Chinese abandon Russian Tor-M1 anti-air missile, in favour of their own HQ16

aikea

New Member
I read this news from here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This is surely a good news to PLAA. PLAN has already had aegis, isn't?

Some pics from that site:

Russian Tor-M1
1221049_995018.jpg


Chinese HQ7 (Can't find HQ16)
1221054_186653.jpg
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Hardly covincing...

Tor is a low range/altitude mobile airdefence system for divisional work and HQ-16 (as far as we know) is based around the Buk-M1-2 system wich is medium range/altitude, army level system so they really are quite different systems from very basic concept...
 

Ryz05

Junior Member
Hardly covincing...

Tor is a low range/altitude mobile airdefence system for divisional work and HQ-16 (as far as we know) is based around the Buk-M1-2 system wich is medium range/altitude, army level system so they really are quite different systems from very basic concept...

If the HQ-16 is made for medium altitude while the Tor-M1 is for low altitude, then the PLA probably just decided to replace Tor with anti-aircraft artillery, like the self-propelled Type 95 25mm
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or the new 35 mm SPAAA (based on the towed version:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) which are designed for low to ultra-low altitude air defence.
 

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Replace state-of-the-art missile system with AAA? I don't want to offend you but thats as logical as to replace howitsers with catabults...

That "news" was nothing more than two things said in the same sentence. Chinese are not going to increase their Tor arsenal and they are propaply fielding new missile system called HQ-16. Neither one is going to replace each others but to be a supliment to the chinese growing airdefence network. HQ-16 for instance is with its very concept a quite new system to PLA as chinese haven't possesed any succesfull mobile medium range army level SAMs...

So good to see some procress in this field also :china:
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
This is surely a good news to PLAA. PLAN has already had aegis, isn't?

Oh God, not this again........

No, the PLAN does not have anything like the US' AEGIS system. It is a common myth, spread unknowingly by the ignorant and deliberately by ultra-nationalists - though sometimes the people in question are both.
 

AmiGanguli

Junior Member
No, the PLAN does not have anything like the US' AEGIS system. It is a common myth, spread unknowingly by the ignorant and deliberately by ultra-nationalists - though sometimes the people in question are both.

I'm not ashamed to admit I'm among the ignorant.

I would have assumed that duplicating computer tech from 30 years ago would be relatively easy nowadays. What kind of magic does the AEGIS do that nobody has been able to develop something similar?
 

zoolander

New Member
They say the HQ-16 is a russian chinese missile system based on Gadfly. What are the stats on this system. What does it even look like. Is it even existant?
 

hallo84

New Member
I'm not ashamed to admit I'm among the ignorant.

I would have assumed that duplicating computer tech from 30 years ago would be relatively easy nowadays. What kind of magic does the AEGIS do that nobody has been able to develop something similar?

Nothing... just like E-3 being named as the only official AWACS system while other comparable systems are named AEW&C and the fact that people think Chinese are not capable of developing sensor fusion.

Btw Japan uses its own battle management systems on the Kongos. The likely hood of Chinese having developed a similar system of merging information from data link and sensors coupled with fire control computer is quite high.

The algorithms for threat assessment and target acquisition are complicated but not impossible. The challenge originally was finding a processor fast enough to handle all the data but with the advent of computer technology this bottle neck for the Chinese is fast disappearing.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
When you have four arrays like the 052C, and have them linked to the same screen and battle management system, you already have an operational definition of the sensor fusion buzzword. That's one of the more fundamental aspects of AEGIS.

I think the 052C system more as an S-300 type system (which carries much weight itself as an anti air system) with sensor and data fusion qualities.

On the Tor M1 and HQ-16, two different things. Tor M1 is a short range point defense system and HQ-16 is medium range system. Organizationally they're not even in the same units in the PLA. The Tor M1 is likely to have been replaced by even more refined versions of the HQ-7, or by other developments like ground launched PL-12.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
well, that article basically originated from another really badly written kanwa article. I can personally attest to this. I actually wasted my time reading it. Also, another fundamental flaw to this idea is that HH-16 is a naval SAM. We haven't seen any evidence that there is a ground based equivalent. I'm not saying that there isn't one, but I haven't seen one.
 
Top