What's new

T-LORAMIDS Tender | Updates & Discussion

What is the best option for the T-LORAMIDS Program


  • Total voters
    67
Turkey’s China deal on missile system not finalized, says President Gül


BUSINESS - Turkey

Either Gul during in his USA visit, doesn't be informed about results of latest SSIK meeting, or He is fqcking with Turkish nation, After He met a strong reaction of USA officials. Gul is nowhere to spread such news about industrial issues, While Ministery of national defence or Undersecretariat of Defence industry is there but In Turkey, Everybody feel themselves free to give info about every f@cking subject.
 
Situation would be like FD-2000 system will be re-developed (Firstly electronic/software section, later missiles handled by Turkey's standarts, then export activities) by Turkish engineers under domestic command-control center and softwares to integrate into NATO's network. Those Long range missiles should communicate with Turkey's AEW&C platforms to engage the targets locked by them as well so Working under Turkey's same network is vital but If you ask me, Turkey doesn't care integrating own strategic assets into NATO radar network. Turkish Army uses state of art Aselsan developed command-control infastructure called Skywatcher for homeland security and Eash Air defence assets are operated under Skywatcher command-control network.

With integration of AEW&C aircrafts into Aselsan SkyWatcher SAM network thanks to Havelsan developed command-control softwares, The capabilities of system enlarged and new updates are applied for Skywatcher. As far as I know, Latest version of system is called as Skywatcher-D which provide impressive autonom capabilities to all SAM assets thanks to dataes taken from radar network. This system is tested in a multinational NATO exercise as well and Aselsan mentioned as rare institute which is able to develop such a capable and strategic command-control infastructure.

Mate..Do you think a chinese system's integration into Turkish C4I will be that difficult?
Chances are that the HQ-9 already has Link-16,which is a publicly available set of communivcation perimeters and anybody with the right Software and Hrdaware capabilities can produde their own Link-16 compatible communication system.Turkey must have doe it long time ago and retrofitting one into HQ-9 wont be a problem..
Once HQ-9 is equipped with a NATO compatible Link,it can talk to any Western system.

Pakistan has done it..Our JF-17 from china could not talk to our Erieye AEW&C and were retrofitted with means of communication to Erieye.

In any case a "Middleman" system can be used..A ground station translating the NATO signal for HQ-9 and vice versa..

People here are making a mountain out of mole hill...
 
Turkey's TRS-22XX Long range land based mobile Radar network

trs.png

some good info here about Turkish Radar you mention
http://export.ssm.gov.tr/Documents/...cts Guide 2009/4-DefenceElectronics 33-56.pdf

The TRS 22XX is a 3-D air defence radar complying
with the NATO Class I specifications. It is designed for
efficient operation even through the most hostile
environment of various and simultaneous clutters,
heavy jamming, blast and battle conditions.

now now...HAVELSAN is shouting out loud that they have an air defence radar with NATO Class I specifications,and Turkey is buying a chinese HQ-9 ..
There can be two things..Either Turks are out of mind..
Or they have the capability of Linking the new Missile system into their RADAR network..which is a NATO standard network....
 
Mate..Do you think a chinese system's integration into Turkish C4I will be that difficult?
Chances are that the HQ-9 already has Link-16,which is a publicly available set of communivcation perimeters and anybody with the right Software and Hrdaware capabilities can produde their own Link-16 compatible communication system.Turkey must have doe it long time ago and retrofitting one into HQ-9 wont be a problem..
Once HQ-9 is equipped with a NATO compatible Link,it can talk to any Western system.

Pakistan has done it..Our JF-17 from china could not talk to our Erieye AEW&C and were retrofitted with means of communication to Erieye.

In any case a "Middleman" system can be used..A ground station translating the NATO signal for HQ-9 and vice versa..

People here are making a mountain out of mole hill...


Turkish AEW&C platforms are ordered from USA, Boeing but All command control unique softwares, ground control segments are developed by domestic institute Havelsan and connected into Turkey's own network.

Artillery Kasirga rockets ToT are received from China in 1990, Then Turkey re-developed many parts/electronic sections based on national infastructure. Today, Turkey's 302mm Kasirga rockets are one of the best effective artillery rocket system that Technologies are shared with many friend countries in region. Kasirga+ system will be a competitive of USA GMLRS system and R&D activities are funded by another ally country. Those Kasirga rockets are working under Aselsan's ADOP-2000 artillery command-control network without any problem.


Under the lights of those examples, Why do we have problem with a new system which is going to be connected into a similar domestic network ?
 
Under the lights of those examples, Why do we have problem with a new system which is going to be connected into a similar domestic network ?

exactly my point...

anyway.....I will buzz off now..Have commented too much here. :wave:
 
Interesting quote from the president,could Turkey suspend its decision ? Any other news besides that article a few posts earlier in the turkish media ?
 
Interesting quote from the president,could Turkey suspend its decision ? Any other news besides that article a few posts earlier in the turkish media ?

Pay no heed to President, he have no says in this issue. Wait for Erdogan. That said, there is no guarantee that if he is gonna comment on this issue or not.
 
Well, I was surprised by your tone here to tell you honestly.

Yes, that is often the case. All Semitic peoples so they are bound to have similarities. Even the languages are similar let alone the appearance. After all we are from the same region. It would be like spotting the difference between a Kazakh and a Turkmen knowing little of the differences between Central Asian Turkic peoples.

I recall something about a movie. Not sure who made it. But there are plenty of former Muslims who have made similar things. Arabs also. Let them do it. Sometimes it is good to just let them expose themselves.

Yeah, sure. No biggie.

Sorry about the tone. I meant no offense but I tend to come off as very hostile, understandably.



On topic. This is a great step for Turkey. It's about time we start to have independent systems from NATO. Everyone criticizing this move on the basis of integration with NATO should step back and answer a very basic question with a simple answer. Has the West/NATO/EU/USA ever really done anything to show they're true friends to be trusted and this isn't an alliance of convenience? No. I would lose sleep at night if we were relying on people who have hated us for about a thousand years to defend us.

Also, in terms of comparing the systems. I think everyone is sort of missing the point in comparing performance. Most projects like these fail or aren't even started because of the lack of defence industry experience. It would take a country like Italy even such a short time to develop a simple propeller driven training aircraft like Hurkus. They've done it before and I'd be surprised if even the design plans for old planes wouldn't be tapped into. It took us millions of dollars and years to produce.

Turkey doesn't have that required experience in SAM development. We just bought it and it has a nice "Made in China" sticker on it.

The playing field is now leveled. Systems like the s-400 are "next-gen" defence products. We bought a current generation SAM so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel to now go on and develop our own next generation defence systems. Thanks China.
 
Mate, straight, simple question. If you were a Turk would you rather buy Patriots off the shelf or you would go for the one which provides ToT ?

As a Turk, I would never buy a Patriot PAC-3 for the purposes that the Turkish government stated - long-range, strategic air defense and ABM. Patriot's, which are excellent for their purposes and the only truly battle-tested air-defense systems from the 4 offered to Turkey, are mostly tactical and operational air-defense, whilst S-300 is more of a strategic air-defense.

As a Turk, I would never buy French/Italian stuff, period, because one of those countries, France, is inherently hostile to Turkey on racist grounds.

That leaves two real choices: buy from a former enemy Russia, or buy from China.

The advantages of Russian system (S-300VM):

1) the S-300 line of systems has been produced for the past three decades - a very long time to work out all the bugs and problems;
2) it is a fact that S-300's can integrate into NATO air-defense - if needed;
3) price is not as expensive as Western systems;
4) it is fact that it can be upgraded in the future, as well as work with S-400 Triumph;
5) S-300 is a known quantity. NATO and other countries are scared of it. NATO goes nuts to prevent Iran or Syria from acquiring it. Turkey went nuts years ago to prevent Greek Cyprus from acquiring it - so Greece got them instead (I think they got PMU-1 variant, not as new as PMU-2);
6) it's easier to negotiate with Russians, and to get some kind of ToT;
7) the best technical characteristics of all - the longest range and a believable 90%+ accuracy of kill ratio.

