Buy PSP Mortgages Credit Counseling Equity Release Online Advertising
Google
 
Web IranDefence.net

Hq-2 Surface-to-air Missile [Archive] - Iran Defense Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Hq-2 Surface-to-air Missile


Bosnian
02-13-2007, 09:18 AM
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/hq2.asp


The HongQi-2 (HQ-2) is a long-range, medium- to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) developed from the HQ-1, a Chinese copy of the Soviet Almaz S-75 (NATO codename: SA-2 Guideline). The HQ-2 remained the sole weapon system in service with the PLA SAM forces to protect China’s key targets before the early 1990s. The PLA has been trying to find a successor to the forty-year-old weapon system but all attempts to develop an indigenous SAM have been unsuccessful so far. As a result, the PLA was forced to continue upgrading the HQ-2 with new technologies to extend its service life into the 21st century.

PROGRAMME

The S-75 (SA-2 Guideline) surface-to-air missile entered Soviet service in 1956. The PLA received a limited number of Soviet-made S-75 missile in early 1960 to arm its first two SAM battalions. On 8 October 1960, one of the SAM battalions used the S-75 missile to shoot down a U.S.-made RB-57D spy plane operated by the Taiwanese air force—the first ever example of using SAM to shoot down a plane in the world. In the next four years, the PLA SAM units shot down another three U.S.-made U-2 spy planes operated by the Taiwanese air force using the S-75 SAM.

While the S-75 SAM began to enter PLA service, a licensed production of the missile in China was also agreed. However, Moscow suspended all of its assistance to China and called back its advisers before the production could begin. The First Ministry of Machinery Industry and 5th Research Academy of Ministry of Defence took the lead in the reverse-engineering of the missile, and the first Chinese-built S-75 missile designated HQ-1 rolled out in 1964. By the mid-1960s, the S-75 and indigenous HQ-1 could no longer shoot down the U-2 after the U.S. added active jamming devices to its reconnaissance aircraft. The PLA urgently needed a SAM with strong electronic countermeasures capabilities.

To learn more about the history of SAM and U-2, please refer to these books:
50 Years of the U-2: The Complete Illustrated History of the "Dragon Lady"

Spyplane: The U-2 History Declassified
Dragon Lady: The History of the U-2 Spyplane
Shadow Flights : America's Secret Airwar Against the Soviet Union: A Cold War History


In 1965 the PLA began to develop an improved SAM based on the HQ-1. 2nd Space Academy (now China Academy of Defence Technology, CADT) was responsible for the general system design, with 139 Factory and 786 Factory in charge of missile and ground station respectively. The main design targets were to improve the missile’s accuracy and resistance to enemy electronic jamming, as well as to increase the missile’s operational zone. The new SAM, which was designated HQ-2, passed its certification test in 1966. Since then, the HQ-2 has been produced in mass numbers for the PLA to protect China’s major cities, military bases, and industrial complexes. The PLA has also introduced a number of improved variants including the HQ-2A and HQ-2B in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

On 8 September 1967, the PLA air defence troops fired three SAM (two HQ-2 and one HQ-1) at a Taiwanese-flown U-2 spy plane, and one of the HQ-2 missiles hit the target despite the plane’s use of electronic jamming. The latest score of the HQ-2 SAM took place on 5 October 1987, when the PLA air defence troops shot down a Vietnamese Air Force MiG-21R (Fishebed-H) reconnaissance plane using the HQ-2 SAM near the China-Vietnamese border.

In 1984, the PLA conducted a series of HQ-2 tests against the Tuqiang-3 guided target missile. According to reports, the HQ-2 and the Tuqiang-3 were launched approximately 100km apart and the HQ-2 SAMs were fired in “salvo shots” of two to three missiles per Tuqiang-3. Four out of five target missiles were shot down. In more tests the following year, the HQ-2 shot down seven out of eleven guided targets. In light of these two tests, the PLA expanded the HQ-2’s role to include anti-missile functions.

The modifications on the HQ-2 SAM began in 1973 to enhance the missile's low altitude target engaging and electronic countermeasure capabilities based on the experience of the Vietnam War. The firing tests of the HQ-2A were undertaken between 1978 and 1982, and the final design certification for batch production was issued in June 1984. The 144 modifications on the HQ-2A include increasing the horizontal firing angle to ±75° from the original ±55°; increasing the speed to 1,200 m/s from the original 1,150 m/s; increasing the G limit to 1.5G from the original 1G; adding optical/TV guidance system and improving the missile's electronic countermeasure capability.

HQ-2B

The concept of HQ-2B was considered in 1978 as a further improvement on the HQ-2, and the design work officially began in 1979. The PLA requirements for the missile include improved electronic countermeasures capability, expanded operational zone, shortened preparation time, simplified and mobile launch equipment, and the ability to attack high-speed targets. Operational tests and design certification trials took place during 1980~1986, and the missile entered service with the PLA in the early 1990s.

