PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

[BasilicaLew]

View attachment 165268
When commenting on how F-35 destroyed Iranian S-300PMU-2, Ayi said legacy HQ-9 and S-300 are completely ineffective against stealthy aircraft while the newer HQ-22 only stood a chance under low intensity EW.

Hard to believe as it only comes from 2019, I dont see how they wouldnt have the HQ-22 conducted itself against the J-20. Also the S-300PMU-2 acutally is worse at detecting stealth targets than Iranian domestic systems. F-35I aircraft where tracked and shot at 4 times over the entire iran isreal war, yet everytime the missile was launched it was most probably spoofed by the F-35's EW systems or shot at a decoy.

 

[The Observer]

View attachment 165268
When commenting on how F-35 destroyed Iranian S-300PMU-2, Ayi said legacy HQ-9 and S-300 are completely ineffective against stealthy aircraft while the newer HQ-22 only stood a chance under low intensity EW.

What's hindering HQ-22 from having better chances? Is it the tradeoff on radar & guidance design?

 

[bsdnf]

What's hindering HQ-22 from having better chances? Is it the tradeoff on radar & guidance design?

HQ-22 uses the P-band AESA search radar LCQ-776 against stealth target, which is great, but its missile and target acquisition radar are cheaper than those of the HQ-9A.

 

[Kejora]

So how effective is the latest HQ-9B/C and Patriot against stealth target?

 

[Gloire_bb]

So how effective is the latest HQ-9B/C and Patriot against stealth target?

Problem isn't just stealth target, problem is stealth under contemporary(i.e. ahead of existing SAM ecosystem level) jamming.
HQ-9B is still HQ-9, it can't deny stealth on its own without air cover(contemporary to F-35). Or, say, S-400 is still an advanced version of S-300 family.

 

[BasilicaLew]

Unlike S-400 HQ-9C is a more complete overhaul of the HQ-9 system. Yet HQ-9C may get replaced by more longer ranged systems eventually.

 

[Wrought]

So how effective is the latest HQ-9B/C and Patriot against stealth target?

Wrong question. What matters is IADS effectiveness against strike packages, not individual 1v1.

On an individual level, it will always be stealth fighter > GBAD. The whole point of stealth shaping is to defeat monostatic radar. That's why networked systems (including passive receivers, AEW&C, etc) are so critical.

 

[Squadson]

how effective are China’s modern systems—especially HQ-9C and HQ-20—against low-flying supersonic missiles?
I might be missing key details, so I’d appreciate clarification from more knowledgeable members.

 

[Stealthflanker]

Unlike S-400 HQ-9C is a more complete overhaul of the HQ-9 system.

Kinda curious if you have sources or reading materials about that. Like say.. other than new missile, does HQ-9C have a new engagement radar ? such as the difference between early HQ-9 and HQ-9B.

 

[BasilicaLew]

Kinda curious if you have sources or reading materials about that. Like say.. other than new missile, does HQ-9C have a new engagement radar ? such as the difference between early HQ-9 and HQ-9B.

HQ-9C is hit to kill very clearly, that would require a better radar. That is just a layman's view of it, there's better sources mentioning the radar and minor changes to it over time.