Chinese SAM

[tphuang]

I know there is a missile thread, but that's more of LACM and BM thread than SAM thread. Anyhow, I'm inspired by the sukhoi thread to post this:

Kuala Lumpur Tempur in English 01 Jan 03 pp 60, 61

Article by Prasun K. Sengupta: "China's KS-1A and FT-2000A air defence systems unveiled"


For a ground-based air defence system to be effective, it must be layered, redundant, robust and operate as an integrated battlespace air defence network. In recent years, countries have been acquiring new-generation, ground-based high- and medium-range air defence systems (HIMADS) that still leave a significant gap in the air defence envelope where 'leakers' can attack manoeuvre forces or vital assets by taking advantage of barrage electronic jamming tactics. Though current HIMADS systems are one of the best thought out and most capable mobile air defence systems yet to come out, they, are extremely expensive and are vulnerable to disruption from S- and C-Band airborne noise and deception jammers, used for the temporary suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) with lethal effect.

A novel solution to this operational handicap is the integration of ground-launched passive anti-radiation missiles (ARM) with the deployed HIMADS assets that will provide hardened air defence. Such ARMs must target and successfully neutralise airborne standoff jammers. Thus, in addition to homing on to radar frequencies, the ground-launched ARM must also incorporate a 'home-on-jam' capability, including the option to home on airborne or land-based jammers which try to disrupt the ever more important GPS navigation system (used by many of the latest precision-guided weapons). This allows the ARMs to be used in three different operational modes, known as Pre-Briefed (PB), Target Of Opportunity (TOO), and Self-Protect (SP). In PB mode, the long range (up to 100km) of ARMs like China's latest and unique surface-launched FT-2000A can be used to launch the missile on a lofted trajectory toward a known threat.

One such ARM is the FT-2000A, developed by the China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEQ. Its existence was first revealed in mid-1998. The ground-launched ARM can engage airborne jammer aircraft and airborne early warning and control (AEW & Q aircraft. The FT-2000A is transported by and launched from an 8 x 8 cross-country truck, which has four canisters. The launch vehicle is the WS-2400, made by the China Sanjiang Space Group. Its design was influenced by the MAZ series of Russian ballistic missile transporters. In 1997 China obtained those MAZ transporters that were produced in Belarus and formerly used by Soviet SS-20 IRBMs. The China Sanjiang Space Group notes that "it has introduced foreign capital and technology to establish joint ventures with some famous enterprises from ... Belarus". The WS-2400 also forms the basis of the family of transporters that will be used to make China's future DF-31 A and DF-41 land-mobile ICBMs.

An unknown number of the FT-200OAs have already been deployed by the People's Liberation Army's (PLA) air defence forces in Zhangzhou city in Fujian province, where the FT200OAs are co-located along with Russia-made AImazS-300PMU1 SAMs. Both SAM types were mobilised from areas surrounding Beijing to Zhangzhou and Fuzhou, also in Fujian, during major PLA manoeuvres in 1995-1996 and 2001. From the Zhangzhou base, the SAMs are capable of attacking aircraft above Taiwan's Penghu island group and from Fuzhou, they can reach Taiwan's western Hsinchu coast.

The FT-200OKs three-stage missile is derived from CPMIECs proven HQ-2.1 SAM design and is cold-launched. When the missile detects and locks on to the radar or jammer, it can home on the target autonomously at 1,200 metres/second while sustaining a 14 G overload. If the target radar or jammer has been switched off before any lock-on could be acquired, the missile self-destructs. In SP mode, a friendly combat aircrafts radar warning receiver is used to detect enemy emissions. The FT-200OKs Command Launch Computer (CLC) then decides which target to attack, transmits the data to the missile, and then launches the missile. TOO mode means that the seeker of the FT-2000A itself has detected a target, and the missile can be fired manually if the radar or jammer operating between 2 and 8GHZ bandwidth is identified as a threat. The FT-2000A missile has a built-in inertial navigation system, so that whenever it has acquired a lock-on, it will continue towards the target even if the emitter is shut down (although the CEP is larger in this case). When fired in a salvo of two missiles, the FT-2000A has a kill probability of 0.95. The FT-200OKs proximity fuze has an effective range of 35 metres, which goes active when the missile is 5km away from its target.

The FT-2000A has a slant range of 12km to 100km up to an altitude of 18km. It weighs 1,300kg at launch. For the detection and localisation of hostile radar emissions and jammers the FT-2000A makes use of four ground-based Electronic Support Measures (ESM) sensor posts, each of which is mounted on wheeled vehicles and can together track 50 targets simultaneously. The ESM sensor posts are deployed at a distance 30km from each other. The missile launchers are deployed near the central ESM sensor station at a distance of 150 metres. The FT-2000A can also be used in conjunction with surveillance and target acquisition radars of the 3-D non-phased-array type. CPMIEC is now developing an active phased-array radar will be used for fire-control of future variants of the FT2000A. [sentence as published] A complete FT-2000A Battalion consists of a Command Platoon and three Batteries, each equipped with one central ESM sensor station and three auxiliary ESM stations, two power supply vehicles, 12 mobile launchers equipped with missiles in three motorised vehicles (with four launchers each), and 12 transportation and loading vehicles. The FT-2000A can also be deployed as a stand-alone air defence system or deployed as part of another SAM system like CPMIECs KS-1 A medium-range SAM, or MBDA's Jernas E-SHORADS.

Future variants of the FT2000A will incorporate a GPS receivers to greatly increase hit accuracy when radar lock on is lost after emitter switch-off, because GPS guidance will keep the missile within a narrow box towards the last known emitter position. The operational benefits of a combination of the FT-2000A can thus be summarised as follows:

-- It can be integrated with existing E-SHORADS and HIMADS assets like the MBDA Jernas and CPMIEC's KS-1A.

-- It becomes a lethal force multiplier by extending the KS-1A's effective engagement envelope to a distance of 110km.

-- Its completely passive guidance mode and ground-launched capability enable it to successfully engage standoff airborne noise and deception jammers operating in the Cand S-Bands, which until now was impossible.

-- There are no known active or hard-kill countermeasures systems or techniques to the FT-2000A, with the only option being to shut down the radars and jammers that will severely degrade hostile offensive air warfare and SEAD operations.

-- It increases the redundancy of deployed E-SHORADS and HIMADS systems by offering a combination of semi-active and fully passive means of guiding the SAMs to their targets. Its 100% passive target detection and acquisition system can accurately measure the angle, bearing and range coordinates of hostile airborne targets and gives the enemy no early warning at all of an impending interception. Being housed in wheeled all-terrain vehicles, the entire FT-2000A system is highly mobile and can be easily transported and deployed on short notice.

The Kai Shan 1A HIMADS

The KS-11A, presently being offered by CPMIEC to Malaysia and Pakistan, includes a Brigade-level command and control system (BCC) that can handle automatic command and control of three subordinate KS-1A Regiments. In addition, the BCC can also simultaneously control three E-SHORADS launchers and up to 27 air defence artillery gun units. The BCC has two-way secure voice and data communications with the command and control centre at a higher level through a radio communications system. Through the BCC, a kill probability of not less than 90% of small-formation airborne targets (less than four aircraft whose airspeed is not greater than 700metres/second) can be achieved, and more than 90% when the target speed is not greater than 560 metres/second and the intruding airborne target density is not greater than four aircraft a minute. The BCC, including an Air Situation Display console and Tracking Display console, adopts customised BITE technologies, and has embedded simulated training software for engaging more than 100 airborne targets in various flight profiles, all of which can be used for operational training in peacetime.

The KS-1A's HT-233 3-D C band monopulse planar phased array radar, operating in the 300MHz bandwidth, has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. It can detect targets in azimuth (360 degrees) and elevation (0 to 65 degrees). Coupled to the BCC, it can track some 100 airborne targets and can simultaneously engage more than 50 targets. One KS-1A firing unit can simultaneously engage three targets with six semi-active missiles, and comprises 24 missiles, one HT-233 radar, three power supply vehicles, six wheeled dual-missile launcher vehicles, six missile transporter-loading vehicles, one tractor, one missile test vehicle, three missile transport vehicles, one electronics maintenance vehicle, two tools vehicles, and one power supply vehicle. The single-chamber dual thrust, solid-fuelled missile, weighing 886kg, can engage targets flying as low as 0.5km and as high as 25km, has a slant range of 7km to 50km and a maximum speed of 1,200 metres/second.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/15/191625.shtml

Confirmation of these claims came even earlier than the authors expected. Look at the following report.

New York-based Shijie Ribao (World Journal) newspaper, June 24, 2002, p.A7 – "China Serially Produces Hongqi-15 Missile [System] – the King of Air Defense" (with insignificant omissions):

(Information from the newspaper's correspondent in Hong Kong): China earlier imported from Russia the S-300 ADM system, which received the Chinese name Hongqi (HQ)-15. These systems are deployed mostly near the Taiwan Strait and turned into the factor of psychological pressure on Taiwanese military pilots. According to reliable sources, China has already started serial production of the HQ-15, which has become the "king weapon" of Chinese air defense.

Russia's "Military survey" (probably the authoritative "Independent Military Survey" weekly newspaper) recently published the following report: In 1992 China imported from Russia three systems (battalions) of S-300 PMU missile launchers and 144 missiles for them. Later (in 1992-93) seven more improved S-300 systems were imported.

Very rapidly, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) mastered these systems and began missile-launching training. After several training-maneuvers of this kind, in 1994, the PLA became satisfied [with the S-300's performance] and decided to import the production line for S-300 "guochanhua" (serial production from Chinese components).

According to reports available, presently China managed to increase the "guochanhua level" (share of Chinese components) up to 70 percent in the Chinese-made HQ-15 system, i.e., a copy of the S-300 PMU-1. These systems are capable of launching a missile every three seconds and of attacking six different targets at once; the response time of this system is as little as 15 seconds.

The reports of Rosoboronexport corp. (the Russian state-owned weapon export monopoly) indicate that China is producing a renovated variety of the S-300, with improved space characteristics and software; moreover, the modular principle of S-300 design allows the Chinese side to upgrade these systems significantly by substituting a small number of key components.

Presently, S-300 systems (both Russian-made and Chinese-made) deployed near the Taiwan Strait are engaged in tracking Taiwanese Mirage (Mirage-2000) fighters. According to the insiders' information, the introduction of S-300 systems greatly increases China's air defense safety.

After the Kosovo War, the PLA did its best to upgrade its air defense. PLA experts believe that if the Yugoslav army had had S-300 systems, it would have been capable of hitting U.S. military aircraft.

Presently, China and Russia are jointly developing several new ADM systems, particularly the HQ-16. Researchers on both sides jointly worked out the tactical-technological characteristics of this system and are moving ahead with its development.

(end of summary from Russian "military survey" and Shijie Ribao article)

The most evident conclusions

They are as follows:

1) China is now capable of annually producing at least 10 battalions of HQ-15 or S-300 PMU1 ADM systems or maybe an even greater number. Each battalion includes 12 mobile launching platforms with four mobile launchers on a single platform and is capable of launching 48 missiles simultaneously. It also includes several mobile platforms with radars and controlling devices.

