Two relatively unknown Chinese SAMs

Interesting and informative thread!!

Thanks gents

Regards
Pioneer

apologies if this is an obvious fact to most.

What prevents China from having S-400 systems already, or very soon?
Is Russia not exporting any variant of it? If so, why not?

China has used all the help it needed from Russia, and now has several surface to air missile system program of its own, so why will it buy anything from Russia?

If China places a large order, Russia will probably sell a customised version.

apologies if this is an obvious fact to most.

What prevents China from having S-400 systems already, or very soon?
Is Russia not exporting any variant of it? If so, why not?

Moderator Message

Gentlemen,

Discuss the missiles and not one another, please.

The missiles are far more interesting.

Thanks

GA

Rookh, what you originally said was…

That’s because the ‘indigenous’ akash missile is nothing more than a copied SA-6 with updated electronics.

..which is far from the truth.externally it may look “similar” (not same), but the two are completely different missiles.One is sarh other is active.internal architecture is different , support systems are different , missile performance is different.So I dont know in what way it is a “copy”.In that way , if you put the electronics of patriot missile in a SA 6 fuselage with the AN/MPQ 53 radar etc , you may be able to claim that the patriot is nothing but a copy of the SA-6 with changed electronics.

I read what you said, and it didn’t make sense. If your standard of judging what is a copy and what is not, is a picture, then less said the better. As regards backing up what I said, I have enough data on hand to be confident about what I wrote, question is though how much time should I spend on typing it all out from a print copy, to rebut claims based on seeing “pictures from the outside”.

The reason I have referred to the photos above is because of your initial rather prosaic comparisons of the ‘outside’, as you put it;

Form follows function, the reason why a ramjet was adopted, and hence a “look” similar to to the SA-6, was because of IAF insistence on sustained maneuver capability, which was possible at the time only with airbreathing ramjets.

It is you who has made this reference, and still can’t accept the fact that the ‘akash’ and SA-6 use the same airframe/fuselage, which you either don’t understand, or can’t accept, hence, why you keep referring to these as;

Wrong. The only thing Akash shares in common with the SA-6 is the basic configuration of the missile, namely an integrated ramjet & general layout. Even there, the sustainer & boost components of the Ramjet are different.

However, you then go on to contradict yourself by then claiming that everything on the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ is totally different and that the airframe/fuselage for the ‘akash’ is completely novel and different to the SA-6;

Think! If everything within and outside is different, can you use a SA-6 airframe? The engagement envelope is different (alt, max, min), the guidance is different, the platforms for deployment are different, and how can the SA-6 airframe cope!

It can’t, so you have to do the design from scratch. Read what I wrote about design influence from the SA-6, ramjet & general layout, thats about it. It took consistent testing till 2001-2003 till the ramjet & airframe for the Akash could be perfected for series production variants.

But, if you still believe the airframe of the ‘akash’ is completely different to the SA-6, which evidently it is not, even from even a cursory examination of photos, fine, believe what you wish.

For the Akash, there are enough details available on the design considerations, including specific impulses of several times versus contemporary solid rockets and hence the requirement for an IRR, the development of special maraging steel (MDN250) for the the missile, the 5 section structure keeping missile systems in mind, including a section for the SADM & warhead, whereas the SA-6 has that entire portion dedicated for the seeker. Where the SA-6 has a warhead, the Akash has its air bottle for the actuators, its command guidance unit, its onboard avionics package with 3 different LRUs. The only real commonality between the two designs is towards the rear of the design, where the sustainer motor + booster follows the same layout as on the SA-6, but even there, the Indian composition is entirely different using a composite propellant booster, a thermal protection system for the motor, plus a Mg powder based sustainer motor.

You’ve only highlighted internal system changes here, no mention of how the ‘akash’ airframe itself is any different to the SA-6, i.e. planform, dimensions, etc.

Which is a fairly irrelevant statement, as the airframe is made out of different materials, has different Cg & would handle differently if the interiors are changed, and the specifications expected are different, conforming to specific local requirements.

So changing all the internal structures and systems has resulted in significant changes to missile handling and performance, but yet no actual redesign of the airframe itself has been included? Interesting.

The comparison is germaine, as the Russians pretty much adopted the same classical layout as on the AMRAAM leading many to erroneously call it an AMRAAM copy. They pioneered the ARH arena, and I’d wager, every designer today is more or less adopting a similar layout.

