Source: Trust me bro.
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
Source: Trust me bro.
My guess is the point of HQ-22 is cruise missile defense. Cruise missiles like the JASSM and Tomahawk are much easier targets than fighter jets for many reasons. They don't make any evasive maneuvers, are subsonic, have little-to-no ECM, don't drop decoys, etc... Thus if you need to defeat a lot of cruise missiles it makes sense to have a lower end long-range air defense system. An all HQ-9 approach would be wasteful at a national scale, especially in a country size of China.
All Chinese destroyers have combined L-band and S-band AESA radars. With missiles better than S-300.
Much the same technology is available in the land based HQ-9.
Russia claims to have intercepted Storm Shadow cruise missiles. So I doubt the same thing would not happen to LRASM when facing Chinese air defense systems.
Much the same technology is available in the land based HQ-9.
Russia claims to have intercepted Storm Shadow cruise missiles. So I doubt the same thing would not happen to LRASM when facing Chinese air defense systems.
Last edited:
Take all claims of interception with a pinch of salt. Both ways.
Nah, by now it should be the expectation that chinese SAMs like say the HQ-22 or HQ-9 can intercept missiles like LRASM.
Although numbers for chance of interception etc. we don't know, and this number isn't one that doesn't move (EW conditions, weather etc.)
The better question to ask is how many. As nature of cruise missiles, it is not a "silver bullet" but rather employed en-masse with or without aid of decoys, and EW.
The SAM's will also be constrained by terrain and firing doctrine, e.g not to fire when target is flying above city or populated area.
The SAM's will also be constrained by terrain and firing doctrine, e.g not to fire when target is flying above city or populated area.