PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
This is becoming ridiculous. Now you speak of Brute force ?
extremely limited tactical disadvantages are not comparable to the advantage of fielding a better system. This is even more stupid when you know that you can literrally operate different missiles, not just large missiles.
Do you have the actual numbers of tests or is it just guessing ?
There are no points in comparing the HQ-16 and r-37. Two extremely different missiles with one air launched.
We are not speaking about the same thing. It was about heavy ABM systems, not the tactical ones.
LMAO yeah lets speak about the 2007 interception made with a modified DF-21. Hardly chinese, We have proof it is based on the US Pershing II and soviet 4K18. the biggest achievement the chineses have done is based on foreign technology
This is becoming ridiculous. Now you speak of Brute force ?
extremely limited tactical disadvantages are not comparable to the advantage of fielding a better system. This is even more stupid when you know that you can literrally operate different missiles, not just large missiles.
Do you have the actual numbers of tests or is it just guessing ?
There are no points in comparing the HQ-16 and r-37. Two extremely different missiles with one air launched.
We are not speaking about the same thing. It was about heavy ABM systems, not the tactical ones.
LMAO yeah lets speak about the 2007 interception made with a modified DF-21. Hardly chinese, We have proof it is based on the US Pershing II and soviet 4K18. the biggest achievement the chineses have done is based on foreign technology
Please tell us more about how the Chinese asat is based off US and Soviet technology. Ignore the details. Focus just on the fact that US and USSR both had BMD programs before China therefore all Chinese BMD must be based off those technologies. Avoid talking about how Russia has not yet demonstrated kinetic kill ability but it is far beyond China in BMD.
Where's your proof sc19 or dn3 is based off Pershing ii or 4k18? Using your reasoning, are those two also are based off earlier ballistic missiles. Both are v2s and the v2 itself is based off even earlier rockets... Which were Chinese. After all anything that came after another type is based off it according to you. USA and Soviet shared everything with China. Hahaha everyone knows how charitable those folks are.
The difficult part with BMD and asat is tracking and guidance technology. Even the kinetic kill warhead on the original sc19 was specially developed. The tracking and guidance makes Pershing and 4k18 look like antiques... Which they were when asat was conducted. But then again I suppose any and all ballistic missiles are the same to you.
Last edited:
Hyperwarp
Captain
***
LMAO yeah lets speak about the 2007 interception made with a modified DF-21. Hardly chinese, We have proof it is based on the US Pershing II and soviet 4K18. the biggest achievement the chineses have done is based on foreign technology
Huh? What does this 2007 test have to do with Pershing II or 4K18?
The guy's entire narrative is to bash China. There is no point in randomly saying "China's tech is all based on foreign tech". It wasn't provoked and it wasn't relevant to the previous on-topic discussion. He's just a bitter and hateful man. He doesn't like the fact that China possesses BMD and ASAT technologies so he calls SC-19 which is built from a modified DF-21 a "copy" of the Pershing II and 4K18 (shouldn't 4K18 or Pershing be a copy of the other then?). I'd like to see a Pershing II or 4K18/ R27 intercept a high LEO satellite all on its own without ground based radar. Oh wait I suppose China also copied American AND Soviet ground based tracking systems, along with all the software.
There are plenty of these types around. Very uncomfortable people these days. You can find them at your nearest whinge festival where their like minded kinds gather and spew ignorance, intolerance, and jerk each other off with their falsities and half-baked thoughts. Let them be. It pacifies their ego but reality denies all who are willingly misled and self-deluded. There's not much to worry about from these losers.
