China ships more advanced weapons to Sudan

[ROCK45]

China ships more advanced weapons to Sudan


ANDREI CHANG
Published: March 28, 2008
HONG KONG, China, China has shipped its latest-version FN-6 portable ground-to-air missiles to Sudan, video footage of that country's 2007 Independence Day military parade has revealed. These are the most advanced ground-to-air missiles China has introduced to the international market, and the footage is the first evidence that the missiles have actually been exported.

The FN-6, referred to internally by the People's Liberation Army as the HY-6, is equipped with an all-digital infrared seeker. It has a maximum range of 5 kilometers (just over 3 miles), maximum firing latitude of 4 kilometers (2.5 miles), and a response time of 10 seconds. The total weight of the system is 16 kilograms (35 pounds), its flight speed is 600 meters per second (1,342 miles per hour) and maximum maneuverability is 18G.

Recent high-resolution satellite photos also show that Sudan's Wadi Sayyidna Air Force Base is fielded with A-5S attackers and K-8 trainers made by China's Nanhang Aircraft Company. The new satellite images also show that there are two A-5S attackers, one F-7 fighter and one K-8 trainer fielded at the airport. Of course there would be other aircraft anchored inside the hangars, unrevealed by the photographs.

It can now be concluded that the mainstay combat aircraft of the Sudanese Air Force are from China. There has been speculation for quite some time that the Sudanese Air Force was armed with Chinese-made A-5S attackers, but this report has never been confirmed by the Sudanese government or the Chinese authorities. A careful analysis of these images confirms that China has indeed for the first time exported to Northern Africa its latest upgraded attacker.

The A-5S aircraft in Sudan have been coated with the latest camouflage paint, and a total of eight fighter aircraft hangars have been built at the Wadi Sayyidna Air Force Base. Each aircraft hangar can accommodate two to four fighters or attackers, and another eight helicopter hangars have also been constructed at the same airport.

In addition, the satellite photos show that at least nine F-7/MiG-21 and three F-6 fighters have been abandoned at the airport. Two MiG-29s were also found fielded at the same airport, but a source from the Russian military industry says that these fighters were delivered before 2003. Since 2003, the Russian government has prohibited the export of weapons to Sudan.

The A-5 has evolved from the Chinese-made MiG-19 fighter and has undergone new upgrades since 2005. The latest variant of the A-5 is called the A-5G.

It was in 2005 that China and Sudan reached a whole package of military cooperation agreements. These included the sales of at least two A-5 attackers and six K-8 trainers to the Sudanese Air Force, as well as the latest-version T-92 infantry fighting vehicles and T-96 main battle tanks to the Sudanese Army. The best combat units of China's PLA Army did not receive this equipment until after 2000.

The value of the whole 2005 military deal was US$80 million. In the same year, Sudan exported to China 6.6 million tons of crude oil.

The A-5's fuselage is about 25 percent longer than that of the MiG-19. The air intakes are moved from the nose section to the two sides of the fuselage, and the internal fuel tank is redesigned, with a 70 percent greater fuel capacity than that of the MiG-19.

The main equipment fitted on the A-5 includes two 23-millimeter guns, two PL-5 air-to-air missiles, and four 250-kilogram (550-pound) bombs. The attacker has a maximum speed of M1.2 (913 miles per hour) combat radius of 210 kilometers (130 miles) --1 kilometer Hi-Low-Hi -- and a maximum ammunition load of 2,000 kilograms (4,400 pounds).

Link
http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Security/2008/03/28/china_ships_more_advanced_weapons_to_sudan/6836/

 

[Chino]

And China should double or triple its military aid to Sudan and perhaps even station PLA units there.

With all the hullabaloo about Dafur, genocide etc... it won't be long before US feel it is ripe for invasion.

The US, you see, is very interested in the internal problems of oil-rich countries. Sudan provides just the right pretext for US to invade, and take its oil for its own consumption, like Iraq.

And China will lose another source of energy.

China is not supplying arms to encourage genocide but for Sudan's self-defence. That the Sudanese would want to massacre each other is unfortunate.

But.. isn't massacres a very common practice in all parts of Africa? Isn't this as difficult to stop as bushfires? It is probably a tradition of thousands of years old and I am not being sarcastic or anything.

To paint China as the evil golem happily giving weapons to facilitate massacres is ridiculous. To blame China for not putting pressure on Sudan government to end the massacre is wrong. China is selling weapons to Sudan, it is a business, it is NOT military aid.

