PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
The interview with the designer of FD2000 (foreign trade version hq-9) at the Zhuhai Air Show in 2014 clearly mentioned the top speed of Mach 6 or more.
Here's a translation of the link and the designer's interview:
FD2000 has several major features. First, the killing airspace is large. Its combat slant range is from 7 kilometers to 125 kilometers, and its combat altitude is from 25 meters to 27,000 meters. The second is the advanced guidance system, which determines that its multi-target capability is stronger than that of the Patriot and S300. FD2000 can deal with 8 batches of air targets at the same time, while Patriot and S300 can deal with up to 6 batches of targets at the same time. That is to say, the overall combat effectiveness of the FD2000 is improved compared to the Patriot and the S300. The third is advanced missile technology. The missile shown now is a 1:1 entity, normally stored in a launcher. The launch tube is fully sealed and filled with nitrogen, which can be maintenance-free for 10 years. The missile adopts vertical cold launch (the background of the launch tube can be seen completely touching the ground at the scene), after the launch tube can be turned according to the parameter settings, and the target can be attacked in all directions. And you can see that this missile uses a wingless layout, so it's very fast, can reach Mach 6 or more.
%8D%EF%BD%86%EF%BD%84%EF%BC%92%EF%BC%90%EF%BC%90%EF%BC%90%E9%98%B2%E7%A9%BA %E5%AF%BC%E5%BC%B9/
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if China has any plan to develop missiles similar in role to 9M96 and 9M96E2 for the HQ-9 platform, just like what Russia has claimed to do with S-400? Maybe an S-350 style system or directly replacing some/all the HQ-9 big missile tubes on the TEL with triple pack/quad pack?
It would also be interesting if the hypothetical project can be connected to the PLAN's "triple 5" quad pack SAM effort. It would surely make sense to derive a land-based version of the "Triple 5" SAM quad pack, integrate it with HQ-9, and get the increased flexibility and magazine capacity on 1 platform.
For reference, the picture below should be the experimental quad pack for S-400.
It would also be interesting if the hypothetical project can be connected to the PLAN's "triple 5" quad pack SAM effort. It would surely make sense to derive a land-based version of the "Triple 5" SAM quad pack, integrate it with HQ-9, and get the increased flexibility and magazine capacity on 1 platform.
For reference, the picture below should be the experimental quad pack for S-400.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if China has any plan to develop missiles similar in role to 9M96 and 9M96E2 for the HQ-9 platform, just like what Russia has claimed to do with S-400? Maybe an S-350 style system or directly replacing some/all the HQ-9 big missile tubes on the TEL with triple pack/quad pack?
It would also be interesting if the hypothetical project can be connected to the PLAN's "triple 5" quad pack SAM effort. It would surely make sense to derive a land-based version of the "Triple 5" SAM quad pack, integrate it with HQ-9, and get the increased flexibility and magazine capacity on 1 platform.
For reference, the picture below should be the experimental quad pack for S-400.
For land based SAMs, the necessity to place MR SAMs and LR SAMs on the same literal TEL is not the same as requiring a naval vessel to be able to conduct both MR air defense and LR air defense.
I think a land based version of the 3-5 SAM (or a similar weapon to it) is very sensible, but I don't see why it needs to be "quad packed" or mixed and matched with HQ-9s on the same TEL.
I think that would at least make the TEL procurement and maintenance more uniform across the board. Quad packed SAM is also useful to increase mission flexibility, especially if we refer to the 9M96 missile family.
If HQ-9 has quad packed Chinese version of the 9M96 missile family, now it can cover 200+km, 100+km, and 40~50km range with just one battery. I think it would be pretty tempting for PLA, let alone if it is approved for export. Cash-strapped buyers now can have a 3-in-1 combo for their money, with the option to greatly increase magazine capacity if they get the quad pack package.
Of course, PLA can also opt for the S-350 style of arrangement, allowing specialized 3-5 TEL to be integrated into the HQ-9 battery/ as a standalone, but I still think the increased flexibility of universal HQ-9 & 3-5 TEL is an advantage as it allows for less cluttered procurement, training, and maintenance.
Essentially, it's like the SAM version of modular MLRS. You get the missile you need for the specific mission profile, all using a common TEL chassis and launcher.
Seeking a common TEL or vehicle base is not unreasonable at first glance.
Everyone likes modularity, on paper.
But the HQ-9 TEL is sized to be able to hold HQ-9 sized missiles, and they are not small weapons -- nearly 7m long. A TEL for a given weapons system is chosen based on the length of the weapon as well as the total magazine size/total diameter.
A MR SAM like 3-5, will almost certainly be significantly shorter. ESSM is 3.64m long. I do not expect 3-5 to be significantly longer than 4m, let's even say 4.5m.
Seeking to adopt the same TEL for the weapons of two such different sizes means that your smaller weapon will be wasting space (in almost all cases -- length) on the TEL which inevitably has to be sized for the larger weapon.
And if you are wanting to even install multiple weapon sizes on the same TEL, then on top of the suboptimal use of space/length, you add even more complexity not only to logistics, but to the fire control and command/control for your SAMs as well.
Now, if you are a smaller military and you have a demand for LR SAMs and MR SAMs but the quantity of demand is relatively low, then going for a common TEL is fair. You can perhaps eat up the suboptimal use of inappropriately sized TELs, because you'll end up buying only a small number of them.
But we are talking about the PLA, and any demand for LR SAMs and MR SAMs is fairly large, and suboptimal TEL procurement will end up biting into their procurement costs and logistics difficulties.
I would also add that for land based air defense, in a given theater you would have a layered defense of LR SAMs and MR SAMs operating in conjunction with each other -- you do not literally need to have multiple different sized LR SAMs and MR SAMs on the same physical TEL to effectively conduct engagements against a variety of different targets.
The comparison with modular MLRS is inappropriate, because there are only a few types of "modular MLRS" that exist in the world, and the ones which are "modular" make sure that the missiles which can be changed out are of a similar length to each other so that the space on the vehicle is not wasted.
For example, M270 and HIMARS are both able to swap out a six pack of M26 227mm rockets for a single ATACMS -- however the ATACMS is of a similar length to the M26 227mm rocket but has a significantly larger diameter. That ensures the length of the vehicle is not wasted.
For the PLA, they have the PHL-16/PCL-181 MLRS which are able to accommodate the 370mm and 300mm rockets (8 of the former, 10 of the latter). This is also relatively sensible, because the 370mm and 300mm rockets are of similar length to each other.
However, you might note that the PLA has 122mm MLRS in service -- but note how they are not placed on vehicles equipped with 300mm rockets?
That's because the length difference between 122mm rockets and 300mm rockets are so large, that placing 122mm rockets on a vehicle intended to be capable to carry 300mm rockets, is a massive waste of space.
China has offered some vehicles for export which can carry 122mm rockets and other slightly larger systems on the same vehicle, and the difference in length and the waste of space is quite comical.... and this system below (SR5) is showing 122mm and 220mm rockets (the latter of which the PLA doesn't even have in service)! Imagine how a 122mm rocket load and a 300mm rocket module would look next to a 122mm rocket module.
It would be completely nonsensical.
=====
So in short, I understand the desire for having a modular system, but modularity always incurs some costs.
Sometimes the costs are worth it, or sufficiently low to warrant modularity.
But in the case of seeking a common TEL or a mix-match capability for the PLA's HQ-9 sized TELs for smaller SAMs -- no. The PLA is too large, and the difference in size between HQ-9 and proposed smaller SAMs like a land based 3-5 missile, would make sharing a TEL across the entire fleet too inefficient.
It would be better just to have dedicated vehicle classes for each category of SAM.
huh... I suppose that makes sense. PLA's large demand for each SAM category makes specialization more effective.Seeking a common TEL or vehicle base is not unreasonable at first glance.
Everyone likes modularity, on paper.
But the HQ-9 TEL is sized to be able to hold HQ-9 sized missiles, and they are not small weapons -- nearly 7m long. A TEL for a given weapons system is chosen based on the length of the weapon as well as the total magazine size/total diameter.
A MR SAM like 3-5, will almost certainly be significantly shorter. ESSM is 3.64m long. I do not expect 3-5 to be significantly longer than 4m, let's even say 4.5m.
Seeking to adopt the same TEL for the weapons of two such different sizes means that your smaller weapon will be wasting space (in almost all cases -- length) on the TEL which inevitably has to be sized for the larger weapon.
And if you are wanting to even install multiple weapon sizes on the same TEL, then on top of the suboptimal use of space/length, you add even more complexity not only to logistics, but to the fire control and command/control for your SAMs as well.
Now, if you are a smaller military and you have a demand for LR SAMs and MR SAMs but the quantity of demand is relatively low, then going for a common TEL is fair. You can perhaps eat up the suboptimal use of inappropriately sized TELs, because you'll end up buying only a small number of them.
But we are talking about the PLA, and any demand for LR SAMs and MR SAMs is fairly large, and suboptimal TEL procurement will end up biting into their procurement costs and logistics difficulties.
I would also add that for land based air defense, in a given theater you would have a layered defense of LR SAMs and MR SAMs operating in conjunction with each other -- you do not literally need to have multiple different sized LR SAMs and MR SAMs on the same physical TEL to effectively conduct engagements against a variety of different targets.
The comparison with modular MLRS is inappropriate, because there are only a few types of "modular MLRS" that exist in the world, and the ones which are "modular" make sure that the missiles which can be changed out are of a similar length to each other so that the space on the vehicle is not wasted.
For example, M270 and HIMARS are both able to swap out a six pack of M26 227mm rockets for a single ATACMS -- however the ATACMS is of a similar length to the M26 227mm rocket but has a significantly larger diameter. That ensures the length of the vehicle is not wasted.
For the PLA, they have the PHL-16/PCL-181 MLRS which are able to accommodate the 370mm and 300mm rockets (8 of the former, 10 of the latter). This is also relatively sensible, because the 370mm and 300mm rockets are of similar length to each other.
However, you might note that the PLA has 122mm MLRS in service -- but note how they are not placed on vehicles equipped with 300mm rockets?
That's because the length difference between 122mm rockets and 300mm rockets are so large, that placing 122mm rockets on a vehicle intended to be capable to carry 300mm rockets, is a massive waste of space.
China has offered some vehicles for export which can carry 122mm rockets and other slightly larger systems on the same vehicle, and the difference in length and the waste of space is quite comical.... and this system below (SR5) is showing 122mm and 220mm rockets (the latter of which the PLA doesn't even have in service)! Imagine how a 122mm rocket load and a 300mm rocket module would look next to a 122mm rocket module.
It would be completely nonsensical.
=====
So in short, I understand the desire for having a modular system, but modularity always incurs some costs.
Sometimes the costs are worth it, or sufficiently low to warrant modularity.
But in the case of seeking a common TEL or a mix-match capability for the PLA's HQ-9 sized TELs for smaller SAMs -- no. The PLA is too large, and the difference in size between HQ-9 and proposed smaller SAMs like a land based 3-5 missile, would make sharing a TEL across the entire fleet too inefficient.
It would be better just to have dedicated vehicle classes for each category of SAM.
How about for PLAN though? would it make sense to introduce the 9M96E2 class missile on quadpack to cover the big gap in range between HHQ-9 and the 3-5 missile? maybe the 3-5 missile with a detachable booster?
