Chinese air to air missiles

Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
plawolf said:
I think some of you are getting a little too carried away.

The original story is that they have stopped the AAM version and switched to making the ARM version.

That’s actually a smart way of preserving the production capabilities and skilled workers without buying a silly number of missiles now that a better new model is available, since the differences between the AAM version and ARM versions will be quite small, so it would be very easy and straightforward for production to switch back to the AAM version should the need arise in the future.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that one of the specific points is not just about the transition of the PL-15 line to an ARM version, but that PL-16 itself is a more capable and more affordable missile with better efficiency in production due to more modern facilities.


Sure they could go back to producing PL-15 AAMs at some point in the future if they need to, but.... why would they?
 
Wrought

Wrought

Senior Member
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
I think PL-15 and PL-15E will still be produced for non 5th Gen (i.e J-10C, J-16, J-11BG and JF-17) as no issue with the size of the missiles as external. Logically PL-16 should be more expensive and only for 5th Gen aircraft (J-20, J-35A, etc)
Click to expand...

The whole reason this discussion started is because we were told PL-16 is in fact both better and cheaper.

Chinese air to air missiles

Eh, that was what I think they implied in the podcast. Perhaps they do not yet want to show PL-16 publicly? Unfortunately I cannot listen & understand what they say in that podcast.
www.sinodefenceforum.com
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Blitzo said:
My understanding is that one of the specific points is not just about the transition of the PL-15 line to an ARM version, but that PL-16 itself is a more capable and more affordable missile with better efficiency in production due to more modern facilities.


Sure they could go back to producing PL-15 AAMs at some point in the future if they need to, but.... why would they?
Click to expand...

Yes, the PL16 is a better new model.

As for why they might want to go back making more AAM versions of the PL15 in the future, well the obvious reason would be a massive hot war against one, or even multiple near peer adversaries.

Sure the PL16 will be better and cheaper, but better and cheaper doesn’t mean you can make more of them faster when you run into production bottlenecks.

Having a different missile that uses different supply chains is an easy way to bypass certain production bottlenecks that might occur when cost becomes a distant secondary consideration to quantity output.

This is especially relevant when the PL15 itself basically outclasses anything operational deployed by the most likely opfor, so it’s not like you are making an inferior missile to what opfor might be using. As time goes on and more advanced AAMs gets fielded by opfor, that will change, but even then it will take a long time for the new missiles to build up inventories to become the mainstay of opfor forces, especially if China continues to choke key RE resources to opfor MIC. But even after opfor new gen AAMs have achieved critical mass, having a legacy mid-tier weapon that handily outclasses opfor legacy mid-tier equivalents is massively beneficial.

A slight separate but related rationale would be future mothballing considerations for currently in service combat aircraft and their wartime reactivation capabilities.

If you are desperate enough to be pulling legacy retired assets out of mothballing and reactivating them, odds are you don’t have the time, or potentially even the resources, to spare to give them a full radar and avionics upgrade to allow them to use the latest and greatest AAMs. But you also don’t want to be using decades old missile stocks if you can avoid it. So having the ability for re-activated airframes to use freshly manufactured missiles would have a massive advantage. Especially if opfor is in a similar position and using re-activated airframes themselves at that stage, but pairing them with expired and refurbished missiles.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
plawolf said:
Yes, the PL16 is a better new model.

As for why they might want to go back making more AAM versions of the PL15 in the future, well the obvious reason would be a massive hot war against one, or even multiple near peer adversaries.

Sure the PL16 will be better and cheaper, but better and cheaper doesn’t mean you can make more of them faster when you run into production bottlenecks.

Having a different missile that uses different supply chains is an easy way to bypass certain production bottlenecks that might occur when cost becomes a distant secondary consideration to quantity output.

This is especially relevant when the PL15 itself basically outclasses anything operational deployed by the most likely opfor, so it’s not like you are making an inferior missile to what opfor might be using. As time goes on and more advanced AAMs gets fielded by opfor, that will change, but even then it will take a long time for the new missiles to build up inventories to become the mainstay of opfor forces, especially if China continues to choke key RE resources to opfor MIC. But even after opfor new gen AAMs have achieved critical mass, having a legacy mid-tier weapon that handily outclasses opfor legacy mid-tier equivalents is massively beneficial.

A slight separate but related rationale would be future mothballing considerations for currently in service combat aircraft and their wartime reactivation capabilities.

If you are desperate enough to be pulling legacy retired assets out of mothballing and reactivating them, odds are you don’t have the time, or potentially even the resources, to spare to give them a full radar and avionics upgrade to allow them to use the latest and greatest AAMs. But you also don’t want to be using decades old missile stocks if you can avoid it. So having the ability for re-activated airframes to use freshly manufactured missiles would have a massive advantage. Especially if opfor is in a similar position and using re-activated airframes themselves at that stage, but pairing them with expired and refurbished missiles.
Click to expand...

Well, one can certainly come up with various reasons for why the might want to restart PL-15 production in the future, where if PL-16 production even at its increased capacity was unable to meet demands and they just needed more modern BVRAAMs.

But realistically, in such a situation where expanding the quantity of competitive BVRAAMs was needed, then I feel like if PL-15 production had been ceased for a while, it would be more likely to be easier to expand PL-16 production rather than restart PL-15 production (and all of its subsuppliers) that had been idled.


