SomePLAOSINT Profile picture
Jun 25, 2023 31 tweets 10 min read Read on X
Tor M1 is a SHORAD SAM system developed by the USSR. China purchased 6 to 9 batteries from Russia and subsequently fully copied & optimized the Russian system to create its own designs. These systems formed the backbone of accompanying field air defense for the PLAGF. A long 🧵:
The core of the Tor M1 system is the 9A331 combat vehicle. It was designed in the 1980s to be fully capable of countering PGMs such as cruise missiles, laser-guided bombs, etc. (usually with much smaller radar signatures compared to a typical combat aircraft).
The requirements it managed to meet were impressive at the end of the Cold War. A 9A331 combat vehicle can acquire targets with a 0.1sqm RCS with a 50% probability at 25km range. It can track targets and engage them with its vertically launched 9M331 missiles at a max 12km range.
At the same time, the combat vehicle not only needs to be able to travel with heavily armored columns but also provide air defenses on the move. Here we see the search radar on the combat vehicle rotating (searching for targets) as it moves on harsh terrain.
Highly integrated sensors & fire control units, maneuverable missiles, a relatively deep magazine & a highly mobile chassis are put into one package. Tor M1 is a uniquely capable SHORAD system even in today’s terms. Here are the major components of a 9A331 combat vehicle.
Tor M1 uses command radio guidance to guide the missiles toward the targets. In this guidance method, the missile itself does not possess the ability to “lock” on targets. It fully relies on the combat vehicle to provide all commands via a radio link.
The upside is that the missile does not require a seeker itself, which makes it more compact and cheap. This is important as space and weight need to be carefully allocated for such a mobile system. Also, the enemy PGMs are much cheaper compared to aircraft.
The downside is that the successful interception heavily relies on the combat vehicle and the radio command link. Once the link is lost due to the CV being destroyed or under enemy EW, the missile would be instantly lost.
Here is a more detailed look at the 9M330/9M331 missile used by Tor M1. The canard configuration and thrust vectoring nozzles in the nose section make the missile very maneuverable.
Due to these designs, the 9M331 missile is capable of high G maneuvering. It has demonstrated the ability to turn 180 degrees and then engage a target.
The 9A331 combat vehicle is designed to perform most if not all combat-related tasks on its own, yet Tor M1 system mostly operates as a battery & a number of other vehicles are required to sustain operations. Some different vehicles as a part of a Tor M1 battery in PLAGF service.
In the mid-2000s, China kicked started the effort to copy and improve the Tor M1 system. Then in the early 2010s, they started to bring more indigenous designs and technologies to the concept. Here is a brief timeline of such efforts that brought us the HQ-17 and HQ-17A systems.
The HQ-17 SAM system is the first to materialize. It was first revealed in 2016. The combat vehicle of the HQ-17 is almost identical to the Russian-made 9A331 CV from Tor M1 with a few differences on the exterior. By that time, Russia has deployed the improved Tor M2 system.
From the differences highlighted above, the HQ-17 system should have similar combat capabilities to the Tor M1:
1. guiding maximum 2 missiles and engaging 2 targets simultaneously,
2. searching while moving yet requiring a full stop to fire the missiles
HQ-17 does have greatly improved target acquisition. This is due to the parabolic target acquisition radar on the 9A331 vehicle is replaced with a phased array one on the HQ-17 and better onboard computers. It is quoted that HQ-17 can simultaneously track 48 targets.
The more pronounced differences between Tor M1 and HQ-17 lie in the interior. The latter has fully digitized control stations while the prior is heavily analog. It’s to be expected since there’s a 2-decade gap between the time when these 2 entered PLAGF service.
In the driver compartment, the HQ-17 combat vehicle also has more digitized controls with better ergonomics.
Improvements can also be observed in the missile fired by HQ-17 compared to the 9M331. The observable exterior changes are most likely to improve aerodynamics of the missile to further improve maneuverability and/or range. Though the official range of HQ-17 is the same as Tor M1.
These above improvements between HQ-17 and Tor M1 combat vehicles are more or less inspired by the Russian Tor M2. And the missiles’ improvements are likely limited to the exterior. The HQ-17 itself could be unironically rated as Tor M1.5.
The HQ-17A on the other hand, has been fused with a lot more novel indigenous designs and technologies. It can be seen as a major branch off of the Tor lineage.
Same to Tor M1, HQ-17’s combat vehicle can execute air defense tasks independently. But it also usually operates as a battery for better synergy and effectiveness. Here is an HQ-17 battery (company) with all equipment displayed during an inauguration ceremony.
The HQ-17A system also adopts the same battery composition with 1 command vehicle, 4 combat vehicles, 2 transporter/loaders, 2 transporters, and 2 system maintenance vehicles.
The battery command post (vehicle) is extremely important. It relays information regarding targets detected by other AD assets and hosts the battery commander to coordinate the 4 combat vehicles to defend a wider area. Comparison of the battery command posts of the three systems.
Another very important vehicle in a battery is the missile transporter/loader. It can perform reloading tasks directly in the field. It helps the battery to sustain operations. 2 transporter/loader vehicles together with 2 loader trucks provide an additional 32 missiles.
The Tor M1/HQ-17/HQ-17A are both AD assets on the brigade and group army levels. A battery (company) of these systems would cover an entire brigade and a battalion of 3 companies would cover a group army.
Combat capabilities wise, Tor M1 and HQ-17 are able to engage two targets simultaneously. Though normally, when they are not facing a saturation attack, to increase the kill probability, a Tor M1/HQ-17 battery will fire 1 missile each from 2 combat vehicles to engage 1 target.
When under a saturation attack, one combat vehicle could fire 2 missiles in succession to engage to separate targets. Here is an example of HQ-17 firing 2 missiles one after another.
The HQ-17A is a much more capable system compared to the former 2. It is said to be able to guide 4 missiles simultaneously attacking 4 targets. A single combat vehicle is able to search, acquire, track, and engage targets while moving at or below 25km/h speed.
Here, a HQ-17AE (export version) is firing a missile while traveling on a paved road.
Tor M1 & its derivative systems are capable against many threats in a peer/near-peer conflict: large stand-off PGMs, UAVs, etc. But they have limitations, namely limited magazine depth against more compact PGMs such as SDB and limited range against the newer long-range ATGMs.
The end. Many thanks to those who have helped to make this thread as it is.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with SomePLAOSINT

