607 Institute PL-15 BVRAAM

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,049
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Chinese Air-To-Air Missile Hits Targets, Spooks USAF General"
PL-15 is China's best and baddest aerial weapon yet
By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Posted Yesterday at 7:52am

Source:
http://www.popsci.com/chinese-air-to-air-missile-hits-targets-spooks-usaf-general

Beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAM) are long-range missiles used by fighters to knock out enemy fighters, bombers, tankers, drones and other aircraft from ranges beyond 30km. On September 15, 2015, China successfully test fired its latest iteration, the PL-15, firing from a fighter to destroy a target drone.

The PL-15 is developed by the 607 Institute. It is the replacement for China's current BVRAAM, the radar guided, PL-12, which reportedly has a range of approximately 100km. Compared to the PL-12, the PL-15 has an improved active radar seeker and jam-resistant datalinks, along with a dual pulse rocket motor to extend its range.

Even in the prototype stage, the PL-15 is already an international star. Speaking at the 2015 Air Force Association conference the same week as the test, USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM. His reasons for concern is the PL-15's range. By incorporating a ramjet engine, its range could reach 150-200km, was well as its terminal maneuverability. That would out-range existing American air-to-air missiles, making the PL-15 not just a threat to fighters like the F-35, but also to US bombers and aerial tankers critical to American air operations across the vast Pacific. General Carlisle called "out-sticking" the PL-15 a high priority for the USAF.

As the PL-15 moves to deployment stage, it will equip Chinese stealth fighter jets, such as the J-20 and J-31, as well as the older J-10, J-11, J-15 and J-16 fighters. This makes keeping up with the PL-15 an important part of American efforts to out-do an innovative and improving Chinese military system.
 

Attachments

  • j-11b_pl-15.jpg
    j-11b_pl-15.jpg
    54.1 KB · Views: 666
The article says "if it was fitted with a ramjet it would have longer range", effectively this is rather stupid. If fitted with a warp drive it would exceed light speed. Unless China are actively pursuing a ramjet version, I don't see the problem.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
The article says "if it was fitted with a ramjet it would have longer range", effectively this is rather stupid. If fitted with a warp drive it would exceed light speed. Unless China are actively pursuing a ramjet version, I don't see the problem.
It *seems* they were working on ramjet designs a few years back, but Chinese missile development has been much more opaque than some of their other programs.
 
Serves me right for posting a new topic based on an article from Popular Science magazine. :-[ Perhaps they are confusing the PL-15 with the PL-21.
 
Triton said:
Serves me right for posting a new topic based on an article from Popular Science magazine. :-[ Perhaps they are confusing the PL-15 with the PL-21.


Yeah, I've spoken with the writer of the blog, who admits that some details were "simplified" to make it easier for casual readers...

My comment about the inaccuracies:
That said, I can understand why the article is written how it is... we simply don't have enough reliable information about PL-15 at the moment to provide an easy to digest article that doesn't sound too wishy washy. If an article about PL-15 was written accurately with what we know at present, it would have to mention how what was previously thought to be PL-15 may not really be PL-15 and may just be a cropped wing PL-12, that PL-15 may really be a ramjet LRAAM with a suspiciously high range of 400km, that J-20 may be able to carry six crop wing PL-12s in future but we do not know if it will actually occur, and that we don't know if the general is referring to the crop win PL-12 when he says PL-15 or if he's talking about the supposed ramjet variable thrust 400km monster.

His reply:
Blame the space constraints.
angel.gif
The online editors don't like blog pieces going on too long.
giggleghey.gif
And if we condense the whole PL-12/PL-15/PL-21 identity debate into something that your average guy could read on his smartphone while waiting for the barista, it'll be even more confusing then performance art.

I was sort of hesitant to mention the 400km range missile because it sounded a little too alarmist and almost too good to be true (though it's possibly technically possible in the current timeframe).


That said, there is a lot of confusion right now about whether "PL-15" actually refers to the "crop wing" PL-12 seen a few years back (also seen in the weapons bay of J-20 prototype 2002), or if PL-15 refers to a ramjet powered missile, possibly similar to what was dubbed online as "PL-21".
The confusion began with info that J-10C and J-16 recently supposedly conducted successful test fires of "PL-15" and then some folks on the Chinese BBS began saying that PL-15 was actually a ramjet powered variable thrust engine LRAAM with a top range of 400km (yes you read that right)... obviously there were (and are) a lot of skeptics around that claim, though a few supporting posts and a study of such a missile were produced and now it seems like no one really knows what is what anymore -- is PL-15 really a ramjet powered, new super LRAAM, or is it merely a crop wing, extended range PL-12 like AIM-120D is to previous AIM-120 variants?

General Carlisle's comments adds a bit of oil to the fire, and he's said the PL-15's capabilities are "incredible," which seems an odd superlative to use given it is supposedly still in development whereas AIM-120D is already in service with USAF, so if PL-15 were only an AIM-120D missile it seems like a bit of an odd description.

Needless to say, the situation is fluid.
 
Just a note I also wanted to add: with a given range of 400km (or even more) the PL-15 IMO can't be that PL-12-look-alike with the shorter wings/fins. As such I think that this former PL-15 seen under the J-11B and within the J-20's bay is in fact "only" a internal-carriage-version of the PL-12 (maybe the final development of the rumoured PL-12C with foldable tailfins).

And that the true PL-15 is most likely some sort of Sino-Meteor featuring a ramjet motor for long range attack similar to PL-21 or even PL-12D.


Deino
 
Alternate reasoning: USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM.

Boogie man tech
 
VH said:
Alternate reasoning: USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM.

Boogie man tech

Because what we really shouldn't do is concern ourselves with what the other guy is doing. ::)
 
Everybody else in the world is developing a LRAAM, assuming the PL-15 refers to a ramjet powered missile. This puts the US in the awkward position of having a shorter ranged AAM than any competitor. I'd be surprised if USAF didn't want something new.
 
I believe that most of us are in no position to judge whether General "Hawk" Carlisle is exaggerating the threat posed by the PL-15 as a "fund raiser."
 
VH said:
Alternate reasoning: USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM.

Boogie man tech


Possible, but regardless of what General Carlisle's opinions of the PL-15 are, there does seem to be enough of a buzz on the Chinese PLA watching spheres that no one really knows what the missile is meant to be.
 
I haven't seen anyone discussing 400km range for PL-15 except some excitable people discussing a theoretical article. 400km would imply ramjets or large, Phoenix/R-37 class weapons.

Adversaries having a 200km AIM-120D equivalent is plenty scary for US superiority. Up until now they had the bigger stick.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I haven't seen anyone discussing 400km range for PL-15 except some excitable people discussing a theoretical article. 400km would imply ramjets or large, Phoenix/R-37 class weapons.

Adversaries having a 200km AIM-120D equivalent is plenty scary for US superiority. Up until now they had the bigger stick.

What are the odds concerning the USAF acquiring a future LRAAM missile? The last LRAAM missile the US had was the AIM-54 Pheonix but that was for the US Navy's F-14 Tomcat.
 
sferrin said:
VH said:
Alternate reasoning: USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM.

Boogie man tech

Because what we really shouldn't do is concern ourselves with what the other guy is doing. ::)


Is that how you interpreted the response? When ever some technological military breakthrough connected with China is reported I always remember that China is a country that after years of trying and billions of dollars in sunk costs still is not able to produce a decent jet engine.
 
VH said:
sferrin said:
VH said:
Alternate reasoning: USAF Air Combatant Commander General Hawk Carlisle cited the PL-15 as the reason for Congress to fund a new missile to replace the American AMRAAM.

Boogie man tech

Because what we really shouldn't do is concern ourselves with what the other guy is doing. ::)


Is that how you interpreted the response? When ever some technological military breakthrough connected with China is reported I always remember that China is a country that after years of trying and billions of dollars in sunk costs still is not able to produce a decent jet engine.

Except we're not talking about jet engines.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I haven't seen anyone discussing 400km range for PL-15 except some excitable people discussing a theoretical article. 400km would imply ramjets or large, Phoenix/R-37 class weapons.

Adversaries having a 200km AIM-120D equivalent is plenty scary for US superiority. Up until now they had the bigger stick.


Ramjets, definitely ramjets.


And yes, the discussion of a notional PL-15 LRAAM with ramjets was still mostly relegated to the Chinese speaking boards, and even then there is a degree of skepticism... time will tell if it is a dud or a breakthrough.
 
I hope that General "Hawk" Carlisle's comments weren't based solely on things read on Chinese-language forums. I would presume that he would have access to better intelligence than aviation enthusiasts in the People's Republic of China.
 
Triton said:
I hope that General "Hawk" Carlisle's comments weren't based solely on things read on Chinese-language forums. I would presume that he would have access to better intelligence than aviation enthusiasts in the People's Republic of China.


Heh, no reason why Chinese aviation enthusiasts and military watchers and USAF intelligence cannot both get similar information from similar sources; that is, via actual Chinese aerospace industry institutes. Only difference being Chinese military watchers may get the information via "controlled leaks" from insiders in the industry, and USAF intelligence could get it from their own clandestine operations via cyber or HUMINT.


