What's new

Pakistan officially inducts HQ 9 Air Defence system

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,886
12
5,504
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
On lighter note with discounts and perhaps with some upgrades to make it effective. As it was stated in social media in recent past that HQ9 is much expensive system and is out of reach for Pakistan or China is reluctant to provide systems on discounted rates/long credit line basis.
I don’t know what makes people think these systems are too expensive for Pakistan. Apparently the money is present when we’re buying top of the line helicopters, tanks and artillery, were even asking China to make them better and more expensive. We’re doing the same while buying ships and submarines worth several billion dollars, but when it comes to SAMs we’re so broke that we have to buy used systems or buy an older model. It’s not like that.
 

Cookie Monster

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 31, 2016
3,808
6
5,890
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Unlikely as France is one of the suppliers, they'll probably block it.

That said, the PAF could potentially acquire the CAMM-ER. It has the range (40+ km) to start building out the shorter-side of the PAF's HiMADS (i.e., the same role as the LY-80 in the Army) and complement the Spada-2000-Plus. If the PAF wants a long-range SAM, it could look at the HQ-9BE.
TBH I don't get France's stupidity...and Russians do it too. It is the arms supplier that holds the cards...not the importer. US doesn't let this crap fly...they sell to all sides and laugh all the way to the bank. Russia denying Pantsir to Pak...or France denying Aster 30 to Pak...
...in the big scheme of things...India would buy from them whatever they need for their defense. So when they deny stuff to Pak to please India...it's only these countries losing out on the money bcuz Pak gets something similar anyways from countries like China, Ukraine, Turkey, Italy, etc.
 

kursed

FULL MEMBER
Mar 21, 2007
1,082
11
3,020
The system to my eyes is clearly FD-2000B, with some Pak specific changes (Datalinks et al).
DE8E9457-AEB2-467C-BD84-354137ADA2D1.png
09C5F75F-0E9E-4729-9DC8-06701058BB67.jpeg

This vehicle is the firing TEL. Pay attention to the console on the side. And data receiving aerial stowed away.

3311081D-BF7E-4864-AEC9-A799B027E7F3.png

Here you can see it standing with an empty magazine.


2A097248-E374-4A5B-9F2A-DEE788C01FE2.jpeg

And this is the Uzbek FD-2000B. Check side console and the aerial.

91BA1E78-A38B-43D5-AC26-578E1423BCF2.jpeg

HQ9A in comparison.

Also, the missiles shown in Pakistan’s case seem to be dummies. Not real missiles. IMO. PAAD is going to extra ordinary lengths to hide details on this.
 
Last edited:

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,886
12
5,504
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,886
12
5,504
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Indian SAM network is very dense ,this is not even comparable.

This is just a poor attempt by PA to show something is being done against Indian induction of S-400,which is far superior system.

We are inducting S-400 next month. Good Luck !
Sure! Please induct as many as possible, that way when a war starts, at least half of the IAF will be handled by Indian AD. :D
Better than Indian Buk missile knock off...

View attachment 785469

View attachment 785471

Look at the shape of the missile. 1:1 replica but with inferior electronic and quality from India.
:enjoy:
As long as it can shoot down their own planes, they will induct it. That’s all they are capable of bringing down anyways.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,886
12
5,504
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Don’t know the specs of FD2000B though:

View attachment 785477
I stand corrected have, not seen this poster before.
Don’t know the specs of FD2000B though:

View attachment 785477
FD-2000s max range is listed as 125KM. Given usual Chinese naming conventions, FD2000B should have a longer range. I assume FD-2000 is the export version of the HQ-9A while FD-2000B is export version of HQ-9B? But there is also HQ-9BE. Man these Chinese names are confusing.
 

Bilal.

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 9, 2013
5,065
9
7,077
I stand corrected have, not seen this poster before.

FD-2000s max range is listed as 125KM. Given usual Chinese naming conventions, FD2000B should have a longer range. I assume FD-2000 is the export version of the HQ-9A while FD-2000B is export version of HQ-9B? But there is also HQ-9BE. Man these Chinese names are confusing.
FD2000B might just be an older designation of HQ9BE. I think Chinese are moving towards standardized designation with “E” for export analogs of in service systems instead of giving completely different names, e.g., J-10CE, HQ17AE and HQ-9BE. I could be wrong though.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,886
12
5,504
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
FD2000B might just be an older designation of HQ9BE. I think Chinese are moving towards standardized designation with “E” for export analogs of in service systems instead of giving completely different names, e.g., J-10CE, HQ17AE and HQ-9BE. I could be wrong though.
Hopefully that’s correct, makes sense too. In which case, it would be HQ-9BE that we purchased, and as kursed said the launchers look similar. And the timeline makes sense too, given it’s the newer system.
 

vi-va

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 23, 2019
5,655
1
13,313
Country
China
Location
United States
What can the Chinese HQ9 system be compared to in Russian/American systems?
I suppose

HQ-9 SM-6

HQ-10 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile

HQ-19、HQ-26 SM-3

Type 1130 Gatling gun CIWS Phalanx CIWS

HQ-19、HQ-26 SM-3

 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom