China's new land-based mid-range SAM HQ-16

**antiterror13** · 09-30-2011, 05:30 AM

New surface to air missile ready for action: PLA - People's Daily Online

Official military media for the first time acknowledged Monday that China's new land-based mid-range Surface to Air Missile (SAM) system has reached operational capability. Military observers say that deployment of this missile system will boost China's air defense capability.

The new SAM system, dubbed by foreign media as the Hongqi-16, or Red Flag-16, has been delivered to an air defense unit in the Shenyang Military Region.

In a recent drill, two HQ-16 missiles fired by the unit successfully hit their aerial targets, the official website of the People's Liberation Army Daily reported Monday.

As well as being able to engage aerial targets at high altitude, the mid-range HQ-16 is also able to intercept very low-flying targets at a distance of up to about 40 kilometers, filling the gap between the HQ-7 short-range SAM and the HQ-9 long-range SAM systems, Lan Yun, editor of Modern Ships, a Beijing-based military magazine, told the Global Times.

According to Modern Navy, the official magazine of the PLA Navy, the naval variant of the missile system, which has been fitted on Type 054A frigates, can intercept sea-skimming missiles that fly less than 10 meters above the sea surface.

In modern air attacks, large numbers of land-attack cruise missiles, such as the US Tomahawk missile, are being used, Lan said. "They fly about 50 meters above the ground to avoid early radar warning and interception attempts," he added.

But the current mid-range SAM missile system HQ-12 can only engage targets that fly 300 meters above ground, according to the promotion brochure of its export version, called the KS-1A system.

"Besides the low-altitude engagement capability, the HQ-16 is also more accurate than the HQ-12. The deployment of the land-based HQ-16 can greatly enhance the mainland's capability to counter modern air attacks," Lan said.

**challenge** · 09-30-2011, 07:36 PM

old issue of kanwa magazine, around 1999,mention ajoint sino russian program to developed new gen. of SAM base on SA-11/17.
giving the look of the missile,likely base on SA-11(or SA-17).naval version fired from 051 and sovermeney.

**Lion** · 09-30-2011, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by challenge

old issue of kanwa magazine, around 1999,mention ajoint sino russian program to developed new gen. of SAM base on SA-11/17.
giving the look of the missile,likely base on SA-11(or SA-17).naval version fired from 051 and sovermeney.

In fact shtil, look nothing of HQ-16... If its really a joint develop by Russian/Chinese. It will have install on Russian latest Frigate or at least export to Indian Talwar class Frigate. You see the latest INS Frigate, it still retain the old SA-11 launcher and nothing of VLS.

Russian always show plenty of model and concept in military defence show but hardly anything materialise.
It too claim PLAN 138 DDG Fuzhou will be install with VLS Shtil on brochure but end up still the old SA-11 launcher.

Unless VLS Shtil is installed on INS platform or Russian ships. HQ-16 VLS is completely Chinese indigenous product.
There is no reason Russian will not export such technology of VLS Shtil to India INS if money is a problem for Russian Navy. The only reason is, no such technology is available from them.

**antiterror13** · 10-01-2011, 12:42 AM

HQ-16 is totally different than SHTIL. HQ-16 is hot launched and SHTIL is cold launched

HQ-16 is far more advanced than SHTIL. HQ-16 is completely Chinese indigenous product, perhaps got help from some Russian or western consultants. But nowadays who doesn't anyway, even the USA use a lot of foreign designed on their weapon systems :-)

**SteelBird** · 10-06-2011, 07:45 PM

I found this link while google the web. Just for your reference.

PLA Area Defence Missile Systems

**KingsleyTHP** · 02-27-2012, 10:14 AM

If the HQ16 and HQ19 are joint projects between Russia and China, why doesnt Russia promote them internationally as it usually does with any of its good toys?

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------

Oh and whats the 16's maximum engagement range against terrain hugging targets?

**IronsightSniper** · 02-28-2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by KingsleyTHP

If the HQ16 and HQ19 are joint projects between Russia and China, why doesnt Russia promote them internationally as it usually does with any of its good toys?

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------

Oh and whats the 16's maximum engagement range against terrain hugging targets?

From what I can tell, though the HQ-19 may be "based" off the S-400, I doubt the Russians are having anything legal to do with it as they've made it clear they aren't selling any S-400 technology until they meet their domestic needs for the S-400 first. From a political standpoint, the Russians may want to sell technology to both India and China (for the money), but may want to keep the Chinese side of the deals more low key as they are more friendly to the Indians than the Chinese and the obvious Sino-Indian relations being not great, would deduce that. Of course that's all speculation.

It's very likely that the HQ-16 is based on the Buk, simply on their respective specifications. So assuming they are basically the same, then the HQ-16 should be guided terminally by SARH, like the Buk is. This would require constant radar tracking which means that the best it could do is going to have to be within radar horizon of an object at 10 m altitude. Assuming a 6 m antenna height, the best the radar can do is track the target at about 23 km away. Since that is within engagement range, I can deduce that the Buk can at best, hit a low altitude target from 23 km away.

**nemo** · 02-28-2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Lion

Unless VLS Shtil is installed on INS platform or Russian ships. HQ-16 VLS is completely Chinese indigenous product.
There is no reason Russian will not export such technology of VLS Shtil to India INS if money is a problem for Russian Navy. The only reason is, no such technology is available from them.

HQ-16 VLS cannot possibly be Shtil VLS -- Shtil VLS is merely ready to test mid 2010, while HQ-16 VLS is already operational.

Russia & CIS Defense Policy Blog » Shtil VLS ready for state tests

DATELINE: MOSCOW July 8

The Start Research and Production Center has developed a vertical launcher for Shtil ship-based anti- aircraft guided missiles, Start Assistant General Director for Investments and Marketing Alexander Motovilov told Interfax-AVN.

“We expect the Defense Ministry to organize state tests of the launcher,” he said.

The launcher will be suitable for exports, Motovilov said.

“The navy had been using a launcher for firing one Shtil missile.

The new launcher is capable of firing several missiles,” he said.

The new launcher “will ensure its smart positioning on a ship, as it will be incorporated into the ship’s hull,” Motovilov said.

“The new launcher’s missile firing interval has been reduced by six times, which is important for rapid fire,” he said.

**plawolf** · 02-28-2012, 08:55 PM

Going off the 'logic' of Russian fanboys who want to insist every new Chinese development is based off of something Russian, how could they not conclude that the Shtil VLS is based off of the HQ16?

We have close relationship between Russia and China, supposedly joint development between Russia and China of the systems. Thus, if we follow the line of 'reasoning' those fanboys usually take, then the system that became operational first must be the original while the one that followed must be a copy or derivative.

And please, don't even dream of demanding evidence in support of the theory that the Shtil VLS is a HQ16 copy, because since when had a lack of evidence ever stopped Russian fanboys from claiming Chinese weapons and systems are Russian copies?

**antiterror13** · 02-29-2012, 02:53 AM

hahahhah, I like that

**IronsightSniper** · 02-29-2012, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by plawolf

Going off the 'logic' of Russian fanboys who want to insist every new Chinese development is based off of something Russian, how could they not conclude that the Shtil VLS is based off of the HQ16?

We have close relationship between Russia and China, supposedly joint development between Russia and China of the systems. Thus, if we follow the line of 'reasoning' those fanboys usually take, then the system that became operational first must be the original while the one that followed must be a copy or derivative.

And please, don't even dream of demanding evidence in support of the theory that the Shtil VLS is a HQ16 copy, because since when had a lack of evidence ever stopped Russian fanboys from claiming Chinese weapons and systems are Russian copies?

It's just a VLS