I’m sure it’s a quite large one. a test bed for aesa seeker not just AAM-4B.
Aesa unit has its size and performance limit, that’s why the number of units is often used as performance values(other things influences too, but units sets mechanical limits)
it’s a fixed aesa in a 8 inch missile, I believe it’s the biggest aesa that can fit in
1 Like
Based on what the plate with writing? I’ve seen plates with writing like that with the same square mm as a penny on things like turbos let alone advanced AESA seekers.
I doubt it is the biggest, I think there were a great many other factors but certainly it is more than sufficient with over 400 T/R units for basic air to air missile duties. Comparing it to what we know about AAM-4B, however, suggests it is still behind the “West” as far as fitting AESA seekers in a missile goes. It would be pure conjecture, but I assume things like the AIM-260 will simply beat it outright on paper.
That is only on paper though, and of course, it has still had a wildly successful debut against the Rafale.
should be less, same for the real AAM-4B seeker.
you need the size of AIM-54 to hold 400 units.
most calculations are around 300 units, already very strong for a missile seeker, needs exaggerated battery and heat dissipation for a missile.
I think your count of the AAM-4B seeker test is also incorrect, considering this↓
and area of the radar cowling is often used to estimate the number of radar units
it’s a test unit, not real seeker not for install, and the name plate is on pedestal, no need to be small.
How do you figure my count is wrong? I counted the antenna squares, obviously from the sources I posted before these are generally each attached to a T/R module individually. Can you show that the calculations and how they figure 300 units?
because they are not t/r units, you can check every known aesa seeker or radar, count their units and area, do some math, you will find it impossible to fit so many units into a missile
U know how big the area is right? (203/2)^2 *pi. Even if not accounting the fact that the antenna does not occupy the entire missile cross section, the antennas are 20 mm^2 , nvm if we account for the areas not included, 4mm by 4mm t/r modules?
Right, which brings me back to my point, how do you know it is AESA?
Is it because it says T/R module on the side of a piece of wreckage? What is the use of so many separate antenna pads? Did you even read any of the source material I shared earlier?
Yes, but each of the squares is an antenna. What you are suggesting is that multiple squares share a T/R module, which if I am understanding these radars correctly, is somewhat silly.
They don’t share a T/R module, but rather are packed into 1 T/R module pack of IDK how many, likely 12.
Also I think @NCC105 meant AAM4B thing and not PL15.
To which I assumed there was 1x T/R module per antenna, and there are quite a few antenna.
Another look at the AAM-4B seeker seems to show that the holes around the plate and on the stand are phillips screw sized, which to me indicates it is a missile sized seeker and not some obnoxiously large and pointless test device.
Spoiler
The PL-15E seeker by comparison has between 400 and 600 square antenna packed into those modules. Feel free to try and count yourself, of course, some are missing.
To break this down further so others can see what I am talking about:
Here you can see one of those square T/R module packs broken down. There is the case, the individual T/R modules, and the SMP connectors. I will post the image of the wreckage below which also has the SMP connectors visible where the antenna’ broke off.
Here are the packs that is what the exploded view above is depicting:
Here it all is together with the antenna squares on top:
And here is the complete thing on a test rig:
Just a question, the purple structure or what ever colour it originally was, it wouldn’t exist in the actual missile right?
Also regarding the screws, it definitely isn’t an ‘actual’ AAM4B then cause these are not present and this is likely just a mock up to fit the seeker on.
Another thing just to raise is if this seeker is actual missile sized it would mean the seeker is a lot smaller than actual 203 mm diameter, which would make, say 10mm^2 T/R modules? That just seems near impossible from EE point of view.
1 Like
Why would the purple not be present?
Why would it not be an “actual” AAM4B seeker? Your arguments aren’t totally justified ATM imo.
Obviously the AAM-4B seeker structure being shown isn’t production and has some kind of horn on it for whatever reason
The PL-12AE differs significantly from the early PL-12. The more noticeable external differences include: a small fuze antenna similar to the PL-15E (orange arrow, located at the front of the missile body, appearing as a red strip or reddish-brown short strip), a longer cable tray (green arrow, on the lower part of the missile body, connecting the flight control compartment and the servo mechanism), and the same position for the solid rocket motor ignition safety device (purple arrow, for Chinese missiles located at the very front of the motor).
As seen in the images, the PL-12AE has significantly reduced the length of its flight control compartment, warhead, and seeker. It is speculated that it may heavily incorporate technology from the PL-15E, with a relationship to the original PL-12 akin to that between the MICA and MICA NG.
The images below, from top to bottom:
- AIM-120C7 scaled up to approximately the same length as the PL-12
- PL-12 (not SD-10)
- PL-12AE Zhuhai Airshow
- PL-15E Zhuhai Airshow
- PL-15E airframe recovered and reassembled by Indians (with the warhead still attached)
I attempted to mark the connection point between the warhead and engine with red lines (though image scale and perspective will inevitably introduce some error). By measuring pixels, the length of the PL-12AE/PL-15 motor (including the nozzle) is approximately 2450mm, an increase of about 470mm (23.7%) compared to older PL-12 (1980mm). Assuming the nozzle length remains unchanged, this extension is largely due to a longer propellant( total impulse increased by no less than 20%). Rough conservative estimate , the total impulse of the PL-12AE may reach 200kN·s, with dv 1250mps, indicating very ample power.
4 Likes
I assume it uses a different seeker based on the difference in radome shapes
it’s difficult to speculate on the specifics of the seeker, but this has little impact on the warthunder—after all, our current MRAAM still use largely similar seeker parameters…
However, the smaller nose cone taper (and larger fins) do result in greater drag, so the PL-12AE’ long-range performance will have a significant gap compared to the PL-15E.
It’s hard to deduce the change of the structure to the change of seeker.
Afterall it is just a structure. I’d expect some change but there isn’t even any official intro so I remain sceptical of large scale deployment. The most interesting and promising part might actually be it appearing on a drone.
It matters because PL-15E uses AESA, whereas the PL-12AE may not. The shape of the radome is important towards how it calculates radar data.
This is mostly insignificant and the main difference will be in the motor performance between the two.
Yes, just an indicator.
Could also be due to a couple other things like change of material use, which means change of strength and mass.
I suspect this missile is sort of their option for nations that are less ‘close’ than Pakistan, where PL15s may not be entrusted, so it is really just keeping the options open rather than for large scale production, and so far only mock ups are seen.