PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems


Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
I would advise against repurposing AAMs to SAMs. The inherent design advantage that SAMs possess is that they don't need to be as light and compact as possible. You can free up those parameters because you're launching them from the ground, where space and weight isn't an issue. This makes their development and procurement cheaper, and you tend to need a lot of them to cover saturation attacks. Rippling hundreds of PL-15s is gonna cost a fortune, especially since most of those shots would be against decoys. Also, a SAM's larger dimension increases the available space for the seeker and ECCM components, which can be larger and more powerful, while being cheaper at the same time since they don't require the same level of miniaturization.
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
I would advise against repurposing AAMs to SAMs. The inherent design advantage that SAMs possess is that they don't need to be as light and compact as possible. You can free up those parameters because you're launching them from the ground, where space and weight isn't an issue. This makes their development and procurement cheaper, and you tend to need a lot of them to cover saturation attacks. Rippling hundreds of PL-15s is gonna cost a fortune, especially since most of those shots would be against decoys. Also, a SAM's larger dimension increases the available space for the seeker and ECCM components, which can be larger and more powerful, while being cheaper at the same time since they don't require the same level of miniaturization.

You're right about electronics warfare factor. SAMs surely would have AAMs beat if they are given the same effort to maximise ECM ECCM.

The cost and production rate factor is definitely there but I still think the HQ-16 can do with a modern replacement that improve speed and range without sacrificing warhead and electronics. For one thing, two stage SAM is more kinematically optimised than something like HQ-16 which has to drag the entire massive frame around when fuel is depleted.

With repurposed AAMs to SAMs, at least the packing is going to be dramatically improved. If a new SAM is developed to be quadpacked onto VLS on ships or vehicles mounting 12 missiles instead of 6, it will suffer from the same issues as the repurposed AAM because it'll be about as thin and demand the same miniaturisation of component along with the same complexity and cost. The difference is those AAMs are already developed and just require some fine tuning and a booster stage. DK-10 is rated at 50km for export. A PL-15 based SAM for PLA with booster stage based on available rocket and fuel tech now, should clear 100km. That's still better range than HQ-16 and better speed.

So it comes down to cons being extra cost, fewer total missiles, weaker or similar ECM ECCM. Advantages; better kinematic performance, more missiles per launch vehicle/VLS, slightly longer range.

I just wish the HQ-16 could ditch a booster stage to improve performance instead of dragging around dead weight. Would make it around mach 4 capable, retain energy for turns and be much harder to defeat by a fighter.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
@Tam

Also, do you think the PLAN's new 5-5-5 "triple 5" SAM is using booster stage? I imagine it's easily quadpacked and similar to a PL-10 or equivalent weight short range missile (most likely a very different looking one) with a booster stage. This gives it its mach 5 capability.

It's got the same declared range as DK-10 but would be nearly a decade more modern and NOT an export missile. It's probably a thinner missile compared to the DK-10 if it's quadpackable.

For that range it can go either way. But if you have a booster stage you can configure the missiles for a shorter range version using a shorter booster and a longer ranged version with a longer booster, something like the Aster 15 and 30.

DK-10 definitely uses a booster. DK-10 is basically SD-10 with a booster.

DK10_1.jpg
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
You're right about electronics warfare factor. SAMs surely would have AAMs beat if they are given the same effort to maximise ECM ECCM.

The cost and production rate factor is definitely there but I still think the HQ-16 can do with a modern replacement that improve speed and range without sacrificing warhead and electronics. For one thing, two stage SAM is more kinematically optimised than something like HQ-16 which has to drag the entire massive frame around when fuel is depleted.

With repurposed AAMs to SAMs, at least the packing is going to be dramatically improved. If a new SAM is developed to be quadpacked onto VLS on ships or vehicles mounting 12 missiles instead of 6, it will suffer from the same issues as the repurposed AAM because it'll be about as thin and demand the same miniaturisation of component along with the same complexity and cost. The difference is those AAMs are already developed and just require some fine tuning and a booster stage. DK-10 is rated at 50km for export. A PL-15 based SAM for PLA with booster stage based on available rocket and fuel tech now, should clear 100km. That's still better range than HQ-16 and better speed.

So it comes down to cons being extra cost, fewer total missiles, weaker or similar ECM ECCM. Advantages; better kinematic performance, more missiles per launch vehicle/VLS, slightly longer range.

I just wish the HQ-16 could ditch a booster stage to improve performance instead of dragging around dead weight. Would make it around mach 4 capable, retain energy for turns and be much harder to defeat by a fighter.


HQ-16 is about the size and weight of RIM-66 Standard give or take 690kg or 715kg vs. 707kg. There is nothing massive about it --- it is a medium sized missile after all, not big, not small, certainly not massive. At only over 5 meters in length it would be undersized on let's say, a 7 meter deep U-VLS cell.

Also the speed can still be boosted like what happened to the 9M317ME variant here. HQ-16B is similar to the 9M317 Buk variant.

Note that it says 960 meters per second for average speed or Mach 2.7, but maximum speed is about 1550 meters per second or Mach 4.5. The average speed is probably for a longer ranged cruise mode wile the maximum speed is for a fast sprint on closer ranges.