And let's not diss on open source Chinese military watcherstoo much... in quite a few cases in the past, they've been quite a bit ahead of the curve compared to what other more respected think tanks and analysts have put out into the public. The skill is in sorting out the credible from the not so credible.
 
Triton said:
I hope that General "Hawk" Carlisle's comments weren't based solely on things read on Chinese-language forums. I would presume that he would have access to better intelligence than aviation enthusiasts in the People's Republic of China.

They most likely do. When it comes to information on Chinese military development, order of reliability should be CIA/NSA/Pentagon intel, PLA watchers, western journalists. The PLA watchers are generally less reliable, but disclose more information to the public. Intelligence agencies don't want too much out there, lest the information leaves a trail that uncovers their methods. No discretion for classification helps a lot with openness, but method of collection hurts with accuracy. For example, when people chided Gates for his 2020 estimate for the J-20 they were getting ahead of themselves. A 2017-8 IOC (which is what it's starting to look like now) isn't too far off, and if US intel had pegged start of service to readiness of new engines, 2020 would probably have been spot on.

I would imagine that US intelligence will have particular reliability with regards to Chinese missile development. For various reasons (including the generally much lower visibility of missile development and testing compared to planes or ships, and the relatively greater importance of advanced munitions over delivery platforms), Chinese missile development has been less transparent, and the PLA watching community has largely depended on expos, public events, and military exercises to figure out what's out there, a point where new missiles are relatively mature. A state intelligence arm will have much better tools at their disposal for monitoring this stuff, and that's not just cyberespionage.
 
latenlazy said:
They most likely do. When it comes to information on Chinese military development, order of reliability should be CIA/NSA/Pentagon intel, PLA watchers, western journalists.


I'd say information direct from the Chinese military or Chinese military personnel would trump even US govt and military intelligence on certain matters, once we filter their information through the sieve of misinformation.

Compared to US govt and military sources, I think Chinese military watchers are also more able to reveal "emerging developments" -- projects whose existence may not be wholly confirmed but are willing to entertain the possibility of their existence via incremental increases in specific evidence.


Of course it depends on whether we are talking about "what party X knows" versus "what party X is willing to reveal"...
 
Blitzo said:
latenlazy said:
They most likely do. When it comes to information on Chinese military development, order of reliability should be CIA/NSA/Pentagon intel, PLA watchers, western journalists.


I'd say information direct from the Chinese military or Chinese military personnel would trump even US govt and military intelligence on certain matters, once we filter their information through the sieve of misinformation.

Compared to US govt and military sources, I think Chinese military watchers are also more able to reveal "emerging developments" -- projects whose existence may not be wholly confirmed but are willing to entertain the possibility of their existence via incremental increases in specific evidence.


Of course it depends on whether we are talking about "what party X knows" versus "what party X is willing to reveal"...

Depends on what we mean by "direct information". An inside leaker? Maybe. Or Maybe not. Even most of the best leakers only get a snapshot or a small piece of a picture, and have to depend on their own insider hearsay for anything else. I would actually argue that US intel will have a more complete picture than insiders, since they are a larger operation that can aggregate information.

I don't dispute that PLA watchers are more likely to *reveal* emerging developments, but that doesn't mean they find out about emerging developments before US intel does.
 
latenlazy said:
Depends on what we mean by "direct information". An inside leaker? Maybe. Or Maybe not. Even most of the best leakers only get a snapshot or a small piece of a picture, and have to depend on their own insider hearsay for anything else. I would actually argue that US intel will have a more complete picture than insiders, since they are a larger operation that can aggregate information.

I don't dispute that PLA watchers are more likely to *reveal* emerging developments, but that doesn't mean they find out about emerging developments before US intel does.


By "direct information" I suppose I mean explicit statements from the Chinese military or military personnel such as via state media or during open day ship visits for the navy, or even revealing new systems at a parade (such as DF-26 at the recent parade, whose designation and existence were only hinted at in previous years and I think whose revelation caught quite a few by surprise).


As for having a comprehensive picture, I would agree with you, where outside the PLA itself, US govt and military intelligence definitely know far more about Chinese military developments than other non-govt entities and communities... however the US govt and military intelligence may not necessarily reveal their knowledge of emerging developments to the public in significant details in a comprehensive way, which is where I think PLA watchers are a better source to watch.


So for the purpose of us observers, US govt or military reports may not be the most useful outlet for trying to keep up with the latest Chinese military developments.
 
