PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
I just had a thought: can HQ-17/A be deployed on various landing ships and operate as an anti-cruise missile defense?
1647264506203.png

Consider:
  • Tor-M1, which the HQ-17 is based on, was designed from the onset to have the ability to intercept low flying cruise missiles
  • The Tor has a naval variant, the 3K95 Kinzhal, that equips the Kirov, Kuznetsov, and Udaloy class in the Russian navy
  • Russia has apparently develop a module system, the Tor-M2KM, that supposedly can be mounted anywhere
    • "In October 2016, it was loaded onto the helipad of the
      Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
      by means of an ordinary wharf crane and fixed in position with steel chains to fire at simulated cruise missiles while the ship was underway. This could give advanced SAM capabilities to vessels without the capacity to install the larger and heavier Kinzhal system"
  • In the PLAN, the Type 072A/072 III/072 II classes that make up the majority of landing vessels currently have no effective anti-missile defenses and solely rely on escorts
  • On land, the HQ-17 can fire while moving at a speed of 25km/h. This roughly matches the 15 knots speed of landing ships
  • The HQ-17, when deployed this way, can provide air defense during transit and, upon reaching the beachhead, immediately switch to providing air defense for ground troop simply by driving off the ship
  • At least
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    already operate HQ-17s
1647264614798.jpeg

I would like to ask: is there any reasons or technological barrier preventing this? It seems to me that this has no downsides and would instantly provide all PLAN landing vessels a highly capable point defense system at no extra cost.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
OppositeDay said:
Yet Chinese psyche had no problem surviving Mongolian independence. National identity is not something fixed. Very few people today consider Mongolians in Mongolia to be Chinese. I feel a lot of empathy toward Mongolians because of cultural bonds. They cook their baozi exactly the same way my family cook ours. I'm very glad that Chinese government is offering to help them with their severe environmental problems. But I don't consider them Chinese. The same could one-day be true for Taiwanese. New China has its founding myth in Mao and socialism. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that there could be millions of Han people who are not Chinese.

Also look at Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A lot of Russian soldiers on the battlefield come from its Eastern Military Region. North Asian Russians, Mongolic minorities, are fighting and dying for Putin's idea that ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians are one people. It's fine if they personally believe the cause, but really sad if they don't. I know a lot of minority Chinese online posters, Manchu, Korean, Miao, Uyghur, who are very pro military reunification. They are great patriots. But should we demand all Chinese minorities to make a collective sacrifice for taking Taiwan because Taiwan is majority Han and therefore hard to let go for us?

I guess I just don't believe the romance of the cause, and instead want to maximize national interests.
Click to expand...
Mongolian independence was given up by the ROC, not PRC. And there are already millions of Han ethnics who aren't Chinese - Singapore.

Taiwan is a legacy of imperial Japan. One of the terms of imperial Japan's surrender was giving up all overseas colonies. Taiwan has not been fully given up. It is a legacy of 150 years of Japanese imperialism and fascism.

Taiwanese aren't necessarily geographically bound to Taiwan. They can declare independence in Utah like the Mormons, form a government in exile like South Vietnamese did in California or Iranian monarchists in Paris, etc.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
I just had a thought: can HQ-17/A be deployed on various landing ships and operate as an anti-cruise missile defense?
View attachment 85210

Consider:
  • Tor-M1, which the HQ-17 is based on, was designed from the onset to have the ability to intercept low flying cruise missiles
  • The Tor has a naval variant, the 3K95 Kinzhal, that equips the Kirov, Kuznetsov, and Udaloy class in the Russian navy
  • Russia has apparently develop a module system, the Tor-M2KM, that supposedly can be mounted anywhere
    • "In October 2016, it was loaded onto the helipad of the
      Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
      by means of an ordinary wharf crane and fixed in position with steel chains to fire at simulated cruise missiles while the ship was underway. This could give advanced SAM capabilities to vessels without the capacity to install the larger and heavier Kinzhal system"
  • In the PLAN, the Type 072A/072 III/072 II classes that make up the majority of landing vessels currently have no effective anti-missile defenses and solely rely on escorts
  • On land, the HQ-17 can fire while moving at a speed of 25km/h. This roughly matches the 15 knots speed of landing ships
  • The HQ-17, when deployed this way, can provide air defense during transit and, upon reaching the beachhead, immediately switch to providing air defense for ground troop simply by driving off the ship
  • At least
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    already operate HQ-17s
View attachment 85212

