Pakistan may Purchase Chinese Surface-to-Air Missile System HQ-9

[Akasa]

Actually, you can't because for no one other than Chinese believe, in these exaggerated ranges.

No one, even wants to buy them, not even your closest allies.

The hurdle is not the "exaggeration" of any ranges (no contractor would do such a deed anyway since all of the systems would undergo copious evaluation by the customer), but rather the MTCR, which prohibits the export of any missile systems with ranges exceeding 300 km, and to which the Chinese are not signatory but verbally obligatory.

The WS-2 series and the WS-1 (from which the former was based) had already been exported to Sudan, Thailand, and Turkey.

 

[_NOBODY_]

And they rejected HQ-9 too in favor of an indigenous SAM.

Because China refused TOT.

 

[Akasa]

I know that right now it is not possible and that is why I am saying that it should inducted after 2020 and before 2030 because until then our economy would be much better due to which we would be able to build a strong layer of air defenses and then we can induct HQ-19.

Barring any economic or logistics issues, how do you think the HQ-19 (or any ABM system, for that matter) would fit into Pakistan's doctrine? Frankly, I don't know much about Pakistan's military doctrine, but from extrapolating its previous purchases (of which air- and missile-defense systems have not been a focus), I can deduce that their brass would probably not be interested in anti-ballistic missiles in the near future.

Because China refused TOT.

I suspect that the cancellation was partially due to US pressure (NATO was reluctant to integrate the system with its datalinks) as well as substantial lobbying from Roketsan.

The decision to "choose" the HQ-9 was probably a extortionist gamble to force a better deal out of US suppliers, not to discount the HQ-9's capabilities in any way.

****

Another detractor is, we don't know if the HQ-19 has been cleared for export (or is even in service with the Chinese).

The following is the only known photograph of the HQ-19 (circa 2003, during its first test flight). It has been tested a few more times in recent years, according to published papers.

 

[帅的一匹]

Barring any economic or logistics issues, how do you think the HQ-19 (or any ABM system, for that matter) would fit into Pakistan's doctrine? Frankly, I don't know much about Pakistan's military doctrine, but from extrapolating its previous purchases (of which air- and missile-defense systems have not been a focus), I can deduce that their brass would probably not be interested in anti-ballistic missiles in the near future.



I suspect that the cancellation was partially due to US pressure (NATO was reluctant to integrate the system with its datalinks) as well as substantial lobbying from Roketsan.

The decision to "choose" the HQ-9 was probably a extortionist gamble to force a better deal out of US suppliers, not to discount the HQ-9's capabilities in any way.

Another detractor is, we don't know if the HQ-19 has been cleared for export (or is even in service with the Chinese).

The following is the only known photograph of the HQ-19 (circa 2003, during its first test flight). It has been tested a few more times in recent years, according to published papers.

View attachment 305721

Turkey has no choice.

 

[Photon]

The hurdle is not the "exaggeration" of any ranges (no contractor would do such a deed anyway since all of the systems would undergo copious evaluation by the customer), but rather the MTCR, which prohibits the export of any missile systems with ranges exceeding 300 km, and to which the Chinese are not signatory but verbally obligatory.

The WS-2 series and the WS-1 (from which the former was based) had already been exported to Sudan, Thailand, and Turkey.

MTCR, would be a hurdle, if there are customers interested in buying them.

Like it or not, the Russians and more so the Chinese are very fond, exaggerating the qualities of their weapons.

Since these systems, have very few buyers outside China, they are not independently verifiable.

For example, Chinese adversitise, they have MLRS, which can hit at 400 Km, but they won't tell you, at 400 Km, a unguided rocket will have the same accuracy as a, world war 2, German V1 rocket.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

In early 2000s , India bought 6 batteries(18 launchers) of S300 PMU2, for $1 billion, for ABM purposes, in a hush hush deal .

One and half decade down the line, Pakistan is considering, buying a Chinese variant of S 300.

When India is about to conclude a deal for 5 regiments (or 60 launchers) of S400 missiles.

For Pakistan to posses a Chinese copy of S400 ,China will have to first buy S400 , then copy it and then sell it to Pakistan.

Considering the time line, India would have long since moved on to S500 or another advanced SAM.

India never bought S-300..

 

[Akasa]

MTCR, would be a hurdle, if there are customers interested in buying them.

Like it or not, the Russians and more so the Chinese are very fond, exaggerating the qualities of their weapons.

Since these systems, have very few buyers outside China, they are not independently verifiable.

For example, Chinese adversitise, they have MLRS, which can hit at 400 Km, but they won't tell you, at 400 Km, a unguided rocket will have the same accuracy as a, world war 2, German V1 rocket.

The systems' specifications are, in fact, independently verified each and every time a customer purchases them (and there are customers that purchase the aforementioned systems). Hence, there is absolutely no incentive for the supplier to exaggerate any of its claims because it would serve no purpose.

The WS-2D (the variant with the 400 km range) has GPS guidance, so its accuracy should be decent just so long as the satellites function.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

MTCR, would be a hurdle, if there are customers interested in buying them.

Like it or not, the Russians and more so the Chinese are very fond, exaggerating the qualities of their weapons.

Since these systems, have very few buyers outside China, they are not independently verifiable.

For example, Chinese adversitise, they have MLRS, which can hit at 400 Km, but they won't tell you, at 400 Km, a unguided rocket will have the same accuracy as a, world war 2, German V1 rocket.

And there is a difference between effective range and maximum range ... Hope you understand the difference ..

 

[Photon]

India never bought S-300..

Here is a Pakistani source, confirming the purchase of S-300 by India.

"As a stop-gap measure, India procured six-batteries of the highly effective Russian S-300 air defence systems to protect major cities, including New Delhi."

http://www.dawn.com/news/1258707

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Here is a Pakistani source, confirming the purchase of S-300 by India.

"As a stop-gap measure, India procured six-batteries of the highly effective Russian S-300 air defence systems to protect major cities, including New Delhi."

http://www.dawn.com/news/1258707

Lmao.. And a Pakistani news paper is your source ?

That pic is of a vintage soviet styx coastal defence missile launcher not a S-300.. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Styx "S-300" operated by India ......... (fill in the blanks with the usual douchbagery and boasting)..

 

[Photon]

Lmao.. And a Pakistani news paper is your source ?

That pic is of a styx coastal defence missile launcher not a S-300.. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I can present many Indian and Russian sources too, if that satisfies you.
But, I thought you would best believe you own Newspapers than Indian ones.

http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/indias-missile-defense-is-the-game-worth-the-candle/

http://m.rediff.com/news/mar/26russi1.htm

http://missilethreat.com/russian-s-300-to-go-to-india/



Now that is Shore based Styx Missile .

This is a S300 Missile.

 

[_NOBODY_]

Barring any economic or logistics issues, how do you think the HQ-19 (or any ABM system, for that matter) would fit into Pakistan's doctrine? Frankly, I don't know much about Pakistan's military doctrine, but from extrapolating its previous purchases (of which air- and missile-defense systems have not been a focus), I can deduce that their brass would probably not be interested in anti-ballistic missiles in the near future.

Countries that induct anti-ballistic missile interceptors have a very strong layer of defense and soon we will also have a strong layer of defense and after that HQ-19 is a possibility. Doctrine changes with time my friend.

 

[باپ]

Lmao.. And a Pakistani news paper is your source ?

That pic is of a vintage soviet styx coastal defence missile launcher not a S-300.. Stop embarrassing yourself.


View attachment 305726

Styx "S-300" operated by India ......... (fill in the blanks with the usual douchbagery and boasting)..

Like I already said previously, radars were bought from S-300 but not missiles. India had plans to use Prithvi as kill vehicle.
But looking at the picture of a rust bucket you posted, I don't think this is S-300 radar.

 

[T-72M1]

Lmao.. And a Pakistani news paper is your source ?

That pic is of a vintage soviet styx coastal defence missile launcher not a S-300.. Stop embarrassing yourself.


View attachment 305726

its either a ST-68 'tin shield'

or a PSM 33 mk2

India may or may not have the S-300 in service, so far I haven't seen any pics of the full system with TEL etc

 

[帅的一匹]

The range of FT2000( export version of HQ9 Sam)we sold to Uzbekistan is 125KM, and the domestic HQ9 used by PLA has max 200KM range. I don't know which one Pakistan go for?

Actually, you can't because for no one other than Chinese believe, in these exaggerated ranges.

No one, even wants to buy them, not even your closest allies.

You don't even know a bit, like the whole world is cheating you for fun.