New Chinese Military Developments

Re: S-300PMU/HQ-9 guidance system..

challenge said:

according to the latest issue of defense international,when S-300 first seen by US spy satelite,,it was assume that her guidance missile like patriot SAM uses TVM guidance system,stolen from raytheon.
it was not until the in the mid -90's that west learn that S-300PMU utilized SSGG guidance system.
SSGG guidance is very similiar to the TVM guidance,while patriot signal processing was process in the groun then up link to the missile,SSGG guidance signal processing was done inside the missile then down link back to the ground station for further analysis then up link back to the missile.
it is assume that HQ-9 also adapt SSGG guidancemwhile KS-1 may use TVM guidance.

Click to expand...

HQ-9 cannot use SSGG guidance, Richard. There is no associated illuminator. 052C's main radar is S-band, which rules that system out for terminal guidance.

Re: S-300PMU/HQ-9 guidance system..

Wolverine said:

HQ-9 cannot use SSGG guidance, Richard. There is no associated illuminator. 052C's main radar is S-band, which rules that system out for terminal guidance.

Click to expand...

It's quite plausible that HQ-9 and HH-9 are using different guidance systems. They may very well share motor, missile structure and warhead, but have different guidance.

Re: S-300PMU/HQ-9 guidance system..

according to the russian, HQ-9 is copy of S-300 SAM, which lead to believe that HQ-9 adapted SSGG guidance (while KS-1 may have use TVM guidance)
TVM and SSGG guidance do not require illuminator.
according to DTM, Russian originally use TVM technique ,but found the guidance system has difficult trying to track low flying target.later switch to SSGG.

Re: S-300PMU/HQ-9 guidance system..

challenge said:

according to the russian, HQ-9 is copy of S-300 SAM, which lead to believe that HQ-9 adapted SSGG guidance (while KS-1 may have use TVM guidance)
TVM and SSGG guidance do not require illuminator.
according to DTM, Russian originally use TVM technique ,but found the guidance system has difficult trying to track low flying target.later switch to SSGG.

Click to expand...

TVM requires that the shipboard radar possess fire-control quality tracks. This is the same thing as saying that the shipboard radar is an illuminator. An S-band radar will not be able to achieve precision tracks due to its being S-band. This is the same problem faced by the US as by China, to go for longer range with S-band or higher precision with X-band. The solution for the original Aegis warships was to go with S-band. The current solution is to go with both with the DBR, S-band for long range volume search & low quality tracks, and X-band for horizon search, limited volume search, and high (fire control) quality target tracking/illumination. 052C's radar is almost certainly going to be S-band, meaning HHQ-9 is active terminal guidance.

Re: S-300PMU/HQ-9 guidance system..

Wasnt there some promotional brochure from the manufacturer of hq9, for the purpose of marketing their product at some african defense expo, where it was clearly said hq9 had active radar guidance?

LFC-16 or CY-1


according to the article,the jet already taken her maiden flight,but the picture appear look more like small model.

Re: LFC-16 or CY-1

Uhh regardless of how reliable this article is, what kind of jet exactly is it designed to be for? Export?
What kind of specs and such are given?

Re: LFC-16 or CY-1

Wow, I thought this project was abandoned. The LFC-16/CY-1 was a lightweight export fighter project was based on the J-7 but with a radical upgrade in performance. In otherwords it was very similar to the JJ-9 trainer. I thought this was abandoned though, I's be flabbergasted that there is an actual flying prototype of it! Not that I think its a bad fighter, a lot of early analysis but it on par with early F-16As and it would be incredibly inexpensive to purchase compared to contemporary fighter aircraft but like I said, I thought the project was abandoned.

Re: LFC-16 or CY-1

Oh so if it has flown, or is under development....
Why another export fighter? Hasn't China already got the JF-17 to sell as a relatively inexpensive good performance fighter aircraft? Why another?

Re: LFC-16 or CY-1

Bltizo said:

Oh so if it has flown, or is under development....
Why another export fighter? Hasn't China already got the JF-17 to sell as a relatively inexpensive good performance fighter aircraft? Why another?

Click to expand...

There are a number of niches for the LFC-16/CY-1 to fill. First off, the JF-17/FC-1 is still about $13-16 million dollars each. The cost of a new CY-1 conceivably would be lower than that. We have to remember that many Third World countries cant even afford the JF-17, yet they still have air defence needs, an example of this is that up until only a few years ago, Chengdu had no trouble finding buyers for F-7 (J-7) aircraft, even though they would not be considered all that capable anymore.

Also this gives AVIC flexibility. As many 60s and 70s era fighter aircraft fleets reach their end of service life its not unreasonable to see many small air forces attempt sweeping changes to their fleets, while at the same time, being restrained by budgetary concerns. An air force would be able to order both the JF-17 as their 'high' and the CY-1 as their 'low' aircraft.