VH said:
sferrin said:
Except we're not talking about jet engines.


But we are talking about Chinese technology.

Chinese technological development seems to be doing rather well as a whole. Maybe we should conclude that China's engines are actually doing quite well too! ::)

This baseless presumption thing works both ways.
 
[quote author=latenlazy ]

Chinese technological development seems to be doing rather well as a whole. Maybe we should conclude that China's engines are actually doing quite well too! ::)

This baseless presumption thing works both ways.
[/quote]


I guess the frantic Chinese theft of any and all US technology has no basis.....right? China has become so dependent upon stealing IP that their ability to innovate has just withered away. No 'baseless' presumption there.
 
VH said:
[quote author=latenlazy ]

Chinese technological development seems to be doing rather well as a whole. Maybe we should conclude that China's engines are actually doing quite well too! ::)

This baseless presumption thing works both ways.


I guess the frantic Chinese theft of any and all US technology has no basis.....right? China has become so dependent upon stealing IP that their ability to innovate has just withered away. No 'baseless' presumption there.
[/quote]
Theft is real. What you presume they stole, and what you presume they're using it for may not be.

Guess US innovation just withered away after stealing steam technology from Britain. The US, USSR, and UK all lost their ability to innovate the moment they took rockets and gas turbines from Germany! In fact, America became sooo deficient at innovation after stealing German rocketry that they had to continually steal from Germany to get to the moon! ::) Don't be so simplistic. It's not becoming for someone with strong opinions.
 
The reason for a person to take Chinese technical advancement with a big grain of salt is the countless examples of shoddy Chinese workmanship seen in everyday products. Even without the theft of foreign IP, the Chinese have repeatedly failed to exhibit the necessary precision needed to create high technology products. For example Chinese designed and manufactured cars have repeatedly failed even the most routine safety tests.


If you cannot make a safe domestic car, then how does one expect China to manufacture and deploy advanced air-to-air missiles? Well?
 
VH said:
The reason for a person to take Chinese technical advancement with a big grain of salt is the countless examples of shoddy Chinese workmanship seen in everyday products. Even without the theft of foreign IP, the Chinese have repeatedly failed to exhibit the necessary precision needed to create high technology products. For example Chinese designed and manufactured cars have repeatedly failed even the most routine safety tests.


If you cannot make a safe domestic car, then how does one expect China to manufacture and deploy advanced air-to-air missiles? Well?
Chinese cars have bad safety because safety regulations in China aren't as strict. Are we going to say that 1970s America had shoddy military tech because their cars had crap safety? Oh, I know, Japan must have much better military technology than the US because Japanese cars don't break as often. God Americans are nothing compared to the Japanese in military technology. ::)

By your logic, we should actually presume that China has better military technology than the US because Chinese trains are state of the art and American trains are outdated junk. The quality of one technology in a country is not necessarily indicative of another. Technological capability is not broad based generalizable, especially between military and consumer sectors (different economic forces and incentives are at play).
 
VH said:
The reason for a person to take Chinese technical advancement with a big grain of salt is the countless examples of shoddy Chinese workmanship seen in everyday products. Even without the theft of foreign IP, the Chinese have repeatedly failed to exhibit the necessary precision needed to create high technology products. For example Chinese designed and manufactured cars have repeatedly failed even the most routine safety tests.


If you cannot make a safe domestic car, then how does one expect China to manufacture and deploy advanced air-to-air missiles? Well?


I'm pretty sure the USSR made terrible cars, but some of their weapons were pretty effective.
 
True the USSR has made some beautiful and effective weapons. There is no aircraft more beautiful than a SU-27.
 
All I can say is that there is a big shock waiting for some people.


The statement that "they cannot make a safe car" is also nonsense.
From personal experience, a few years ago China entered a certain countries car market, and their cars were simply not good enough. Fast forward a few years later, and they re-entered that market with products that are almost (but not quite) as good as established Japanese and German products in the areas they are targetting, but half the price.

If you run a fleet of technicians or reps, it's become a no-brainer.
You already watch TV's, use phones made there, and fly in aircraft with components produced there already. In fact, I can guarantee that your input to this forum was made using a device/ component....you get the drift.


One gets an overall dejevu feeling of certain attitudes to Japanese products from a few decades ago, and we all know how that turned out.
As another poster pointed out, technology perhaps lacking in one sphere does not mean a blanket can be thrown entirely over a nations technology completely.
 
http://www.popsci.com/chinas-new-ramjet-engine-triple-range-missiles?src=SOC&dom=tw
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom