Potential Chinese Ground Force Additions

[TPS_Hydra]

@NCC105

HQ-17AE, 30KM range, 4 targets at same time

“improved, 15km range, and better radar”

@NCC105 So I’ve been lied to, great information… Jk

You must’ve been talking about radar range if not missile range then, 15km is still a bit concerning when compared to the Pantsirs 20km iirc.

12km of range in a perfect scenario, have you ever actually hit anything that far away

I’ve destroyed a plethora of aircraft outside of 10kms before, it’s nothing new. The missiles are INCREDIBLY responsible and near impossible to evade with raw Gs and the range of them are excellent - it’s my most favourite SPAA for long range engagements.

[NCC105]

@TPS_Hydra

You must’ve been talking about radar range if not missile range then,

no, missile range, for it’s type(lasting booster), it’s booster should last to 12km
for kill range, its good, better than VT-1 even pantsir, though the smoke and low speed could still be a problem. so it can’t do fully stealth attack like pantsir.

[TPS_Hydra]

So the missiles on the HQ-17AE would have more range than the ones on the Pantsir? Missile smoke is also a issue, true but it’s not like don’t you get a RWR warning by it anyways.

The biggest thing I’ve always liked about the Tor-M1 is the combination of multiple DL channels and a decently long range and manoeuvrable missile, the HQ-17AE and base HQ-17 seem to improve on this significantly which is nice.

[NCC105]

@TPS_Hydra

So the missiles on the HQ-17AE would have more range than the ones on the Pantsir

clearly, it’s 30km. 30 > 20, isn’t it? and pantsir’s missile rely on low drag, long self-destruct range, it’s basically gliding after 10km, if awared, it can be easily avoided, the problem about pantsir is always that you don’t know when it will come.
for TOR/HQ-17, it’s like you enter the kill zone, if you don’t escape quickly, you will die. but you do have enough time to get out, and currently tor’s kill zone is not big enough

[csla1972]

Idk if somebody already posted those ones here but would be nice to have it in Chinese Ground Forces on low BR.

Type-70-I 122mm self-propelled howitzer

Type 70 MRL

China need more original stuff on low BR.

[gultraman]

By the way, anyone has more info on the missiles used by FK-3000?

[141_allen]

Nice. Another one.

[NCC105]

same as FK-2000, except the new smaller missiles.

[gultraman]

Thanks, that’s what I guessed too.
The smaller missiles, FK-3000/L, should have range of 12KM, right?
Any info on the range of the micro missiles used on the FK-3000 UGV?

[NCC105]

@gultraman

12KM

unlikely, it’s too small

[Surbaissemaxxing]

@gultraman

The smaller missiles, FK-3000/L, should have range of 12KM, right?

I’ve read once somewhere that it has a 5km range, have to find it again.

[EnglishTeaKett1e]

FK-1000 and eventually FK-2000 are more useful additions compared to FK-3000 imo. FK-3000 is more intended to destroy UAVs and small drones.

[Surbaissemaxxing]

Yep

[gultraman]

Then I wonder what the 12KM in the display board means

[NCC105]

I misunderstood, I thought you are talking about this

[gultraman]

No problem. If the FK-3000/L really has 12KM range, it could still make an insanely good SPAA in the game with its 96 ammo.

[NCC105]

but not very suitable, I guess this 12km missile will act more like the missile of 2s6, loosing mobility quickly, only good at intercepting agm/bombs and drones

[BoAd]

A little off topic. Do you think these should go into the Chinese Tech Tree or the country that made the modifications?
GIAT T59, The AMX 30 in a chinese tank
Marksman Type 59

[Miraz05]

Is FK3000 missile related to FL3000N? Both have similar shape and size

[NCC105]

no, the big missile is the same as FK-2000, something like 95ya6, the smaller 12km one, I don’t know what it looks like, the super small one, is a smaller manpad.
same “3000” is just a coincidence, they are not related