Army anti-air

What does PLA rely on for army anti-air? That is, defending PLA army units against not only enemy helicopters and aircraft but also against land attack cruise missiles -- including ramjet ones traveling at above mach 2.

There have been so many short-range anti-air platforms associated with PLA. The Type 90 towed AA was recently in an exercise. So that is a major one for certain. The HQ-12 was in the 60th anniversary parade. So that is in service. Are its capabilities better than it "looks" (obsolete)?

Is the PGZ95 still used? It was involved in 2005 exercises with Russia. But it wasn't in the anniversary parade, I think.

Is HQ-17 entering service as the primary army anti-air platform? Will the army version have 50 km range?

AFAIK, PGZ-95, Type-90 (the 35mm Skyguard clone), Type-87 (25mm), HQ-7, TOR-M1 (31 and 38 army only), MANPADS. The medium to high level SAMs are all PLAAF.

Thanks for the info. I think PLA really likes the Type 90. The HQ-7 (Crotale) also appeared in the 60th anniversary parade. But we didn't see the HQ-17?!

Anybody know what's the status of HQ-17? Is it fully in service? Did they improve the missiles to the 50 km range variant?

Can the Ludun CIWS be used for field anti-air / anti-LACM?

AAA gets a bad rap, but when it's got a decent radar, competent operators, and the enemy doesn't have complete air superiority, AAA can still do a number on helis and any jets that are dumb enough to come down where the AAA can play. There's just no reason to do that nowadays. But we probably won't see anything like that anytime soon. War these days is just illiterate AK-armed peasants getting splattered by weapons that are worth more than they are, or illiterate AK-armed peasants splattering the civilians unfortunate enough to live nearby. Damn shame. Sorry for the rant.

Finn, your point is correct for the kinds of wars the US expects to be involved. There, the opposing forces field air defense is not terribly useful since the US would be dropping tons of PGM. And you likely are thinking of WW2 type AAA.

But in the hands of PLA. I think the role of field air defense would be against enemy helicopter gunships and LACM, to protect a PLA armored thrust.

Correction: PGZ95 was in the 60th anniversary parade after all!

So does anybody know which one is the future for PLA: HQ-16 (indigenous based on Buk) or HQ-17 (indigenous based on Tor)? Neither were shown in the parade! This is a great mystery.

But there is one photo of an early version of HQ-16

So does anybody know which one is the future for PLA: HQ-16 (indigenous based on Buk) or HQ-17 (indigenous based on Tor)? Neither were shown in the parade! This is a great mystery.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it make sense for them to use both? Not sure about the Chinese versions, but the Buk is a medium-range system more suited for engaging strike aircraft while the Tor is a short-range system with a excellent capability against PGMs.

Roger604 said:

Finn, your point is correct for the kinds of wars the US expects to be involved. There, the opposing forces field air defense is not terribly useful since the US would be dropping tons of PGM. And you likely are thinking of WW2 type AAA.

But in the hands of PLA. I think the role of field air defense would be against enemy helicopter gunships and LACM, to protect a PLA armored thrust.

Click to expand...

Yeah I realize that. But I was saying that it's just not that likely that we'll see anyone making an armored thrust against an opponent whose air capabilities would necessitate protective mobile AAA and smaller SAMs. I mean we saw armored thrusts in Iraq in 2003 and South Ossetia in 2008 but there wasn't much of an aerial threat to either the US or Russian forces in those respective theaters.

But I agree, it's still necessary to have some sort of mobile point defense to protect your tanks.

China Central TV just reported the famous PLAAF anti air unit shot down U-2s first, has upgraded their SAMs twice since 2000, the last was a Chinese built system, HQ9 judged from TV clips, implying the unit first upgraded with a foreign built SAM, most likely S300. It would be interesting to know why they bother to change twice in less than ten years after having stuck to HQ2 over more 30 years.

