It doesn’t have the best radar, the quickest missile, it performs decently at medium ranges but that’s about it - it doesn’t have any sort of advantages over anything really, and doesn’t excel at anything - other SAMS will get kills before the HQ11 can really do anything about it at basically any range, and as a single vehicle it doesn’t have much survivability, especially considering that it lacks any close-range missiles.
iirc the radar vehicle isn’t necessarily part of the HQ11 system, there are a ton of sources that state the HQ11 is a two-vehicle system as an upgrade over the prior HQ9B, which is made up of three vehicles. This is due to the integration of the radar into the FM-3000, so i’m pretty sure the radar vehicle pictured here isn’t part of the HQ11 system as a whole, altho it could be an external supporting system.
@ least they should add the LD3k
Kinda fair considering its only 1 vehicle while something like buk is effectively 2 sams + decoy radar
Now you can use the radar interface to control the anti-aircraft gun for interception. This is an update from the previous version. The CIWS system of HQ11 can also utilize this function
1 Like
Gaijin probably isn’t aware, but in reality, the HQ-11 has a separate loader/launcher vehicle, similar to the Buk air defense system.
The difference between the HQ-11’s loader/launcher vehicle and the currently in-game HQ-11, which has an integrated search radar system, is that the loader/launcher vehicle replaces the radar housing with a loading crane.
If Gaijin does not wish to implement the HQ-11’s LD3000 system, they could simply add an additional HQ-11 loader/launcher vehicle as a supplement to the existing HQ-11 in the game.
12 Likes
You’re absolutely right. However, in the next update, Sweden will receive a brand-new anti-aircraft system equipped with new ordnance and 12 missiles. If the HQ-11 still only carries 8 missiles, I don’t think it can effectively compete in its current battle rating (BR) bracket. Of course, I don’t deny the fact that the EldE 98 only has 4 missiles. Therefore, you should propose to the developers to lower its BR or other adjustments instead of refusing to buff other nations’ vehicles because of it. After all, there are already anti-aircraft systems with a total ammunition capacity of up to 32 rounds, isn’t that right?
So you want click on “fire” button and Automate the function?
Not that dont believe the function would work just like helicopter chin mounts, in-game it would make it all to easy, you would practically be immune to any damage except for low gun run.
If you could intercept even munitions with the gun, and do it all with a single press of a button, would make it way to easy to be powerful.
1 Like
This system has already been implemented in the game. Now you can use the radar interface to control anti-aircraft guns such as S1, CACS5, PGZ09and 2S6 to intercept aircraft. Currently, this system on CACS5 is barely satisfactory. As for HQ11’s CIWS, I think we can refer to CACS5
2 Likes
from what I’ve seen the LD-3000 only carries enough ammo for about 6.4 seconds of continuous fire, so it would definitely not be busted, although it would be quite good in burst shots to counter guided munitions
Please do not look down on the People’s Republic of China, and please do not discriminate against the Chinese people! In its current state, it simply does not support the technology tree in China.
so while every other missile system ingame that would normally be also protected by VSHORADs doesnt have that luxury, it is somehow discrimination against peoples republic of china when their missile anti air defense vehicle gets the same treatment? Like Christ get off of your high horse of victimhood.
Its a missile SPAA vehicle.
Or do you think that medium to long range anti air defense systems that arent chinese dont have layered air defense protecting them and this is somehow unique only to the your air defense systems.
Just like with Type03, SLM, BUK, Sky Sabre, SAMPTs, NASAMS or TAN SAM KAI or Elde hell the goddamn SPYDER, they are all missile weapon system vehicles that are unable to defend themselves from both tanks and very close range targets (with TanSamKai and elde just being horrible SPAAs to begin with, with non-existent long range performance and mediocre short range performance). Youre not being discriminated against by getting the same treatment as everyone else.
i think they mean how its a single vehicle system in contrast to SLM, CLAWS, etc.
china is, i think, the only nation with no multi vehicle spaa?
oh and that fake nation too ig
2 Likes
Multi-vehicle and single vehicle systems both have their advantages or disadvantages. Also this is not the same. They are asking for essentially chinese CIWS on a truck to supplement their missile SPAA system. SLM and other multi vehicle systems are formed from one TADS vehicle and 2 launcher vehicles, with tansamkai and BUK being able to function standalone incase of TADS destruction.
