What's new

Russian S-300 PMU-2 vs Chinese HQ-9 Which one is better ?

Which one is better ?

  • China HQ-9

    Votes: 40 51.3%
  • Russia S-300 PMU-2

    Votes: 38 48.7%

  • Total voters
    78
What is the current program? Learn from China the metrics of this missile and than transfer the technology to the US. Then Turkey will cancel the purchase to protest the treatment of uighurs in China. China will end up with no money and its technology stolen.

You think too much :lol: In fact, US and Turkey crack is getting bigger. As for Xinjiang problem , China has already make it very clear to Turkish. If Turkey think Uyghur shall go independant and Kurd in Turkey shall go independent too. Does Turkish agree that? Definitely, No!
 
You think too much :lol: In fact, US and Turkey crack is getting bigger. As for Xinjiang problem , China has already make it very clear to Turkish. If Turkey think Uyghur shall go independant and Kurd in Turkey shall go independent too. Does Turkish agree that? Definitely, No!

If Turkey actually buy this weapon and even ask to link with Nato, then turkey would be kicked out of Nato command and control. This will totally compromise the Nato command.
 
If Turkey actually buy this weapon and even ask to link with Nato, then turkey would be kicked out of Nato command and control. This will totally compromise the Nato command.


Dude, Let me tell you Why Our Western "allies" are worried so much with Chinese-Turkey Long altitude missile cooperation. Since Turkish industry matured enough to be self-sufficient in many areas, Europe's influence areas are started to be shorten in Middile-East and South Asia day by day. For exm. Europe's major land vehicle producers can't cope with Turkish manufacturers in many tenders and so victories started coming step by step. The last country where is considered as Europe's natural market, Poland, is planning to sign lots of collaboration agreements from howitzers to tank upgrading with Turkish industry for complete products.

At this aspect, With Long Altitude missile program, Turkish industry would have been matured enough to provide all air layer (low-medium and long altitude) strategic air defence missile system to our influence areas which would mean a nigtmare for French-Italian EuroSAm collaboration and their marketing strategies. Such strategic missile systems are considered as game challenger at countries exported so Our Western "allies" voices are raisen much more than before to cut the way of deal.
 
If Turkey actually buy this weapon and even ask to link with Nato, then turkey would be kicked out of Nato command and control. This will totally compromise the Nato command.

Actually even if you think Türkiye has no military power 'kicking out' us from NATO is a very hard decision to make... Maybe because you live far away from Türkiye you don't know strategical importance of our lands... We can play so many games between western powers and eastern powers... If some of them dares to attack us, immediately you will see other one will run for helping us... You can also understand it just by looking our air defence tender discussions... You see that eastern people are are making harsh debates with western people... NATO has no balls to loose Türkiye... Because if they want to 'kick us out' they know Russia, China will gain more power against them... They would never want Türkiye to join eastern alliance and they would never want to loose advantage of our lands... This would be so bad for them...

We are balance point of the world...
 
If Turkey actually buy this weapon and even ask to link with Nato, then turkey would be kicked out of Nato command and control. This will totally compromise the Nato command.



1- At current situation, Nobody can kick out any nato nation from NATO's C4I structure, even US. If you say that Turkey will be kicked out from world's most advanced C4I link just because of an AAW system's integration, I'd doubt your knowledge about what does C4I means.

2- Look as I mentioned here a dozen of times, it is absolutly possible to integrate it to NATO's air defence system. How? Well, FD-2000 a.k.a HQ-9 comes with ToT, which means, it'll be produced by Turkish Defence firms which all of them has C4I certificates given by NATO, (check TAI/ROKETSAN/HAVELSAN/ASELSAN...etc.'s webpage, you can find them).

3- It'll be redesigned under NATO standarts by Turkey who is actually a NATO country, it'll get a new name,...etc.


4- If you cut NATO C4ISR into a hundred pieces, air and missile defence would only be %40 of the NATO's C4ISR link. When you say NATO-C4ISR, you have to include: Cyber Warfare, AAW, ASuW, Surface Warfare, Maritime 3C systems, Ship Combat management systems, all lines of Radars (from early warning type to sensitive artillery detecting radars, 3C systems of both UAVs and other military aircraft, NATO-wide national aerial threat alarm system...etc. any many other nato systems, all work with C4ISR)


NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NCI Agency


( @cabatli_53 please correct me if i'm wrong mate )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^ The basic design feature of any C4I network is the ability to actively replace any disabled sensor and to replace one assest with another as and when required.
For example if a nuclear strike on north America severs all coms with their boomers,a second strike can still be called by using their low wave tensmission station in Antarctica...their steategic C4I will immediatelt reroute the coms to Antarctica.
Same may be True for NATO C4I???

Although it depends on how many ''sensors'' Turkey hosts? As in how many early warning radars Turkey hosts? How many nuclear missile silos?

Taking the NATO c4i argument further.
I dont think NATO will have any problems with a ''redundant'' anti aircraft , anti ballistic/cruise missile system in the foem of Turkish version of HQ-9.
It will add capability to Nato's c4i.
In case where Patriot is not available,the NATO commanders can Fire a Turksh HQ-9 .

The integration will not geopardize NATO system security as it can be arranged via a ''Link'' as in a Turkish ground station sitting in the middle of Nato command and HQ-9 Batteries....and the systems talking indirectly..
Similar to what Pakistan Aiforce does with Erieye AEW&C a western system,to make it talk to Jf-17 a chinese system....
 
