This is a half truth. PLAN's SAMs are based on PLA SAMs and there is a slight delay in receiving the latest compared to PLA because a newer missile requires some work to get navalised. It is this period of time required to navalise a new missile or upgrade that gives people the idea that PLAN is "one generation behind" when it is not. At least not in a way that PLA receives HQ-9B and that moment is when PLAN receives HHQ-9 in a form that is the equivalent of HQ-9A.
In reality, it would be more like HQ-9B is ready for service (all the development, testing, production changes at factories are done) and delivered to PLA. At some time after this point, the developers begin working on navalised version of it. Some amount of time to get this done and then PLAN's new batches of HHQ-9 are the naval equivalents of HQ-9B.
The factories would NOT be making HQ-9A when HQ-9B is the latest production. PLAN would have a lot of the older generation left and not all of them would be recycled/modded or tested or used up in training and exercises hence an even greater delay but the whole thing is a continuum with many dependents. It is no rule or general observation that PLAN's HHQ missiles are one block generation behind PLA's HQ missiles. In the case of HHQ-9 and HQ-9B, the latter has been in service with PLA for over 10 years now. The factories making HQ-9 missiles have been making only HQ-9B type for over 10 years. HQ-9A has not been made for over 10 years. How on earth would PLAN be receiving HQ-9A missiles still when the thing hasn't been made for over 10 years. During that time, much of the inventory would have been used in training and exercising if the argument is PLAN has left overs but 10 year old+ left overs are hardly believable. You're talking about missiles that came with the original Type 052C with revolver style VLS and for the first Type 052D supplied missiles.
As for HQ-16B and HQ-16A (for HHQ-16), maybe. I'm not sure and have not seen the videos you're referring to.
Maybe HHQ-16 is on two different production lines (doubt it though) so the above reasoning would be applicable to the 16. If PLAN uses HHQ-16 in the form of HQ-16A equivalents, it could be because the time required I was referring to above is not completed to navalise HQ-16B and they want to replace HQ-16 with quad packed 555 so haven't bothered to navalise HQ-16B? Maybe the videos showing HHQ-16 launch off Type 054A frigates are really old footage? So many possible explanations for your observation. Your observation definitely is not conclusive since footage may simple be many, many years old. Or it just so happens to show a launch of HHQ-16(A). Like Type 054A frigates currently are on 80% 20% HQ-16B to HQ-16A equivalents and we get to see HQ-16A getting launched. That would make sense in other ways too.
Last edited:
