This doesn't seem very practical. It would be much easier to hit missiles with Mach 4+ missiles than with <2 Mach CCAs. An alternative would be to launch AAMs from CCAs to intercept missiles. Most Chinese antiship missiles are hypersonic or high supersonic so this wouldn't work that well against them, but American antiship missiles are most subsonic so they're much more vulnerable.
Ask anything Thread (Air Force)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Assuming the "incoming missiles" you mentioned are referring to air-to-air missiles (A2A):
Doing so is exceptionally wasteful, especially considering that all the (currently known) CCA-type UCAVs that the PLAAF and PLANAF are expected to operate are of the medium and high-tiers, meeaning that they're going to be more sophisticated and (understandably) more expensive.
In fact, each AAM would cost less than individual CCA-type UCAV.
In other words - This will only ever be considered as a defense mechanism of last-resort, i.e. self-sacrifice in order to protect allied manned command platforms (fighters, bombers, special mission aircrafts etc) from incoming enemy missiles.
It's exceptionally difficult to intercept smaller objects flying at Mach 4-5 (let alone highly maneuverable ones) than larger objects flying at Mach 1-2 at most.
(For the former: The PL-15, PL-16, PL-17, PL-XX etc says "Hehe")
That's why while there certainly are efforts by countries to develop such hard-kill measures, none have been successfully developed/fielded so far.
The most promising/prospective hard-kill measure envisioned so far would be the aircraft-mounted anti-air laser systems, but due to its immense power requirement, it remains to be seen whether they can be fitted on fighters instead of just larger aircrafts (i.e. bombers, transporters, tankers and special mission aircrafts).
It should be at least 450 if it was 350 back 2023. I would say 500. But they may have slowed down production to allow for j-20A to finish testing and produce that instead.
Interesting, a certain J-10C unit allegedly from the NTC was posted but I have never seen this "Iron Fist Force" emblem before ... any more info on it? (Images via @太湖军I名 from Weibo)
Is it possible to guide a AAM like PL-15 with a satellite until the target is in the PL-15s AESA radar range?
Is it possible to guide PL-15 to attack AWACS or tankers at depth (300-500km) with a modified CM with 2-4 PL-15 inside it (like a expendable CCA/UCAV)?
Thank you
Is it possible to guide PL-15 to attack AWACS or tankers at depth (300-500km) with a modified CM with 2-4 PL-15 inside it (like a expendable CCA/UCAV)?
Thank you
Not really. Not even AWAC radar have enough target data fidelity for this kind of guidance, let alone satellite imaging which is missing an entire dimension of information. You need to fuse the data from satellite, AWAC, and fighter radar for the complete kill chain.
Uhh actually modern AEWC should have the ability to provide sufficient midcourse guidance until the BVRAAMs own onboard seeker is in range to kick in.
PL-17 and even PL-15 should both be capable of that (not to mention the new PL-16, and other new BVRAAMs around the world)
Whether satellites can enable that is a whole other matter and depends on the scale of the satellite constellation one has in place, their orbit, their sensors, and the requisite networking and management of data.
With existing satellite constellations, obviously such a thing is not capable of it.
But in the future, with potential LEO radar super constellations (think tens of thousands of LEO satellites all with decently capable radars providing overlapping redundant 24/7 AMTI coverage over literally ever square meter of the planet), well then that becomes a bit more plausible.
Of course the above also depends on target characteristics too (whether it's AEWC or future satellites providing midcourse guidance before the terminal phase)
I read that the fidelity is good enough in the XY plane but not sufficient in the Z axis. You could be potentially off by a magnitude of kilometers.