This would essentially be 2 vehicles, the all in one radar + launcher and a CIWS.
Pantsir missiles are SACLOS requiring LOS and can engage atmost 1-2 targets with the missiles, with one being autoguided while the other is guided by the player.
This vehicle system would have both FnF ARH missiles that would require 0 input from the player past release and a CIWS vehicle that would be either controlled by the player or just from the radar screen. Not the same.
IRIS-T SL and by proxy every TVC missile when fired at targets at close range will spin out of control. Fighting near these SPAA systems is safer than fighting further away after the missile had chance to set a proper flight path. As for the Elde98 SLS IRIS-Ts, they are unreliable and in very limited numbers. Able to be flared, unlike ARH missiles that keep their lock, also they are vertical launch TVC rather than cold launch which also effects effectiveness at close range.
they arent. This isnt the “age of multi vehicle SAMs”, vehicles like pantsir are still more than relevant in the current meta. Also whats being asked here is not even remotely similar to other multivehicle SAMs. This is CIWS+AiO, while other multivehicle SPAAs are all TADS+TEL/AR with limited or nonexistent protection from tanks or close range targets.
i wouldnt disagree with them getting second TEL even tho it does have access to 8(16) missiles which is honestly decent, but gaijin could add a second TEL only vehicle to bring the missile count in line with stuff like Skysabre or SAMPT.
It should not get it. Other SAM systems dont get a VSHORAD protection vehicle, neither should china. Closest comparison to this thing would by SPYDER and that thing doesnt have its own personal CIWS, so why should china receive preferential treatment.
1 Like
I am aware of the difference. Im just saying it is kinda sus how the nations get their air defense complexes but HQ11 is treated differently.
Im sure implementation is not the issue because i was able to do it in a simple user mission.
Different argument. Ofc i agree pantsir and air defense complexes arent comparable.
I said thos to the guy who said:
The point of such AA systems is that they can’t operate at close range
Which is… silly to say the least. As if anypne designs a system specifically to NOT be able to engage in close range.
Yeah ofc i meant close range but not point blank. This is beside the issue of gaijin having misimplemented TVC at such ranges.
Even in terms of spaa implementation by gaijin?
Couldve fooled me lol.
China shouldnt receive preferential treatment
See the following thread i made way back when:
1 Like
I would agree that if the HQ11 were to get a second radarless TEL with its AiO or would be 1 TADS + 2 TELs it would be better and i wouldnt be against them getting it as it would be more in line with other systems. However this is not the same as the currently here being suggested addition of a goddamn CIWS with its AiO platform.
This situation is also not comparable with you pointing to a discussion about maybe adding CIWS to other nation SAMs vs here a suggestion to add CIWS to a system thats being added right now.
depends on what you really understand as close range, but i vehemently disagree that a system that is utilizing cold launch FnF ARH missiles is going to be unusable for “close range” engagements any more than a system utilizing TVC angled or vertical launch or non-TVC vertical launch like for example the type03 (thanks to that, close range targets or targets flying towards the system will be very hard to impossible to hit due to loft).
Again, the SPAA being multi vehicle doesnt automatically make it meta. And like i said multi vehicle have their pros and cons same way AiO vehicles do. Its easier to set up shit like pantsir or CSSA5 than it is to properly set up a multi vehicle. Even more annoying when the multi vehicle is using angled launch instead of vertical but thats not important.
And on the other hand having multi vehicles makes you losing one TEL not the end of the world while AiO vehicles getting killed is instant death for the system.
And given that there is no CIWS for any other nation nor is there talk about it from gaijin side nor have i seen a suggestion about doing this for all SPAAs should the chinese CIWS for HQ11 be added. Thats what preferential treatment means. If they want to add close range defense to vehicles that cant defend themselves, it should come all at once to remain fair. Not one vehicle at a time.
yes i agree with this fully, but we dont expect such fairness anymore.
but that wasnt the issue…
speaking of which, it is basically an SLM but with a 30mm AHEAD firing gatling cannon. i dont see why the CIWS of the HQ11 would be so out of the question. ← keeping in mind i desire ALL nations to recieve CIWS or DL SPAAGs to their TADS systems
1 Like
you keep saying this like the ciws isn’t actually part of the hq-11 system
the hq-11 system is both missile and gun
it is not just the telar
edit: if they wanted the avoid this double standard they could’ve added any one of the dozen other available chinese spaa options
3 Likes