Source: Trust me bro.
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Source: Trust me bro.
My guess is the point of HQ-22 is cruise missile defense. Cruise missiles like the JASSM and Tomahawk are much easier targets than fighter jets for many reasons. They don't make any evasive maneuvers, are subsonic, have little-to-no ECM, don't drop decoys, etc... Thus if you need to defeat a lot of cruise missiles it makes sense to have a lower end long-range air defense system. An all HQ-9 approach would be wasteful at a national scale, especially in a country size of China.
All Chinese destroyers have combined L-band and S-band AESA radars. With missiles better than S-300.
Much the same technology is available in the land based HQ-9.
Russia claims to have intercepted Storm Shadow cruise missiles. So I doubt the same thing would not happen to LRASM when facing Chinese air defense systems.
Much the same technology is available in the land based HQ-9.
Russia claims to have intercepted Storm Shadow cruise missiles. So I doubt the same thing would not happen to LRASM when facing Chinese air defense systems.
Last edited:
Take all claims of interception with a pinch of salt. Both ways.
Nah, by now it should be the expectation that chinese SAMs like say the HQ-22 or HQ-9 can intercept missiles like LRASM.
Although numbers for chance of interception etc. we don't know, and this number isn't one that doesn't move (EW conditions, weather etc.)
The better question to ask is how many. As nature of cruise missiles, it is not a "silver bullet" but rather employed en-masse with or without aid of decoys, and EW.
The SAM's will also be constrained by terrain and firing doctrine, e.g not to fire when target is flying above city or populated area.
The SAM's will also be constrained by terrain and firing doctrine, e.g not to fire when target is flying above city or populated area.
Subsonic missile like LRASM can be intercepted by hq-17. But that is not how it works.
I was one of those who think HQ-9B would retain the old configurations namely PESA array. But this image changed my mind in instant. It's a legit AESA engagement Radar. So i stand corrected.
Notice the lack of Feed shroud on the back of the antenna cab. This was present on older HQ-9 engagement radar. Circled in red.
In place of the feed shroud there is a small cabin which i think the cooler which provide the air conditioning for the electronics and the TRM's inside antenna.
Some speculations i did, is the Radar would likely to have some 10000 TRM's but this is my assumption based on older HQ-9 which have Type-305 Early warning radar as organic part which signify that the radar is more specialized fire control radar. If it works as fire control, the antenna beamwidth must be about 1 Degrees, the number of TRM can then be determined as 10000 using simple equations one can find in "radar handbook 3rd edition" and the frequency is about 7 GHz the lower end of the C-band. The power can then be gleaned from the methods of cooling.
Oh and source, well i found this interesing Chinese channel which specifically talks about HQ-9B engagement radar.
Too bad i cant speak mandarin. Nonetheless the presenter of the show seems to work on some TRM's under the microscope.
Notice the lack of Feed shroud on the back of the antenna cab. This was present on older HQ-9 engagement radar. Circled in red.
In place of the feed shroud there is a small cabin which i think the cooler which provide the air conditioning for the electronics and the TRM's inside antenna.
Some speculations i did, is the Radar would likely to have some 10000 TRM's but this is my assumption based on older HQ-9 which have Type-305 Early warning radar as organic part which signify that the radar is more specialized fire control radar. If it works as fire control, the antenna beamwidth must be about 1 Degrees, the number of TRM can then be determined as 10000 using simple equations one can find in "radar handbook 3rd edition" and the frequency is about 7 GHz the lower end of the C-band. The power can then be gleaned from the methods of cooling.
Oh and source, well i found this interesing Chinese channel which specifically talks about HQ-9B engagement radar.
Too bad i cant speak mandarin. Nonetheless the presenter of the show seems to work on some TRM's under the microscope.
C-Band 10000 TRM is very significant, especially if it is GaN. That is 14 times the collection area, 10 times the power and 6 times the gain compared to a 5th gen fighter's radar. That is 5.3 times the range against targets of the same RCS. The tracking range against stealth aircraft should be over 120 km even head-on.