Each battalion of this kind effectively protects an airspace inside a circle with about 120-km radius, with an altitude of up to 25 km. The cost of such a battalion, for the PLA, evidently has fallen to about $30 million, while the Russian export price for an S-300 battalion reaches $300 million.

The PLA will be capable, in 2002-2004, of obtaining several dozen HQ-15/S-300 battalions and, consequently, of protecting the entire highly developed eastern coastal zone (which produces up to 60 percent of China's GDP) plus the most important eastern regions of the country.

According to several unconfirmed reports, in 2001 the PLA acquired from Russia several Triumph S-400 ADM launchers, with a range up to 250 km. Evidently, it won't be very difficult for the Chinese side to upgrade the HQ-15/S-300 systems to the S-400 level ("by substituting a small number of key components"), thus greatly expanding the combat potential of the already constructed multi-level air defense network.

An item of particular importance: China is acquiring some components for HQ-15/S-300 systems through the "back door" – the same as components for J-11/SU-27 fighters – from Russian defense plants and army units. For example, at the end of 2001, some sophisticated parts of S-300 systems were stolen in Birobidzhan garrison (about 150 km east of Khabarovsk city), very close to the Chinese border.

So, if necessary, China will upgrade its HQ-15/S-300 systems or increase their production volume even without an official agreement with Moscow.

2) Now one can claim that, very probably, China – by mid-2002 – also started serial production of Tor-M1/HQ-17 systems – very effective mid-range, mid-altitude ADM systems, although their technological level doesn't surpass that of the HQ-15 systems.

Each company of these systems includes four mobile platforms with two missile launchers on a single platform plus an additional radar/command and control platform. How many such companies could the PLA obtain in 2002-2004? Probably hundreds, taking into account their comparatively low cost.

Mid-range, mid-altitude HQ-17 systems are supplementing long-range high-altitude HQ-15 systems and supporting them on the lower level. If an enemy's fighter or cruise missile escapes the HQ-15 missile, then – almost certainly – an HQ-17 missile will hit it.

As mentioned in an earlier article, the "super Tor-M1"/HQ-16 is under joint Chinese-Russian development, probably a rapid one. When this system's development is completed, it would be comparatively easy to upgrade HQ-17 systems in the PLA inventory up to the HQ-16 level. That's because the Tor-M1 design – just like the S-300 one – is based on a modular principle, so the change of a small number of key components will provide a high rise in combat capacity.

3) Finally, let's look to the grimmest part of the picture (after Sept. 11, there is no way to "hide one's head in the sand" and ignore unpleasant realities). In the case of "high-tech limited conflict" around Taiwan – and the PLA during the last several years has actively prepared specifically for this – the losses of U.S. tactical aviation (F-15, F-16, F-18 fighters) could be very high. This would be the result of joint actions of long-range HQ-15/S-300 ADM systems, mid-range HQ-17/Tor-M1 ADM systems and low range missile-artillery Feimeng/Tunguska systems etc.

[tphuang]

HQ-15
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/hq-15_china.html
The Hongqi-15 (HQ-15) is a long-range, high-altitude, upgraded version of the Russian-made S-300PMU-1 (SA-10D Grumble). Currently manufactured and deployed by China, the system is designed to detect, track, and destroy incoming ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and low-flying aircraft.

In 1992, China began negotiating with Russia for the purchase of a series of S-300PMU-1 missiles. At the time, the S-300PMU1 was the most advanced Russian surface-to-air missile in existence, the latest version in the S-300P lineage that dates back to the 1960s. Still in service today, the S-300PMU1 is armed with single-stage, solid-fuel propelled 48N6 missiles, and has the capability to shoot down tactical ballistic missiles in addition to cruise missiles and aircraft, at ranges of 5-150 kilometers and altitudes between 10-27,000 meters.(1)

The 1,900-kilogram missile carries a 143 kilogram high-explosive fragmentation warhead. A typical S-300PMU-1 battery contains 48 missiles on 12 mobile launchers. Each battery is capable of launching one 48N6 missile every three seconds. The missiles are guided by the 36N85 vehicle-mounted engagement radar, which is capable of detecting incoming ballistic missiles at 40 kilometers, and aircraft between 3 and 150 kilometers. The 36N85 can guide up to twelve 48N6 missiles, while simultaneously tracking up to six targets.(2)

In 1993, China bought “dozens” of S-300PMU-1 missiles, and quickly deployed them around Beijing.(3) China’s interest in the Russian missile stemmed from (1) its quest for “great power status” by way of military modernization and (2) the very real possibility of a high-tech conflict with Taiwan. Two years later, Russia gave China clearance to begin manufacturing its own S-300s under the nomenclature Hongqi-10 (HQ-10).(4)

In addition to the HQ-10, China developed and manufactured its own upgraded version of the S-300PMU-1 known as the Hongqi-15 (HQ-15). The HQ-15 is similar to the HQ-10 in most ways, the main difference being its longer range: while the HQ-10 can engage targets up to 150 kilometers away, the upgraded HQ-15 has a range of 200 kilometers.(5) This extended range makes the HQ-10 the “king weapon” of China’s air defense, and a key element of its ballistic missile defense. According to the Shijie Ribao newspaper, the HQ-15 is manufactured with approximately 70 percent Chinese-made parts, an indication of China’s decreasing reliance on Russian hardware.(6)

China is currently deploying the HQ-15 along its eastern coastal zone—a highly developed region which produces up to 60 percent of its gross domestic product—and around the most important military bases, industrial complexes, and population centers in its eastern regions.(7) The deployment of the HQ-15 near the Taiwan Strait—as well as the S-300PMU-1/HQ-10, the HQ-16, the HQ-17, and the HQ-18—is primarily intended to counter threats from Taiwan, in particular Mirage (Mirage-2000) fighters but also ballistic missiles.(8)

China might be attempting to upgrade the HQ-15 to the level of the Russian S-400 (SA-20 Triumf), a next-generation missile with a reported range of 400 kilometers, giving it increased capability against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles. Missile defense experts Alexandr Nemets and Thomas Torda suggest that China could achieve the S-400 upgrade merely “by substituting a small number of key components.”(9) The deployment of a Chinese S-400-like missile system would further expand China’s air and missile defenses, which are already quite robust.


FT-2000
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/ft-2000.html
In a report to Congress on May 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense highlighted the major improvements that China has made to its air and missile defense systems over the past few years, including “[the] development of an antiradiation SAM [surface-to-air missile], most likely intended to target AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control System] aircraft and standoff jamming platforms.”(1)

The report was referring specifically to the FT-2000, a Chinese anti-radiation surface-to-air missile system designed to counter electronic jamming aircraft, AWACS aircraft, and other air radiation wave targets. Developed and manufactured by the China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) during the late 1990s, the FT-2000 is also believed to be capable of destroying tactical ballistic missiles, similar to the U.S. Patriot and the Russian S-300P systems on which it is based.(2) At present, two versions exist, the mobile FT-2000 and the fixed-based FT-2000A.(3)

The FT-2000 is the direct result of a concerted effort by China to eliminate an inherent vulnerability in medium- and long-range surface-to-air missiles: jamming. For decades, air and missile defense systems like the Patriot and the S-300P have been susceptible to advanced techniques designed to confuse or immobile their interceptor missiles and keep them from reaching their targets. One of the most common jamming devices is S- and C-band airborne noise. If used properly, this and other deception mechanisms lead to what is known as the “suppression of enemy air defenses” and allows attacking aircraft and missiles to proceed to their targets without challenge.(4)

The FT-2000 was designed to neutralize and counter these airborne jamming devices. It contains a passive radar target seeker programmed to detect the specific electromagnetic signals emanating from its target. Essentially, the FT-2000 uses its target’s own jamming frequencies against it. In addition, the FT-2000 has a passive homing system that does not transmit electromagnetic waves, thus minimizing the chances that its enemies will detect it in time.(5) The system is equipped with modified HQ-9 interceptor missiles, each of which is 6.8 meters long, 0.47 meters in diameter, and has a launch weight of 1,300 kilograms. The HQ-9 missiles give the FT-2000 a range of 12 to 100 kilometers and an operating altitude of 3 to 20 kilometers. The mobile system is transported and launched on an 8 X 8 cross-country launcher with four canisters that resemble those used by the S-300P.(6)

In addition to the mobile FT-2000, China has developed a fixed-based variant, the FT-2000A. According to a recent Chinese sales brochure, the FT-2000A uses a highly-modified HQ-2 missile that has been equipped with passive radio frequency homing seekers. Each HQ-2 is armed with a 60-kilogram fragmentation warhead and has a range of 60 kilometers and a maximum altitude of 18 kilometers. Reports indicate that each FT-2000A battery consists of 12 missile launchers, each containing one missile, and a central control station. The central control station has one master passive sensor and three auxiliary passive sensors. The four sensors are capable of triangulating on electromagnetic signals in the 2- and 6-GHz frequency range, which covers most AWACS aircraft and other air radiation wave targets, thus earning it the nickname “AWACS killer.”(7)

In addition to its role as an anti-radiation missile system, the FT-2000 also has advanced capability against tactical ballistic missiles, although this point is seldom mentioned. As Richard D. Fisher, Jr. has pointed out, Chinese officials at the 1998 Zhuhai Air Show—shortly after plans for the FT-2000 had been unveiled—stated that the FT-2000 was being developed into an active-guided missile that eventually would have the ability to shoot down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.(8) Since the FT-2000 is based on comprehensive systems such as the U.S. Patriot and the S-300P, it is no surprise that it too has anti-missile capabilities.

In October 2003, it was reported that China had closed a deal with its neighbor, Pakistan, to supply the latter with an unspecified number of FT-2000 missiles to counter India’s early warning capabilities. The China-Pakistan deal followed India’s own arrangement with Israel and Russia to install three Israeli Phalcon AWACS on Ilyushin Il-76 freighter aircraft, thus giving it an airborne early warning system.(9) According to various news sources, shortly after India announced its acquisition of the Phalcon radars, Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat, the head of Pakistan’s air force, visited China and conveyed Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s wish to purchase an unspecified number of FT-2000s.(10)

The recent China-Pakistan arrangement may just be an attempt to maintain the delicate balance of power between India and Pakistan, both of which possess nuclear weapons. Yet according to an article published in Malaysia in January 2003, the People’s Liberation Army is eager to export the FT-2000 around the globe.(11) It is entirely possible that “AWACS killer” air and missile defense systems like the FT-2000 will soon proliferate throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, a development that would introduce a multitude of strategic problems for the U.S. and its allies.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/hq-9_china.html
HQ-9
The Hongqi-9 (HQ-9) is a long-range, high-altitude, surface-to-air missile system developed and manufactured by China, designed to track and destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles. It incorporates technology from the Russian S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble), the U.S. Patriot missile, and preexisting Chinese systems. (1) At present, China is outfitting its Type 052C destroyers with a naval variant of the HQ-9.(2)

China’s decision to develop and manufacture its own anti-missile system is a manifestation of its twenty-first century goal of achieving what political scientists refer to as “great power status”—the buildup of political, economic, and military strength. A key ingredient of “great power status” is military modernization, in China’s case the renovation of certain outdated aspects of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).(3) In particular, China has concentrated its recent efforts on boosting its offensive and defensive missile capabilities in order to compete with the U.S. and other Western powers.

