PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
The use for HQ-20 is still something I can't wrap my head around. The parade clearly put it within PLAAF ranks, even though simplest explanation might be it's an Army system to replace HQ-16. But obviously it's not.
I had hoped the missile is somehow the same as the one used in HQ-9C, so in essence it would be similar to what S350 is to S400. Same missile shared by two SAM systems. But it's not that either.
HQ-22 replacement is, I guess, also logical, but then again, HQ-22 hasn't been around even a decade, was it? Does it really need a replacement? Its missile certainly also looks fairly modern and not too dissimilar to what we now saw in that HQ-20 image.
So what is HQ-20 for? Is there really a need for yet another medium range SAM for PLAAF?
There's the HQ-11 for immediate base defense.
There's the HQ-9C for short to medium range
there's the HQ-22 for medium range and volume coverage
There's the HQ-9B for long range
Is perhaps HQ9C so expensive that it can't be used for volume coverage? And HQ20 is meant to be mass produced?
Or is HQ22 already so obsolete that a new variant came, which then got redesigned to much that in the end it received everything new, the missile, launchers etc.
What other plausible options are there?
I had hoped the missile is somehow the same as the one used in HQ-9C, so in essence it would be similar to what S350 is to S400. Same missile shared by two SAM systems. But it's not that either.
HQ-22 replacement is, I guess, also logical, but then again, HQ-22 hasn't been around even a decade, was it? Does it really need a replacement? Its missile certainly also looks fairly modern and not too dissimilar to what we now saw in that HQ-20 image.
So what is HQ-20 for? Is there really a need for yet another medium range SAM for PLAAF?
There's the HQ-11 for immediate base defense.
There's the HQ-9C for short to medium range
there's the HQ-22 for medium range and volume coverage
There's the HQ-9B for long range
Is perhaps HQ9C so expensive that it can't be used for volume coverage? And HQ20 is meant to be mass produced?
Or is HQ22 already so obsolete that a new variant came, which then got redesigned to much that in the end it received everything new, the missile, launchers etc.
What other plausible options are there?
HQ-9C is not short to medium range, that's where you are wrong. It's still a pretty big missile. HQ-20 is the new medium range SAM.
HQ-9C is optimised for rate of climb -> altitude and intercepting ballistic missiles. It is a bit of a PAC-3MSE analogue in that it is optimised to perform ABM in terminal phase.
It's much less suited to intercepting aircrafts at that slant range.
"Medium range" aka 50km to 150km slant range is covered by HQ-16 series (developed with Almaz Antey and based on modern Buk), HQ-20 (new series), and HQ-22 (based on the KS-1/ HQ-12 series). These missiles are all a bit more all-purpose, generalist. The long range and BMD missiles are all specific purpose. HQ-9B can be considered the generalist long range missile.
It's much less suited to intercepting aircrafts at that slant range.
"Medium range" aka 50km to 150km slant range is covered by HQ-16 series (developed with Almaz Antey and based on modern Buk), HQ-20 (new series), and HQ-22 (based on the KS-1/ HQ-12 series). These missiles are all a bit more all-purpose, generalist. The long range and BMD missiles are all specific purpose. HQ-9B can be considered the generalist long range missile.
Well we don't know it's range, it was not disclosed. I just put in a generic bracket. I could've also made a list like this:
There's the HQ-11 for immediate base defense. 20-30 km?
There's the HQ-9C for short to medium range 60-120 km?
there's the HQ-22 for medium range and volume coverage 100-170 km?
There's the HQ-9B for long range 260 km?
We don't know the HQ-9C range but by some logic, it should not go over HQ-22's range, which is also disputed. I do think the 170 km figure started as erroneously listing radar range as missile range and it stuck as missile range. with later people simply making up rationalizations like: 100 km is for export only, 170 is for domestic variant. but we don't know the true range.
Why should HQ-9C be shorter ranged than HQ22? Because it wasnt, then what would even be the point of HQ22? Being double packed, C to B should already be cheaper regular HQ9B, meaning the volume argument for HQ22, even over HQ9C, isn't as strong.
That being said if indeed HQ22 is just 100 km, then the hq9C is likely very close in range to it. Perhaps too close to make sense, having two similar systems.
If HQ22 is closer to 170 km in range, then hq9c might have more sense, if it was 80 or 100 km or so.
But HQ-20 makes more sense if HQ-22 is closer to 100. Then there's a huge gap to HQ9B, one which may be explained by a new missile - the HQ20. If it was, say, 150-200 km.
Another, alternative line of thought is that HQ20 is simply a very dedicated ABM missile. something to offer huge initial speed but little in the way of sustainment. but frankly, those images don't really seem like they'd make a good dedicated ABM system. Body is too long, too narrow. Lacks stages. And anything that was sort half and half designed, both for ABM and aircraft, gets us back to square one - where HQ20 struggles to have a space in between HQ9C and HQ22.
There's the HQ-11 for immediate base defense. 20-30 km?
There's the HQ-9C for short to medium range 60-120 km?
there's the HQ-22 for medium range and volume coverage 100-170 km?
There's the HQ-9B for long range 260 km?
We don't know the HQ-9C range but by some logic, it should not go over HQ-22's range, which is also disputed. I do think the 170 km figure started as erroneously listing radar range as missile range and it stuck as missile range. with later people simply making up rationalizations like: 100 km is for export only, 170 is for domestic variant. but we don't know the true range.
Why should HQ-9C be shorter ranged than HQ22? Because it wasnt, then what would even be the point of HQ22? Being double packed, C to B should already be cheaper regular HQ9B, meaning the volume argument for HQ22, even over HQ9C, isn't as strong.
That being said if indeed HQ22 is just 100 km, then the hq9C is likely very close in range to it. Perhaps too close to make sense, having two similar systems.
If HQ22 is closer to 170 km in range, then hq9c might have more sense, if it was 80 or 100 km or so.
But HQ-20 makes more sense if HQ-22 is closer to 100. Then there's a huge gap to HQ9B, one which may be explained by a new missile - the HQ20. If it was, say, 150-200 km.
Another, alternative line of thought is that HQ20 is simply a very dedicated ABM missile. something to offer huge initial speed but little in the way of sustainment. but frankly, those images don't really seem like they'd make a good dedicated ABM system. Body is too long, too narrow. Lacks stages. And anything that was sort half and half designed, both for ABM and aircraft, gets us back to square one - where HQ20 struggles to have a space in between HQ9C and HQ22.
HQ-22 is a successor to the HQ-12, and a low cost alternative to the HQ-9 series for long range A2/AD (which is the only role it is suited for). It is not great for ballistic or cruise missile interception. Hence there's no reason why HQ-9C ranges can't overlap with HQ-22, as they couldn't be more different in role. One is a cheap long range A2/AD system, while the other is a high end interceptor for advanced threats.
Anyone fimiliar with the type of target the HQ-20 intercepted towards the end of the clip?
Hq22 is cheap, we all know that.
Question is where does hq20 fit between the hq9b and hq9c. Size wise its much closer to c. But unless one is optimized against ballistics, two similarly priced and similarly ranged missiles wouldnt make sense.
Why not? I think the most sensible conclusion is that it's a modern replacement to the HQ 16. Like what the HQ-9C is to the HQ-9B