Talk:HQ-9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:, Associated task forces: ...
Close

Untitled

Is HQ-9 another high quality copy of foreign military equipmen(e.g. S-300)?93.223.34.22 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on HQ-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

Sorry Wikipedians,I've made a mistake and I don't know how to deal with it. 王俊玮 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not sure, but I don't think HQ-19, HQ-26, HQ-29 are variants of HQ-9. If they aren't, they should probably get individual articles.2A00:EE2:6203:1200:8CD8:1C94:6992:85ED (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on HQ-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HQ-9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Mid-course guidance

Where do these missiles get mid-course guidance from? AEW aircraft? Aircraft from carriers? Satellites? All of the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.231.63 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a naval variant of the HQ-9B?

Is there a naval variant of the HQ-9B? And if so, what's it called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.65.92 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Warhead mass

"The warhead mass is 180 kg" This doesn't make an awful lot of sense. Chaptagai (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 India–Pakistan crisis

In May 2025, during heightened military tensions between India and Pakistan, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor, a series of precision strikes targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Following the operation, Pakistan reportedly attempted retaliatory drone and missile strikes against Indian military installations, all of which were intercepted by India's air defense systems, including the S-400. In response, India conducted further strikes on Pakistani military assets, including the destruction of a Chinese-made HQ-9 air defense system deployed near Lahore. According to multiple Indian news sources and official statements, the strike rendered Pakistan's missile shield in that region inoperative. The incident raised broader strategic questions about the effectiveness of Chinese military exports and drew international attention to the evolving capabilities of India's missile and air defense systems. Vmp1991 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2025 

Anitya dhiman (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC) there have been some recent developments regarding HQ9. Therefore, an edit is required . recently This missile system saw the combat , their fault is important to mention in the article
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Concerning these changes by @MaLLeusOrdo::

Matters of WP:INTEGRITY, WP:REFBOMBing, and a lack of identified authors in the references aside, most of the sources used are unreliable as far as Wikipedia:Reliable sources is concerned. kknews.cc is a content farm, mdc.idv.tw is WP:USERG, crntt.com repeats WP:GLOBALTIMES which is repeating something from WP:GLOBALSECURITY. Sina.com is a WP:BLOG, author looks to be anonymous and the the disclaimer at the bottom does suggests its not vetted by whatever editorial policy Sina.com has (if it has any.)

That just leaves chinanews.com.cn. That just gives a very rough timeline of development (program start in the 1970s, development actually kicking off in the late-1980s), and claims that the HQ-9 is not a derivative of the S-300 simply because the HQ-9 development program started before China got S-300s. It's a pretty weak argument; Chinese high-tech weapons programs of the day were well-known for being overambitious leading to entire program stalling and failing, and the ones that survived the end of the Cold War had a way of incorporating foreign technology/expertise (eg. see J-10 fighter and the WS-10 engine, see various naval systems.) Article then says that the HQ-9, as it entered service a decade (which sounds like another typical example of delayed Cold War Chinese high-tech weapons program) after China got the S-300s, surely incorporates improvements over the purchased Russian missile; this may very well be true, but does not actually contradict the claim that the HQ-9 is a derivative (note "derivative", not "copy.")

I have mostly reverted the change, and added bits from the chinanews.com.cn. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

1.Sina is not a blog, although it has a blog it is seperated from the news portion via the url blog. instead of the news which has news in the url, it has also not been banned on here.
2.the other sources you can get rid of, they weren't needed.
3. Derivative of military equipment specifically means something is built on top of a another as a basis, the HQ-9 is certainly not using the S-300 as a basis MaLLeusOrdo (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

HQ-9 has entered the inventory of Azerbaijan and an editor doesn't let ne to add

Hi, Azerbaijan has purchased the defence system and showcased it in a drill. There are video online and I added two sources. I can add another 10 sources But there is an editor that childilshly deletes my edit. Can anyone suggest what to do in this situation?; Wikibiryalanmakinesi (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop, and listen to what you're being told by the other editor. The sources you've provided are unacceptable, as they fail our reliability criteria. You were told this repeatedly in the edit summaries, and you continued to edit war to push your preferred version without addressing the policy violations raised. So my suggestion would be to stop, listen, familiarize yourself with our sourcing policies, and then if you cannot find a source that complies with them, move onwards. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest you to read before comment. Because someone that has no clue is writing to me that my source is not reliable, I should stop. I am happy that Wikipedia now has other alternatives. Otherwise, you guys would make such a stupid digital dictatorship. The videos of missiles in Baku is everywhere and bunch of illusionist people are trying to hide this obvious fact. Good luck with this falling platform. Wikibiryalanmakinesi (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
This is not an airport; you are not required to announce your departure. You are, however, required to maintain civility while here on this project. We'll be just fine without you, I promise.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that the world is not fine with people like you. Luckily, people like Elon and Trump exist to prevent darkness from prevailing. Good luck competing with what Grokipedia. I would not be surprised if Wiki tries to block me because I named their competitors. And when it comes to you, I do whatever I like. I don't your permission to leave or stay. Come out of your room, go to airport and see the world. There is a bigger world out there that will help you understand your true size. Wikibiryalanmakinesi (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The problem actually is whether the sources that you provide meet the requirements (WP:RS) of sources that are reliable enough to back up the claim. Quality of sources is absolutely crucial for the quality of articles here - without enforcing these standards then articles will be filled with rumours, speculation, wishful thinking and propaganda. Defence.blog.com has been discussed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#defence-blog.com here on the relaible sources noticeboard (general conclusion - personal blog - unlikely to meet requirements for a reliable source), with miltarnyi discussed Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_414#Militarnyi_(mil.in.ua) here (propaganda source potentially misrepresenting its sources) and armyrecognition here. It has nothing to do with Elon Musk or Donald Trump.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I have given 3 sources. It's not one. I can see many less reliable sources cited on this page and generally in Wikipedia. The guy has made it personal and because he has more edits, he feels entitled to go around and delete my edits. I see him going around and deleting my other edits too. I don't think Wikipedia worth spending time when I see these grown up kids are around. Wikibiryalanmakinesi (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It is you who are making it personal - several people have told you that your sources don't count as reliable, based on discussion on the appropriate place for deciding whether sources are reliable. The way to solve this is to read the discussions of WP:RSN about why these sources were rejected, read what the requirements of WP:RS are and find actual reliable sources - noting of course that when neither China or Azerbaijan have admitted to any sale, then this places an additional burden on the sources used.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Several people are biased and keep saying nonsense. Several people told Galileo that earth is the centre of the world. Forbes added reported the news. I edited it based on the new source. Wikibiryalanmakinesi (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Forbes actually doesn't say that Azerbaijan has acquired HQ-9s - if you read the article it says that it MAY have received them, and talks about "purported acquisition" - there remains no excuse for re-adding the sources that are not reliable, and absolutely no excuse for personal attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
and the article is credited to a "Senior Contributor" - not a staff member. See WP:FORBSCOM - only articles by Forbes Staff are reliable, articles by contributors have little editorial oversight and are considered generally unreliable.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
They're gone and won't be coming back. As mentioned previously, we'll get along just fine regardless. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Did Iran have HQ-9B?

There are a lot of claim that Iran have HQ-9B. All from India, Iran and some Chinese self-media. However, never do any reliable source says HQ-9B have ever deployed in Iran. What I see is:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pauliddon/2025/09/23/iran-not-likely-to-get-its-air-force-upgraded-by-russia-or-china-soon/ ~2026-13596-16 (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI