PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems

Gloire_bb said:

PLAAF did, though? Having two almost the same missiles is arguably not the best of plans either.

Click to expand...

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.

doggydogdo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

doggydogdo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

qwerty3173 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I read somewhere that newer version/variation UVLS might have ~1000 x 1000 mm dimension (from 850 x 850mm), it will be perfect for quadpacked HHQ-9C and future advanced SAM and ABM, etc. But I think current UVLS 850x850mm will stay for long time, similar to MK41 (~64 cm) and MK57 (~71cm)

Will be interisting (and funny) if it is the case as Chinese quadpacked SAM HHQ-9C will be significantly more powerful, more range and more lethal than most (if not all) SAM from MK41

I agree that to have smaller ~450x450mm VLS is not ideal and I think is very unlikely

Has any information surfaced regarding the HHQ-26/29? Will it be a dedicated anti-ballistic missile like the SM-3, or a dual-purpose system like the SM-6 (capable of intercepting aircraft and sea-skimming missiles while also performing an anti-ballistic role)?

Squadson said:

Has any information surfaced regarding the HHQ-26/29? Will it be a dedicated anti-ballistic missile like the SM-3, or a dual-purpose system like the SM-6 (capable of intercepting aircraft and sea-skimming missiles while also performing an anti-ballistic role)?

Click to expand...

SM-6 is anti-ballistic in the same sense S400 or HQ-9B are.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the SM-6 missile is capable of intercepting MRBMs, whereas the HQ-9B has limited capability against SRBMs. I am unaware of how effective the HHQ-9B would be against sea-skimming targets. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the HQ-9/9B against low-altitude supersonic missiles falls short of expectations. It did not perform as expected during the India-Pakistan conflict on May 7th against brahmos and LO scalp missiles. So, I wanted to know: is the HQ-26/29 system much like the SM-6—capable of simultaneously intercepting aircraft, high-speed low-altitude missiles, and short-to-medium-range ballistic targets?

Squadson said:

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the SM-6 missile is capable of intercepting MRBMs, whereas the HQ-9B has limited capability against SRBMs. I am unaware of how effective the HHQ-9B would be against sea-skimming targets. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the HQ-9/9B against low-altitude supersonic missiles falls short of expectations. It did not perform as expected during the India-Pakistan conflict on May 7th against brahmos and LO scalp missiles. So, I wanted to know: is the HQ-26/29 system much like the SM-6—capable of simultaneously intercepting aircraft, high-speed low-altitude missiles, and short-to-medium-range ballistic targets?

Click to expand...

Isn't HQ-29 that very large tube thing? I find it very hard for it to be capable of low altitude interception given it's massive size. While HQ-26 AFAIK doesn't exist officially and isn't confirmed to actually be a thing yet no?

Squadson said:

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the SM-6 missile is capable of intercepting MRBMs, whereas the HQ-9B has limited capability against SRBMs. I am unaware of how effective the HHQ-9B would be against sea-skimming targets. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the HQ-9/9B against low-altitude supersonic missiles falls short of expectations. It did not perform as expected during the India-Pakistan conflict on May 7th against brahmos and LO scalp missiles. So, I wanted to know: is the HQ-26/29 system much like the SM-6—capable of simultaneously intercepting aircraft, high-speed low-altitude missiles, and short-to-medium-range ballistic targets?

Click to expand...

How do you expect the HQ-9/9B to perform against brahmos and scalp?

Jason_ said:

How do you expect the HQ-9/9B to perform against brahmos and scalp?

Click to expand...

It can and it works, but there are obvious limitations.
First, system itself: design is not particularly accurate, and the way these missiles solve low altitude engagements is by throwing missiles downwards into interception point (and then deleting the whole area with 150-180kg warhead - more than many ASCMs).
It also sometimes works rather badly against really low flying terrain huggers overland.

I.e. yes, it is doable and works, but it is a bit of a workaround, and broadly you want a more specialist missile and SAM.

Second one is HQ-9 to my knowledge doesn't have mobile masts like S-300/400 family. In permanent fortification it isn't much of a deal(you can have radar towers which are obviously better), but it's only if you're fixed and rich.

Pakistan made do with normal SAM positions, and this adds only some overhang over surrounding area.