The Russians adopted the lattice fin partly because of issues with actuation requirements for a compact missile. In the latest version of the RVV-AE currently under development, the latticed fins are to be dropped for similar fins as on current AMRAAMs/other missiles WW, would that make the RVV-AE a copy of the AMRAAM then?

First, you think comparing A-A missiles is appropriate for SAMs? Strange.
Second, it’s you who has used this inappropriate analogy as a rather flawed example of how a similar looking missile can be mistakenly accused of copying. I never said the Russians made a carbon copy of the AIM-120 airframe, far from it. The RVV-AE is accused of being the ‘AMRAAMski’, not because of any resemblance to the AIM-120, but rather to overall performance and design goals.

That’s a fairly irrelevant comparison to make because the SA-2 & H-2/QB series of missiles more closely relate to Project Devil, as in the original form factor and specifications are kept and the missile/system is an updated, one to one copy as far as both schema and performance is kept.

And yet you can’t see the obvious comparison here, no? Like the SA-6, the SA-2 was a Soviet era SAM which was copied by the Chinese, with internal systems being replaced with locally designed/built systems. In the same sense, india has done the same with taking a Soviet era SAM, copying the airframe, and replacing the internal systems/sub-systems with locally designed/manufactured components, which may provide a performance upgrade. No different at all from the H-2/QB development process.

As far as Akash is concerned, its capabilities & technologies relate pretty less to the original SA-6 & are purely driven by doctrinal issues. If the developers had kept the same Acquisition/ Track/HF radar, etc approach as on the SA-6 & not bothered with introducing or experimenting with entirely new technologies, your comparison would be germaine. However, they had entirely different things in mind, as evident from the use of an ARH seeker, multifunction radars and what not, and the architecture was hence designed around an entirely different capability. They went on tailoring systems as trials showed pros and cons, keeping local requirements in mind.

Again, more discussion of internal systems and external guidance systems, which are unrelated to the actual missile airframe itself.

As things stand though, the only thing in common with Akash & the SA-6 is a common layout, and the use of an IRR.

…i.e. it’s airframe.

Overall, where your argument fails entirely is in fixating on the Akash missile, as versus the Akash system. The Akash is not just the missile, its the entire system, comprising vehicles, different radars, and the C4I grid with a high degree of automation & this has all been designed keeping in mind what the IA & IAF expect of the system.

So to divert attention from the fact that the ‘akash’ missile airframe is a copy of the SA-6 missile, you’ve rattled on about the wider ‘system’ as a whole?

It’s so obvious that the ‘akash’ is a copy of the SA-6, that even your compatriot, ‘mirza2003’, made the mistake of thinking the Chinese copy of the SA-6 was the ‘akash’! 😮

And it’s not just me;

Even India copied the SA-6 themselves and call it Akash.

You can’t call a ‘circle’ a ‘square’, and try to force such falsehood down people’s throats simply by stating it repeated times. It may work in some of your other posts and subject matters.

http://knol.google.com/k/vijainder-k-thakur/akash-missile/yo54fmdhy2mq/57#

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MISSILES/sam/akash-sam.html

[/QUOTE]The missile is based heavily on the SA-6…
In appearance, Akash is very similar to the ZRK-SD Kub (SA-6), with four long tube ramjet inlet ducts mounted mid-body between wings. Four clipped triangular moving wings, mid-body, for pitch/yaw control. Forward of tail, four inline clipped delta fins with ailerons for roll control.[/QUOTE]

Project 640’s radars and a 420-mm “Super Gun” ABM System

😎
The Chinese ABM System – Project 640 (1963 – 1980)

Project 640 ABM System

Development of Project 640 began on 15 December 1963. It was slowed down by the ABM Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States; and it was finally cancelled altogether in March 1980. There were three different variant of the FanJi – FanJi-1; FanJi-2; and FanJi-3. The FanJi missile was a two stage weapon, and was semi-active radar guided. The radars were a large phased array radar – called or referred to as “7010”, which was situated on a hill side. And a mono pulse missile tracking radar called “110”. The Chinese also began development of an ASAT system in the early 1970s.

Thanks, was development completed or was it dropped, and if so, why?

Fan Ji-1 ABM System

Real interesting stuff Eagle. Is this the same missile meant for ABM purposes and was to deploy a N-warhead.

