What's new

Pakistan officially inducts HQ 9 Air Defence system

Another thing to add would be that Anza-II isn’t the only MANPADS in service. The RBS-70 BOLIDE and the FN-16 are the more capable MANPAD of the PA. Followed by large numbers Of Anza MK.2

PAF will hopefully procure its own Long-range SAMs soon as well, adding another layer to this defense.
Which long range SAM?
 
. .
I don’t get why you don’t see the hype. It fills a significant gap that was present within our air defence, we have a very very well done shorad but the mid-long range gap was there and something that needed to be addressed.

meet the HQ-9, it does literally that, in fact, the system could be a dud, however what it does is add a whole other dimension to Indian military planners, now meaning they have to work around another means of defence, I.e meaning they may have to re think their strategy if they were to carry out strikes like last time for example, now there is another spanner in the works.

the Chinese have also developed hq-9, I don’t get what your point is, the difference is, they do things without all of the fanfare, unlike the west, who announces to the world what they had for lunch.

radars wise it’s pretty much evenly matched with patriot, however, has the advantage of being able to employ other radars alongside the typical ones, including VHF and Passive radars.
I do see the hype but I prefer it to be put in its proper/logical context in view of regional threat dynamics.

I absolutely agree with your view that the HQ-9 have created a new dimension of headache for India in the region. It definitely plugs a capability gap in our defenses.

It is rather good to see that WE outpaced India by fielding HQ-9 before they could field S-400 systems in the region.

WE can taunt Indians for a while.

I expect these systems to deliver in our environment in fact. Pakistan and India are not like NATO to each other in conventional warfare. Both Pakistan and India have qualitative advantages in different areas. Pakistan is attempting to bridge the gap in all areas nevertheless.

I am satisfied with this decision. I have always been a proponent of BMDS capability even if entry-level. Ballistic Missile threat in our environment is real and significant.

I simply caution against ill-advised comparisons of hardware on global stage. WE have limited funds and options to choose from. WE cannot have the best of hardware out there even from the same supplier. WE can have 'what is good enough' for our needs. This is not good enough?

Why do WE have to draw parallels with American hardware in every thread?

No, PESA and AESA radar systems are not similar in performance and fidelity. A massive hybrid of PESA and AESA concepts is another thing which is only witnessed in American destroyers but these will be replaced with next-gen AESA as well.

Patriot/PAC-3 is also multi-radar system compatible now. For perspective:


This live-fire intercept was shaped by a level of sophistication and integration which WE do not see very often and not in many countries around the world.

IAMD IBCS = check

3 x radar systems involved and interlinked (1 was the original MPQ-53 and the other 2 were latest MPQ-65 AESA with GaN TRMs)

The target adopted a terrain-hugging flight approach and path in which it was operating outside the FOV of the original MPQ-53 radar system of the Patriot/PAC-3 battery. The 2 x MPQ-65 were able to detect and distinguish the target from surface clutter and provide cues to the battery and the target was intercepted with 'engage-on-net' method.

If this demonstration is not sufficient, there is another even more technologically sophisticated demonstration to consider.

Let me tell you this. Americans are involved in an arms race with both Russia and China now. They cannot afford to have capability gaps anymore. Americans have also ditched INF treaty with Russia.

So let us drop USA from this discussion and come back to our reality.
 
.
Farmers will flee or be evacuated regardless.. both from Lahore and its surrounding areas.

There is a massive Indian armored thrust heading to Lahore and one heading to cut the Okara to Jhang axis which captured 3 vital supply links.. what can Lahore supply from Mall road to its food production to “vital economics” that will justify saving it versus sacrificing critical communication and supply lines to 5 major urban areas along with countless military facilities?
Sir don't worry about Lahore. You just give the air cover and missile shield to your important cities. Leave the Lahore to its citizens, they have the courage to defend their homes against any one. Lahori have enough harmony to fight against enemy. You give the missile shield to the city where every one is killing each other. Thanks.
 
.
Another thing to add would be that Anza-II isn’t the only MANPADS in service. The RBS-70 BOLIDE and the FN-16 are the more capable MANPAD of the PA. Followed by large numbers Of Anza MK.2

PAF will hopefully procure its own Long-range SAMs soon as well, adding another layer to this defense.


Well Anza II is mass produced so I listed it here but yes Pakistan Military have various other shoulder held ammunition

Pakistan surprisingly attained the High Range SAM capabilities much later then many other nations in Middle East , as Patriot Missile Batteries are commonly used in Saudi Arabia , also Egypt has variety of SAMs used in their Army

To further enhance the air defense
  • Turkey is making Hisar-A and Hisar-0 Series look promising
  • MBDA SAM system for Land would be also a great addition a follow up to SPADA2000 induction

But what Pakistan Military has attained with HQ-9 and LY-80 is already applaudable addition. Considering the on going pandemic mess
 
Last edited:
.
Correct - not only was it there a while ago but the Indians too were aware of it being there after a few months in country. Currently Ravi Nirudkar at Raytheon is making his pitch for a large AARGM purchase by India but is being countered by DRDO with Rudram. Hopefully the DRDO guys prevail so there is a half operational system and not something as well built and effective as the AARGM.
Ravi moved to BAE systems now.....
 
.
Gentlemen in this thread we have talked alot about the HQ-9 system itself, but talked less about its possible employment; so I think its right time we should initiate debate on its employment.

Now My take on this is that I don't know for what reason but I have a feeling that at least few batteries would be tasked to provide long range cover to the two strike corps of Pakistan Army in their offensive operations inside Indian territory, same as

- FM-90 and MANPAD would accompany for SHORAD purpose

- LY-80 is supposed to provide LOMAD coverage

- And few batteries of HQ-9 for HIMAD cover to offensive force

So it will not only deployed inside Pakistani territory providing SAM coverage to inland defence and civilian installations but would also act in offensive role .... In this case 100+ KM range make sense.
 
Last edited:
.
Gentleman in this thread we have talked alot about the HQ-9 system itself, but talked less about its possible employment; so I think its right time we should initiate debate on its employment.

Now My take on this is that I don't know for what reason but I have a feeling that at least few batteries would be tasked to provide long range cover to the two strike corps of Pakistan Army in their offensive operations inside Indian territory, same as

- FM-90 and MANPAD would accompany for SHORAD purpose

- LY-80 is supposed to provide LOMAD coverage

- And few batteries of HQ-9 for HIMAD cover to offensive force

So it will not only deployed inside Pakistani territory providing SAM coverage to inland defence and civilian installations but would also act in offensive role .... In this case 100+ KM range make sense.
It's worth noting that the PA actually required a mobile SHORAD system while it was still inducting the FM-90. In other words, the FM-90 was a separate requirement from the mobile SHORAD. I think the PA originally gave the latter to the Pantsir, but it didn't work out. The Chinese equivalent (Sky Dragon 12?) would probably come, but I'd say the Turkish Hisar-A and Saab BAMSE may be dark horse candidates.
 
.
Had to open this thread out of frustration.
Pakistanis are so deep in their inferiority complex that they always downplay own country's capabilities.
With the new HQ-9P purchase which is most likely the HQ-9BE, people are sure it's some old junk from Chinese bone yard and not the latest export version.
The BE version has ABM capabilities and out of the usual Pakistani inferiority complex, nobody is discussing that.
So come on, take the risk, and discuss that.
 
.
An interesting article brothers on the system;

The HQ-9B is NOT the S-300;


The HQ-9 is China’s new generation medium- to long-range, active radar homing air defense missile. It resembles the Russian S300 system, but China is assessed to have developed variants of the system with a longer range, potentially up to 230 kilometers. Hongqi-9 is China's first regional air defense missile. The central government has always attached great importance to this cross-century national key project. Even if it decided to introduce S-300PMU1, it did not stop the development of HQ-9, which shows its special status. HQ-9 is a product under the green light of the central leadership, and its investment has not been interrupted. The attitude of the high-level is often related to the fate of weapons and equipment. This is why Hongqi-9 has never been dismounted after generations of leaders.

The projectile length is greater than 9 meters, the projectile diameter is 0.7 meters; the aspect ratio is about 12.9, which is close to the Patriot's 12.6, and its high-speed performance is slightly less than the volume but also with boosters. The S-300V (9M82) is better. The projectile weighs about 2 tons, the warhead is heavier than 180 kg, and the load factor is 11, which is better than S-300V and PAC-2+, but inferior to S-300PMU1. Like other missiles, the warhead is a prefabricated fragment high-explosive type triggered by a radio proximity fuze.

The naval HQ-9 appears to be identical to the land-based variant. Its naval type HHQ-9 is equipped in the PLAN Type 052C Lanzhou class destroyer in VLS launch tubes. The land-based HQ-9 system has an anti-radiation variant, known as the FT-2000 for export. The export designation for the air defense version is FD-2000, and its marketer the China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) first made it public at the Africa Aerospace and Defence Exhibition held at Cape Town in March 2009.

In September 2013 the HQ-9 submitted by CPMIEC won Turkey's T-LORAMIDS program to acquire 12 long range air defense systems.After Turkey decided to buy HQ-9 long-range air and missile defence system from a Chinese company, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei told a press conference on September 27, 2013. "The Chinese government carries out defence trade cooperation in a prudent and responsible manner. China's military export does no harm to peace, security and stability of relevant regions and beyond, nor does it interfere in the internal affairs of recipient countries. It is in strict consistence with China's relevant international obligations. The aforementioned cooperation between China and Turkey is defence trade cooperation under normal circumstances."

The land-based version of the long-range HQ-9 probably incorporated some technology from the Russian SA-10. The HQ-9 is designed to be a long-range SAM to counter high-performance aircraft, cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles (ASMs), and tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs). Technology from advanced Western systems may also be incorporated into the HQ-9.

Much of China's more recent air defense modernization efforts extend from Beijing's observation of Western military campaigns beginning with the Gulf War in early 1991 and Operation ALLIED FORCE in mid-1999. During the Gulf War, the employment of precision-guided munitions, stealth aircraft, and airborne C4I apparently awakened Beijing to the limitations of its air defense capabilities. The design of the HQ-9 SAM reportedly was influenced by these observations, and plans were made to upgrade China's C4I system.

The HQ-9 is a program to develop a new long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM). The HQ-9 development effort may be based on a Chinese-designed missile motor, search and guidance hardware based on the Russian S-300PMU, and guidance technology from the American Patriot. China purchased four to six S-300PMU batteries (48 to 72 missiles) in 1991 and purchased an additional 120 missiles in 1994. In 1993 it was alleged that Israel had transferred a Patriot missile or missile technology to China, though Israel denied the charges. In 1997 the US Office of Naval Intelligence suggested that "technology from advanced Western systems may be incorporated into the HQ-9." A naval version of HQ-9 could be installed on the Luhai-class destroyers if the HQ-9 enters service. However, China is said to have encountered difficulties with the associated radar system, and it is unclear whether the PLA is currently funding this program.

China’s HQ-9, also known as FD 2000, surface-to-air missile system, was one of the main highlights of the Airshow China starts in Zhuhai in November 2012. As part of China’s new generation of medium-to-long range missiles, the HQ-9, features strong radar and air defence capabilities. Its strong command and control capabilities also allow it to coordinate with other weapons systems to form a multi-layered air defense network.

Two Type 052C (NATO codename: Luyang-II class) air defence guided missile destroyers have been built by Jiangnan Shipyard of Shanghai for the PLA Navy. A total of 48 indigenous HQ-9 air defence missiles are housed in eight 6-cell vertical launch systems (VLS). Unlike the Russian-style revolver VLS, the Type 052C’s VLS is fixed with each launch cell having its own lid. The missile system utilises the ‘cold launch’ method, in which the missile was first ejected from the launch tube, and then ignites its rocket engine at low altitude. This launch method avoids the complex flame and gas exhausting pipes on the Western-style ‘hot launch’ VLS, and also decreases damage to the ship structure caused by the rocket motor blast.

The HQ-9 in terms of speed alone is not comparable with the US-Russian anti-missile capability. The HQ-9 has the world's largest warhead [180-kg] to increase its lethalisty and integrated combat capability, compared with S-300PMU1, S-300V, PAC-2 warhead weights of 143 kg, respectively, 150 kg, 80 kg. Although the design is more traditional, but because the large weight, the destructive power is second only to the special design of its detonation device S-300V2.

