Given HQ-19 is equivalent to THAAD-ER, so THAAD-ER is too small to intercept HGV?
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Given HQ-19 is equivalent to THAAD-ER, so THAAD-ER is too small to intercept HGV?
Manufacturer explicitly says it is rated to stop HGVs. They don't really have a motive to not be truthful on that.
Hq-19 is not really equivalent to THAAD-ER since the latter doesn't have anti HGV capability. It's probably better to just think of it as it's own thing, while it broadly belongs to the same group (exoatmospheric only interceptors) as Arrow 3, it is not more an Arrow 3 counterpart more than Meteor is a AIM-120 counterpart.
That is, the hq-19 is made to do some things that more traditional missiles in the same type class can't.
Speaking of which: IIRC, the Guancha Trio indicated that the HQ-19 can be seen (at least as some sort of) a THAAD-ER-equivalent.
The THAAD-ER, meanwhile, is indeed slated to be capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles (including HGVs). The booster stage is made much thicker than that of the base THAAD variant (530mm vs 340mm of diameter) for greater range, with the cost of only 5x missiles per TEL instead of 8x missiles per TEL.
Or, at least that's what Lockheed Martin had planned since the mid-2010s - And as of now, apparently the THAAD-ER still hasn't moved beyond PPT and exhibition model stages. In the meantime, China has successfully make into reality what the US hasn't been able to - And China managed to achieve that around 7 years ago.
But then, considering that the HQ-19 is indeed capable of intercepting HGVs per official news media - Perhaps the HQ-19 (or ite derivative variant(s)) is actually what the currently-WIP Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) is meant to be? I mean, I'd prefer that to be the case, but who knows?
Last edited:
Not every weapon system exhibited at Zhuhai is available for export, with the J-20 and Shenyang's Flankers being the most visible current examples of such, even if the majority of the systems and subsystems on display are exportable in some capacity.
However, in this case, was the HQ-19 publicly showcased for the first time in Zhuhai last year as an acknowledgement to the achievements of the Chinese military-industrial complex and/or otherwise purely as an exercise in political messaging, or was it also exhibited as a sales pitch to prospective customers, especially in the Middle East?
Considering recent Iranian missile strikes against Israel, the appearance of the HQ-19 at Zhuhai could have been a nod at renewed Saudi and Emirati interest in enhanced ABM capabilities. Even South Korea is reportedly their , even though their program is visibly less mature.
Not to say other prospective export customers aren't out there, especially considering the number of countries currently operating Chinese made IADS, but the HQ-19 also doesn't look particularly affordable.
The GPI program is newer and more tailored towards HGVs than the HQ-19 program, but assuming that the HQ-19 program is still iterating, there's a reasonable chance some evolutionary convergence will become visible at some point . . . or perhaps CASIC will just get to accuse Northrop of IP theft.
One thing about the GPI program is that it's intended to be AEGIS compatible, which means it'll almost certainly be launchable from Mk 41 cells.
With that said, the emergence of a HHQ-19 sounds plausible.
Last edited:
I strongly doubt they'll produce enough units to counter 5:1 let alone 1:1 PLARF systems given how expensive the SMs are already and GPI is a much more sophisticated technology.
Also, this is interesting. I listened to an interview with Tory Bruno, CEO of ULA, and one of the chief designers of THAAD, EKV, Trident and HTV-2. This may be tacit admission that the only way to stop PRC strategic gliders is space-based directed energy.
Relevant part starts at 35:30
Also, this is interesting. I listened to an interview with Tory Bruno, CEO of ULA, and one of the chief designers of THAAD, EKV, Trident and HTV-2. This may be tacit admission that the only way to stop PRC strategic gliders is space-based directed energy.
Relevant part starts at 35:30
by78
General
My speculation is the following.
HQ-19: THAAD-ER counterpart
HQ-26: naval SM-3 counterpart
DN-1/SC-19: GBI counterpart
DN-3: GBI counterpart
Another question is: how do we know that the below launch vehicle is of the HQ-29 or an ABM system at all? This could be anything and might not even be air-defense-related.
The HQ-29 has long been speculated to be terminal interceptor like the PAC-3MSE, so I don't know how the above vehicle - obviously a long-range high-altitude interceptor if it is one in the first place - got associated with that designation.
HQ-19: THAAD-ER counterpart
HQ-26: naval SM-3 counterpart
DN-1/SC-19: GBI counterpart
DN-3: GBI counterpart
Another question is: how do we know that the below launch vehicle is of the HQ-29 or an ABM system at all? This could be anything and might not even be air-defense-related.
The HQ-29 has long been speculated to be terminal interceptor like the PAC-3MSE, so I don't know how the above vehicle - obviously a long-range high-altitude interceptor if it is one in the first place - got associated with that designation.
by78
General
Which vehicle are you referring to? The empty one or the one in front of it (circled in red) that appears to carry two canisters?
Last edited:
The circled one.Which vehicle are you referring to? The empty one or the one in front of it (circled in red) that appears to carry two canisters?