Yes, it was designed, developed, but never deployed ABM system for defense against ICBM RVs. Mainly from Russia and the United States. And there were three different variants of the missile. And yes it was to use a nuclear warhead to destroy incoming ballistic RVs. It had all of the usual associated radars.
😉

First, you haven’t read my post, or decided to ignore what I’ve said. Second, I’m saying the airframe of the ‘akash’ and SA-6 is identical. It’s you who is saying the ‘outside’, i.e. airframe, is different, but can’t back this up with anything. Have a look at the pictures above, what’s ‘different’ on the ‘outside’ between the ‘akash’ and even the Chinese attempt at copying the SA-6?

I read what you said, and it didn’t make sense. If your standard of judging what is a copy and what is not, is a picture, then less said the better. As regards backing up what I said, I have enough data on hand to be confident about what I wrote, question is though how much time should I spend on typing it all out from a print copy, to rebut claims based on seeing “pictures from the outside”.

For the Akash, there are enough details available on the design considerations, including specific impulses of several times versus contemporary solid rockets and hence the requirement for an IRR, the development of special maraging steel (MDN250) for the the missile, the 5 section structure keeping missile systems in mind, including a section for the SADM & warhead, whereas the SA-6 has that entire portion dedicated for the seeker. Where the SA-6 has a warhead, the Akash has its air bottle for the actuators, its command guidance unit, its onboard avionics package with 3 different LRUs. The only real commonality between the two designs is towards the rear of the design, where the sustainer motor + booster follows the same layout as on the SA-6, but even there, the Indian composition is entirely different using a composite propellant booster, a thermal protection system for the motor, plus a Mg powder based sustainer motor.

The different design considerations lead to different performance as well. The SA-6 has a top speed of 2.8M, the Akash goes upto 2M. The Akash can hit a wider range of targets though & employs upto date navigation algorithms. Again, different requirements.

As to the Chinese system, I have no data on hand to state whether it is a copy or not, or even what Eagle Talon states is ok or not, so I reserve my comments! It may be a SA-6 transferred to China, or a SA-6 equivalent developed by China to check out performance..I really don’t have details to be sure, one way or the other.

‘Everything’ hasn’t been changed between the ‘akash’ and the SA-6, like I’ve said, the airframe is the same design, only internals have changed.

Which is a fairly irrelevant statement, as the airframe is made out of different materials, has different Cg & would handle differently if the interiors are changed, and the specifications expected are different, conforming to specific local requirements.

RVV-AE/AMRAAM is a poor comparison, the Russians didn’t physically copy the AMRAAM airframe to derive the RVV-AE, and besides, the reason it was nicknamed the ‘AMRAAMski’, is because of its similar performance to the AMRAAM and intended design goal, i.e. medium/long range BVR missile.

The comparison is germaine, as the Russians pretty much adopted the same classical layout as on the AMRAAM leading many to erroneously call it an AMRAAM copy. They pioneered the ARH arena, and I’d wager, every designer today is more or less adopting a similar layout.

The Russians adopted the lattice fin partly because of issues with actuation requirements for a compact missile. In the latest version of the RVV-AE currently under development, the latticed fins are to be dropped for similar fins as on current AMRAAMs/other missiles WW, would that make the RVV-AE a copy of the AMRAAM then?

A more appropriate comparison would be the SA-2 Guideline and H-2/QB series of missiles, where the SA-2 airframe was copied, while internal systems/components were different, i.e. similar to the process used for the ‘akash’ and SA-6.

That’s a fairly irrelevant comparison to make because the SA-2 & H-2/QB series of missiles more closely relate to Project Devil, as in the original form factor and specifications are kept and the missile/system is an updated, one to one copy as far as both schema and performance is kept.

As far as Akash is concerned, its capabilities & technologies relate pretty less to the original SA-6 & are purely driven by doctrinal issues. If the developers had kept the same Acquisition/ Track/HF radar, etc approach as on the SA-6 & not bothered with introducing or experimenting with entirely new technologies, your comparison would be germaine. However, they had entirely different things in mind, as evident from the use of an ARH seeker, multifunction radars and what not, and the architecture was hence designed around an entirely different capability. They went on tailoring systems as trials showed pros and cons, keeping local requirements in mind.

As things stand though, the only thing in common with Akash & the SA-6 is a common layout, and the use of an IRR.

Overall, where your argument fails entirely is in fixating on the Akash missile, as versus the Akash system. The Akash is not just the missile, its the entire system, comprising vehicles, different radars, and the C4I grid with a high degree of automation & this has all been designed keeping in mind what the IA & IAF expect of the system.

Going forward, its entirely possible that the Akash missile itself may be replaced over time, with a new system, such as one based on the Astra AAM w/booster or a derivative, with the missile grandfathered into the existing Akash system, what then, of comparisons to the SA-6. Just look at the ABM system as an example of how substantial changes are possible, by examining the technology level currently available in India versus what was available when Akash was developed. If the services ask for a new F&F variant, even that is possible, whereas the same cannot be said of the SA-6.

It is the difference in this entire system versus that of the SA-6, which makes comparisons to the SA-6 pointless, because the SA-6 was designed keeping Russian requirements in mind, a specific performance level with certain doctrinal issues in mind, and what it can & cannot do, are not germaine to what Akash can or cannot do as the system is designed differently, with different strengths and weaknesses.

Think! If everything within and outside is different, can you use a SA-6 airframe? The engagement envelope is different (alt, max, min), the guidance is different, the platforms for deployment are different, and how can the SA-6 airframe cope!

First, you haven’t read my post, or decided to ignore what I’ve said. Second, I’m saying the airframe of the ‘akash’ and SA-6 is identical. It’s you who is saying the ‘outside’, i.e. airframe, is different, but can’t back this up with anything. Have a look at the pictures above, what’s ‘different’ on the ‘outside’ between the ‘akash’ and even the Chinese attempt at copying the SA-6?

No, that’s just loose talk. If you change everything, then the question becomes in what way is it even related to the original bar a similar looking airframe and layout. I could for instance “copy” the layout of the AMRAAM in overall terms, but if all the interior systems are different, the performance expected by the end user is different, the guidance is different and even the associated systems are different, then looks apart, it has little in common, especially if I don’t reverse engineer to get systems to the same level & capability. The US may call the RVV-AE the AMRAAMski, but an AMRAAM “clone” it is not, even though it too has the same layout of active seeker+INS+datalink+solid motor.

‘Everything’ hasn’t been changed between the ‘akash’ and the SA-6, like I’ve said, the airframe is the same design, only internals have changed. RVV-AE/AMRAAM is a poor comparison, the Russians didn’t physically copy the AMRAAM airframe to derive the RVV-AE, and besides, the reason it was nicknamed the ‘AMRAAMski’, is because of its similar performance to the AMRAAM and intended design goal, i.e. medium/long range BVR missile.

A more appropriate comparison would be the SA-2 Guideline and H-2/QB series of missiles, where the SA-2 airframe was copied, while internal systems/components were different, i.e. similar to the process used for the ‘akash’ and SA-6.

So in what way is the overall airframe of the ‘akash’ different from the SA-6, apart from the internal changes to propulsion and electronics?

Think! If everything within and outside is different, can you use a SA-6 airframe? The engagement envelope is different (alt, max, min), the guidance is different, the platforms for deployment are different, and how can the SA-6 airframe cope!

It can’t, so you have to do the design from scratch. Read what I wrote about design influence from the SA-6, ramjet & general layout, thats about it. It took consistent testing till 2001-2003 till the ramjet & airframe for the Akash could be perfected for series production variants.

…i.e., ‘akash’ is an SA-6 airframe with updated internal systems, such as propulsion, guidance and other electronics, which, given the age of the SA-6, is pretty much appropriate.

No, that’s just loose talk. If you change everything, then the question becomes in what way is it even related to the original bar a similar looking airframe and layout. I could for instance “copy” the layout of the AMRAAM in overall terms, but if all the interior systems are different, the performance expected by the end user is different, the guidance is different and even the associated systems are different, then looks apart, it has little in common, especially if I don’t reverse engineer to get systems to the same level & capability. The US may call the RVV-AE the AMRAAMski, but an AMRAAM “clone” it is not, even though it too has the same layout of active seeker+INS+datalink+solid motor.

If everything is different, including how it will be employed, then it has little in common with a different system in entirety.

What you are referring to – in terms of “updated internal systems” is actually Project Devel, the 1970’s attempt to create a SA-2 clone which was ultimately stopped as Pechoras became available. The approach you mention was adopted for that, they decided to basically take the SA-2 airframe and selectively modernize, with updated systems & components. But the limitations became apparent, because overall, the “new” variant just did not offer the qualitative performance improvement something like the Pechora did. If India had followed the same approach with the SA-6, they would have ended with the same problem.

The Akash’s genesis lies in the SAM-X program, which flowed from IA & IAF requirements for their next generation SAM. In other words, the layout of the Akash was driven by specific requirements, form following function. And its system evolved over time, original plans for instance, to have an active seeker were dropped, because the phased array MFCR did the guidance perfectly well, for the required Pk.

At every stage, the design choices have been driven by user requirements, and not the “easy” path of taking an existing system and just attempting to improve on it.

And just who did the Chinese copy with this missile? No one is the answer.This was Project 640 😉

Real interesting stuff Eagle. Is this the same missile meant for ABM purposes and was to deploy a N-warhead.

Wrong. The only thing Akash shares in common with the SA-6 is the basic configuration of the missile, namely an integrated ramjet & general layout. Even there, the sustainer & boost components of the Ramjet are different.

Form follows function, the reason why a ramjet was adopted, and hence a “look” similar to to the SA-6, was because of IAF insistence on sustained maneuver capability, which was possible at the time only with airbreathing ramjets.

So in what way is the overall airframe of the ‘akash’ different from the SA-6, apart from the internal changes to propulsion and electronics?

Today, for trajectory shaping, DRDO is relying on dual pulse motors, as in the MR/LRSAM project.

That apart, its entirely different from within in terms of subsystems & its guidance & support ecosystem is absolutely different as well.

Most of this Akash is a SA-6 stuff is because nobody bothered to look deeper into the systems & see the actual details.

The SA-6 has a SARH guidance, the Akash is command guided. The SA-6 engagement & acquisition radars are different as well and with different functions and capabilities. The overall performance of the Akash versus SA-6 variants is also different, with its capabilities tailored to what was asked by the IA & IAF in specific.

There is an Akash MK-2 as well in development, again with improvements to the baseline Akash.

…i.e., ‘akash’ is an SA-6 airframe with updated internal systems, such as propulsion, guidance and other electronics, which, given the age of the SA-6, is pretty much appropriate.

That’s because the ‘indigenous’ akash missile is nothing more than a copied SA-6 with updated electronics.

Wrong. The only thing Akash shares in common with the SA-6 is the basic configuration of the missile, namely an integrated ramjet & general layout. Even there, the sustainer & boost components of the Ramjet are different.

Form follows function, the reason why a ramjet was adopted, and hence a “look” similar to to the SA-6, was because of IAF insistence on sustained maneuver capability, which was possible at the time only with airbreathing ramjets.

Today, for trajectory shaping, DRDO is relying on dual pulse motors, as in the MR/LRSAM project.

That apart, its entirely different from within in terms of subsystems & its guidance & support ecosystem is absolutely different as well.

Most of this Akash is a SA-6 stuff is because nobody bothered to look deeper into the systems & see the actual details.

The SA-6 has a SARH guidance, the Akash is command guided. The SA-6 engagement & acquisition radars are different as well and with different functions and capabilities. The overall performance of the Akash versus SA-6 variants is also different, with its capabilities tailored to what was asked by the IA & IAF in specific.

There is an Akash MK-2 as well in development, again with improvements to the baseline Akash.

Look Like well Photoshop because these pics are without proof that it is indeed developed upon by chines!

Look like Akash missile than SA-6😀

That’s because the ‘indigenous’ akash missile is nothing more than a copied SA-6 with updated electronics.

More images of the Chinese FanJi-1 ABM

These are not cloned nor photoshopped in any way FYI:)

FanJi (FJ-1) ABM system

And just who did the Chinese copy with this missile? No one is the answer.This was Project 640 😉

Chinese HQ-4 SAM

The Chinese are very capable and talented individuals when it comes to reverse engineering military hardware. And they have their own designs as well. Another example of this is the HQ-4 SAM. It too is original. But when it comes to the SF-2 clone of the Russian SA-6, they (the Chinese) had many opportunities to acquire examples of the SA-6 from Egypt in 1978, and of course direct import from the Soviet Union when it existed. For example, the Chinese were able to acquire examples of the MiG-23 from Egypt in 1978
(4 MiG-23MS Flogger-Es; 2 MiG-23BN Flogger-Fs; and 1 MiG-23U Flogger-C; plus they also acquired 5 AS-5 Kennel missiles; 2 MiG-21MFs Fishbed-Js, which were copied by the Chinese as the J-7 III); and 2 Su-20 Fitter-Cs. So therefore copying the SA-6 Gainful was no major feat for the Chinese engineers. Even India copied the SA-6 themselves and call it Akash. So, China also do things independently of others – i.e., the TJ-1A and the HQ-4 SAMs, and of course the FanJi-1 ABM missile system. 😀