PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

[doggydogdo]

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.

Maybe they are just built in a different factory that uses different logistics and techniques, but the end results are comparable to each other? China has multiple different manpads that have similar stat, this might be the case for HQ-20 and HQ-9C as well

 

[Totoro]

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

It is the most sensible explanation. Or it would be. But it was not shown at the parade as part of army sam systems. Instead it was shown as part of plaaf Sam systems.

 

[Wrought]

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?

HQ-22 replacement is simply HQ-22A, which was paraded right next to HQ-20.

I believe HQ-22 is command guidance, that’s why it is much cheaper.

Semi-active radar homing.

 

[Totoro]

Indeed, so it doesn't make sense for hq20 to be a replacement of it. Which doesnt help us determine where hq20 fits in plaaf sam roster.

 

[Wrought]

Indeed, so it doesn't make sense for hq20 to be a replacement of it. Which doesnt help us determine where hq20 fits in plaaf sam roster.

Could be that PLAAF simply wants to deploy medium-range systems like HQ-16, which were previously only deployed by PLAGF. To improve IADS coverage density by adding another layer or whatever. Just because it's air force doesn't mean it can't be HQ-16 successor.

If true, we would expect to see HQ-20 also showing up in army service down the line. So that's an easy way to test the hypothesis.

 

[F=XX Corsair]

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?

well its dimensions are fairly similar to the HQ-11/FM-3000 so maybe this could be the long rumored UVLS-quadpackable 555 missile.

 

[ougoah]

well its dimensions are fairly similar to the HQ-11/FM-3000 so maybe this could be the long rumored UVLS-quadpackable 555 missile.

View attachment 164410

The canister for HQ-20 is like 50%-70% longer than HQ-11's.

 

[ougoah]

Could be that PLAAF simply wants to deploy medium-range systems like HQ-16, which were previously only deployed by PLAGF. To improve IADS coverage density by adding another layer or whatever. Just because it's air force doesn't mean it can't be HQ-16 successor.

If true, we would expect to see HQ-20 also showing up in army service down the line. So that's an easy way to test the hypothesis.

Indeed, so it doesn't make sense for hq20 to be a replacement of it. Which doesnt help us determine where hq20 fits in plaaf sam roster.

HQ-20 and HQ-16 appear to overlap in terms of range. They do differ significantly in other ways though which would suggest there's a possibility the HQ-20 is not a successor to the HQ-16.

The HQ-20's diameter is significantly thinner than HQ-16 and the missile is possibly also a little shorter. The HQ-16 certainly carries a much larger warhead which is also the case for the HQ-9B. Larger warheads suggest proximity fuse type missiles. It would not be a silly move to preserve both lines of promixity kill and direct hit to kill types of SAMs. China certainly has that capacity to manufacture all these dozen or so lines of HQ series or missiles and mass produce them at affordable prices for the PLA.

I don't think there's been any news of HQ-16 production being stopped. While both HQ-16 and HQ-20 are medium range SAMs, they may have different strengths and secondary functions.

HQ-22/A is between that medium to long range and is basically a very affordable HQ-9 series with shorter range, smaller warhead, lower level components etc.

We have an ecosystem of missiles that are longer in range than HQ-9B or focused on ABM and an ecosystem that is shorter in range than the HQ-20. Those are arguably more complex since they're greater in numbers. I can't keep track of all the PLA SHORADs and ABM systems anymore. There are too many to remember without a spreadsheet tracking them and all the shreds of details we've gotten over the years.

So to sum up the "mid range tier" there is the HQ-20 with possibly the shortest range of the three but most likely the best performance, the HQ-16 with heavy warhead and possibly a bit more flexibility in use (surface to surface secondary role like HQ-9A/B) and HQ-22/A with the highest range.

Mobility of these systems probably is the main justification for having these lines.

 

[Wrought]

HQ-20 and HQ-16 appear to overlap in terms of range. They do differ significantly in other ways though which would suggest there's a possibility the HQ-20 is not a successor to the HQ-16.

The HQ-20's diameter is significantly thinner than HQ-16 and the missile is possibly also a little shorter. The HQ-16 certainly carries a much larger warhead which is also the case for the HQ-9B. Larger warheads suggest proximity fuse type missiles. It would not be a silly move to preserve both lines of promixity kill and direct hit to kill types of SAMs. China certainly has that capacity to manufacture all these dozen or so lines of HQ series or missiles and mass produce them at affordable prices for the PLA.

I don't think there's been any news of HQ-16 production being stopped. While both HQ-16 and HQ-20 are medium range SAMs, they may have different strengths and secondary functions.

HQ-22/A is between that medium to long range and is basically a very affordable HQ-9 series with shorter range, smaller warhead, lower level components etc.

We have an ecosystem of missiles that are longer in range than HQ-9B or focused on ABM and an ecosystem that is shorter in range than the HQ-20. Those are arguably more complex since they're greater in numbers. I can't keep track of all the PLA SHORADs and ABM systems anymore. There are too many to remember without a spreadsheet tracking them and all the shreds of details we've gotten over the years.

So to sum up the "mid range tier" there is the HQ-20 with possibly the shortest range of the three but most likely the best performance, the HQ-16 with heavy warhead and possibly a bit more flexibility in use (surface to surface secondary role like HQ-9A/B) and HQ-22/A with the highest range.

Mobility of these systems probably is the main justification for having these lines.

I was considering much the same possibility, that HQ-20 is the mid-range ABM (i.e. HTK) whereas HQ-9C is the long-range one. The shape would certainly lend itself to that use case. Then you have HQ-16 as the mid-range blast-fragmentation, whereas HQ-9B is the long-range one. And HQ-22/A as the discount version in between.

Such a setup would offer you comprehensive coverage, but obviously at a considerable financial and logistical burden to maintain so many different systems.

 

[Tanker_MG]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

;
It is the HQ13 apparently a new SHORAD missile system first mounted on the CLT181A chassis (Mengshi III)

image 2 from a CCTV7 vid

The original X.com post is from a Japanese author (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) that had this information:
The HQ-13 SHORAD operated by the PLA 72nd Group Army Air Defense Brigade. Based on the Mengshi armored vehicle, a single vehicle carries eight SAMs with a range of approximately 20km, serving as a field air defense vehicle. Variants include a radar vehicle and a 35mm autocannon type. Export designation FB-10A. Due to changes in the anticipated combat environment, the HQ-13 series is gradually becoming mainstream, replacing the mass-produced Type 625. The vehicle itself was confirmed by a test unit two years ago.