shouldn't be that thin; it's generally considered a dual pack, not a quad pack.
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Wdym shouldn't? are you saying the measurements are wrong?
On the truck launcher two C tubes come in place of one B tube. But there are various possible reasons for that. Like weight. If the clearance is There, there is no reason that ship's vls can't fit in more.
I am more intrigued by the fact the naval variant is shown with a booster, while the land variant was clearly launched without one. Booster is nice to have and may indeed point to an abm role as well for the naval variant . But I still wonder if some vls cells would be populated by a notional booster less hhq9c, which would be more optimized against sea skimming saturation attacks.
I am more intrigued by the fact the naval variant is shown with a booster, while the land variant was clearly launched without one. Booster is nice to have and may indeed point to an abm role as well for the naval variant . But I still wonder if some vls cells would be populated by a notional booster less hhq9c, which would be more optimized against sea skimming saturation attacks.
Interesting designation, seeing as previous US military publications referred to HQ-15 as an upgraded HQ-9.
At the very least Orca seems to think its a dual pack
antiterror13
Brigadier
not even tri pack?
Considering the likely capability of this weapon, dual pack would be potent.
"not even tri pack" makes it sound like the desirable or attainable goal would be quad pack, which is just silly -- this isn't a simple MR SAM, this should be a proper high end SAM capable of long range engagements against air breathing targets while also having the capability to target probably fairly high performance aeroballistic missiles.
What about a mixed quad-pack? Two HHQ-9C with two MRSAMs?