What's new

Azerbaijan signs partnership deal to join KAAN project

.
Its going to be a while before Azerbaijan would receive the KAAN, b/c its very unlikely that congress would allow the export of the F110 engines to Azerbaijan. So either they would have to wait for the TUSAS engine to be ready or the aircraft may need to be reengined with a WS-15 or something.
 
.
we went for plan C

you mean JF17C? ha

when it comes to defence related matters Pakistan is quite screwed on

the only issue here is money

this is a 5th generation project and after J10 we have no cash
 
.
m
But what can Azerbaijan bring to the table for the KAAN project. As far as ik, they are building their own defense industry but they are in the beginning phases of it
money, they are too far down in the design process for major changes i think, its just an investor at this point to drive sales and lower unit cost, maybe they will get some offset deal to produce lower difficulty components for it or something
 
.
you mean JF17C? ha

when it comes to defence related matters Pakistan is quite screwed on

the only issue here is money

this is a 5th generation project and after J10 we have no cash
no sir 🫡
it can be named anything
jf17c
j35
or anything u like anyway the information i have is a year old
but it was authentic
 
.
You should know better that joining a project like this could be arranged in many different ways.

When I'm criticising Pakistan's non-existent commitment, I'm not necessarily envisioning Pakistan as an operator of KAAN.

There are thousands of subsystems in this bird. Each system displays an opportunity of JV and cooperation but the Pakistani Military refused to participate.

You cannot use the engine as en excuse to justify Pakistan's lack of involvement.

Agreed.

If Pakistan really had reservations about the engine, they would have joined the project and designed their version around the Chinese 5th generation engine such as the WS-15s which are now entering mass production. The Pakistani military planners are always lethargic and prefer off the shelf acquisitions because of the kickbacks involved.
 
.
I shan't be making a comment on Pakistan, however a lack of vision and inability to accept changes decimated French armies during ww1 and ww2. When the Iraqis thought that they could hold back American armies during the first gulf War, the USA's newer and more advanced tactics decimated Iraqi forces, no one expected Iraq to lose so badly. When the Russians invaded Chechnya, their arrogance and inability to adapt led to them losing the first war, and suffering humiliation in the second even when they won.

An army must be willing to take risks in order to keep up with modern times, and give up on older doctrines.

Of course none of what I have said has anything to do with Pakistan, I am merely thinking aloud about modern military doctrines.
Iraq was under decades of sanctions and weakened by war with Iran , so it was no big deal to invade them, so nothing to boast about.
 
.
Iraq was under decades of sanctions and weakened by war with Iran , so it was no big deal to invade them, so nothing to boast about.
Actually it was a big deal.

The US expected to win, but even US military strategists and commanders were surprised by how effective the new tactics the US military were using and how poorly the Iraqis did against them. To put it into perspective, the US expected thousands allied deaths which didn't happen.

This was the first instance that the idea of combined arms of sea, air and land was deliberately put into play from the very beginning and ended up defining modern combat and military doctrine across the world over.

Keep in mind that Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time, and while it didn't have the best gear, it was still one of the better equipped forces in the region and had tons of experience fighting.
 
.
Actually it was a big deal.

The US expected to win, but even US military strategists and commanders were surprised by how effective the new tactics the US military were using and how poorly the Iraqis did against them. To put it into perspective, the US expected thousands allied deaths which didn't happen.

This was the first instance that the idea of combined arms of sea, air and land was deliberately put into play from the very beginning and ended up defining modern combat and military doctrine across the world over.

Keep in mind that Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time, and while it didn't have the best gear, it was still one of the better equipped forces in the region and had tons of experience fighting.
Is that why you had your arse whipped in Baghdad and you ran out?
 
.
Comparing the Turkish-Pakistani romance to a Indonesian-S.Korean fling doesn't make sense.

Your relationship with the Koreans is transactional in nature, our relationship with Pakistan is muhabbat.

Jokes aside, Pakistan could still join but it is obvious that the decision makers in Islamabad are not planning on doing so. No one in Ankara is going to send them back empty-handed if they ask for cooperation. The Pakistanis know this which naturally causes frustration.
Wasn't there a deal recently signed about the production of certain parts?

Actually it was a big deal.

The US expected to win, but even US military strategists and commanders were surprised by how effective the new tactics the US military were using and how poorly the Iraqis did against them. To put it into perspective, the US expected thousands allied deaths which didn't happen.

This was the first instance that the idea of combined arms of sea, air and land was deliberately put into play from the very beginning and ended up defining modern combat and military doctrine across the world over.

Keep in mind that Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time, and while it didn't have the best gear, it was still one of the better equipped forces in the region and had tons of experience fighting.
Any good video on the Iraq war from a military/technically perspective?
 
.
Is that why you had your arse whipped in Baghdad and you ran out?
My ***? What the **** are you talking about? First Canada was never involved in Iraq, as Canada refused to send troops.

Second, why are you putting the blame of Bush's war on me as if I'm responsible?

Third, the US killed Saddam Hussain and installed a government system that still exists today, and still had thousands of troops in Iraqi bases.

The US left only on paper, in reality they just down sized and let the Iraqi Army take over a majority of security.

The US won over all, even if nations like Iran ended up benefiting from the new system.

Wasn't there a deal recently signed about the production of certain parts?


Any good video on the Iraq war from a military/technically perspective?
Plenty of them on YouTube, hard to point out any specific one though.

Sorry.
 
.
My ***? What the **** are you talking about? First Canada was never involved in Iraq, as Canada refused to send troops.

Second, why are you putting the blame of Bush's war on me as if I'm responsible?

Third, the US killed Saddam Hussain and installed a government system that still exists today, and still had thousands of troops in Iraqi bases.

The US left only on paper, in reality they just down sized and let the Iraqi Army take over a majority of security.

The US won over all, even if nations like Iran ended up benefiting from the new system.


Plenty of them on YouTube, hard to point out any specific one though.

Sorry.
Lol, you are one cunning devious bot:-

"Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[2] "

"More than 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members served in Afghanistan as part of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 2001 to 2014, making it the largest Canadian military deployment since the Second World War."
 
.
Lol, you are one cunning devious bot:-

"Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[2] "

"More than 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members served in Afghanistan as part of the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from 2001 to 2014, making it the largest Canadian military deployment since the Second World War."
From your own source..

>Canada, despite not joining the invading coalition, still participated in the conflict in Iraq, joining a number of non-belligerent nations in helping to rebuild the country post-invasion, including the training of Iraqi police and army officers, and contributing approximately $300 million towards this effort.

It was under ISAF by your own source, and it was mainly for training and security. Canadian troops didn't do any fighting and were not a part of the invasion force.

Pakistan also sent trainers and even sold equipment to Iraq, does that mean Pakistan was also involved in the war? No. Canada and Pakistan pretty much had the same role.

Try not to accuse other people of being deceiving when you clearly leave out important information. Canada was not involved in the Iraq invasion, and didn't send troops in any official capacity, and only through ISAF, my comment stands correct.

But again, what does any of this have to do with my original comment?

Bro, why are you so mad at me for no reason?

You literally are getting mad at me for just stating history that isn't even my fault.

Brother, calm down. I'm not your enemy. This isn't a war.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom