HQ-26 aka Chinese THAAD. They were in testing/fielded in 2018,there was a video of the system launching a missile recently.
China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
- Status
There's been about 10 tests in just the last 5 years with several recorded by people living close enough to see contrails.
China's had various forms of ABM programs and systems since the 1960s similar to the US Nike programs and Soviet A series programs.
For a quick summary of China's early (long since scrapped and retired) ABM/BMD projects check out
As for recent ones, read through the thread on China's BMD in this forum (spread out over hundreds of pages,spanning years). There's dozens of videos and official announcements on successful tests either by China itself or by the US government (due to space and sea based observation of Chinese capabilities).
More modern Chinese ABM/BMD systems have the designation HQ-19, HQ-26, HQ-29. They have been mentioned since the mid 2000s. Some may have replaced others already but all ABM/BMD systems are kept secretive due to the nature of what they are.
Only this year did the Chinese military release a blurry launch footage of what could be a retired/replaced ABM/BMD missile performing a interception. One system retired, one replacing, one in development. What gets shown at this echelon of sensitivity would no doubt be the retired or retiring ABM/BMD platform.
Here's one the Chinese military have publicly shown in a grainy footage.
Here's yet another entirely different missile.
These would be two of the HQ-19, HQ-26, HQ-29 that have been mentioned by designation since 2000s.
By showing these now, nearly two decades after these names were leaked, my guess is what is going into service are replacing these systems.
After all, China had all these since the 1970s.
Intercepting ICBMs is child's play these days. China is practicing intercepting HGVs.
It should be mentioned though that while intercepting rudimentary ICBMs (India doesn't even have ICBMs, only stretched IRBMs as their highest energy ballistic missiles), is an easy task, it is not so easy to midcourse or terminal phase intercept ICBMs and/or their payloads if they are MaRV carrying types or even MIRV types because it requires the intercepting nation to spend several interceptor missiles per incoming ICBM. If you can intercept it midcourse using sea based interceptors, then you do not have to deal with the MIRV/MaRV problem but perhaps other penetration aids. This is considerably easier than intercepting terminal phase multiple MaRV being deployed by one single ICBM.
Even then it can be done by countries like the US and China which have been mass producing all sorts of ABM/BMD for decades. Intercepting Mach 10+ HGVs delivering nukes is next to impossible using existing/legacy interceptors such as THAAD, PAC3, SM-3 unless those interceptors happen to be positioned in the "perfect" position to perform a head on intercept.
India's Agni V is something 1990s China could deal with. Especially when the low double digit numbers of Agni V missiles are considered. The US DoD says that China launches more ballistic missiles for exercise and training every year than the rest of the world put together. If one watches and follows Chinese defence reporting, one can see dozens of ballistic missiles (usually SRBM and MRBM admittedly but nonetheless it shows production capability) fired every few weeks. China has launched more ballistic missiles in exercises and training this year than India has ballistic missiles of all kinds (all lower ranged except Agni V which itself is still no ICBM) in its entire inventory.
Even then it can be done by countries like the US and China which have been mass producing all sorts of ABM/BMD for decades. Intercepting Mach 10+ HGVs delivering nukes is next to impossible using existing/legacy interceptors such as THAAD, PAC3, SM-3 unless those interceptors happen to be positioned in the "perfect" position to perform a head on intercept.
India's Agni V is something 1990s China could deal with. Especially when the low double digit numbers of Agni V missiles are considered. The US DoD says that China launches more ballistic missiles for exercise and training every year than the rest of the world put together. If one watches and follows Chinese defence reporting, one can see dozens of ballistic missiles (usually SRBM and MRBM admittedly but nonetheless it shows production capability) fired every few weeks. China has launched more ballistic missiles in exercises and training this year than India has ballistic missiles of all kinds (all lower ranged except Agni V which itself is still no ICBM) in its entire inventory.
Nuclear situation does not matter. India is still sucking on 300 ish nukes. Not really an equal trade of 30 vs 300.. Just gets a lotta innocents killed over ego. Pro tip India will never be in the western club. Do you really think the eu and usa will ever see India as a peer? They do not even like turkey which is practically European . India is largely seen as an under developed country in the west, the only reason they occasionally play ball is Pakistan bs and as a meat shield against china . Now the smartest and hardest solution that is good for everyone is if pakistan china and india all sit down and hash out their issues peacefully . Is it really worth dying over a few miles of borders etc Is it worth continuing the religious conflicts? That shit saps economic development and turns it into bullets and corpses both of which is building nothing for the future.
Agni V (India's latest and greatest ballistic missile) has a reported range of 7000km to 8000km (estimated). This is DF-31 range, not DF-31A or DF-31B/AG range which is well above 10,000km. Intercontinental should mean, intercontinental. DF-41, DF-5A/B etc these are proper intercontinental ranged missiles. But India considers Agni V its primary nuclear deterrence against China which is a bit of a strange thing because both nations have a no first use policy, therefore the concept of nuclear deterrence against the other simply doesn't make sense. What it is is deterrence against overwhelming conventional war resulting in existential threat to either. In such cases, there are no legitimate no first use policies that can be expected to remain without reform.
In some sort of nuclear exchange between the two for whatever failures of preventing that, India could launch about 50 warheads towards China using one or two dozen missiles that have the range to reach eastern China. China has now around 1000 warheads and estimated to have upwards of 2000 warheads by 2030. Thousands of SRBM, MRBM to IRBM and hundreds of ICBMs. SRBMs and MRBMs fired from Tibet can hit critical Indian targets whereas Indian missiles have to fly past Tibet to reach meaningful targets. China wouldn't need to spare a single ICBM to cover all of India.
Now comes the interceptors. China has thousands of land based (since no sea based are going to take part) midcourse and terminal phase interceptors - HQ-19, HQ-26, HQ-29, HQ-16 series, HQ-9 series, HQ-22, S-300 PMU series, S-400, HQ-17 series, and HQ-7 series. India has S-400, Akash, Akash NG, Spyder, and in time when they finish developing it also their QR-SAM and the two other SHORADs. For every AD missile India has, China has 30 if not more. India trains and exercises (firing off missiles) a few times per year and makes a big fuss about it every single time it tests just one of their in development SAMs. China fires dozens every week in training and exercises that even videos and pics make it to english based internet every few weeks. Plus the manufacturing capability of the two are simply not comparable. In the time it took India to launch 7 rockets for space programs, China does over 40. In the time it takes India to make 2 Vish class destroyers and 8 Kolkatas, China has made nearly 20 Type 052D and Type 055 + two carriers and over 20 Type 054A (over 20 times the tonnage). Comparing the missiles would show a further gap. Akash is something considered outdated by 1980s USSR standards. Akash NG is no HQ-22 or HQ-16. S-400 both have. India's SAM series are mostly SHORAD to HQ-16 ranged or HQ-22 ranged at most. The Indians have no domestic equivalents in service to ABM/BMD missiles and HQ-9.
China has many space based early warning in several different orbit types and spanning two full generations now. India has zero. Radars is an even bigger gap and anyone who's read through China's arsenal and developments over the last two decades understand the absolute chasm of difference there is between the two in EW and sensor technology. Bhakts will claim supremacy like usual with a few photos not realising for every type and generation they've finally put into prototype phase, China's done 10 and made hundreds over three generations. The difference between electronic and computing technology between the two is about as great as that between 1960 China and 2000 Japan. India essentially has nothing more than some token facade of being able to supply some relatively limited electronic equipment to its military.
Furthermore, China has tested and made xx megaton yield nukes and capable of making pretty much any yield thermonuclear weapon. India has tried to make a thermonuclear weapon in the past and during its test, it likely failed. Never has India tested thermonuclear weapon in the megaton yield range. Not even close. Their supposed thermonuclear test was still aiming at a xxx kiloton blast and they have never tested another device after that due to international agreements to stop detonations. By that point, US, China, Russia, France, and UK have all done enough thermonuclear tests to build good models on... plus they already have thermonuclear weapons. India never got to that threshold and without the models to develop on, it is doubtful they can produce similar yield levels for their weapons. After all, it is one of the poorest (and remain till this day) nations on earth and its priority then was deterrence (achieved) against neighbouring nuclear powers.
