I wouldn't put too much stock into any of the numbers. I've watched alleged missile ranges creep upwards over the years on the same exact missiles without a shred of evidence to back those increases up. The S-300FM using the 48N6 missile was significantly larger than the derivative HQ-9 and only had a range of 150km, so there is no way the original HQ-9 had a range of 200km. Probably 100 to 120km for the first iteration of HQ-9 is more likely. Subsequent iterations like HHQ-9A and now the HHQ-9B have undoubtedly improved on the range, but double the range from HQ-9 to HHQ-9B? Possible, but I think evidence in the form of a company brochure or statement by credible sources would be in order here.
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Missile ranges are pretty much whatever the manufacturer says they are. Two missiles with two different ranges can easily be apples and oranges.
Case in point: Aster 30. Manufacturer says 120 km in most brochures. Then in one brochure there's a more detailed rundown where it says 120 km is against slow flying object and against a jet fighter it is more like 70 km.
Buk family. It's made to engage fast approaching enemies and goes directly towards the threat, through shortest trajectory possible. Its range against jet fighters is in 40ish km range. It has enough kinetic potential to go farther, if guidance allows it. Buk m3 comes and it suddenly it has 70 km range. (the missile itself was changed too but not that much)
Perhaps biggest examples are SM1 and S300 families where exactly the same missile achieved greater ranges with different trajectory use. But one needs to keep in mind that the additional range may not applicable against all target types. Fast, alerted targets may still need to be engaged through trajectories not allowing maximum range.
S300 used the same missile and changed guidance to go from 50 km to 90 km range. Later variant of missile then started off at 150 km and is now at 250 km reach. Against *unknown* target types. Most likely slow, unalerted targets.
Peculiarly enough, the fd2000 range of 125 km was specifically mentioned against jet aircraft in one of the manufacturer's brochures, and another one had a graphic of jet fighter drawn as the 125 km target.
It may not mean anything but artist's liberty, of course, but it is also plausible that apples to apples reach, when compared to s300 for example, isn't 250 km vs 125 km but a different set of figures.
Case in point: Aster 30. Manufacturer says 120 km in most brochures. Then in one brochure there's a more detailed rundown where it says 120 km is against slow flying object and against a jet fighter it is more like 70 km.
Buk family. It's made to engage fast approaching enemies and goes directly towards the threat, through shortest trajectory possible. Its range against jet fighters is in 40ish km range. It has enough kinetic potential to go farther, if guidance allows it. Buk m3 comes and it suddenly it has 70 km range. (the missile itself was changed too but not that much)
Perhaps biggest examples are SM1 and S300 families where exactly the same missile achieved greater ranges with different trajectory use. But one needs to keep in mind that the additional range may not applicable against all target types. Fast, alerted targets may still need to be engaged through trajectories not allowing maximum range.
S300 used the same missile and changed guidance to go from 50 km to 90 km range. Later variant of missile then started off at 150 km and is now at 250 km reach. Against *unknown* target types. Most likely slow, unalerted targets.
Peculiarly enough, the fd2000 range of 125 km was specifically mentioned against jet aircraft in one of the manufacturer's brochures, and another one had a graphic of jet fighter drawn as the 125 km target.
It may not mean anything but artist's liberty, of course, but it is also plausible that apples to apples reach, when compared to s300 for example, isn't 250 km vs 125 km but a different set of figures.
Aster 30 coz the Arabel radar max 100 km but it is inexact for 70 km in more he is a missile much more compact as US than Russians and Chinese or copy.
And justely to consider max range for missiles and radars it is the true operationnal range but possible with links use the missile to max range, other point but important.
Especialy with confidential datas and Policy about their Customers, Armies i don't trust or rarely manufacturer's datas.
It is my impression that unless otherwise specified, a general "range" is going to be versus a subsonic, non-maneuvering, non-stealthy, directly inbound, fighter-sized target. Trajectory is definitely important and is one way of increasing range. However, I have not heard that either the S-300 or the HHQ-9 uses a similar semi-ballistic trajectory to the SM-2. This kind of trajectory sacrifices short range capability for more long range capability, so there is no free lunch either way.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
China Army - Bohai Sea Coastal defense exercise .Explore New Model of Air Defense Operations
SinoSoldier
Colonel
There seems to be two variants of the LY-80: the 70-km-ranged LY-80 and the 40-km-ranged LY-80N.
Hyperwarp
Captain
After some cropping,
LY-80 (Medium range air-defense missile weapon system): Interception Range (3.5 km to 70 km), Interception Altitude (15 m - 20,000 m)
LY-80N (Ship-borne air-defense missile weapon system): Interception Range (4 km to 40 km), Interception Altitude (7 m - 15,000 m)
