Once again Indian playing with words and try misled readers again.HHQ-9 is a derivative of russian s-300 rif-m with some modifications.Adding a smiley doesn't change this fact.In fact Rif-m is installed in the type 051 destroyers itself.Now as to the turkish competition,again you people compare a land based sam system to a navalized sam?As a land based SAM against aircraft HQ-9 is a great system with good range and power.But its agianst AIRCRAFT.Its going to be good vs high flight profile cruise missiles too.But,its a poor choice against sea skimmers due to weight,altitude limit.
The fact that you are asking why it would need an active seeker proves how little you actually know about Naval ship defenses.
1.Active seeker missiles have a huge advantage in that a ship doesn't have to guide them to the target,they are true fire and forget weapons.This makes them far more useful in saturation attack situations.'The dependency on illumination radars and the difficulty in timing its use on multiple targets may be solved in theory by math and computers. It helps that modern SARH (semi-active radar homing)missiles need the illumination only during the terminal phase. Nevertheless - a ship with 60 ARH SAMs can engage 30 targets at once with 2 SAMs each if its radar and fire control can handle that. It wouldn't be able to defend against 30 well-timed threats with SARH SAMs.'
2.'An ARH (active radar homing)missile can be fired from a ship even without using the ship's radars. It needs merely a data link to a platform that has a line-of-sight to the target and provides the target information. An AEW (airborne early warning) aircraft, or another ship, for example'.
3.'An ARH missile can be fired from a ship at a target over land that's hidden behind hills, a city skyline or simply flying extremely low. The Royal Navy was unable to fire at the Argentinian jets that attacked it from land (Falklands War). An aerial radar + ARH SAM combination would have protected the fleet.'
4.An active seeker missile can engage targets over the horizon easily and independently on its own,whereas semi-active missile will require mid-course guidance from ship or airborne support platform.The USN in case you didn't know has stopped production and is withdrawing slowly the SARH SM-2,it has been superseded in production by the new SM-6 which is the latest missile with an ACTIVE SEEKER.Just like barak-8 and Aster.So USN has dumped SARH missiles,for active seeker ones.Unfortunately you again seem to have no knowledge of this fact.Just blabbering.
5.'Anti-radar missiles (ARM) can suppress a ship's or battery's radar, thus turning SARH-guided SAMs temporarily useless. It requires a missile with autonomous homing (like ARH or passive infrared seeker) or a ECM-proof laser beam rider guidance (short-ranged) to keep defending without an active radar.'
Thus an active seeker missile like sm-6/barak-8/aster is FAR superior in terms of naval air defence than say hhq-9.
Whether you like it or not fact is pl-12 is using radar and datalink from the russian r-77.Deny that if you want.
The SM-6 is not meant to replace the SM-2 series of missiles, alongside which it will serve, but does give extended range and increased firepower.[10]
RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SM-6 is never meant to replace SM-2. It is meant to supplement SM-2. What load of rubbish of you talking abt SM-2 phasing out?
As I say you are just picking on unneccessary point of semi active seeker which is not relevant in warship defense. While engagement range of LRSAM is definitely critical which yr short legged Barak is lacking. Sea skimming missile well taken care of with CIWS and RAM. Multiple engagement is handle by power type052C onboard AESA radar. If you talking abt one hundred plane engaging scenario. you are just picking problem.