We often see internet indians celebrate their puny nuclear strength as if they desire to target China. Go to any youtube video of Agni V and they talk as if they have the ability to hurt China without being absolutely annihilated in return. For every little scratch India can impart on China in terms of nuclear war, China can atomise every inch of India and have enough left for a credible nuclear deterrence.
In some sort of nuclear exchange between the two for whatever failures of preventing that, India could launch about 50 warheads towards China using one or two dozen missiles that have the range to reach eastern China. China has now around 1000 warheads and estimated to have upwards of 2000 warheads by 2030. Thousands of SRBM, MRBM to IRBM and hundreds of ICBMs. SRBMs and MRBMs fired from Tibet can hit critical Indian targets whereas Indian missiles have to fly past Tibet to reach meaningful targets. China wouldn't need to spare a single ICBM to cover all of India.
Now comes the interceptors. China has thousands of land based (since no sea based are going to take part) midcourse and terminal phase interceptors - HQ-19, HQ-26, HQ-29, HQ-16 series, HQ-9 series, HQ-22, S-300 PMU series, S-400, HQ-17 series, and HQ-7 series. India has S-400, Akash, Akash NG, Spyder, and in time when they finish developing it also their QR-SAM and the two other SHORADs. For every AD missile India has, China has 30 if not more. India trains and exercises (firing off missiles) a few times per year and makes a big fuss about it every single time it tests just one of their in development SAMs. China fires dozens every week in training and exercises that even videos and pics make it to english based internet every few weeks. Plus the manufacturing capability of the two are simply not comparable. In the time it took India to launch 7 rockets for space programs, China does over 40. In the time it takes India to make 2 Vish class destroyers and 8 Kolkatas, China has made nearly 20 Type 052D and Type 055 + two carriers and over 20 Type 054A (over 20 times the tonnage). Comparing the missiles would show a further gap. Akash is something considered outdated by 1980s USSR standards. Akash NG is no HQ-22 or HQ-16. S-400 both have. India's SAM series are mostly SHORAD to HQ-16 ranged or HQ-22 ranged at most. The Indians have no domestic equivalents in service to ABM/BMD missiles and HQ-9.
China has many space based early warning in several different orbit types and spanning two full generations now. India has zero. Radars is an even bigger gap and anyone who's read through China's arsenal and developments over the last two decades understand the absolute chasm of difference there is between the two in EW and sensor technology. Bhakts will claim supremacy like usual with a few photos not realising for every type and generation they've finally put into prototype phase, China's done 10 and made hundreds over three generations. The difference between electronic and computing technology between the two is about as great as that between 1960 China and 2000 Japan. India essentially has nothing more than some token facade of being able to supply some relatively limited electronic equipment to its military.
Furthermore, China has tested and made xx megaton yield nukes and capable of making pretty much any yield thermonuclear weapon. India has tried to make a thermonuclear weapon in the past and during its test, it likely failed. Never has India tested thermonuclear weapon in the megaton yield range. Not even close. Their supposed thermonuclear test was still aiming at a xxx kiloton blast and they have never tested another device after that due to international agreements to stop detonations. By that point, US, China, Russia, France, and UK have all done enough thermonuclear tests to build good models on... plus they already have thermonuclear weapons. India never got to that threshold and without the models to develop on, it is doubtful they can produce similar yield levels for their weapons. After all, it is one of the poorest (and remain till this day) nations on earth and its priority then was deterrence (achieved) against neighbouring nuclear powers.
We often see internet indians celebrate their puny nuclear strength as if they desire to target China. Go to any youtube video of Agni V and they talk as if they have the ability to hurt China without being absolutely annihilated in return. For every little scratch India can impart on China in terms of nuclear war, China can atomise every inch of India and have enough left for a credible nuclear deterrence.
