SOURCE: AFI
Pakistan’s acquisition of the Chinese-supplied HQ-9B air defense system, touted by Beijing as a rival to India’s Russian-made S-400 Triumf, has come under scrutiny following its underwhelming performance during Operation Sindoor, a series of Indian Air Force (IAF) strikes on May 7–10, 2025, targeting terrorist infrastructure and Pakistan Air Force (PAF) airbases. Sources close to idrw.org reveal that Pakistan opted for the HQ-9B over pursuing Russia’s S-300 or S-350 systems, swayed by Chinese claims of comparable capabilities to the S-400. However, the system’s failure to intercept IAF missiles and drones has exposed significant shortcomings, raising questions about Pakistan’s air defense strategy and its reliance on Chinese technology.
The HQ-9B, an advanced variant of China’s Hongqi-9 (Red Banner-9) surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, was acquired by Pakistan in 2021 as the HQ-9P, with upgrades to the HQ-9B configuration by 2024. Marketed by China as a cost-effective alternative to Russian and Western systems, the HQ-9B boasts a claimed range of 250–300 km, a track-via-missile (TVM) guidance system with semi-active radar homing (SARH), and the ability to engage up to 8–10 targets simultaneously at speeds up to Mach 14. Chinese suppliers assured Pakistan that the system matched the S-400’s capabilities, including its ability to counter aircraft, cruise missiles, and tactical ballistic missiles, prompting Islamabad to forgo negotiations with Russia for the S-300PMU-2 or S-350 Vityaz, according to idrw.org sources.
In contrast, India’s S-400 Triumf, operational since April 2022 with three of five squadrons deployed, offers a detection range of 600 km and an engagement range of 400 km, capable of tracking 100 targets and engaging 36 simultaneously. Its multi-AESA radar suite, including the 91N6E and 92N6E radars, provides 360-degree coverage and superior resistance to electronic countermeasures, with four missile types (40N6, 48N6E3, 9M96E2, 9M96E) enabling layered defense against diverse threats, including stealth aircraft and hypersonic missiles. During Operation Sindoor, launched in response to a terror attack in Pahalgam that killed 26 civilians, the S-400, dubbed “Sudarshan Chakra,” intercepted multiple Pakistani drones and missiles, including a claimed shootdown of a PAF Saab Erieye-2000 AEW&C aircraft at 314 km, a record for SAM systems, per EurAsian Times.
The IAF’s strikes, employing BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, SCALP ALCMs, and Harop loitering munitions, targeted 11 PAF airbases, including Noor Khan, Bholari, and Shahbaz, and terrorist facilities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Despite the HQ-9B’s deployment in strategic locations like Lahore and Sialkot, it failed to intercept a single Indian projectile, with Indian electronic warfare (EW) systems, including EL/M-2083 jammers, blinding its HT-233 C-band radar. Reports indicate that HQ-9B launchers and command posts were destroyed in Lahore, exposing vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s Comprehensive Layered Integrated Air Defence (CLIAD) architecture. Chinese netizens on social media criticized Pakistan’s operational handling, with one user commenting, “The HQ-9 is capable, but Pakistan’s lack of training made it useless,” per idrw.org.
The HQ-9B’s failure has sparked a crisis of confidence in Pakistan’s air defense network. Unlike the S-400’s multi-layered missile suite and advanced radar integration with India’s Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS), the HQ-9B’s semi-active radar homing requires constant target illumination, making it susceptible to anti-radiation missiles like the Rudram-1 and jamming by IAF Rafale jets. Posts on X, such as by@Ray70409890, highlighted the HQ-9B’s inability to counter BrahMos missiles at Noor Khan airbase, stating, “The results are there for the whole world to see.” Pakistan’s sparse battery count (12–18 launchers vs. India’s 40+ S-400 launchers) further limited its coverage, leaving gaps exploited by Indian low-altitude strikes.
Pakistan’s decision to prioritize the HQ-9B was driven by economic constraints and deepening ties with China via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which facilitated technology transfers for systems like the JF-17 Thunder and HQ-16FE. Russia’s reluctance to supply S-300 or S-350 systems, citing India’s strategic partnership and CAATSA sanctions risks, also pushed Pakistan toward Beijing. However, the HQ-9B’s untested combat performance and reliance on less advanced phased-array radars (vs. the S-400’s AESA suite) have proven inadequate against India’s sophisticated munitions and EW tactics, as seen in Operation Sindoor’s SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) missions.
The fallout has prompted Pakistan to explore alternatives, with reports of interest in Turkey’s S?PER Block 1 and 2 systems, which offer improved resistance to EW and a 70–150 km range, and China’s HQ-19 for anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities. Chinese netizens’ criticism, echoed by@AhmadFarhadReal on X, suggests Pakistan may seek the HQ-19 to replace the HQ-9B, highlighting the latter’s failure to counter even Indian drones. This has strained Pakistan-China defense ties, with Beijing’s global arms market reputation taking a hit, as noted by @jaiswal_sh4296: “Chinese junk defence systems got exposed by India.”
NOTE: AFI is a proud outsourced content creator partner of IDRW.ORG. All content created by AFI is the sole property of AFI and is protected by copyright. AFI takes copyright infringement seriously and will pursue all legal options available to protect its content.