Let them carry on but the factual errors MUST be corrected in writing for the sake of truth. That being SC-19 is an ASAT weapon. ASAT involves far more components to work than a standard ballistic missile. DF-21 is an antiquated Chinese ICBM which was used to develop JL-1 China's first SLBM which is nearing retirement with newer SSBNs replacing those that carry JL-1. JL-3 has completed testing and JL-2 is the main SLBM in service. Russia's S-500 is still covered in secrecy. No details exist. Similarly HQ-26, HQ-29, and DN-3 are existing Chinese BMD/ASAT missiles. Few details exist for these also. Whoever can knock out a LEO satellite using a kinetic kill vehicle like China (unlike the Soviet's proximity fuse tactical nuke method) has the tools to create comprehensive BMD against smaller nuclear nations. It is a waste of resources building tens of thousands of BMD missiles and maintain those stocks just for the off-chance any major nuclear nation will go to nuclear war with another one. Especially considering delivery systems that supposedly can bypass these conventional BMD methods.
Last edited:
This is becoming ridiculous. Now you speak of Brute force ?
extremely limited tactical disadvantages are not comparable to the advantage of fielding a better system. This is even more stupid when you know that you can literrally operate different missiles, not just large missiles.
Do you have the actual numbers of tests or is it just guessing ?
There are no points in comparing the HQ-16 and r-37. Two extremely different missiles with one air launched.
We are not speaking about the same thing. It was about heavy ABM systems, not the tactical ones.
LMAO yeah lets speak about the 2007 interception made with a modified DF-21. Hardly chinese, We have proof it is based on the US Pershing II and soviet 4K18. the biggest achievement the chineses have done is based on foreign technology
Brute force? This is not about sending a vehicle to outer space. This is about an orbital interception in space over 850 km in altitude. This is a kinetic kill, which means the kill vehicle has to make physical contact to the target. The target is only 1.8 meters x 1.4 meters in size, with two bodies at a closing speed of 8 kilometers per second. Even today, that is an extreme level of precision. ASAT and ABM are two closely related issues, ASAT can be regarded as ABM in the next level.
In 2010, China conducted a midphase or exoatmospheric ballistic missile intercept. This made China only the second nation to conduct a successful exoatmospheric missile intercept.
- January 2007 ➝China launched a hit-to-kill vehicle from Xichang satellite launch centre in Sichuan.
- 11 January 2010 ➝China conducted a mid-course ballistic missile defence test by launching the SC-19 from near Korla.27
- January 2013 ➝China conducted its second mid-course BMD test. Like the January 2010 test, the event was announced by the Chinese who also noted that the “test is defensive in nature and targets no other country.”
- 13 May 2013 ➝DN-2 conducted a “high altitude science” mission. But the US said was designed to deal with satellites in medium to high earth orbits where GPS and communications satellites are placed.
- 23 July 2014 ➝The test was its third in four years. The it as a “non-destructive test” of an anti-satellite weapon. The Chinese spokesman, however, insisted that it was that of a land-based missile interceptor.
- 15 October 2015 ➝China tested a DN-3 vehicle for an ASAT test from Korla.
- 27 July 2017 ➝ the DN-3 was tested for the second time from the SSMC.
- 7 February 2018 ➝ the success of a third mid-course land based missile interception test, also conducted from Korla.
No point in comparing HQ-16 and R-37? I am comparing them from the size standpoint. R-37 is close to size of the HQ-16 at over 600 kg compared to the R-77 at 175kg. Meteor is only 190kg. The R-37 is so big, it even eclipses the AIM-54 Phoenix which is only at 470kg. The sheer size and weight of the R-37 means its a missile that cannot be used and deployed the same way as PL-15s can.
R-37 looks like it is simply a scaled up missile in every respect. Using this method to give it more range. PL-xx seen under J-16 in the past seems to use a different approach to achieve range. The PL doesn't look like it's got that much of an increase in diameter but the length accommodates more fuel/ two stage sections. The designers probably went with this approach to achieve less drag. The difficulty in choosing this design could have involved balance. I'm quite surprised at just how much heavier the R-37 is.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Any updates on the HQ-26, HQ-19, and HQ-2X systems, and whether they're still ongoing or not?
