Re: Will the Pakis get the Sparrow to work on their F-16As?

[Tom Cooper]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> All this talk of Iranians getting the phoenix to fire from donkey carts
> using parts from an old tv

This is your - and a pretty arrogant indeed - interpretation: the Iranians
have got a top-of-the line interceptor, completely equipped and accompanied
by the best in weapons, crew-training, and support available at the time.
Except you nobody here said they fired AIM-54s from "donkey carts using
parts from an old TV": they were firing AIM-54s from F-14As, produced by
Grumman Aerospace Corp., and Hughes Aerospace, respectivelly. I.e. both
"made in USA": if you consider these products to be "donkey carts using
parts from an old TV", you're of course free to do so. While I guess you
would consequently also compare firing AIM-54s against such stuff like
MiG-21s with hunting Sparrows with radar-guided missiles, I'd like to draw
your attention at the fact that you're talking here actually about
high-tech, US-made donkey carts, capable of flying at Mach 2 and equipped
with the most powerful and flexible AI-radar of the time, as well as
US-made, high-tech "parts from an old TV" flying over ranges of up to
140km...

> have me wondering if the Pakis will ever get
> their 30 F-16As to fire the BVR Sparrow. It is rumored

You always talk about "rumors": don't you ever accept any fix data or is it
so that you can't get any?

> that the Pakis
> recieved a large number of Sparrows from one of the Gulf States. Have
> they been able to get them to fire from the F-16A?

Not so far.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[James Hart]

Hobo wrote:
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
>> This is your - and a pretty arrogant indeed - interpretation: the
>> Iranians have got a top-of-the line interceptor, completely equipped
>> and accompanied by the best in weapons, crew-training, and support
>> available at the time. Except you nobody here said they fired
>> AIM-54s from "donkey carts using parts from an old TV": they were
>> firing AIM-54s from F-14As, produced by Grumman Aerospace Corp., and
>> Hughes Aerospace, respectivelly. I.e. both "made in USA": if you
>> consider these products to be "donkey carts using parts from an old
>> TV", you're of course free to do so. While I guess you would
>> consequently also compare firing AIM-54s against such stuff like
>> MiG-21s with hunting Sparrows with radar-guided missiles, I'd like
>> to draw your attention at the fact that you're talking here actually
>> about high-tech, US-made donkey carts, capable of flying at Mach 2
>> and equipped with the most powerful and flexible AI-radar of the
>> time, as well as US-made, high-tech "parts from an old TV" flying
>> over ranges of up to 140km...
>
> The proper way to respond to a joke is to ignore it or make another
> joke. A lengthy explanation of the differences between a donkey cart
> and an F-14 misses the point.
>
> On a purely logical level, it seems odd that the Iranians should be
> able to do so much reverse-engineering with the Phoenix, but the
> Pakis can't do anything with the Sparrow. There are about 4x as many
> Pakis and they have greater access to the West and they built the
> "Islamic Bomb" before the Iranians did.

Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most people
didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others couldn't do similar
when the motivation is there.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[Tom Cooper]

"James Hart" > wrote in message
...

> > The proper way to respond to a joke is to ignore it or make another
> > joke. A lengthy explanation of the differences between a donkey cart
> > and an F-14 misses the point.

Hobo,
I have answered with a joke, but you haven't got it. :-)

> > On a purely logical level, it seems odd that the Iranians should be
> > able to do so much reverse-engineering with the Phoenix, but the
> > Pakis can't do anything with the Sparrow.
> > and they built the
> > "Islamic Bomb" before the Iranians did.

You can't mix the Pakistanis with the Iranians, nor ignore few simple facts.

Iran was imposed a brutal, bloody, long and destructive war in the 1980s,
which was paralyzing the development while simultaneously being used by the
new regime to establish itself in power. The threats were different, and the
regime needed time to consolidate and find out what is in its interest.
The - sometimes unbelieveable - naivety of the Mullahs in Tehran (I know
this sounds strange, but too many of their decisions cannot be described as
anything else but pure naivety) - combined with greed, ignorance, and
arrogance - has further prolonged the war and was also preventing the
development of the country for more than ten years. Once the war was over,
and Khomeyni away, they could start coming back to their senses.