央视曝光：当年打下U-2的“英雄营”换装红旗9
京畿神箭北空导弹师列装红旗9区域防空导弹

当年打下U-2的“英雄营”换装红旗9了，可喜可贺

附官方报道：地空导弹英雄营换装新装备 重登战力制高点

它有一个石破天惊的创举，开创世界防空史上用地空导弹击落敌机的先例；它有一个全军皆知的荣誉称号，被国防部命名为“英雄营”。

在深入学习实践科学发展观活动中，“英雄营”一波三折的换装经历，成为北空导弹某师党委“一班人”审视部队战斗力科学发展的一个焦点。

上个世纪90年代初，一次换装的机遇摆在了“英雄营”面前。然而，当时师里考虑到“英雄营”一旦换装，它曾有的对外开放营的礼遇就会被取消，影响力就会削弱，那次换装的机遇后来给了兄弟部队。从那时起，兄弟部队乘“装”而上，装备接连更新换代，战斗力连年跃升，成为空军地空导弹部队的领跑者。

这说明什么？师党委“一班人”在集中学习时这样解读这段经历——面对换装机遇，为什么“英雄营”会抱着过去的荣誉和对外开放展示自己这个看点不撒手，就是头脑中存在“练为看”的思想，如果不树立“练为战”的思想，部队的战斗力建设就会停滞不前。

事实让人警醒。近年来，“英雄营”在立足现有装备提高战斗力的同时，着力向新装备要战斗力。从2000年开始，“英雄营”接连两次换装，尤其是近几年装备了国产某新型地空武器装备后，重新站在了战斗力的制高点上。

“能否占住这个制高点，不断发展攀升？”采访中，面对记者的发问，师领导一脸凝重。

“世界上只有一件事是不变的，那就是变化本身。想长久站在制高点上，就需要从脖子以上准备好，而不是脖子以下！”师长樊建荣感言，“视线超越现在，视野就会在未来。战斗力成长之路的路标，应当矗立在我们瞭望者的视野里。”确实，师党委“一班人”始终在瞭望。“英雄营”新装备一形成战斗力，师里就力荐上级把它从所在团分出来，归属到另一个和新装备匹配的团。与此同时，他们积极向上级请领任务，用重大任务来牵引部队战斗力的发展。今年，他们积极争取，受领到信息化成果展示、对抗演习等8项重大任务。“每一次完成重大任务的过程，都为部队战斗力提高找到了增长点。”师领导如是说。

PLA daily reported a new medium to long range army SAM is now in the process of final certification tests. As it's been developed in Shanghai regions with more than hundrads of subcontrators over just four years, it is guessed as HQ16A, a new development from HQ6 of Shanghai Chinese Aerospace Bureau Branch.

本报讯 记者赵波、特约记者邹芳根报道：寒冬时节，西北某基地试验场银装素裹，某新型导弹定型试验在此进行。导弹划过蓝天，直奔目标……现场的总装陆装科订部副部长姬建民称赞：总装某军代室不到4年时间便成功研制出该新型导弹装备，不仅填补了陆军野战防空领域的一项空白，还探索出一条大型复杂装备研制快速高效的新路子。

该型号导弹是部队急需的重点装备，研制技术难度大、研制时间紧，涉及数百个协作研制研究院所和厂家。为了加快进度，确保质量，总装驻上海地区军代室创新科研管理模式，采取“充分论证、扁平管理、统分结合、齐头并进”的有效措施，使该武器系统的研制，始终在环环相扣、快速高效的轨道上运转。

他们注重前期论证，优化研制流程，制定了《质量保证大纲》、《可靠性设计要求》等30多种文件规范，下发各分系统实施执行，从源头上保证了各部件“优生”。在研制管理上，不搞层层转包，总师单位直接把研制任务下达到有关研究院所和厂家，在技术状态明确的前提下，采取统分结合、交叉展开，大大缩短了复杂装备的研制周期。

Jinan Military Region air defense troops exercises for launch S-300.