In considering "base HQ-9" vs "evolved HQ-16" there are definitely advantages of incumbency that favour the former. It's not clear (to me at least) what the cost profile of these new generation propellants are like compared to previous generations. It's possible that the cost to achieve X capability is similar between the smaller (newer) and larger (older) munition. If so, the key differences would be mass and volume and how that relates to ship design, magazine depth, and logistics considerations. This is further complicated by VLS compatibility issues, though I think China's likely production numbers and industrial flexibility is such that it can afford to dump both current VLS systems and create another one if doing so is required to package desired munitions efficiently..
Right, well that's where my thinking re post 821 is coming from.
I imagine the ultimate decision as to the longevity of HHQ-16 variants will be a result of information we don't have access to, but I think it's a fair question to challenge just whether HHQ-16 has a proper long term future proof service potential in the PLAN.
SM-6 is 1.5 tonnes but it coexists with SM-2MR at half the weight as the "standard" munition. That's the kind of relationship I am envisioning, if not with HQ-16 itself then with some new, smaller-than-HQ-9-sized missile that can be dual-packed in UVLS. I certainly agree that there will continue to be a clear role for HQ-9 and derivatives in addressing the SM-6/SM-3 space.
Well the SM-6 coexists for now with the SM-2MR and associated variants, partly because they have a large arsenal of SM-2 variants that can be further upgraded with new guidance etc.
In the case of PLAN and the UVLS in particular, do they actually need to introduce a new missile type to the UVLS in the form of HHQ-16 variants? Or couldn't they just use existing HHQ-9 airframe and new super HHQ-9 variants for the long range and very long range roles, respectively?
The missing variables here are the fleet architecture itself, the roles and operational requirements for particular types, and the munitions and sensors to meet those requirements. My conception, whereby HQ-16 can be further evolved and retained on non-AAW "frigate" type vessels as a longer-range complement to the 5-5-5 missile, is basically an extension of the current arrangement, whereas the architecture you describe would seem to imply either fitting HQ-9 to frigate-type vessels, or alternatively limiting frigates to 5-5-5 only and therefore having reduced area coverage compared to what can be achieved today.
I think developing future HHQ-16 variants for H/AJK-16 VLS equipped ships makes sense.
But I think, if I had my way, it would be preferable to not install H/AJK-16 on any additional ships going forwards, and to standardize on UVLS on all new ships that require VLS, and in turn standardize those ships with 5-5-5 and HQ-9 variants as their standard VLS launched SAMs.
