PLA anti aircraft weapons

[MIGleader]

what kind of role do close range, mobile anti aircraft platforms serve in the pla? i thought missles pretty much had the job covered, and the pla has around 750 s-300s. so are these vehicles for offensive,mobile air cover, or simply another layer of air-defense?

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/type95.asp
type 95 mobile AAA

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000.asp
and what kind of future does the Ld-2000 have with the pla?

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/type90towed35mm.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/type87towed25mm.asp

effective towed AAA. but are they outdated?

[muyang523]

I think that is because missile systems cannot traverse or react fast enough to targets that are manuvering close to the ground. Plus missiles are expensive.

[jatt]

I think that is because missile systems cannot traverse or react fast enough to targets that are manuvering close to the ground. Plus missiles are expensive.
But the success of AAA is limited. I think the LD-2000 would be used to protect airfields. The PLA lacks missiles that could effectivily counter bombs and low altitude cruise missiles on short notice. Instead of developing a quick reaction missile the PLA may have dicided to use a CIWS instead.

[muyang523]

Ld-2000 cannot effectively shoot down aircrafts and crusie missiles. CIWS are used to pentrate small holes into their targets. They dont't have a long range only about 3km maximium. They can only replace AAA but definity they can replace S-300 or FT-2000. Plus Ld-2000 is expensive and it doesn't look like the PLA is buying them.

[Lavi]

There are many different variants in the field of short or point-defence weapons. One end represents the towed AAA's, the Ld-2000 and similar systems. These are used to provide point-defence of valuable stationary targets, like HQ's, airfields, bases and so on.

The Type 95 reflects a completly different approach, being a vehicle able to operate in the combat zone and following own armoured columns on the move. Putting the unnescesary expensive Type 95 to perform duties that towed AAA can handle is simply a waste of resources, which I guess gives my opinion on whether towed AAA is obsolete or not.

SAM's can be basically be divided up the same way.

[FreeAsia2000]

There are many different variants in the field of short or point-defence weapons. One end represents the towed AAA's, the Ld-2000 and similar systems. These are used to provide point-defence of valuable stationary targets, like HQ's, airfields, bases and so on.

The Type 95 reflects a completly different approach, being a vehicle able to operate in the combat zone and following own armoured columns on the move. Putting the unnescesary expensive Type 95 to perform duties that towed AAA can handle is simply a waste of resources, which I guess gives my opinion on whether towed AAA is obsolete or not.

SAM's can be basically be divided up the same way.

How will the introduction of systems like MetalStorm affect AAA?. Surely
a system like MetalStorm is very effective against Cruise Missiles but not
aircraft so will that mean Close Support systems will be used more in the future?

[adeptitus]

Sadly, these days an anti-air system on the ground, is just another target from the air. To win in today's combat environment you really need to win air superiority.

As for low flying targets like enemy helos, how about hunter-killer drones/UAV's that can be used against low flying aircraft?

[MIGleader]

Ld-2000 cannot effectively shoot down aircrafts and crusie missiles. CIWS are used to pentrate small holes into their targets. They dont't have a long range only about 3km maximium. They can only replace AAA but definity they can replace S-300 or FT-2000. Plus Ld-2000 is expensive and it doesn't look like the PLA is buying them.

the ak-630 has a range of 9 km. thats very far. the type 730 has a 4 km hit range and a 1 km kill range. for point defence, thats a great job.

china also does have close range missles, like the yitian ty-90. the missles have already been experimentally fitted on the ld-2000, ans as everyone knows, the hummer.

a combination of the two systems with s-300s and a electronic countermeasuere system like Bodyguard could provide valuabe protection against possible f-18 and b-52 strikes against airbases and communication centers near taiwan strait. america has a long tradition of using airpower to knock out these points. if china can creat a thourough, integrated defence for the vital points, it has longer life in the war.

[crazyinsane105]

Sadly, these days an anti-air system on the ground, is just another target from the air. To win in today's combat environment you really need to win air superiority.

As for low flying targets like enemy helos, how about hunter-killer drones/UAV's that can be used against low flying aircraft?

The S-300 can hit targets pretty far away and since it is a brand new system that NATO hasn't toyed with, it will be a pretty nasty surprise against any aircraft. Also, correct me if I am mistaken, I read in a source that the S-300 can't be targeted by anti-radiation missiles. Is that true? And if so, why? Does the S-300 use the same type of radar system that the Chech Vera has or what?

