PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
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...

I've always thought that the original HQ-9 missiles had a warhead (145+ kg) which was a lot larger than equivalents elsewhere eg.

Patriot PAC-2: 84kg
Barak 8: 60kg
Aster: 15kg
SM-2ER: 62kg
SM-6: 64kg

I think this is due to the HQ-9's heritage from the S-300, back when the USSR was significantly lagging in terms of terminal guidance electronics, so they made up for this with a larger warhead. Of course, this resulted in a bigger overall missile.

But a Chinese HQ-9 missile with modern electronics could cut the warhead size significantly, along with the rest of the missile weight.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
I've always thought that the original HQ-9 missiles had a warhead (145+ kg) which was a lot larger than equivalents elsewhere eg.

Patriot PAC-2: 84kg
Barak 8: 60kg
Aster: 15kg
SM-2ER: 62kg
SM-6: 64kg

I think this is due to the HQ-9's heritage from the S-300, back when the USSR was significantly lagging in terms of terminal guidance electronics, so they made up for this with a larger warhead. Of course, this resulted in a bigger overall missile.

But a Chinese HQ-9 missile with modern electronics could cut the warhead size significantly, along with the rest of the missile weight.
Click to expand...
Or they can keep the size and make it better.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Or they can keep the size and make it better.
Click to expand...

Then you get a very long range missile at a higher cost.

But the biggest problem with SAMs is that generally, they cost more than incoming cruise missiles.

So it's better to make smaller and cheaper versions of the HQ-9
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
There are already cheaper missiles for other sams to deal with enemy cruise missiles. Hq22, hq11, hq6, and even this new thin missile for hq9 - those are all layers of the defense system to engage enemy targets at different stages of their flight, all likely being cheaper than the big hq9b missile.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Totoro said:
There are already cheaper missiles for other sams to deal with enemy cruise missiles. Hq22, hq11, hq6, and even this new thin missile for hq9 - those are all layers of the defense system to engage enemy targets at different stages of their flight, all likely being cheaper than the big hq9b missile.
Click to expand...

Remember that you're going to have a HQ-9 complex. After the long range missiles have been used, the radars can still be useful for directing shorter range engagements with smaller missiles
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Then you get a very long range missile at a higher cost.

But the biggest problem with SAMs is that generally, they cost more than incoming cruise missiles.

So it's better to make smaller and cheaper versions of the HQ-9
Click to expand...
Step 1: complain weapon 1 does not do job of weapon 2.

Step 2: ruin weapon 1 by modifying it into a half assed weapon 2.

Step 3: complain weapon 1 does not do its original job very well.

This is how you arrive at failures of American weapon programs. Do not repeat that.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Step 1: complain weapon 1 does not do job of weapon 2.

Step 2: ruin weapon 1 by modifying it into a half assed weapon 2.

Step 3: complain weapon 1 does not do its original job very well.

This is how you arrive at failures of American weapon programs. Do not repeat that.
Click to expand...

Such a comparison does not not make sense.

The HQ-9A already exists and presumably works

However, given advancements in guidance electronics, presumably they can cut down on the size of the warhead. After all, everyone else is developing SAMs with much smaller warheads (including the Russians). That has a follow-on effect on how large the overall missile needs to be.

So having a HQ-9 battery with only very large SAMs is suboptimal, from the perspective of:

1. the cost of each missile
2. the number of missiles that can be carried

===

In addition, we see the HQ-16 with a warhead of 70kg, which is half the size of the original HQ-9.

===

So I don't see a smaller HQ-9B missile being half-assed. More like the warhead is now optimally sized, given advancements in technology
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Such a comparison does not not make sense.

The HQ-9A already exists and presumably works

However, given advancements in guidance electronics, presumably they can cut down on the size of the warhead. After all, everyone else is developing SAMs with much smaller warheads (including the Russians). That has a follow-on effect on how large the overall missile needs to be.

So having a HQ-9 battery with only very large SAMs is suboptimal, from the perspective of:

1. the cost of each missile
2. the number of missiles that can be carried

===

In addition, we see the HQ-16 with a warhead of 70kg, which is half the size of the original HQ-9.

===

So I don't see a smaller HQ-9B missile being half-assed. More like the warhead is now optimally sized, given advancements in technology
Click to expand...
I will humor you. If HQ-9 is so bad... Then don't use it. We already have HQ-16 like you said. Then trash the the HQ-9, use HQ-16 from now on. Even under your assumption it still makes no sense to modify.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
I will humor you. If HQ-9 is so bad... Then don't use it. We already have HQ-16 like you said. Then trash the the HQ-9, use HQ-16 from now on. Even under your assumption it still makes no sense to modify.
Click to expand...

Who said the HQ-9 is bad?

My statement is that the original HQ-9 warhead size is likely overkill these days.

And remember that a HQ-9 battery is supposed to have 192 missiles.

That seems like too many large missiles for a single engagement, and my guess is that it would benefit from some smaller (and cheaper) missile options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top