What's new

Pakistan's air defence Capabilities ...

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,404
0
3,422
Country
China
Location
Australia
Better missile of HQ-9 was developed before even offering early type of HQ-9 to Turkey in 2013. HQ-19 HQ-26 and HQ-29 are all longer range and developed for higher speed and higher altitude targets as well as satellites and nuclear warheads. These are not for shooting missile or fighter. They have many boost stages. HQ-9C basically can have similar range to largest type S-400 missile but S-400 is best Russian missile technology and the combined radar with control unit and different smaller missiles is interesting. You will see the Chinese radars and control units are more in philosophy of western country while Russian S-300 is good their S-400 is their best radar and control technology.

I agree we will not copy S-400 unless the controls are much better or we can adopt some ideas from it. For our HQ-9C, the rocket can match S-400. We have similar level of rocket and fuel technology after this many years of copying and learning and so much money to develop similar levels. Russian S-400 claims can find and shoot down stealth fighters from long range, we test it against J-20 to see how India's S-400 can deal with our fighters. Don't forget this. Once we know how J-10, J-11, J-16, and J-20 can deal with S-400 and where is safe and how to approach it, the Indian S-400 become less useful. Of course they will test their S-400 against their missiles and fighters to see same if they attack us, but we will use HQ-9 and HQ-16 against their fighters and missiles.
 

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,404
0
3,422
Country
China
Location
Australia
Any news about HQ 9C?

HQ-9 is basically copy of S-300 PMU with American style digital control units and radar types of mix between Chinese Russian and American. HQ-9B was tested in 2006 and shortly actually enter service and big improvement from rocket engine to flight control energy management and fuel. HQ-9B been in service for longer than 10 years now. HQ-9B for the navy in earlier 052C style vertical launch and nowadays you can maybe imagine 10 years later if this old missile still used. The improvements are always immediately after fuel and engine improvements from better materials, better ways to manage flight and guidance can improve how much energy it has and so range gets better. HQ-9 of 2020 is not same as the HQ-9 will put for export in 2010 which is B version.

If the satellite pictures of Pakistan having HQ-9 is true, they must have recently got them. Maybe they feel the long range which is 300km+ for latest ones can push Indian airforce very far back. Maybe also intercept Indian small ballistic and short range ground to ground missiles. This way Pakistan can keep most airfields and military base.
 

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,404
0
3,422
Country
China
Location
Australia
No HQ-9C is most advanced. 19, 26, 29 are all for high altitude and fast speed targets. Not the same. Like truck and tank are for different purpose. They originally planned for things like SR-71 type super fast and high spy planes or new bombers similar to XB-70 if USAF bought. Satellites for some and nuclear warhead landing phase. Maybe they will modify these old missiles to intercept hypersonic weapons like Americans are developing missiles to intercept our hypersonic weapons. 19, 26, 29 are quite old now. News of testing came out so long ago I cannot even remember. Seems like university days. Quickly those news quiet down and most get deleted.

19 26 and 29 are not suitable for purposes and function of HQ-9C which Chinese military just simply calls HQ-9 still. There is a lot of secrets behind what PLA has when it is about these things. Same with nuclear weapons. No idea exactly how many and what type and modifications.

SM-6 is similar to Hai HQ-9 which is navy HQ-9 and also basically like the best recent type. SM-6 range is said to be below 300km. I think Americans understate this and truly SM-6 is easily 300km+ like our HQ-9C and navy HQ-9.
 

Ultima Thule

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 26, 2012
16,887
0
1,091
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
No HQ-9C is most advanced. 19, 26, 29 are all for high altitude and fast speed targets. Not the same. Like truck and tank are for different purpose. They originally planned for things like SR-71 type super fast and high spy planes or new bombers similar to XB-70 if USAF bought. Satellites for some and nuclear warhead landing phase. Maybe they will modify these old missiles to intercept hypersonic weapons like Americans are developing missiles to intercept our hypersonic weapons. 19, 26, 29 are quite old now. News of testing came out so long ago I cannot even remember. Seems like university days. Quickly those news quiet down and most get deleted.
bro you misunderstood the situation, in early 60s/70s when american developing SR-71/XB-70 rgere were no long range SAMs in China, only HQ-2 China had for interception, even Soviets/Russians had SA-2/SA-3/SA-5 in there arsenal for interception but i agree 19/26/29 more intended toward BM interceptions
 

Pakistani Fighter

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 4, 2011
9,188
-5
7,257
No HQ-9C is most advanced. 19, 26, 29 are all for high altitude and fast speed targets. Not the same. Like truck and tank are for different purpose. They originally planned for things like SR-71 type super fast and high spy planes or new bombers similar to XB-70 if USAF bought. Satellites for some and nuclear warhead landing phase. Maybe they will modify these old missiles to intercept hypersonic weapons like Americans are developing missiles to intercept our hypersonic weapons. 19, 26, 29 are quite old now. News of testing came out so long ago I cannot even remember. Seems like university days. Quickly those news quiet down and most get deleted.

19 26 and 29 are not suitable for purposes and function of HQ-9C which Chinese military just simply calls HQ-9 still. There is a lot of secrets behind what PLA has when it is about these things. Same with nuclear weapons. No idea exactly how many and what type and modifications.

SM-6 is similar to Hai HQ-9 which is navy HQ-9 and also basically like the best recent type. SM-6 range is said to be below 300km. I think Americans understate this and truly SM-6 is easily 300km+ like our HQ-9C and navy HQ-9.
Ok. So can we say that HQ 9C is comparable to S 400?
 

serenity

FULL MEMBER
Jan 9, 2007
1,404
0
3,422
Country
China
Location
Australia
Ok. So can we say that HQ 9C is comparable to S 400?

I don't think so. HQ-9C is just better than B. S-400 is including some completely different observation and control technologies HQ-9 family does not have. S-400 says they can shoot down stealth fighter from long range. Definitely HQ-9C cannot. We will test S-400 and take a close look at Russia's best. Then we will know how to defeat it and can tell Pakistan how to watch out for Indian S-400 8-)

No S-400 more intended to intercept MRBM like THAAD, S-500 means to intercept ICBM and to replace A-135 ABM system around Moscow

S-400 is like the better version of HQ-9C and can do more jobs. It is very limited for intercept fast ICBM but yes something like smaller ballistic missiles should be easy. S-500 is dedicated for nuclear warhead from ICBM. Also mysterious like exact details of A-135 and A-235. Probably just modern version to replace those Soviet ones.

Americans use THAAD and SM-3. Israeli use Arrow. Chinese use HQ-19 HQ-26 and HQ-29 and other types similar to Kuaizhou class rockets. Depends where to intercept ICBM and if the range is even possible. Now probably will modify against lower altitude and fast moving like hypersonic wave rider weapons.
 

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


Top Bottom