Personally I'm not sure why this scenario of "hypothetically producing PL-15 again in future after the cheaper, more capable, more production efficient PL-16 enters service" needs to be considered.


If PL-16 really is that much more capable, more affordable and more efficient to produce than PL-15, standardizing and expanding competitive BVRAAM production to one ongoing type and expanding the subsupplier base to be more resilient seems the logical thing to do than to keep idled PL-15's production base and subsupplier base around.
Using the PL-15 line for an ARM design makes sense, but not as a way of preserving the possibility of restarting PL-15 BVRAAM production in the future, but rather to let the now suboptimal and out of date PL-15 production line something useful to do (produce ARMs).
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Blitzo said:
Well, one can certainly come up with various reasons for why the might want to restart PL-15 production in the future, where if PL-16 production even at its increased capacity was unable to meet demands and they just needed more modern BVRAAMs.

But realistically, in such a situation where expanding the quantity of competitive BVRAAMs was needed, then I feel like if PL-15 production had been ceased for a while, it would be more likely to be easier to expand PL-16 production rather than restart PL-15 production (and all of its subsuppliers) that had been idled.


Personally I'm not sure why this scenario of "hypothetically producing PL-15 again in future after the cheaper, more capable, more production efficient PL-16 enters service" needs to be considered.


If PL-16 really is that much more capable, more affordable and more efficient to produce than PL-15, standardizing and expanding competitive BVRAAM production to one ongoing type and expanding the subsupplier base to be more resilient seems the logical thing to do than to keep idled PL-15's production base and subsupplier base around.
Using the PL-15 line for an ARM design makes sense, but not as a way of preserving the possibility of restarting PL-15 BVRAAM production in the future, but rather to let the now suboptimal and out of date PL-15 production line something useful to do (produce ARMs).
Click to expand...

If the PL16 is superior and cheaper in every way to the PL15, and you can expand production to make as many as you want easily, even in war time usage scenarios, why would you not just make an ARM version of that instead of keeping the PL15 line to make ARM versions of the PL15?

Indeed, if the goal is to have the best ARM, you really are better off with a clean sheet design rather than modifying an existing AAM.

With China’s technical capabilities, industrial might and the vast amounts of money China is prepared to invest in its military modernisation, the only logical explanation for making an ARM version of the PL15 instead of developing a brand new dedicated ARM is to preserve the manufacturing capability of the PL15. At least for a few years more.

Indeed, I would be amazed if the PLAAF doesn’t already have a dedicated clean sheet ARM already in service, given the mission set, threat environment, and systems they will potentially need to deal with.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
plawolf said:
If the PL16 is superior and cheaper in every way to the PL15, and you can expand production to make as many as you want easily, even in war time usage scenarios, why would you not just make an ARM version of that instead of keeping the PL15 line to make ARM versions of the PL15?

Indeed, if the goal is to have the best ARM, you really are better off with a clean sheet design rather than modifying an existing AAM.

With China’s technical capabilities, industrial might and the vast amounts of money China is prepared to invest in its military modernisation, the only logical explanation for making an ARM version of the PL15 instead of developing a brand new dedicated ARM is to preserve the manufacturing capability of the PL15. At least for a few years more.

Indeed, I would be amazed if the PLAAF doesn’t already have a dedicated clean sheet ARM already in service, given the mission set, threat environment, and systems they will potentially need to deal with.
Click to expand...

What makes the basis for a good ARM is not necessarily the same as what makes the basis for an ideal BVRAAM.

I am waiting to see what the PL-15 derived ARM looks like; however one of the obvious benefits of deriving an ARM from PL-15 is that PL-15 has a larger diameter fuselage, which in turn enables carriage of a larger warhead (important for sufficiently damaging a ground based radar vehicle).
PL-16 will have a slightly smaller diameter than PL-15, which will likely be able to carry a warhead large enough for a BVRAAM, but may be too light for a ARM.



As for the PLA's overall air launched ARM situation, I suspect the PL-15 derived ARM may be a "lighterweight" and internal carriage compatible ARM, while a heavierweight and non-internal carriage compatible ARM may also be developed to replace YJ-91.

That is to say, between PL-15 and PL-16:
- PL-16 is far superior as a BVRAAM than PL-16 in capability, cost, production efficiency
- I suspect, PL-15 is a superior basis of an internal carriage ARM than PL-16, and if they're going to shutter PL-15 BVRAAM production anyway, then using its line as the basis of an internal carriage ARM is a good use of a production line which may be otherwise idled.
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
There is actually nothing stopping a PL-15 body, with same rocket motor, power unit, actuators etc - but with a different frontal section (different radar, ESM sensors, different warhead and fuze) - to be used against a plethora of ground targets. Basically have it serve the same role the US SiAW missile. An all-purpose weapon to attack a variety of tactical, mobile targets.
 
bsdnf

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yankee's view on the PL-15's conversion to ARM is simple: PL-16 will certainly not be exported in its early stages of production, PL-15E will still be the primary export product. However, export orders are unstable, it's uncertain whether any countries will purchase them, or how many they will buy. The conversion to ARM is intended to maintain the production line while squeezing out every last bit of value.

AVIC can't shut down the PL-15 production line just because the PL-16 is put into production. When export orders come, they will have to reinvest to restore it and ends up being counterproductive, just like the F-22 production line. It is also impossible to spend money to maintain the outdated PL-15 production line without any return. Repurposing the line and maintaining low-volume production is the most economically viable middle ground
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top