^^^ The basic design feature of any C4I network is the ability to actively replace any disabled sensor and to replace one assest with another as and when required.
For example if a nuclear strike on north America severs all coms with their boomers,a second strike can still be called by using their low wave tensmission station in Antarctica...their steategic C4I will immediatelt reroute the coms to Antarctica.
Same may be True for NATO C4I???

Although it depends on how many ''sensors'' Turkey hosts? As in how many early warning radars Turkey hosts? How many nuclear missile silos?

Turkiye host only one thing and that is long range BM detection radar in Kürecik thats why all this half of NATO radars in Turkiye will disabled is bullshit after all there is only one NATO radar in Turkiye.
 
All of you are forgetting ''Bosporus canal''.

As long as Turkey has Bosporus...NATO will want to keep Turkey.

That being an important route for Russian ships of all types including their Navy..

Your Lord Erdogan the great ;) knows his country's importance for NATO and the west and throwing around his weight.
Its not a Love marriage...its a marriage of need...
West needs Turkey and Turkey needs the west.....None can get rid of the other just because Turkey bought HQ-9.
Its a rediculous argument....

Lord Erdo knows another thing...West will post their Trusted Patriot batteries in Turkey anyway to protect their Pawn Israel from missiles coming from the East...

So Turkey has now their own ABM system and Patriors are there or will be there anyway....

Win win situation for Erdo the Fox.
 
Turkiye host only one thing and that is long range BM detection radar in Kürecik thats why all this half of NATO radars in Turkiye will disabled is bullshit after all there is only one NATO radar in Turkiye.

About half of Turkey’s network-based air defense radars have been paid for by NATO, and are part of the NATO Air Defense Ground Environment. “Turkey can always decide to build a standalone system. But in that case, abstracting the air defense system from NATO assets would mean that Turkey will lose half of its radar capabilities,” one defense analyst said earlier.

Turkey may be forced to ‘standalone’ air defenses
 
I gave a thank to the Swiss economy line.

pz7r42n00d1_j.jpg
 
@revojam @Dreamreaper

There's not only one (the AN/SPY in Malatya). There are 28 Bases (joint,naval, AFB, army) in Turkey designated as NATO Bases used by HVKK and NATO personnel. Most of them are air bases. All of the radars&sensors at those bases are linked to NATO's C4I, that they are part of NATO-wide national aerial threat alarm system.

natosilahlari.jpg



And this shows the range of NATO-C4ISR linked radars in Turkey:

natoradarlari.png


nato-bases-in-turkey.jpg


all those blue marks are either radar, tracking station, or early warning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1 March 2012 /TODAY’S ZAMAN A radar site based in Malatya’s Kürecik district, which is part of a NATO early
warning radar system, was formally declared operational and US soldiers have been
deployed there since the beginning of 2012, international media sources have
reported. Mark Hertling, a top US Army commander in Europe, announced on Sunday in
Montenegro’s capital of Podgorica that US forces have started to man Malatya’s
Kürecik radar site, which is part of a wider NATO missile defense system, The
Associated Press reported. “I can only speak for the ground-based air defense units.
But I will tell you that we constantly coordinate (with the US Navy and Air Force),
and I think we are well on track to conducting missile defense,” said Hertling. Hertling’s announcement is the first formal confirmation that the NATO missile
defense system is operational. Turkey’s decision to allow the system to be deployed
in Malatya, which is designed to prevent an Iranian missile threat, as explicitly stated
by US officials, strained Turkish-Iranian ties. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, diplomats in the Turkish Foreign Ministry
also affirmed that the site has been operational since the beginning of 2012,
speaking to Today’s Zaman on Thursday. Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan
stated last September in Washington, “We have made no secret of the fact that
Iran’s missile program is a reason for concern,” referring to the Kürecik radar’s
potential focus on Iran. However, Turkey insisted on the removal of a statement at the November 2010
NATO summit in Lisbon that labeled Iran as one of the potential threats against
which the radar could be used, to block a possible nuclear assault. Turkey objected
to wording that labeled its neighbor as a threat. Some Iranian officials said that, if
attacked by Israel, they would target defense installations in Turkey. “We are closely monitoring relations with Turkey in the national security
commission in [Iranian] Parliament. Iran has warned Turkey before that the
deployment of the system will have grave consequences,” Hossein Ibrahimi, vice
president of Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission,
stated last December. The NATO defense system, of which Turkey’s Kürecik is a part,
contains ground-based missile interceptors based in Romania and Poland, four missile defense ships in Spain’s Rota Naval Station and its headquarters are in
Germany. The NATO defense system agreement is comprised of several phases, including
construction of the Kürecik radar and the USS Monterrey naval vessel, deployed in
the Mediterranean Sea, as interceptors against any regional missile threat. In the
next phases, land-based interceptors are planned to be deployed in Romania in
2015 and more advanced interceptors are planned to be built in Poland in 2018. The
defense system has been threatened by Russia, which claims that it is actually a deterrent for Russian nuclear capabilities. Russia perceives the prospective missile
defense sites to be built in 2015 and 2018, which would focus on defenses in
Eastern Europe, as a threat. In order to address that threat, NATO offered to integrate
Russia into the system, but Russia has asserted that they should have joint
command-and-control of the system.
 
Back
Top Bottom