China developing new generation of SAM

Bltizo said:

It's kinda ambiguous whether china simply invested in it or was part of the development process . Personally I hope it's the latter because that way it could use some of the S-400 technologies on upgrading HQ-9's or something.

Also, is it just me or does the S-400 TEL look less mobile than the S-300 series (and HQ-9?) It's now a trailer with the TEL behind it rather than a whole truck thing dedicated to launching missiles.. Would this effect the S-400's mobility?

Click to expand...

I hope that too (co-developing).

Seperately

You have too look hard to see if they are same launch tubes as S 400. Hope someone is able to definatively prove they are the same?

That's a lot of fancy stuff for a reserve anti-aircraft regiment. And it appears that Shanghai militia air defence are getting Pictures:




China seems to be taking this reserve air defence business very seriously.

Air defense for Expo 2010?

serious question: can aa guns, even upgraded ones, even hope to shoot down modern day planes/bombers flying at high altitudes?

PeoplesPoster said:

serious question: can aa guns, even upgraded ones, even hope to shoot down modern day planes/bombers flying at high altitudes?

Click to expand...

AA guns in modern warfare are designed to take down low flying aircraft or helicopters (slow moving), thats where they are effective.

No, their role is to form the lower layer of the AD network. Their main task is to destroy low flying airplanes, helicopters, and munitions.

Theoretically you could build an AA cannon with a very with caliber ammo (like 120mm, 152mm, 240mm) to go for long range and high flying targets. The problem is that any gun will be massive (and the system will get heavier once you add in the autoloading equipment, which you need if the heavy AAA is going to be worth anything) so it would probably weigh far more than its SAM counterpart. And then to increase effectiveness to an acceptable level, you'll probably have to install some form of guidance system.

Medium range SAMs like the Buk, HQ-16 and SLAMRAAM are far more cost effective and versatile.

Theoretically, could a self propelled howitzer platform be redesigned to use a high velocity 105mm (or whatever caliber) gun which would fire otherwise unpropelled laser guided rounds? It could be made effective up to certain altitudes, say 5-7 km. Granted, the whole price/effectivenes thing is questionable, as to this day we didn't even see that italian 76mm system accepted into proper service anyhwere, even though it's touted as a great ciws/AAA system.

Totoro said:

Theoretically, could a self propelled howitzer platform be redesigned to use a high velocity 105mm (or whatever caliber) gun which would fire otherwise unpropelled laser guided rounds? It could be made effective up to certain altitudes, say 5-7 km. Granted, the whole price/effectivenes thing is questionable, as to this day we didn't even see that italian 76mm system accepted into proper service anyhwere, even though it's touted as a great ciws/AAA system.

Click to expand...

The naval version of that Italian 76 mm gun turned out to be a thoroughly unreliable POS. The USN de-rated it to 90 rounds per minute ( from the advertised 120 rpm ) in a vain attempt to keep the thing together. It is a done deal now, replaced by the Bofors 57 mm gun, which is simply superb. 220 rounds per minute ( ! ), a range of around 15,000 meters and utterly reliable.
Back when navies used guns of 115 mm plus in caliber for anti-aircraft use, there was never any hope of scoring a direct hit on something reliably with a gun of that caliber, nor could the turret rotate fast enough to engage fast movers. These guns were used to put up flak in the path of incoming aircraft. The hope was one or more of these exploding shells, which put a lot of hot shrapnel in the air, would burst close enough to an enemy aircraft to pepper it with shrapnel and damage something. As aircraft speeds increased this became impossible, and you will notice the US Navy abandoned this technique completely. The old 5 inch/54 caliber Mk-42 mount pretended to be an anti-aircraft mount, requiring a 40 rpm rate of fire. To do this the gun had duplicate ammunition loader drums and ammo hoists, making for an achingly heavy 66 ton turret and the need for 11-20 ammo handlers below decks. This is the gun seen on Knox class frigates and Adams class destroyers among others. The current Mk-45 mount has only one loader drum and hoist, limiting the rate of fire to around 16-20 rpm ( 16 if the automatic fuse setter is used ) but at 24 tons this is the lightest 5 inch gun made. Also max elevation was reduced to 65 degrees vs 85 degrees for the Mk-42, eliminating the need for the previous gun's overhead cradle and loading tray. No need if the gun is not shooting at aircraft. The below decks crew is reduced to six. All of these guns can be fired without human intervention until the loader drum is depleted, then you need strong backs to lift shells and powder cases into their respective hoists and then to replenish the carousel for sustained operation. MTBF is rated at 100 hours.

PeoplesPoster said:

serious question: can aa guns, even upgraded ones, even hope to shoot down modern day planes/bombers flying at high altitudes?

Click to expand...

It's just one part of a multi-layered air defense network. MANPADS probably won't reach a high-flying bomber, but there's still a place for it on the battlefield.

If you look at current trends, AA is moving toward vehicle mounted CIWS, complimented by vehicle mount MANPADS, and eventually vehicle mounted VL-MRAAM conversions before direct energy weapons become technically feasible. IMO these vehicle mounted systems will be upgraded to intercept incoming munitions for self-defense. You might not reach that high flying bomber, but you can still send up missiles and lasers to shoot down the bombs.