Russian S-300 PMU-2 vs Chinese HQ-9 Which one is better ?

[Muhammed45]

Na, THAAD ER and Arrow 2/3 and SM-3 are better than S300/400

• Not than S-500

 

[EpiiC]

• Not than S-500

I doubt it, what is the speed of s-500? S400 had maximum Mach 5.9 which isn't even better than THAAD baseline never mind the new THAAD ER which has 600KM range as well as being Mach 8+.... Arrow 2 has Mach 9 speed, Arrow 3 is even faster and SM-3 IIA is excellent with Mach 15 speed and 2500KM range.

 

[Muhammed45]

I doubt it, what is the speed of s-500? S400 had maximum Mach 5.9 which isn't even better than THAAD baseline never mind the new THAAD ER which has 600KM range as well as being Mach 8+.... Arrow 2 has Mach 9 speed, Arrow 3 is even faster and SM-3 IIA is excellent with Mach 15 speed and 2500KM range.

Are you kiddin me mate?
S-400 system's features
Max target speed 4.8 kilometres per second (17,000 km/h; 11,000 mph; Mach 14)
Range of tactical ballistic targets (km) maximum minimum 60 5
The number of simultaneously engaged targets (full cast WRU) 80 earlier in stage of development was 36 (2012)
Moreover, the range of a SAM cannot be 2500 Km, actually it is about this point :SM-3 is an Examples of the missile kinetic energy projectiles that move them out of the atmosphere and the range is achieved by that out-space locomotion.

I doubt it, what is the speed of s-500? S400 had maximum Mach 5.9 which isn't even better than THAAD baseline never mind the new THAAD ER which has 600KM range as well as being Mach 8+.... Arrow 2 has Mach 9 speed, Arrow 3 is even faster and SM-3 IIA is excellent with Mach 15 speed and 2500KM range.

And let me not to forget this, S-500's features are not officially unveiled probably will take some years to be told in public. But as a comparison between S-400 and S-500, you should know that the reaction needed time for S-400 is 10 seconds and for S-500 only 4 seconds!!! It is awesome, no rival again

 

[EpiiC]

Are you kiddin me mate?
S-400 system's features
Max target speed 4.8 kilometres per second (17,000 km/h; 11,000 mph; Mach 14)
Range of tactical ballistic targets (km) maximum minimum 60 5
The number of simultaneously engaged targets (full cast WRU) 80 earlier in stage of development was 36 (2012)
Moreover, the range of a SAM cannot be 2500 Km, actually it is about this point :SM-3 is an Examples of the missile kinetic energy projectiles that move them out of the atmosphere and the range is achieved by that out-space locomotion.

Targets speed is different to the missile interceptor speed, I am speaking about the missile interceptor speed max have listed at Mach 5.9 .

Are you kiddin me mate?
S-400 system's features
Max target speed 4.8 kilometres per second (17,000 km/h; 11,000 mph; Mach 14)
Range of tactical ballistic targets (km) maximum minimum 60 5
The number of simultaneously engaged targets (full cast WRU) 80 earlier in stage of development was 36 (2012)
Moreover, the range of a SAM cannot be 2500 Km, actually it is about this point :SM-3 is an Examples of the missile kinetic energy projectiles that move them out of the atmosphere and the range is achieved by that out-space locomotion.


And let me not to forget this, S-500's features are not officially unveiled probably will take some years to be told in public. But as a comparison between S-400 and S-500, you should know that the reaction needed time for S-400 is 10 seconds and for S-500 only 4 seconds!!! It is awesome, no rival again

I know s500 is better than s400, but s400 wasn't that good to begin with mach 5.9.... That's not impressive with Mach 8 and Mach 9 around... By the way AEGIS land based can have very long range with SM-3 IIA but its not a SAM. Russia have awesome ABM 135 Mach 14/17 that one is awesome and they are developing another ABM 235 which will have even better range an speed, but not up for export....

 

[Muhammed45]

Targets speed is different to the missile interceptor speed, I am speaking about the missile interceptor speed max have listed at Mach 5.9 .

Can provide me a link for proof?

not up for export

 

[EpiiC]

Can provide me a link for proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

 

[Aylith]

Na, THAAD ER and Arrow 2/3 and SM-3 are better than S300/400

THAAD-ER doesn't yet exist beyond the conception phase of development, being proposed as one of several counters for hypersonic glide (like PGS and WU-14) or boost glide vehicles (MaRV and MIRV warheads), and both it and SM-3 are anti-ballistic missiles (with SM-3 providing ASAT capabilities as well). Neither performs anti-aircraft or counter-PGM/cruise missile capabilities like S-300 or S-400 do. It's a poor comparison. The SM-3 Block IIA provides extreme long-range anti-ballistic missile support, with ranges exceeding 2000km horizontal and 700km vertical.

PACIFIC OCEAN (Feb. 3, 2017) The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the Japan Ministry of Defense (MoD), and U.S. Navy Sailors aboard the guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) successfully conducted a flight test Feb. 3 (Hawaii Standard Time), resulting in the first intercept of a ballistic missile target using the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IIA off the west coast of Hawaii.

