User Panel
Posted: 8/30/2002 11:36:44 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- China and Russia have faced repeated U.S. sanctions for their arms sales, but a largely unheralded player in what Washington considers the troubling proliferation game is Israel, one of the closest U.S. allies.
The Jewish state, recipient annually of $3 billion in U.S. aid, is second only to Russia as a weapons provider to China, U.S. congressional investigators say. Some experts fear sensitive U.S. technology may show up via Israel in systems sold by China to Iran and North Korea, which President George W. Bush termed "axis of evil" states after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Israel ranks second only to Russia as a weapons system provider to China and as a conduit for sophisticated military technology, followed by France and Germany," according to a recent report by the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, a panel established by Congress to examine security and economic relations between the two countries. "Recent upgrades in target acquisition and fire control, probably provided by Israeli weapons specialists, have enhanced the capabilities of the older guided missile destroyers and frigates" in the Chinese navy's inventory, it said. The commission, which holds hard-line views on China, cited Israel as a supplier to Beijing of radar systems, optical and telecommunications equipment, drones and flight simulators. This creates an ironic possibility: In the event of war, China, with weapons supplied or enhanced by Israel that may have been supplied or enhanced by the United States, would face Taiwan, armed with U.S.-made jets and other military hardware. In November 2000, China promised not to assist any country in developing ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver nuclear weapons and to enact strict export-control rules. But Beijing only just now published the export rules and in the interim, the CIA said Chinese firms provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to several countries of proliferation concern, including Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Two senior U.S. officials told Reuters there has been little attention given to China-Israel arms ties since Bush took office. Issues that could draw criticism of Israel are sensitive in America, where pro-Israel interests wield considerable clout. "It is a concern when anybody sells the Chinese advanced systems -- and the Israeli systems are very advanced -- that we might, at one point, find ourselves opposite those systems in the hands of the Chinese," said one senior U.S. official. The Washington Times in July said U.S. intelligence identified an Israeli-made anti-radar weapon, the unmanned "Harpy" drone, deployed with Chinese forces opposite Taiwan. Added a senior U.S. official, "Before the Israelis get in another situation where they are crosswise with us, they'll think twice about it -- the last flap still reverberates." Six years ago, U.S. government reports accused Israel of illegally transferring U.S. technology from the largely U.S.-funded Lavi fighter plane program to China. China's new F-10 fighter jet is said to be nearly identical to the Lavi. |
|
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/02/usmil0215.htm
So...what's your point Adolf98...errrr...I mean Kar98... |
|
I didn't know rubber pads constituted sophisticated technology?
In seriousness the various international systems in place to catch third party smugglers worked here. Give it a rest. |
|
I am with Shotar, we just need to leave the Chinese alone and stop asking any questions.
Bill C. [smoke] |
|
[b]Golly Gee !! Not an 'Israel Firster' in site (sight) ??[/b] |
|
You know I always liked to help out those Palestinians as much as I could.
Bill C. [smoke] |
|
Quoted: You know I always liked to help out those Palestinians as much as I could. Bill C. [smoke] View Quote Look Bill, get your story straight. [b]Last I heard you were gonna have your Secret Service detail die in a ditch to protect Israel !![/b] |
|
That's what I said, but don't be fooled my friend. You should pay attention to my actions, not my words.
Bill C. [smoke] |
|
Quoted: That's what I said, but don't be fooled my friend. You should pay attention to my actions, not my words. Bill C. [smoke] View Quote Fair enough. From now on I'll observe your actions through Monica's head !! NO, NO - I mean through Monica's eyes !! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: That's what I said, but don't be fooled my friend. You should pay attention to my actions, not my words. Bill C. [smoke] View Quote Fair enough. From now on I'll observe your actions through Monica's head !! NO, NO - I mean through Monica's eyes !! View Quote Here again this argument loses it's validity due to it's resort to a type of name calling. You should have relied on the fact that I always asked Isreal to concede land to Palestine. Bill C. [smoke] |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's what I said, but don't be fooled my friend. You should pay attention to my actions, not my words. Bill C. [smoke] View Quote Fair enough. From now on I'll observe your actions through Monica's head !! NO, NO - I mean through Monica's eyes !! View Quote Here again this argument loses it's validity due to it's resort to a type of name calling. You should have relied on the fact that I always asked Isreal to concede land to Palestine. Bill C. [smoke] View Quote I'll check with Monica, Sox and the spirit of Buddy-the-Dog and get back on this. |
|
Please leave Buddy out of this, he is an innocent friend. I miss him still.