[MIGleader]

The S-300 can hit targets pretty far away and since it is a brand new system that NATO hasn't toyed with, it will be a pretty nasty surprise against any aircraft. Also, correct me if I am mistaken, I read in a source that the S-300 can't be targeted by anti-radiation missiles. Is that true? And if so, why? Does the S-300 use the same type of radar system that the Chech Vera has or what?

i dont know if the s-300 has anti-radiation missle ability(ARM), but the ft-2000/hq-9 does.
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airdefence/ft2000.asp

the s-300 uses the Clam Shell 3D 360º , and the 'Flap Lid-B' radar/engagement control vehicle, or the 64N6/H6E Tomb Stone phased-array engagement radar.

[chakos]

Every anti-air system has its role to play in the big picture.

If you guys remember, the reason why Egypt shut down the Isreili Air force so effectivelly in the early days of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 is because it created an air defence 'onion' The whole concept beeing that you have to peel it away bit by bit and at great loss. The only reason they got their asses handed to them is because they decided to advance outside the range of the onion.

The onion worked by using long and medium range missiles to force the IDF down to a low altitute where they would be under constant threat of MANPADS , SR-SAMS and AAA.

As well as that they uses systems to protect other systems. The Sa-6's protected the Sa-2's the Sa-9's Sa-8's defended the Sa-6's and the MANPADS and AAA defended the shorter ranged mobile missiles.

As well as causing the Isreilis to go in low and fast to avoid destruction (and therefore limiting range, sensor range and combat flexibility) the SAM belts also served to cause the Isreilis to suffer casualties from Egyptian Mig-21's because the Isreili pilots had their hands full avoiding ground launched weapons.

The only way the Isreilis could penetrate this onion was to launch complicated large scale raids using at times a quarter of their entire air force in order to knock out one battery of Sa-2 missiles and still suffering heavy casualties.

If China uses this system and substitutes the old soviet missiles for the new ones at its disposal today then its airspace becomes a very dangerous place to be. :coffee:

[muyang523]

the ak-630 has a range of 9 km. thats very far. the type 730 has a 4 km hit range and a 1 km kill range. for point defence, thats a great job.
We are talking about Ld-2000, not ak-630. According to sinodefence.com it has a maximum range of 3000M (3km) and engage targets at a distance of 1000-1500meters (1-1.5Km)
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000.asp

[MIGleader]

We are talking about Ld-2000, not ak-630. According to sinodefence.com it has a maximum range of 3000M (3km) and engage targets at a distance of 1000-1500meters (1-1.5Km)
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000.asp

well, you said ciws in general were short ranged. and its not like china doesnt have the ak-630.

back to the layered defense...its a concept certainly well imployed on ships today. the ships feature long range missles(hq-9) for air cover, and ciws for point defense. if nesseacery, manpads caried by the crew could be used. i completely agree with chakos. there are many americans that think they can simply fly f-18s and b-52s into chinese airspace and start dropping bombs are completely mistaken. china is not iraq. slow flying b-52s wouldnt last a few minutes against s-300s and j-7 and j-8 interceptors. the f-18s would have a higher chance of living, but the deeper they go, they less likely thay are to live. su-27s would handle them as the f-18 pilots were doging missles. such deterence may not suceed, but the f-18s may not have enough fuel to return to the carrier. chinese subs can do a good job of keeping the cbg at distance. inevitably, many f-18 pilots will have to bail in taiwan strait. they can pray to be picked up by the taiwanese. the f-18s...china might hunt fallen f18s.

