HQ9 and S300 side by side

Discussion in 'Military Multimedia' started by badguy2000, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    some Russian here also insists that Chiense HQ9 be the copy of S300


    here is a picture that show HQ9 ,HQ12 and S300 side by side....the right two are two models of S300

    we also can have a comparation....

    HQ9 is much smaller than S300....but it has performance similar with S300 and ccmpetes S300 in Tureky fiercely.




    [​IMG]
     
  2.  
  3. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    a better visual angle

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Quickgun Murugan

    Quickgun Murugan Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    USA
    The HQ9 is similar to the U.S. Patriot sam.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. qilaotou

    qilaotou Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    The cylinder, truck and radar are similar to Russian designs. The HQ-9 was coded as Project 9 and J-10 Project 10 in early days.
     
  6. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    I don't see any pictures. HQ-9's brochure says it has 125km range, that is a far cry from 200km. Maximum altitude engagement is 18km while ours is 30km. HQ-9 has no real capability for ABM while S-300 has successfully engaged SRBM and MRBMs. HQ-9 doesn't even compete with second generation S-300PMU1, much less third (PMU2) and fourth (400). The level of performance China "claims" is less than 1970s Russian missiles in several areas. The engagement altitude is just bollocks.

    Fiercely?? It isn't even on the short list. Turkiye is looking for an ABM capability, HQ-9 has nothing usable with such poor engagement altitudes.
     
    venureddy likes this.
  7. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    do you still insist that HQ9 be the copy of S300?
     
  8. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    Do your pictures work for you, they don't work over here.
     
  9. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    what a good excuse to avoid embarrassment!
     
  10. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    Of course it is, have you ever looked at a 5В55К missile canister. It is the same thing, they couldn't even copy an origanal canister. It is a poor copy of S-300PT, a 40 year old design.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  11. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    Maybe you need reminding of the rules...

    #1. Do not post one-liners or one line replies. We understand that sometimes a topic/subject may only require one line reply but for most of the time please put some effort in your replies and content so it adds value to the subject/topic being discussed. Posting just to increase your post count is highly discouraged, you will not get far with number of posts you have but quality of those posts.
     
    A.V. likes this.
  12. BangersAndMash

    BangersAndMash Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    539
    Location:
    England
    Chinese Military S-300/HQ9 Rocket Failure

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015

Share This Page