Bluffer’s Guide: Fortress China

Kinetically, the HQ-9 has a slant range of 100km, based on the brochures of the FT-2000. Not much of a difference from 90km but still I wonder where the 90km figure is cited from.

Slant range is not the same as ballistic range, which many missile articles and brochures quote. Slant range appears as the hypotenuse of a triangle made up of three points, the missile launcher, the target aircraft, and point of the ground the target aircraft is above it. This is the more relevant range type for this use since if the missile is a SARH, SAGG or TVM, the range is also determined by the radar line of sight, which would be identical.

Ballistic range is just how far you can throw the missile, and thus more related to flight range. Missile goes up, curves, reaches an apogee that starts going down. Where this missile lands is how far your ballistic range goes. This produces a nice number figure that goes better with marketing and advertising, since generally, ballistic range is about 2x of slant range. This range should not be relevant at all, unless its an SSM, or the SAM is an autonomous seeker that can engage targets under the radar horizon of the ground radar. By means of autonomous, it means the seeker may have independent guidance, like having a secondary IR seeker, or using a primary active guided (ARH) seeker, or if the seeker supports SAGG, which is a form of TVM, where the missile's seeker also takes the radar reflection, sends it back to the command post, and receives guidance instructions. As a note some SAMs are converted to SSM lites.

If the HQ-9 has any seeker that falls within the autonomous, OTH category, then it makes engagement at ballistic ranges possible. In which case, the potential ballistic range might be 180km to 200km.

If you study all the missile ranges, you probably would have a feel what the figures is slant or ballistic. HQ-2 range is slant range, but the 60 to 90km ranges I've seen quoted from other sources might be ballistic range. SM-2MR should have a slant range of 75 (quote on F100 class brochure) to 80km+ (Raytheon brochure), but the Block III version with the dual IR could engage beyond the horizon and at ballistic range (150 to 160km). The S-300 missiles uses SAGG, while the S-300V might be active, hence possible to engage at ballistic ranges.

Its possible the FT-2000 might also have been intended as a ground to ground kind of ARM, making use of the 200km ballistic range.

On the radar note, since someone posted the brochure for the SJ-321---and it is suspected the HT-233 is close to it---is that the radar is a C-band (G/H). That makes this radar closer to the MPQ-53 used in the Patriot in the way it works and guides. The S-300 uses a two tiered radar system where one radar (the type actually has a number of choices like Tin Shell, Clam Shell and Big Bird) is an S band type (E/F) used for aerial volume search, and the other is a target tracker, missile guidance radar (30N6 Flap Lid) that is an X-band type (I/J). The MPQ-53 uses C band as an all in one unit that does both search, target acquisition and guidance, although the range of C band is not as good as S or L bands, but I guess, these C or X-band radars can obtain initial target tracks from outside S or L band radars and thus the range parameter is not as important.

Great work, Planeman!

Perhaps it would be wise, when mentioning the mobile anti satellite rocket system, to point out that it is unlikely it could be used against high orbiting satellites - like communications and GPS satellites, as those are considerably higher up in the sky. Delta 2 rockets, used to deliver them to such orbits, are far heavier than the mentioned ASAT rocket, even if we discount the satellite payload.

Do launching SAMs from fixed bases not defeat the purpose of mobile air defense?

For peace time, there are probably plenty of reasons to leave SAM systems in prepared locations, for example, reduced wear and tear, maintenance, and fuel costs. Of course, these systems will be moved during alert or war.

I missed the HQ-16. No such system has been confirmed but the ship-based version is believed to be fitted to the Type-054A frigates. Probably a close relative to the Russian SA-17 "Grizzly" system but vertical launched and possibly using the 9M317ME missile. The missile is about the same size as the HQ-9 but being hot-launched would have a shorter missile container. A truck with suspected HQ-16 tubes was photographed. A basic 8-wheel truck can comfortably mount 6 (3 wide by 2 high) of missiles so a TEL is likely to carry six missiles. The missiles are semi-active radar homing and would have a range of about 50km (similar to HQ-12).



Radar may be on-mount as per illustration.

Continue the good work!

That missile kind of looks like the 9M317ME for the Shtil VLS. Didn't we have a photo of the HHQ-16 test launch? The missile still kind of looks a bit more like the Shtil-1 9M317 which has the shortened trapezoidal mid body fins.

Also the photograph of the alleged HQ-16, this one from the CDF, looks like the bottom of the cannister is rounded.

As a matter of fact I suspect the HQ-9 also has a similar body configuration with mid body fins unlike the 48N6E.

Revising what I said. The picture of the HHQ-9 leaving the VLS tube didn't show any mid body fins.

Engineer said:

Do launching SAMs from fixed bases not defeat the purpose of mobile air defense?

Click to expand...

It's kind of like the visible missile silo clusters USA and Soviets use. If you don't show what you have, how can you deter your opponent?

In war time I can think of several ways to use these sites. One is to actually fight from them. They are optimally placed for operations, and the mobile vehicles, dual radars, various dazzlers and so on can put up a good fight against incoming threats. It serves as a way to bait the enemy into operating against expected targets, so the air force can plan battles around them.

The other is to use them as decoys and operate the real assets from hidden places. The enemy is forced to attack even a "silent" site knowing they could be decoys. This soaks up their strike sorties to protect the real assets.

In peace time you always need a base for your missile troops where they can live and practice. With such large pieces of equipment these deployments cannot be hidden anyway. This is true for China's strategic missile force as well. They use mobile missiles but they are based in fixed sites.

I would consider revamping again the HQ-9 performance. Even though its about 80% the length of the S-300 missile, it has a wider diameter, 700mm vs. 500mm on the first stage, and the second stage of the HQ-9 appears to be 560mm. That means whatever propellant is deducted from the length, its increased by the width.

No offense but I don't trust those stats, nor the fact it's two stages; those tend to go with the 9m estimate which is clearly wrong (although it may have origin in prototypes?).