The combat systems and C4I capability microelectronics appearance are of Western style and performance, and more impressive than the missile itself. Electronic technology is the HQ-9 advantage over the S-300, claimed to be almost equal to its level of sophistication similar products in Europe and America. Technical and performance of the HQ-9 missile itself had ordinary performance, but the very modern reliable phased array radar electronic equipment has great development potential. With the rapid development of military microelectronics industry, the HQ-9 can have better electronic equipment, one area where the S-300 series is really behind in a lot of technology. Some display and control consoles are a generation behind, a 5 to 10-year gap. However, the more integrated performance and system integration of advanced European, American and Russian air defense missile systems have the upper hand.

To compensate for the gap between hardware and software, so that overall performance close to the foreign level, a small amount of production of the HQ-9 was turned over to the military after the trials, the Institute had already developed its own modified missile programs, especially the propulsion system of technological innovation, including: establishment of high-energy fuel HTPB tactical missile production line; using high-quality fiber / epoxy composite motor case, to meet a variety of complex loading conditions, the shell strength and stiffness of the stringent requirements; nozzle technology to high-quality practical than red the introduction of new products, reduce the overall weight of the structure. After the the improvement measures, the mass production of HQ-9A performance will be quite different, especially in the anti-missile operations, with appropriate improvements and upgrades of electronic equipment will become an advanced dual-use advanced regional air defense missile system. Now the HQ-9A system is believed to be comparable in performance to the Russian S-300PMU1 (SA-20).

By 2010 China had deployed at least sixteen battalions of the more-capable S-300PMU1 (150 km range) and comparable domestically-produced HQ-9, along with at least eight battalions of the even-more- capable S-300PMU2 (200 km range). By 2013 China had started to produce an improved version of the HQ-9, the HQ-9A. with improved electronics and programming, the combat effectiveness of the latter even better, especially more powerful anti-missile capability.

Many people like to compare the Hongqi-9 series with similar products in the world, especially compared with the Russian S-300. In fact, the two are quite different
. For example, Hongqi-9 and 9B use active seekers, while S-300 is semi-active. Semi-active means that after the missile goes out, the radar keeps monitoring the target. The active head means that the active seeker is fired on and goes to the target. To hit multiple targets, the radar channel is limited. The advantage of the active seeker of the missile is that once each missile is launched, the corresponding channel can be released and other targets can be picked up. If the S-300 radar can guide 12 missiles to intercept targets at the same time, the Hongqi-9 system radar can guide 16 missiles against air targets.

Compared with the "Patriot" series of similar American missiles, Chinese analysts claim the Hongqi-9B also has unique advantages. It adopts vertical cold launch. The missile quickly makes a program turn after the vertical ejection. At this time, the speed of the missile is very low and the aerodynamic force of the aerodynamic rudder surface is weak. , Is not enough to control the missile to quickly turn and align. Hongqi-9B arranges four gas rudders that are synchronized with the aerodynamic rudder wing in the range of the engine nozzle, so that the gas rudder can be used to quickly deflect the engine jet after launch to achieve thrust vectoring. control. The "Patriot" uses the side attitude control engine to directly control to achieve the effect of fast turning and alignment after launch. The advantage that the gas rudder thrust vector brings to the Hongqi-9B missile is that the minimum attack altitude is no longer restricted by the vertical launch mode, the fire range is greatly expanded, and the minimum attack is better than the performance of the "Patriot" missile.


 
Last edited:
.
It's worth noting that the PA actually required a mobile SHORAD system while it was still inducting the FM-90. In other words, the FM-90 was a separate requirement from the mobile SHORAD. I think the PA originally gave the latter to the Pantsir, but it didn't work out. The Chinese equivalent (Sky Dragon 12?) would probably come, but I'd say the Turkish Hisar-A and Saab BAMSE may be dark horse candidates.
Chinese FK-2000 and LD-35 are already under trials, PA started looking for alternatives as soon as they realized Pantsir wasn’t coming, given the nature of these two systems, we can guess what other systems (from other countries) They’d be interested in too.
PA has tested KORKUT SPAAG in the past as well, though I don’t think that goes in this category.
 
.
outside the FOV of the original MPQ-54 radar system of the Patriot/PAC-3 battery. The 2 x MPQ-64 were able to detect and distinguish the target from surface clutter and provide cues to the battery and the target was intercepted with 'engage-on-net' method.
I think you mean MPQ-53 and MPQ-65
 
.
Already discussed on the other thread, OEM specifies it has limited ABM capability, good for upto 1000km range BMs. No need for new thread.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom