Taxiya's photo is one that I had found online (from PDF whose image hosting seems to have had issues recently) which shows an S-300 with a similar artefact.
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Taxiya's photo is one that I had found online (from PDF whose image hosting seems to have had issues recently) which shows an S-300 with a similar artefact.
So they're HQ-9s?
So they're HQ-9s?Also if you slow down the video, the ejection cycle produces two distinct visible fire effects before missile ignition.
It's HQ-16.
Thanks, so they have longer TELs and canisters by 2x2 max. Anyway here's HQ-9 footage with the fire effect during ejection.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Ok, so looking over all the revealed facts, I can see two obvious possibilities.
1) both Russian and Chinese Cold launchers uses some form of compressed gas+combustion launch method
2) the flame effects seen are a coneseqence and not design feature of cold launch.
By that I mean that the flames could be from lubricants or other oils/liquids in the launch tub combusting from the huge pressure of the launch gases being released.
Air gunners can experience phenomena like this when firing their air guns if there are excess gun oil in the barrel or freshly applied lubricants on the pellet.
1) both Russian and Chinese Cold launchers uses some form of compressed gas+combustion launch method
2) the flame effects seen are a coneseqence and not design feature of cold launch.
By that I mean that the flames could be from lubricants or other oils/liquids in the launch tub combusting from the huge pressure of the launch gases being released.
Air gunners can experience phenomena like this when firing their air guns if there are excess gun oil in the barrel or freshly applied lubricants on the pellet.
From #102 by Tyloe
The flame at the opening of the canister after the missile left the canister seems to be caused by the rocket motors flame. I guess this is your possibility 2?
It could be that the gas from the generator or vessel is not ordinary air, but some chemically generated gas that contains some substances that is flammable under very high temperature (rocket exhaust) but not itself being used as fuel or explosive.
I read that early air bag in cars use sodium azide (NaN3) to release nitrogen. There is Na which is very inflammable even in room temperature.
I think your second possibility is most likely. The missile must be held in place in the launch tube. Whatever holds it in place must "let go" when the missile fires. Explosives are often used for this purpose. The rush of compressed "air" pushes the flames out the top of the tube. I would expect supports to hold it at the top and bottom, both needing to be blasted, which is consistent with the video posted. Thats my best guess for what its worth
250 km here normaly...
200 for initial missile BUT initialy and again some datas to 125 km for HQ-9 as HHQ-9 .. and ofc the new don't do 1 - 2 m more with much more fuel so a doubt...
HQ-9 do 6.8 m long the last missiles used by S-300 do 7.5 m range 195 km.
So the new do 7.5 m ? better engine consumes less ??