Compared to the basic variant HQ-2, the HQ-2B features some fundamental improvements in its design. The main improvements include:

Missile:

Redesigned fragmental HE warhead and more powerful fuse for increased blast radius;
New improved rocket motor for higher speed and expanded operational zone;
Encrypted digital radio command guidance for better anti-jamming capability;
New onboard power unit with much reduced weight;
Increased G limit;
Ground station

Computerised fire-control system to improve the missile’s accuracy and reliability;
Extra high-frequency range-finding radar, electro-optical director and mono-pulse radar on the ground guidance station;
Multiple guidance (radar, electro-optical) for higher resistance against active and passive jamming;
Automated command and control (C2) system with a large display screen
Launcher

Self-propelled (tracked) launcher with self-adjustment capability and onboard power unit for increased mobility and reduced reaction time;
Simplified ground support equipments;
If necessary, the missile could also be launched from the older HQ-2 launcher
M-7/PROJECT 8610

The SA-2/HQ-2 can play a secondary role as surface-to-surface missile. Egypt reportedly used its SA-2 SAM in this manner during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The project of converting the existing HQ-2 into surface-to-surface role was known as “Project 8610”. The missile was reportedly sold to Iran and North Korea under the export name M-7 in the 1980s. The PLA is not known to have deployed this missile.

DESIGNS

The HQ-2 is a large two-stage missile designed to intercept high-altitude targets like strategic bombers and spy planes. Its radar guidance guarantees a single-shot hit probability of 68%, but according to the American's experience in the Vietnam War, this ratio drops sharply when the missile is used in a strong electronic jamming environment. The improved HQ-2B is said to have much improved capability against various active and passive jamming.

The second-stage of the HQ-2 missile is a large liquid rocket, which makes it inconvenient to be maintained and transported. Each missile is carried by a semi-trailer towed by a 6x6 truck, and needs to be loaded onto a fixed launcher before firing. The loading usually takes about 5 minutes but this really depends on the training and experience of missile operators.

The basic operational unit of the HQ-2 SAM is battalion, each including six fixed launchers, 18 spare missiles, early-warning radar, target illuminating radar (ground guidance station) and support units (command, power, communications, etc.)

SPECIFICATIONS

HQ-2 HQ-2A HQ-2B
Missile length (m) 10.649 10.649 10.8
Main body diameter (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Accelerate stage diameter (m) 0.65 0.65 0.65
Launch weight (kg) 2,211 2,211 2,326
Operating altitude (km) 12~32 1~27 0.5~27
Operating range (km) 12~32 8~34 7~34
Max speed (m/sec) 1,150 1,200 1,250
Warhead 190kg high explosive
Single-shot hit probability 68% 73% 92%

This page was last updated 2 May 2006

Bosnian
02-13-2007, 09:20 AM
Iran has this Chineese missile. It seems good air defense missile?

iraniantiger
02-13-2007, 05:24 PM
tanx bosnian
it is a nice information

RH53D_AMCM
01-23-2008, 12:09 PM
BOSNIAN: Good write up on the HQ-2. Thanks for posting it when you did...

Dimmu
01-23-2008, 12:15 PM
Iran has this Chineese missile. It seems good air defense missile?

A copy of a Russian S-200 that was produced in 1960's

mustavaris
01-23-2008, 12:25 PM
Sa-2 was considered to be obsolete when Finland was trying to find a new missile system to protect the capital area.... and that happened during the 1970s :)

RH53D_AMCM
01-23-2008, 12:41 PM
MUSTAVARIS:

But the SA-2 GUIDELINE poses a threat to an attacker...And one must always honor the threat.

DIMMU: The HQ-2 HQ-2J are the PRC-built derivations of the S-75 Dvina and S-75M Volga (SA-2 GUIDELINE. The S-200 Angara is the SA-5 GAMMON... Totally different breed of cat.

mustavaris
01-23-2008, 12:43 PM
It still does not change the fact that it is an ancient system. Of course the enemy plans accordingly, and it is not wise to underestimate the enemy.. but still: it was considered to be obsolete by our military when they bought the new systems during 1970s (ended up buying Pechoras though...).

RH53D_AMCM
01-23-2008, 01:18 PM
The HQ-2 system was designed to engage bomber-size threats during the early Cold War, the B-47 and B-52, as well as the RAF V-bombers. As tactics changed, the method of employing the SA-2 (and later HQ-2) changed. The GUIDELINE SAM pushes back the closest point of approach (CPA) of tankers, ELINT aircraft, and AWACS to defended airspace.

mustavaris
01-23-2008, 01:28 PM
The range is too short to attack tankers, AWACS et al.. S-300 family serves better, and is really mobile.