SomePLAOSINT Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @someplaosint

Jun 15
1 | Compared to standoff guided munitions, the PLA has a relatively limited selection of non-standoff guided munitions.

Let's have a look. Image
2 | The first experience the PLA hve about laser guided bombs (LGBs) was gained in Vietnam as China sent hundreds of thousands of PLA soldiers, mostly anti-aircraft gunners and engineers to protect and repair critical infractures in the North. Image
3 | The PLA was impressed and setout to develop its own "Paveway" in the late 1970s.

By the early 1980s, China managed to produce its first batch of LGBs and started testing with PLAAF units.

But the effort was shelved due to shifting priorities and the program was frozen. Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Jun 15
1 | PLA air-launched stand-off munitions - part 2

Apart from air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs), the PLA also operates a selection of air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBMs).

Just like ALCMs, the first ALBM that the PLA publicly revealed is a very large missile referred to as KD-21.Image
2 | Due to its size and wright, we normally see only 2 missiles carried by a H-6K/J/N bomber.

Though, when carrying 2 KD-21s, the H-6 bombers generally have their pylons at wing roots, which are the ones with the strongest load capacity, empty.

It is likely an H-6 can carry up to 4 such missiles at the expense of range.Image
Image
Image
3 | From existing footage the KD-21 should have at least 2 variants:

->A dedicated ground attack version without a terminal radar seeker (left).
->Another one clearly shows a white radar radome and possibly datalink antenna designed for anti-ship missions (right). Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Jun 14
1 | The ongoing Israel-Iran conflict and the recent India-Pakistan conflict both highlighted that stand-off strike carried out by jets is very effective in penetrating modern IADSs consist of long-range SAM system.

Let's have a look at the 🇨🇳PLAAF's stand-off strike weapons. (Part 1)Image
Image
2 | Let's start with the first generation of PLA's air-launched cruise missile (ALCM), the KD-63.

KD-63 uses the man-in-the-loop TV guidance as its terminal guidance method. With the weapon's operator using the camera footage uploaded by the missile to guide it to its target. Just like the Israeli Popeye.Image
Image
3 | KD-63 is a massive missile. It weighs around 2000kg with an equally massive 500kg warhead.

Due to its size, it can only be carried by PLA's H-6 bombers.

Why is it this big? Because it is the final evolution of the ancient Silkworm anti-ship missile, which in turn was based on the Soviet P-15 from the 1950s.Image
Image
Read 7 tweets
May 11
1 | About 9 hours ago, a Chinese commercial satellite imagery provider, MizarVision published a fairly clear image of the PAF Nur Khan air base after strike showing minor damages without clear evidence of airframe loss.

From the image, there seems to be 2 locations showing different level of damages.Image
2 | The first location is a small courtyard near the apron where PAF's transportation aircraft are parked.

There are visible signs of burning and destruction of vehicles, possibly fuel trucks, which corroborates with the intense fire we saw during the night of the attack. Image
3 | The second location is the roof of a warehouse. It is less whether this is indeed damages done to the roof or just shadow of piled construction materials.

The construction materials are visible in the image taken on Dec. 12th, 2024. There could be some minor fire damage to the roof but it would be inconsequential.Image
Read 4 tweets
Apr 22
1 | Intercepting Brahmos: a limited discussion on missile defence capabilities worldwide that (possibly) can intercept this missile.

Brahmos is a very potent anti-ship / land attack missile. In the anti-ship role, its Mach 3 speed coupled with sea skimming profile at the terminal stage make it a very challenging target.Image
2 | Throughout the years since its first test launch in 2001, Brahmos has seen a range increase from MTCR-constraint 290km to sub 500km then to alleged 8-900km achieved in the latest test.

3 | To simplify the matter a bit, there are generally 2 types of flight profiles for the missile.

->Sea skimming all the way with supersonic speed at the expense of range.
->Climb high to 14,000m, cruise, dive down and then start its terminal phase sea skimming.

Earlier Brahmos A flight profile as an example.Image
Read 11 tweets
Apr 17
Don't know why when DRDO made this slide about laser DEW projects/products worldwide, high(er) energy systems from China were omitted.

So I added a few for those who are interested. Image
Going back to DRDO's recently tested 30kW laser DEW, it adopts a rather interesting design of combining 6 separate laser modules producing 6 beams. Image
This differs from Chinese and US designs for 30 - 60kW level laser DEW where only a single laser module/beam is required.

My guess is that DRDO is still working on higher power laser modules and the single module used on the current Laser DEW Mk-2A is at 5kW level. Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(