Missile Hsiung Feng III

The Hsiung Feng III originated from a ramjet test vehicle program initiated in 1994, which was subsequently integrated into the Hsiung Feng missile project. Prototype flight testing commenced in 1997. Operational testing and evaluation took place between 2004 and 2005 aboard the ROCS Cheng Kung. The system was publicly revealed during a military parade in October 2007. Development was intended to provide a counter to the SS-N-22 Sunburn missile.

The system is a supersonic missile capable of engaging naval and land-based targets. Propulsion consists of a solid fuel main booster and two jettisonable side-mounted solid-propellant boosters for initial acceleration, transitioning to a liquid-fueled ramjet for sustained cruise. Guidance is provided by an inertial navigation system during the mid-course phase, with terminal guidance handled by an active radar seeker. The missile incorporates electronic counter-countermeasures and is capable of way-pointing to execute offset attack axes. Terminal maneuvers include high-G lateral random weaving at sea-skimming altitudes to evade close-in weapon systems. The missile carries an armor-piercing warhead equipped with self-forging fragments. A smart fuze triggers the warhead to direct energy downward into the interior of the target vessel. An extended-range variant has been developed under the Panlong Project, and an air-launched variant, designated Hsiung Chih, is undergoing testing for use on the F-CK-1 platform.

The Hsiung Feng III is operated by the Republic of China Navy and is widely deployed across several vessel classes, including Kang Ding-class and Cheng Kung-class frigates, as well as Jin Chiang-class patrol gunboats. It is also deployed on road-mobile transporter erector launchers and in hardened bunkers. In July 2016, a missile was accidentally launched from the patrol boat Chinchiang during a training exercise. The missile struck a fishing vessel, resulting in one fatality and three injuries. An investigation by the Ministry of National Defense attributed the incident to a failure by personnel to follow standard operating procedures.