This is not an analogue to the AIM-260, it serves an entirely different purpose
I’m more than aware the PL-17 was made with HVAA in mind and nowhere did I mention the AIM-260 in my message. I wanted to bring it up as the PL-17 would still be more than capable of engaging manoeuvring aircraft at extended ranges, just not at its maximum range obviously.
PL-15 is no less maneuverable or less lethal. It is simply more expensive.
Then the comment seemed out of pocket given the other conversation.
I wouldn’t necessarily say “out of pocket”, even though the PL-17 was made with HVAA in mind it could still be used against manoeuvring aircraft. We know a similar missile and that being the R-37M has been used in said way with decent success.
EnglishTeaKett1e said “I’d imagine PLAAF will eventually provide an answer to AIM-260” and I responded with a possible stop gap if the PL-15 was deemed unsatisfactory range wise - probably unlikely however as the PL-15 is still pretty solid or at least for now.
PL-15E at Zhuhai was said by AVIC to have a maximum G overload of 40 a few days ago.
Right, this could easily be assumed within reason beforehand. The idea that the PL-15 is outmatched by the AIM-260 is kind of silly. If it is, there is room for growth whereas the AIM-260 is approaching the maximum feasible range it can already meet in AMRAAM form factor.
The J-35 and following variants look to fill this role if it’s adopted by the PLAAF as well as the PLANAF
I doubt that, I don’t think the J-35 screams cheap to maintain.
From what I understand, PL-9 should be similar to AAM-3 in functionality, though I might have that mixed up.
Cost of maintainance isn’t really at the forefront of China’s worries when it comes to outfitting their air force and navy with new and competitive airframes, however there is a massive amount of part sharing and interoperability within the chinese military industry so you’d think that they would optimise production of spare parts and components to bring down costs in the long run.
It’s also a part of a family of aircraft that were initially designed for export purposes so it can only be imagined that the J-31 and J-35 would be on the cheaper side of 5th gens, given it’s a major point of sale to nations like pakistan.
idk what’s PL-16, are you talking about the folded fin PL-15? it’s still same size, just fin folded, the “size” I’m talking about is the missile body’s size.
It does, but the new PL-12A seems is equipping PL-15’s components. Though I think the dual pulse rocket in PL-15 is not equipped considering PL-12A’s range data, so still a little cheaper maybe
It’s still top secret, though there is some guessing about it. Some said it used kinetic warhead and RCS rocket(used in anti-ballistic-missile missiles) to maximize its rocket and minimizing drag.
it’s already approached the maximum feasible range of a traditional structure.
I think the PL-15 likely utilizes an AESA whereas the PL-12 uses a PESA, etc.
It’s not, the size and form factor are publicly known. The missile is the same length and diameter fuselage as the AIM-120D. It is not kinetic warhead or RCS it is just a dual pulse AESA amraam for all intents and purposes based on discussion in other forums and budget requests.
That isn’t true, the AMRAAM does not utilize a dual pulse motor unless they have hidden this fact from us with the AIM-120D. The use of a longer life battery and better trajectory has maximized the use of a boost-sustain style motor in that form factor.
Ah, right, I forget this. though I doubt if a dual pulse rocket can reach it’s aim of surpass PL-15, if still keeps AMRAAM’s size.
any pics or news? I don’t know any about this, only literal news
They stated that it is an AMRAAM replacement in AMRAAM form factor and will be fielded on the F-22, F-35, and F-18 initially.
I think it’s only similar size, to fit existing planes, could have more radical design to create advantage
There are a LOT of other programs currently to develop other designs.
I think it more or less is similar although the IRCCM on 9C is different.
Hey buddy, I would like to ask if you were the first person to propose that J8F cannot use PL11. What is your opinion on this CCTV program
He knows about this already, when this program came out
J8F is a standard, and I think when other J8s, like B or H which are PL11 capable for upgrades to the F standard, they didn’t remove the SARH option.