I would like to ask: is there any reasons or technological barrier preventing this? It seems to me that this has no downsides and would instantly provide all PLAN landing vessels a highly capable point defense system at no extra cost.
Click to expand...
Takes up helicopter deck space and they just don't have the magazine depth needed in naval combat.

A HQ-17 truck only has 4 self defense missiles. Even a 054A has 32 VLS and 20 self defense missiles.
 
S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
I just had a thought: can HQ-17/A be deployed on various landing ships and operate as an anti-cruise missile defense?
View attachment 85210

Consider:
  • Tor-M1, which the HQ-17 is based on, was designed from the onset to have the ability to intercept low flying cruise missiles
  • The Tor has a naval variant, the 3K95 Kinzhal, that equips the Kirov, Kuznetsov, and Udaloy class in the Russian navy
  • Russia has apparently develop a module system, the Tor-M2KM, that supposedly can be mounted anywhere
    • "In October 2016, it was loaded onto the helipad of the
      Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
      by means of an ordinary wharf crane and fixed in position with steel chains to fire at simulated cruise missiles while the ship was underway. This could give advanced SAM capabilities to vessels without the capacity to install the larger and heavier Kinzhal system"
  • In the PLAN, the Type 072A/072 III/072 II classes that make up the majority of landing vessels currently have no effective anti-missile defenses and solely rely on escorts
  • On land, the HQ-17 can fire while moving at a speed of 25km/h. This roughly matches the 15 knots speed of landing ships
  • The HQ-17, when deployed this way, can provide air defense during transit and, upon reaching the beachhead, immediately switch to providing air defense for ground troop simply by driving off the ship
  • At least
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    already operate HQ-17s
View attachment 85212

I would like to ask: is there any reasons or technological barrier preventing this? It seems to me that this has no downsides and would instantly provide all PLAN landing vessels a highly capable point defense system at no extra cost.
Click to expand...
Going to sound not-so-nice, but you wrote such a long post for a stupid idea…

Don’t you think that PLAN would put on HQ-10, which is:
1. Already available
2. Purpose built for ships and not a weird hack
3. Serves the same purpose at almost the same range
 
J

Jason_

Junior Member
Registered Member
supersnoop said:
Going to sound not-so-nice, but you wrote such a long post for a stupid idea…

Don’t you think that PLAN would put on HQ-10, which is:
1. Already available
2. Purpose built for ships and not a weird hack
3. Serves the same purpose at almost the same range
Click to expand...
Except the PLAN did NOT put HQ-10 on these transports and do not appear to plan to do so. Systems like the the HQ-10 are expensive. The American seaRAM costs on the order of $20 million a piece. This is quite significant considering a new Type 072A is about $100M.
 
M

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
Except the PLAN did NOT put HQ-10 on these transports and do not appear to plan to do so. Systems like the the HQ-10 are expensive. The American seaRAM costs on the order of $20 million a piece. This is quite significant considering a new Type 072A is about $100M.
Click to expand...
I don't think the PLA is expecting those ships to be in danger basically (which is a very fair assesment, afterall a bombing/missile campaign to take out most of what Taiwan has would be done first).

