Chinese Air to Air Missiles

joshjosh said:
It's odd that some reputable publications keep saying 300km then. I've seen this figure so many times that I had begun to believe it.
Click to expand...

That's because Wikipedia cited some articles from years and years ago when the designation for PL-15 was mixed up with what we now know as PL-17.

Keeping in mind that effective ranges depend on launch and target characteristics, the PL-15 is a 200km class missile, PL-17 is a 400km class missile.

For some reason people split the difference between them and took the PL-15 as 300km. Bizarre
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Yes, there was conflation between the PL-15 and PL-17 I believe.

PL-15E placard gave 145km range.
Click to expand...
Range without more detail means nothing.
-Fired from what altitude and speed ?
-Against a target at what altitude, speed and in high G or straight away?
-what kind of pk ? NEZ or less?

A Meteor in a rocket mode fire can travel more than 300km. Is it able to shoot a 9G fighter at the end? probably not.
 
BonPlan2 said:
Range without more detail means nothing.
-Fired from what altitude and speed ?
-Against a target at what altitude, speed and in high G or straight away?
-what kind of pk ? NEZ or less?

A Meteor in a rocket mode fire can travel more than 300km. Is it able to shoot a 9G fighter at the end? probably not.
Click to expand...

These range figures are typically referring to optimum conditions, a non-maneuvering head on target
 
PL-15 range has multiple indications of being 200 km. There's this interview with Wang Jiaying an engineer (some say deputy lead of the program) working with AVIC CAMA (China Air-to-Air Missiles Academy in Luoyang)

1762248901313.png

Then we have multiple instances of USAF officials saying Chinese missiles may out range US ones and that's why AIM260 is needed, plus the crash course development of AIM260. Given the size and form of AIM260, it's unlikely to be meant to counter PL-17, and it's rather a counter to PL-15 and future similar sized chinese missiles.

Finally, we have the India Pakistan May fight, where individuals from both sides said missiles were fired at distances of 200 km.

PL-15 was in testing in 2011 (pre-testing work and design was probably done even in late 2000s) and in service from 2016.
 
View: https://youtu.be/g6JN3wKjeAg?si=BZkI_mjtOCarWrnB


Indian defence journalists are saying its +250

the truth that air-to-air warfare has been redefined by longrange air-to-air missiles. So there is something called the Chinese PL-15. It's believed to be extremely advanced. Uh somebody I spoke to told me that it's essentially one big flying gas can. But if that is something that gives it uh the range to get to 250 km plus, then India is in trouble. uh we
are in trouble visa v Pakistan and we are in trouble visa v China which operates the same missile and therefore everything associated with the Rafale which has a phenomenal missile called the meteor uh you know is something that goes into a bit of a question um because
Click to expand...
 
Blitzo said:
That's because Wikipedia cited some articles from years and years ago when the designation for PL-15 was mixed up with what we now know as PL-17.

Keeping in mind that effective ranges depend on launch and target characteristics, the PL-15 is a 200km class missile, PL-17 is a 400km class missile.

For some reason people split the difference between them and took the PL-15 as 300km. Bizarre
Click to expand...
Then someone needs to fix this on wikipedia to stop the spread.

AIM-260 countering PL15 is sufficient for stealth platforms. At least for now while onger ranged PL17 are still not widespread.
Longer ranges will require larger missiles which is uncertain at this time if NGA or F/A-XX have accounted for this yet.
But legacy and non-stealthy aircrafts will need the longer range missiles to stay safe or to support the stealthy platforms.
 
I think it is important to point out that at the ranges being quoted, only unmaneuvering targets are truly at risk. Flight times must edge into double digit minutes.
 
Nx4eu said:
The lack of foresight,
Click to expand...
Not really. More like there was no compelling reason to develop better. The US could have had better decades ago but here was no need. Why develop a weapon for which there is no need or the cost/benefit isn't there? Could have been flying with things like these decades ago:

Lt_Ayers_and_prototype_AIM-95_1970.jpg

dcdc2c42ad96dd6f5fc5464d9a0e180dcd7d409a.jpeg

K8t96uY.jpg

yaim-152a-1.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1775736934945.png
    1775736934945.png
    230.9 KB · Views: 283
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom