First of all, Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, not an authoritative source (such as Janes, the manufacturer's website, etc)...
So you are an authoritative source?
Why do you think that an online encyclopedia who gets so much attention from all around the world did not do any research before giving information?
Now listen man if you dont know about how wikipedia works then listen.
If you ever have read any wiki article then maybe you havent seen the REFRENCES section of the article where the references of many sites are given and the articles are written on the collaborated information given by those sources and for your kind Information the priority given to the Janes aerospace & rockets in related articles of wiki is top most.The comprehensive articles of the wiki related to aerospace always include the Information given by Janes.The links which I have posted about the Granat and KH-55,all include the refrences from janes.
Example:
Notes and references
1.^ a b c Norris, Cochran et al. (1989), SIPRI Yearbook 1989: World Armaments and Disarmament, p. 21,
http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_89010101a_86.pdf
2.^ SIPRI (1989) p16
3.^ a b "Kh-55 (AS-15 'Kent'/Kh-555/RKV-500/Kh-65)",
Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, 2009-09-09, http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0485.html, retrieved 2009-02-04
4.^ a b c d e "RK-55 Granat (SS-N-21 'Sampson'/3M10)",
Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, 2008-09-10, http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0477.html, retrieved 2009-02-04
5.^ "Kh-55/RKV-500A, Kh-55SM/RKV-500B, Kh-555 and Kh-65SE (AS-15 'Kent')", Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, 2008-08-01, http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw2922.html, retrieved 2009-02-06 6.^ a b c d e f g h "SS-N-21 'Sampson' (P-1000 3M70 Vulkan/3M10 Granat)",
Jane's Naval Weapon Systems, 2009-01-08, http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jnws/jnws0154.html, retrieved 2009-02-04
7.^ "RK-55 (SSC-X-4 'Slingshot' and 3K10 Granat)",
Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, 2008-09-12, Jane’s Information GroupJanes-Strategic-Weapon-Systems/RK-55-SSC-X4-Slingshot-and-3K10-Granat-Russian-Federation.html, retrieved 2009-02-04
8.^ Thomson, David B. (July 1999), A Guide to the Nuclear Arms Control Treaties LA-UR-99-3173, Los Alamos National Laboratory, p. 131,
http://www.lanl.gov/history/hbombon/pdf/00416713.pdf
9.^ Thomson (1999)p127
.
Have you counted,how many times the reference of JANES is included in the article?Every time the janes gets updated the wiki retrieves the information.
Yes i admit that wiki is not reliable every one can edit it but that mostly happens in the topics where no clear cut outcome or result is present and where there is a lot of confusion about the topic.
Mostly these are political,diplomatical matters where information in Wiki is highly immune to the lies and propaganda spread by both parties.Since both parties try their best to convey their opinion through wiki,the information in wiki about that matter can't be said reliable.
Examples are Indo Pakistani wars,Indo Pakistani political affairs,Arab israel conflict,US Invasion in Iraq Afghanistan e.t.c..
In the case of Indo Pakistani wars since their is no clear cut result of these wars thats why in these matters we cannot rely on wiki information.
Countries given in the above like India,US and Israel all have tools for doing affective propaganda and spreading lies.Thats why wiki cant defend itself from propaganda of these countries.
But I would like to emphasize on POLITICAL and WAR related matters because Aerospace is a kind of subject in which WIKI gives comprehensive articles based on the collaborative research of all the selective and reliable sources including janes.
Secondly, NO, not even that has proven your point...
Everything have proven my point and it has clarified the misconception of Ra'ad being not an air launched version of Babur.
all you've shown is that two missiles share the exact same turbofan and the same design are built by two different manufacturers. OK. Lesson 1 about the then USSR...technology transfer between bureaus/manufacturers was not only encouraged, but at times required in order to get tasks done.
Its not me its Wiki+Information given by russian authorities who have shown that Two similarly designed and engined missiles are not variants of each other because of two facts:
1.Built by two different manufacturers,With both of them having their own research,analysis and engineering on their respective missiles. But because they were designed for same role,designed in return of the Single request from russian armed forces to build them according to their neeeds and by the Required sketch of the missile given by russian armed forces.