Disadvantage of Russian system:
1) more expensive than Chinese system;
2) less ToT;
3) Russia and Turkey have fought 11 or so wars in the past three centuries, and the suspicion towards each other lives on among the two militaries. Thus depending from Russia for S-300 missiles is not a good thing - and since Israel is not a friend anymore, therefore there is no one else who could create compatible missiles in case Russian supply ceases;


The advantages of Chinese system (FD-2000/HQ-9):
1) cheaper than even Russian system;
2) China is committed to continue improving it - and there is no doubt that Chinese spies will continue steal technology secrets, and Chinese engineers will continue quickly implementing them, whilst Chinese workers will quickly mass-produce them;
3) much greater ToT than anyone else;
4) it is less known to NATO and everyone else (except Russia and Iran, who know Chinese HQ systems well, Iran even has, supposedly, HQ-9B, the latest variant);
5) becoming closer friends with world's #2 economy;
6) it's unlikely that Turkey and China would fight any wars in the future, so a more friendly attitude among the two.

Disadvantage of the Chinese system:

1) You might be getting a greater ToT, but for a morally obsolete weapon design. The HQ series might be going in a totally different direction. For example, the S-500, despite being built by the same manufacturer as the maker of S-400, S-300, S-200, S-125, S-75, is nevertheless a completely new system that uses completely new and different principles. Same thing with difference between Patriot PAC-3 vs. PAC-2/PAC-1 - they are completely different. PAC-3 is not just newer and has greater range and accuracy, but the principle of its performance is completely different. Thus, getting greater ToT from China is completely misleading. They are already building HQ-9C and HQ-16 and HQ-19 - all of which are different, and more advanced than FD-2000.

2) FD-2000 is rather new. It's a good thing in terms of being shiny, new computer monitors, better air-conditioning and anti-radiation protection for personnel, but it has more bugs and more hidden problems that can only be straightened out after years and decades of development, testing and deployment. S-300's are a known quantity - many countries operate them, no complaints.

3) You don't know the true range and performance of the FD-2000. Why would all the analysts, including one's in Asia, doubt Chinese claims about 300km range, and instead say it has a range of 125km?

4) Despite great promise and great potential, at the end of the day Chinese copied ~80% from Russians, and ~20% from Americans (they also borrowed from passive radars of Kolchuga system of Ukraine - they bought several units back in the early 1990's). So instead of getting a Chinese knock-off, why not get the original from Russians? Keep in mind, that Chinese got 15 batteries (!!!) of S-300 PMU-2 as recently as March 2010 - despite having their own HQ-9B by then. And Chinese will be buying several S-400 Triumph in 2017, according to Russian government news. Which means Chinese technology, as of today, is still behind Russian. And if you want better than S-300VM - such as S-300PMU-2 or even S-400 - negotiate more and get it. Russians are selling it. They sold 3 S-300 PMU-2 to Azerbaijan (enemy of Russia's ally Armenia, which has 5 much older S-300PT and S-300PS), and are selling S-400 to China in 2017.

In any case, S-300 PMU-2 and even S-300VM (Antey 2500) are superior to FD-2000/HQ-9 - that's clear from all available literature. I've asked our Chinese friends to present reputable and authoritative sources that disprove that with concrete facts and arguments - but nothing, only some ******** nonsense in poor English that was Google translated.
 
Rubbish is your propaganda and your opinion. You guys can't even discuss anything normally, and when you try to debate, you fail miserably, starting to insult others. For starters, it doesn't matter when anything was signed - what matters is when it was delivered and put into service. That date is March 2010. I wrote that very


Why do you think the deliver day matters? For example, in 2005. China think they need more s-300 and they signed a deal and it deliever in 2010. Does that mean in 2010 they still need more S-300 with the entry service of the HQ-9? Seems like you do not understand basic logic. If we signed a new missile deal after 2009 entry service of HQ-9. I will say you are correct but the truth is, we have not buy any more S-300. Russia do business with China is they need us to pay the money first before they will make the product. You expect Chinese to reject the S-300 we have already paid in 2005 since it enter service in 2010?

Are you ok? Russia are known to never refund the money paid. Since we already paid why not we just take it even its still inferior to HQ-9.
 
Turkey does not test them before buying???

I suppose Turkey is well aware of the true quality of each system before buying it since it should have already tested each system inside and out.

$30 billion is not a small number even though I do not think China's goal is making profit in this deal though.

As a Turk, I would never buy a Patriot PAC-3 for the purposes that the Turkish government stated - long-range, strategic air defense and ABM. Patriot's, which are excellent for their purposes and the only truly battle-tested air-defense systems from the 4 offered to Turkey, are mostly tactical and operational air-defense, whilst S-300 is more of a strategic air-defense.

