PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

Iron Man said:

You don't know that they share either the same fuselage or the same motor. Also, a "verbal" statement is as good as no statement. In other words, nothing has changed.

Click to expand...

A new missile with a drastically different fuselage + motor would warrant a new designation, at least a departure from the "HQ-9" family. Make of the verbal claim what you will, but it's likely more accurate than the guesstimations people are doing on this forum.

Iron Man said:

You don't know that they share either the same fuselage or the same motor. Also, a "verbal" statement is as good as no statement. In other words, nothing has changed.

Click to expand...

A verbal statement was how we found out about the 14 tonne WS-10 variant.

SinoSoldier said:

According to Henri K., a PLAAF spokesperson at the 2016 Zhuhai Airshow verbally confirmed that the HQ-9B has a range of "over 200 km". Given that the baseline HQ-9 and HQ-9B share the same fuselage and likely motor, I doubt that there would be such a discrepancy between their ranges unless significant targeting/software upgrades were later implemented.

Click to expand...

The quality of solid fuel also a big factor of the range .. not the only one though. China has managed to improve solid fuel quality and technology in 2000s and 2010s

latenlazy said:

A verbal statement was how we found out about the 14 tonne WS-10 variant.

Click to expand...

A verbal statement which was subsequently backed up by more legitimate sources. In other words, it's not a verbal statement that gives a factoid legitimacy, it's photos, charts, and official proclamations. If all we ever hear about the range of the HHQ-9 is an alleged statement by Henri K about an alleged statement by some other person, nothing will ever come of it. And that's a fact.

Iron Man said:

A verbal statement which was subsequently backed up by more legitimate sources. In other words, it's not a verbal statement that gives a factoid legitimacy, it's photos, charts, and official proclamations. If all we ever hear about the range of the HHQ-9 is an alleged statement by Henri K about an alleged statement by some other person, nothing will ever come of it. And that's a fact.

Click to expand...

Do we consider Henri K legitimate?

antiterror13 said:

The quality of solid fuel also a big factor of the range .. not the only one though. China has managed to improve solid fuel quality and technology in 2000s and 2010s

Click to expand...

Also, a motor change on a new version of the SM-2 nearly doubled the range just by itself.

latenlazy said:

Do we consider Henri K legitimate?

Click to expand...

Pfft, of course not. His posts derive legitimacy from their sources, not from him.

latenlazy said:

Do we consider Henri K legitimate?

Click to expand...

He is very carefull in his posting and only draw conclusion from legitimate sources mostly provincial newspaper, statement, open technical paper, official TV announcement All this time he hardly use internet rumor When He does he always mention it

He is humble enought to ask for consultation when he does not understand a subject. He has very wide contact in French aerospace industry

Plus he worked in aerospace field and spent 8 years in China Yes I can consider him to be reliable
But he did make mistake when he speculate or giving his opinion
Every one does that But sofar his record is impeccable He is the one that first tell us the 8&9 testing of HGV which subsequently confirm by DOD official leak to Bill Gertz

Iron Man said:

Wikipedia says it is, but I suspect nobody on SDF has any real clue.

Click to expand...

According all last reports he is in service

Iron Man said:

His posts derive legitimacy from their sources, not from him.

Click to expand...

Also he have contacts in China now the job remains very difficult it is harsh !
Better specialists are in general Western especialy Franco-Russe a Master TOE, ORBAT and for all Services !!! and speaking excellent French in more

Guys ... I really don't get it; esp. @Tam... there are now almost 4 pages discussion on SAMs; HQ-9 and so on - which is NOT a "PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles" but purely a SAM ... so either back to topic or I clean up and delete the last four pages.

Deino