Now, due to the successful Pakistani propaganda, the West believed (and,
obviously, largely still believes) since 1965 that the PAF is a high-tech,
top-trained air force, that is smashing the far superior "Soviet-influenced"
Indian Air Force at any given opportunity. "No wonder" if these then have a
high-tech industry. Neither of this, however, was a case: Pakistan has never
got a whole factory capable of producing such stuff like F-5 aircraft,
AGM-65 Maverick missiles and GBU-8 guided bombs, UAVs, rocket motors etc.
from the USA - like Iran did, and that already in the late 1970s. What
Pakistan has got was help from China, F-6 fighters and a refurbishment works
for these in Kamra, just for example. They have also not got over 600
top-of-the-line combat, transport and support aircraft from the USA in the
1970s and 1980s: only 40 F-16s and 20 AH-s.

The Pakistan then saw itself faced with different threats than Iran, and its
priorities were different: India has got the "bomb" already in 1974. In 1979
the USSR invaded Afghanistan, which is considered in Islamabad as its own
backyard, a place they want in order to ensure their "strategic depth" in
the case of a war with India. So, for most of the 1980s they were busy
developing their own bomb, while also organizing and running the war against
the Soviets in Afghanistan. Both tasks were - more or less - financed by
Arab oil-money. The last was, of course, also to a large degree financed by
the USA. In order to finance the development of their bomb the Pakistani
governments have forced their people into massive sacrifices: the economy is
stagnating since decades, and then they have also lost the US support. The
last not only because of their development efforts, but also because already
the Reagan admin has recognized the fundamental islamic tendences of the
then Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq (don't forget that Pakistan was the
first "Islamic Republic" ever recognized internationally: Iran became this
only in 1979, while Pakistan is an IR already since 1948). Tendences that
were later to lead to the Pakistani establishment, organization, and running
the Taliban, and supporting them even with the units of their own regular
military. In strategic sence, this was not important for Islamabad any more:
what counted for them was to have the "means of response on the Indian
nuclear threat", as well as to spread their influence in Afghanistan.

On the other side, the Chinese were interested in Pakistan getting its bomb,
because Indians are also their "sworn" enemies. They were, however, not able
to supply any kind of other high-tech for most of the 1980s and 1990s: you
can see this already from the type of combat aircraft they were
simultaneously supplying to the PAF: F-7s, which are actually further
developed copies of the MiG-21F-13.

So, Iran has got the technological and technical basis for what it was doing
already during the war with Iraq, and even more so for what it is doing
today. The situation developed so far that they are not only having a very
strong defence sector, capable of supplying high-tech based on the US
know-how from the 1980s, but also a pretty powerful IT-industry. Something
that is actually non-existing in Pakistan.

Back to Sparrow: Pakistan was trying - and pretty hard - to get some AIM-7s
in several different places. Theoretically, their F-16s are capable of using
it, or would be with only a minimum of modifications. Between 1991 and 1993
there was a period of relatively friendly cooperation between Iran and
Pakistan, during which the PAF-pilots were even permitted to test-fly
exIraqi Soviet-supplied aircraft in Iran, such like Su-25s and MiG-23s,
while in turn helping Iranians get their exIraqi Mirage F.1EQs into gear,
and the Iranians also selling them their surplus F-16-support equipment,
they have got before the type was to enter service in Iran, in early 1979
(i.e. before the revolution). They were asking the Iranians to sell them
some of their AIM-7s, but the Iranians were turning all such requests down.
This cooperation, however, was suddenly stopped when differences between
Tehran and Islamabad regarding the situation in Afghanistan became apparent.

Search for the Sparrows elsewhere produced no results either: such countries
like Turky, Saudi Arabia and Egypt couldn't supply any for different
reasons. In the end, Pakistan came away with empty hands. They have,
however - very recently - solved their "BVR-problem" by other means.