Bill C. [smoke] |
|
I don't eat crow often, but I posted without thinking this through. I was thinking of subdudes earlier post regarding tank treads. At any rate I really know only what I read about the aircraft technology sales. It would however seem inappropriate to sell this sort of technology to China. On the other hand it may not be all dumb. If they have our technology perhaps they also installed our back doors to that technology. Is it better that the use a technology with weaknesses known to us, or that they develope their own that we are less familiar with.
How Machiavellian. |
|
Quoted: I didn't know rubber pads constituted sophisticated technology? View Quote I quite agree. But the original post was talking about target acquisition and fire control, radar systems, optical and telecommunications equipment, drones and flight simulators, an Israeli-made anti-radar weapon, the unmanned "Harpy", and China's new F-10 fighter jet, said to be nearly identical to the largely U.S.-funded Lavi fighter plane. |
|
Quoted: I was thinking of subdudes earlier post regarding tank treads. At any rate I really know only what I read about the aircraft technology sales. It would however seem inappropriate to sell this sort of technology to China. On the other hand it may not be all dumb. If they have our technology perhaps they also installed our back doors to that technology. Is it better that the use a technology with weaknesses known to us, or that they develope their own that we are less familiar with. How Machiavellian. View Quote Perhaps it may be difficult to exploit a hypothetical weakness ?? You can bet the Chinese will do the obligatory 20% mod/enhancement. |
|
Quoted: How Machiavellian. View Quote Dammit! I had this really nice quote from "the Prince" that made your post look utterly stupid, but by the time the page loaded, it slipped my mind entirely. *kicks up sand* Here, that's all I can deliver at the moment. Please feel properly insulted, if you please. |
|
Buddy committed suicide! He had enough of that loveless bitter power first family as well as all that bullshit that was flying around.
He also got nervous when that chinese guy kept coming by the new place in NY and dropping off bags of money. |
|
Hmmmm, I think we have more reason to believe that the US can trust Israel more than it can trust, say, former President Bill Clinton.
At least insofar as giving any sort of secrets away to the Chi-Coms. And there's a whole list of good old-fashioned American companies that were eager to sell their technologies to Beijing for the almighty Dollar. What are the poor Israelis to think? Eric The(Huh?)Hun[>]:)] |
|
Please as I have stated before I am no troll. I only offer you more information, that you may learn something new.
Bill C. [smoke] |
|
How dare you all question Israeli motives for turning U.S. weapons technology to the Chinese. You must all be [i]anti-semites[/i]. [IMG]http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/sarge/Whatever_anim.gif[/IMG]
[(:|)] |
|
Quoted: How dare you all question Israeli motives for turning U.S. weapons technology to the Chinese. You must all be [i]anti-semites[/i]. [IMG]http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/sarge/Whatever_anim.gif[/IMG] [(:|)] View Quote [:D] |
|
What were the Americans' motives for selling rocket technology to China? What was Clinton's motive for permitting Doral and the other US companies to sell technology to China?
What was the Clinton's Administration's motive for changing the final authority on technology sales to foreign countries from the Department of Defense to the Department of Commerce? Hmmm, am I just being anti-American, now? Eric The(IThinkNot)Hun[>]:)] |
|
Quoted: What were the Americans' motives for selling rocket technology to China? What was Clinton's motive for permitting Doral and the other US companies to sell technology to China? What was the Clinton's Administration's motive for changing the final authority on technology sales to foreign countries from the Department of Defense to the Department of Commerce? Eric The(Not)Hun[>]:)] View Quote [b]Money ??[/b] |
|
You have to ask yourself what reason does Israel have not to sell technology to China? They have to weigh the chances of those same weapons being used against them. They also have worry about losing US aid. Perhaps they feel the odds of the US cutting off aid is so low, they can do whatever they like with impunity? Or perhaps they feel the profit potential from selling weapons is far greater than US aid?
