"China continues to pursue acquisition of the Russian extremely longrange SA-X-21b (S-400) SAM system (400 km), and is also expected to continue research and development to extend the range of the domestic CSA-9 SAM to beyond 200 km" (p. 34). Not sure how long it would take before the PLAAF and PLAN start fielding HQ-9s with 200km+ range.
Russia sells S-400 systems to China
- Thread starter Dannhill
- Start date
Skywatcher
Captain
Thanks, that implies that the HQ-9 (aka CSA-9) already has a range of 200km.
I'd place 2017 or 2018 as for when we'll start seeing 250-300km range HQ-9 variants in operational service.
I'd place 2017 or 2018 as for when we'll start seeing 250-300km range HQ-9 variants in operational service.
Thunder...I worked on this system.
It is definitely billed and funded for the purpose of ballistic missile defense...and that is its principle duty.
But...trust me when I tell you... those kinetic hit-to-kill warheads can and will intercept other targets if necessary, and they have the contingencies and capabilities to do so.
Here's a hint...remember, the THAAD system can accept cues from other systems including AN/TPY-2, AEGIS, Satellites, and others. I will not go into any more detail...but they certainly can intercept other targets.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Thunder is right.. closest thing in the US arsenal would be the SM6 variants like the ERAM.
The Standard missiles have been the standard (no pun intended) AA missile in the Navy for a few decades. THAAD uses a kinetic energy hit 2 kill vehicle and not proximity fuse blast fragmentation like the S300/400.
THADD can certainly take down aircraft as well but that's not the primary purpose like Jeff said. S400 OTOH was designed to take down aircraft.
I agree that the system is going to effect how nations plan and react.
But the ROC can impact and degrade those systems and their effectiveness when operating at range targeting or intercepting aircraft over their island from the mainland.
My principle points still stands...it is HIGHLY unlikely, and would be folly, for the PRC to place these systems in a position to act like an offensive weapon and seek to control flight over other nation's sovereign air space.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
..which is why I personally don't think the PRC will be placing those long range SAMs (S400 or otherwise) along the coast directly facing Taiwan or on those reclaim islands.
Protecting major cities is understandable and since they are mobile can always be moved wherever they need to be in times of crises.
To statically place them in places where there isn't any now would cause additional unneccesary tension in the region especially when the threat of a major war is extremely low.
Sorry Kwaig...I worked on the system and THAAD, while billed and funded for the BMD mission, can and will be used whenever necessary to take down any airborne threat, aircraft, non-ballistic and ballistic missiles.
And THAAD is the only US land-based system that has the range and the capability to do so at significant range.
The original name for THAADS was "Theater High Altitude Air Defense System." It was designed with that role of Theater-wide air defense in mind. Later, after Clinton effectively canceled it and then Bush brought it bask, in order to more easily sell it, the name was changed to "Terminal High Altitude Air Defense System". They did this to push the BMD aspect of it and get it funded as such through Congress. but the inherent design remained.
Usually, THAADS will operate in conjunction with other systems...like PAC-2 and PAC-3..from both of which and others it can cue...but neither of them have the range THAAD has.
In terms of range and overall capability...it is as close to S-400 as anything we have.
All of the Standard missile family (outside of the BMD installations being planned in Europe and elsewhere) are, as you say, sea-based systems. They are effective against all manner of airborne targets.
S-400 was designed as a land-based system to be effective against all manner of air borne targets...and it uses three different missiles to do so. The Russians have also developed a version to place at sea.
PAC-2 is a land based system that has an overall capability against all manners of airborne targets, including ballistic missiles...but its range is far less than S-400.
So...comparing all of these is not exactly an apples to apples thing.
In the end, maximum range is one thing to consider...but "effective" range is the critical one. The US has gone to great pains and cost, to ensure a higher effective rate of intercept for its systems over extreme ranges.
In the end...that is what will count.
The S-400 does not have test history to date...and probably will never advertise their testing like the US does... to prove that it is both very effective and can do it at extreme range. Over the coming years, we will see whether it can do both.
The military ships and planes you mentioned will more likely serve, and more effectively so, as long range air defense for those islands than S-400's. I would expect point defense systems on those islands though, better than the old AA gun emplacements, perhaps some of the land-based gun and missile CIWS China has been touting for export.
I think you probably saw it in Buffler's guide to Fortress China.
They will no longer be outposts if China decides to develop those islands further for Tourism purpose and to generate income, then they need to be able to guarantee security.
=====================================
I'm actually wondering if they could integrate S-400 into the 052D/055 destroyer VLS. I think s-400 and s-300 shares the same dimensions (?) Maybe this would be one good reason for the recent deal? Can 052D/055 targeting capability utilise the range potential of the S-400?
And look, there may even be quad-packing options using 9M96E munitions with 40km range, which is in the same class as HQ-16 on the 045A frigates:
Last edited:
Zool
Junior Member
I don't know... I can surely see your point, but these systems are inherently defensive in nature and you want to station them in the area's they will provide maximum effect to your IADS. I would think the ideal positioning for batteries would be Beijing (it always receives one or two of the latest ADS), Tibet and then along the Chinese coast.
Remember China already has ADS's positioned in these area's and more to the point, it has offensive SSM systems there. I don't think S400 placement is any more of a threat gesture -- although forward deployed on the developing islands could more easily be seen that way.
Ultimately those in competition with China have, and will continue to, call any military development 'aggressive' and a 'threat to regional stability'. So China may as well deploy it's systems with operational effectiveness as their primary consideration, no?