Beijing’s specific emphasis on air and missile defense has its roots in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, during which China observed the complete supremacy of U.S. and Coalition air power in Iraq. The ability of the U.S. to decimate Iraq’s ground-based military with cruise missiles and smart bombs served to highlight China’s relative inability to defend its major cities, military assets, industrial complexes, and other high-value assets against such an attack. The development of China’s HQ-9 surface-to-air missile, therefore, is rooted in its observation and understanding of U.S. military power.(4)

Ironically, Beijing has ranked among the most vociferous opponents of U.S. missile defense, having denounced various U.S. initiatives during the Clinton administration, and more recently, the Bush administration’s decision in 2002 to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty.(5) Yet in recent years, China has followed a comprehensive two-track plan to bolster its own air and missile defenses: (1) the purchase of Russian surface-to-air missiles and (2) the development of its own missile defense systems.(6)

An example of this “redundant” acquisition and development program is China’s purchase of S-300P missiles from Russia, and the manufacturing of its own HQ-9 system.(7) The HQ-9, in particular, demonstrates China’s end goal of a comprehensive air and missile defense shield.(8) In a report to Congress on May 28, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense emphasized this very point:

Significant developments over the past few years to improve China’s integrated air defense system include . . . [the] development of a land-based version of the long-range HQ-9, to precede a naval version, designed to be a long-range counter to high-performance aircraft, cruise missiles, ASMs, and tactical ballistic missiles.(9)

It is important to note, however, that the HQ-9 has been in development since the mid-1990s. In 1993, China purchased a large batch of S-300P missiles from Russia, and allegedly obtained a copy of the U.S. Patriot missile from Israel (although Israel denies that such a transfer took place).(10) The Chinese immediately began incorporating the S-300P and Patriot technology into their own air and missile defense system, the HQ-9. In 1997, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence suggested that “technology from advanced Western systems may be incorporated into the HQ-9.”(11) That same year, an official at a Russian missile design bureau acknowledged that the HQ-9 would incorporate the Patriot guidance and propulsion systems, thus confirming U.S. suspicions.(12)

According to missile defense expert David A. Fulghum, “[the HQ-9] uses a seeker-aided ground guidance system. The seeker on the missile sends target data back to the ground, which then correlates the target data for an intercept.”(13) It is assumed that the HQ-9’s seeker is similar to the Patriot’s “Track-via-Missile” guidance system.(14) Such a system, if actually used by the Chinese, would allow the HQ-9 interceptor missile to fly straight toward its target and explode at the point of nearest approach, thus completely destroying the incoming ballistic missile (or aircraft) or knocking it far enough off course so that it misses its intended target. During the Persian Gulf War, the U.S. Patriot Advanced Capability-2 system, which employs “Track-via-Missile,” destroyed its targets between 40 and 70 percent of the time.

In addition to its land-based deployments, the HQ-9 has been recently modified to complement China’s burgeoning naval forces. Over the past few months, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) hasoutfitted two Type 052C destroyers with naval variants of the HQ-9, estimated to have a range of 65 nautical miles. Each Type 052C destroyer (similar to the U.S. Aegis destroyer) has six vertical launchers carrying approximately 36 missiles, as well as a phased-array radar system.(15) Initial reports indicate that the naval HQ-9 has a range of 65 nautical miles. The Type 052C destroyers will most likely be based at either Guangzhou or Zhanjiang.(16)

In October 2003, it was announced that China had sold its FT-2000 anti-radiation system, which uses HQ-9 missiles, to Pakistan as part of the latter’s military buildup against India. Many U.S. defense analysts predict that, over the next few years, the HQ-9 and its variants will be aggressively exported throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/8/165529.shtml
More
In mid-2000, the authors compiled a comprehensive report on China's construction – based on Russian technology – of a multi-level air defense network covering most of China's coast. The essence of this report – which did not attract the attention of U.S. officials – was used in the book "Chinese-Russian Alliance" (compiled in July 2001, to be published by NewsMax in September 2002).

Much has changed in this area – just as in other PLA sectors – in a year, however; this article is an attempt to track the most significant changes.

In 2000-2001, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) adopted the concept of "offensive and defensive character" for the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) instead of the purely "defensive Air Force" concept used for many years – and began implementing it. This immediately resulted in an acceleration of PLA air defense troop development; most of these troops, and almost all long-range and mid-range air defense missile systems, are subordinate to the PLAAF.

What is even more important, in 2001, both the PLAAF and PLA ground forces (focusing on anti-aircraft artillery and air defense missile (ADM) systems of short range and low altitude) concentrated efforts on the improvement of "san da" (three strikes) capabilities, which meant "strike at the enemy's stealth fighters, cruise missiles and attack helicopters."

Development of PLA air defense troops – more precisely, an air defense multi-level network – became even more accelerated. By the end of 2001, this network effectively covered the coastal, most-developed regions of the country as well as the most important areas in the internal regions, and generally included four major levels:

* Long-range, high-altitude ADM systems, represented by Russian-made S-300 systems as well as their Chinese-made copies and "derivatives" (given below). They are subordinate to the PLAAF.

* Mid-range, mid-altitude ADM systems, represented mostly by Russian-made TOR-M1 systems, their Chinese-made derivatives (given below) and "original Chinese" KS-1 systems. They are mostly subordinate to the PLAAF.

* Short-range, low-altitude systems, represented primarily by Chinese-made copies of the Russian Tunguska missile-artillery system (mostly subordinate to PLA ground forces).

-
* Shoulder-launched missiles of Russian and Chinese origin and Chinese-made anti-aircraft artillery (almost entirely concentrated in PLA ground forces).

At this point it would be proper to quote the article "[Major] Developments in China in the Military Area in 2001," published by the Taiwan-based journal Chung-Kung Yen-chiu (PRC [People's Republic of China] Research) in February 2002:

Presently the PLA is equipped with Russian-made S-300 PMU1 long-range ADM systems, [Russian-made] Tor-M1 field ADM [systems], "Feimeng" improved ADMs for ultra-low altitude, KS-1 mid-range ADMs, and QW-1 shoulder-launched ADMs; they form an all-range road-mobile ADM network.

In addition, the PLA acquired the FT-2000 "anti-radar missile system," to be used against the enemy's electronic warfare aircraft of various kinds and AWACS aircraft. The FT-2000, 6.8 m in length, 0.466 m in diameter, 1.3 tons in weight, has a range between 12 km and 100 km and an effective altitude between 3 km and 20 km. Each FT-2000 launcher has four missile-launching vertical tubes on the mobile platform; the FT-2000 system in its outer appearance is extremely close to the Russian S-300 system." (end of excerpt)

They forgot to mention the Chinese-made (reverse engineered) version of Russia's Tunguska system, known as GPZ-954. (Perhaps Feimeng is just the new name for it?)

One can claim that, by the end of 2001, PLA inventories included many hundreds of road-mobile systems of three upper levels and many thousands of weapons for the lowest level.

Situation in 2002

During the first half of 2002, this air defense network continued its quantitative expansion and qualitative upgrading. The following report characterizes this trend:

(Moscow-based Vedomosti newspaper, April 30, 2002, briefly):

In early April (April 4, by some data), Rosoboronexport (the Russian weapons export monopoly) signed a contract to sell two S-300F ship-borne anti-aircraft complexes to China for $200 million. The contract has increased the newly established (by President Putin's order signed in mid-April) Almaz-Antei Corp. parcel of orders by 50 percent. The Altair Enterprise is the company that produces the S-300F complex. Altair and 20 other designers and producers have become parts of Almaz-Antei.

The S-300F complex is a ship-borne replica of the S-300 anti-aircraft complexes. Beijing plans to install the RIF complexes (the name of the export version of the S-300F) on two warships that will be built in China by 2005. An expert from the Russian Air Force said that the S-300F complexes would be installed by China on cruisers designed by Chinese specialists.

In addition to this contract, Almaz-Antei will receive a contract to build the S-300 anti-aircraft complexes for China ($400 million). As a result, the total sum of its contracts will increase to $600 million. (end of report)

This report was confirmed by publications in the Taiwan and Hong Kong media on June 12-13, 2002, which specified that China is building, with Russian assistance, two "super-Sovremenny" destroyers, to be equipped by RIF ADM systems with a range up to 120 km.

Remarkably, the Chinese air defense network could spread to the sea, as a result of RIF installation on naval vessels, for at least 200 km. Earlier, Chinese frigates and destroyers could barely defend themselves from air strikes. However, Chinese destroyers of the new generation will become "outposts" of a coast-based air defense network.

Just as in the case of weapon platforms of other kinds, China's defense industry does it best for "guochanhua" (reverse engineering) of Russian-made ADM systems.

In 2002-2003, China very probably will master – or has already mastered – serial production of

the following systems, whose development has been under way, based on Russian technology, since 1999-2000:

1. HQ-15. This is the slightly improved version of Russia's long-range high-altitude S-300 PMU1/PMU2 system, with a range up to 120 km and an altitude up to 25 km.

2. HQ-16 or "super-Tor-M1." This is an all-new ADM system, jointly under development with Russia. It is a mid-range system, effective against low- to medium-altitude (100 m to 20 km) targets. The system's reaction time (time between target detection and missile launch) is 6-8 seconds.

A single missile system can simultaneously attack eight aircraft or missile targets, with a target-hit probability of 90 percent for any of these targets. The system uses the currently most-advanced vertical launching technology, a phased-array radar, and a composite-guidance warhead. Plans call for the HQ-16 to widely enter PLA service about 2005.

3. HQ-17. This is a slightly improved version of the Russian Tor-M1 system with a range up to 30 km and altitude up to 15 km. In 2000, the PLA decided to construct, by 2002-2003, between 10 and 12 air defense brigades equipped with hundreds of Tor-M1s and HQ-17s, as well as Chinese original KS-1 and KS-1A ADM systems.

4. HQ-18. This is a slightly improved version of the Russian S-300 V system. Its major characteristics somewhat surpass those of the HQ-15.

All the listed systems are road-mobile, just like the original S-300 and Tor-M1.

5. Feimeng (?) PGZ-95, having its prototype in the Russian Tunguska missile artillery system. It combines one ADM launcher and four 25 mm anti-aircraft guns on a single mobile platform. The system, with an altitude up to 3.5 km and a range up to 6 km, provides high-density fire and reportedly is extremely effective against cruise missiles and fighters of the fourth generation (F-15s, F-16s and F-18s). Serial production was mastered in 1999.

6. Shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. This includes hundreds of Russian-made Igla missiles and their Chinese derivatives. This is in addition to China's original HQ-1, HQ-2 and HN-5 missiles.

Indeed, the PLA is constructing – and has constructed already, to some degree – an almost impenetrable multi-level network covering the entire seacoast of China, as well as a 100-to 200-km-wide airspace over the adjacent seas.

China is still dependent on Russia for some air defense technologies. That's why large-scale purchases of long-range ADM systems for installation both on the ground and on naval vessels are still going on. However, production technology transfer is intensive, and by 2005 or earlier, Russian ADM technology reservoirs will be pretty much exhausted (this doesn't exclude the new joint developments of ADM systems of the new generation).

Without doubt, the corresponding agreements on this account were discussed and signed during the recent visit of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov to Beijing.

On June 16-17, one of the Taiwan newspapers published the report "Beijing to Construct Its Own Missile Defense System," based on an article in the authoritative Beijing magazine Guoji zhanwang (International prospects). The major theses of this article are as follows:

1. America has abandoned the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty and is actively engaged in NMD (national missile defense) development.

2. Some of China's other neighboring countries have ballistic and/or cruise missiles of significant range, or intend to get them in the near future.

3. Under these circumstances, construction of the developed missile defense system has become an urgent task for China. This network should cover Taiwan and effectively protect the developed coastal regions as well as the most important facilities, such as the Three Gorges Hydropower Station inside the country. (end of theses)

This, undoubtedly, means that the PLA intends to add a fifth, highest level to the already existing four-level air defense network. The new level would be capable of hitting the enemy's ICBMs.

At this stage it is possible only to speculate about what components will be used for this fifth-level construction: Russia's Triumf S-400 ADM systems (with a range surpassing 200 km), which are reportedly at the PLA's disposal since mid-2001; the even more powerful S-500 system presently under development in Russia; and space-deployed anti-missile weapons?

What is known for sure: China wants to construct the most advanced, impenetrable air defense network, which would include an NMD system not inferior to the U.S. NMD system.

After this article was finished, the authors acquired some new documents, providing a frightening confirmation of the aforementioned conclusions regarding the HQ-15 and HQ-18 systems development and production in China. This will be material for a future article.

[MIGleader]

very nice typhuang!!!:) i could never have imagined china had such intricater defences.

one thing, can u provide some information on the equipment and deployment of AAA units in china? they are needed to provide a second layer of defence.

[Dongfeng]

Thank you for your threads, TPHuang. I made some editing to make them easier to read. I hope you do not mind.

This is very comprehensive information about Chinese SAM. However, information from newmax is not always accurate. I can some information is based on reports of some Taiwanese, Hong Kong and overseas Chinese newspaper, for example, the so-called HQ-15, HQ-16, HQ-17 and HQ-18 programme. No concrete evidence exists to support these claims. There are lots of errors too. So use newsmax as a reference but never take it too seriously.

[tphuang]

very nice typhuang!!!:) i could never have imagined china had such intricater defences.

one thing, can u provide some information on the equipment and deployment of AAA units in china? they are needed to provide a second layer of defence.
I think China has one of the better air defenses around the world. It would be interesting to see when China will get s-400 from the Russians. Actually, I'm still waiting for all the HQ series (15 to 18) to reveal themselves. It seems to me they should be ready by now, but it still seems like it's all about the S-300 and tor-m1s.

Possible shields:
outer level: S-300 + FT-2000
medium level: KS-1a + HQ-2?
inner level: To1-M1+HQ-7+HQ-16
mobile level: manpads + FB-6A + yitian

I do know the newsmax articles are a little off. Nemets does seem to overestimate the Chinese capabilities a lot of times.

[AssassinsMace]

If true, it would be great step forward for China's defenses.

Newsmax is notorious for perpetuating lies. They still publish and promote a book that states China was actually behind 9/11.

[Roger604]

That is good news indeed? It looks like the modern manifestation of the Great Wall. :china:

I have some questions:

I noticed that these new systems were supposed to counter stealth aircraft. How would they perform against the various types of stealth aircraft: B-2? JSF? F-22?

I was under the impression that modern radars can detect (but not track) even an F-22. It cannot locate it precisely, but can give a rough location. Is the underlying idea then , to send a barrage of missiles to that rough location and have them explode into shraple/flak that will damage the stealth and pave way for a kill?

It appears that these ground systems are on par with the best of American and Russian equipment in this field. Can China put these same technologies into AWACS, fighter, cruisers, etc. to create a holistic integrated EW system that is on-par with America? I can understand if the technology is too bulky for a fighter, but it seems that the ground system shouldn't be too different from one designed for ships or maybe an AWACS.

[vincelee]

you're gonna be spending quite a lot of missiles for that. The general approach, if it can be called that since no one has ever done it, is to vector fighters into the vicinity for a visual confirmation.

realistically, nothing counters the F-22 and the B-2. JSF is NOT all aspect stealthy, so theoretically you can track and engage, until it turns around that is.

[tphuang]

If we look at things realistically, China is improving, but still far behind the Americans and behind the Russians in SAM. Overall, it is still one of China's more developed fields. Looking at the export of KS-1A, and possible export of FT-2000 to Pakistan, it's a sign that the indigenous systems are really taking off. However, I'd still like to se HQ-15 coming out. It's been talked about in a lot of website, but it seems the S-300 systems we have are all still imported from the Russians rather than license produced. As for China's capability vs stealth aircraft, it's probably not as bad as many people would think. Recently, the Chinese "stealth detecting" radar was able to detect ShenZhou 6 as it was landing. This shows that B-2 should not be out of the maximum altitude off the Chinese radar. Also, we can guess that the anti-stealth radar by China (I will post a few picture in aviation forum later) got help from Vera and probably Kolchuga.

[MIGleader]

leme guess...shengzhou 6 was stealthy because it was a small object, and had a coat of plasma around it?

even if china;s anti stealth ability can see a b-2 or f-22, it would kinda suck to see something and not be able to do anything. china needs to integrate a missle guiding ability to the radar.

btw, how does this radar work? cell phone or tv broadcast waves combines with radar?

[tphuang]

Nothing to do with stealth, I'm talking about the altitude. After I did a little check, I found out my assumption was wrong. I had previously thought that B-2 can fly at an altitude of more than 20 KM. That's why I said no plane would be out of the maximum altitude of the radar.

[adeptitus]

That is good news indeed? It looks like the modern manifestation of the Great Wall. :china:
I have some questions:
I noticed that these new systems were supposed to counter stealth aircraft. How would they perform against the various types of stealth aircraft: B-2? JSF? F-22?


Stealth vs. anti-stealth is like a cat and mouse game, both sides constantely look for ways to improve and defeat the other. I think a lot of people assume "stealth" started with the F-117, but I think it dates back further than that, to technologies such as the radar absorbent coating on the SR-71.

If we look at the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq was said to have 17,000 SAM's and 7,500 AAA guns. The F-117 flew over 1,300 sorties over Iraq without a single loss. Moving forward to the Yugoslav-Kosovo conflict, oops, there goes a F-117:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117af806gallery.htm

Currently, the PLA's air defense technology level is a good distance behind the F/A-22. But that technical edge will someday be eroded, just as the U-2 was eventually shot down by the SA-2.

Personally I don't like the idea of being dependent on SAM's for air defense, whatever that's on the ground is a stationary target from the air, and SAM sites are big glowing "come shoot me" targets. The best defense against enemy fighters is still your own air force achieving air superiority, so they can't come over and drop bombs on you.

[slackpiv]

I was under the impression that modern radars can detect (but not track) even an F-22. It cannot locate it precisely, but can give a rough location. Is the underlying idea then , to send a barrage of missiles to that rough location and have them explode into shraple/flak that will damage the stealth and pave way for a kill?
The Iraqis tried to do that. they loaded the sky with AAA fire and the sams went off when they detected the first tomahawks coming in. However not one f-117 was shot down. If you've seen a video, you would see how much AAA they put to the sky.


It appears that these ground systems are on par with the best of American and Russian equipment in this field. Can China put these same technologies into AWACS, fighter, cruisers, etc. to create a holistic integrated EW system that is on-par with America?

Well the s-300 is Russian. The hq-9 info can be found on sino defence. As for EW systems. China is far from being on-par with America. China already has a couple of AWACs in design. However, the BMS and integration of these systems to ground, naval, and air assets will take China a long time to settle. As for anti-stealth radars, they are still a myth. No nation actually HAS a stealth fighter to work with or even have the information on how a stealth fighter works. How would they build an anti-stealth radar?

[swimmerXC]

F-117 that was shot down by a SA-3 GOA...
i think i have a clue where some parts of the wreck went...
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/4280/destroyed6sp.jpg
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/4208/destroyeda1wq.jpg
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/2217/destroyed18wl.jpg
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/971/destroyed1b3kx.jpg
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6264/destroyedc7dw.jpg
apparatenly they shot it down b/c they said some spotters saw the F-117 take off and using math calculations found out the time when it'll show up.. then just launched a barrage of rockets at it

[vincelee]

"No nation actually HAS a stealth fighter to work with or even have the information on how a stealth fighter works. How would they build an anti-stealth radar?"

but the concept is well-known.

[MIGleader]

china, i beilive, has built an f-22 shell for testing its stealthyness. seeimg how the frame is the prime component to rcs, testing a radar on it would be superb. russia has also developed soem stelthy aircraft, in which it probably tests new radars on.

slackpiv, it doesnt matter how russian the s-300 is. china has it, produces it indegedously, anjd has developed more advanced missles off of it, and plans to upgrade it. this proves china understands 100% of the s-300s technology, therefore putting china at that level, if not further.

[ahho]

"No nation actually HAS a stealth fighter to work with or even have the information on how a stealth fighter works. How would they build an anti-stealth radar?"

but the concept is well-known.

could part of the f-117 be sold to some nation??? If it use radar absobant paint, that piece is enough for people to test out what chemical was used, so they could sell like a sample or someone would steal it

[crazyinsane105]

The reason that the Iraqis lost horribly in the air war was because of the strategy they employed. Before the actual bombardment, the Iraqis had their SAM radars on 24/7. The US simply made a "map" and wiped out the SAM's on the first few days of the air war using HARM missiles. The Serbians, on the other hand, kept on turning their radars on and off so the coalition had no idea where the SAMs were. The lesson: just because you are superior in numbers and technology doesn't mean anything if you don't employ them with a proper strategy.

[BrotherofSnake]

could part of the f-117 be sold to some nation??? If it use radar absobant paint, that piece is enough for people to test out what chemical was used, so they could sell like a sample or someone would steal it

Russia obtained the wreckage of the F-117 after it was downed.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/12/140853.shtml

[AssassinsMace]

I thought China bought the wreckage. At least that was the excused used by some when the US bombed the Chinese embassy.

[vincelee]

newsmax................

you would think people would stop quoting that as a source.

[crazyinsane105]

Vinclee has a point. I don't think people on this forum should quote from newsmax anymore.

[Gollevainen]

The wreck (or most of it attleast) is on held at the aviation museum in Beograd. They are even selling pieces of it to tourist so if everyone is sailing down Tonava, go and grab a piece of it to amuse rest of us.

But Russians examined the wreck...and propaply took something with them, im not sure...

[crazyinsane105]

Actually, I don't think it would be safe to grab a piece of it. When the plane was shot down, I remember seeing on the ABC News that there were many women dancing on the wreakage. The ABC News Cast was informed that the women would later get cancer because the paint used on the plane is not safe to inhale.

