claim or some authoritative source to claim that they actually completed the plans described in 2001. --JJLatWiki (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Iran has never claimed to have built 6 either, they do not release any figures at all! All these figures are just based on how much they think Iran could have built in X amounth of time. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know what the figures are based on. The source doesn't say. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Iran hasn't made any official claims about the number of these planes is the reason I said, "or some authoritative source". GlobalSecurity didn't say how they arrived at 6. I doubt they estimated the manufacturing capacity and extrapolated. The plane is hardly worth serious spying efforts to verify the true number, so I wouldn't be surprised if GlobalSecurity is just echoing what they've heard from whatever sources meet THEIR standards. If Iran said they have already built 10 of a planned 30 additional planes by 2004 and with no subsequent claims, it would still be original research to say 30 were built. You could say 16 were built, but you simply don't know what happened after that. --JJLatWiki (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Count speculation survey

I would like to know if there is now a consensus on the count for the infobox. Should the count be: a) "6" citing GlobalSecurity as the only reliable source, b) 30 citing 2001 Iranian claim of future production, c) other? --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• 6 citing GlobalSecurity - 30 is an unverified anticipated event in contradiction of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Another issue I'd like to bring up

From pictures we can clearly see there is both one seat and a two seat variant of the first generation Azarakhsh (which is sort of the Azarakhsh as the second gen. is called Saeqeh).Picture of 3 Azarakhsh flying in fomration, 2 one-seaters and 1 two-seater (the 2 seater is the front one) Picture of 2 F-5s and a two-seater Azarakhsh flying in formation One seater Azarakhsh One seater Azarakhsh flying Two Seater Azarakhsh One seater Azarakhsh 2 One-Seater Azarakhshs and an F-5 flying in formation Two-Seater Azarakhsh on the ground with behind it a One-Seater Azarakhsh and an F-5. What do you guy's think, should we mention it in the article? BTW, I took thee pics from the Iran Defence Forum Gallery, I could find you the original ones if you want, but this was the quickest way for me to find them. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source that describes the 2-seater? Is the 2-seater an operational "trainer" like the F-5B or is there a greater purpose to the 2nd seat like the F-15E? --JJLatWiki (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no source which talks about it, but we do see two seaters on pictures... The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if you have reliable sources that say the plane in the picture is an Azarakhsh, then it is self-evident that there is a 2 seat variant, and no longer original research. But you must have a reliable source clearly identifying the photograph. In my opinion. --JJLatWiki (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How about this source [1], here, this is what it sais above this picture of a two-seater Azarakhsh: "Last month, Iran also demonstrated a new fighter jet for the first time, which was modeled on the American F-5 but built using domestic technology." and this is what sais under the picture: "The Azarakhsh jet made a successful flight in the Iran's central city of Isfahan in a ceremony attended by Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and other officials in August."

Is that enough for you? The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No - Payvand appears to be a personal website, and therefore not a reliable source. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with Payvand as a source of news related to the Iranian military. They have been reporting and aggregating Iranian news for several years now and I have found only trivial bias, if any, in their reporting. I would prefer a noteworthy source like AFP, BBC, AP, Reuters, or the like, but a) none really care much about Iranian fighter development, b) none can gain the access required for unbiased reporting (which by definition practically disqualifies any news outlet). That said, the Payvand report doesn't have captions for any of the photographs, so the source (authoritative or not) isn't explicit enough. --JJLatWiki (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify a little - I don't have a problem as such - I personally agree with you. However, the site simply doesn't meet the reliability requirements. If it were a non-controversial topic, it would probably be OK to let it slide, but for whatever reasons, Chinese and Iranian wunderwaffen attract enormous amounts of speculation and pseudo-information, so we really need to base these articles on tip-top sources. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you but am a little less extreme (not that your position extreme). For news related to the airplanes, Payvand is an acceptable source to me. I don't see anything in Payvand's reporting that is controversial in any way and unlike other sources fans want to use in these articles, Payvand isn't an open forum for speculation and doesn't "specialize" in Iranian military or airforce. But I don't have strong opinions on the subject of Payvand. --JJLatWiki (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, just look at them...They are Azarakhsh. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Payvand didn't make this article, it's all over the internet. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Generations?

