China developing new generation of SAM

Yeah, they are useless against fast moving high-altitude aircraft.

But they have many other uses
- Effective against low-flying aircaft, especially helicopters
- Somewhat capable of TRYING to stop incoming missiles
- Dual use can be used against enemy surface units, especially smaller ones

It has seen a lot of use, especially against asymmetric threats, like pirates and poor countries that you want to invade.

Londo Molari said:

Yeah, they are useless against fast moving high-altitude aircraft.

But they have many other uses
- Effective against low-flying aircaft, especially helicopters
- Somewhat capable of TRYING to stop incoming missiles
- Dual use can be used against enemy surface units, especially smaller ones

It has seen a lot of use, especially against asymmetric threats, like pirates and poor countries that you want to invade.

Click to expand...

ZSU-23/4 is especially effective against low flyers like helicopters and UAV's. I wouldn't want to be an infantryman or someone in a light vehicle that stumbled on a ZSU-23/4 in the field either.
MANPADS are useless against aircraft flying more than 12,000 feet, and many cannot obtain a lock if the aircraft, say a helo, is below 40-50 feet agl, their reticle seekers unable to discriminate the target from ground heat at such low altitudes. The lazer guided missiles avoid this problem but are not fire and forget. Guns are useless against high flyers today so one must use medium or long range missiles against these targets.

It appears that the Chinese, drawing lessons from the Iraq wars and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, are using militia air defence units equipped with AA guns and MANPADS to defend vital targets in cities such as power plants, water treatment plants, TV and radio stations, bridges, transport junctions, bridges, hospitals etc. against LACM attacks, as the speed, altitude, and inability to perfrom evasive manouevres make LACM's perfect target for small calibre guns and MANPADS.

You know, I have read the entire discussion, too, and can we PLEASE get back to talking about "China developing new generation of SAM"?

The ONLY active topic in the army forum and we get something that is off topic and belongs in general discussion anyway.

Going to clean up the thread that does not involve "Chinese" & "SAM".

Pointblank said:

What a manufacturer's claims is irrelevant; we all know how grossly idealistic a manufacturer's claim is.

Click to expand...

I'm going to cite you later on this. So you better be consistent, and not arbitrarily pick who and who's claims is irrelevant. Either all are relevant or all are irrelevant, regardless of whose flag or nationality the claims came from.

King_Comm said:

It appears that the Chinese, drawing lessons from the Iraq wars and NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, are using militia air defence units equipped with AA guns and MANPADS to defend vital targets in cities such as power plants, water treatment plants, TV and radio stations, bridges, transport junctions, bridges, hospitals etc. against LACM attacks, as the speed, altitude, and inability to perfrom evasive manouevres make LACM's perfect target for small calibre guns and MANPADS.

Click to expand...

The Serbs used MANPADS against Nato UAV's, and pretty effectively too. They were useless against Nato strike aircraft, who simply stayed about 12,000 feet. Nato SEAD made Serbia's medium and high altitude air defenses ineffective. Only two Nato aircraft were shot down in the whole war. Nato aircraft could effectively bomb any target they chose from high altitude, tossing GBU's off from tens of miles away from the target then turning around to egress as the bomb fell towards it's target.
Oh, and how do you know LACM's cannot make evasive maneuvers? Are you absolutely sure?

That will be the last word on MANPADS. Leave it at that. Next word beyond get deleted, and beyond that a warning. If you all want to talk about MANPADS vs. cruise missiles go start a thread. I won't hesitate swinging the mod bat next time.

This I think is one of the most telling charts out there, it shows the shape and size of the SAMs in service with PLA.

Probably the most important part shown here is that HQ-9 is 6.51 m, whereas S-300PMU is 7.25 m and S-300PMU1 is 7.5 m. It should also be noted that HQ-12 is about the same size as HQ-9, but exactly height is not listed. HQ-2 series is in excess of 10 m. This shows how much Chinese missile technology have improved I guess.

this is an article that contains a section on HQ-17, I can't really read it that well, because the print is so small and the quality of picture is low.

Anyhow, basically says that they got a chassis for HQ-17. It took from 2000 to 2008 to develop, test and certify the chassis for HQ-17. It says the chassis is similar to the chassis for Tor M1.