PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
PAC-3 was claimed to shoot down 1 ballistic missile in Israel and we have video evidence of PAC-3 failing to shoot down Kinzhals in Kiev. then the US military lied about it not being destroyed.

Israel never owned a PAC-3 variant. I didn't see any articles on a US Patriot deployment to Israel either. The PAC-3 failing or not failing to destroy Kinzhals shouldn't be discussed in black and white terms. The rate and engagement geometry are important. The Russian failure to eliminate the single Patriot battery guarding Kiev is telling about this subject. The only documented Patriot battery elimination has happened in Eastern Ukraine.
 

totenchan

Junior Member
Registered Member
In terms of GPI, the bottleneck is not in the missile booster itself but rather there isn't a high performance DACS that can work within the atmosphere, so the interceptor can't close quarters with the glider reliably. You'd have to wait for the glider to get uncomfortably close (such as when its coming in during its terminal dive) to intercept it, which is not ideal.

View attachment 147418

You need extreme accuracy in the last few seconds of the intercept because at those speeds, 1s means you miss by a huge distance.
This is the device that does the pitch, yaw and roll control for SM-3 KV but it's only designed to work in space. It rely on cold-gas thrusters and solid divert systems optimized for vacuum. It's useless when fighting aerodynamic forces during atmospheric flight.

So the challenge is actually in very sophisticated, miniaturized, propulsion and sensor/targeting technologies.
The THAAD kill vehicle does work in the upper atmosphere, doesn't it? It has some special heat shielding for the seeker. The THAAD-ER was also nominally proposed for some HGV defense though we all know how that turned out. I agree that a big issue is targeting though, the US is basically funding a high fidelity space based IR imaging net because the radars they have for air defense aren't going to provide enough warning time.
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
The THAAD kill vehicle does work in the upper atmosphere, doesn't it? It has some special heat shielding for the seeker. The THAAD-ER was also nominally proposed for some HGV defense though we all know how that turned out. I agree that a big issue is targeting though, the US is basically funding a high fidelity space based IR imaging net because the radars they have for air defense aren't going to provide enough warning time.
The THAAD uses an IR sensor on the edge of the missile. That avoids the hottest part of the shock. And yes, it is usable in a substantial portion of the atmosphere. The illustration about the envelope is very probably inaccurate but it should be true on a conceptual level.

1741613628410.png

1741613888460.png
 

AndrewJ

New Member
Registered Member
I think that for a glide phase interceptor, something the size of an HQ-19 would be enough. The glide phase flight regime probably doesn't need quite as much energy as the big single tube thing provides, and the HQ-19 kill vehicle probably can operate both in and out of atmosphere if its anything similar to the THAAD.
My midcouse I mean "almost missile of the flight". So hundreds of kilometers of range against hypersonic gliders. It means such a missile system would require a lot of energy. Especially since it would have to make up for the drag, weight of the heat-resistant aeroshell, and the maneuvers. The HQ-19 wouldn't fit this.

Guancha Trios may disagree with you. In a podcast on 5th Nov 2024, they said:
HQ-19 is more of THAAD-ER, but larger and thicker to cover more range.
A typical intercept target, in HQ-19's early design requirements, is highly maneuverable craft in upper atmosphere. In early design stages around 2010s, it was referring to SR-72/Aurora. After confirming SR-72's non-existence, it's now perfectly compatible with AGM-183A, HCSW, or any possible hypersonic missiles (including HGV).
There has been mutliple intercept tests between HQ-19's manufacturer & Hypersonic missiles' manufacturer.

Full podcast video: (Watch from 1:16:50)
 
Last edited:

gpt

Junior Member
Registered Member
Guancha Trios may disagree with you. In a podcast on 5th Nov 2024, they said:


Full podcast video: (Watch from 1:16:50)

One thing I'll say is that in order to test interceptors you need target missiles and you have to actually simulate a realistic battle environment. PLA has a variety of operational systems that can be used. So the implication of the placard at Zhuhai'24 is that they have undergone this sort of testing. Of course we will never know unless officially revealed (which they won't).
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
Guancha Trios may disagree with you. In a podcast on 5th Nov 2024, they said:


Full podcast video: (Watch from 1:16:50)
By midcourse I mean something really long range. True area air defense against HGVs... Think of a system that could engage at a DF-17 aimed at something hundreds of kilometers away. If the HQ-19 achieves a good range against such munitions, that is a great thing anyway.
 

AndrewJ

New Member
Registered Member
Think of a system that could engage at a DF-17 aimed at something hundreds of kilometers away. If the HQ-19 achieves a good range against such munitions, that is a great thing anyway.

In another earlier podcast, they said PLAAF successfully intercepted PLARF's newly-equipped type of missile around 2020. The new missile is so challenging, which made PLAAF overjoyed. They tried to transport intercept debris to Beijing via Y-20, and to bring their PLAAF leaders a big surprise. However, this made PLARF feel humiliated and finally stopped them to do so.
Guancha Trios didn't mention "DF-17" or "DF-100" directly in either podcasts, but considering the two are the most challenging hypersonic missile types in PLARF, I strongly suspect PLAAF has intercepted the both two successfully before. The two types are also with different typical envelopes, one for HGV, another for HCM. They're perfect target missiles for HQ-19 & following HQ-2X series.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Btw, Guancha Trios really talked lots of "insider news", as if OPSEC didn't exist. :oops:
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
If the HQ-19 achieves a good range against such munitions, that is a great thing anyway.
Seems too small for that.
Itis not directly comparable to atmospheric missiles(drag matters), but still, effective footprint takes speed, speed takes engine, engine takes volume.
 
Top