PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

S

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
That small diameter missile looks close to early block of Korean KM-SAM. I'm curious why China didnt go 9M96 route by having canard control, and side thruster/impulse correction, while tail be left to be free to roll. This will expand the missile's altitude envelope, maneuverability and to maximize the size of the rocket motor that can be packed in (as things with electronics are all at front), and thus range.

The tail control is efficient for high AoA flight, tho the missile might be limited in altitude to some 20-30 km.
 
T

test1979

Junior Member
Registered Member
Stealthflanker said:
That small diameter missile looks close to early block of Korean KM-SAM. I'm curious why China didnt go 9M96 route by having canard control, and side thruster/impulse correction, while tail be left to be free to roll. This will expand the missile's altitude envelope, maneuverability and to maximize the size of the rocket motor that can be packed in (as things with electronics are all at front), and thus range.

The tail control is efficient for high AoA flight, tho the missile might be limited in altitude to some 20-30 km.
Click to expand...
The maximum speed of missiles with canard layout does not exceed Mach 3, such as 9M96, FM-3000N.
In contrast, the maximum speed of the HQ-9 series exceeds Mach 6. This is due to different customer needs.
 
S

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
test1979 said:
The maximum speed of missiles with canard layout does not exceed Mach 3, such as 9M96, FM-3000N.
In contrast, the maximum speed of the HQ-9 series exceeds Mach 6. This is due to different customer needs.
Click to expand...
Does that smaller diameter missiles have Mach 6 tho ?
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Stealthflanker said:
That small diameter missile looks close to early block of Korean KM-SAM. I'm curious why China didnt go 9M96 route by having canard control, and side thruster/impulse correction, while tail be left to be free to roll. This will expand the missile's altitude envelope, maneuverability and to maximize the size of the rocket motor that can be packed in (as things with electronics are all at front), and thus range.

The tail control is efficient for high AoA flight, tho the missile might be limited in altitude to some 20-30 km.
Click to expand...
I wrote on several places previously that China's AAMs and SAMs have been getting more featureless throughout the years. Look at the progression from HQ-16 to HQ-16FE, from PL-12 to PL-17, etc, etc. I think the reason is their trajectories are becoming more BM-like. AAMs and SAMs are fast enough that their free fall trajectories would be in hundreds of kilometers without any gliding. And since the 1980s, the trend was making them fly more and more like BMs.

The developments in the guidance made such trajectories more feasible. For example a beam rider can't loft itself much without leaving the beam but an active-radar guided missile has no such limitation. (Note for the other readers: This is why a lot of semi-active radar guided missiles had added inertial guidance and trajectory planning computers).

I believe newer Chinese missiles all fly very lofted and at very high speeds. If that is the case ditching away the aerodynamic surfaces to increase the top speed and decrease the drag would make a lot of sense.

Another note: I wonder if China's SAM and AAM programs have benefited from its ASBM research. Both involve very-high-speed missiles acquiring moving targets from the top on their own and then diving on them.
 
sequ

sequ

Major
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
I wrote on several places previously that China's AAMs and SAMs have been getting more featureless throughout the years. Look at the progression from HQ-16 to HQ-16FE, from PL-12 to PL-17, etc, etc. I think the reason is their trajectories are becoming more BM-like. AAMs and SAMs are fast enough that their free fall trajectories would be in hundreds of kilometers without any gliding. And since the 1980s, the trend was making them fly more and more like BMs.

The developments in the guidance made such trajectories more feasible. For example a beam rider can't loft itself much without leaving the beam but an active-radar guided missile has no such limitation. (Note for the other readers: This is why a lot of semi-active radar guided missiles had added inertial guidance and trajectory planning computers).

I believe newer Chinese missiles all fly very lofted and at very high speeds. If that is the case ditching away the aerodynamic surfaces to increase the top speed and decrease the drag would make a lot of sense.

Another note: I wonder if China's SAM and AAM programs have benefited from its ASBM research. Both involve very-high-speed missiles acquiring moving targets from the top on their own and then diving on them.
Click to expand...
Also added benefit of top diving missiles, better radar return from (V)LO targets from above than from the front, sides etc.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
The first time that the HQ-9B (right) and its thinner version (left) are seen launched one right after another at the same location. Posted by @BC_Xuanming on Twitter.

View attachment 134630
Click to expand...
by78 said:
A closer look at the HQ-9B/HQ-9X, the actual missile.

53943180136_e0e4e58aa7_k.jpg
53942279457_3289af86e4_k.jpg

53942279432_2e7f040ea5_k.jpg
Click to expand...

Apparently the thinner HQ-9B variant is called ADK-9C, or HQ-9C?

Posted by @科罗廖夫 on Weibo.

1000138219.jpg
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Was the adk designation used before for hq9 system missiles?
Is there enough evidence that the missiles of the hq9 sam system are indeed all called adk-9x, with x denoting various variants and models?

And would that suggest that actual missiles (not sam sytems) of another SAM, like for example hq-22, would then be called adk-22?
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Found some time to scale up the images and do some size estimates. Of course, it's all very rough stuff as image resolution is poor.
Also, basic akd-9b missile size is not known, so I had to estimate that as well.
Anyway, IF the akd-9b is 6.9 m long, (which is a figure I got from some of my previous missile to launcher comparisons) then its length to body diameter ratio of 13/14 to 1 suggests its body diameter is some 510mm.

and IF that is true, then this akd-9c should be around 6.05 meters long, with a body diameter being roughly 15/16 times smaller than the length - resulting in a 390mm body diameter. Give or take.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Totoro said:
Was the adk designation used before for hq9 system missiles?
Is there enough evidence that the missiles of the hq9 sam system are indeed all called adk-9x, with x denoting various variants and models?

And would that suggest that actual missiles (not sam sytems) of another SAM, like for example hq-22, would then be called adk-22?
Click to expand...

It's largely a method-of-naming carry-over from the AKD-98 missile seen at Zhuhai 2022, with the K = Air (空) and D = Ground (地), whlist KD = Air-to-ground (空对地 or 空地). No idea about the A, though.

Some gave that missile the designation of YJ-98, but this is likely not officially-endorsed.
 
sequ

sequ

Major
Registered Member
Totoro said:
Found some time to scale up the images and do some size estimates. Of course, it's all very rough stuff as image resolution is poor.
Also, basic akd-9b missile size is not known, so I had to estimate that as well.
Anyway, IF the akd-9b is 6.9 m long, (which is a figure I got from some of my previous missile to launcher comparisons) then its length to body diameter ratio of 13/14 to 1 suggests its body diameter is some 510mm.

and IF that is true, then this akd-9c should be around 6.05 meters long, with a body diameter being roughly 15/16 times smaller than the length - resulting in a 390mm body diameter. Give or take.
Click to expand...
L/D ratio seems to be in the 17-18 for the thin missile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top