> > There are about 4x as many
> > Pakis and they have greater access to the West

This is, sadly, a wrong picture launched into the Western public by the
Pakistani establishment. Yes, there are three times (not four) more
Pakistanis than Iranians. But, no: a vast majority of the Pakistanis have
nothing in common with the West, nor any access to it. Quite on the
contrary, there is a widespread support for the al-Qaida and the "Islamic
cause" even within the Pakistani establishment (i.e. the "pro-Western" part
of the Pakistani society). The fact that they have permitted the USA to use
their airspace to operate in Afghanistan has nothing to do with any kind of
a wish to support the US fight against Taliban, but with a sole wish to
survive. Pakistan is, namely, the No.1 exporter of terrorism: it has
created, supported and actually run the Taliban and their regime in
Afghanistan right from the start (it has - or is still doing - also exported
terrorism to India, the Philippines etc.). It was an immense sacrifice of
their regime to give up this support: it almost costed them their power and
lifes. However, they had to "join" the US, as the alternative was a war with
the USA and an almost certain anihilliation of the Pakistani nuclear
capabilities, and thus a very insecure future for the whole country. I'd say
that the existence of Pakistan as a country was at stake in
September/October 2001, and consequently one must actually congratulate
Musharaf for what he has done. The Pakistan is today - officially - a US
ally, but inofficially it can continue doing what it was doing the last 20
years: export terror into India and elsewhere, and continue supporting the
struggle of Islamic extremists against the USA inside Afghanistan (and even
inside Pakistan). Best of all: it can now do this under while under the US
aegis.

Anyway, just to give you one nice example about the Pakistani involvement in
Afghanistan in the 1990s: when the US started attacking Taliban there were
still whole units of the regular Pakistani Army in Afghanistan, involved in
organizing and running the Taliban, but also in fighting the "United
Front/Northern Coallition" forces, which pulled back into their last
strongholds, in north-eastern Afghanistan. When the US attacked there and
simultaneously started cooperating with the UF/NC, the PAF transports had to
ad-hoc fly out all of the regular Pakistani personnel, and as much equipment
as possible. The USN reported tracking at least 30 such flights within a
single day. Now, given that at the time the US had nothing like a permanent
control of the Afghani airspace, while the PAF has only something like 20
large transports (including 11 C-130s) one must wonder how many more flights
went unnoticed?

In turn, without the Pakistani support, and with several of the most
important Afghani warlords being bribed by the US, the - otherwise chaotic -
Taliban collapsed "surprisingly fast" while trying to do something they had
absolutely no clue about: fight a modern war.


James,

> Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most people
> didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others couldn't do
similar
> when the motivation is there.

Back in 1982 the Argentinians were doing nothing special with their Exocets.
The situation was so that they have got five rounds early in 1982, and that
the Aerospatiale has sent a technical-support team to Argentina too. When
the Falklands War broke out, somebody "forgot" to re-call this team back.
So, the French have - on one side - supplied all the possible infos about
their Exocets to the British, while simultaneously their own people were
there in Argentina still giving advices to the CANA (Arg. Naval Aviation).
But, neither this team nor the Argentinians have changed anything on their
Excocets, nor have tried to establish production of this weapon at home, or
something similar.

The problem was, however, that the Exocet/Super Etendard threat was
initially not taken seriously enough. Namely, the British failed to notice
the capability of the Argentinians to refuel their Etendards in the air
(from US-supplied KC-130H tankers). Once this threat was realized steps were
taken to decrease it as much as possible. Of course, the attack against HMS
Sheffield was a considerable blow to the British, but nevertheless, the
overall "success" of the Exocet in that war was overblown: the weapon proved
technically unreliable, and problematic to use. Out of five air-launched
Argentinian Exocets only one hit the intended target (HMS Sheffield). Two
have missed, one was possibly shot down, while the fourth was decoyed and
then hit the Atlantic Converyor by pure mistake or malfunction - after
exiting the chaff cloud without detonation. Equally, out of two
ground-fired, only one hit.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[James Hart]

Tom Cooper wrote:
>> Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most
>> people didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others
>> couldn't do similar when the motivation is there.
>
> Back in 1982 the Argentinians were doing nothing special with their
> Exocets.

I though they were converting air launched to ground launched (or was it
vice versa) as they couldn't get enough of what they wanted?

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[Keith Willshaw]

"James Hart" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Cooper wrote:
> >> Back in 82 the Argentinians were doing things with Exocet that most
> >> people didn't think could be done, no reason to beleive others
> >> couldn't do similar when the motivation is there.
> >
> > Back in 1982 the Argentinians were doing nothing special with their
> > Exocets.
>
> I though they were converting air launched to ground launched (or was it
> vice versa) as they couldn't get enough of what they wanted?
>

Not to my knowledge , they did create a lashup that allowed
some ship launched Exocets to be fired from a land based trailer
however.

Keith

[Tom Cooper]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...

> Not to my knowledge , they did create a lashup that allowed
> some ship launched Exocets to be fired from a land based trailer
> however.

They used a WWII-vintage German Siemens generator to power the truck-mounted
Exocets, plus some pretty primitive make-shift control station, coupled with
an artillery radar, for aligning the nav and attack system. That's all: no
high-tech, only improvisation.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Dave Kearton]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

>
> I don't buy your argument that the Pakis got the bomb first due to
> priorities. The mullahs would trade their mothers for a nuke.




So ? Give them one !




Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Keith Willshaw]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
> > . But, no: a vast majority of the Pakistanis have
> > nothing in common with the West, nor any access to it
>
> Pakis have vastly greater access to the West than Iranians. It is much
> easier for a Paki to study engineering at MIT than an Iranian. The Pakis
> have more in common with the West than the Iranians because Iran was
> never a European colony. The Paki army has legions of quality bagpipers
> as a result of colonialization, the Iranian army is a bagpipe free zone.
>
> I don't buy your argument that the Pakis got the bomb first due to
> priorities. The mullahs would trade their mothers for a nuke.

You are in error on several points sir.

Iran trains very large numbers of engineers and has done since
the time of the Shah, indeed there's a very large demand for engineers
in Iran as a result of its long established oil and petrochemical
industries. Iran is in fact much more industrialised than Pakistan
and has rapidly expanded its universities in recent years, indeed
over 50% of its graduates are women and they work extensively
in engineering organisations. The last senior engineer of the
Iranian Offshore Oil Company I worked for was female.

While Iran may never have been formally a European colony
it was under effective British contol throughout the 19th and
early 20th century, indeed it was jointly occupied by Britain
and the USSR during WW2.

Finally Iran has had a substantial indigenous aero industry since
the early 60's when they began building helicopters under liscence
By the time of the Islamic revolution the Iranian Military Industries
Organization was producing small arms ammunition, batteries, tires,
copper products, explosives, and mortar rounds and fuses, rifles and
machine guns, helicopters, jeeps, trucks, and trailers.


Iran was also well on its way to manufacturing rocket launchers, rockets,
gun barrels, and grenades. This capability was of course seen as
a good thing at the time since Iran was seen as a bulwark against
Soviet influence.

Under a multibillion-dollar industrialisation programme, the Shah
commissioned US arms firms to build entire weapons factories from scratch in
Iran. Thus Bell Helicopter was building a factory to produce Model-214
helicopters in Isfahan, and Hughes was building a missile plant in Shiraz.
Northrop was also a joint partner in Iran Aircraft Industries, inc., which
maintained many of the US military aircraft sold to Iran and was expected to
produce aircraft components and eventually complete planes. These efforts
represented a large share of US industrial involvement in Iran, and were a
centrepiece of the Shah's efforts to develop modern, high-technology
industries.

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:37:03 -0700, Hobo > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
>> . But, no: a vast majority of the Pakistanis have
>> nothing in common with the West, nor any access to it
>
>Pakis have vastly greater access to the West than Iranians. It is much
>easier for a Paki to study engineering at MIT than an Iranian.

No idea about MIT, but it's certainly possible for Iranians to study
in London.

>The Pakis
>have more in common with the West than the Iranians because Iran was
>never a European colony. The Paki army has legions of quality bagpipers
>as a result of colonialization,

This is a joke, right?

>I don't buy your argument that the Pakis got the bomb first due to
>priorities. The mullahs would trade their mothers for a nuke.

Maybe.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Keith Willshaw]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> > You are in error on several points sir.
> >
> > Iran trains very large numbers of engineers and has done since
> > the time of the Shah, indeed there's a very large demand for engineers
>
> Gen. Musharaf's own brother is an aneasthelogist working in Chicago.

Thats hardly likley to help PAC retrofit F-16's


> It is very easy for a Paki to move here and work for a defense contractor
> and oops, I downloaded the wrong file my mistake, it won't happen again.

Its scarcely that easy for any foreigner as I know.

> Its not the same for Iranians. An Iranian who comes here and tries to
> work at a defense contractor will be suspected at every turn.
>

Which says nothing about the abilty of Iranian engineers

> to all in general:
>
> I was wrong about Pak having 4x as many people, its 2x. However, their
> bagpipers really are very good. You can download Pak bagpipe mp3s and
> hear for yourself.
>

No thanks the Jocks are bad enough.

> I don't believe Iran can outpace Pak in technology. I also believe that
> getting the Sparrows to work is *more* important for Pak than getting
> the Phoenix was/is to Iran. Pak is screwed against India without a BVR
> threat.

Iran has had an indigenous aircraft industry for 20 years, Pakistan has only
recently achieved that status and frankly if it comes to a shooting
war against India Pakistan is screwed anyway as the last 2 wars
show. As for Iran, at the time they got the Phoenix working they
were involved in a war with Iraq in which they lost more people than
the total US losses in WW1 and WW2. I'd say they were pretty
motivated.

Keith

[Tom Cooper]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
> > . But, no: a vast majority of the Pakistanis have
> > nothing in common with the West, nor any access to it
>
> Pakis have vastly greater access to the West than Iranians.

Can you confirm this by some statistics? How many Pakistani students have
studied on Western universities in the last 30 years, just for example?

I know that the Shah was sending something like 250.000 Iranian students to
study in the USA and Europe between 1970 and 1974 alone, or that there were
over 700.000 Iranians working in German car-factories and mines in the late
1970s alone. I don't know how it is in the USA, but the Europe is still full
of Persian MDs.

> It is much
> easier for a Paki to study engineering at MIT than an Iranian.

Again: have you any statistics that confirms this?

> The Pakis
> have more in common with the West than the Iranians because Iran was
> never a European colony.

Well, is everything done in the West and in the "Western" manner the best?
Does this mean that everything somebody else does in a manner different than
in the West is automatically wrong?

But, if things of this kind mean so much to you, and this is how you "sort"
countries into "more pro-Western" and "less pro-Western", let me remind you
that in the mid-1970s the Shah of Persia asked a Western journalist, why is
he getting so much bad press about his brutal regime; why isn't the Western
press criticising other local Arab and the Pakistani regimes for their
supression and brutality against the oppostion. The journalist answered:
because we consider you as a part of the West, and the others not.

Clearly, the situation changed since 1979, but I seriously doubt that Iran
ever had to be anybody's colony to get more "pro-Western". As first, the
Iranians are generaly very proud and patriotic, so I doubt they could become
a true colony in the first place. As second, don't forget that -
technically - Iran was actually under the British and then the US rule for
over 70 years, which in turn is one of the reasons why the Iranians started
their revolution in 1979, and quite a few of them still have "very strong"
feelings against the British or the Americans.

Of course, it is certainly so that Pakistan has specific things in common
with the West: the country is one of the main producents of drugs smuggled
into the Europe (together with Afghanistan). This is a fact confirmed by
almost 100.000 Pakistani and Afghani drug-smugglers imprisoned in Iran, as
well as some particularly massive Iranian drug-busting operations along -
and often enough also beyond - the Pakistani border. But isn't the lack of
similar actions on the part of the Pakistani authorities pointing at the
fact that they do not care all too much about the situation, probably due to
all of their care and feelings for the West?

Otherwise, if you really want to know how much Pakistan has "in common with
the West", I strongly suggest you to take a flight to Kharachi or Islamabad
(I think BA has several flights weekly), then rent a 4x4 and take a few days
drive around the country. Just don't forget to ascertain armed escort if you
move anywhere into west or north: you could otherwise get a pretty "western"
feeling there.

> The Paki army has legions of quality bagpipers
> as a result of colonialization, the Iranian army is a bagpipe free zone.

Well, thank's Lord: I guess the Iranian military really isn't in need of
bag-pipers too (except, of course, you consider bag-pipers a sign of
progress and the widespread high-tech in the country and its military). They
have enough to do with the Mullahs looking permanently over their shoulders:
bag-pipers could just be too much for them to bear.

But, one aspect of this thought of yours is definitely interesting: how
comes it didn't help the Pakistani military to develop the capaility to make
their own Sparrows if they have bag-pipers, and this makes them so much
pro-Western?

