T-LORAMIDS Tender | Updates & Discussion

[faithfulguy]

T-LORAMIDS = Is a heavily modified co-produced (Turkey and China) version of the FD-2000. Designed to accommodate the special requirements of the Turkish Land Forces Command, it will feature Turkish produced and NATO compliant Command and Control Systems.

There is no way in hell that FD-2000 will be allowed to integrate with NATO command and control system. FD-2000 is an eastern bloc weapon and so integrate with the Warsaw pact command and control system.

 

[cirr]

HQ-9 in action:

[YouKu]XMzc4MzU5MDM2[/YouKu]

HQ-9B(onboard Type 052D DDG for example) is way better than HQ-9.

 

[Safriz]

BURAK BEKD

Is this true.?

It says turkey already has a 1500 km Ballistic missile?

 

[Beast]

More video of HQ-9 but its in Mandarin. It talks alot info about FD-2000.

 

[HAIDER]

BURAK BEKD

Is this true.?

It says turkey already has a 1500 km Ballistic missile?

Turkey sign a treaty , which it can only develop a missile with certain range, I think less then two hundred miles. Well, any Turkish member can explain it better. But Turkey already getting best weapon as NATO member. Only potential enemy is Greece , which is within range anyway.

 

[Safriz]

Turkey sign a treaty , which it can only develop a missile with certain range, I think less then two hundred miles. Well, any Turkish member can explain it better. But Turkey already getting best weapon as NATO member. Only potential enemy is Greece , which is within range anyway.

That treaty is for export missiles which have to be less than 300km.
Countries can build missiles of any range for their own consumption.

Point is Turkey does not have nuclear weapons...So whats the point in having an IRBM?

 

[HAIDER]

That treaty is for export missiles which have to be less than 300km.
Countries can build missiles of any range for their own consumption.

Point is Turkey does not have nuclear weapons...So whats the point in having an IRBM?

Signatory of missile control regime.

 

[cabatli_53]

That treaty is for export missiles which have to be less than 300km.
Countries can build missiles of any range for their own consumption.

Point is Turkey does not have nuclear weapons...So whats the point in having an IRBM?

Deterrance in a region where is covered with ballistic missiles,
Having a base platform for Turkey's satellite launch vehicle.

 

[Bismarck]

Is it true, that turkey have a missile with a range of 1500 km?

 

[Audio]

Having a base platform for Turkey's satellite launch vehicle.

The concept certainly looks original.

 

[gr8vision]

What i meant is; China doesn't publicize it's products technical data to public, but they have gave the technical data for evaluation, to Turkish military officials, right ?

Sinan, didn't you read the Chinese blog that our Chinese friend posted here on this thread as "proof" - according to that blog post from Sina/********, all 4 SAM's (Russian, Italian/French, U.S. and Chinese) were "tested" - i.e., had actual trials - in Turkey, and all failed to achieve 100% mark except Chinese FD-2000 (HQ-9 export version). So according to that fairy tale of a blog post, not only have Turks got "technical data", but got all 4 manufacturers to conduct multi-million dollar trials in Turkey for the Turkish military officials. ;-)

Of course, like I wrote, it's not true, and our Chinese forum members have not even tried to pursue this, as they understand that it's pure falsification on the part of the Chinese blog.

Meanwhile, if "technical data" is released to anyone, it eventually makes it to the public. The fact that there is so little info about Chinese systems means that they are not ready for the export market yet, as their configurations and specs change very often, and are perennially behind the competition. It doesn't mean that one day they can't improve dramatically - but that day is not today, yet.

 

[hacksquat]

Sinan, didn't you read the Chinese blog that our Chinese friend posted here on this thread as "proof" - according to that blog post from Sina/********, all 4 SAM's (Russian, Italian/French, U.S. and Chinese) were "tested" - i.e., had actual trials - in Turkey, and all failed to achieve 100% mark except Chinese FD-2000 (HQ-9 export version). So according to that fairy tale of a blog post, not only have Turks got "technical data", but got all 4 manufacturers to conduct multi-million dollar trials in Turkey for the Turkish military officials. ;-)

Of course, like I wrote, it's not true, and our Chinese forum members have not even tried to pursue this, as they understand that it's pure falsification on the part of the Chinese blog.

Meanwhile, if "technical data" is released to anyone, it eventually makes it to the public. The fact that there is so little info about Chinese systems means that they are not ready for the export market yet, as their configurations and specs change very often, and are perennially behind the competition. It doesn't mean that one day they can't improve dramatically - but that day is not today, yet.

I am having a hard time understanding specially your second point. Are you saying Chinese entered the tender with no specifications and no technical data? And we chose the system completely blind? And this sounds reasonable to you?