9m317me.jpg


DSC_4625.jpg


While there is little detail about the seeker of the HQ-16, which is likely not the same as the Buk's, the Buk's seeker seems related or might be the same seeker used on the R-27 air to air missile, which is a fox 1. AGAT however offered using an active seeker, based on the R-77's, as a replacement upgrade of the seekers, but it doesn't appear this was concluded. However it does tell you that the potential is there to replace the seeker to an active one, and there is the same potential for the HQ-16 seeker to move to another seeker, like the PL-12's or the PL-15's. Possibly even the HQ-9's. If the missile is active seeking, it can likely boost the range, as the missile range is currently limited by the range of the target illuminating radar, and the active seeker makes the missile independent of such a device.

This picture below shows a proposed refit of the Russian owned Sovremenny similar to the PLAN with the VLS installed at that position. The difference of the Russian VLS for the Shtil is that it is cold launched and not hot launched like the HHQ-16.

zs90e-1_271114_1.jpg

It is interesting to note that the missiles have a service life of 15 years, which means that the missiles used for the two earlier Sovremennys and the 052Bs would have been shortly expired by now, and that would justify the refit of these ships to the domestic HQ-16. The last two Sovremennys are newer and still good but they should be in for a change in the next few years.
 
Last edited:

sndef888

Junior Member
Registered Member
HQ-16 is about the size and weight of RIM-66 Standard give or take 690kg or 715kg vs. 707kg. There is nothing massive about it --- it is a medium sized missile after all, not big, not small, certainly not massive. At only over 5 meters in length it would be undersized on let's say, a 7 meter deep U-VLS cell.
It seems overly large when compared to missiles in the same range class like the ESSM which is only 280kg and the CAMM-ER is around 200kg.

The HQ-16 does seem a little outdated by comparison
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
It seems overly large when compared to missiles in the same range class like the ESSM which is only 280kg and the CAMM-ER is around 200kg.

The HQ-16 does seem a little outdated by comparison
I don’t think it is outdated if you look at it from another perspective. HQ-16 as a platform has a lot of room to grow. Theoretically speaking, they can probably push the range to 100+ km. However, since there is no light medium range at the moment, then you are going to "waste" (longer range, more expensive parts, etc.) on less-cost effective targets. Better to use these old missiles and work on improvements in the meantime. The PLA usually tries to be quite cost conscious.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
It seems overly large when compared to missiles in the same range class like the ESSM which is only 280kg and the CAMM-ER is around 200kg.

The HQ-16 does seem a little outdated by comparison

HQ-16 carries a much larger warhead. I don't know what's the exact size of the HQ-16's warhead, but the Buk is about 70kg and has an explosive radius of 17 meters. ESSM is about 39kg and CAMM has never made its public. However, the Aster missile family is only about 15kg. A missile like the R-77 AAM is about 22kg and I would assume the PL-12 is similar. 70kg is a lot of stopping power there to take out a large supersonic missile or deflect it off its course, or has a large explosive radius to counter any inaccuracy. For it to counter let's say, a sea skimming antiship missile flying at 10 meters, the missile only needs to fly at a maximum of 27 meters to splash it, even though the missile's minimum height is 10 meters. [In comparison HQ-9 is said to have a whopping 180kg, although I don't know if that's true, Russian 5V55 is about 155kg. But then you are talking of a 1300kg missile here, while the HQ-16 is about 700kg.]

9M317E is about 70kg/Mach 3, but the 9M317ME is 62kg/Mach 4 along with revised aerodynamics. If you wish to reduce the warhead weight, there is potential for either increased speed or increased range. There is plenty of potential for the HQ-16 if you can lighten the warhead, improve the propellant used, have more efficient aerodynamics, and still retain compatibility with existing equipment---and ships--- that are already on the field.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
This new HQ 17E is amazing does the E mean export? So the domestic version must be better. It can shoot while on the move
The HQ-17AE is the latest model of the "Flying Mongoose" family of short-range air-defense (SHORAD) system developed by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation's Second Academy. It is designed to counter precision-guided munitions such as cruise missiles, guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles. The HQ-17AE is armed with eight surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) that are vertically cold-launched before their rocket motors are ignited. The missile can fly at speeds up to 90 kilometers per hour and can remain fully ready to engage up to four threats simultaneously.

 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
This new HQ 17E is amazing does the E mean export? So the domestic version must be better. It can shoot while on the move
The HQ-17AE is the latest model of the "Flying Mongoose" family of short-range air-defense (SHORAD) system developed by China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation's Second Academy. It is designed to counter precision-guided munitions such as cruise missiles, guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles. The HQ-17AE is armed with eight surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) that are vertically cold-launched before their rocket motors are ignited. The missile can fly at speeds up to 90 kilometers per hour and can remain fully ready to engage up to four threats simultaneously.

If it is on CGTN, my guess it is Export.

Have we seen fire on the move capability before? This could partially explain the PLA choice of separate HQ-17 and PGZ-07, rather than developing a Pantisir/NG Type 95 type all in one AD vehicle. Fire on the move provides the same high mobility capability. I have also yet to see any PLA AAA mounted with SAM as often seen on export models or prototypes.

However, I think they also have gone this route to create more depth, manpower and logistics being lesser concerns.
 

by78

Lieutenant General
New HQ-17A units for troops in Tibet.

51204499540_30ed4aba07_k.jpg

51203638048_fdce112551_k.jpg

51203638018_264ca60832_k.jpg

51203433341_e41416717a_k.jpg

51203433421_f6847efd2a_k.jpg
 

Top