RH53D_AMCM
01-23-2008, 01:37 PM
MUSTAVARIS:

We are talking about two different things. Not mutually exclusive, though. My approach was having to make do with what you have in service. The S-300 GRUMBLE is not yet in service with Iran and is likely to be retained for defense of key facilities inside the country. The HQ-2 is a less-valuable SAM asset and could be sacrificed by placing it on the border.

Bosnian
01-24-2008, 06:44 AM
This system is produced in Iran by the name of Sayyad? I think that. SA-2 was obsolete because of electronic and sensors. I wanted to say other think. You have a missile as a platform, and electronic as driver inside. Give me a guidance of S-300 inside SA-2. Nobody can say it is the same missile. Take an old Mercedes and fit it with new engine and electronic. Yes, it will still no be a new one, but it will be many times better then old one. Give the SA-2 electronic counter measures resistance as S-400 has, so would it be good missile? It is very hard to discover if electronic parts are illicit transferred. So, my frame - your electronic. But the text speaks about Hq-2 as well improved missile.

Dimmu
01-24-2008, 07:58 AM
The range is too short to attack tankers, AWACS et al.. S-300 family serves better, and is really mobile.

Yep... AWACS does not need to fly near the fighter jets to "monitor" airspace.. It can fly hungreds of km away, far away from SAM sites..

RH53D_AMCM
01-24-2008, 10:22 AM
If you have a system that must be resepcted as a threat, then an attacker must reformulate his plans accordingly.

Dimmu
01-24-2008, 10:23 AM
If you have a system that must be resepcted as a threat, then an attacker must reformulate his plans accordingly.

I never disagreed... But saying that S-200 is dangerous to modern jets is ridiculous.

RH53D_AMCM
01-24-2008, 10:42 AM
DIMMU: The S-200 Angara is the SA-5 GAMMON. The GAMMON is quite dangerous unless you are careful. The SQUARE PAIR fire control radar is the heart of the SA-5, but as has been learned in Operation PRAIRIE FIRE... The SA-5 launch sites have back-up SQUARE PAIR emitters AND the radar antenna itself can be repaired within 4 to 8 hours. If the command and control facility for the SA-5 site and its alternate are wiped out, then all that is left is a really big skyrocket. However, given the way the Russians put in back-up systems -- I would not go anywhere near a "dead" GAMMON site... Just in case of a command-line-of-sight (CLOS) control system using an EO seeker. An SA-5 site is still lethal even when degraded or "wounded". Toss bomb some Mark 82s into it and exit the area.

Bosnian
01-25-2008, 05:26 AM
What is the practice in missile updates. Are they possible on existing missiles? I think if it is possible to replace one electronic guidance with another one, from some more advanced missile? Electronic is something what drives the fins on missile, and it can be replaced I suppose. For example to take that from S-300 and put in SA-2 missile? Or some other.

Dimmu
01-25-2008, 05:39 AM
DIMMU: The S-200 Angara is the SA-5 GAMMON. The GAMMON is quite dangerous unless you are careful. The SQUARE PAIR fire control radar is the heart of the SA-5, but as has been learned in Operation PRAIRIE FIRE... The SA-5 launch sites have back-up SQUARE PAIR emitters AND the radar antenna itself can be repaired within 4 to 8 hours. If the command and control facility for the SA-5 site and its alternate are wiped out, then all that is left is a really big skyrocket. However, given the way the Russians put in back-up systems -- I would not go anywhere near a "dead" GAMMON site... Just in case of a command-line-of-sight (CLOS) control system using an EO seeker. An SA-5 site is still lethal even when degraded or "wounded". Toss bomb some Mark 82s into it and exit the area.

Oops i was wrong.. I meant V-75

Dimmu
01-25-2008, 05:40 AM
What is the practice in missile updates. Are they possible on existing missiles? I think if it is possible to replace one electronic guidance with another one, from some more advanced missile? Electronic is something what drives the fins on missile, and it can be replaced I suppose. For example to take that from S-300 and put in SA-2 missile? Or some other.

Dont think that it works.. Its much more complicated.. You can upgrade SA-2 but not anywhere near S-300 standard.

RH53D_AMCM
01-25-2008, 11:04 AM
DIMMU and BOSNIAN:

Actually, there are upgrades that can be made drawing upon more advanced systems. The data links, search radar and fire control radar emitters, EO systems computers, and then items on the missiles themselves CAN be updated. Updating the electronics on the ground is far easier than the missile. The larger the missile, the easier it would be to backfit new electronics. The denser the missile, the less room internally -- unless the change is a "plug-in and play" -- and that is a rare thing.

Is it possible to fold into the HQ-2/SA-2 system features of the S-300 series. Making the interfaces between the features of two systems would have to explore the entire S-300PMU1 with 36N6 or 64N6 radar (SA-10 GRUMBLE with FLAP LID or TOMB STONE radar). The 36D6 is the search radar known as TIN SHIELD in NATO. Is it possible? Yes. The matter comes down to cost.