HQ-9 test results from Turkish SAM (T-LORAMIDS) contract

[sovcomflot]

But for China to claim that its out in front of everyone except the US, it must be ahead of all major defense sector on everyone. As of now China is clearly behind Russia in nuclear subs, nuclear missiles, engine technology, space exploration, etc. Unless China can clearly break away from Europe and Russia and establish itself as #2 in all fields, there would not be a China/US competition.

I'm not saying that China should be in the same category as India here. But its also certainly not in the same category as the US. When it comes to the defense field, its the country that is trying to break away from the Russia and EU pack. So it must still work hard on areas that its behind such as nuclear sub, reactors, engine and AC and distinguish itself from all these European countries before any discussion can be made on how far BEHIND is China from the US. Do when China can equal or exceed EU/Russia in all major tech, than we can create a two column table and compare US vs China. Any such talk is even premature now.

Add Biological weapons,HPM weaponry,Civil defense,construction of underground cities,ABM systems also to the list where Russia is much ahead of China.

 

[S10]

Fundamentally, the S-300 was eliminated because of high price and fundamentally it was not the most advanced S-300 system let alone the most advanced air defence system Russia had to offer. The HQ-9 was the cheapest, available in the quickest time and offered technology transfer. The version of the S-300 that was offered to Turkey was not the most advances, if shuttler was correct that the HQ-9 can engage 8 targets simultaneously which your source claims is more then the S-300 then the S-300 system offered to Turkey was S-300P or PMU which engages between 4 or 6 targets, the PMU-2 engages 36 targets. There is a world of difference between S-300 versions, you can bet a NATO country would not receive the most advanced S-300 version.

My linked source stated that the HQ-9 could engage 50 targets at the same time, which meant it was the B version with 125km range. The A version was capable of engaging 8 targets. It was also the best performing system in Turkish military trials, scoring 100% hit ratio. Top class performance with lowest price? Sounds like China got the winning combo.

Now I'm not putting down the S-300, since it is also one of the most capable systems in Chinese inventory and HQ-9 borrowed quite a bit from it. However, China was able to advance past it. It will slowly overtake Russia in other fields eventually, given the strength of our economy and size of our research funding.

 

[Audio]

I don't think EU has anything to offer here. It is slowly dying region.

1. What is the best stealth fighter made by the EU?
2. How is EU's satellite navigation system going?
3. Any capability to track all major combat ships worldwide using some US white cloud style satellite systems?
4. Anti satellite weapons?
5. Middle course anti ballistic missile system?
6. Strategic transport Aircraft?

Here I give a list what we Chinese can do:

1. J-20, J-31 and another unidentified project, EU has 0.
2. Beidou is in operational mode for the entire Asia-Pacific, EU has some plans on paper.
3. All aircraft carriers in this world are tracked by satellites, with DF-21D aiming at them. DDDDDHM is not a joke. EU never had the courage to dream for it.
4. Tested, confirmed by the entire world. EU is 1-2 decades away.
5. Tested multiple times, confirmed by the US. EU is 2-3 decades away.
6. Y-20.

EU should focus more on making fine wine and fashion bags, not high tech stuff. You don't agree? Fine, tell me what is the largest EU Internet company?

lool chi bot.

1.) none, but your projects are underpowered, noone knows what electronics they'll have and one appears to be running out of steam (J-31)
Oh, i also have to mention the F-35's will be built and maintained in Italy gaining valuable know-how. Not saying F-35 is in any way European, but that doesn't matter if you get to learn new stuff.

2.) 4 satellites are in orbit, they just recently passed search and rescue tests with Glonass and GPS. 4 more will be flying this year or early next year iirc (they are in testing already), making the system operational.
ESA-Galileo next satellite passes trial

3.) Yes, a lot of European nations have imaging satellites, we even export them, even to Taiwan .
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Europes-Multi-national-MUSIS-Space-Surveillance-06699/
The ones in space either belong to respective countries military and there's a host of ESA owned and operated satellites in orbit as well.

4 & 5.) Aster 2 BMD in development.
And besides, EU doesn't have such an urgency in developing this as China does. We have SM-3's sailing on seas around us and a planned firing station in Poland. It can do both, midcourse defense and satellite destruction.
MBDA Aster 2

6.) A-400M

7.) As for the internet company, lol, son, internet was invented in Europe, at CERN.

