by78
General
"Fragment Dispersion Warhead" for FD-2000.
Tungsten balls used in fragmentation warheads. The brochure appears to show the various shapes these balls can be fashioned into, likely by using a binder.
Last edited:
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Tungsten balls used in fragmentation warheads. The brochure appears to show the various shapes these balls can be fashioned into, likely by using a binder.
Does a Chinese official have to say something about it? Is there a physical law where something isn't true or doesn't exist until a Chinese official makes a statement saying it is so?
HQ-16 is developed from Buk missile system. In almost a similar vein as HQ-9 (the earliest type) is developed from S-300PMU system. These refer to the missiles themselves and does not include the radars and command/communication modules.
I don't have publicly available evidence that Almaz Antey was contracted for HQ-16 development but I haven't looked for it. It could exist even in public. Maybe someone can point to it but the timeline for HQ-16 stems from China's operational experience with Shtil missiles from Russian warships in the late 20th century. China wanted a medium range SAM similar to the Buk and it is suggested that Almaz Antey was contracted to develop a customised Buk version for the PLA. This resulted in the first HQ-16 missiles and since then, they've been further developed into at least another modernised land based version and a sea-based HHQ-16 for Type 054A.
The guidance of HQ-9 is more close to PAC-1/2, far from S-300PMU. You can distinguish that from fire control radar.
China imitates only Russia style launch system.
With the HQ-9 and S-300 lineage, it isn't only limited to the launch system - vehicle, canisters etc but also the missile itself. The internals were probably extremely similar to S-300's back in the 1990s when the work completed. HQ-9 used a totally different command structure and sensors like you have mentioned and Chinese engineers and military planners clearly considered the S-300's were less ideal.
This doesn't have any bearing on what you were talking about on the topic of HQ-16. Do you realise HQ-16 and HQ-9 are different missiles?
HQ-9 was developed back in the 1990s with the base of S-300. HQ-16 was developed in the 2000s with the base of Buk/Shtil. These missiles have been developed into more modern versions over time but neither were based on Patriot/PAC-2/3/RIM-66 back in the 1980s and 1990s when the respective programs were started.
PAC and S-300 are closer to each other than HQ-9. The first two are using TVM while the latter is using active terminal guidance. The only thing HQ-9 has in common with PAC is that their fire control radars use C-band but their terminal guidance systems are not the same. S-300 uses X-band for its fire control but its operating principle is in the same category as PAC.
HQ-9 does copy or imitate elements from the S-300 system. For example, the HQ-9 fire control radar uses a large hooded optic feed on the back of the trailer similar in design to the S-300's fire control radar, despite the two radars operate on different wavelengths. The PAC MPQ-53 fire control radar also uses an optic feed but its always covered in photographs so its hard to say what the design looks like compared to the HQ-9's HT-233 and S-300's Flaplid/Tombstone radars. The HQ-9 missile airframe resembles that of the S-300 5V55 missile airframe, and the cold launch system also resembles that of the S-300's, with only the spacings of the reinforcing rings to tell them apart.
Comparing the HQ-16 and the Buk however, we are again in a different territory. Both missiles are very similar, if not one can be copied from the other, and they appear to have the same operating principle. However, the supporting train for the two are radically different. Buk is slant launched, while HQ-16 is cold launched from a VLS with TVC controls. The Buk uses a reflector type Cassegrain radar similar to the Su-27's radar, while the HQ-16 uses a dual banded phase array radar with dual optic feeds. The Buk's radar and launch vehicle are integrated, but the HQ-16 are separated. The Buk recently moved to a phase array radar, while the HQ-16 recently migrated to an AESA.
Of all the things you decide to watch and post, why crux...
Lol because I want to find out if what they said on the video has any credibility or an air of truth since am not familiar with this type of weapon at all. Apologies