What's new

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

S10

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
6,066
Reaction score
-21
Country
China
Location
Canada
据称,在土耳其的这次招标过程中,由土耳其军方安排的测试打靶中,红旗-9共9发9中,这在所有的参试导弹中是绝无仅有的。

在土耳其的招标计划公开后,参与竞争的是当今世界上最为典型最有代表性的的四种防空导弹,而且都是最为顶尖的武器。 红旗-9是究竟是如何“打败”其他几个世界“顶级高手”的?

在射程上, 红旗-9比S-300尚存一些差距,但是它仍具备了一些优势。 红旗-9导弹的反应时间仅为15秒,能够同时对付近50个目标,而S-300最多只能同时对付6个目标; 红旗-9导弹系统的布置更加合理。另外,红旗-9的价格优势也能对俄制S-300构成挑战。

红旗-9导弹打击常规空中目标的射程,超过了美国的“爱国者”导弹系统,甚至可能不亚于美军的战区高空区域防御导弹系统。 红旗-9的射程还略微超过了意-法联合研制的“紫苑-30”导弹。更为重要的是,相对于中国导弹,其它三款导弹的售价都很高,而且它们在对土耳其本土防空技术的提高上都没有多少实质性帮助,这恐怕是土耳其最终选择中国产品的重要原因之一。

这是继A-100远程火箭炮和B-611地对地导弹之后,土耳其军方大规模采购的中国第三种先进武器.
http:// news.ifeng.com/mil/2/detail_2013_10/12/30250811_0.shtml

Key points for those that don't read Chinese:

1. HQ-9 has shorter range than S-300, but has faster response time (15 seconds) and engage more targets simultaneously.
2. Against conventional air targets, HQ-9 has greater range than Patriot and Aster 30.
3. Cheapest bid amongst the four systems (S-300, HQ-9, Aster 30, Patriot)
4. Managed to successfully hit all 9 targets in 9 demonstration launches.
 
.
I think, you should post western source here, china media(include Hongkong) is not "believed" by someone, only some negative news will be believed by them and as a weapon, :azn:
 
.
I think, you should post western source here, china media(include Hongkong) is not "believed" by someone, only some negative news will be believed by them and as a weapon, :azn:

well you should not concern about them.They believe but cant admit that china is ahead

I do believe my turkish friend will also believe in the above source
 
. .
It would be interesting to know the hit rates of the other missiles!

In conclusion the HQ-9 must be a very good missile indeed............it had some formidable opposition!
 
.
Seems really an awesome SAM system for securing strategic installations and sensitive command structure!
 
. .
It would be interesting to know the hit rates of the other missiles!

In conclusion the HQ-9 must be a very good missile indeed............it had some formidable opposition!

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.
 
.
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!
 
.
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 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?
 
. .
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?

The problem with the EU is that they are still a collection of countries that have formed a bloc mainly for trade purposes. There is no central government that could use the whole resources of the EU to be able to direct it's military industries towards a common goal. A lot of the time there is duplication like the Euro-fighter and Rafale which is a collective waste of EU resources.

The two big EU powers that have the major military industries, UK and France, are just far too small to be able to invest the 10s of billions every year to develop systems on a par with the US and China.

Russia just does not have the civilian technology to be able to use in their military and hence you have seen them being surpassed by the Chinese in radar technology now among others.

By 2030, it will be a straight two-way race between the US and China for the most cutting-edge military weapons.
 
.
The problem with the EU is that they are still a collection of countries that have formed a bloc mainly for trade purposes. There is no central government that could use the whole resources of the EU to be able to direct it's military industries towards a common goal. A lot of the time there is duplication like the Euro-fighter and Rafale which is a collective waste of EU resources.

The two big EU powers that have the major military industries, UK and France, are just far too small to be able to invest the 10s of billions every year to develop systems on a par with the US and China.

Russia just does not have the civilian technology to be able to use in their military and hence you have seen them being surpassed by the Chinese in radar technology now among others.

By 2030, it will be a straight two-way race between the US and China for the most cutting-edge military weapons.

Even now it's a two-way race between China and the US. In 2006 there was a US report that said China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the US.



Pentagon Report Singles Out China As Potential Military Rival
A major review of US military strategy Friday singled out China as the country with the greatest potential to challenge the United States militarily.

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) rated Russia as a "country in transition" that is unlikely to pose a military threat on the scale of the Soviet Union, and said India is emerging as "a great power and a key strategic partner."

The review, which is conducted every four years, said a key goal for the US military in the coming years will be to "shape the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads."

The QDR report noted China's steady but secretive military buildup since 1996.

"Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that over time offset traditional US military advantages absent US counter strategies," the report said.

The pace and scope of China's military buildup already puts regional military balances at risk, it said.

It listed an array of high end military capabilities that China is investing in.

They include electronic and cyberwarfare, counter-space operations, ballistic and cruise missiles, advanced integrated air defense systems, next generation torpedoes, advanced submarines, land and sea-base strategic nuclear missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

"These capabilities, the vast distances of the Asian theater, China's continental depth, and the challenge of en route and in-theater US basing place a premium on forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied area," the report said.

It said US policy aims at encouraging China to choose a path of peaceful economic growth and political liberalization, rather than military threat or intimidation.

But, it said, "The outside world has little knowledge of Chinese motivations and decision-making or of key capabilities supporting its military modernization."

"The United States encourages China to take actions to make its intentions clear and clarify its military plans."

Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said the United States wanted to be a partner in China's peaceful rise, but have the means to dissuade it from taking an adversarial path.

"We think China should have a military capability sufficient to meet its genuine security needs," he told reporters. He indicated those should be regional in scope.

The report also flags US worries about Russia, citing the erosion of democracy there and restrictions on non-governmental organizations and press freedoms.

"Internationally, the United States welcomes Russia as a constructive partner but views with increasing concern its sales of disruptive weapons technologies abroad and actions that compromise the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of other states," it said.

In the case of India, the report foresaw "continued and increased strategic cooperation."
 
.
We all know you are a suck up but care to post proof of this bold claim.

Come on, there is nothing as absolute proof here.:lol:

Where is Russia's equivalent to the AESA radars on the KJ-2000 AWACs and Type-052C destroyers?

China has much more experience in AESA radars than Russia has and has more resources to throw at this.

Russia is still ahead in areas like engines and nuclear submarines and maybe in SAM(although I am very dubious now that China has won the Turkish SAM competition) but China seems to have caught up or surpassed Russia in many other areas.

Fundamentally it is will be a two-way race between the US and China for the next few decades for cutting-edge military technology, as they are the only two countries that have the money, base civilian technology and the will to develop it.

As far as my comment on "base civilian technology" is concerned, Japan was able to develop an AESA radar for the F-2 fighter as it had a highly developed semiconductor industry. China is also getting to the stage where it's semiconductor technology is reaching world-class levels and so it can use this as a base to develop military avionics.

Just like the Soviets lagged the West in avionics, Russia will do the same due to both money but also due to the fact that they don't have an advanced civilian electronics industry to be able to use to develop their military avionics.
 
.
Come on, there is nothing as absolute proof here.:lol:

Where is Russia's equivalent to the AESA radars on the KJ-2000 AWACs and Type-052C destroyers?

China has much more experience in AESA radars than Russia has and has more resources to throw at this.

Russia is still ahead in areas like engines and nuclear submarines and maybe in SAM(although I am very dubious now that China has won the Turkish SAM competition) but China seems to have caught up or surpassed Russia in many other areas.

Fundamentally it is will be a two-way race between the US and China for the next few decades for cutting-edge military technology, as they are the only two countries that have the money and the will to develop it.

So you make a claim stating something as fact but when asked to back that claim you retract by saying there is no absolute proof.


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.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom