PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
HQ-11 and -16 are different tiers though; 11/17A are on a similar level.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on the variant of HQ-16 in question (the earliest HQ-16 variant and HQ-11 gets pretty close to one another).

But ultimately the difference in launch vehicle size, mobility, layout, and launch setup are the most significant differentiators. HQ-11 is far closer to HQ-16 than it is to HQ-17 in that regard.

If HQ-11 was also mounted on a single vehicle that was able to accompany maneuver brigades and also to fire on the move then I'd certainly agree more with it being an "upscale HQ-17".
 
Squadson

Squadson

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is there any particular reason for the PLA to introduce the HQ-20 air defense missile system? Previously, we have seen the HQ-20 deployed alongside the JY-27 and YLC-8 radars, which operate in the VHF/UHF bands and are designed to detect low-RCS targets like Jassm or Lrasm, rather than ballistic missiles. Does this indicate that the HQ-20 is likely intended to function as a medium- to long-range air defense system, possibly optimized to counter stealthy cruise missiles or other LO aerial threats?
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Colonel
Registered Member
Squadson said:
Is there any particular reason for the PLA to introduce the HQ-20 air defense missile system? Previously, we have seen the HQ-20 deployed alongside the JY-27 and YLC-8 radars, which operate in the VHF/UHF bands and are designed to detect low-RCS targets like Jassm or Lrasm, rather than ballistic missiles. Does this indicate that the HQ-20 is likely intended to function as a medium- to long-range air defense system, possibly optimized to counter stealthy cruise missiles or other LO aerial threats?
Click to expand...
We don't know.
It appears a bit similar to Russian S-350, i.e. a lower footprint(air transportable), lower range, higher density asset compared to S-400/HQ-9.
Less, smaller vehicles, more missiles. But until we actually see a full battery rather than that satellite photo, hard to tell what exactly PLA thinks. There are many broadly similar medium systems around the world, all do slightly different things.
 
Last edited:
LCR34

LCR34

Junior Member
Registered Member
totenchan said:
Isn't HQ-11 mostly assigned to point defense of air defense sites? How is that remotely similar to 17A, which is presumably supposed to accompany medium CABs? I guess the missiles are similar?
Click to expand...
What I meant was the HQ11 missile , sometimes called FM3000, looks like an upscaled 9M338.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Colonel
Registered Member
LCR34 said:
What I meant was the HQ11 missile , sometimes called FM3000, looks like an upscaled 9M338.
Click to expand...
9M330*
This is where Chinese and Russian "Tors" (and their derivatives/relatives) split apart. As in many other cases(like, HQ-16 family for example), China and Russia develop systems in different directions and for different niches. Which is quite fascinating to watch.
 
S

slithly

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
HQ-11 is this:
1un2N7s.jpeg


HQ-17 is this:
View attachment 171626


I wouldn't call HQ-11 an upscaled HQ-17 at all; the vehicle, TEL, mobility of each are so different.

It's more like HQ-11 can be seen as a more integrated (TELAR for some launchers in a battery) and slightly shorter range HQ-16, and with accompanied with 1130 gatling gun as part of its two layered "system".

HQ-17 meanwhile is a modernized Tor (size, mobility inclusive) with contemporary subsystems and networking.
Click to expand...
i think hes talking about the missiles. there is a remarkable similarity between the fm-3000/hq11 and the hq17/9m338. IMO it uses the technology of the hq17/hq17a missile rather than the hq17ae/a based on the size of the guidance section and the antenna palcement1775535259714.png1775535504612.png
 

Attachments

  • 1775535088641.png
    1775535088641.png
    761.8 KB · Views: 28
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top