[swimmerXC]

They won't sent F-18s or B-52s, more like F-117 and B-2s, although there's still a question of rather if China bought Anti-Stealth radar from Czech. About the Isrealis beating the Arabs SAM defence, didn't they sent UAV to help act as decoy for the missiles to be wasted?
Impressed by America's AQM-34 Ryan Firebee UAV, Israel secretly purchased 12 Firebees from the U.S. in 1970, modified them, and designated them Firebee 1241 UAVs. These Firebee 1241s played an important role in the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel, Egypt, and Syria, both as reconnaissance vehicles and as new kinds of UAVs: decoys. On the second day of the war the Israeli Air Force deployed their fleet of armed Firebees to lead attacks against Egyptian air defenses along the Suez. The Egyptians fired their entire inventory of surface-to-air missiles at the Firebees—43 missiles in all. The Firebees successfully evaded 32 of the missiles and destroyed 11 with their Shrike anti-radar missiles.
Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spiesfly/uavs.html)
Well if Isreal can do that, what makes the US not able to mass produce hundreds?
Don't forget the LD-2000 has 6 TY-90, which makes it's range increas eto 10 KM.
These are the main players though because they can also intercept ballistic missiles, I'm not going to explain them but just go to the link below to read about them..
FT-2000
Hongqi-2 (HQ-2)
Hongqi-9 (HQ-9)
Hongqi-10 (HQ-10)
Hongqi-15 (HQ-15)
Source (http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/)

[MIGleader]

no f-18s? thats the whole point of sending the carrier!!!
the b-2 would present a big threat. china might be able to find it, but shoioting it down is a different thing. im sure china and russia are working on improving the s-300(s-400?) or other missles to be able to seek out stealth planes.

f-117s? it cetainly very combat proven in attacking chinese buildings.:D

[vincelee]

first of all, the PLA deploys 2 SHORAD

1) Tor-M1

2) FM-80/90

they actually deploy 3 if you count the HQ-61A, which is STILL in service in organic anti air elements.


second, S-300 itself is pretty damned old, the concept being conceived in the 60s and all. Of course PMU-x is relatively advanced.

the interesting thing is, AAA is very effective if you use them correctly. If the Iraqis actually had their radars up, their AAA would have done some serious damage to Allied air power.

[Longaxe]

Nope, AAA is to short ranged to deal with modern air launched stand of weapons. The fact that the Iraqis didn’t have any radar should tell you something about the effectiveness of fixed or ground based air defenses. The only way to win an air war is to take the fight to the enemy; you do that with aircraft not SAM or AAA. About the only thing that a 25mm or 37mm can be used for is as an ambush or base defense weapon. If use it as an ambush weapon, to take out low flying aircraft or helicopters, you likely have already lost the war anyways.

[crazyinsane105]

Actually, the Iraqis DID have their radars on during the first Gulf War. There were two problems: first, the allies had mapped out the radar sites and during the air war, the SAMs were the first ones to get hit. Second, their radar systems were jammed by the US aircraft. The reason the Chechs had faired so well was because they kept on turning their SAMs on and off and the allied planes weren't able to spot the SAM sites. Had the Iraqis done that, they would have faired much better. Also, yes, the S-300 is based off 60's tech, but the Patriot is also based off some pretty old tech as well. And even though the Patriot can't shoot down missiles, I can bet you it can shoot down planes without a problem.

[Gollevainen]

I must say there are quite "interesting" wievs about AAAs. Anti-aircraft artillery are still very important elemnts of airdefence. You cannot use latest Iraq war as an example, cos the effectivines of Iraqi armed forces was gone even before the war started. To look AAAs use in modern warfare you have to find out other examples. The kosovo crises was a good one. VJ had very strong lowlevel anti-aircraft artillery and good C&C network to operate it. NATO knew this very well and didn't risk anything to go against it. Therefor NATO was forced to operate from high altitudes and even whit most modern guided weapons, the same ammount of succes cannot be obtained what you wouldget from closer-to-ground operations. We all know just how much damage VJ actually suffered...."forced to take cover" as it was bragged by NATO in western media...

[Fairthought]

Don't forget the Russians found that Mobile AAA were the best vehicles for Urban warfare. Tanks were too heavy, and could not elevate their guns high enough in winding streets where rebels on buildling rooftops were directly overhead.

[MIGleader]

Don't forget the Russians found that Mobile AAA were the best vehicles for Urban warfare. Tanks were too heavy, and could not elevate their guns high enough in winding streets where rebels on buildling rooftops were directly overhead.

AAA guns have always proven to be best when turned against grouind troops, like the german 88mm. so a ciws turned to a tank would shred it up, just like the a-10 gatling would.

AAA is usually used side by side with sams nowadays. but since long range sams are often not very mobile, AAA still provides valuable offensive air cover.

