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.
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.
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.
@MiG_23M is right about the programme just being replacing the Meteor seeker with an AAM-4B one, we agree even if his response starts with ‘no’ haha.
It does surprise me just how far behind all of the west is when it comes to AESA seekers on missiles?
Though it makes me wonder is it worth having lower numbers of T/R modules like Pl-15 or using proven seeker tech until higher T/R count missiles are availible
