Split-type FM3000 and Incomplete HQ11,Poisoned again

As everyone knows, we will get HQ11 in the Christmas update.
屏幕截图 2025-12-13 122838
But I have to say, this is not HQ11 at all. HQ11 is a regional air defense system, consisting of at least two vehicles: one is the FM-3000 surface-to-air missile system that has just been launched, and the other is the LD3000 1130 close-in weapon system. And, of course, these vehicles can be deployed in multiples.
屏幕截图 2025-12-13 122522
Therefore, the vehicle that Gaijin is giving to players is not the HQ11 at all, but a new version of the FM3000, a version that integrates missiles and radar into a single vehicle. And only one can be deployed.
I believe everyone understands what this means in the game. In the Chinese community, there is widespread talk about gaijin discriminating against Chinese vehicles, and the Chinese tech tree has once again received a poisoned vehicle.
Gaijin has indeed received a huge amount of dissatisfaction and abuse in the Chinese community. But this shouldn’t have happened, because the new air defense system shouldn’t have had any problems.
If gaijin believes the close-in weapon system in the full HQ11 system is still not suitable for the game, then it’s simple: let the current HQ11 be able to deploy a second launcher vehicle. In fact, this is what actually reflects reality. Which country would deploy only a single launcher when setting up a regional air defense system? The HQ-11 integrates the launcher with the radar due to China’s strong manufacturing capabilities, in order to improve combat effectiveness and mobility. it’s not really just deploying a single launch vehicle to fight. Would this cause any problems?Gaijin just won’t do it. Well then, there’s a second option.
Old version of the FM3000.A version where the radar is separated from the launcher. This can be said to be the version most suitable for adding to the game!
屏幕截图 2025-12-13 120552
R-C

So can this version of the FM3000 deploy multiple launch vehicles? Of course it can; the weapon systems of the world’s leading manufacturing country are quite advanced.


全域防空反导体系解决方案_哔哩哔哩_bilibili
This is a promotional video for a comprehensive air defense solution from CASIC years ago.
From this, we can clearly see that a set of split-type FM3000 is actually deployed with 4 launch vehicles, 1 radar vehicle, and 1 command vehicle.
If Gaijin provides this split-type FM3000, reducing the number of launch vehicles to 2, it would match the setups of other countries. No one would complain; it would only receive praise.
But gaijin just won’t do either of the two simple solutions above! I don’t believe he doesn’t know about the existence of this split-type FM3000, and I don’t believe he can’t think of giving another launcher to the damaged HQ11, but he just won’t do it!Here, more advanced, highly integrated systems are actually a weakness, which is absurd.Has Gaijin been focusing all his thinking on how to cleverly poison ?
Gaijin has been receiving criticism and abuse from players in the recent versions, causing more and more players to feel annoyed and exhausted with the game, and that’s all self-inflicted.

10 Likes

Radar Vehicle Deployment Status

The HQ11 has a separate missile launcher vehicle (without radar), but Gaijin chose to ignore it

Yes, even the new integrated version of the FM3000 would definitely have launch vehicles without radar. In actual combat, how could there possibly be one radar for each launch vehicle?
What is the black thing in the middle of this launch vehicle, is it a lifting device?
I guess the reality is that some people can’t accept the existence of something more efficient than the BUK-M1.When they get better ones, or a long, long time from now, we’ll be able to get extra launch vehicles.

why would only one nation get a powerful mechanic like this? it would come together with other nations getting something similar, not getting special treatment is not the same as being discriminated against

So maybe they shouldn’t have added the HQ11 to begin with? The HQ16 is right there and is roughly equivalent to the BUK-M3 as far as general performance goes, but they would rather add another short range system, and only half at that, when there’s literally better options? And you call this not discrimination?

2 Likes

its probably far better than the bukm3 lets be real here

imo we were unlikely to get dual purpose integrated systems like that as a single vehicle anyway, possible we get them as separate vehicles though, because these days things like the gepard get datalink with the multivehicle missiles launchers could those be said to be a unified platform too?

there is no discrimination gaijin treat every country just as poorly, everyone on the forums complain about the same things and act as if only they are affected

Right, far better than the BUK, with what, half the missile load, 66% of the velocity and less than half the range? Sure buddy sure

1 Like

not like I know the stats of the thing, bro chill

but also, only one of them is real lmao and its not the buk we have in game

by real i mean entered mass usage

There are three models of hq16: a, b and c. Only Type c is more powerful than m3. Type b is basically on par with m3, being stronger at long distances but weaker at short distances. In addition, the hq16 has only one radar, while the m3 has three radars

3 Likes

Don’t change the subject or talk about useless stuff… Just explain, what does it mean to only provide one launcher vehicle? Please give an example and which country receives this treatment?

when did I change the subject? and everything ive said in my opinion is relevant to the complaint

please give an example of a country that has a vehicle like the full hq11 system, as if a system in game does work like you claim the hq11 in game we have should then that would be discrimination

but as we do not have a multi-vehicle integrated system in game, it is not discrimination for you to also not get one

there are many countries in game that do not have access to mechanics that would be unique to them, the stabilised gunsights on the amx30s arent in the game yet, is that discrimination?

gaijin doesnt think the spall minimisering materials on many american tanks count as spall liners, is that discrimination?

the namer 30 weighs 1 less ton than the merkava 4m and has less armour even though it doesnt have a turret, is this discrimination?

Uhmm idk maybe Israel with the spyder AIO?? That in real life it can have a separate radar unit aside from the launchers, but instead they gave us only 1 launcher with radar?

1765689416756768775272246594577

Be thankful China is recieving another new top tier spaa when Israel still has the worst spaa in 2 updates (oh well since the machbet actually). We dont even have a saclos spaa, implying China is being discriminated more than other countries (except ussr) its hypocrytal

2 Likes

Me want some actual Air Defense for Israel :(((

Make your own post of SPYDER then, or make a post for improvements for all Tier 8 SPAA.
I’m thinking making a post of: give all Tier 8 non multi-vehicle SPAA a free spawn if you spawn this vehicle once. And you still could use backup to spawn for third time - then you got the fourth spawn for free. Free respawn count 50% repair cost.

We’re currently discussing separate air defense. What else are you trying to bring into this?

First, haven’t most countries that are supposed to have two launch vehicles actually received them? Should Israel’s case be a reason for China to receive the same treatment?
Second, if you think Israel should get another launcher, shouldn’t we unite to point out Gaijin’s mistake?
Don’t be someone who is unable to accomplish anything but capable of spoiling everything.

2 Likes
  1. I was answering your own question.

  2. Its against the rules to make a call to unite the community it seems
    image

What did you answer? Other countries all have 1 radar and 2 launch vehicles. China could have met this standard, but intentionally not giving it—is that reasonable? Can you give a reasonable explanation for not providing China with 1 radar and 2 launch vehicles?
If you think destructive unity and constructive unity are the same thing… then go ahead and keep believing that.

Oh, I get it, a vvvv. My bad, this is purely a waste of time.