HQ-16 is almost a copy of SM-2MR (RIM-66).
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
HQ-16 is almost a copy of SM-2MR (RIM-66).
Are you totally clueless? HQ-16 is based on Soviet Buk/Shtil missile, nothing to do with Standard.
antiterror13
Brigadier
whattttt? where did you get that, are you kay?
The diameter of HQ-16 is 340mm, same as RIM-66.
Operational range:
HQ-16A=RIM-66A/B (40km)
HQ-16B=RIM-66C (70km)
HQ-16C=RIM-66D (166km)
antiterror13
Brigadier
so with your logic, if the diameter of SAM is the same, it was almost copy?
Where did you learn that logic?
Does anyone know what's the difference between hq-9, hq-16, and hq-22. Or just in general the differences among all the different designation of HONGQI series?
According to wikipedia, PLAGF operates hq-16. Does that mean hq-9 and hq-22 are used by PLAAF? All the different types of SAMs are just really confusing for me. For example, can't hq-16 and hq-22 be swapped? What makes them so unique for a entirely different designation? For a layman like me, S300->S400->S500 means the specifications of systems of similar functions are improving significantly. Can't the SAMs in China form a comprehensive system like S400? If they can, why have so many designations?
Thank you guys in advance for your patience!
According to wikipedia, PLAGF operates hq-16. Does that mean hq-9 and hq-22 are used by PLAAF? All the different types of SAMs are just really confusing for me. For example, can't hq-16 and hq-22 be swapped? What makes them so unique for a entirely different designation? For a layman like me, S300->S400->S500 means the specifications of systems of similar functions are improving significantly. Can't the SAMs in China form a comprehensive system like S400? If they can, why have so many designations?
Thank you guys in advance for your patience!
What with all these new accounts coming out of nowhere constantly making these claims as if they were facts? I think we need some measures against new accounts being made and speaking because they seem to ignore the rules or post some flame-baiting comments.
so with your logic, if the diameter of SAM is the same, it was almost copy?
Where did you learn that logic?
So that HQ-16 is a clone of Buk/Shtil would be more reasonable?
Even these two missiles are in different diameter?
HQ-16 was co-developed with Almaz Antey, the developers of Buk and Shtil (Shtil being the navalised version of the Buk).
HQ-16 was based on the Buk. At least the missile itself when it first reached service. Things have been changed over the years but the HQ-16 is pretty much a Buk relative and co-developed with the Buk's developer.
Therefore saying HQ-16 is a Buk clone is more reasonable than making comparisons with RIM-66 or ESSM or any other missile that also has similar diameter/ similar length/ similar stated range/ cylindrically shaped/ has a pointy front end/ has fins...
"HQ-16 was co-developed with Almaz Antey"?
Where did you get the message? Is three any China official saying?