[Lavi]

I think you're generalising a bit too much, it is true that since shooting down an aircraft is very difficult, AAA weapons are usually quite good, and they have the same abilities as required by anti tank guns, mainly high velocity and flat trajectory. Saying that any CIWS would rip a tank to pieces is to say too much, heavier calibres might very well do so if loaded with AP rounds, but a smaller calibre (20 mm) would have problems against an MBT, especially if no AP rounds where available.

[slackpiv]

Well in a Taiwan conflict, The US would be fighting over the Taiwan straight and Taiwan so there would be limited SAM cover for the PLA. As for the Egyption Bubble, it occured before the Israeli's had an adequent antiradiation solution. If the US does intend to take out critical airfields and C4ISR assets of China, it would use B-2s and F-117s and tamohawks from naval assets. China would have great trouble with fighting with the USN naval air fleet which itself is more powerful than the PLAAF. In a warsituation, you can bet that there would be 4+ carriers in theatre.

[rice]

http://bbsimages.military.china.com/1013/2005/11/24/50.jpg

[adeptitus]

Saying that any CIWS would rip a tank to pieces is to say too much, heavier calibres might very well do so if loaded with AP rounds, but a smaller calibre (20 mm) would have problems against an MBT, especially if no AP rounds where available.

@_@

The Dutch Goalkeeper CIWS gun is the same 30mm GAU-8/A used on A-10's. If that thing is used against a MBT, the MBT is not likely to survive.

If I'm not mistaken the US Phalanx CIWS guns have DU ammo.

[vincelee]

1)

A-10 wasn't meant to target the frontal aspect armor of an MBT, it'll not penetrate. Instead, the A-10 shoots the TOP of the tank, where the armor is the thinnest. I don't see how you can achieve high atitude with a land based system.

2)

Phalanx DID have DU penetrators, but they're all tungsten now. The DU penetrator was perceived to be needed because the Soviets started armoring their AShMs.

[AssassinsMace]

I recall a picture of an M1A1 at the beginning of the second Gulf War with a good bite taken out the front right of the tank. Some say the Iraqis had some weapon that penetrated the front of the M1A1. The US military said it was accidental friendly-fire from an A-10's cannon.

[vincelee]

are you sure they said "cannon" and not "hell fire"? Because a GAU-8 with the AP-DU round is rated at around 200mm RHA at 1000m and 280mm point blank. Unless you're saying that the front right of an M1 is less than 200mm, which I can penetrate with an RPG-7 (also known as my right hand), I suggest that you, well, abandon your previous point.

[darth sidious]

BACK to sams

one importent thing is that American or the NATO do not get their hands on a single bit of info all existing systems the american know must have extra modificaton as proven in chinas battles aginst the U-2 wars in the middle east and serbia have proves this the sserbs made some changes this and good tatic inflicted hevy losses

[vincelee]

first of all, have you EVER heard of punctuations? Because I'm having a tat of trouble understanding you, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Now if you're referring to the F-117 incident, it wasn't due to any Serbian modifications to the Goblet, but the general stupidity of the planners. Happened to be that they planned the strike at the same time everyday using the same general approach vector. And of course, the Goblet and the AAA are mobile.

[AssassinsMace]

are you sure they said "cannon" and not "hell fire"? Because a GAU-8 with the AP-DU round is rated at around 200mm RHA at 1000m and 280mm point blank. Unless you're saying that the front right of an M1 is less than 200mm, which I can penetrate with an RPG-7 (also known as my right hand), I suggest that you, well, abandon your previous point.

I believe a Hellfire would've done more damage to the tank. Like I said, it looked like some large monster took a bite out of it. No real fire damage was there. I don't know what did it. I just remember what was "officially" said by the US military that an A-10 accidentally shot at the M1 with its cannon. The A-10 is called the "Tank-Buster" and does used DU rounds. Others wanted to believe the Iraqis had some rumor new weapon obtained from Russia maybe.

[vincelee]

was it the turret or the lower chassis?

If it was the turret, then I really don't know what the hell to say. GAU-8's combat mix, which is, as far as I know, applied to all A-10s, is one HE round followed by 4 AP-DU rounds, so you should see burn marks. If it was a hell fire, then yes, you should also see burn marks, as it IS a HEAT missile.

To be honest, I don't see any Iraqi weapon, or really ANY weapon short of a high capabiliy APFDS-DU doing somekind of sheer damage to the frontal armor of an Abram.

If it was the chassis, a collision might be more likely.

Do you have a picture?

Where the hell is Utelore when you need him?

[AssassinsMace]

was it the turret or the lower chassis?

If it was the turret, then I really don't know what the hell to say. GAU-8's combat mix, which is, as far as I know, applied to all A-10s, is one HE round followed by 4 AP-DU rounds, so you should see burn marks. If it was a hell fire, then yes, you should also see burn marks, as it IS a HEAT missile.

To be honest, I don't see any Iraqi weapon, or really ANY weapon short of a high capabiliy APFDS-DU doing somekind of sheer damage to the frontal armor of an Abram.

If it was the chassis, a collision might be more likely.

Do you have a picture?

Where the hell is Utelore when you need him?

It was the chasis. If anyone was hurt it was the driver only. Didn't keep pics then so I don't have one to show. I remember it because there was a debate between people who believe the official word and the ones that believed the Iraqis discovered a way to take out an M1.

[chinawhite]

I remember that.

It was rumoured to be the Kornet. or a lucky RPG-7 shot. I found a few pictures can you identify it

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/images-resistance/abrams-byebye.jpg

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/images-resistance/abrams-bbq.jpg

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/iraq/images-resistance/burningabrams.jpg

pensioneers do fishing, a young man like you dont have urge to get his pension, RIGTH?

Regards,

chinawhite

[rommel]

GET BACK TO THE PLA SAM !!!!

[Gollevainen]

Once again, imagine me banging my head against the wall....

For god sake vince/yue, as a old member, show some example and obey Rommel, He is a mod. Now I have done this same thing too much so please, dont test me...

[sumdud]

I wonder why China is employing so many kinds of short range SAM. :confused
The type 95 and the TY-90 system(land version while mounted on a vehicle.) very important in a mobile force. You can't operate most ADS while on the move due to the fact that their equipment are withdrawn. The two systems are, however, one piece systems they can keep up and be deployed quickly.
And while SAMs have longer reaches, AAA are more flexible and cheaper.

I don't really see the roles of towed AAAs anymore though. Maybe they can be better concealed than SAMs???

long range SAMs are pretty much a must now.
As for S-300, Crazy said that there are rumors that it can't be attacked with ARMs, not whether it is an ARM or not.

I too have doubts about LD-2000. its 1km range is nearly nothing compared to the area of a air-battle. Unless you are sure some sort of weapon is heading for the structure the LD-2000 is protecting, it will stand there looking but doing nothing.

But I'd probably get a number of passive radars along with my active mobile ones. While my passive radars are standing and detecting, my active radars will be running, turning on and off.
Both my AAA and SAMs (and planes) work with the network.

[tphuang]

nothing much, but a this company in China, it's products include type 79 Anti-surface gun and land based 730's latest anti-BM version, amongst these, items like LD-2000 have been exported. Wonder which country imported LD-2000.

　　特种加工技术是难加工材料、复杂型面、薄壁弹性零件的有效加工方法。本所的主要研究方向有复合电解加工 (ECM)、电解在线修形(ELID)、电化学微细加工技术（EMM）。曾获部级科技进步二等奖4项，三等 奖1项，在国内外期刊发表论文60余篇，SCI、EI收录12篇。专著3部，专利2项。

本研究所所获部级科技进步奖项目

　　1.“火炮身管电解加工微机控制及磁场复合优化工艺研究”获2002年兵器工业集团公司科学技术二等奖 ，国防科工委科学技术三等奖；

　　2.“电解加工电解产物处理和废渣综合利用”获1983年国家经济委员会优秀新产品证书，1984年兵 器部科技进步二等奖；

　　3 “硝酸钠复合电解液和电解成型加工”获1985年机电部科技进步二等奖; 7 x>Ug%]V
( %rH?"N*t
　　4 “身管不等齐缠度和等齐缠度混合膛线的微机控制电解加工”,获1985年兵器部科技进步二等奖;

