HQ9 and S300 side by side

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
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.




 

qilaotou

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
210
Likes
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.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
69
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
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.

and ccmpetes S300 in Tureky fiercely.
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.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
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.
do you still insist that HQ9 be the copy of S300?
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
69
do you still insist that HQ9 be the copy of S300?
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.




 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
69
I have to admire your “never say uncle".......
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.
 

BangersAndMash

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
748
Likes
543
Chinese Military S-300/HQ9 Rocket Failure

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top