DDG 052C Thread

[Geographer]

why are you posting that video here, it has nothing to do with 052C.

The Tor M1 missile has been navalized by the Russians into the SA-N-9 Gauntlet although no PLAN ships use them. If China adopted them on their ships would they put used as a point defense as a supplement for or replacement of the Type 730 CIWS?

[plawolf]

The PLAN already have the HHQ7 for that. In addition, the PLA already has many gun-missile point defence systems that could easily be adapted for Naval use.

What the PLAN needs now is not a separate VLS SAM system, but to choose a standard VLS and then either adapt or scratch build a short range missile with the performance of the HQ7 and Tor that could be quad packed.

They already have two very effective missiles to choose from and/or based their design on, or they could even do what the Americans did and adapt a BVRAAM like the PL12 or PL10.

[plawolf]

First clear pictures of the HQ9 that I have seen.

[Totoro]

Is it just me or is HQ9 pretty much the same externally (shape wise, if not dimension wise)to a s300 series missile?

[Engineer]

HQ-9 is actually a bit smaller than S-300.

[planeman]

Excellent pics of HQ-9
I think that the tail fins on the HQ-9 are slightly swept and smaller than S-300

[tphuang]

I've attached this in the SAM thread, but here it is with HQ-9 compared to a variety of other SAMs in service with PLA. Amongst which, you can see HQ-9 being a meter shorter than PMU1. Also, the naval HHQ-9 is not the same as the ground based HQ-9, even if the missile in the diagram and the pictures of HHQ-9 launched from 052C look the same.

[planeman]

great pic, isit official? I came to a similar conclusion re size of HQ-9 and probable look in my Bluffer's guide analysis
Bluffer’s Guide: Fortress China - Military Photos


In what ways are the HHQ-9 and HQ-9 different?

[tphuang]

Originally Posted by planeman

great pic, isit official? I came to a similar conclusion re size of HQ-9 and probable look in my Bluffer's guide analysis
Bluffer’s Guide: Fortress China - Military Photos
http://i42.tinypic.com/mmbn09.jpg

In what ways are the HHQ-9 and HQ-9 different?

From all I've seen, it looks pretty official. The surprise is obviously that HQ-12 is about the same size as HQ-12.

Well, I think you can make conclusions on what the differences are between a naval SAM and a ground based SAM especially in terms of guidance. The fact that they conscious called one HHQ-9 and the other one HQ-9 should tell you they are not exactly the same.

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by plawolf

The PLAN already have the HHQ7 for that. In addition, the PLA already has many gun-missile point defence systems that could easily be adapted for Naval use.

What the PLAN needs now is not a separate VLS SAM system, but to choose a standard VLS and then either adapt or scratch build a short range missile with the performance of the HQ7 and Tor that could be quad packed.

They already have two very effective missiles to choose from and/or based their design on, or they could even do what the Americans did and adapt a BVRAAM like the PL12 or PL10.

The shortcoming with HQ-7 and Tor are that they are command line of sight guidance missiles. With these, the number of similtaneous engagements possible is limited by the number of radars and guidance channels. These systems are more easily saturated. A better choice is an IR guided missile like RAM, which is independent of the ship once launched, allowing as many intercepts as there are all up rounds available to be fired.

[Maggern]

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

The shortcoming with HQ-7 and Tor are that they are command line of sight guidance missiles. With these, the number of similtaneous engagements possible is limited by the number of radars and guidance channels. These systems are more easily saturated. A better choice is an IR guided missile like RAM, which is independent of the ship once launched, allowing as many intercepts as there are all up rounds available to be fired.

Wouldn't an independent missile necessarily be more susceptible to countermeasures? Better shooting down a few targets than missing a whole bunch.

[Jeff Head]

Originally Posted by plawolf

First clear pictures of the HQ9 that I have seen.

Very nice pics. As you say, the best I have seen to date. Those are certainly keepers. Thanks.

[Troika]

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

The shortcoming with HQ-7 and Tor are that they are command line of sight guidance missiles. With these, the number of similtaneous engagements possible is limited by the number of radars and guidance channels. These systems are more easily saturated. A better choice is an IR guided missile like RAM, which is independent of the ship once launched, allowing as many intercepts as there are all up rounds available to be fired.

Well, how hard would it be to mate the seeker of, say, the TY-90 to the HQ-7? My little voice tells me, a lot harder than it looks... Better stick to the TY-90 or adapt the PL-12. Pity, the FM-90 is a nice missile.

[snake65]

Originally Posted by Ambivalent

The shortcoming with HQ-7 and Tor are that they are command line of sight guidance missiles. With these, the number of similtaneous engagements possible is limited by the number of radars and guidance channels. These systems are more easily saturated. A better choice is an IR guided missile like RAM, which is independent of the ship once launched, allowing as many intercepts as there are all up rounds available to be fired.

Their shortcoming is also their advantage. Command missile is much more prone to jamming than IR. Tor has 4 target channels (8 missiles) in a 60 by 60degree quadrant and Pantsyr has the same (coupled with a much faster missile).
Independence of IR also is twofold - no way to say on which target it will lock-on once it's launched, if you have 4 incoming targets all your missiles can lock on the same target (with the largest signature).

[Ambivalent]

Originally Posted by Maggern

Wouldn't an independent missile necessarily be more susceptible to countermeasures? Better shooting down a few targets than missing a whole bunch.

Cruise missiles do not carry IR countermeasures, and imaging infrared is very difficult to spoof. It memorizes an image and homes on that, ignoring other heat sources.