　　5.“磨削液净化技术” 获1998年兵器工业总公司科技进步三等奖；

　　火炮身管微机控制及磁场复合优化工艺

　　“火炮身管微机控制及磁场复合优化工艺”首次提出锲形工作齿阴极，采用计算机控制加工混合膛线，加工精 度居国际领先，获部级科技进步二等奖。经国家靶场试验证明，该火炮身管的射速、寿命及射击精度等性能均明显 优于其它同类等齐膛线火炮。现已正式投产，装备部队，成为79海舰、730陆基的最新式密集阵末端反导的重 要武器装备，其中“陆盾”2000等产品出口国外。

[maozedong]

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/2007-02-20/U1335P27T1D432058F3DT20070220150152.jpg

Jane's Defense Weekly reported that China North Industrial Corporation has recently disclosed Thunder- 2000 grounds short ranges air defense system detail.according to the report the system capable of anti-strike fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter, air to ground missile, cruise missile or UAV.
we can see the vehecle install with one set 7x30mm 730B " super fast machinegun ".
Thunder-2000 can strike the radar reflection echo only 0.1 Square meter cruise missile.

[SteelBird]

I'm not sure what's function of the big box on the truck of the LD-2000. But if the system is mounted on track-chassis like the type 95, it would better in cross-country capability. Don't you think so?

[RedMercury]

Its role is to defend high value targets from PGMs. For example, C4 nodes and S-300 radars. It doesn't have to follow the army around. The big box is the operator station.

[planeman]

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/2007-02-20/U1335P27T1D432058F3DT20070220150152.jpg

I think it's big limitation is the relatively short range of the TY-70 SAM. We know that the air-launched version has a range of about 6km so the ground launged version is probably about 5km IMO. QW-4 would probably be a better choice.

[oringo]

Came across this pic the other day:
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4746/sg2wb4.th.jpg (http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sg2wb4.jpg)
Anybody knows what it is?

[Gollevainen]

Four TY-90 fitted to the ZU-23 (or its chinese versions) mount.

[Costas 240GD]

A related discussion was held here: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=2912

[szbd]

I think the LD2000 is designed to take out an approaching JDAM or something like that. Just like the CIWS on a ship take out an SSM.

[Yaka]

Hi guys...
Sri Lanka is looking to China to set up its air defense system. Due to the LTTE terrorist launching "air raids" using light aircrafts.
Several Chinese 2D & 3D radars are to be purchased. The LTTE has being using Chinese made twin 14.5mm naval guns onboard their boats. The SL Navy also uses the same weapon.
Sir Lanka is said to have ordered 50 Type-82 14.5mm HMG's? I cant find any info on a Type-82 system.

Can some one please enlighten me on the Chinese made 14.5mm and 35mm systems?

[Pointblank]

Type 90 Twin-35mm Towed Anti-Aircraft Artillery:
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/type90towed35mm.asp
Basically a copy of the famous Swiss Oerlikon ***-005 35mm twin cannons with the famous Swiss Oerlikon Skyguard II radar set.

The Type-82 14.5mm HMG is from my understanding a copy of the Soviet era KPV heavy machine gun. So I would look up that machine gun instead.

[Yaka]

hey guys,

I have looked all over the Sino defence page and found no Type-82 twin 14.5mm Naval AAA. I think its same 14.5mm twin onboard TYPE 067 (YUNAN CLASS) & TYPE 037-IG (HOUXIN CLASS) boats. Any info or pics of these gun? thanks

[-SOC]

The HQ-9 SAM:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/10/hq-9-sam-system-site-analysis.html

[planeman]

The HQ-9 SAM:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/10/hq-9-sam-system-site-analysis.html

Awesome analysis! Cheers. Is that yours?

[-SOC]

Yup, that's my blog. Unfortunately I don't get to update it nearly as often as I'd like due to other obligations (family and the like), but I try to put something up there at least every two weeks, with the goal of updating it more often.

[planeman]

Interesting to see the differentiation between HQ-9 and S-300 sites - like most people I'd labelled them all as S-300 on my Google Earth. To what extent do you suppose the sites are inter-system compatible?



Am i right in thinking you're the chap with the Google Earth placemarks of SAM sites for download? I used to have it on my PC but I lost it when I got a new computer - I recall finding a few that weren't on the list and I could point them out to you if you like - though your IDs are way better than mine. I famously mistook an AH-1 dispersal in Iran for HQ-2. But, I have found Rapier and unidentified SHORAD in Iran and Egypt (most likely Aspide in the latter case).

My crowning jewel is the Krivak frigate in North Korea - how/why no-one else seems to have noticed it is beyond me.

[-SOC]

Yeah, I do the SAM placemark file for Google Earth as well. You can download it from my blog on the right side of the page, there's a "Recommended Downloads" block.

[planeman]

Fantastic list mate! SA-4, very cool finds. How do you find so many?

I've started a thread in the non-PLA area for people to share general Google Earth finds http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/great-google-earth-hunt-3538.html#post72637 - some SAM sites in Saudi that aren't on your download. Some I'm very fuzzy about the ID, your expert opinion would be really helpful.

[-SOC]

Here's a question...is the HT-233 the guidance radar for the HQ-9? Sinodefence.com gives HT-233 as the FLAP LID-style guidance radar, but I'm starting to hear other designators tossed about.

[tphuang]

what about SJ-231?
http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/2742/sj231hc8.jpg
I think it is the guidance radar for KS-1A, but probably could be used for HQ-9 too. I'm personally a little skeptical toward HT-233's figures, because most Chinese sources have mentionned ranges of greater than 100 km, which would totally contradict the 90 km tracking range given for HT-233.

[-SOC]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that a single engagement radar could guide multiple types of SAM systems.

Also, the SJ-231 does appear to be the same array as previsouly identified as HT-233...could the HT-233 have been misidentified? It is likely that there is an early warning radar for the system, and that could be the HT-233 (a 64N6 or 36D6 analog). What do SJ and HT stand for?

[Baibar of Jalat]

I always wondered if this section Sinodefence was a typo mistake or not. If not a mistake how does the missile be guided upto 200km when tracking range is 120km then 90km for targeting. Am I missing some crucial information.

Thanking you in advance. The percieved problems are highlighted and underlined.

The HQ-9 is reported to have a slant range of 200km up to an altitude of 30km. The missile has a proximity fuse with an effective range of 35m, which goes active when the missile is 5km away from its target. The missile is transported and launched on Taian TAS5380 8X8 transport-erector-launcher (TEL), which has four canisters that look almost identical to those used in the S-300PMU1. Like the S-300, the FT-2000 is cold-launched.

Guidance & Fire Control



The HQ-9 system reportedly uses a large HT-233 3D C-band mono-pulse planar phased array radar, which operates in the 300MHz bandwidth and has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar can detect targets in azimuth (360 degrees) and elevation (0 to 65 degrees), and is capable of tracking some 100 airborne targets and simultaneously engaging more than 50 targets. The radar system is carried on a Taian TAS5380 8X8 heavy-duty cross-country vehicle.

The HQ-9 may also be compatible with the Russian tracking radar, making it suitable to be deployed in combination with the S-300

[RedMercury]

Chinese do not treat SAM systems in isolation. The missile is just a component of the overall AD network, and can be guided by other radars.

[Quickie]

The bigger missile range also comes in handy when the target is doing evasive maneuvers. Under such circumtances, the target may still be within the radar tracking range.

[tphuang]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that a single engagement radar could guide multiple types of SAM systems.

Also, the SJ-231 does appear to be the same array as previsouly identified as HT-233...could the HT-233 have been misidentified? It is likely that there is an early warning radar for the system, and that could be the HT-233 (a 64N6 or 36D6 analog). What do SJ and HT stand for?

true, I personally have not seen any poster of HT-233. But that again, China don't normally advertise things that they are currently fielding. No idea what they stand for. So I got an updated poster. This is clearly for KS-1A.
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4741/ks1asj231fw5.jpg

[-SOC]

Right, I'll stick with HT-233 for the HQ-9 then!

[Violet Oboe]

Huang, slightly off topic but...
is this a KT-1 solid satellite launcher/ASAT appearing in the fading background of this poster?
May be the PR design guy was simply clueless and PS'ed the next best ´cool´missile launch into his work but perhaps KS-1A and the KT-1 are under the same organizational ´roof´? Do you know something about this, dear Huang?

[-SOC]

Located a KS-1A site in Google Earth:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/12/ks-1a-sam-system-site-analysis.html

[-SOC]

China's SAM network analyzed:

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2008/01/chinese-sam-network.html