A country like Sudan rich with oil doesn't need military aid. If China doesn;t sell her arms she would buy it from other people and France is usually the first one to step into the picture correct me if I am wrong.

So how can China, doing business with Sudan - earning its money and needing its oil - have any right or be in a position to dictate anything?

How can I sell you a car and then stop you from speeding?

 

[ROCK45]

Slow down

First of all it's a news article I found I didn't write as you should have been able to tell, I did attached the link.

Chino
The US, you see, is very interested in the internal problems of oil-rich countries. Sudan provides just the right pretext for US to invade, and take its oil for its own consumption, like Iraq.

You really believe that sh_t? Like we can’t wait to get involved in another country where there killing each other over religion.

China is not supplying arms to encourage genocide but for Sudan's self-defense. That the Sudanese would want to massacre each other is unfortunate.

They do that in Iraq and in other Middle East countries now and for years but everybody blame my country for it anyway. You know because were stealing oil like you think were doing. Because going in the red each month for $2 billion or more and having 4,000 killed is such a better deal. Again I didn't write it I just found it.

But... aren’t massacres a very common practice in all parts of Africa? Isn't this as difficult to stop as bushfires? It is probably a tradition of thousands of years old and I am not being sarcastic or anything.

Interesting way at looking at the situation but you still bash the US like we invade a different country every week, interesting. But I’m not sarcastic or anything.

To paint China as the evil golem happily giving weapons to facilitate massacres is ridiculous. To blame China for not putting pressure on Sudan government to end the massacre is wrong. China is selling weapons to Sudan, it is a business, and it is NOT military aid.

Feeling a little guilty I see again I didn't write article and wasn’t trying to make a statement. It's a military forum and I found arms deals and just shared the info. Arms deal is something that interests me if you make an "Arm's Deal" threat I'll post American arms deals as well. I think it’s a cool idea for a threat as long as a link is provided to back up the source.

A country like Sudan rich with oil doesn't need military aid. If China doesn’t sell her arms she would buy it from other people and France is usually the first one to step into the picture correct me if I am wrong

I agree it's a nasty situation.

So how can China, doing business with Sudan - earning its money and needing its oil - have any right or be in a position to dictate anything?

Throwing rocks in glass houses is ok where you’re from I guess?

How can I sell you a car and then stop you from speeding?
It's difficult that's for sure.

 

[Generalissimo]

And China should double or triple its military aid to Sudan and perhaps even station PLA units there.

With all the hullabaloo about Dafur, genocide etc... it won't be long before US feel it is ripe for invasion.

The US, you see, is very interested in the internal problems of oil-rich countries. Sudan provides just the right pretext for US to invade, and take its oil for its own consumption, like Iraq.

And China will lose another source of energy.

China is not supplying arms to encourage genocide but for Sudan's self-defence. That the Sudanese would want to massacre each other is unfortunate.

But.. isn't massacres a very common practice in all parts of Africa? Isn't this as difficult to stop as bushfires? It is probably a tradition of thousands of years old and I am not being sarcastic or anything.

To paint China as the evil golem happily giving weapons to facilitate massacres is ridiculous. To blame China for not putting pressure on Sudan government to end the massacre is wrong. China is selling weapons to Sudan, it is a business, it is NOT military aid.

A country like Sudan rich with oil doesn't need military aid. If China doesn;t sell her arms she would buy it from other people and France is usually the first one to step into the picture correct me if I am wrong.

So how can China, doing business with Sudan - earning its money and needing its oil - have any right or be in a position to dictate anything?

How can I sell you a car and then stop you from speeding?

Now I don't want to introduce politics into this but it's just silly to say this. Do you have any idea (I'm sure you do) how quickly people would jump all over someone who tried to excuse the US selling arms to a country that is committing genocide? I could say the same thing about the US giving arms to any number of third world dictators during the Cold War to protect themselves from the "threat of communisim" which was far more real than any threat the US poses to the reigeme in Sudan. Obviously I don't approve of anyone, American or otherwise, giving weapons to human rights violators, but I'm just trying to point out here how it is ridiculous and hypocritical to try to spin selling weapons to the murderous Sudanese reigeme as an honorable defence of a helpless third world nation.

 

[Schumacher]

......Obviously I don't approve of anyone, American or otherwise, giving weapons to human rights violators, but I'm just trying to point out here how it is ridiculous and hypocritical to try to spin selling weapons to the murderous Sudanese reigeme as an honorable defence of a helpless third world nation.

