Btw what is the range of PLA version of HQ-9? Is it 125km (like export version)? Sorry for being off topic, but just want to see how much behind the current PLAAF long-range SAMs are. Even the Taiwanese can manufacture 200km-ranged TK-3 (probably similar to S-300PMU2, which the PLA possesses). Not sure if the PLA has developed any SAMs with a range over 200km. Somebody help me please.
Russia sells S-400 systems to China
- Thread starter Dannhill
- Start date
thunderchief
Senior Member
It is highly unlikely Taiwan could significantly degrade capabilities of such system unless they attempt serious SEAD & DEAD operations on them , and IMHO that would be almost suicidal . That doesn't mean in case of war every Taiwanese airplane would be magically shoot down but they would have to operate under constant SAM threat . Any attempt to form large strike packages (as per NATO doctrine) would be almost certainly targeted .
Now, I would agree that threat of the war is low right now, but again , S-400 is another weapon that puts strategic pressure and demonstrates overwhelming Chinese military superiority . It is one of the game changers - unlike 30 or 40 years ago , Taiwan is no longer relatively safe across the strait . It is now at arms reach of Beijing .
As for Japanese and Senkaku islands , they would be at the outer limits of heaviest missile . Still, even if the Pk is low (let's say 5 or 10 % ) it could not be discounted . Japanese aircraft overflying the area are now potential targets . Even without doing anything bellicose , Chinese are affecting Japanese position .
thunderchief
Senior Member
Actually, THAAD is purely BMD system with kinetic interceptors .
MIM-104 (Patriot) is general purpose SAM , with PAC-3 geared more to BMD but it could be used against aircraft although with less success then PAC-2 .
Closest counterpart to S-400 in western arsenal is naval RIM-174 Standard ERAM . Generally speaking , West doesn't put that much attention on development of air defense systems as Russia or USSR before, because they fill they could always achieve air superiority with fighter planes . Only exception is missile defense, but that is a different ball game .
I expect the new islands to be minimally but adequately defended to keep tensions low. Their main defence is the general military superiority of PLAAF and PLAN in the area.
It would certainly be quite a statement to place them in disputed areas, with respect to changing facts on the ground. I was actually approaching the idea from a different direction.
S-400 offers 3 layers of AD a VL, L and M range.
Around key mainland cities, you already have very heavily defended airspace ad a lot of strategic depth, to which the addition of the S-400 will give only marginal advantage over many of the existing elements.
If however, you look at more remote outposts like the SCS or indeed now Gwadeer, you have a different scenario, where you need to defend using a much more limited amount of space and (perhapse even more critically) power.
It means that one systems would take care of everything except SR and PD and these increasingly are taken care of using Organic components of other field/front line formations and would rotate in and out with those units rather than be fixed in location.
Ultimately of course there is the bottom line. Nobody in their right mind is going to launch Air Strikes agains the Chinese Mainland and declare war on the PRC. They may however risk striking a remote base in a disputed location, especially where facts on the ground are being changed. So it could be that this is where the need actually exists.
Outposts are not worth devoting large amounts of resources to fully defend locally. They serve as markers, observation posts, and triggers for escalation with minimal self-defense capabilities.
Specifically SAM's are much more survivable if they are operated in a mobile fashion, with room to move around and places to hide, the S-400 systems are also sizable. All the SCS islands therefore make for a poor operating environment.
Specifically SAM's are much more survivable if they are operated in a mobile fashion, with room to move around and places to hide, the S-400 systems are also sizable. All the SCS islands therefore make for a poor operating environment.
The system is self propelled for deployment but does not fire on the hoof!
But, were we only discussing observation stations, Radar or listening posts, there would be no argument. If you look at the kind of facilities being built however, you will quickly see that they are of a completely different magnitude.
Here is recent page from the SD thread on the subject
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-south-sea-fleet-bases-islands.t4059/page-98
and the BBC
These are major projects, with Airstrips and large Harbours; the modern equivalent of front line fortifications. To be forced off any of these Islands would be a major loss of face for the rising power and so I can see that the PLA would commit some of its best AD to protect it, especially if some of its best ships and war planes are also to be stationed or otherwise regularly operating from them.
I am not however going to be dogmatic on the subject and more than happy to sit back, wait and see.......
I expect a primarily economic use of the islands supporting fisheries, oil exploration and exploitation, fish farming, besides support of the Coast Guard. Radar installations can be of moderately sizes but by being netted together still very effective. Any operation to take one, let alone take all of them in one of the archipelagoes, would be a politically huge operation and would entail a war none of the neighbours can afford.
Skywatcher
Captain
According to the latest DoD report, the HQ-9's range is 200km or thereabouts.
The HHQ-9 and HH9-QB have 90km and 150km (differing PLAN requirements might be why they have shorter ranges).
Previous DoD reports in late 2000s stated that HHQ-9 have range of 100km, but the export version of HQ-9 (FD-2000) is 125km. Which DoD report is it that stated the HQ-9 has a range of 200km? Was it the 2014 one?