My feeling is they are convinced their actions will never come back to haunt them. They could be wrong. They are a sovereign nation and have the right to trade with whomever they please. That does not mean that there will not be repercussions or that their actions will not hurt them in the long run. |
|
Quoted: Perhaps they feel the odds of the US cutting off aid is so low, they can do whatever they like with impunity? View Quote bingo |
|
I don't care for [u][b]anyone[/b][/u] that gives U.S. weapons technology to the Chinese. My assessment:
Bill Clinton (gives technology to Chinese) = Piece of Shit Israeli Politicians (gives technology to Chinese) = Piece(s) of Shit I will make apologies for neither. [(:|)] |
|
Post from PoliticalScience -
Bill Clinton (gives technology to Chinese) = Piece of Shit Israeli Politicians (gives technology to Chinese) = Piece(s) of Shit View Quote Actually, [b]PoliticalScience[/b], it was not Israeli politicians that sold anything to the Red Chinese, but Israeli companies. In 1996, the Israeli government notified the Clinton Administration that it had been asked by an Israeli company for a license to export the Phlacon air warning system to Red China. Instead of dissuading the Israeli government from granting the license, the Clinton Administration sat on its hands and proceeded to let the Phalcon deal go through. Suddenly, in 2000, and a US Election year, the Clinton Administration determined that selling the Phalcon system to Red China probably wasn't a good idea, and instructed Israel to withdraw its license. Which Israel promptly did, even though even more sensitive technology was still being sold by the US to Red China with the Clinton Adminsitration's blessing. I will make apologies for neither. View Quote You don't have to. The Israelis stopped when requested. The US companies?? Well, who knows? And, if you remember the article you cited this morning, it was the Israeli government that prosecuted the Israeli arms dealer and got a conviction and a 16 year prison term for the POS! When's the last time an American citizen has been successfully prosectuted and imprisoned for doing the same thing? Eric The(Yeah,Right!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
You may want to get your facts straight. The F1 is NOT a Lavi clone. The F1, is basically a Mig 17. The Israelis upgraded the cockpit. They did the same for India. Israel did cancel the Phalcon sale as ETH mentioned at our request, while the US sold AWACS to our good friends the Saudis. Double standard here. Israel doesn't hold a candel to our arms sales if thats your problem. Although I think you as usuall are always looking for an excuse to bash Israel and Jews. As far as Israel being our allies, Israeli F-15s have been training with our pilots (A-10s, F117s and F16s) for the last 2 weeks here at Davis Monthan AFB.The formations of US and Israeli aircraft were a thing of beauty to see. I suppose it would give little adolf I mean Kar heartburn.
|
|
Quoted: You may want to get your facts straight. The F1 is NOT a Lavi clone. The F1, is basically a Mig 17. View Quote If you scroll back up, you will see that mention was made of the ChiCom F-10 fighter, not a F-1. |
|
99% of countries that recieve aid are ungrateful. What's really frustrating is that the US is stupid enough to keep giving money away.
Too bad our former leaders were too stupid to stop other countries from developing weapons of mass destuction. Truman should have made an edict to the world- If you develop weapons of mass destruction, we will drop A-bombs on your capitals. He could have prevented the entire Cold War, not to mention what's to come. |
|
I would be interested to see just how much Chinese military hardware hostile states such as Syria, Iran and Iraq buy. The Chinese were caught red-handed upgrading Iraq's air defense radar systems not too long ago, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't sell them more stuff. After all, Iraq's Scuds were originally made in China.