I think what some are trying to say is there're many 'human rights violators' & 'murderous regimes' out there who are getting arms from more than just China.
Actually, I believe US & UN officials have had mostly good words abt China's help to resolve the issue.
It's mostly Hollywood who criticizes China lately & I tend not to think too highly of Hollywood's intelligence level especially with regard to complex international issues.

 

[whodunit]

You hear this pitiful excuse for genocides but the reality is there is no excuse what so ever for invading/occupying a country and committing genocide.

That is akin to saying Stalin's genocide in Ukraine justifies Hitler's holocaust. Thats not how it works.

Can i walk up to Bush and blow his head off and then claim that since JFK was assassinated I'm allowed to as well?

Its pure foolishness.

 

[merocaine]

Can i walk up to Bush and blow his head off and then claim that since JFK was assassinated I'm allowed to as well?

yeah know this has probably already been tagged and flagged by the NSA/homeland Security as suspicious, I'd check for any pizza vans parked across the road....

 

[Generalissimo]

Actually, I believe US & UN officials have had mostly good words abt China's help to resolve the issue.

China is a very powerful country, and they are in a pretty solid postion geopolitically, with few weak spots. So it doesn't do much to try to change their policy by pressure. It's much better to engage with them and try to bring them on your side. It's unfortunate becaue in the time you lose people die but its the only way.

 

[SPI]

China is a very powerful country, and they are in a pretty solid postion geopolitically, with few weak spots. So it doesn't do much to try to change their policy by pressure. It's much better to engage with them and try to bring them on your side. It's unfortunate becaue in the time you lose people die but its the only way.

Appeasment doesn't work because they will keep using you.

 

[PullerRommel]

Appeasment doesn't work because they will keep using you.

You might remember a little man named Hitler who kept getting appeased it dodnt work out to well

 

[contedicavour]

Well Sudan used to operate MIG23s and SU20 or was that -22 ? so seeing them operate modified MIG19s (the A5s) isn't exactly too worrying...

I'm happy to see though that at least the Russians are behaving and abstaining from shipping new weapons. Good sign of political maturity on their side.

cheers

 

[Chino]

Now I don't want to introduce politics into this but it's just silly to say this. Do you have any idea (I'm sure you do) how quickly people would jump all over someone who tried to excuse the US selling arms to a country that is committing genocide? I could say the same thing about the US giving arms to any number of third world dictators during the Cold War to protect themselves from the "threat of communisim" which was far more real than any threat the US poses to the reigeme in Sudan. Obviously I don't approve of anyone, American or otherwise, giving weapons to human rights violators, but I'm just trying to point out here how it is ridiculous and hypocritical to try to spin selling weapons to the murderous Sudanese reigeme as an honorable defence of a helpless third world nation.

But let's agree that many countries - US included - gives/gave military aid to genocidal/despotic regimes, whatever the reason.

So let's all get off high horses and debate on even ground.

 

[Chino]

First of all it's a news article I found I didn't write as you should have been able to tell, I did attached the link.

Don't worry, I am very certain you are incapable of writing such a piece.

Besides, I AM reacting to the story, NOT you.

You really believe that sh_t? Like we can’t wait to get involved in another country where there killing each other over religion.

If we meet fact to face, you can show what a tough guy you are. But here, try remaining civilised.

I won't respond to the rest of the stuff as I am not really sure what you are trying to say, with all due respects.

 

[Chino]

A certain country famous for the rights to bear arms has this great saying: "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people".

Countries, too, have the right to bear arms to defend itself, unfortunately - even genocidal ones. And China is only the arms supplier, it doesn't give advice on who to kill or not to kill.

If China doesn't sell weapons to help protect Sudan's national security and someone invades them, China loses a source of energy.

Yes, China should encourage Sudan to stop the genocide, cos such a situation endangers the security of Sudan, its source of energy.

But I think people give China too much credit: China does not have the clout to boss the Sudanese around... If anything, it would appear who has the oil - Sudan - has its way. Sudan can sell its oil to X country tomorrow and buy its weapons from Y & Z countries. The slaughter will still continue and China will just end up with nothing.

 

[Chino]

Take for example the relationship between US and Saudi Arabia.

The Americans are heavily-dependent on Saudi oil and has almost a monopoly. The US sell the Saudis any weapon they like. The US has some influence on the Saudis BUT in the end, the Saud Royal Family gets to be as despotic as they like and cut off as many hands as they like. The US don't like this but guess who's the boss? It ain't the Yanks.

