@Gloire_bb I will respond to you in the 094 thread
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
This true?
Is Hsiung Feng really a wunderwaffe as they claim?
Is Hsiung Feng really a wunderwaffe as they claim?
It would be if only they'd stop sourcing critical parts from AliExpress.
Or send components to China for repairs.
The Hsiung Feng III is a weapon that has its own controversies:
Its not exactly the missile components that was needed to be shipped back to China for repairs. But the instruments for measuring its performance. Still, this means that TW relies quite heavily on the mainland for the QC of its HF-3 missiles. Not a very convenient fact for a wunderwaffe.
There was even a fatal accident involving the HF-3 in 2016:
The weapon was already 9 years in service when the accident happened. So if the ROCN can make such a massive mistake while inspecting the weapon, then imagine a real combat situation. There should be questions asked about the quality of the Navy personnel. A good weapon is not gonna be so good if the men using it are not competent enough.
The PLAN have been trained and armed against missiles more formidable than the HF-3. They are more than capable of dealing with that weapon. Just like the Brahmos, the PLAN should give the HF III its due respect, but to not overly fear it.
Well those mistakes are related to supply chain shenanigans and human errors not the quality of missiles themselves.
So does PLA have anti-missile systems to counter HF?
In terms of hard-kill missile defense, the PLAN have the: HHQ-9 LRSAM, HQ-10 SRSAM, the Type 1130 CIWS, and possibly more. The Type 1130 CIWS is quoted to be capable of intercepting missiles travelling at up to Mach 4. There are still also soft-kill missile defenses like EW, jamming, and chaffs. In short, the PLAN are not helpless against the HF-3.
The PLAN have trained and designed their missile defenses against faster-flying missiles like the Onyx, Brahmos, and S-N-22 Moskit. I would suspect that the PLAN had set a standard to intercept enemy incoming AshM with average terminal speeds of around Mach 2-3. So the HF-3, with its quoted Mach 2 terminal speed is well within the PLAN's capability to intercept.
Last edited:
its a high flying antiship cruise missile that can't even go Mach 2 at terminal. Its literally slower than and flies higher than a plane. Even J-7 can fly circles around it and shoot it down with gun alone. Just think for a second: how much of a threat can it be when it flies at 150+ meters and Mach 1.8, is round, and is 6 m long? That's the flight envelope of a 1960's fighter plane.
btw, some people might be thinking "but what about Russian Oniks and Kalibr! Its subsonic and even bigger! Checkmate see see pee shills!"
But wait. They fly at 10-20 m high and go terminal at Mach 3.
Radar horizon for a 20 m detector vs 20 m target is 37 km but 69 km vs. a 150 m target.
Kalibr and Oniks have half the detection distance with ground radars and double the speed. They give only 1/4 the response time. Yet even Ukraine can shoot a few down despite being stretched over a huge front covering half the country.
But wait. They fly at 10-20 m high and go terminal at Mach 3.
Radar horizon for a 20 m detector vs 20 m target is 37 km but 69 km vs. a 150 m target.
Kalibr and Oniks have half the detection distance with ground radars and double the speed. They give only 1/4 the response time. Yet even Ukraine can shoot a few down despite being stretched over a huge front covering half the country.
Sorry if it's straying from the main topic, but why it seems that having missiles fly at lower altitudes is harder to make than missiles flying at higher altitudes? Or why doesn't HF fly at lower altitudes then?
- Status