Just think, now Iraq can buy Israel-enhanced electronics on those Scuds to fire at Israel. Instead of it raining Scuds a mile apart they might actually be able to hit their targets now. Compared to the Jews in the US, Israeli Jews aren't very bright. |
|
Still not a Lavi clone, more like an SU-27. No match for our aircraft even with upgraded avionics. And China would never take on Taiwan as long as it's under our protection.
|
|
Post from Kar98 -
I know that. View Quote I doubt that. Eric The(ComeAgain)Hun[>]:)] |
|
Chicom F10
J/F-10 (Project 10/Project 8810?) is a multi-role single-engine fighter being developed by Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) and 611 Institute. It has been selected by PLAAF as the next generation fighter to replace the obsolete J-7 fighter and Q-5 attack aircraft. Shown here is the 03 prototype approaching the runway at CAC/Factory 132 before landing, with its landing gears fully extended. The aircraft appears to have an Su-27 style nose and retangular air intake, an AL-31F type engine, twin nosewheels, and a distinct low-visibility camouflage color scheme. The aircraft also has a large vertical tail plus twin F-16 style ventral stablizers believed to provide greater stability at high AoA. Its fuselage looks considerably longer compared to Israeli Lavi. However its bubble canopy appears less elevated than that of F-16, suggesting the pilot has yet to possess a true 360° view. Unlike J-7E with double-delta wings, it appears to have a pair of inverted gull wings (i.e. the inner portion extends slightly downward, while the outer portion extends flat). Two red dummy PL-8 AAMs are regularly seen carried under the wing as well. The J-10 project was started in the mid-80s based on the experience (tailless delta wing and canard foreplanes) with J-9 which was cancelled earlier in favor of the less risky J-7C/MIG-21MF project. An early model of J-10 revealed a Mirage 2000 style intake with a center shock cone for better high speed performance and a Lavi style tail section, suggesting a possible connection with the cancelled Israeli fighter (however this was firmly denied by both parties). The change indicates that J-10 has gone through at least one major redesign in its 10-year development period from the initial conventional layout (as an air-superiority fighter) to the latest semi-stealthy design (as a multi-role fighter). This change may reflect a shift of its potential adversaries from former Soviet Mig-29/Su-27 to current American F-15/F-16 after end of the Cold War. The new design will certainly be fitted with advanced avionics including a "glass cockpit" (1 wide-angle HUD + 2 monochrome MFD + 1 color MFD), HMS, HOTAS, GPS/INS, air data computer, RWR, digital quadruplex FBW, digital fuel management system, 1553B databus, and a new PD fire-control radar (search distance 52~148km, track 4-8 targets simutaneously), which can be either Israeli Elta EL/M 2035, Russian Phazotron Zhuk derivative (Zhemchug?), or the indigenous JL-10A from LETRI (with technical assistance from Phazotron?). A variety of newly developed air-to-air (e.g. PL-8 short-range IR-guided AAM and PL-11/PL-12/SD-10 medium-range radar-guided AAM) and air-to-surface weapons (e.g. C-701 TV-guided ASM & LGBs) are also expected to be carried under 11 hardpoints. Although it was believed to be powered initially by a 27,560lb/12,500kg thrust AL-31FN turbofan, a modified AL-31F which itself powers Su-27/J-11, Russia reportedly had denied China the license to produce the engine locally. As the result, an indigenous engine (WS-10A?) may be fitted later when the serial production starts. Some US military analysts believe that J-10 could pose a serious challenge to F/A-18E in terms of maneuverability. Some specifications of J-10 are (estimated): empty weight 9,750kg, max TO weight 18,500kg, internal fuel 4,500kg, external load 4,500kg, g load -3~+9, max speed Mach 2.0 (high altitude)/Mach 1.2 (sea level), TO distance <500m, combat radius 463~566km. The development of J-10 has proven to be tortuous. The prototype was rumored to have first flown in 1996, but the project suffered a serious setback in late 1997 when the 02 prototype lost control and crashed, as the result of certain system failure, presumably with either the FBW system or the engine. After careful redesign and extensive ground test, the successful flight of the new prototype (J-10A?) took place on March 23, 1998, which put the project back on the track. Initially 6 prototypes (serial numbers 1001-1006) were built undergoing various static and flight tests at CAC in Chengdu and at the CFTE in Yanliang. Subsequently 3 more prototypes were built (1007, 1008, & 1009) as the project is moving to the pre-production phase while PLAAF remains fully committed. A carrier based version (J-10B?) was rumored but never confirmed. The earliest service date was expected to be 2005. The latest news suggested that the test flight of J-10 is near completion and the full scale production will start in 2003 while 300 are planned. The first J-10 in production standard first flew on June 28, 2002. View Quote [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Raptor22%2FF%2D10%5F1003%2Ejpg[/img] IAF Lavi [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Raptor22%2Flavi%2Ejpg[/img] az_larry sorry I could not find better pictures but I would have to say that there is more than just a slight similarity between the two planes. BTW, the F-10 was developed to go head to head with the F/A-18E. |
