PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

Discussion in 'Army' started by FORBIN, Mar 31, 2015.

  1. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    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.
     
    FORBIN likes this.
  2. Totoro
    Offline

    Totoro Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    502
    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.
     
    plawolf, N00813 and antiterror13 like this.
  3. FORBIN
    Offline

    FORBIN Senior Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    21,344
    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.
     
  4. Insignius
    Offline

    Insignius Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    643
    missile ranges can also be extended by improved trajectories. Like how the AIM-120C vs D had such a huge difference even without dual pulse motor.
     
  5. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    1,714
    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.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. aikea
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    5,284
  2. Roger604
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    11,377
  3. MIGleader
    Replies:
    84
    Views:
    38,495
  4. hardware
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    22,198
  5. challenge
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    27,906

Share This Page