The HQ-9B, developed by China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) under China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), has been widely compared to Russia’s S-400 Triumf, according to Chinese propaganda.
China’s HQ-9B air defence system is “a piece of junk” proven in the last years’ conflicts between India and Pakistan, as it underperformed and failed to intercept drones, aircraft and missiles, leading to significant damage to Pakistani air defence installations.
Global Defence Corp analysis shows HQ-9B is an S-300 derivative with reverse-engineered tech, less capable than its Russian counterparts (S-300/S-400), and that issues like its radar is incapable of detecting targets and its semi-active homing interceptors are incapable of homing targets at the terminal phases of Indian aircraft, despite China blaming Pakistani operators.
Reports claim the HQ-9B, even the newer HQ-9BE variant, struggled to stop Indian drone and missile attacks, which is seen as a major failure for a touted long-range system.
The system is often described as a Chinese attempt to copy the Russian S-300, leading to perceptions that it lacks the original’s advanced capabilities, especially against sea-skimming missiles or stealthy cruise missiles.
Its reliance on semi-active radar homing was considered a major tactical flaw, creating a “bull’s-eye” for Indian forces, which the Indian Air Force took advantage of and attacked Pakistani air bases.
This reflects disappointment in a system promised to be better than the original Russian system, which failed when deployed in a real combat scenario and proved ineffective at protecting high-value assets.
The “HQ-9B” gained notoriety after its perceived failure during Indian strikes against Pakistani targets in May 2025 during Operation Sindoor, where Indian forces successfully neutralised key defences.
Exported to countries like Egypt, Algeria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan, China advertised this missile system as an area denial and challenged Russian dominance in the global air defense market, with a newer HQ-9C variant emerging as a successor.
The HQ-9B is often contrasted unfavourably against Western systems such as MIM Patriot PAC3 missile systems, with claims that the Patriot missile system detects targets much further away and has superior engagement ranges and an above 100 percent kill ratio in the Ukraine war.
MIM Patriot PAC3 missile system destroyed Russia’s Su-35, Su-34, Kalibr cruise missile, Kinzal hypersonic missile and Iskandar ballistic missiles in the Ukraine war, whereas the Chinese-made HQ-9B failed to intercept a single Indian ballistic missile.
The system employs semi-active radar homing with a Soviet-era phased-array radar suite providing less coverage, enabling the engagement of four targets.
The missile does not use track-via-missile guidance or a mid-course uplink; it uses inertial guidance, semi-active radar homing, and a blast-fragmentation warhead detonated by a proximity fuse, making it one of the most unreliable interceptors, like the copycat Russian interceptors.
Critically, the HQ-9B is designed without electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM), making it non-resilient and vulnerable to jamming by Western electronic warfare platforms such as the EA-18G Growler, Rafale Spectra, and Gripen’s Arexis EW suite.
© 2026, GDC. © GDC and www.globaldefensecorp.com. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to www.globaldefensecorp.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
