Negative.
Modern SRAAMs like PL-10 (or indeed other global modern SRAAMs) tend to have far less demanding avionics compatibility issues relative to prior generation SRAAMs, than new generation BVRAAMs do versus prior generation BVRAAMs.
The guidance/cuing for SRAAMs are far more permissive than for BVRAAMs.
E.g. we've even seen J-10A carrying PL-10...
As for why they would forgo giving J-11BG PL-15 despite having an AESA -- there are actually many plausible answers:
- the J-11BG's AESA upgrade is not as extensive or as sophisticated as that on J-16 or J-10C etc
- J-11BG may lack other avionics upgrades necessary to allow it to utilize PL-15
Multiple years ago we were told that the J-11BG upgrade is not very extensive, so it's entirely within reason that it didn't have whatever upgrades necessary to utilize PL-15.
Now -- as I've repeatedly written, I'm not definitively saying J-11BG is incapable of utilizing PL-15.
However, based on current (lack of) visual evidence and past rumours, I think the most reasonable position on the matter is as follows:
"It is unknown if J-11BG is compatible with PL-15 or not; there is equal reasonable likelihood that it is compatible, and equal reasonable likelihood that it is not compatible".
Anyone arguing definitively for one way or the other is pushing their luck.
Yup, that's my point.
We have yet to see any BG carrying PL-15 over all these years of service, and we have had noise from credible folks in the grapevine from past years that BG is a meaningfully less ambitious/sophisticated upgrade in capability compared to say J-16/J-10C, therefore we are obliged to treat the possibility that J-11BG may simply not have compatibility with PL-15.