PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

doggydogdo

Junior Member
Registered Member
PLAAF did, though? Having two almost the same missiles is arguably not the best of plans either.
Are you talking about PL-15 and PL-16? That's different because the weapons bays of J-20s can't be changed unlike the size of UVLS. If UVLS could only fit 2 HHQ-9C then the best choice is to replace it with a more specialized VLS around 45cm x 45cm which wouldn't waste any space and allow the Ships to pack ~100% more SAMs, using different types of VLS cells is quite common and wouldn't be hard for PLAN to implement.
 

qwerty3173

Junior Member
Registered Member
Are you talking about PL-15 and PL-16? That's different because the weapons bays of J-20s can't be changed unlike the size of UVLS. If UVLS could only fit 2 HHQ-9C then the best choice is to replace it with a more specialized VLS around 45cm x 45cm which wouldn't waste any space and allow the Ships to pack ~100% more SAMs, using different types of VLS cells is quite common and wouldn't be hard for PLAN to implement.
No, the ideal UVLS will be even larger to accomadate quad packing advanced SAM and ABM while also being able to hold next-generational hypersonic weapons.
 

Gloire_bb

Colonel
Registered Member
Are you talking about PL-15 and PL-16? That's different because the weapons bays of J-20s can't be changed unlike the size of UVLS. If UVLS could only fit 2 HHQ-9C then the best choice is to replace it with a more specialized VLS around 45cm x 45cm which wouldn't waste any space and allow the Ships to pack ~100% more SAMs, using different types of VLS cells is quite common and wouldn't be hard for PLAN to implement.
Nono, I meant, HQ-9s(and GBAD overall) are also a PLAAF asset/mission.
The idea is that while it is certainly not impossible to have two close missiles - general practice is that having overall more missiles in storage(even if fewer per ship) is more important than having more missiles deployed in cells(but fewer overall).
 
Top