China to get S-400 from russia in 2017

[cerberus]

@nik141993

8 x 8 BAZ-6909 is also intended as a host vehicle for the 9T243M transloader/transporter, and was also used for the prototypes of the advanced NNIIRT 55Zh6M Nebo M VHF-Band and L-Band Counter-VLO radar.

 

[libertycall]

@cerberus thank you.

 

[Economic superpower]

HQ-9 is equivalent to S-300.

S-400 is the best in the world.

 

[EastSea]

Technology, china has copied from Russian. comparation is not reasonable.

 

[C130]

Russian S-400 is definitely way better than HQ-9, and more importantly even MUCH more superior than the United Satan THAAD. ( don't even mention americese patriot-3, it is good ONLY against the old SCUD missiles )

1) What important is ... ... it does NOT matter if any China weapon platform is inferior to our Close Friend Russian weapon. ~ It shall be acknowledged publicly that without the Russian immense help, China Military tech will not be at the level where they are today ... ...these quickly. ~~ My Giga appreciations towards our Close Friend Russian Brothers and Russian Sisters for helping China counter americese aggressions.

2) Anyone who is not gullible will realize that USA is a maliciously hidden enemy of China since year 1900. ... ...
What important is ... ... China weapon platform MUST be much more SUPERIOR than all the USA United Satan of Americese weapons, --- superior especially economically.

===

I wish the USAF will stubbornly and continuously send their overhyped F-22s to probe China ADIZ.
I would like to enjoy the outcome of F-22 smacked by HQ-9.

Seeing the Coward Marijuana Addicted americese pilots
squeezed like some Cockroaches until their
innards splattered all over the floor

HQ-9 and S-400 are better than PAC-3, but not THAAD in destroying ballistic missiles

PAAC-4 with the Stunner interceptor will be on the same level of HQ-9

and yes the F-22 is over hyped and HQ-9 will destroy it every time.

 

[libertycall]

HQ-9 and S-400 are better than PAC-3, but not THAAD in destroying ballistic missiles

PAAC-4 with the Stunner interceptor will be on the same level of HQ-9

and yes the F-22 is over hyped and HQ-9 will destroy it every time.

On that subject I've been reading this article:

State-run Chinese media is claiming that the People’s Liberation Army has been able to track the U.S. Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighters over the East China Sea. While the Chinese report might be easily dismissed as propaganda—it is not beyond the realm of possibility. In fact—it’s very possible that China can track the Raptor. Stealth is not a cloak of invisibility, after all. Stealth technology simply delays detection and tracking.

Revealed: China's Radars Can Track America's Stealthy F-22 Raptor | The National Interest Blog

 

[jkroo]

To all true patriotic Zhong Guo Ren ~ Long de Chuan Ren ... ...

1) Firstly, ... ...do you notice that China enemies are always trying to sabotage Russian---China alliance by posting or writing that China only know how to steal and copy Russian weapons.

2) Next, a few stupid Chinese posters show up by posting that Chinese weapon is superior than Russian weapons ... ... and insulting the Russian high tech achievements.

3) This Divide--and--Conquer tactic has been practised by the enemies of China since at minimum year 1776.

4) All of us ( non HanJian ) shall be smart enough --- NOT to fall into these malicious Divide--and--Conquer tactic.





@EastSea


I have noticed that some Vietnamese are so willing to act and behave like hired ( narcotic addicted american ) slaves.
Why is that ??

I d like to recommend you that try to add some ids to the ignore list. You just can't persuade anybody in the forum.

Have a nice stay.

 

[Akasa]

HQ-9 = S-300 Copy nothing else so S-400 and above should be better - those are facts !

There is no evidence that the HQ-9 was developed from the S-300.

HQ-9 and S-400 are better than PAC-3, but not THAAD in destroying ballistic missiles

PAAC-4 with the Stunner interceptor will be on the same level of HQ-9

and yes the F-22 is over hyped and HQ-9 will destroy it every time.

THAAD, PAC-3, and HQ-9/S-400 belong to their own respective classes. The THAAD is an endoatmospheric kinetic-energy interceptor, the PAC-3 is an anti-ballistic SAM, and HQ-9/S-400 purely SAMs designed to defend against AC.

 

[xunzi]

S-400 has longer range and is equipped for anti-aircraft. Think of it like a air defense weapon. The HQ-9 has shorter range but more powerful accurate detection which can hit incoming aircraft AND missile. That's why we bought the S-400, mainly for air defense.

S-500 is where Russia will take the next leap to coverage both air and missile defense. All-in-one system is the way to go.

 

[C130]

On that subject I've been reading this article:



Revealed: China's Radars Can Track America's Stealthy F-22 Raptor | The National Interest Blog

stealth doesn't mean it's completely invisible!! it just means it's invisible until it get's close enough to a radar source to spot it.

So for the Chinese to track the F-22 that would mean the F-22 would have to fly within 30KM (my guessing) of it's most powerful radars.

the U.S knows where most if not all Chinese radars are and the ones they don't know about the F-22 can sniff out and avoid. and let SEADS do their job. in knocking them out.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

China is buying the S-400 so that should answer your question.

do note the comparison is with S-300 not the one you quoted.

 

[C130]

do note the comparison is with S-300 not the one you quoted.

the title says HQ-9 vs S-400 which is better my comment was regarding the title comparison

but comparing the HQ-9 and S-300 is tricky.

reading the wikipedia article

HQ-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I would say HQ-9 is superior to the S-300PMU2, but less so against the S-300VM

 

[cirr]

The HQ-9 SAM is now in its 2nd iteration：HQ-9B for ship-borne and HQ-9G for land-based。

 

[BoQ77]

the title says HQ-9 vs S-400 which is better my comment was regarding the title comparison

but comparing the HQ-9 and S-300 is tricky.

reading the wikipedia article

HQ-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I would say HQ-9 is superior to the S-300PMU2, but less so against the S-300VM

I read that the purchased S-300 batteries located in the most important sites of China like 1. Beijing 2. Nanjing 3. Shanghai areas
S-400 would be the same - very important site protectors.
S-400 compared to S-300 : new radars and new missiles.

China buys S-400 means their radars and missiles still under the S-400 leverage, not sure they are higher or lower than S-300

 

[Providence]

S-400 > S-300 > Copy of S-300. 'nough said !!