[Roger604]

china, i beilive, has built an f-22 shell for testing its stealthyness. seeimg how the frame is the prime component to rcs, testing a radar on it would be superb. russia has also developed soem stelthy aircraft, in which it probably tests new radars on.

slackpiv, it doesnt matter how russian the s-300 is. china has it, produces it indegedously, anjd has developed more advanced missles off of it, and plans to upgrade it. this proves china understands 100% of the s-300s technology, therefore putting china at that level, if not further.

I read that S-400 is now operational. This is going to be Russian's main line defense against stealth bomber strikes. Some here said earlier that China was closely involved in the S-400 development? Does this mean that we can pump out our own "S-400" in the near future too?

[MIGleader]

newsmax is terrible. it said one time that china was buying s-300s to counter american patriot missle attacks :roll:

i think china might simply want to upgrade all s-300s pmus and hq-15s in the arsenal to s-400 standard. the s-400 is a highly capable missle, but is really only an improved s-300. the russians just like the big numbers to impress customers. i think china will start locally producing s-400s, and a navalized varient will certainly appear.

[slackpiv]

but the concept is well-known.
How is the concept well known if the concept is based on speculation and cannot be validated.

I read that S-400 is now operational. This is going to be Russian's main line defense against stealth bomber strikes. Some here said earlier that China was closely involved in the S-400 development? Does this mean that we can pump out our own "S-400" in the near future too?
The s-400 will work against stealthy bombers such as the B-1b at long ranges. But the range that it will be able to detect the B-2 or the F-117 will be severely limited. Unless any country other than the US will be able to understand the classified stealth technology that the US employs, a radar that can detect stealth aircraft will not be possible.

slackpiv, it doesnt matter how russian the s-300 is. china has it, produces it indegedously, anjd has developed more advanced missles off of it, and plans to upgrade it. this proves china understands 100% of the s-300s technology, therefore putting china at that level, if not further.
When did china produce the s-300 indigenously? What more dvanced missile based on the s-300 did China develop? Even if China develops a missile thats more capable than the s-300, how does that mean China's SAM technology will be more advanced than the Russians? There are different versions of the s-300, there's the s-400, and then there's the fact that the Russians are a lot more experianced.

china, i beilive, has built an f-22 shell for testing its stealthyness. seeimg how the frame is the prime component to rcs, testing a radar on it would be superb. russia has also developed soem stelthy aircraft, in which it probably tests new radars on.\
How do you the airframe is the prime component to RCS? This is classified technology. How would China get the exact dimensions of the f-22 in the first place? Where did you discover this information?

[darth sidious]

slackpiv

china has built the S-300 chek sino defence for start they also have built the naval verson as seen on the 052c

missilethreat.com also has some good info

[slackpiv]

It has been suggested that China intends to obtain a license to produce the S-300 missile system locally, with a designation reported as HQ-15. The first Chinese copy has been tested, but all the components of the first copy version were imported from Russia.

The naval system is the HQ-9.


but the slow progress in the development forced the PLA to purchase the S-300PMU missile from Russia. By the time the HQ-9 was ready for operational deployment in the late 1990s, the missile was already behind foreign air-defence missiles such as U.S. PAC3 and Russian S-300PMU2 in terms of technology and performance. Only a small number of the HQ-9A are being deployed by the PLA for operational trial and evaluations. The naval variant of the HQ-9A is deployed onboard the Type 052C destroyer which was commissioned in 2004.

All from sinodefence

[darth sidious]

NO

do you tink pla will only buy Russian missile !!!

ps the first copies were made in the early 90s

look for info on the HQ-15/16

[slackpiv]

I used the source that you told me to refer 2. No the PLA does have its own missiles called the ks-1, the HQ-9, HQ-7, etc. I've read about the HQ-15. Most sites says that the PLA might get a liscense to build it indigenously including fas and sinodefence. The only site that seems to be suggest that its already being produced indigenously is missilethreat. The HQ-16 seems to still be under development.

[tphuang]

slackpiv, HQ-9 is not the same as S-300. It was actually designed using knowledge from S-300 and guidance of PAC-2. The naval version probably also drew some ideas from Rif, but they are not the same thing. The status of HQ-16 is really confusing at the moment. It's unclear whether it's a super tor-m1 and super-shtil.

HQ-15 is confusing too. I thought it already started, but I haven't found any evidence of HQ-15 battalion in China.

[vincelee]

well slacky, how should I put this.

F-22's specifications are more or less classified, that is true, however, the principles behind geometric EM diversion and RAM material is quite well understood.

I'm curious, do you have an engineering background?

I have actually come across some very elementary deflection/reflection characteristics, and it turns out a lot of materials are band sensitive. On top of that, apparently a lot of currently manufactured composites are band sensitive to a generally specific spectrum. You can even say that some of these materials are engineered to precisely diffuse well known and widely used EM emissions. Now if I were to build an anti stealth system, I would obviously pick a very novel frequency band to use, and this is, really, the general approach to all the anti stealth systems I've read about.

Now actually engaging such aircrafts are, of course, difficult, because the band these systems work with are not very well suited for tracking and illumination of fighter sized targets, and I will say that to actually shoot down, say, an F-22 with the aid of such systems is still very costly, but there is no doubt that these systems adds considerably to a country's deterrence.

[MIGleader]

i did not say china was better than russia. i said china was above the s-300. the exact dimensions of the f-22 are published in books, and it canbe caluculated using pictures cobined with some trigonometry.
stealth technlogy is well research in most countries, and these nations like russia and china can develop radars to find stealth aircraft. they simply havnt feilded theiur own stealth radar yet.

[Roger604]

Does anybody know how PAC-3 has performed in actual combat? Particularly in the Gulf Wars? I suspect many of the claims by American manufacturers are about as truthful as a used car salesman.

I think tphuang said earlier that PAC-3 was a ballistic missile defense and not a cruise missile / aircraft defense. But I thought the new SM-3 they are testing is the ballistic missile defense! And didn't PAC-3 almost shoot down an allied aircraft too?

If we know how good the PAC-3 really is, we'll have a better idea how good the AEGIS system really is. And in comparison, how far behind we are if we're just behind the Russians.

[adeptitus]

Does anybody know how PAC-3 has performed in actual combat? Particularly in the Gulf Wars? I suspect many of the claims by American manufacturers are about as truthful as a used car salesman.
I think tphuang said earlier that PAC-3 was a ballistic missile defense and not a cruise missile / aircraft defense. But I thought the new SM-3 they are testing is the ballistic missile defense! And didn't PAC-3 almost shoot down an allied aircraft too?


Hi Roger,

Here's a blurb on PAC-3 in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104

Operation Iraqi Freedom was generally a tremendous success for PATRIOT. During the Iraq war of 2003, PATRIOT batteries succeeded in shooting down all eleven Iraqi TBMs that threatened coalition assets, including one TBM that would have struck a high-level command group location. Echo Battery, 2nd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery fired and successfully engaged with the first PAC-3 missiles in combat. PATRIOT also provided excellent radar surveillance for coalition assets who lacked a clear picture over much of Iraq.
<snip>
PATRIOT also had two fratricides in Iraq, one against a British RAF Tornado GR4A, the other against an F/A-18 Hornet. The Tornado was engaged because the system mistakenly classified it as an anti-radiation missile (ARM).

=======

Considering the Patriot missile did shoot down a RAF Tornado and F/A-18, we can conclude it's effective vs. aircraft. @_@

The Russian S-300 system, for an example, has been advertised to be effective against aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.


i did not say china was better than russia. i said china was above the s-300.

I'd like to note that there are at least a dozen variants of the S-300 system. The PRC's locally built systems today are prolly much more capable than the original S-300P with the 5V55K missiles, but not the latest (S-300PMU-2/3?).

There was even one vairant of the S-300PS/S-300PM that was armed with tatical nuclear warhead. o_O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300

[Sea Dog]

I'd like to note that there are at least a dozen variants of the S-300 system. The PRC's locally built systems today are prolly much more capable than the original S-300P with the 5V55K missiles, but not the latest (S-300PMU-2/3?).

There was even one vairant of the S-300PS/S-300PM that was armed with tatical nuclear warhead. o_O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300

Out of curiousity, what version of S-300 does PRC currently field? And what updates if any have they done to increase its reliability? I've been wondering this for awhile. No doubt they have learned alot from the earliest models.

[MIGleader]

the pla has the s-300pmu, an early 90s varient, and the s-300pmu1, a early 2000s varient. i believe they also negotiated a deal for 8 batteries of s-300pmu-2 missles in summer 2004.

their have been rumors going around that china wants to upgrade all s-300s and hq-15s in its arsenal to s-400s, but no concret proof yet

[Sea Dog]

their have been rumors going around that china wants to upgrade all s-300s and hq-15s in its arsenal to s-400s, but no concret proof yet

Interesting. But are they going to buy these upgrades from Russian military sources, or are they looking to improve their systems based upon operational experience?

[MIGleader]

the s-400 is a russian missle. so its more than likely that russia will sell upgrade "kits", which will eventually be replaced by full chinese upgrades.

[adeptitus]

Out of curiousity, what version of S-300 does PRC currently field? And what updates if any have they done to increase its reliability? I've been wondering this for awhile. No doubt they have learned alot from the earliest models.

Hi Sea Dog,

You can read about it here:
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airdefence/s300.asp
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/s-300pmu.htm
http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200408260912.html

I haven't read anything about upgrades for the older S-300 vairants, I think the PLA prolly just move them to less critical areas and just import newer models. The PLA has traditionally preferred to eventually reverse engineer or at least locally assemble military hardware, there are reports of PRC licensing the S-300 for domestic production in China.

For those interested, here's a blurb on the HQ-9 and FT-2000:
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/hq-9_china.html
http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/ft-2000.html
(Note in reference section, they're quoting Sinodefense)

[tphuang]

interesting article if anyone cares to read, it's in Chinese, I must warn you.
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/Get/NET/12292055208.htm

[DayDreamer]

One reason why the chinese use at least two systems for each level of AD is that there is a team-up policy for weasons homemade and imported. This is to make sure the system is not totally bugged by overseas producers. Such kind a policy however make the whole things more complicated.

[adeptitus]

interesting article if anyone cares to read, it's in Chinese, I must warn you.
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/Get/NET/12292055208.htm

For those who can't read Chinese, babelfish will work with the above URL:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Just plug the URL into "Translate a web page", and select "Chinese-Simp to English" and click on Translate.

[MIGleader]

To Seadog, i we shall continue our sm-3 talk right here, as it is inappropriate for the ballistic missle thread.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/s-400.html

China's missle of the future, the s-400, shall be superior to the sm-3. The s-400 can handle cruise missles and ballistic missles like hte sm-3, but the s-400has a much greater range of 400km. These missles have 9m96 interceptors with them, incresing kill ability against low flying targets. The missle can be intergrated with china's s-300 radar and transport vehicle complexes, so the transition shall be fast, cheap, and smooth.

The s-400 is also claimed to be able to home on stealth bombers.

btw, the missle has completed development, and may be entering service in russia as soon as this year. foreign customers are expected.

perhaps china will first order several(~12) batteries of s-400s before reverting to local production as hq-17 or something.