And what's with all this talk of "generations" of Azarakhsh? This doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the sources...? To me it looks like someone has got confused with the (widely used, but actually meaningless) terminology of fighter "generations" - seeing talk of a 4th/5th generation fighter, and working backwards to label various designs as Azarakhsh "generations"... --Rlandmann (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, people sometimes confuse fighter generations with the generations of this plane, but in fact it is not the same. Would you for instance call the Second Generation Azarakhsh, "the Saeqeh" a second generation fighter? Why would the Iranians say it's a second generation fighter when they claim (I'm by no means saying I believe this claim) it is as advanced but more powerfull and stronger than a US F/A-18 Super Hornet? This would make it at least 4.5th generation? And considering they gave it the name second generation... Anyway, Iranian sources state "Saegheh is the second generation of the Azarakhsh fighter" and "The fourth and fifth generation of the Azarakhsh fighter will be made soon" (not in these exact words but look at the sources), at the beginning I was confused myself (because of wikipedia), but I get it now, and so I added it to clear things up.

BTW, even if you would say that this is reference to the fighter generations, that would make at least 3 different variants (so far) under the name Azarakhsh, wherefrom one is 1st generation (come on, how can it be 1st generation...) the second is second generation (also impossible) and the third being a third generation fighter aircraft. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - so let's start at first principles then. Do we have a single reliable source saying that the Saegheh is a "second-generation" Azarakhsh? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And another thing, you seem not to know about Iran's policy of confusing everybody by giving different names to the same project and more commonly giving the same name to different projects. There are many examples, some things are still not clear, but this Saeqeh thing is a good example. They threw in the name Saeqeh just for confusion (as other generations don't have a different name) and top of that there is both an ATGM and a Surface to Surface Missile called Saeqeh... The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any such policy. Do you have a reliable source that documents such a policy? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, got no proper sources but even it isn't true, fact stays that they do give different names to the same project and the same name do different projects. Why would they do that? Word is that they are trying to confuse people... And if they are, they are doing a pretty good job too.The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - so the question remains - where is the reliable source that calls the Saegheh a "second-generation Azarakhsh"? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the source: The fighter planes, Sa'qeh (Thunderbolt), were the second generation of Azarakhsh fighter planes. -IRNA and for if that wasn't enough, I also got this: The fighter planes, named Saeqeh (Thunderbolt), are the second type of Azarakhsh fighters. - Payvand, I have already put these sources on the article, see, everything is nicely sourced.;) The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on the payvand source, it also sais this: "Following the successful flight of Azarakhsh fighter jet, Iranian Defense Minister, Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said that Saeqeh, which is the second generation of the Azarakhsh fighter jets, would also launch official flights in the Iranian air space in the near future." The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Payvand appears to be someone's personal website, and therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source. but of course IRNA is. Reading the IRNA source, though, still leaves me with the impression that the journalist and/or the translator is confused by "fighter generations" vs "Azarakhsh generations" (ie, versions). Do we have anything else? Or is this whole notion of Azarakhsh "generations" built on a single source? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not like I've based it all on the IRNA source, I already knew that Saeqeh was the second generation Azarakhsh, ect. I just had to look up a source on goodle so that I could edit wikipedia. And as I have already pointed the flaws in the argument of it might having to do with the fighter generations. 1.It's supposed to be on the same level as the F/A-18, so that makes it 4.5th generation, why would they than say it's a second generation fighter? They'd be contradicting themselfes. 2.That would make the first generation Azarakhsh a first generation fighter, now come on... 3.Even if you where right, this would make that there where 5 different planes, of all 5 fighter generations and all called Azarakhsh. BTW, all sources give exact the same story anyway. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting quite what I mean. I think that General Ahmad Mighani told an IRNA journalist that a 4th and/or 5th generation version of the Saeqe was under development, which the journalist and/or translator understood to mean that this would be the 4th and 5th versions of the Azarakhsh, when in fact, it appears to be the third version (with the Saeqe being the second). Variants or subtypes of aircraft are generally not referred to as "generations" in English, so we have to treat the IRNA source with caution, since although it comes from a reliable agency, there's reason to believe that the translation is suspect, or it was written by a journalist unfamiliar with aeronautical terms/concepts, or both.

Do you, by any chance, have access to an original Farsi version of the story? And do you know what words Farsi uses for an aircraft variant/version/subtype and for the fighter "generations"? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the original report. But here's the confusing bit, when they say "we are making the 5th generation Azarakhsh", they do not nececerely mean a 5th generation fighter, but it is the 5th generation of Azarakhsh. However they said it would be a stealth fighter that cannot be detected by rader = the 5th generation Azarakhsh is also a 5th generation fighter! But that's just a coincidence, don't let it confuse you. The Honorable Kermanshahi (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)