HQ-9 and HQ-12 SAM System Battery Radars
Engagement Radars
HT-233 HQ-9 Self Propelled Engagement Radar
HT-233 engagement radar on the 10 x 10 Taian TAS-5380 series chassis (© 2009, Bradley Huang).
The HT-233 engagement radar has always been regarded to be a derivative of the Russian 30N6E Flap Lid / Tomb Stone series, sharing most of the basic technology in this design. Until this year, available imagery was of very poor quality, and showed a range of configurations carried on 8 x 8 and 10 x 10 variants of the Taian TAS-5380 series chassis.
Production HT-233 systems are being supplied on the 10 x 10 Taian TAS5501, a 30 tonne payload class variant of the TAS5380 vehicle, making it the heaviest derivative of the 30N6E. This feature makes the HT-233 easily identifiable with optical or high resolution imaging radar ISR, against the baseline Russian systems.
While the heavier chassis may reflect volumetric and weight issues earlier in the design of the radar, it also provides for long term growth in processing capability and power rating, as more recent technology will be more compact and dissipate less.
The octagonal or truncated square passive phased array is claimed to employ 4,000 phase shifter elements. Unlike the 30N6E, the array shape is easily resolved due to the absence of the rectangular dielectric external cover used on the Russian radar. The HT-233 carries an IFF/SSR array antenna installed at the top of the primary antenna frame structure, which is structurally extended. The space feed design appears indistinguishable from the 30N6E1 design, including the mechanical arms used to deploy the feed assembly.
Recently cited capabilities include a 300 MHz instantaneous bandwidth in the lower X-Band or C-Band, a detection/track range of 150/100 km for unspecified target RCS, a field of regard in azimuth of 360°, and elevation beamsteering from 0° to 65°. It is claimed to be capable of concurrently tracking more than 50 targets. The radar provides target acquisition and tracking within its coverage sector, post launch missile capture, midcourse missile tracking and command link guidance. Sources disagree on whether the radar provides terminal phase illumination for TVM endgame guidance like the 30N6E series, as the HQ-9 missile round has been also claimed to employ active terminal homing. As the basic missile round relied heavily upon the technology in the late model 5V55 and early model 48N6E missiles, the latter claim may be speculative.
An interesting claim by Sengupta is that the HT-233 employs "randomness in frequency, space and time"; if this claim is correct then the HT-233 would be a frequency hopper, employing pseudo-random angular scan algorithms. The latter may qualify the design as having a basic LPI capability, with the caveat that the 300 MHz bandwidth severely constrains achievable LPI effect1.
The HT-233 should not be underestimated, as it retains the best antenna design features seen in the 30N6E series, but is likely to evolve unique waveforms, signal and data processing, and modes as the PLA further refines this design over time. The evolution of the J-11B from the Su-27SK presents the case study.
Stills captured from a January, 2010, CCTV7 broadcast discussing the HQ-9 SAM system in operation, show a number of operator consoles in vans used with the system. Notable is the use of state-of-the-art AMCLD COTS display technology, and modern software based synthetic displays and mode selection. This is quite distinct from the CRT technology used in Russian built S-300PMU/PMU1 battery components.
The H-200 system comprises two components, a towed van mounting the radar head, and a systems van (© 2009, Bradley Huang).
The design background and history of the H-200 Triumphant Mountain remains undocumented in the West. While high quality imagery of the design has been available for some years, until now images of the rear face of the space fed passive array antenna and the feed have not been available.
Imagery showing the HT-233 and H-200 parked together permits the simple observation that the passive array in both radars appears identical in size and geometry, suggesting that the array design used in both radars may be the same, or closely related. The array structural frame is however quite different, as is the antenna feed. Like the HT-233, the H-200 mounts an IFF/SSR array across the top of the structural frame.
What has not been observed previously is the radar van used to tow the H-200 antenna head trailer, carried on a 6 x 6 Taian TA5150A military truck. While this van design has been photographed previously in proximity to the H-200, there are still no indications of how many vehicles are required for the complete system to deploy. At least two different chassis have been used with the HQ-12 two round TEL, one based on the 6 x 6 Taian TA5270A military truck, the other a 6 x 6 Hanyang Special Type Vehicle Co., Ltd, military truck.
As the HQ-12/KS-1A is a command link guided missile, which lacks a terminal seeker, the H-200 will provide target tracking, missile beacon (downlink) tracking, post launch missile capture, and missile command uplink transmission functions.
From a mobility perspective, the 20-30 minute stow/deploy times of the HQ-12 are inferior to the HQ-9 and especially the Russian S-300PMU/PMU1/PMU2, they are however much superior to the legacy HQ-2 variants the HQ-12 replaces. Rehosting the H-200 system on to a single vehicle, like the HT-233, and providing mast mounted RF datalinks is neither difficult nor unusually expensive. We should not be surprised if future evolutions of this design follow the pattern of the HQ-9.