[PiSigma]

i won't trust in the whole "detect stealth" that they are selling. first of all, what stealth planes are the russians going to test this on??? russia can't exactly ask USA to lend them a few f-117s or B2s so they can see if they can shoot them down...

[MIGleader]

Pisigma, I said "claimed". i know the russians arnt the most credible when it comes to this, but they wouldnt entirely lie about it either. This must mean the s-400 has some features that allow it to detect low-detectability aircraft.

The russians have designed their own stealthy aircraft, and i wouldnt put it beyond their ability to make a b-2 imitation airframe to test their radar.

[Sea Dog]

China's missle of the future, the s-400, shall be superior to the sm-3. The s-400 can handle cruise missles and ballistic missles like hte sm-3, but the s-400has a much greater range of 400km. These missles have 9m96 interceptors with them, incresing kill ability against low flying targets. The missle can be intergrated with china's s-300 radar and transport vehicle complexes, so the transition shall be fast, cheap, and smooth.

The s-400 is also claimed to be able to home on stealth bombers.



The SM-3 can range farther than 500 Km from almost every open-source database out there. And an altitude of greater than 160 Km. They as a ship-deployed system are much more mobile and are already fielded. They are in testing as a fielded system now. They can be salvo fired with a number of missiles (I don't know how many can be controlled though) and have proven to be reliable against systems using decoys and jammers. They have been proven against seperated ballistic warheads. It's primary use is for ballistic missiles only. It's not designed to be used against aircraft or cruise missiles, so S-400 and SM-3 couldn't even compare. They are totally different in philosophy. Just wait until SM-6 ERAM is out also. It is intended to go beyond 600 Km utilizing usable datalinks and an onboard radar for active radar guidance. This is the future in regards to killing cruise missiles from long distances. It should also be noted that SM-6 could easily be converted into an anti-ship missile. Nothing out there will match it. SM-2 is currently fielded against cruise missiles and aircraft now also at significant range. It's currently a world class system. I think Standard's as a coordinated system may be one up on any future S-400. We'll have to see how it would stack up against Patriot's as well. We don't know. Plus, not even S-300 has seen any combat. I don't expect that S-300 to exceed Patriot in capability. With the use of stealth systems, low-observable cruise missiles, and advanced electronic warfare techniques, S-300 may show less effectiveness than Patriot. And we'll have to just wait and see about S-400. As far as we know, S-400 is not even a deployed system yet.

And the "stealth" homing claims are rather suspect. Alot of Russian claims have proven to be untrue. And no, Russia does not have any comparable stealth aircraft.

To try and steer this thing back on topic "Chinese SAM", Let me ask about the HQ-18 system. I've seen some reference to it in some forums as a successor to what was planned for HQ-9/9A. Is that true? Also, it is a version of S-300......as S-300V. I think the range was listed at a little over 100Km.

[tphuang]

The SM-3 can range farther than 500 Km from almost every open-source database out there. And an altitude of greater than 160 Km. They as a ship-deployed system are much more mobile and are already fielded. They are in testing as a fielded system now. They can be salvo fired with a number of missiles (I don't know how many can be controlled though) and have proven to be reliable against systems using decoys and jammers. They have been proven against seperated ballistic warheads. It's primary use is for ballistic missiles only. It's not designed to be used against aircraft or cruise missiles, so S-400 and SM-3 couldn't even compare. They are totally different in philosophy. Just wait until SM-6 ERAM is out also. It is intended to go beyond 600 Km utilizing usable datalinks and an onboard radar for active radar guidance. This is the future in regards to killing cruise missiles from long distances. It should also be noted that SM-6 could easily be converted into an anti-ship missile. Nothing out there will match it. SM-2 is currently fielded against cruise missiles and aircraft now also at significant range. It's currently a world class system. I think Standard's as a coordinated system may be one up on any future S-400. We'll have to see how it would stack up against Patriot's as well. We don't know. Plus, not even S-300 has seen any combat. I don't expect that S-300 to exceed Patriot in capability. With the use of stealth systems, low-observable cruise missiles, and advanced electronic warfare techniques, S-300 may show less effectiveness than Patriot. And we'll have to just wait and see about S-400. As far as we know, S-400 is not even a deployed system yet.

And the "stealth" homing claims are rather suspect. Alot of Russian claims have proven to be untrue. And no, Russia does not have any comparable stealth aircraft.

To try and steer this thing back on topic "Chinese SAM", Let me ask about the HQ-18 system. I've seen some reference to it in some forums as a successor to what was planned for HQ-9/9A. Is that true? Also, it is a version of S-300......as S-300V. I think the range was listed at a little over 100Km.
S-400 is actually deployed (surprisingly) in Moscow area. I think China is just waiting for Russia to give the go ahead for exporting this system. From the past pattern, this will probably happen in 2007-8. Also, since the S series all use modular design, the old S-300PMU series can easily be upgraded.

As for HQ-18, it is a ballistic missile defence system. HQ-9 is the SAM against fighter/bombers/AWACS/cruise missiles. It's range supposed to be 150 KM+. I guess all future Chinese long range SAM will be based on HQ-9. HQ-18 probably isn't out. As of now, China has no real defence against ballistic missiles.

[Indianfighter]

The developments in SAM technology by China are quite advanced. Again, China has been in the forefront in the development of a new idea of anti-radiation SAMs, which not only use the radiation of aircraft, but also the jamming signals of the aircraft/AWACs to home to the target.

The question arises again, as to why did the US not develop a SAM similar to the FT-2000. Radar technology is the most advanced in the US, and it could have developed a SAM that homes on the source of jamming signals.

The need is indeed present to the US, as it is not the only nation to have AWACs.

[jwangyue]

But what we do need to see is that most of the countries with AWACs are not of immediate threat to the US. Hence, US sees no immediate need to develop such a weapon. In addition, passive anti radiation are defence based. US see no point in defending itself again such a threat. China on the other hand have a very different point of view. What US is developing, however, is mostly offensive anti-radiation missle such as Harm and its derivatives.

[MIGleader]

The SM-3 can range farther than 500 Km from almost every open-source database out there. And an altitude of greater than 160 Km. They as a ship-deployed system are much more mobile and are already fielded. They are in testing as a fielded system now. They can be salvo fired with a number of missiles (I don't know how many can be controlled though) and have proven to be reliable against systems using decoys and jammers. They have been proven against seperated ballistic warheads. It's primary use is for ballistic missiles only. It's not designed to be used against aircraft or cruise missiles, so S-400 and SM-3 couldn't even compare. They are totally different in philosophy. Just wait until SM-6 ERAM is out also. It is intended to go beyond 600 Km utilizing usable datalinks and an onboard radar for active radar guidance. This is the future in regards to killing cruise missiles from long distances. It should also be noted that SM-6 could easily be converted into an anti-ship missile. Nothing out there will match it. SM-2 is currently fielded against cruise missiles and aircraft now also at significant range. It's currently a world class system. I think Standard's as a coordinated system may be one up on any future S-400. We'll have to see how it would stack up against Patriot's as well. We don't know. Plus, not even S-300 has seen any combat. I don't expect that S-300 to exceed Patriot in capability. With the use of stealth systems, low-observable cruise missiles, and advanced electronic warfare techniques, S-300 may show less effectiveness than Patriot. And we'll have to just wait and see about S-400. As far as we know, S-400 is not even a deployed system yet.

And the "stealth" homing claims are rather suspect. Alot of Russian claims have proven to be untrue. And no, Russia does not have any comparable stealth aircraft.

To try and steer this thing back on topic "Chinese SAM", Let me ask about the HQ-18 system. I've seen some reference to it in some forums as a successor to what was planned for HQ-9/9A. Is that true? Also, it is a version of S-300......as S-300V. I think the range was listed at a little over 100Km.

This 500 km thing is doubtful, seeing how almost no sm-3 sources state this, and the missle has yet to interceot an icbm futher than 150km. and these are just "claims" too.

The s-300v is udoutedly superior to the pac-3. The s-300 offers the same performance for half the cost. The pac-3 may have been used in combat, but those were the "malfunctioning versions". the new "upgraded" pac-3s have yet to see combat. Alot of american claims are untrue, such as on the perfromance of the pac-3s

The s-400 is currently at the same stage as the sm-3. The russians have tested the missle against their own icbms. The russians have a very in depth stealth program, and i bielive they can design an airframe(notice how i said airframe, not engine+controls) as stealthhy as a b-2s. being albe to intercept aircraft, cruise missles, and icbms, the s-400 exceeds all the sm's in terms of usability for only a fraction of the cost.

s-300 and s-400s can stay in their containers for 10 years without need for maintenance. Id liek to see a patriot do that!!

Since the s-400 is likely to be china's sam of the future, it fits in perfectly fine for this topic

[Sea Dog]

This 500 km thing is doubtful, seeing how almost no sm-3 sources state this, and the missle has yet to interceot an icbm futher than 150km. and these are just "claims" too.

The s-300v is udoutedly superior to the pac-3. The s-300 offers the same performance for half the cost. The pac-3 may have been used in combat, but those were the "malfunctioning versions". the new "upgraded" pac-3s have yet to see combat. Alot of american claims are untrue, such as on the perfromance of the pac-3s

The s-400 is currently at the same stage as the sm-3. The russians have tested the missle against their own icbms. The russians have a very in depth stealth program, and i bielive they can design an airframe(notice how i said airframe, not engine+controls) as stealthhy as a b-2s. being albe to intercept aircraft, cruise missles, and icbms, the s-400 exceeds all the sm's in terms of usability for only a fraction of the cost.



Untrue. That's why you see a Mk72 booster added to a BlockIV frame. Plus an added third stage rocket motor. Definitely outclasses any S-400 in range. Any weapons analyst can come up with a similar range looking at the assembly. The range always fluctuates around 500Km or more. And the range, altitude, and type of warhead requirements were in the request for proposal. If it couldn't achieve it, it wouldn't be used. That's the nature of the U.S. defense industry. By the way, the future SM-6 goes beyond 600Km. About the SM-3 in the works:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051117/neth009.html?.v=34

This is highlighted and open-sourced data. Not much out there concerning S-400 other than speculation. The U.S. proves the value of their system for all to see. And it's actively fielded. The S-400 is not at the same level as the SM-3 program. But I admit, when the S-400 is fielded it will be a great system.

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=Cq7IZueidDxmTB2jLCMLUzY1 PBNrLCNzPzxC

Sounds pretty confident.

As far as S-300, another great system,

I'll say it is obviously an advanced and capable SAM, but it's comparisons are something difficult to ascertain. China has made long strides and has great capabilities in missile and SAM development. Look at HQ-9 FT-2000 and such.

But still, you can't really say S-300V is a superior system to PAC-3. It may be better. It may not. It has never been tried in battle. And I'm willing to bet it will show lower capabilities against PAC-3 when you account for OPFOR systems(Stealth aircraft, EW, etc). So far, the U.S. understands what went wrong with PAC. S-300's real-time application problems have not even been assessed. If you expect S-300 to be some magical system, you might be disappointed with it's real results.

And sorry to reiterate. But Russia does not have anything comparable to American stealth aircraft. You just don't go out and build a B-2 airframe. It's shape is one matter, but there is much more to stealth than airframe shape. And even that's extremely complicated to duplicate. If it were easy, We'd see somebody else out there with something similar. We don't. Stop kidding yourself.

[MIGleader]

I accept the 500km range, not too unreasonable.

as for the s-300, it itself is not a miracle, but the fact it can offer equivalent performance to the patriot for half the cost is. The systmes lineage dates back to the 60s, decades before the patriot was even concieved. i doubt the patriot can track stealth aircraft if it cant track scuds. Even if the u.s has installed some upgrades on the missle, id like to see those upgrades proven

as for russian stealth, ill keep it to a minimal to avoid going off topic. i only mentioned designeing a stealthy airframe. no engines, no controls, it doesnt even have to fly. China has made a copy of the f-22's frame, so russia should be able to pull off somthing similar.

[tphuang]

I accept the 500km range, not too unreasonable.

as for the s-300, it itself is not a miracle, but the fact it can offer equivalent performance to the patriot for half the cost is. The systmes lineage dates back to the 60s, decades before the patriot was even concieved. i doubt the patriot can track stealth aircraft if it cant track scuds. Even if the u.s has installed some upgrades on the missle, id like to see those upgrades proven

as for russian stealth, ill keep it to a minimal to avoid going off topic. i only mentioned designeing a stealthy airframe. no engines, no controls, it doesnt even have to fly. China has made a copy of the f-22's frame, so russia should be able to pull off somthing similar.
PAC actually could detect scud, it just couldn't completely destroy it. I think Russian weapons are just cheaper due to the much lower RnD and labour cost. Let's face it, a Russian weapon system of the same quality as an American weapon system should be cheaper. Of course, the problem is that rich countries look for the best systems and the Russians can't compare to the Americans in most fields. Although, I'd say that the gap in SAM is not as large as some of the other fields.

Yeah, I really also have questions about how Russians and Chinese can make claims that they have SAMs that show good performance against stealth objects.

[Sea Dog]

Although, I'd say that the gap in SAM is not as large as some of the other fields.

I'm not even sure there is a gap in SAM's. I just don't know. For all we know, S-300 does outclass PAC-3. And when you look at FT-2000, the USA hasn't built a SAM that performs similarly. I think it may be that they (USAF/USN)expect to be able to kill any enemy AWACS with aircraft (air dominance). In terms of the S-300, what I'm saying is it's hard to assess it's real capabilities incomparison to PAC-3 in actual combat conditions. Will it's PK be comparable to PAC-3? Will it exceed it...especially when counting for low-observable OPFOR systems? The interesting thing in the comparison of SM-3 to S-400 is that they are two different philosophies in usage. I just don't see how they can be compared unless you speak of them as the Standard Missile Family vs. S-400. The SM-3 is built solely to defend against exo-atmospheric missiles that have multiple seperating warheads and maybe aircraft at long range. The S-400 to it's credit is designed as a multi-purpose system. But again, will S-400 actually work? I know Standard missile systems do.

[MIGleader]

The s-400 was first tested in february 1999, in the astrakhan kapustin yin test site, the russians did not disclose the full details, but reported the tests were sucessful. The 2004 state tests of the missle featuring an improved range 48n6dm s-400, which sucessfully destroyed a ballistic missle.

Much of the s-400 radar, control, and launch infrastructure is based on that of the s-300, which itself has completed dozens more sucessful firings and scored plaenty of export sucesses.

Misslethreat claims the s-400 has twice the range of the pac-3, although the exact range of the pac-3 is never revealed.

[AssassinsMace]

Is it true that China invested in the development of the S-400. If so, does that mean China will have a license to produce it themselves?

[MIGleader]

The s-400 was a highly secretive and advanced russian military developement, and did not recieve any foreign funding, part of the reason why its entery into service waas delayed to now. But china may eventually obtain a liscence to produce the missle after few purchases, just like how china obtained a liscence to build the s-300.

[tphuang]

The s-400 was a highly secretive and advanced russian military developement, and did not recieve any foreign funding, part of the reason why its entery into service waas delayed to now. But china may eventually obtain a liscence to produce the missle after few purchases, just like how china obtained a liscence to build the s-300.
I wouldn't be too surprised if China did invest in certain parts of S-400 system though. It seems like a good choice for China to upgrade some of the existing S-300PMU or PMU1 series to PMU2 standard or S-400. Since, this entire series uses modular approach, it shouldn't be too hard.

[Indianfighter]

I am posting an old forum post by "pegasus" in PDF in 2004. It is about the Russian/Indian anti-radiation missile, the KS-172 Novator. This is exactly how he had posted it:

"'Source FORCE Defence Publication , Volume 1 No 6 April 2004 , Page 55 .

( Im not allowed to Post Article in Full So im Sumarizing the main Points )

Title of Article: India Starts Defence Exports : Joint Ventures Now yielding rich Divedends

KS -172

- Joint Venture between India's DRDO and Russias NPO Novator ( Basically means Indian Money Russian Know-how)

SpeciFications

- It is an ultra Long Range AA-M with a Development Range of 400KMs To Target AEW/AWAC Type High Value Aircrafts
- Sole Carrier in the Indian AF will be the Su-30MKI

Features ( DImensions)

- 1.4 Meter long Rocket Booster ,AAM-L

-Weight 748Kgs

- Core Diameter 0.40 Meter , Total Lenght 6.01 Meters , Span .61 Meters

-Launched by a Solid-propellant Tandem Rocket Booster

- The KS® 172 will attack its Targets with an adaptive high explosive ( HE) fragmentation warhead.

Guidance

- Secure Data-Linked Based inertial Navigation System for MidCourse Guidance ( This would probably be done by AWACS or the 2-3 MKIs Working in Tandem with their Mini AWAC Capability)

- Active Radar Homing for its Terminal Phase.

-The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from 3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g

INDO-RUSSO CO-OPERATION

DRDO and NPO will jointly Develop:

- An Active Homing Radar Seeker with a Wide Lock-On Range Which is able to recieve targeting data from the launch AC.

- Design a combined Gas/AeroDynamic Control system with 3d TVC . Provides High Manoeuvrability irrespective of launch Conditions and allows for missle launch with AC in super Manoeuvrability flight mode.

- Create and Adaptive Rapid Reaction Autopilot Which Optimises with Missile Stabilization and control Parameters within the firing range.

- Development of Special Interaction Logic btween the KS-172 Explosive Fuse and Guidance system Which ( In addition to structural and config features) gurantees absolute immunity of the Warhead detonation system to Jamming


------------------------------------------------------

http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/wwwboard/2359.html
( JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - MARCH 01, 2004)

JANE'S MISSILES AND ROCKETS - MARCH 01, 2004


Novator offers a redesigned KS-172S-1 long-range AAM
Piotr Butowski

Sukhoi has displayed a model of the Su-35 multirole fighter carrying under its wings two KS-172S-1 ultra-long range air-to-air missiles, writes Piotr Butowski. The weapon is an export variant of a missile originally offered to the Russian Air Force by the Novator Company of Yekaterinburg.

Work on the KS-172 air-to-air missile began in 1991. Alternative designations 'Izdeliye 172 (K-172)' and the anglicised 'AAM-L' have also been reported. The basis of the new weapon was the second stage of the 3M83 surface-to-air missile used by the S-300V (SA-12 Gladiator) anti-aircraft system.

A full-scale mock-up of the KS-172 was shown in front of Su-27 fighter at Zhukovsky in August 1993. but over the next 10 years there was no further news of the project. The model shown late last year has a different shape to that of the mock-up shown in 1993. Both versions have a two-stage propulsion system, but in the current KS-172S-1 design the length of the tandem-mounted booster has been increased while its diameter has been reduced. The length of the missile without booster has been reduced so that the overall length of the complete round is unchanged.

According to Novator, the KS-172S-1 is 6.0m long and weighs 700kg, dimensions which are unchanged from those announced in 1993. Its diameter has been reported as 40cm.

In the 1993 design, the nose section of the missile was of smaller diameter than the rest of the fuselage, a configuration which proves additional internal volume for the rocket motor. In the current design, the fuselage is of constant diameter, and the tail-mounted cruciform control fins are of shorter span and longer chord.

The missile is guided to the target by a multi-mode guidance system typical for beyond-visual range missiles. In the first phase of flight, guidance is by inertial navigation with command updates in the mid-course phase. An active-radar seeker is used for terminal guidance. According to earlier reports, the missile carries a directional high-explosive (HE) fragmentation warhead, probably weighing about 50kg, and initiated by a radar proximity fuze.

Maximum range of the KS-172S-1 export variant is 300km; the version proposed for Russian air forces is believed to have a range of 400km. The missile will be used against air targets flying at altitudes from 3m to 30km with speeds up to 4,000km/h and manoeuvring at up to 12g. Typical targets could include all types of aircraft (including AWACS or J-STARS platforms, tankers, reconnaissance and electronic-warfare aircraft), cruise missiles, as well as long and medium-range anti-aircraft missiles which pose a threat to the KS-172-armed fighter.

Several test launches of the KS-172 have been made, but these rounds were not fitted with a guidance system. The firing of rounds fitted only with an autopilot and programmed to fly pre-planned manoeuvres is common in the early stages of air-to-air missile programmes.

The Russian air force did not adopt the KS-172, but opted to back a competing K-37M missile offered by Vympel. It is surprising to see that the Novator weapon is now being offered for export.

This is bits of Info i Found on the Internet




http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ks172.htm

" Air-to-air missile. Country: Russia. Manufacturer's Designation: KS-172. Alternate Designation: AAM-L. Manufacturer: Novator NPO. Location: Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation.
Anti-AWACS missile. 1.4m booster, AAM-L, Not funded. Total Mass: 748 kg. Core Diameter: 0.40 m. Total Length: 6.01 m. Span: 0.61 m. Maximum range: 1,040 km. Boost Propulsion: Solid rocket. Cruise Propulsion: Solid rocket. Guidance: Active Radar Homing.


http://homepages.evansville.edu/dk9/SU-35.html

http://www.fighters.co.yu/Data/Russia/SU35-data.htm

"
The Su-35 will be compatible with the new 400-km Novator KS-172 AAM-L missile. Flight testing in now reportedly complete and production has been funded.

( The Radar on both the Su-35/30MKI will be the N-011M BARS)

Source:
http://www.*********************.com/lofiversion/index.php/t29834.html

[sumdud]

And what does this have to do with Chinese SAM?:nono:

[Indianfighter]

Quoted by Sumdud
________________
And what does this have to do with Chinese SAM?
________________

The Novator is a Russian anti-AEWC SAM, and since China sources many technologies from Russia, we may compare this SAM with the FT-2000, and track its development.

[vincelee]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

If that's the line of logic, we might as well dig out SA-3 for the Akash.

[MIGleader]

Quoted by Sumdud
________________
And what does this have to do with Chinese SAM?
________________

The Novator is a Russian anti-AEWC SAM, and since China sources many technologies from Russia, we may compare this SAM with the FT-2000, and track its development.