|
Specifics on the IAF Lavi
A multi-role fighter. The Lavi never did make it to operational service, but nonetheless forms an important milestone in the development of the IAF, and even more so - of the IAI. The independent development of a state-of-the-art plane was a first in the annals of Israeli technology. True - the IAI had previously produced the Nesher, Kfir and Tzukit, but those had essentially been upgrades - whereas this was a plane planned and manufactured in Israel from scratch. The Lavi was intended to become the IAF's standard-bearer and Israel's first line plane. It was to be one of the world's most advanced planes at the turn of the millennium. The Lavi's development program began in February 1980, when the Israeli government authorized the IAF to present it with a list of technical specifications for the development of the IAF's future fighter. 18 months later, in October of 1982, the process of developing the plane began at IAI, after the Lavi's engine had been picked - a Pratt & Whitney model. The single-seat Lavi was intended to replace the Skyhawks, and carry out a variety of air-to-ground attacks at close to medium range, as well as protecting the skies over Israel. The tandem seat model of the Lavi was to serve as an advanced stage training plane, and occasionally carry out combat missions as well. The Lavi was a small, smart, highly robust fighter, that was to be the IAF's solution for the future battlefield. Its uniqueness lay in the combination of a physically small plane with very sophisticated, software-rich systems. This meant lower purchase, usage and maintenance costs, compared to other planes. Technically, the Lavi was a very advanced plane, with a modern aerodynamic shape that gave it excellent maneuverability, low armed drag, and the ability to carry a large payload at high speed to long distances. The Lavi could carry and deploy the most advanced weapons systems in existence. The functional features of the plane - and especially of its cockpit - were planned by active IAF fighter pilots, in a way that let the pilot handle the tactical aspects of the battle, without having to worry about monitoring and controlling the various sub-systems. The avionics of the Lavi were considered to be innovative and groundbreaking, and included self-analysis equipment, to make maintenance easier. On December 31st 1986, the first prototype of the plane took off on its maiden flight, in the first of the Lavi's numerous test flights. The test pilot, Menachem Shimol, who headed the IAI's Air Operations Section, took off at 13:21 and stayed in the air for 26 minutes, during which he checked the engine and controls. About three months later, a second prototype took to the air. In its maiden flight, the engine systems, flight control, electrical system, hydraulics and air conditioning were evaluated. The second prototype had some improvements over the first, with a belly-mounted fuel tank, a special midair refuelling pipe and several avionic systems that were not employed in the first prototype. The IAI had produced three prototypes, out of the five originally planned, when the Israeli government decided to cancel the project, on August 30th 1987, because of budgetary problems and bickering among various economic and political pressure groups. The decision was met with violent demonstrations by the IAI workers - but to no avail. The IAI had no choice but to lay off close to 5,000 employees. The third Lavi prototype, the B-3 "Technology Demonstrator", was built two years after the project had been cancelled. It serves the IAI to this day for testing and evaluating avionics intended for sale overseas. Multi-task fighter Israel Wingspan: 8.78 m Length: 14.57 m Height: 4.78 m Wing area: 33.05 sq. m Maximum speed: Mach 1.85 Max. payload capacity: 7,200 kg Operational range: 2,100 km Basic takeoff weight: 9,990 kg Pratt & Whitney PW1120 engine with a thrust of 9,344 kg View Quote |
|
I don't know what in the hell you people are all worried about. I am sure that israel made china sign an agreement that none of the weapons systems they bought would ever be used against the U.S. or U.S. interests.
|
|
Quoted: Post from PoliticalScience - I will make apologies for neither. View Quote You don't have to. The Israelis stopped when requested. View Quote Why were they doing it the first place? [(:|)] |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.