So, thanks for your concern, we will do hi tech and wine. And bags you will never be able to afford with your meagre 50 cent salary. Or i should say, most of Chinese won't be able to afford, since gdp is just 6.000$/capita a year.
I make that in a good month .

 

[UKBengali]

^^^ Looks like someone is smarting after the Chinese SAM win in Turkey

Only a few months ago, the same losers were saying the HQ-9 had no chance as it was "far inferior" to the S-300/Aster and Patriot.

Yes, It will take China maybe another 5-10 years before it fully masters engine technology, but it will get there in the end.

It is hilarious seeing their butt-hurt out in the open

My linked source stated that the HQ-9 could engage 50 targets at the same time, which meant it was the B version with 125km range. The A version was capable of engaging 8 targets. It was also the best performing system in Turkish military trials, scoring 100% hit ratio. Top class performance with lowest price? Sounds like China got the winning combo.

Now I'm not putting down the S-300, since it is also one of the most capable systems in Chinese inventory and HQ-9 borrowed quite a bit from it. However, China was able to advance past it. It will slowly overtake Russia in other fields eventually, given the strength of our economy and size of our research funding.

And China would not have offered their most advanced system to Turkey as that would be madness.

It will be funny seeing the excuses from these types of people as China wins more and more military contracts from relatively wealthy countries in the future

 

[Audio]

^^^ Looks like someone is smarting after the Chinese SAM win in Turkey

Only a few months ago, the same losers were saying the HQ-9 had no chance as it was "far inferior" to the S-300/Aster and Patriot.

Yes, It will take China maybe another 5-10 years before it fully masters engine technology, but it will get there in the end.

It is hilarious seeing their butt-hurt out in the open

Not really, i was just enlightning the chap. Btw, prostitution is a bad thing. Especially if you're on that receiving end that doesn't get paid.

 

[ptldM3]

My linked source stated that the HQ-9 could engage 50 targets at the same time, which meant it was the B version with 125km range. The A version was capable of engaging 8 targets. It was also the best performing system in Turkish military trials, scoring 100% hit ratio. Top class performance with lowest price? Sounds like China got the winning combo.

There is detection, tracking and engagement. Many people confuse detection with engagement. While researching the HQ-9 I had conflicting specifications likely due to amateurs overstepping their knowledge boundaries. One source stated 50 targets tracked and 50 engaged, another claimed 50 tracked and 6 engaged--same radar.

I stated earlier that there is none one that can be a master in everything, as in absolute best at everything.
Furthermore, one system can be better then the other or it can be better suited for one customer as apposed to another depending on what they want. A comparison between the HQ-9 and S-300 would yield the following:

The ambiguous claims for the HQ-9 are:

Targets detected 100

Targets tracked 50

Targets engaged 50 or 6 depending on who you believe.


S-300 comparison:

Targets detected 300

Targets tracked 72

Targets engaged 36



Now take into consideration, range, cost, production time, ect. HQ-9 seems to be very capable; however, I find it astonishing when people claim the other air defence systems to be inferior, when reality is that in tenders clients judge systems on far more then capability.

Now I'm not putting down the S-300, since it is also one of the most capable systems in Chinese inventory and HQ-9 borrowed quite a bit from it. However, China was able to advance past it. It will slowly overtake Russia in other fields eventually, given the strength of our economy and size of our research funding.

This is exactly the type of chest thumping I was talking about which seems to run ramped among certain people here. You are making a bold statement with nothing to support it--nothing new here. You don't even have figures for those research and funding claims, do you?

Of course you don't. You will just merely say something to the extent of, 'our economy is larger, we produce more research papers'. Those are equivocal claims that have no direct link to anything. Again, Israel, France, Germany, and the UK all have much smaller economies then China, they all produce less research papers yet most of their technology is far more advanced then China's. So how does that work? It contradicts yours claim.

 

[j20blackdragon]

China having operational airborne AESA doesn't mean that they have an edge. By that virtue Russia has ground based AESAs, yet who is anyone to make the claim that one or the other is better? It should also be noted that Russia has a large number of AESAs that are in development.

WTF?!

China has ground-based AESAs.

China has airborne AESAs.

China has shipborne AESAs.

Do you see how hopelessly behind Russia is now?

 

[sincity]

To all the Chinese poster in here, be proud of China achievement by winning Turkey defend procurement, 5 yrs ago if someone ask would Turkey choose China military equipment over Russia and US military equipment even if the China equipment 100 billions US dollars cheaper, the answer Turkey would choose either Russia or US instead of China military equipment.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Let's quickly cover the fighter-based AESA radars too before the naysayers spread even more lies.

-----------------------------------------------------------


J-10B AESA

J-10B Gets AESA

Chengdu J-10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For J-10B, the nose cone is modified to accommodate an active phased array airborne radar (AESA) radar.[35][36] The general designer of AESA for J-10B is Mr. Zhang Kunhui (张昆辉, 1963 -), the head of 607 Research Institute in Neijiang, Sichuan. Mr. Zhang Kunhui became the deputy head of 607th Research Institute in 1997, and four years later in 2001, he became the head of the institute, when the AESA program for J-10B started. The primary contractor of this AESA is the Radar and Electronic Equipment Research Academy of Aviation Industry Corporation of China located in Sichuan, formed in March 2004 by combining the 607th Research Institute and 171st Factory together with Mr. Zhang Kunhui was named as the head of the research academy. According to Chinese governmental media, the AESA for J-10B took 8 years to develop, finally completed in 2008, and Chinese fighter radars hence achieved a quantum leap in that it went from mechanically scanned planar slotted array directly into AESA, skipping the passive phased array PESA radar.[37] Many suspected the radar is a PESA, but during its brief debuts in the 7th China International Defense Electronics Exhibition (CIDEX) in May 2010 and the 6th International Conference on Radar held in Beijing in Sept 2011, Chinese official sources have claimed it is an AESA.[38] The AESA radar was selected over the 607th institute's PESA and its other larger AESA radars that were used by the J-11B, J-15, and J-16 instead. The AESA on J-10B incorporates design features of other countries in that it has a fixed array like Israeli and American AESA for fighters, but in the same time, it also adopts the practice of directly embedding IFF dipole antenna in the main array, a design feature common to Russian and Swedish airborne radars, and embedding of IFF is what caused many to erroneously identify the radar for J-10B is PESA instead AESA.

J-11B AESA testbed

 

[ptldM3]

WTF?!



Do you see how hopelessly behind Russia is now?

Perfect example of Chinese chest thumping, and China strong! The context of argument was that someone claimed China was ahead in AESA. Posting a bunch of pictures doesn't prove anything, I can do the same thing but it's rather juvinile and has no substance nor does it prove anything.

If we apply your logic to China then you are saying that if someone produces more of something compared to China then they have a better product, that would mean that China would be "hopelessly behind" everyone in everything. You contradict yourself epically and you don't even realize it.

 

[walle]

Perfect example of Chinese chest thumping, and China strong! The context of argument was that someone claimed China was ahead in AESA. Posting a bunch of pictures doesn't prove anything, I can do the same thing but it's rather juvinile and has no substance nor does it prove anything.

If we apply your logic to China then you are saying that if someone produces more of something compared to China then they have a better product, that would mean that China would be "hopelessly behind" everyone in everything. You contradict yourself epically and you don't even realize it.

And what has Russia got to support its claims? flaunting crap like its 1980s doesn't add any credibility to your arguments at all.

And your research to strictly based off what some "western analyst" is writing in their blogs, if you can't read chinese you are incapable of independent research, you are just feeding off what is passed off to you.

The Chinese military has explicit stated the exported KD-2000 is very different to what the PLA uses.

Just reading your posts, you are too easily offended and have to get defensive in order to reply.

 

[ptldM3]

And what has Russia got to support its claims? flaunting crap like its 1980s doesn't add any credibility to your arguments at all.

The question is what do the Chinese here have to support their claims. It is you boys that are always On the attack pounding your chests shouting, spouting and foaming at the mouth trying to prove how superior China is and how everyone else is incapable of competing with China. Back to topic, Posting pictures doesn't prove anything, many Chinese make claims of how the Chinese are superior to the Russians but can not prove it, they then pull the victim card even though they were the instigators.

Also where did I flaunt anything? If I wanted to flaunt I would say that the HQ-9 copied components from the S-300. I would also say China still imports engines from Russia, or I could say that your latest 'indigenous' attack helicopter was designed by a Russian company.

And your research to strictly based off what some "western analyst" is writing in their blogs, if you can't read chinese you are incapable of independent research, you are just feeding off what is passed off to you.

please do give an example of what I'm feeding off of because the ironic thing is, it is Chinese posters that use blogs and 'very reliable sources' when describing anything military related. In other words you guys pull facts out of thin air.

 

[seven7seven]

The one thing we can conclude is that the HQ-9 was at least "comparable" to the other contenders.

In a worse case scenario it may be slightly "inferior" to some of the others but not so much to stop the Turkish from buying the system.

The symbolic value of this win is much more than the 3 billion dollars or so that the Chinese will get from the contract. It is a literal statement that the Chinese have now joined the US/EU/Russia as a supplier of cutting-edge arms.

I have been mocked by many as I have predicted that China would be comparable to the US in military technology by 2030, leaving both the EU and Russia behind by then. This is undeniable proof the Chinese are making very good progress on their military technology. 17 years is plenty of time for China to catch up with the US - maybe not quite up to US standards across the board but definitely have caught up in many key technologies by then.

I agree............but who knows the real gap in years, technology wise.

I mean 17 years is an awful long time in the tech world!.........and the Chinese have a knack of making major progress, very quickly!

I agree with these comments. Many not familiar with Chinese military development, underestimate the determination of the Chinese people to provide the means to prevent foreign powers from bullying them ever again. China might be entering the military development game late, but being a latecomer can be highly advantageous, especially when you are as determined and organised as the Chinese are. Anyone believing that Chinese development, in almost all aspects, both militarily and economically, will follow the timescales of Western development, will inevitably be disappointed with their predictions. China in reaching where they are now have broken records and set a pace that has never been seen before. People in the West have an innate, but unjustified, superiority complex that their ways, and their methods are by default the best. Such deluded self-belief in your own exceptionalism always leads to complacency, and this complacency has been the downfall of every major empire that has ever existed.

 

[liyan_11104]

please， give me a break, is turkey buying hq-9 now? I don't think turkey is buying, they just want to say no to the US and EU. And Russian is great country again since they got their greatest president re-elected. China still got long way to go to catch up, don,t be
complacent.

 

[S10]

There is detection, tracking and engagement. Many people confuse detection with engagement. While researching the HQ-9 I had conflicting specifications likely due to amateurs overstepping their knowledge boundaries. One source stated 50 targets tracked and 50 engaged, another claimed 50 tracked and 6 engaged--same radar.

I stated earlier that there is none one that can be a master in everything, as in absolute best at everything.
Furthermore, one system can be better then the other or it can be better suited for one customer as apposed to another depending on what they want. A comparison between the HQ-9 and S-300 would yield the following:

The ambiguous claims for the HQ-9 are:

Targets detected 100

Targets tracked 50

Targets engaged 50 or 6 depending on who you believe.


S-300 comparison:

Targets detected 300

Targets tracked 72

Targets engaged 36



Now take into consideration, range, cost, production time, ect. HQ-9 seems to be very capable; however, I find it astonishing when people claim the other air defence systems to be inferior, when reality is that in tenders clients judge systems on far more then capability.

The only thing established by the source I've provided is HQ-9 offered to Turkey had faster response time and can engage more targets than S-300 offered by Russia. It is also cheaper at 3.4 billion. Superior performance with more affordable price tag is what won the day. We had the best value for the money.

This is exactly the type of chest thumping I was talking about which seems to run ramped among certain people here. You are making a bold statement with nothing to support it--nothing new here. You don't even have figures for those research and funding claims, do you?

Of course you don't. You will just merely say something to the extent of, 'our economy is larger, we produce more research papers'. Those are equivocal claims that have no direct link to anything. Again, Israel, France, Germany, and the UK all have much smaller economies then China, they all produce less research papers yet most of their technology is far more advanced then China's. So how does that work? It contradicts yours claim.

There is no chest thumping involved. These are cold hard facts unless you refuse to believe in reality. China has a much larger industrial sector than Russia, with a larger consumer market to support it. China has more than 10 times the research funding as Russia, and thus produce much more research. What dimension do you live in if you don't think China will surpass Russia in the short future?

Can Israel put a man in space? Can it build space stations? Can it build it's own guided missile destroyers? While it may be ahead in some areas compared to China, it is not the complete package. Switzerland has some of the most advanced engineering tools in the world, does that mean it's more advanced than United States? Of course not.