PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
To my eyes, HQ9C and HQ20 are quite close in length.
1762956523979.png


hq11 and 20.jpg

Too bad the trucks arent the same, but they seem pretty close. If one assumed the tyres are of same size, then HQ20 container is even slightly longer than hq9c container. by approximately 10 percent. both should be cold launched missiles, unlike the hot launched hq11.
Too bad we don't even have a baseline measurement for hq11. i'd say its container 3.5 to 4 m long, but who knows.
If someone knows the exact length of truck used or dimensions of the tyres, that'd be very helpful.

What is apparent is that hq20 container is more or less 50% longer than hq11. Which doesnt translate into 50% longer missile, as hq20 is cold launched, so it doesnt occupy the same length percentage of the container as the hq11. But still, we could be looking at a 5 m to 5.5 m long missile. Which might then make the hq9c roughly 5 meters long? Important to keep in mind is that the naval HHQ9c is longer, as it has an additional booster stage, adding some 30% to missile's length. (assuming the baseline missile is the same) So that one might indeed be like 6.5 meters long, give or take. In other words, it's almost as long as the baseline HQ9B.
 
The Observer

The Observer

Junior Member
Registered Member
F=XX Corsair said:
size wise using Russian missiles as a scale:

FK-3B ≈ 9M100E
HQ-11 ≈ 9M96E
HQ-20 ≈ 9M96E2

View attachment 164438
View attachment 164439
Click to expand...

Actually, size wise I think FK-3B is around 9M96E sized. Below is a pic of quad packed 9M96 missile on the S-400 system, right beside a 48N6 missile canister.

1762963080137.png

If we compare that with the HQ-22 pic & discount the increased spacing for FK-3B mounting solution, they're pretty much in the same ballpark size wise.

1762963196436.png
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Okay, so I finally got around to doing some research and measurement. To the best of my ability, the truck that HQ11 and HQ20 use might be Taian TA5450 model. Sadly, manufacturer's website doesn't seem to work, I can't find exact dimensions. Some third hand sources claim between 11.1 m and 12 m length but both can't really be taken at face value. There's also a claim the truck uses a 16.00R20 type tires, which should be 1.343 mm in diameter. Again, can't be sure that's the actual tire.

But IF one takes that at face value, then the 11-12 m truck gives 3.9 to 4.25 m length for HQ11 missile container. If the tire size is used as measurement, then conatainer length goes up to 4.5 m

For HQ20, using the 11-12 m long truck, one gets 6.55 to 7.05 m long container. Using the tire, one gets 6.55 m long container.

Now, for HQ9c, i found that it likely uses Taian TA5380 model. again, it's length is not sure, though some third hand sources mention 11 m.
There's no claims on the tire type and size. So i can only assume, perhaps erroneously, that the same or very similar tire diameter is involved.
Now, using a 11 m long truck, missile container goes to 6.4 m. If the truck is 12 m long, then missile container might be 7 m long.
And if the tire is of same diameter, then the container might be also 7.1 m.

So, I would say there's fairly decent likelihood that HQ11 container is around 4.2 m long, give or take a few tens of centimeters. Given the missile is hot launched, most of the container should be filled by the missile itself, with perhaps only a few centimeters of clearance. Which might give a 4.1 m long missile. Again, give or take a few tens of centimeters.

For HQ20 and HQ9c, missiles are cold launched. which means there's a spherical gas generator with a diameter just under the diameter of the container.

Using the 1.343 mm for tire diameter as a reference, the diameter of the HQ9c works out to 50 cm. The gas generator inside is of course slightly narrower, but likely not by much. And there should be a pusher plate in between the gas generator and the missile. Assuming the length of the container is approximately 7 m, and accounting for various clearances, the missile inside could be something like 6.3 m long. Again give or take a few tens of centimeters.

Finally, the hq20 container diameter seems to also be like 50 cm wide, though it's getting quite hard to be that precise, due to low resolution. Assuming the missile container is 6.55 m long, and deducting the gas canister, pusher plate and clearances, the missile might be something like 5.85 m long. Again give or take few tens of centimeters.

So indeed HQ9C, in its base form, seems to be slightly longer than hq20. Shoutout to Albatross.

Interestingly, if the above figures are true, and if the container at the parade was for the boosterless hq9c (as we saw in different pla videos, hq9c being fired didn't have a booster) then the naval hhq9c might be astonighingly long, at little over 8 meters.

I would certainly appreciate more people offering links, sources, their own measurements and so on, so we can get to the bottom of this.
 
Last edited:
A

Albatross

New Member
Registered Member
Totoro said:
Okay, so I finally got around to doing some research and measurement. To the best of my ability, the truck that HQ11 and HQ20 use might be Taian TA5450 model. Sadly, manufacturer's website doesn't seem to work, I can't find exact dimensions. Some third hand sources claim between 11.1 m and 12 m length but both can't really be taken at face value. There's also a claim the truck uses a 16.00R20 type tires, which should be 1.343 mm in diameter. Again, can't be sure that's the actual tire.

But IF one takes that at face value, then the 11-12 m truck gives 3.9 to 4.25 m length for HQ11 missile container. If the tire size is used as measurement, then conatainer length goes up to 4.5 m

For HQ20, using the 11-12 m long truck, one gets 6.55 to 7.05 m long container. Using the tire, one gets 6.55 m long container.

Now, for HQ9c, i found that it likely uses Taian TA5380 model. again, it's length is not sure, though some third hand sources mention 11 m.
There's no claims on the tire type and size. So i can only assume, perhaps erroneously, that the same or very similar tire diameter is involved.
Now, using a 11 m long truck, missile container goes to 6.4 m. If the truck is 12 m long, then missile container might be 7 m long.
And if the tire is of same diameter, then the container might be also 7.1 m.

So, I would say there's fairly decent likelihood that HQ11 container is around 4.2 m long, give or take a few tens of centimeters. Given the missile is hot launched, most of the container should be filled by the missile itself, with perhaps only a few centimeters of clearance. Which might give a 4.1 m long missile. Again, give or take a few tens of centimeters.

For HQ20 and HQ9c, missiles are cold launched. which means there's a spherical gas generator with a diameter just under the diameter of the container.

Using the 1.343 mm for tire diameter as a reference, the diameter of the HQ9c works out to 50 cm. The gas generator inside is of course slightly narrower, but likely not by much. And there should be a pusher plate in between the gas generator and the missile. Assuming the length of the container is approximately 7 m, and accounting for various clearances, the missile inside could be something like 6.3 m long. Again give or take a few tens of centimeters.

Finally, the hq20 container diameter seems to also be like 50 cm wide, though it's getting quite hard to be that precise, due to low resolution. Assuming the missile container is 6.55 m long, and deducting the gas canister, pusher plate and clearances, the missile might be something like 5.85 m long. Again give or take few tens of centimeters.

So indeed HQ9C, in its base form, seems to be slightly longer than hq20. Shoutout to Albatross.

Interestingly, if the above figures are true, and if the container at the parade was for the boosterless hq9c (as we saw in different pla videos, hq9c being fired didn't have a booster) then the naval hhq9c might be astonighingly long, at little over 8 meters.

I would certainly appreciate more people offering links, sources, their own measurements and so on, so we can get to the bottom of this.
Click to expand...
I think the length difference of the two missiles can also be gauged here though of course the perspective is different. Secondly we have seen HQ-9C containers in the vertical position and they are indeed very long (even longer than HQ-9B?) or at the least just as long.1763029267823.png1763029256387.png
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
1763038291120.png

Red line should be more or less on the same level, though the blue line is a guess. so i'd say containers do seem roughly the same length, a few tens of cm more or less is impossible to gauge from these kind of images.

Interesting is that naval hhq9c mockup I added next to it. It looks quite different. Of course, one explanation is that PLA just can't be bothered to make mockups accurate and there are all sorts of mistakes involved in the mockup. Intentional or not.

Other explanation is that we might be looking at two different missiles. Even disregarding the booster, which could be added or not, despite sharing a similar name, hq9c - the naval one doesn't seem to feature the tapered nose, and is of same diameter throughout. The nose section and radome also looks different. And even the fins might be different.
 
Tomboy

Tomboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
Totoro said:
View attachment 164498

Red line should be more or less on the same level, though the blue line is a guess. so i'd say containers do seem roughly the same length, a few tens of cm more or less is impossible to gauge from these kind of images.

Interesting is that naval hhq9c mockup I added next to it. It looks quite different. Of course, one explanation is that PLA just can't be bothered to make mockups accurate and there are all sorts of mistakes involved in the mockup. Intentional or not.

Other explanation is that we might be looking at two different missiles. Even disregarding the booster, which could be added or not, despite sharing a similar name, hq9c - the naval one doesn't seem to feature the tapered nose, and is of same diameter throughout. The nose section and radome also looks different. And even the fins might be different.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure naval version of the same missile are modified to the Navy's requirements instead of just popping the land based version in a VLS and calling it a day. I've heard something about HHQ-9 being different from HQ-9 as well.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
ougoah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Remember that the HQ-16 is derived from Buk, which is 45 years old now.

In recent years, we've seen SAMs become smaller (such as with the HQ-16), presumably because of improvements in the rocket motors and electronics.

We also see that the HQ-16 is originally designed as a naval system (and these are usually higher-performance and higher-cost) because the cost of losing a ship is really high. In comparison, land based HQ-16s typically protect much lower value targets.

---

So perhaps we will see the HQ-16 remain as the high-end medium-range system, for both the Navy and on land.

So the HQ-20 would become the affordable land-based version
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top