Chinese Air to Air Missiles

[Training_Dummy]

the US has done a tremendous amount of work in missile technologies from shaping, aero, flight profiles, propulsion of all sorts, seekers, smart fusing and target detection etc etc. The issue is AMRAAM, like Sidewinder, is such a good platform with such an extensive base of knowledge, and importantly seems amenable to clever tweaks to consistently deliver enough performance improvements that absent a pacing threat like China recently, the cost effectiveness and budget arguments have crushed any hope of a clean sheet design making it far. But things have changed and now there are things like JATM and apparently others.

To extend and simplify, both Sidewinder and AMRAAM evolutionary variants have always been “good enough for the money” for the CONOPs of the platforms that carried them, be they F-16s or F-22s, until recently. Hence AIM-174b (and this thread) and AIM-260 and hopefully cheap, bulk Costo Kirkland AMRAAMs.

 

[stealthflanker]

So, how a potential client nation can reject Chinese AAM offers now ? seeing that they have :

-Phased array seekers
-Some long range no less than any EU or US competitors
-The weapon systems already in service with the PLAAF and having good industrial baseline to support it
-Recently prove itself in battle

Especially that common folks often praise phased arrays and now look there is ITAR free and non US and allies aligned advanced weapons available for export. I noticed that comparison between US-Allies design with its competitors often neglect export potentials, like seeing currently available AMRAAM's and even Meteors are still slotted planar array seeker, what does it offer against PL-15E ?

 

[siegecrossbow]

So, how a potential client nation can reject Chinese AAM offers now ? seeing that they have :

-Phased array seekers
-Some long range no less than any EU or US competitors
-The weapon systems already in service with the PLAAF and having good industrial baseline to support it
-Recently prove itself in battle

Especially that common folks often praise phased arrays and now look there is ITAR free and non US and allies aligned advanced weapons available for export. I noticed that comparison between US-Allies design with its competitors often neglect export potentials, like seeing currently available AMRAAM's and even Meteors are still slotted planar array seeker, what does it offer against PL-15E ?

If they have established system (EU or U.S.) it may not be compatible with Chinese fighter aircraft. That said, if China could get data linking to work between J-10C and Eyrie Eye, the sky is the limit.

So, potentially US sanctions?

 

[Josh_TN]

So, how a potential client nation can reject Chinese AAM offers now ? seeing that they have :

-Phased array seekers
-Some long range no less than any EU or US competitors
-The weapon systems already in service with the PLAAF and having good industrial baseline to support it
-Recently prove itself in battle

Especially that common folks often praise phased arrays and now look there is ITAR free and non US and allies aligned advanced weapons available for export. I noticed that comparison between US-Allies design with its competitors often neglect export potentials, like seeing currently available AMRAAM's and even Meteors are still slotted planar array seeker, what does it offer against PL-15E ?

The lack of Chinese aircraft exports, of which AFAIK Pakistan is the singular exception. I think that is about to change, especially with the current U.S. administration, but probably not in a huge way - like 1-2 new clients.

But yes, an export PL-15 is almost certainly a superior product compared to export AMRAAM, and likely even the latest and greatest AIM-120. AIM-260 seems designed to offset that, though we do not know the details.

 

[SUPER=BUG]

What are the technical differences between the PLA's PL15 used for domestic purposes and the export version PL15E?

 

[Sferrin]

the US has done a tremendous amount of work in missile technologies from shaping, aero, flight profiles, propulsion of all sorts, seekers, smart fusing and target detection etc etc. The issue is AMRAAM, like Sidewinder, is such a good platform with such an extensive base of knowledge, and importantly seems amenable to clever tweaks to consistently deliver enough performance improvements that absent a pacing threat like China recently, the cost effectiveness and budget arguments have crushed any hope of a clean sheet design making it far. But things have changed and now there are things like JATM and apparently others.

To extend and simplify, both Sidewinder and AMRAAM evolutionary variants have always been “good enough for the money” for the CONOPs of the platforms that carried them, be they F-16s or F-22s, until recently. Hence AIM-174b (and this thread) and AIM-260 and hopefully cheap, bulk Costo Kirkland AMRAAMs.

Yep. Consider we could have had a HOBS short range AAM half a century ago in the form of the AIM-95.

 

[siegecrossbow]

What are the technical differences between the PLA's PL15 used for domestic purposes and the export version PL15E?

My theory is that there is no physical difference except how long the firing between the dual pulse motors is delayed.

 

[Tomboy]

What are the technical differences between the PLA's PL15 used for domestic purposes and the export version PL15E?

It's either they have no physical booster difference like how @siegecrossbow said but have different electronic configs like worse ECCM and inefficient guidance logic thus the shorter range and maybe even a worse seeker. Or it's possible that the booster doesn't use a dual pulse motor like the normal PL-15 and just have a conventional booster-sustainer config

 

[Sferrin]

My theory is that there is no physical difference except how long the firing between the dual pulse motors is delayed.

I would think the time wouldn't be fixed but would be tailored to engagement conditions at the time of flight.

 

[stealthflanker]

If they have established system (EU or U.S.) it may not be compatible with Chinese fighter aircraft. That said, if China could get data linking to work between J-10C and Eyrie Eye, the sky is the limit.

So, potentially US sanctions?

Sanctions or some economic-political restrictions and alienation is the quickest way.

On the datalinking tho, possible but that would still need the OEM to cooperate. The other way is the Country actually designed their own datalink standard that act as "middleman" between EU and CN system. Might be politically less risky as there wont be any contact between CN and EU personnel.

What are the technical differences between the PLA's PL15 used for domestic purposes and the export version PL15E?

Perhaps the exclusions of some ECCM modes while the seekers and propulsions remain standard. It is easier to downgrade the software sides than hardware as one can still make use of the established industrial lines. Trying to downgrade hardware e.g smaller rocket motor will necessitates not only new actual motor to be developed but also flight control law need to be devised around that new motor, and if the client country only buy little amount, the missile will end up being impractical economically as each of them have to bear the cost of RnD.

Changes in range however can perhaps be implemented by limiting the battery capacity, as it should be cheaper to implement. The domestic use missile perhaps have 2.5 minutes duration while export one 1-1.5 minutes. Those could limit the range for say example for AIM-120B by 28-46%