Last edited:
The question itself in the article is mindboggling because a commissar within a formation is him/herself also a soldier/officer, with the appropriate education for their rank.
For every situation where the other officer is more skilled than a commissar that overrides them, it is equally likely that a more skilled commissar overrides a less skilled regular officer. Besides, these people are not meant to be at eachothers' throats, they're part of the same formation and fight together.
The biggest advantage and the role of political officer is to ensure separation of power when it comes to policing the army. Because there is a parallel hierarchy, if a PLA unit commits atrocities, the political officer which can in theory not be silenced by military men can ensure that the unit is brought to justice. In the past you can see how effective the system is, because the PLA have never been implicated in any significant sized war crimes.
Also the idea that commanders/soldiers will always fall back to listening to the specific political commissar at that level instead of anyone else is equally bizarre.
If things work as usual, PLA practices warfare based on networked platforms. There is not one lone person you would always fall back to. Depending on the mission, the type of hardware and intel available, soldiers would adapt to the situation as they go, using their ability to link with other platforms to call for support, which would then be evaluated by the HQ.
Now assuming that for some reason the communication holding the wider network is destroyed (which is not likely, because even in Korea using primitive radio per squad, this was not a major problem), then that might indeed be a weakness of the PLA but it would also be bizarre to assume they all immediately start looking towards the political guy. Most likely they would just look at the most experienced officer to lead them using old school tactics until wider comms can be restored or the unit can flee. Which may be a political officer or not, does it matter?
That said, one of the reasons the political commissar was effective in past wars was that the troops themselves were generally idealistic and they had wide ideological support.
In the modern era, PLA soldiers are way more apolitical, seeing themselves as a professional defensive front rather than spreaders of the communist ideology. The officer can only act as a power separator if there is support among the ranks. Otherwise they can be forced by the rest to cover it up like any other officer.
So if you ask me if they can prevent a war crime for example during a campaign where China is counter invading into other countries after repulsing their attack, I don't think they can. Not to the same extent they could do during the Mao or Deng era.
But on the other hand, the troops of Mao and Deng era also had a lot more reason to practice war crimes, because they were way more poor, most of them lived during era where war crimes were common and normal, a lot of them would have had undiagnosed PTSD.
In modern times the most accurate picture of political officers is probably that of being extra manpower which is generally well educated and help fill out NCO positions. They're not gonna work the same as it worked during the Vietnam or Korea wars.
In the modern era, PLA soldiers are way more apolitical, seeing themselves as a professional defensive front rather than spreaders of the communist ideology. The officer can only act as a power separator if there is support among the ranks. Otherwise they can be forced by the rest to cover it up like any other officer.
So if you ask me if they can prevent a war crime for example during a campaign where China is counter invading into other countries after repulsing their attack, I don't think they can. Not to the same extent they could do during the Mao or Deng era.
But on the other hand, the troops of Mao and Deng era also had a lot more reason to practice war crimes, because they were way more poor, most of them lived during era where war crimes were common and normal, a lot of them would have had undiagnosed PTSD.
In modern times the most accurate picture of political officers is probably that of being extra manpower which is generally well educated and help fill out NCO positions. They're not gonna work the same as it worked during the Vietnam or Korea wars.
The biggest mistake some PLA watchers make is equating the Chinese commissar system with that of the Soviet one. The Chinese system is born out of the Chinese Civil War and Second Sino-Japanese War where many lessons were learned in blood and appropriately incorporated.
It nominally does. It is highly that the HQ-19 is operational as of 2023. It has exo atmospheric capabilities. The fate of the HQ-26 is unknown and is purely speculative. There were also multiple tests in past involving exo-atmospheric interceptions of ballistic missiles.
But the essential problem with ballistic missile defense stands. It is extremely hard to achieve a good range against ballistic missiles. They are very fast thus they outrun interceptors in most engagement envelopes. They reach their targets before the interceptor reaches them. Thus you need an extremely large amount of systems to secure wide areas. Missiles as fast as the Agni-V are especially challenging. The best approach is simply having more firepower and protecting truly important facilities.
- Status