Although outside forces could intervene and attack those ships, but PLAN ships should be all around the strait (and outside of it) so unlikely as well.
 
lcloo

lcloo

Captain
Jason_ said:
I just had a thought: can HQ-17/A be deployed on various landing ships and operate as an anti-cruise missile defense?
View attachment 85210

Consider:
  • Tor-M1, which the HQ-17 is based on, was designed from the onset to have the ability to intercept low flying cruise missiles
  • The Tor has a naval variant, the 3K95 Kinzhal, that equips the Kirov, Kuznetsov, and Udaloy class in the Russian navy
  • Russia has apparently develop a module system, the Tor-M2KM, that supposedly can be mounted anywhere
    • "In October 2016, it was loaded onto the helipad of the
      Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
      by means of an ordinary wharf crane and fixed in position with steel chains to fire at simulated cruise missiles while the ship was underway. This could give advanced SAM capabilities to vessels without the capacity to install the larger and heavier Kinzhal system"
  • In the PLAN, the Type 072A/072 III/072 II classes that make up the majority of landing vessels currently have no effective anti-missile defenses and solely rely on escorts
  • On land, the HQ-17 can fire while moving at a speed of 25km/h. This roughly matches the 15 knots speed of landing ships
  • The HQ-17, when deployed this way, can provide air defense during transit and, upon reaching the beachhead, immediately switch to providing air defense for ground troop simply by driving off the ship
  • At least
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    already operate HQ-17s
View attachment 85212

I would like to ask: is there any reasons or technological barrier preventing this? It seems to me that this has no downsides and would instantly provide all PLAN landing vessels a highly capable point defense system at no extra cost.
Click to expand...
Using a land mobile SAM system onboard a ship will have some problems.
1) Electronic-magnetic interference with the ship's sensor and communication system.
2) Superstructure of the ship will create blind angle, thus it will not be possible for the land mobile SAM to achieve a full 360 degree radar scan.
3) HQ-17 system probably cost mor than tens of million, it is actually not cost effective to put one on a landing ship like type 072 LST which are relatively cheap navy ship.
4) Air defense of the LST should be covered by short to med-range sea based SAM from escorting type 054A, as well as area air-defense HQ-9 from destroyers.
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
lcloo said:
Using a land mobile SAM system onboard a ship will have some problems.
1) Electronic-magnetic interference with the ship's sensor and communication system.
2) Superstructure of the ship will create blind angle, thus it will not be possible for the land mobile SAM to achieve a full 360 degree radar scan.
3) HQ-17 system probably cost mor than tens of million, it is actually not cost effective to put one on a landing ship like type 072 LST which are relatively cheap navy ship.
4) Air defense of the LST should be covered by short to med-range sea based SAM from escorting type 054A, as well as area air-defense HQ-9 from destroyers.
Click to expand...

The Teluk Bintuni LSTs cost $13 Million each and should be comparable to a Type-072 LST
The TOR-M1 is reportedly about $25 Million each, and should be comparable to a HQ-17.

If we use these figures, an HQ-17 would be twice the cost of a single Type-072

But if you are transporting HQ-17s across the Taiwan Strait anyway, they might as be on the deck and active if there is space.

EDIT. Perhaps Russia would like to buy back the TOR systems that China currently has?
 
Last edited:
S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
The Teluk Bintuni LSTs cost $13 Million each and should be comparable to a Type-072 LST
The TOR-M1 is reportedly about $25 Million each, and should be comparable to a HQ-17.

If we use these figures, an HQ-17 would be twice the cost of a single Type-072

But if you are transporting HQ-17s across the Taiwan Strait anyway, they might as be on the deck and active if there is space.

EDIT. Perhaps Russia would like to buy back the TOR systems that China currently has?
Click to expand...
The point is basically, if you are depending on HQ-17 launching on the ship, you're using it wrong

Plus, if it's expending the missiles firing at sea (if it were even feasible, the radar issues are a good point), then you would be left with an empty useless vehicle landing on the shore.

I heard that Tor can't be fired fully on the move, but on the SAM thread there are definitely videos of HQ-17 firing on the move. Wonder what the difference is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top