Several American ABM target missiles (primarily for THAAD and SM-3) possess maneuverable warheads (MRV or MaRV depending on the type used, called MBRV on target missiles - Maneuverable Ballistic Reentry Vehicle) which help to hone the counter-missile capabilities and train for intercepts again DF-2X series missiles. The air launched eMRBM is one such system.

PAC-3 is an anti-ballistic missile as well, while PAC-2 provides limited ABM capabilities, joining SM-2 in that respect, but is mostly geared to anti-aircraft defense. SM-2 expands on the threat envelope to include high-performance missiles (while SM-6 expands upon the threat envelope even further to encompass systems like P-800), UAVS, and even surface-ships.

SM-6 provides all-aspect performance, but it's strictly a naval SAM.

PACIFIC OCEAN (June 19, 2014) The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship's aegis weapons system. Over the course of three days, the crew of John Paul Jones successfully engaged six targets, firing a total of five missiles that included four SM-6 models and one Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) model.

It can be launched from launchers on land, but is not used operationally in this form. It's a testing arrangement solely, though this does not prevent it from being deployed in such a manner in the future. SM-3 can be however as part of AEGIS Ashore, a ballistic missile defense system.

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. (Sept. 12, 2016) A Standard Missile 6 launches to engage an over-the-horizon threat as part of the U.S. Navys first live fire demonstration to successfully test the integration of the F-35 with existing Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) architecture. During the test, an unmodified U.S. Marine Corps F-35B acted as an elevated sensor to send data through its Multi-Function Advanced Data Link to a ground station connected to USS Desert Ship (LLS 1), a land-based launch facility designed to simulate a ship at sea.

SM-2 is the best analogue for the S-300/400 series while S-500 should mirror SM-6, at least based on currently known specifications, though it's an imperfect comparison given the purview of each weapon system and their support architecture.

...

In regards to the question posed several years ago by the OP, both are comparable and the differences between the two are best assessed in terms of cost, support and logistics and diplomacy, not performance. Their respective differences are negligible. Both are high-quality systems with clear developmental, but now diverging paths leading to increasingly more complex and capable systems.

The Cyprus/Greece dynamic provides a clear precedent for Turkey should it continue to pursue an S-XXX or HQ-9 solution to its national SAM program, in respect to isolating a national defense system from NATO-operated/linked platforms like PATRIOT batteries, though that'll hamper their cooperative capabilities should a conflict involving NATO assets on NATO nation's soil arise, where they'd be unable to converse with NATO platforms or act as a singular unit.

MEADS and ASTER-30 would not limit integration with NATO assets, though Turkey could also choose to do so too.

Then Now on They want to buy more of Russian's S-400 for themselves！

The rational is pretty easy to understand. Take an existing, qualitative platform, and examine it. Learn what its strengths are and improve upon them in future builds and determine its weaknesses and eliminate them going forwards.

By acquiring a known and respected system, China can ensure its future development programs, even if they aren't based on the S-XXX series can cover both the strengths and weaknesses associated with such systems and expand upon them and its knowledge-base. HQ-9 has its genesis in the S-XXX series, but makes radical improvements upon the system with knowledge gained from examining the base design.

The system also provides opportunities to study the architecture of the system (radar, launchers, battery structure, mobility, etc.), which again, can improve upon domestic designs and usage and further optimize them in succeeding projects.

If HQ 9 is better than S300, why china bought S 400?

This question remains unanswered.

It doesn't remain unanswered, the rational is clear. It just takes some looking into. It's not the performance that concerns China, it's the development. China does not need S-400, but that doesn't preclude it from making use of the technology in its own development.

Leapfrogging off another platform is a classic development strategy to cut down on cost, risk and developmental times.

In the M60 machine gun do we see the same path.

The M60, albeit far less complex then an air-defense system, directly contributed from the development of the MG34 and FG42 years earlier, taking many of its design elements directly from the FG42, MG34 and more complex MG42. Letting the Germans iron out the kinks and quirks of their early system, the American designers were able to create a functional, well regarded and widely proliferated system in less time and for less cost then would otherwise be necessary if starting a developmental program from scratch.

Early problems with the FG42, like the canted grip and bipod placement, being closer to the receiver, were not mistakes repeated on subsequent variants of the FG42 or subsequent designs of man-portable light machine guns, the M60 and PKM included.

And these are far from the only examples of a nation's defense development benefitting from someone else's R&D and piggybacking or leapfrogging off of it to the benefit of their own designs and projects.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Ok you make it clear now.I really dont want to talk about S300 VS HQ-9.Their abilites are similiar.
But you must realize that S400 is not offered to any country in the world,and probably wont in next 10 years!So China or any country in the worlds altrough if they want S400 they cant get it,even most loyal Russian allies like (Belorusia or Kazakhstan).
Cheers!

So much of your Bulls. HQ-9 is more advance than S-300. In trial shoot by Turkish evaluation team, HQ-9 is the only one manage to hit all targets, not even S-300.

China dont even wants S-400. There is just pure speculation and rumour of Russian claiming Chinese is interested in S-400. We are going for our own HQ-26 and HQ-19. At the mean time, HQ-9 will continue be upgraded.

Wait.I dont say that China wants S400.I just say that nobody can afford S400 becouse Russians dont want to sell that,and be decent!

And Turks buy HQ9 becouse Greeks have S300,if Greeks dont have S300,it will be different story....

Sry just digging out ...