> I don't buy your argument that the Pakis got the bomb first due to
> priorities. The mullahs would trade their mothers for a nuke.

Sigh. OK. So, please be so kind and explain me why haven't they traded their
mothers for nukes so far?

One would think they have had enough opportunity in the last 24 years to
organize such a deal....?

BTW, do you perhaps need few "pro-Western" citates from the members of the
Pakistani military and the establishment?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[Keith Willshaw]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> > > Gen. Musharaf's own brother is an aneasthelogist working in Chicago.
> >
> > Thats hardly likley to help PAC retrofit F-16's
>
> Could Khomeini's own brother do the same?

Nope but then he's been dead for some years.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Hobo" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Pakis have vastly greater access to the West than Iranians.
> >
> > Can you confirm this by some statistics? How many Pakistani students
have
> > studied on Western universities in the last 30 years, just for example?
>
> Iran has been treated as an enemy country since the embassy was taken.
> Pak has been treated as an ally for its entire history.
>

Hardly, the US stayed neutral during the Indo-Pakistani wars
and had slapped an embargo on Pakistan prior to Sept 11 because
of its nuclear program

>
>
> >
> > I know that the Shah was sending something like 250.000 Iranian students
to
> > study in the USA and Europe between 1970 and 1974 alone, or that there
were
> > over 700.000 Iranians working in German car-factories and mines in the
late
> > 1970s alone. I don't know how it is in the USA, but the Europe is still
full
> > of Persian MDs.
> >
>
> This all pre-Khomeini. After the fall most of the Iranians who left were
> far more educated than those stuck behind. And after the fall of the
> Shah access to the West decreased.
>

This is of course untrue, the USA is not the west, indeed large
numbers of Iranian students are trained in European and Canadian
universities and Iran has very close relations with Russia
these days.

In fact there are active Iranian Student associations at a
number of US universities including Stanford and the
university of Virginia so at least some Iranian students are
attending US universities

http://tehran.stanford.edu/psa/
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~pars/
http://129.2.94.152/~afshin/IGSF/links.htm

In fact there's a nice table showing the breakdown
in numbers of foreign students attending unviversities in
the USA at

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt416.asp

In the year 1999-2000 some 2000 Iranians enrolled
compared with 6000 or so Pakistanis

Given that Pakistan has more than double the population
of Iran a Pakistani has no more than a 50% better chance
of attending a US university than an Iranian

The world bank has statistics showing the percentage of
students reaching Primary Secondary and Tertiary level
in each country, they make interesting reading

Country Primary Secondary Tertiary
Iran 94.5 75.8 22.0
Pakistan 74.4 24.1 2.9

Adult Illiteracy rates are also revealing

Iran 24%
Pakistan 56.8%

Keith.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message >...
> "Hobo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Tom Cooper" > wrote:
> >
> > > . But, no: a vast majority of the Pakistanis have
> > > nothing in common with the West, nor any access to it
> >
> > Pakis have vastly greater access to the West than Iranians.
>
> Can you confirm this by some statistics? How many Pakistani students have
> studied on Western universities in the last 30 years, just for example?

The operative word is "have", not had. Recent US statistics supporting
his assertion are included further below; in the case of the UK, your
statistics for 2000 indicate a grand total of some six hundred Iranian
student visas, versus more than three thousand Pakistani visas.

http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/qdu/documents/visastats.xls

>
> I know that the Shah was sending something like 250.000 Iranian students to
> study in the USA and Europe between 1970 and 1974 alone, or that there were
> over 700.000 Iranians working in German car-factories and mines in the late
> 1970s alone. I don't know how it is in the USA, but the Europe is still full
> of Persian MDs.

Not annualy he wasn't.

>
> > It is much
> > easier for a Paki to study engineering at MIT than an Iranian.
>
> Again: have you any statistics that confirms this?

www.fiu.edu/~pie/docs/Intl_98-99.doc

http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/TEMP02yrbk/Temp2002tables.pdf

Note that in 98-99, there were some 5K plus Pakistanis studying in US
universities, and no reported Iranian nationals. The official US
statistics for 2002 list a grand total of 295 student visas to
Iranians, and again over 5K to Pakistanis. So yeah, the poster was
correct, and there is your evidence.

Brooks

<snip>