Isn't the dynamics of China/Suda relationship the same?

 

[swerve]

Take for example the relationship between US and Saudi Arabia.

The Americans are heavily-dependent on Saudi oil and has almost a monopoly. The US sell the Saudis any weapon they like. ...

Err - not quite. The USA has no monopoly of arms sales to Saudi Arabia (note recent Saudi purchases of A330MRTT & Typhoon, & expected buy of Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Asraam & Meteor, past purchases of Tornado, French frigates, AMX-30, etc.). The USA has sometimes refused to sell particular weapons to the Saudis, which is one of the reasons the Saudis diversify their purchases.

 

[Chino]

Err - not quite. The USA has no monopoly of arms sales to Saudi Arabia (note recent Saudi purchases of A330MRTT & Typhoon, & expected buy of Storm Shadow, Brimstone, Asraam & Meteor, past purchases of Tornado, French frigates, AMX-30, etc.). The USA has sometimes refused to sell particular weapons to the Saudis, which is one of the reasons the Saudis diversify their purchases.

Oh no, I meant "almost a monopoly on Saudi oil". And you're right the Saudis don't buy only Americans and Americans don't make everything available.

 

[ROCK45]

Sudan

I wasn’t trying to get tough with you as you boldly type that hiding behind your monitor and by the way the civilized not civilized.

If China doesn't sell weapons to help protect Sudan's national security and someone invades them, China loses a source of energy.

You really think China cares a rat’s ass about Sudan? China could and would buy the oil from who ever was in charge period, it makes no difference. It’s about oil plain and simple and selling Sudan back average weapons for less then the value of the oil, China ripping them off. China taking care of there investment and doing the people of Sudan a real favor.

If anything, it would appear who has the oil - Sudan - has its way. Sudan can sell its oil to X country tomorrow and buy its weapons from Y & Z countries. The slaughter will still continue and China will just end up with nothing.

You really think it goes down that way? Sudan could sell the oil to another buyer or buyers that maybe be true up to a point but buying weapons from Y & Z is a little more difficult like a another poster mention even Russia staying away. Sudan isn’t a “Kuwait or Venezuela” they production is less then 400,000 barrels a days that’s less then Ecuador’s 500,000 barrels a day who’s trying to join OPEC as the smallest member. They only supply a small chunk of China’s oil needs overall who has the second highest demand for oil in the world and growing. China’s playing both sides of the street by selling weapons for oil they get a higher profits from there investments in Sudan. Besides a few of the new weapons most were produced already so Sudan buying weapons for less value in exchange for oil. The point is China has them over a barrel nobody wants to sell them weapons so China says were give you Y & Z for oil, take it or leave it. So the people in charge have little or no choice if they want to stay in power right, so they buy Chinese weapons at Chinese prices? And China could care less because they get a little chuck of oil to feed there economy. China holds the power don’t kid yourself if they pull out the more then 4,000 heavily armed troops the powers in Sudan lose everything. You make your little anti-American comment that the US is stealing oil what the hell do you think China’s doing to one of the poorest country’s in the world.

Isn't the dynamics of China/Suda relationship the same? (Oh another spelling error)

Trying to compare China & Sudan to Saudi Arabian & the United States is like night and day. You wonder why the other four posters in this threat didn’t agree with your thinking either and other threads as well. Saudi Arabian oil basically controls the worlds oil market Sudan oil is a speck on the table so comparing them shows what you know. Even know the American dollar isn’t doing to well at the moment our economy is pretty important too as I’m sure hearing that brings pain to you.

The Americans are heavily-dependent on Saudi oil and has almost a monopoly.

So when swerve disagrees you quickly changed your comment to “all most”

with all due respects.

Like you wrote above try using some and the

“If we meet fact to face, you can show what a tough guy you are” comment

was over the line you don’t know me.
.

 

[Schumacher]

Yup, it's only natural that, when accusations of abuses are made by people from nations who either also support abuses or worse committed abused themselves, that such accusations are met with suspicion/cynicism.

 

[Schumacher]

......
Trying to compare China & Sudan to Saudi Arabian & the United States is like night and day. ......

Agree, don't know abt oil but I actually think comparing Sudan to Iraq is more appropriate in terms of loss of lives etc. US's roles is also far more 'direct' in Iraq than those of China in Sudan.