Edit:
We are happy that you can provide us with updates on india's military forces, but plz put it in the world armed forces thread. This kind of posting is off topic here.

as long as he gets the message...

[tphuang]

That was the lamest excuse ive ever heard. We are happy that you can provide us with updates on india's military forces, but DO NOT HIJACK A CHINESE WEAPONS THREAD WITH THIS KIND OF OVER_PATRIOTISM. If you want to brag about the IN, IA, and IAF, go to indodefence.com or something.
don't be so hard on indianfighter. but yeah, you should post this in the world section, indianfighter. Anyhow, it's likely that China will get KS-172. Although, it is unlikely that China will actually provide funding for its development.

[swimmerXC]

don't be so hard on indianfighter. but yeah, you should post this in the world section, indianfighter. Anyhow, it's likely that China will get KS-172. Although, it is unlikely that China will actually provide funding for its development.

From your rhetoric we might as well stick all the Russian SAM's in this thread and European SAM's (after embargo is lifted...) :coffee:

[tphuang]

From your rhetoric we might as well stick all the Russian SAM's in this thread and European SAM's (after embargo is lifted...) :coffee:
well realistically speaking, S-400 is a system that China will get for its SAM, but KS-172 cannot be considered SAM. Frankly, it has not even been deployed, whereas S-400 is already deployed.

[crazyinsane105]

well realistically speaking, S-400 is a system that China will get for its SAM, but KS-172 cannot be considered SAM. Frankly, it has not even been deployed, whereas S-400 is already deployed.

Ks-172 is an air to air missile. Isn't it basically an air launched S-300 missile?

[MIGleader]

Typhuang, i have a few questions regarding the hq-9. I know the lnad based varient has a range of 100km, but your also saying the naval varient has a range of 150km...how can that be right?

And what is the PAR that guides the hq-9?
what is the accuracy rate of the naval hq-9?
what is the rate of fire for the naval hq-9(s-300's is 1 missle per 3 seconds).



and btw,
Crazy, this thread discusses SAMs(surface to air missle). since the ks-172 is fired from the air, it is not a SAM, regardless of what it was based off of.

[tphuang]

Typhuang, i have a few questions regarding the hq-9. I know the lnad based varient has a range of 100km, but your also saying the naval varient has a range of 150km...how can that be right?

And what is the PAR that guides the hq-9?
what is the accuracy rate of the naval hq-9?
what is the rate of fire for the naval hq-9(s-300's is 1 missle per 3 seconds).



and btw,
Crazy, this thread discusses SAMs(surface to air missle). since the ks-172 is fired from the air, it is not a SAM, regardless of what it was based off of.
Well, the export version FT-2000 has a range of 120 KM. There is also FT-2000A and FT-2000B. You can imagine that the domestic version should have greater range and better accuracy than 120KM. Kanwa did mention in the other article that land HQ-9 showed superior performance to S-300PMU1 in PLA's own field testing. Not sure if that's true or not.

you can find a JDW article here from Dec 2004 that basically stated FT-2000A/B's range http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34929

Anyhow, Sinodefence mentionned that the missile for HQ-9 has a slant range of 200 KM. If the naval radar is superior to the land based ones, then you can say that it will be able to make use of the slant range.

As for the other questions, I guess there is no definitive answers to those right now.

[bdmilitary]

Is the HQ-15 available for export?

[MIGleader]

Er...yes and no. The hq-15 is a chinese liscence production of the s-300(pmu-1?). The hq-15 is nto for sale, but the s-300 is.

[KYli]

China's Defense Challenge


The Russian-built S-300 PMU-2 air defense system
by Martin Walker
UPI Editor Emeritus
Washington (UPI) May 26, 2006



At some point this fall, probably in September, China will take delivery of a state-of-the-art anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense system.
For an overall contract that with training and spares will certainly exceed a billion dollars, the Russian-built S-300 PMU-2 air defense system will provide China with the power to challenge the United States for command of the airspace over the Taiwan straits.

The Russian air defense system, reckoned by military specialists to be more advanced than the U.S. Patriot missile system, has an intercept range of up to 120 miles, and according to the Pentagon's latest report on China's military capabilities it provides "increased lethality against tactical ballistic missiles and more effective electronic counter measures."

China's military modernization program also includes Russian-built Sovremenny-2 guided missile destroyers, another eight Russian Kilo-class submarines, and an accelerated production program for China's own Song class of submarines. They carry a new generation of underwater-launched cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, which represent a serious challenge to the U.S. Navy's traditional command of the waters around the Taiwan Straits and the Yellow Sea.

China is also building its own advanced warships. Last year China launched its own new Luzhou class guided missile destroyer, which incorporates much of what China's naval designers learned from the Sovremenny ships, but it said to have improved electronics that double the effective radar detection range.

China claims to be doing all this with a defense budget of a mere $23 billion, or about five percent of U.S. military spending. Nobody really believes this, but equally there was skepticism of Pentagon estimates that the real level of Chinese spending was around $90 billion a year. But now London's prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies has published its own detailed estimate, which comes very close to the U.S. estimates.

The IISS study analyzed China's defense budget for the year 2003, and by including figures for China's arms purchases from abroad (including Israel and Brazil as well as Russia), research and development costs and industrial subsidies, it came up with a more realistic figure of $39.6 billion. The IISS then applied the World Bank's purchasing power parity figures, which allow for the fact that China's real costs are far lower, and reckoned that in U.S. terms, China was really spending the equivalent of $75.5 billion.

Bear in mind that in the years since 2003, China's official defense budget has increased by over 10 percent a year (and it has for the past 15 years in a row) so the IISS figures would suggest that the Pentagon's estimate of around $90 billion for this year is bang on target. This would make China the world's number two in defense spending, ahead of Russia, Japan, Britain or France.

"Expenditure is on a sharp upward trend and will remain so in view of popular and elite support for accelerated defense modernization," said IISS director John Chipman at this week's publication of "The Military Balance," the annual IISS survey of global military power.

"As China's strategic presence continues to expand, the question of what resources Beijing is investing in defense capabilities, and to what end, loom larger," Chipman added. "The military dynamic of the U.S.-China relationship remains implicitly but decidedly competitive, and there is little that augurs for change. With that, the risk will grow that this military dynamic will over time have a greater bearing on the tone and content of the relationship as a whole."

China's official military journal recently published an interesting editorial that argued for the development of a Chinese military "commensurate with its international status... and its interests." This is significant for the long-term given that China has major energy investments in Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Central Asia and Latin America, and its prosperity as a great trading economy and as the world's second biggest oil importer depends on sea routes.

But in the short term, any military analyst looking at China's current force structure and at the 700-plus ballistic missiles facing Taiwan would probably concur with this week's Pentagon report that "In the near term, China's military build-up appears focused on preparing for Taiwan Strait contingencies, including the possibility of US intervention."

"Beijing's sustained military buildup in the area of the Taiwan Strait risks disrupting the status quo," the Pentagon report added, which may be an understatement. The Pentagon report does not add that the status quo has been shifting because of Taiwan's own politics, where the National Assembly has declined to vote the $19 billion in funding for the arms modernization package that President George Bush offered them back in his first term. If Taiwan's politicians are reluctant to vote the money to help defend themselves, American taxpayers are entitled to ask why they should do it for them.

There is no doubt that the Pentagon and the Bush administration are aware of all this and deeply concerned by it. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has noted, China's neighbors as well as the Americans are asking what China is intending to do with the surge in its military capabilities.

Dan Blumenthal, formerly senior country director for China and Taiwan in Rumsfeld's office and now with the American Enterprise Institute is warning that "the time may be fast approaching" when the United States has to recognize that its strategy of trying to encourage China to be a responsible player in the global security system is simply not working. Interestingly, Blumenthal's colleague at AEI Karl Zinsmeister has just been named as the new policy director at the White House. But with Iraq and Iran and North Korea already crowding out the agenda, the question is how much attention will the Bush administration can devote to China's military challenge and to the related question of Taiwan's curious reluctance to help meet it.


Source: United Press International

[tphuang]

something on HQ-9A, not sure if it's true or not

中国强大的新型ＨＱ－９Ａ令西方战机胆寒

据台湾媒体报道，解放军的ＨＱ－９Ａ（红旗九改）地空导弹２００１年１月已实际部署地面部队，而解放军海军 大型防空舰正在把ＨＱ－９Ａ的海军型搬上舰，就是ＨＨＱ－９Ａ，成为中国海军舰队远程区域防空的主力弹种， 其最大射程２００千米，最大射高４０千米，绝对超过美制宙斯盾舰与基德舰上配备的标准－２型防空导弹的７０ 千米的射程，甚至超过了美制爱国者－３型的１８０千米的最大射距，成为独立于美俄欧系防空导弹家族的另一极 。

Just saying that HQ-9A SAM first appeared in 2001 and placed on 052C. It's maximum range is 200 KM, maximum altitude is 40 km, even greater than the range of SM-2 and PAC-3

据传，ＨＱ－９Ａ在１９９７年少量服役，曾在国土防空作战中参与战备值班，并击落过高空侦察气球和无人侦察 机。１９９９年７月，经过进一步改良的ＨＱ－９首次在西北靶场试射成功？同年８月下旬，在高海拔地区举行靶 射，当相控阵雷达在远距（３００千米处）发现目标后立即跟踪锁定，导弹随即升空击碎靶机。随后，ＨＱ－９在 乌云密布和强风中把来自高中低空不同类型，不同方向的靶机击碎，在场观看的空军司令员刘顺尧上将对其高原作 战性能和雷达电子系统快速反应能力留下了深刻印象，并给予高度评价。

- claims to have entered service in small numbers in 1997?
- in July 1999, the improved HQ-9 first successfully intercepted in NorthWest China
- in august in an high altitude test, the phased array radar found target 300 km from the target, tracked it and hit the target
- the high altitude capability and reaction time left good impression
ＨＱ－９的雷达电子设备相当先进可*，发展潜力很大，相比之下，光是数字化显示控制台技术，Ｓ－３００系列 就比其落后５－１０年的差距。为了使综合性能超过Ｓ－３００，ＨＱ－９又有了推进系统的技术革新，如建立了 ＨＴＰＢ高能固体燃料生产线？采用高强度纤维／环氧复合材料发动机壳？把高冲质比喷管技术实用化，采用新产 品全面减轻结构重量，把制导由“惯性＋指令＋ＴＶＭ”改进成“惯性＋指令＋主动雷达导引”等。改进后的ＨＱ －９Ａ一跃成为世界先进的双重用途（反飞机与反导弹，含战术弹道导弹）防空导弹系统。
- The HQ-9 radar is very advanced, has good improvement potential, all digital control system, S-300's control system is 5-10 years behind this, the integrated capability surpasses that of S-300, HQ-9 uses improved technology
- guidance changed from "inertial guidance+midcourse correction+TVM" to "guidance+correction+ARH"
- the modified HQ-9A became an advanced (anti-aircraft, anti-missile, anti-bm?) SAM
ＨＱ－９Ａ的强大抗干ü