It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran to buy Chinese aircrafts to equip its fleet

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I actually would have to agree with this. Unless Iran plans to procure the aircraft in record numbers it is unlikely that they will be able to acomplish much with this purchase.

The lack of BVR missile is a huge handycap and given the relative close confines of the Persian Gulf a maritime strike role could easily be suplanted by cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost.

However, If Iran feels it has a requirement for this type of aircraft, China is the likely source for them to purchase them from.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
And i didn't outline that already?. If you want to bash china do it somewhere else


I'm not bashing China. Stop looking for a fight - you won't find one here.



PS: Nothing in chinas inventory? If you want to twist the rules china can export thousands of Su-27s.


But can Iran afford and pilot thousands of Su-27's? Will they be able to fuel them after an initial US strategic cruise missle campaign?

I'm just being realistic here man, calm down.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
FredT,

But the problem with this FredT is your effectively saying why do small countries need a airforce when they know they already would lose. Every airforce has a requirement to fufill and i doubt the irains are preparing to win a war againest america but rather as a deterance to make any war to costly. Possblisty using chemical weapons or even waiting for russian help or using antiship missiles againest american carriers.

First american carrier lost since WW2 for a headline?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
AMM,

I apologize. You can say anything you want, I got to ahead of myself



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I am sure that China has already got one at least F-16 from friendly nation. In last centry 80's abraod all said that China had already had got Mig-23 without evidence but that's true, finally, there is a Flogger was found in China museum. We should knew that since China import Su-27 there are lots of trouble to get with their engine, because J-10 primarilly plan to fit F110 that Lavi used, whereas Lavi was developed from F-16, so China still want to get an original engine to fit on J-10, plus too many malfunction rate happened in AF-31 Flanker used.
So my poit is US NOW is being in hard and block. If they export F-16 to some nation who are friendly with China how can they guard against China get engine from these country. On the other hand, If US stop to export F-16 to some nations such as Pakistan What can they do about China export their FC-1?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Possblisty using chemical weapons or even waiting for russian help or using antiship missiles againest american carriers.
First american carrier lost since WW2 for a headline?


Possibly, but I would be surprised if a CBG would be that close. I would expect them to stage outside of the Straights of Hormuz. They also would have USAF coverage as well. CBG are not as soft as they seem. Remember that during WWIII they were expected to go up close and play with the Russians in thier backyard.
That being said. I stand by my assertion that while every country may want an AF, a much bigger determent would be cruise missiles and the like. The simple fact is that if used in an offensive role, the Iranian AF would have a excitingly short life. If used in a pure defence role under the cover of an integrated SAM system, I still think they will have the same result. Ask the Iraqi's and the Serbians. Unless China wishes to commit its military fully or Russia for that matter it may be a different story, but a small AF without a large coalition would stand little chance against the USAF or the IAF in this type of conflict



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
FredT,

But the problem with this FredT is your effectively saying why do small countries need a airforce when they know they already would lose. Every airforce has a requirement to fufill and i doubt the irains are preparing to win a war againest america but rather as a deterance to make any war to costly. Possblisty using chemical weapons or even waiting for russian help or using antiship missiles againest american carriers.

First american carrier lost since WW2 for a headline?


That is fair enough, and a good point.

My counter would be that such a detterence can be achieved through cheaper and more survivable systems, such as mobile missle launchers.

The Iranian Air Force would be able to deal with most regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia and maybe Turky. However, these are not the type of nations that would make war on Iran.

The problem as I see it, is that if I were in charge of Irans military budget, I couldn't justify spending X hundred million dollars on aircraft when the most likely war scenerio dictates that all of this airpower would be lost. I'd have to say that mobile missles might be the better choice.

When the J-10 enters service, I'd go and give the Chinese a call.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I do know china had access to the F-16 but they didn't get the F-16. Chinese engineers i presume went to pakistan, thailand or south korea or anyplance which the US is accusining them of look around the aircraft sees how the F-16 was designed and learnt how a 4th generation signle plane should be deisgned and headed home with that knowledge to designed the J-10. But it wouldn't be the overall area maybe how a aircraft should be put together and such.

Because it wasn't the radar china needed at the time it would be how to constructed using compostie materials. THe engine technology is the the poblem of china now. since the WS-10A and the spey ngines chian has. they now know how to build a turbofan engine and quailty is claimed to be better than the Russian AL-31F according to chiense officals(well dont believe me SS)



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Clap Clap Clap...Excellent Excellent

Once again you prove you can only use google

now can you tell me where the evidence of pakistan giving a F-16 to china from? None of your sources mention where or even when it was done.


That's a fine piece of madrassa logic right there. So your word holds more truth than all the reputed defence sources that exist. Go ahead believe what you want .... Pakistan never gave any F-16's to China ...China never sold M-11's or nuclear tech to Pakistan ... everything from China is 100% indigenous...and the Earth is flat....

