SteelBird
Colonel
But let me ask one more off topic question: Nowaday, the world all fighting for oil, do you how long does it take for oil to run out? And what will happen then?
coolieno99 said:Assuming Russian and Chinese cost are about the same, his speculation may have some truth to it. Here's an excerpt taken from Globalsecurity.org:
The S-300V (SA-12) low-to-high Altitude, tactical surface to air missile system also has anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The HQ-18 is reportedly the designation of a Chinese copy of the Russian S300V, though the details of this program remain rather conjectural. In early 1996 Russia astounded the United States Army by marketing the Russian SA-12 surface-to-air missile system in the UAE in direct competition with the United States Army's Patriot system. Rosvooruzheniye offered the UAE the highest-quality Russian strategic air defense system, the SA-12 Gladiator, as an alternative to the Patriot at half the cost. The offer also included forgiveness of some of Russia's debt to the UAE.
Sorry. I cannot express it any other way. You cannot stop anyine from doing anything, if they are really intent on doing it, you can only make them wish they had not. A foreign policy which promotes Fear of Consequences is a far better way for a major power to conduct itself than any potentially mistaken Pre-Emptive policy. It is wholly demeaning and unmanly and if I were to adopt it I would earn only the contempt of my ancestors in Valhalla
Well, if the USA or Israel attack Iran, the biggest loser will be China. In other words, can China sustain oil prices of 150 US dollars per barrel if the whole Mideast along with the Persian Gulf becomes a warzone? If Iran closes oil shipping, the WHOLE WORLD will suffer!
Su-34 said:If Iran has many S-300 batteries and Tor M-1s, Iran no need fear air attack. So, this means Iran has adequate air defence. If not, they wouldn't have resumed nuclear activities.
Well IMO it more like HQ-9 (FT-2000), fully integrated with FM-80/FM-90, I reckon it may not be the brightest thing out there but.. it still be read effective.If Iran has many S-300 batteries and Tor M-1s, Iran no need fear air attack. So, this means Iran has adequate air defence. If not, they wouldn't have resumed nuclear activities.
Nethappy said:To your question!
IMO, yes China mostly likely help in modernising Iran's air defence so it can protect its nuclear facilities from attacking U.S. aircraft.
1) Instability, in term of a major war or bloodbath in the middle-east is the last thing China would want or need cos it need to oil feed it oil hungry.
2) It could use it capablities too enchance Iranian Air defence as a bagraining chip when they signing the oil contract.
3) It would give China a chance to sell it weapon aboad and possible have they weapon tested in real combat.
4) If the a Chinese upgraded Iranian Air defence manage to down a US plane, it would add great creditability to the chinese technogly, and in a China way, it we gain a lot of face. But if it dun, they can just shoulder all the blame on the Iranian with stuff like, they had not had enough training, or it was a Iranian technical mistake dat cause the system to fail, etc.
Well IMO it more like HQ-9 (FT-2000), fully integrated with FM-80/FM-90, I reckon it may not be the brightest thing out there but.. it still be read effective.
FriedRiceNSpice said:Yes, there may be examples of certain Chinese/Russian weapons systems that are half the cost of American equivalents, but there are many other cases where they are not. Mig 29s are not half as costly as F-16s. Su-27s are not half as costly as F-15s. Also, you cannot say one weapons system is x% as capable as another. Capability cannot be measured in numerical, quantitive terms.