2.Both have a slight difference Not of a design but of the different methods of propulsion of engines of both.
But according to you it is design difference! .Even a 8 year old child can tell that if two cars have same engine but the bonut of one opens from frontside and the others ones from backside then it doesn't mean that the design of both cars is different because when the bonut is closed the design of both cars become same.
But please give a source that MKB RADUGA and NOVATOR were merged so that we can say that there is a certain commonality b/w the two in manufacturing thats why they are abc of each.
ALL I know is that its still MKB RADUGA and NOVATOR working indpendently on their own researchs.
Secondly, since you/WIKI mentioned that there IS a design DIFFERENCE (the motor drop-down), then this can denote a different missile DEPENDING on how significant the design change/difference is...
This is not a design difference.
it is a slight difference in working of both engines.Answered above but i will repeat it.
according to you it is design difference! .Even a 8 year old child can tell that if two cars have same engine but the bonut of one opens from frontside and the others ones from backside then it doesn't mean that the design of both cars is different because when the bonut is closed the design of both cars become same.
& secondly
just as bonut of a car does not alter the design of a car no matter what aproach it takes for opening,Same is for the frame opening of the missile.
If a child can know it then i think you can know it better.
But if you are saying this Intentionally then it is considered as LIE.
If you are saying it intentionally even knowing it that it is not a design difference but a engine one then you are lying.
that said, I want to see an AUTHORITATIVE source telling me how and why RK-55 and KH-55 are not variants of one another.
The authorative source is wiki Including the Janes and Russian sources.And i have posted them many times.if you still not convinced then:
Go to the Reference part of the wiki article which i have posted above & read the PDF files of russian sources and also janes.
By your logic, the F-16s built by KAI and those built by TAI are not variants of one another...the manufacturer argument is bogus.
Again its your childish arguments which compells me to retaliate and that makes the discussion BAD.
first research on
What is transfer of technology? and What is joint manufacturing?
&
What is Making of TWO different technologies with your own research,expertise,analysis and engineering and how it alters for calling two different products if two different Persons/organizations make them with their own research,expertise,analysis and engineering
Bogus. By that logic, the F-7 can't be considered a variant of MiG-21; the PAC JF-17 not a variant of CAC FC-1; the F-16s built by LM, KAI and TAI not variants of one another, etc.
some are one technology/product made by one organization with his own research & then technology is transfered to others so that thay can make it according to limits marked by the original manufacturer.
And one of them is joint venture.
None of them qualifies with my logic
It isn't impossible. HIT produces multiple types of tanks and armored vehicles under different designations. In any case, you've shifted your argument from stating that it takes a different engine in order to denote different missiles, yet not that has shifted to two different manufacturers. Why the shift? My argument still stands irrespective of who manufactures what or what the powerplant is...just a side on the powerplant, we don't have AUTHORITATIVE information as to what Ra'ad and Babur use as their powerplant...but my argument was and is that Ra'ad and Babur are different because of each other's airframe design at least.
It is Authorative that both Ra'ad and Babur uses turbo fan.
And I have proved that similar designed airframes doesnt qualifies for the missile being variants,through the example.
If similar designed cant be then why should different design.But
Because still most ALs and GLs variants share same similar design so it equates for an extent but there are many others who are not variants even when they are similar design.
Please for god sake we are discussing here two missiles one is launched from ground and other from air and you are comparing them with ground runner vehicles who are designed to operate in same dimension!
Even if by going to your own logic Does HIT call one SAAD APC equipped with machine gun DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY and the other SAAD APC equipped with SAM launcher a different technology and not a variant of the APC equipped with MG??
Although this HIT example doesn't qualifies for what we are discussing but even your this logic is wrong if we take it for an instance.
Bring some example which qualifies to our discussion.
Bogus argument. Where did you get this standard from?
Bogus only for you because you dont want to believe them.
&
I got this standard from REAL WORLD
If anything...you busted your old argument by bringing in a new one. First it was same engine = same missile, now it is different manufacturer = different missile EVEN though engine is the same. Please pick one and stick to it...and give us authoritative evidence.
Wil you stop lying or you havent read my posts
This manufacturer point was my First ever point in this thread.Read my 2nd post in the thread where i said this thing.
I have just revised it again.
My points were same,they are same & they will remain same.
And all of them points to only one argument and I am sticking to it from the very first.Its just that i brought many points in the discussion & you are calling them multiple arguments because you failed to bust them.
First read my All posts thoroughly and then say any thing.You even didn't read my posts dont you?
Because every man reading my posts can see that the same manufacturer point was my first ever point.
Its actually you who have brought multiple arguments and when i answered them you are calling my answers Multiple arguments.
You are simply blaming your own act on me.
Regarding engine. Although from the same manufacturer, they are still different engines. I think anyone who can read can see that you listed TWO DIFFERENT ENGINE MODELS.
Wrong wrong wrong..
They are not models of each other but VARIANTS.
The 'TERM' model is used for entirely new thing which is different from its previous form.
Example'
A 2010 model Honda civic car differentiates from a 1999 model civic in terms of improvement in each and every aspect and both to be designed according to the needs of their time that how much both models fulfill the needs of their own time.
Similarly
If the engine of a 800 cc car,modeled 1999 generates abc horse power.And in 2010 the company launched the new model of that car with SAME 800cc SIZE but with INCREASED HORSE POWER xyz then THAT ENGINE WITH IMPROVED HORSE POWER IS A MODEL OF THE ENGINE WIH ABS HORSE POWER because
IT IS MADE FOR THE SAME 800cc CAR AND IT HAS TO BE ADAPTED ON THAT SIMILAR SIZED PLATFORM
But
if a engine is made for a 1000 cc car and we want to put it in a 800cc car then ofcourse we will have to do some modifications in engine to install it in the smaller car.
the engine will remain same but it is modified thus its modified(modification made to dicrease the size) form cant be called as a model of that engine
Secondly, you only guessed that AGM-129 and BGM-109 are variants because they're from the same manufacturer, but haven't given decisive proof - just deduction or a belief. I want decisive evidence.
I didn't guessed.
I admit that there is no one line command that they are variants,
Bcoz
The AGM program is a MERGENCE of two different programs.
One for air launched Gryphon and one for Improvement in AGM-86 B.
thats why it can be called as air launched Gryphon and also an improvement in AGM-86B.
All the links given by me confirms that MRASM was going to be the airlaunched gryphon(MRASM was short ranged missile)
But after the study by US think thanks that AGM-86 B(Long range missile) is not sufficient for penetration of soviet ADs they decided to change the MRASM into a long range stealth ALCM.
This is story of AGM-129.
Read the links given by me.
That was not the point of my earlier post. I said that RK-55 and KH-55 use the SAME turbofan ENGINE...e.g. Gripen and LCA both use GE404.
What about the other differences?
Different manufacturer,every thing different.....and it goes on .
Again refers to my Facts
But remember, your earlier point was that Babur & Ra'ad are variants of one another BECAUSE they use the same engine, but when SHOWN that RK-55 and KH-55 use the EXACT SAME ENGINE MODEL, you switched to your manufacturer argument.
Where the Heck I switched
Why are you saying that you show that.I gave the links.
Yes my point is same that they both use same engine thats why they are variants But i never said that only Engine is base for calling them.
Man use your common sense RK-55 and KH-55 both are for long range strike thats why it is inevitable for them to have turbo fan.
But if we assume that they can be called as variants because of similar engines then like
I said engine is not the Sole basis for declaring a variant.I never said it (If i have then point it out).
And i gave multiple points in response of your multiple point.But the difference is that I am still sticked to them.
Engine is common
But there are other very strong Arguments in favour of not calling them variants
And those are discussed above.please refer to them.
And I am again repeating this that MANUFACTURER POINT was among my very first points.I said that differet Manuf is the only case which equates for calling Ra'ad not variant.But this case is not present
But this is a BOGUS argument...because two different companies can manufacture a product with the same design and same engine, and people would say these are variants of one another.
This is only possible in Joint venture where two companies agree and then share their expertise.
But this case is not present in mentioned soviet missiles.
..but according to YOU these are different missiles...??
This is called lie because i never said that jointly produced things are not variants of each other.
Even it is not discussed here.
You are Intentionally mixing my two company point with joint venture thing which didn't came in discussion.
