That is correct, it is not JATM. It simply uses a lot of the same technologies. As an aside, many aerospace related technologies are borrowed from other projects and modified for use in newer ones.
Then again, PL15’s tech might also have been tested a few years ahead. It is like saying J10’s project originated in 1980s, but we will have no argument that it was a 2000s jet. Tech does not equate to the product.
1 Like
The J-10 was not built and tested in the 80s and then held off from production until the 2000s
And same for JATM. J10’s flight model existed well earlier than the 2000s, the project started in 1984, when the CAIG, might still be 132 back then applied and was rewarded the development of 3rd gen. They obtained F16 radar and most of the tech, and the process was less focused on after the 1990s saw tensions peak. But again, this is a 20 year process so we go by the date of in service and not when the tech existed.
2 Likes
China did not have dual pulse motors in production and tested prior to the development of the PL-15, you are ignoring the point. The PL-15 is not a counter to anything, the JATM is not a counter to the PL-15. None of these were designed as a direct response to an existing weapon.
The J-10 did not exist in the early 80’s and the protracted development time does not mean they had a fully capable weapon that could have been in production much sooner.
Without an air to air missile with sufficient range, they had no advantage over their peers in air superiority. They needed something new. We have stealth aircraft and superior electronic warfare capabilities, they needed an answer to that. The result, as is the case when there is a real world “meta” to these things, is similar but different hardware.
The J-20 and J-35 as well as the PL-15 and PL-17 are all simply their solution to a slightly different problem. It’s absurdity, the idea that there is some debate about whether or not these must be a response to the others equivalence.
1 Like
Has anyone shared this before?
Found it earlier today while looking for info on the AURORA Ehud2.
I belive it’s the HMD the J-16 and J-10C uses
2 Likes
This is your brain on nationalism
My name is a Russian fighter jet, I’ve advocated for the peer to peer capability of Chinese fighter jets in these threads for years, I know bias when I see it. There is no nationalism in what I’ve been sharing.
BTW, speaking of PL-15 apparently it uses an AESA seeker.
If I’m not mistaken it’s currently the only production missile that has an AESA seeker.
AAM-4B has used an AESA for decades.
4 Likes
Yeah, forgot about that one
Doesn’t seem to be that great kinematically though …
In the game?
well it is a amraam equivalent not a ultra long range missile
Yeah, kinematics of aam 4 bseem to be similar to a late C model amraam not inluding c-8.
Well, we don’t have it in the game
I was talking about IRL public range figures
However the PL-15E’s AESA seeker seems to have half the T/R modules
It is a single pulse missile with AESA intended for use in indigenous Japanese fighters, range really isn’t the main goal. I think the main concern was shooting down cruise missiles and fighters that are highly agile and with modern EW systems.
They did look at replacing this with a more modern missile in partnership with the UK. So i’d suggest they are aware of its range deficiencies compared to PL-15 and PL-21 even if they find the seeker tech on both dubious.
JNAAM essentially was supposed to be an AAM-4B seeker strapped to a Meteor missile. The programme was cancelled, supposedly France (who do the seeker portion of Meteor as its essentially a better MICA seeker) VETO’d it as it conflicts with their economic interests in the programme and their contribution to Meteor MLU which will have an AESA seeker.
No, they are looking at simply placing a Japanese designed AESA seeker on the Meteor.
As we acknowledged earlier, it was a missile designed in the 90s. It obviously will not have parity with one from 2015. Even America is building and designing new missiles, there is no need to emphasize the deficiencies of a decades older ordnance.
Is it my problem or is the targeting pod of J11B locked on the right side of the intake and can’t be placed on the left? (be it of no practical use)
Just to make the timeframe more clear AAM4 - 1999 AAM4B - 2010.
You seem to have your sources? Can u show it.