052C/052D Class Destroyers

I just saw skywatcher's new blog post about the ONI report, and I'm surprised to see they actually listed HHQ-9 range as only 100km.

We know export HQ-9 has an effective range of 120km, and if anything the export version likely has degraded capabilities compared to the domestic version.

a supposed big shrimp said there are HQ-9A and HQ-9B variants; HQ-9A having range in excess of 160km and HQ-9B even longer (his personal speculation of 240km).
Regardless, I have a feeling that ONI has got their numbers wrong for HHQ-9.

Bltizo said:

Regardless, I have a feeling that ONI has got their numbers wrong for HHQ-9.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the DoD does underestimate the range of HQ-9. Since the export version has a range of 120-125km, I would put my bet around that number for now. However, let's see if the DoD changes the HQ-9 range this year.

Agree for 125 km minimum, for HQ-9B i read a day 200 km, Flight altitude 30000 m max, more large i think and for 052C also ?

FORBIN said:

Agree for 125 km minimum, for HQ-9B i read a day 200 km, Flight altitude 30000 m max, more large i think and for 052C also ?

Click to expand...

Even if the DoD suggests that the current HQ-9 has a range of only 100km, the DoD also reports that China is working to extend the HQ-9 range "beyond 200km." Therefore, I will assume (for now) that HQ-9B will have a range of 200-250km. Just a guess. Nevertheless, since the Russian S-400/500 and U.S. STANDARD-6 already have ranges of 400km and 370km, not sure if I can make the assumption that there is something extremely backward regarding Chinese solid fuel technology and internal rocket designs.

Josh Luo said:

Even if the DoD suggests that the current HQ-9 has a range of only 100km, the DoD also reports that China is working to extend the HQ-9 range "beyond 200km." Therefore, I will assume (for now) that HQ-9B will have a range of 200-250km. Just a guess. Nevertheless, since the Russian S-400/500 and U.S. STANDARD-6 already have ranges of 400km and 370km, not sure if I can make the assumption that there is something extremely backward regarding Chinese solid fuel technology and internal rocket designs.

Click to expand...

I think you are getting too into the exact number. The difference between 100 km and 125 km in operational sense is not that big of a deal. It's perfectly believable that naval variant may have less range than a land based variant or that PLAN may look at 100 km as a more effective operational range given restrictions in earth's curvature and radar horizon. Without the operational scenarios, numbers like 100 km and 125 km don't really tell that much. I think DoD report gives these numbers to indicate that HQ-9 is providing area defense for 052C and that an extended range version of HQ-9 is under development or is close to operational usage. As for Russian SAMs, there is no version of Rif SAM that have even 200 km in range let alone 400 km. Please do not mix up land based SAM with naval variants.

Bltizo said:

I just saw skywatcher's new blog post about the ONI report, and I'm surprised to see they actually listed HHQ-9 range as only 100km.

We know export HQ-9 has an effective range of 120km, and if anything the export version likely has degraded capabilities compared to the domestic version.

a supposed big shrimp said there are HQ-9A and HQ-9B variants; HQ-9A having range in excess of 160km and HQ-9B even longer (his personal speculation of 240km).
Regardless, I have a feeling that ONI has got their numbers wrong for HHQ-9.

Click to expand...

ONI usually is more conservative about platform performance (in fairness, the 90-100km figure could be for maneuvering targets rather than maximum slant range).

They also made an embarrassing typo about a AShM (I believe it was that the YJ-62 had an eyewatering 650nm range).

tphuang said:

Please do not mix up land based SAM with naval variants.

Click to expand...

Great point! Could you please elaborate this a bit more? For the Russians, the Rif has obviously a shorter range than S-300PMU2 and S-400. However, the U.S. Navy's STANDARD systems have much longer ranges than Patriot systems. Even the THAAD does not have the range of STANDARD. Just confused here. Could you please elaborate your point a more?

Me also curious for this matter and why a naval variant would get a inferior range ?

Josh Luo said:

Great point! Could you please elaborate this a bit more? For the Russians, the Rif has obviously a shorter range than S-300PMU2 and S-400. However, the U.S. Navy's STANDARD systems have much longer ranges than Patriot systems. Even the THAAD does not have the range of STANDARD. Just confused here. Could you please elaborate your point a more?

Click to expand...

Well, the original Rif was the naval variant of S-300P. And there was an improved variant of Rif (Rif-M) using the longer ranged 48N6 missile, but that's still shorter ranged than 48N6E2 used on PMU2. At this point, I don't believe that there is a version of Rif using that (which has max range of 200 km I believe)

Standard is completely different series than patriot. You are compare apples to oranges here. All these different SAMs have different mission profiles, thereby have different engagement envelopes. Some can engage faster missiles (like ballistic missiles), some can engage at higher altitude, some are focused toward naval targets and have to be able to engage sea-skimming supersonic AShM.

FORBIN said:

Me also curious for this matter and why a naval variant would get a inferior range ?

Click to expand...

I think he might have been talking about the fact that naval SAMs may tend to engage lower altitude targets than land based SAMs, which are sometimes also limited by topography (which is why I think the export version of HQ-9 and HQ-16 both relatively high minimum altitudes which would not be able to engage sea skimmers).

The nature of SAMs and AAMs range is always dependent on the kind of target you're engaging, so while I can understand that is a factor into ONI's calculation I'm wonder what kind of calculation they did in the first place.
If they have the understanding to say that their stated range of YJ-83, YJ-62 are merely export ranges and not their domestic range then they've obviously put some thought into their SAM ranges as well and are using numbers based off somewhere. I'd be curious as to where they were from -- for instance, their YJ-18 range were obviously stripped straight from 3M-54E given they thought it is a straight up copy of the export sizzler. It's false obviously, but at least it's understandable how they came to their number.

@Skywatcher, yeah in the case of YJ-62 that is probably a typo rather than a deliberate calculated number in the case of HHQ-9.