As a Turk, I would never buy French/Italian stuff, period, because one of those countries, France, is inherently hostile to Turkey on racist grounds.

That leaves two real choices: buy from a former enemy Russia, or buy from China.

The advantages of Russian system (S-300VM):

1) the S-300 line of systems has been produced for the past three decades - a very long time to work out all the bugs and problems;
2) it is a fact that S-300's can integrate into NATO air-defense - if needed;
3) price is not as expensive as Western systems;
4) it is fact that it can be upgraded in the future, as well as work with S-400 Triumph;
5) S-300 is a known quantity. NATO and other countries are scared of it. NATO goes nuts to prevent Iran or Syria from acquiring it. Turkey went nuts years ago to prevent Greek Cyprus from acquiring it - so Greece got them instead (I think they got PMU-1 variant, not as new as PMU-2);
6) it's easier to negotiate with Russians, and to get some kind of ToT;
7) the best technical characteristics of all - the longest range and a believable 90%+ accuracy of kill ratio.

Disadvantage of Russian system:
1) more expensive than Chinese system;
2) less ToT;
3) Russia and Turkey have fought 11 or so wars in the past three centuries, and the suspicion towards each other lives on among the two militaries. Thus depending from Russia for S-300 missiles is not a good thing - and since Israel is not a friend anymore, therefore there is no one else who could create compatible missiles in case Russian supply ceases;


The advantages of Chinese system (FD-2000/HQ-9):
1) cheaper than even Russian system;
2) China is committed to continue improving it - and there is no doubt that Chinese spies will continue steal technology secrets, and Chinese engineers will continue quickly implementing them, whilst Chinese workers will quickly mass-produce them;
3) much greater ToT than anyone else;
4) it is less known to NATO and everyone else (except Russia and Iran, who know Chinese HQ systems well, Iran even has, supposedly, HQ-9B, the latest variant);
5) becoming closer friends with world's #2 economy;
6) it's unlikely that Turkey and China would fight any wars in the future, so a more friendly attitude among the two.

Disadvantage of the Chinese system:

1) You might be getting a greater ToT, but for a morally obsolete weapon design. The HQ series might be going in a totally different direction. For example, the S-500, despite being built by the same manufacturer as the maker of S-400, S-300, S-200, S-125, S-75, is nevertheless a completely new system that uses completely new and different principles. Same thing with difference between Patriot PAC-3 vs. PAC-2/PAC-1 - they are completely different. PAC-3 is not just newer and has greater range and accuracy, but the principle of its performance is completely different. Thus, getting greater ToT from China is completely misleading. They are already building HQ-9C and HQ-16 and HQ-19 - all of which are different, and more advanced than FD-2000.

2) FD-2000 is rather new. It's a good thing in terms of being shiny, new computer monitors, better air-conditioning and anti-radiation protection for personnel, but it has more bugs and more hidden problems that can only be straightened out after years and decades of development, testing and deployment. S-300's are a known quantity - many countries operate them, no complaints.

3) You don't know the true range and performance of the FD-2000. Why would all the analysts, including one's in Asia, doubt Chinese claims about 300km range, and instead say it has a range of 125km?

4) Despite great promise and great potential, at the end of the day Chinese copied ~80% from Russians, and ~20% from Americans (they also borrowed from passive radars of Kolchuga system of Ukraine - they bought several units back in the early 1990's). So instead of getting a Chinese knock-off, why not get the original from Russians? Keep in mind, that Chinese got 15 batteries (!!!) of S-300 PMU-2 as recently as March 2010 - despite having their own HQ-9B by then. And Chinese will be buying several S-400 Triumph in 2017, according to Russian government news. Which means Chinese technology, as of today, is still behind Russian. And if you want better than S-300VM - such as S-300PMU-2 or even S-400 - negotiate more and get it. Russians are selling it. They sold 3 S-300 PMU-2 to Azerbaijan (enemy of Russia's ally Armenia, which has 5 much older S-300PT and S-300PS), and are selling S-400 to China in 2017.

In any case, S-300 PMU-2 and even S-300VM (Antey 2500) are superior to FD-2000/HQ-9 - that's clear from all available literature. I've asked our Chinese friends to present reputable and authoritative sources that disprove that with concrete facts and arguments - but nothing, only some ******** nonsense in poor English that was Google translated.
 
Turkey is a US ally but choose the Chinese air defend system over the overprice patriot system was a slap in US face. China offer ToT and the system 1 billions dollar cheaper compare to the patriot of course Turkey would dis the patriot system and buy the Chinese system.

China defend industry catching up with the West, 10 more yrs China military technology will match the US military technology.
 
Concerns Mount Over Turk-China Defense System

ANKARA — A Turkish decision to commission a Chinese company to build Turkey’s first long-range air and missile defense shield presents any number of challenges to Turkey’s Western allies, both politically and militarily, defense analysts and Western diplomats said.

“How could Turkey, protected by NATO assets, ignore the alliance’s concerns and opt for an air defense system to be built by a non-friendly country?” asked a NATO defense attaché in Ankara.

Turkey announced on Sept. 26 that it awarded the initially $4 billion contract for the air defense architecture to China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp. (CPMIEC), maker of the HQ-9 system.

CPMIEC defeated a US partnership of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, offering the Patriot air defense system; Russia’s Rosoboronexport, marketing the S-300; and the Italian-French consortium Eurosam, maker of the Surface-to-Air-Missile Platform/Terrain Aster 30. Industry sources say the Chinese proposal would cost Turkey $3 billion to $3.5 billion, although officials did not confirm the price.

In February, the United States announced sanctions on CPMIEC for violations of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act.

The Turkish program consists of radar, launcher and intercept missiles. It has been designed to counter both enemy aircraft and missiles. Turkey has no long-range air defense system.

A Turkish procurement official admitted that Ankara does not fully know at this stage what level of integration it could achieve between the planned air defense system and the NATO and national assets the country possesses. “We will be striving to make this a national system, not a Chinese one, although we will use Chinese technology,” he said. He did not comment on whether the proposed system could be integrated into the NATO assets stationed in Turkey.

But experts, analysts and officials say integration with NATO assets is unlikely. “NATO has the technical capabilities to isolate the Turkish air defense architecture by denying Ankara the interface data necessary for any integration,” a Western defense official said.

A London-based Turkey specialist said Turkey would most likely end up having a standalone system. “[NATO] member nations will refuse any cooperation with Turkey for the integration of the Chinese system into the alliance’s assets deployed in Turkey. This will leave the eventual Turkish architecture in a senseless standalone position,” he said.

About half of Turkey’s network-based air defense picture has been paid for by NATO. They are part of the NATO Air Defense Ground Environment. Without NATO’s consent, it will be impossible for Turkey to make the planned system operate with these assets.

To defend against missile threats, Turkey needs satellite and dedicated ballistic-missile detection and tracking radar, like the NATO radar deployed last year in Kurecik, in southeastern Turkey.

For the anti-aircraft component, Turkey needs an overall picture for data fusion. The Patriot system, for instance, can detect threats with its own radar. So does the Chinese system. But without integrating into a full air picture, the Chinese system could not work efficiently, analysts said.

“Abstracting the air defense system from NATO assets would mean that Turkey will lose half of its radar capabilities,” said one defense analyst here. He said Turkey would need interface data to make its own air defense architecture interoperable with NATO assets, primarily data on the identify friend or foe system. “This is top secret and cannot be installed into any Chinese system,” the analyst said.

The Turkish move also is viewed as a political challenge to the country’s Western allies.

“This is clearly a nod to the SCO [Shanghai Security Cooperation],” a European and NATO ambassador here said. “And a powerful message to [Turkey’s] NATO allies… that Turkey may no longer be the staunch ally it used to be.”

The SCO member states are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Turkey in 2012 won the dialogue partner status at the SCO. This year, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey would seek membership in SCO, an organization often viewed as a rival to NATO.

But some analysts say awarding the contract to CPMIEC does not mean it will take effect and Turkey will eventually build a system based on Chinese technology.

“At the moment, the average contract negotiation time in the Turkish procurement system [after a winner has been announced] is about two years,” a source said. “And there have been several negotiations ending up in failure before a contract was signed. Even after signing a contract, some programs have failed to materialize. This is a possibility for this one, too.”

Concerns Mount Over Turk-China Defense System | Defense News | defensenews.com
 
@gr8vision

Thanks for your detailed posts bro, unlike some other posters you definetly made your point.

Don't trouble yourself with these trolls who are unable to debate with you. They will be dealth with, as some new rules & regulations will became active tonight in Turkish section.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom