Turkey soon to decide who wins the multibillion dollar contract.

[Archdemon]

dude shut the up alright.
dont come with bullshit.
man i hate jews

keep hating till you explode, this is usually what happens to your kind

 

[xMustiiej70]

keep hating till you explode, this is usually what happens to your kind

entire world hates you dude.
you wont last long.

 

[Archdemon]

entire world hates you dude.
you wont last long.

Prophecy given to the fools, and you are full of it

 

[xMustiiej70]

give all your only 7m population a nuke..
it still wont stop the arabic world and their growth rate.

 

[Jigs]

1. Your first question

Because Chinese HQ-9A just like Russian S-300PMU2 has indepent radar and luncher for each unit. One Battery has 12 units. So what is wrong? What does not make sense?

All these independet unit under each battery are integrated into a whole system each syste consists of 12 lunchers so if one unit got taken out others can still operate with out any problem.

No it doesn't

2. Your second Question.

Yes, I think China supassed USA in SAMs. In fact Russia has much better SAM than USA. This is due to Cold War Doctrione. In the Cold war Russia is aware that it can not match USA air power, especially after SR-71 and U-2 incidents, USSR realized that its air defence is outdated in 1960 and needs vast upgrade. This is why S-300 was developed in 1970's and USSR spend SO MUCH MONEY on it that it is far better than ANY thing the west has. China bought S-300PMU2 S-300PMU1 and even co-develped S-400 with Russia provided majority of the funding of the S-400 program.
On the other hand USA spends most of its money on offence air crafts like B-1, B-2, F-117, F-15E. In fact US needs little air defence from SAMs because no other country can even REACH US homeland!!

How come you dont know this??????????? lol:

Russia did have better SAMs during the cold war i don't debate that. PAC-3 however changed that imo. Maybe you could say the S-400 the Russians have is currently ahead/equal and i could understand that claim however there is speculation as to if the Russians actually offered the S-400 to turkey. If they did China would have to up its offer.

Also the S-400 was not funded by China. What you funded was your own development of the HQ-19 a variant based on the S-400 the Russians agreed to co-develop.

I doubt china's offering is as capable as the US PAC-3 especially if they are not putting in any TOT.

3. Your last question.

Aster 30 is only capalbe of intercepting low tech slow( under March 6) ballistic missles like the SCUD missile, which can not even perform in flight manuvers making it easy to intercept. I would LOVE to see how it square up againt DF-21. On the other hand Chinese tested HQ-9B against DF-21C, the same ballistic missile used for ASBM for US carriers and HQ-9B had: one missile, 40% rate of success. Two missiles 70% rate of success, 3 missiles over 90% rate of success.

S-300 PMUS2 and the Aster 30 both have medium range ballistic missile intercept capability.

Your claiming the HQ-9B (which is what based on the PMU2?) intercepted the DF-21C. That is impossible considering the 48N6E2 missile that system uses has a max target speed intercept of mach 8 the DF-21 reaches mach 10 in its terminal phase. So it intercepted it while it was launching ? You would need have SAMs within range of the launching area to do that which would not really make the test worth anything would it ? Also the top speed of the SAM is little over mach 6 so it would have to be incoming for it to actually intercept it and since by then it would reach terminal velocity that is again not possible. Seems if the Chinese did carry this test out they must have done it in a clearly unfair way.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

really? how about that patriot? i mean its not ballistic missiles they intercepted but still.
and how can you see these percentages?
plus how about succes rate hit of DF21D

The Success Hit rate of DF-21D is 100% against still target, it has the accuracy of a cruise missile which is with in 5 m^2!!!!!

Against moving target such as Aircraft carrier moving at 30 knots which is 60 km/h, it has a hit rate of 90% and accuracy of 10 m^2. It is the best medium range missile, and only medium range missile capapble of re-entry manuver!!. PERIOD

Any more questions?

 

[xMustiiej70]

The Success Hit rate of DF-21D is 100% against still target, it has the accuracy of a cruise missile which is with in 5 m^2!!!!!

Against moving target such as Aircraft carrier moving at 30 knots which is 60 km/h, it has a hit rate of 90% and accuracy of 10 m^2. It is the best medium range missile, and only medium range missile capapble of re-entry manuver!!. PERIOD

Any more questions?

Can I have some of them in my backyard?

 

[xMustiiej70]

i hope your not lieing because i dont want to face this:
YouTube - Black Ops: SAM Turret Epic FAIL!

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

No it doesn't

Russia did have better SAMs during the cold war i don't debate that. PAC-3 however changed that imo. Maybe you could say the S-400 the Russians have is currently ahead/equal and i could understand that claim however there is speculation as to if the Russians actually offered the S-400 to turkey.

Also the S-400 was not funded by China. What you funded was your own development of the HQ-19 a variant based on the S-400 the Russians agreed to co-develop.

I doubt china's offering is as capable as the US PAC-3 especially if they are not putting in any TOT.




S-300 PMUS2 and the Aster 30 both have medium range ballistic missile intercept capability.

Your claiming the HQ-9B (which is what based on the PMU2?) intercepted the DF-21C. That is impossible considering the 48N6E2 missile that system uses has a max target speed intercept of mach 8 the DF-21 reaches mach 10 in its terminal phase. So it intercepted it while it was launching ? You would need have SAMs within range of the launching area to do that which would not really make the test worth anything would it ? Also the top speed of the SAM is little over mach 6 so it would have to be incoming for it to actually intercept it and since by then it would reach terminal velocity that is again not possible. Seems if the Chinese did carry this test out they must have done it in a clearly unfair way.

1. First, I said that all 12 units are intergrated meaning that they can shapre informatiion such as targeting and positioning.

2. S-400 IS funded by the Chinese. In fact Chinese provided majority of the funds. You are reading Wikapedia which is not always accruate! The HQ-19 DOES NOT exist!!! It is called HQ-9B and HQ-9B share much tech with S-400, because China provided the funds and much technical co-op as well!!!

3. HQ-9A can not intercept DF-21 , at least with a good rate, and I NEVER said HQ-9A can!! I said HQ-9B can because HQ-9B has much better missile, in fact it is almost the same as S-400's missile. The true reason HQ-9B's missile is advanced is because it uses TVC thrust vectoring nozzle which made the missile much more agile and accurate. Last, you do not need a missile travale faster than March 12 to intercept a missile that travle at March 12!!! AND HQ-9B is NOT based on S-300PMU2, it is NOT based on S-400 neither!!! You may be able to say that HQ-9A and S-300PMU2 are similar, but still the two are vastly different!

Lastly. I said HQ-9B tested against DF-21C NOT DF-21D!!!!!!!!

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Can I have some of them in my backyard?

No you can not, even if you can afford them.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Another important informaton!!!!!!!

S-400 is initiioally called S-300PMU3!!!!

It was later it changed named to S-400. HQ-9B might also changed name perhaps later this year. BUT IT WILL NOT BE CALLED HQ-19. Such a BS. HQ-19 does not EXIST. Period!

The Russian a while ago call China's 5th gen figther Super-10, J-14, blah, blah, blah. Which all turned out to be BS!!

 

[Jigs]

1. First, I said that all 12 units are intergrated meaning that they can shapre informatiion such as targeting and positioning.

No you said "Because Chinese HQ-9A just like Russian S-300PMU2 has indepent radar and luncher for each unit. One Battery has 12 units."

I proved you wrong.

2. S-400 IS funded by the Chinese. In fact Chinese provided majority of the funds. You are reading Wikapedia which is not always accruate! The HQ-19 DOES NOT exist!!! It is called HQ-9B and HQ-9B share much tech with S-400!!

Give me a russian source that says the chinese are funding their SAM program and i will believe you. BTW i was reading not the wiki.

 

[Jigs]

HQ-9A can not intercept DF-21 , at least with a good rate, and I NEVER said HQ-9A can!! I said HQ-9B can because HQ-9B has much better missile, in fact it is almost the same as S-400's missile. The true reason HQ-9B's missile is advanced is because it uses TVC thrust vectoring nozzle which made the missile much more agile and accurate. Last, you do not need a missile travale faster than March 12 to intercept a missile that travle at March 12!!! AND HQ-9B is NOT based on S-300PMU2, it is NOT based on S-400 neither!!! You may be able to say that HQ-9A and S-300PMU2 are similar, but still the two are vastly different!

Ah ok so its C not D. Put up a source for that test too. I would very much like to read about that it would be quite accurate if it could do it. Then again would China be offering the HQ-9B. So what are the specs of the HQ-9Bs missile ?

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Ah ok so its C not D. Put up a source for that test too. I would very much like to read about that it would be quite accurate if it could do it. Then again would China be offering the HQ-9B. So what are the specs of the HQ-9Bs missile ?

I can give you a Chinese source in Chinese . But then again you can not read it.

This is one source: general inforomation regarding HQ-9A and HQ-9B, there is also a picture of the missile for HQ-9A.

£È£Ñ£­£¹A and ºìÆ죭9B - ·ÉÑï¾üÊ - ÐÅÏ¢×ÊѶ - [¾üÊÂÖ÷Ìâ] - Æﾨµ¸º£

This is another Chinese site, it has information about early variant of HQ-9.

¶íý£ºÖйúHQ-9·À¿ÕϵͳÈں϶íÃÀ¼¼Êõ³É¹ûͼ--¾üÊÂƵµÀ-ÖлªÍø-Öйú×î´ó¾üÊÂÍøÕ¾

There is also a more informative English blog. It has many information about Chinese military. This is a very good blog and has many good informations!

China Air and Naval Power

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

No you said "Because Chinese HQ-9A just like Russian S-300PMU2 has indepent radar and luncher for each unit. One Battery has 12 units."

I proved you wrong.



Give me a russian source that says the chinese are funding their SAM program and i will believe you. BTW i was reading not the wiki.

For the first part, it really does have its own radar. Each unit is indepentend.

The Chinese funded S-400, and every1 in Chinese defence fourm knows it. Just like Indian are funding PAK-FA. However as for S-400, the Chinese did not disclose the information, that's all. However, HQ-9B's missile shared same TVC nozzle as S-400's. This proves that!