And on your first point. Yes we don't know for sure if tests were conducted in Turkey. But is it really that much of a stretch? The companies are trying to make multi-billion dollars for gods sake. Of cause they would try to market is as aggressively as possible. Specially for such a price tag, it seems more than reasonable that the customer would like to see what is being offered in action.

 

[gr8vision]

Precisely, some American are so ignorant and think HQ-9 is a poor copy of S-300. They didnt even bother to goggle the spec of HQ-9 that it never uses Russia FLAP guidance system like S-300. How can it be a copy of S-300???

In fact, it uses HT-233 FCR that proivdes 360 degree coverage that is even more superior than Patriot MPQ-53 which lacks 360degree coverage.

Calling someone ignorant does not mask or deny the fact that every source out there states - that HQ9 is a rip off of S-300. Every source out there, including top military experts with technical degrees and education, say that. For example, Dr. Kopp (PEngineering): CPMIEC HQ-9 / HHQ-9 / FD-2000 / FT-2000 Self Propelled Air Defence System

Or the SinoDefence website: 2. Main Area-Defense Systems - SinoDefence.com

So just because the guidance system is different, doesn't invalidate anything, especially since I wrote that the radar on HQ9/FD-2000 is resembling that of Patriot.

And of course S-300 does have 360 coverage, unlike Patriot and others, and hence one more resemblance point for HQ-9.

I am having a hard time understanding specially your second point. Are you saying Chinese entered the tender with no specifications and no technical data? And we chose the system completely blind? And this sounds reasonable to you?

And on your first point. Yes we don't know for sure if tests were conducted in Turkey. But is it really that much of a stretch? The companies are trying to make multi-billion dollars for gods sake. Of cause they would try to market is as aggressively as possible. Specially for such a price tag, it seems more than reasonable that the customer would like to see what is being offered in action.

1) No, that's not what I said. Please re-read my reply and Sinan's question.

2) Please provide proof, such as even media reports in Turkey. It is reasonable to assume that if some Chinese propaganda blog writes about test trials of 4 leading SAMs in Turkey, at least Turkish press would write about it. I know that neither European, nor American, nor Russian press wrote anything about this - please don't add more to "conspiracy", by claiming that it is due to their phantom "loss". There were no test trials in Turkey, it's an invention of the Chinese propaganda, and claiming 100% accuracy for a SAM is just plain ridiculous. Even most aggressive marketers claim 98% at most, always leaving some margin of error. The fact that someone would claim 100%, and anyone would believe in that wild claim, speaks volumes about the level of education of people here.

 

[gr8vision]

To offset the trade unbalance most likely, since Putin wants China to buy more of the manufactured stuffs made in Russia, not just the oïl and gas.

China mostly bought S-300 just like it still bought some AL-31F engines to maintain for its earlier aircrafts such as J-11A and J-10A.

HQ-9B is already there, it can reach 300km according to our official media and will be used by our new Type 052D and Type 055 Aegis DDGs.

The older Type 051C destroyers use the S-300 through, since the S-300PMU is better than our earlier S-300 bought from Russia, maybe we bought some S-300PMU for our Type 051C destroyers.

The 300km claim is unlikely even in the latest variant, HQ-9B.

All sources, albeit for HQ-9, say up to 125km.

PLA Area Defence Missile Systems

HQ-9

Where are Chinese sources that claim 300km? How reliable are they? Is there a Xinhua or similar authoritative government report, or some semi-government think tank or blog? Or just someone proclaiming this in a chat room?

 

[hacksquat]

1) No, that's not what I said. Please re-read my reply and Sinan's question.

2) Please provide proof, such as even media reports in Turkey. It is reasonable to assume that if some Chinese propaganda blog writes about test trials of 4 leading SAMs in Turkey, at least Turkish press would write about it. I know that neither European, nor American, nor Russian press wrote anything about this - please don't add more to "conspiracy", by claiming that it is due to their phantom "loss". There were no test trials in Turkey, it's an invention of the Chinese propaganda, and claiming 100% accuracy for a SAM is just plain ridiculous. Even most aggressive marketers claim 98% at most, always leaving some margin of error. The fact that someone would claim 100%, and anyone would believe in that wild claim, speaks volumes about the level of education of people here.

No you got me wrong. Let me re-quote myself: "And on your first point. Yes we don't know for sure if tests were conducted in Turkey." So no, I can't provide any proof.

I don't know how so certainly you can say no trials were held in Turkey either. All I am saying is, given the prize money of multi-billion, It is more than reasonable that we requested a "demo" of the goods we are going to pay for. Also I have mentioned nothing about the success rates and I agree with you that the rates given in the blog could just be baloney.

Edit: these tests don't even have to be conducted in Turkey if you are thinking about transportation. Our officials can just fly to whatever country and witness tests there.