PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Tam said:
HQ-17/Tor-M1 is a masterpiece. There was an exercise where a Tor-M1 vehicle was placed on the helo deck of a frigate, possibly the Admiral Gorshkov. The exercise has antiship missiles fired towards the frigate. The Tor-M1 vehicle on the helo deck acquired the targets and popped them out of the sky. I am in a biased opinion that these two systems are the best SHORAD out there right now.

Let's say if you develop an HQ-10 for land use.

Let's simplify the system by deleting the two horns and the passive RF homer. For the weight of all that, you have deleted, let's trade it for an increase in warhead weight.

Unlike the HQ-17, the HQ-10 can't be launched off vertically. You have to launch it off from a slant on a back of a truck, like the HQ-6. It would probably work within the context of an HQ-6 battery. Another way is to mount the Type 730 CIWS on a truck, thus the CIWS supplies its own radar. The HQ-10 can be mounted along the sides of the CIWS, ala Kashtan style. So you have a unit that combines gun and missile.

View attachment 71379View attachment 71380
Click to expand...
The advantage of self-contained system (meaning radar integrated) is usually own processing power reducing latency and therefore improving reaction time, correct?

My observation is that PLA GF is moving away from these lightweight SAMs mounted with guns. We have seen a number of concepts LD-2000 with missiles, PGZ-07 in the factory with SAMs, but I don't think there are any operational photos with them. In addition, there are many export gun/missile combos, but very few operational ones (excluding the older Type-95).

Maybe they have the same conclusion as yourself and HQ-17's performance is simply superior to any of the lightweight SAMs and simply redundant.

I don't have any information on this front, but I imagine that the PGZ-07 and HQ-17 are integrated in a Skyshield/MANTIS type cooperative engagement system.

As an aside, what are the sensors on PGZ-07? (Search/Track/Fire Control)
 
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
HQ-17/Tor-M1 is a masterpiece. There was an exercise where a Tor-M1 vehicle was placed on the helo deck of a frigate, possibly the Admiral Gorshkov. The exercise has antiship missiles fired towards the frigate. The Tor-M1 vehicle on the helo deck acquired the targets and popped them out of the sky. I am in a biased opinion that these two systems are the best SHORAD out there right now.

Let's say if you develop an HQ-10 for land use.

Let's simplify the system by deleting the two horns and the passive RF homer. For the weight of all that, you have deleted, let's trade it for an increase in warhead weight.

Unlike the HQ-17, the HQ-10 can't be launched off vertically. You have to launch it off from a slant on a back of a truck, like the HQ-6. It would probably work within the context of an HQ-6 battery. Another way is to mount the Type 730 CIWS on a truck, thus the CIWS supplies its own radar. The HQ-10 can be mounted along the sides of the CIWS, ala Kashtan style. So you have a unit that combines gun and missile.

View attachment 71379View attachment 71380
Click to expand...
That's my biggest question, too. How come the Type 1130s on 055 and the carriers are equipped with HQ-10 or other missiles shown mounted on the prototypes here?
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
SpicySichuan said:
That's my biggest question, too. How come the Type 1130s on 055 and the carriers are equipped with HQ-10 or other missiles shown mounted on the prototypes here?
Click to expand...

Perhaps with the weight imposed by the missiles to the turret mount, the CIWS radar has to be mounted somewhere else. That's why the 730C does not have a radar mounted. The 730C prototypes are shown with the Type 347G radar mounted on the face of the superstructure. Its not only visually ugly but it breaks the RCS. The missiles added to the CIWS may also increase the RCS. Who knows, I am theorizing that these are the reasons. We know for a fact, from the photos, that the radar has to be on a different mount from the CIWS turret.

In theory, the X-band radars on the mast of the 055 can do the Type 347G radar's fire control job and manage the CIWS, but because the CIWS still mounted the 347Gs, the PLAN decided not to, to allow the mast mounted X-band radars to do something else.
 
O

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
SpicySichuan said:
That's my biggest question, too. How come the Type 1130s on 055 and the carriers are equipped with HQ-10 or other missiles shown mounted on the prototypes here?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Type 1130s are stand alone CIWS guns. They are not "equipped with HQ-10 or other missiles".

The Type 055 like Type 052D and C all use one Type 1130 (or Type 730 for older ships) and one HHQ-10. Both are independent of each other.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
ougoah said:
What are you talking about? Type 1130s are stand alone CIWS guns. They are not "equipped with HQ-10 or other missiles".

The Type 055 like Type 052D and C all use one Type 1130 (or Type 730 for older ships) and one HHQ-10. Both are independent of each other.
Click to expand...

I think he has a missed grammar. There should be a "not" before "are" and "equipped".
 
S

sndef888

Captain
Registered Member
Has China considered purchasing the S350 missiles that are being used in Russia's newest warships?

For a claimed range of 120km, it seems incredibly compact. One truck can launch up to 12 missiles while the Chinese medium range HQ-16 can only launch 6
 
S

SpicySichuan

Senior Member
Registered Member
sndef888 said:
Has China considered purchasing the S350 missiles that are being used in Russia's newest warships?

For a claimed range of 120km, it seems incredibly compact. One truck can launch up to 12 missiles while the Chinese medium range HQ-16 can only launch 6
Click to expand...
I think the 120km version is so technologically advanced (due to how compact it is; imagining a quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM with 120 km range instead of 50) that the Russian might be hesitant to share with China. China would simply reverse-engineer it, re-innovate based on it (like installing a more powerful active seeker or other sensors), and make them cheaply for both land and sea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top