Literally the first result for “AIM-260” and “live fire”, is this laziness or am I expected to provide what should be common knowledge if you’re going to be entering a discussion on the missile?
And what year is that 2024. Nothing to back up the 2016 test claim. Also nothing official, not even a single picture.
I never claimed they live fired it in 2016, I’ve backed up everything I’ve said thus far.
As for dual pulse motors, US has used them since 2006 in testing
You’ll notice a lot of these technologies are rumored to be in use on the PL-15, which entered service a decade later.
There are many examples of the US developing technology and then not using it until it was necessary at a later date. Another example is the XM360 cannon mounted on the AbramsX… that gun was first fired in 2009.
1 Like
To compare testing date of them this would be 5 years and also that is not JATM.
In fact that is nothing to do with it. China likely has also tested it before 2011 when PL15 was live fired.
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.
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.
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