Also, i hope you are not using chinawhite as you call yourself
... let alone using google



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:33 AM
link   
While i do agree that cruise missiles would be the best option they are limited by a thing called land.
. The iranians are trying to have a land sea and air based defence. Mainly once used things like Patrol ships, Aircraft and mobile anti-ship missiles. Airplane offers more flexiblity as in you can go to the enemy instead of waiting for the enemy. active defence

I think their doctrime is a bit like the soviets and might use their F-14s rigged with soviet missiles like the Kh-59 or a air launched moskit and go low and fast shot and run combined with other weapons like a patrol ship. Or their Mig-29s which are going to be reciving a upgrade so it is possible they will ahve a russian anti-ship missile

This in theory is possible so there is a chance of this working



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
That's a fine piece of madrassa logic right there. So your word holds more truth than all the reputed defence sources that exist.


Oh please stealthspy refrain from name calling. little boys do that.

If you cant answer my post dont be sarcastic about it. Everyone knows you reputation about highlighting the areas you want people to see. You clearly cut and paste only the areas you wanted people to see in that thread

(in bold)
You going to dispute my information or are you going to avoid answering?

[edit on 3-1-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
I am sure that China has already got one at least F-16 from friendly nation. In last centry 80's abraod all said that China had already had got Mig-23 without evidence but that's true, finally, there is a Flogger was found in China museum.


Yes emile, very true.

China illegally obtained a couple of floggers from Egypt and used it as the basis for the J-8-II as sources indicate.

Presently it can be found on the Minsk. There is a picture of it on the Minsk in China. I will post it shortly.

Perhaps you know who thinks its a photoshop



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Sorry stealthspy but i acutally posted that picture first on ATS

It is not from eygpt but from ukrainian(some soviet state) after the cold war. It has its history on the plane which was posted on a chinese military website. Nothing was illegal about that transfer because eygpt brought it from the soviets and then sold it to china. In the contract it did not state that it could not be exported nor sold. The soviets gve it to the eygptians in goodwill not in a contract

The J-8II was not developed from the Mig-23. The program to upgrade the J-8II was already established when the J-8 was in development. The J-8 was a two stage development. the first one was for a long range interceptor and the next stage was to change that to a solid nose aircraft. The J-8 was merely a stepping stone towards the J-8II

In No sources on the internet will you find mentioned that the J-8II was developed from a Mig-23. Or you can try your luck


Please stealth spy you cannot even answer my post while you continue to babble on about something. You want to challenge my information then you do it without showing us your google skills which you even have the nerve to cut and paste.

--------
@ emile

Ignore the troll



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
SS,

Where is the similarity between the Mig-23 and the J-8II?.

China develop the J-8II from a swept wing aircraft when the aircraft was not even going to be swept wing. You defy logic because the development of the J-8II is well documented by chiense military ethnusit because of the fact that it was chinas first indegenious aircraft. Now you better have some logic behind this idea



external image
The difference in the fuselage, nose build. the J-8II has a more square body and a more rounder nose. The obvious is the wings and the tail section.

The setting out of the cckpit the J-8II is more protruded


And here is a more closly matched picture
external image

The engine area the fuselage is different and again the position of the wings. the air intakes goes into the body while the Mig-23 leads directly to the engines. the landing gear. the size of the front section





posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Looking at the pictures it is possible that the Chinese adapted the intake ramp technology from the MiG 23 they were given, but I thought the J8-II flew before they got this MiG?

There is more than one way to use an 'acquired' aircraft in a development programme and they don't involve copying anything. One possibility is merely in comparative trials between the two types, alternatively there could be many mundane items on board the MiG that China found were simpler/cheaper/better than a similar item they were using. It doesn't automatically follow that an aircraft that benefits from this sort of work is a copy or is based on the older type.

stealth spy, yes, china IS trying to get rid of the J-7, why else have they expended so much time, money and effort in developing replacements for it?

Bringing out updates for it to maintain its competitiveness and offering them on the market does not equate with not wanting to replace it.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
@ chinawhite : Nobody is saying that the J-8-2 is an outright copy of the Mig-23 or anything. However it is pretty clear, they have made "some" use of it on the J-8-2.

The J-8-1 was an ingenious all chinese plane that was radically different from the J-7, which it was developed from, and the J-8-2 seems to have borroewd some of the floggers features.

That does not make it inferior though. Neat airplane indeed. I've heard that they're working on canards for it aswell



without showing us your google skills which you even have the nerve to cut and paste.


What is this nonsense about google ? and pray you tell me what nerve it would take to copy paste stuff



You going to dispute my information or are you going to avoid answering?


The fact reamains that you are the one disputing the information. You seem to calim that prefix of reportedly, means that the event never occured.


You now calim that China got on-site acess to F-16's but never had any in their own posession.

Although you do not substantiate your claim with any reference to back it up, it basically amounts to the same thing dose'nt it ?

As i quote you :

I do know china had access to the F-16 but they didn't get the F-16. Chinese engineers i presume went to pakistan, thailand or south korea or anyplance which the US is accusining them of look around the aircraft sees how the F-16 was designed and learnt how a 4th generation signle plane should be deisgned and headed home with that knowledge to designed the J-10.


The one thing that we can agree on it that China had acess to F-16's and made good use of this acess. Where they got their hands on the F-16 is irrelavent. That they did is what counts.

So let us leave it to that.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Your top source was a Pakistani chat-room

Nuff said



The fact reamains that you are the one disputing the information. You seem to calim that prefix of reportedly, means that the event never occured.


"By report; supposedly."
Reportedly as defined by Dictionary.com

"Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence."
Supposedly as defined by Dictionary.com

THe edvidence they have is the '96 white paper

Reportly = unsubstaniated. You are presenting if its a fact. Notice there is no mention of where when or how the transfer was made sometimes not even a nation that gave it to china. Give me a confession or a picture

You are making a claim that a event happened. You are the one which needs to provide the edvidence. Yo have not stated when or where or even how or which country sent the F-16.

Like I said before the first mention of the F-16 to chian was in a US white paper in 1996(the time around the taiwan missile crsis) when the chiense first showed off a early model of the F-16. The article never said pakistan gave it to chian but said it was possible. Over time the story has been used by a number of websites and newspapers. From thailand to israel and south korea. You remember the recent news china was getting F-16s from venezuela?

I will repeat this again


"J-10 benefited from PLA access to Pakistan's F-16 fighters"
Global
I never said china did not have acess to the F-16. I said china did not recieve a F-16

"The plane is reportedly a hybrid of the U.S. F-16 A/B"
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
Something you missed out when you googled

"F-16 reportedly given to the PRC by Pakistan"
Some reference site you said was wikipedia

"believed to have been acquired via Pakistan"
Asia week

"Febuary 2005 issue of Kanwa claim that PLAAF is copying F-16"
I can't believe you use Kanwa as a source

And quoting newsmax??. Whats with that. Its a free to air website with excesive pop-ups



You now calim that China got on-site acess to F-16's but never had any in their own posession.


I have beening saying that at the start. The difference is i was saying the chinese engineers inspected the aircraft while you suggest they reversed engineered it. Big difference.

China was never given one but have access to inspect it

I even said why if you bothered to read. They probaly inspected it to see how to build a composite modeled plane and how a plane is constructed. Because china had very little experience with composite materials and a un-stable airframe so they would naturally look for a model to help learn the building process.



[edit on 3-1-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Looking at the pictures it is possible that the Chinese adapted the intake ramp technology from the MiG 23 they were given, but I thought the J8-II flew before they got this MiG?


Yes i do agree with that to a level because they are very similar. But im not arguing that i arguing this.

I am refering to this comment by Stealthspy
"used it as the basis for the J-8-II".

I do believe that china got the Mig-23s for inspeting the performace because at the time it was the main soviet fighter at chinas border and it was at the height of the cold war when the USSR had battle plans to invade china. There was a chart someone at sinodefence showing the first F-8II model with a different airtake like the Mirage cone shaped one but it didn't make it past the design stage and one with a F-4 type intake without the little thigns inside.

There was another project china had called the J-9 which finished design in the late 90s which featured ramp intake and was a project that was parallel with the J-8IIs.

Here is a picture


My throught is china got the Mig-23 sometime after 1980 when the eygptians dropped their relations with the soviets. That is how its reported. So if the J-9 already was featuring the same type of intake in the late 70s and china only got the Mig-23 post-1980 then what suppose would the Mig-23 have. I do suppose the J-9 had reliablity problems so the Mig-23 was used as a model to develop it.




[edit on 3-1-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
How could i be so blind, China did get the F-16 and here is the result.

China has reversed engineered it and are now makign F-16 copies. there effectiness is unknown but it will be clamed by stealthspy that they were reversed engineered. Israel will be involed in the development stealth spy? . I dont know so you should google it up. What sanctions do you forecast on israel and pakistan?




And heres another


They are different aircraft

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by chinawhite
Now coming for the american. Never has any chinese stated that china was going to export any aircraft and i even outlined why and my personal objection to the iranian sale.

Please troll somewhere else AMM


No trolling here, just facts.

Fact #1 - Irans biggest air threat comes from the US and Isreal

Fact #2 - Nothing in Chinas aircraft inventory will be able to counter Isreal or Americas air superiority.

Thus, I think any purchase by Iran would be wastefull, as the money spent would be wasted if the aircraft were ever needed.


Make sence to me but something is better than nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join