Chinese air to air missiles

Lion · Jan 21, 2011

Ambivalent said:
AIM-54 is out of service because the F-14 was retired and it was the only platform for the Phoenix. The USAF would not support the Navy's follow on, the AIM-152 because it would not fit inside the F-22 weapons bay. The Navy was basically forced to buy the AIM-120 even though it was not the missile they wanted. They did manage to force the design of an AIM-120D with longer range, though still not as long ranged nor as fast as Phoenix was or AIM-152 would have been. With the end of the Cold War, defense spending cutbacks meant any new air to air missile had to be a joint service program. No more single service stove-piped procurement programs.
Btw, you know absolutely nothing about AIM-54's maneuverability. All of that information was and remains classified. If you knew the truth you would be very surprised. It's sole drawback, and that of the F-14, were high cost.

If AIM-54 is such a wonder weapon, US will keep it alive at all cost. So using yr theory, US shall disband all F-22?

Do you know F-14 in the early 2000 dump their AIM-54 and carry AIM-120...

AIM-54 was retired in the 2004 while F-14 retired in 2006. Why the later?

IronsightSniper · Jan 21, 2011

Lion said:
How can you all compare PL-21 to Novator K-100?? Both are different type of missile.

PL-21 is a ramjet all aspect BVRAAM design to kill any type of plane(Fighter jet to Bomber) at long range. It can even take on fighter jet pulling 9G trying to escape the missiles.

Novator is just like AIM-54 Phoneix missiles design to kill AWACS, big long range bomber and tanker with low G pulling.

Even a J-7 if aware the coming of Novator can easily evade the missile by quickly pulling high G to evade it.

Ever wonder why AIM-54 is now out of service from USAF and USN???

He probably asked that question because both were relatively long range missiles.

However, if you were to compare similar to similar missiles, I'd compare R-77M1 with PL-21. In that aspect, they are quite similar. ramjet powered, all aspect, high maneuvering, long range, etc. The difference is that the PL-21 does about 100+ km while the R-77M1 does 160 km+.

Also, I highly doubt that PL-21 can attack 9g maneuvering crafts. Because not much information is actually known about the PL-21, I'll borrow some stats from the PL-12 for this. Some background, the PL-12 is a Mach 4 missile and can maneuver at about 38 Gs (superior to AIM-120D, inferior to R-77.) So, lets say a PL-12 is fired against a good maneuvering air plane, lets say, Su-27, which is flying at a good maneuvering speed of about Mach 0.95. So, 4 / .95 = .42, square that and 17.7. This means that the PL-12 must pull 17.7 times more Gs than the aircraft to "catch it". Divide 38 by 17.7 and that means a plane only needs to pull 2 Gs to avoid it.

"Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) tells direction of incoming missile, so Sukhoi turns to put missile in rear quarter and starts high-G, jinking barrel roll more than 2 G. I think closer to 5G. Sukhoi has thrust vector jets [Ed: TVC nozzles], so turning at 5 G for 20 seconds no problem. Missile cannot track barrel roll, so fly past and loses lock. Even Tom Cruise thinks tactic is good!" -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So basically, I don't think a PL-21 can catch a maneuvering fighter.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the Phoenix was retired because the Phoenix is really only good for knocking out airliners or strategic aircrafts, and because the U.S. Military is not planning on having a symmetrical war with someone on the scale of Europe/Russia/China, we aren't expecting our enemies to have any AWACs, so thus asked the question, why keep the Phoenixes?

johnqh · Jan 22, 2011

IronsightSniper said:
He probably asked that question because both were relatively long range missiles.

However, if you were to compare similar to similar missiles, I'd compare R-77M1 with PL-21. In that aspect, they are quite similar. ramjet powered, all aspect, high maneuvering, long range, etc. The difference is that the PL-21 does about 100+ km while the R-77M1 does 160 km+.

Also, I highly doubt that PL-21 can attack 9g maneuvering crafts. Because not much information is actually known about the PL-21, I'll borrow some stats from the PL-12 for this. Some background, the PL-12 is a Mach 4 missile and can maneuver at about 38 Gs (superior to AIM-120D, inferior to R-77.) So, lets say a PL-12 is fired against a good maneuvering air plane, lets say, Su-27, which is flying at a good maneuvering speed of about Mach 0.95. So, 4 / .95 = .42, square that and 17.7. This means that the PL-12 must pull 17.7 times more Gs than the aircraft to "catch it". Divide 38 by 17.7 and that means a plane only needs to pull 2 Gs to avoid it.
[/URL]

So basically, I don't think a PL-21 can catch a maneuvering fighter.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the Phoenix was retired because the Phoenix is really only good for knocking out airliners or strategic aircrafts, and because the U.S. Military is not planning on having a symmetrical war with someone on the scale of Europe/Russia/China, we aren't expecting our enemies to have any AWACs, so thus asked the question, why keep the Phoenixes?

The missiles do not follow the same flight path as the target. It predicts the target's flight path and turns accordingly. The missile may only need to do a 2G turn to hit a 9G target if the target maneuver too early. If you maneuver when the missile is close, then it may be too late. There is a very small window for the pilot to pull a hard turn to evade the missile. It is not easy to know how far the missile is so you will need luck.

All missiles have ~40G limit (short range missiles are normally at 45G, mid-range at 40G-).

Pilots do pull 9G turns to evade radar-guided missiles, not to expect to out-turn the missile, but to hope the missile to lose the lock. Due to Doppler radar principle (recalling from memory), when the target do a hard turn into a 90 degree flight path as the incoming radar guided missile, the missile may lose lock. There are several well published crashes in Europe during training, as the pilots suffered black-out during those turns.

Red Moon · Jan 22, 2011

Ambivalent said:
Btw, you know absolutely nothing about AIM-54's maneuverability. All of that information was and remains classified. If you knew the truth you would be very surprised. It's sole drawback, and that of the F-14, were high cost.

So, you know "classified" information?

RedMercury · Jan 22, 2011

It's called proof by authority

AssassinsMace · May 20, 2011

I saw this mentioned of a next generation AAM on the Chinese sites but didn't see much on details. Now I see this story has reached some non-Chinese news sites. Has anyone read more details on this? Maybe because of the J-20, the media is going to jump on anything that shows up on the Chinese internet now.

China develops new-generation air-to-air missile for future air combat

2011-05-19 (China Military News cited from peopledaily.com.cn) -- China has achieved what some foreign experts once thought was impossible — it has independently developed a next-generation air-to-air missile without assistance from foreign specialists or borrowed technology.

Designed by Fan Huitao, the deputy director of the Air-to-Air Missile Research Institute under the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, the missile, known as the "Key Model," successfully passed the designed type approval test and achieved an excellent result, with all seven missiles hitting their targets.

Fan Huitao, the director of PLA Air Force PL-12 AA Missile
Its successful development indicates that China already fully possesses the ability to independently develop internationally-advanced air-to-air missiles. It is a historic breakthrough in China's air-to-air missile development and has met the Chinese Air Force's requirement for the model to be designed, produced, delivered and made combat effective within one year. The new missile offers the military and country another trump card.

The Key Model is an international-advanced AAM model. It is a secret weapon for gaining air superiority. It plays a crucial role in reinforcing the power of national defense and strengthening the influence of China.

However, it is very hard to develop and only a few developed countries around the world possess such a capability. The complicated system of the model and the high-grade, high-precision and advanced technologies needed to develop it has never been seen in the development of other models.

Foreign military experts once believed that employing foreign specialists as chief designers was the only way for China to succeed. Even some Chinese experts believed that the success rate of developing this kind of missile was not high when relying only on the current technical conditions of China. This was because China did not have any documents to refer to and could not use a shortcut.

The successful completion of the missile is the culmination of Fan Huitao's career in the aviation industry. After Fan graduated from Northwestern Poly-technical University with a major in aircraft engines in April 1986, he went to Luoyang and devoted himself to the field of air-to-air missiles.

In 2000, Fan took over as the chief model designer and began to lead a group in researching China's new-generation air-to-air missile.

Blitzo · May 20, 2011

^ Where did that article come from? It reads terribly; vague, awkward statements like this "The Key Model is an international-advanced AAM model. It is a secret weapon for gaining air superiority. It plays a crucial role in reinforcing the power of national defense and strengthening the influence of China." -insertfacepalmsmiley-

And "Key model"? I assume it must be something lost in translation..

antiterror13 · May 20, 2011

Bltizo said:
^ Where did that article come from? It reads terribly; vague, awkward statements like this "The Key Model is an international-advanced AAM model. It is a secret weapon for gaining air superiority. It plays a crucial role in reinforcing the power of national defense and strengthening the influence of China." -insertfacepalmsmiley-

And "Key model"? I assume it must be something lost in translation..

Could it be PL-13” “Sino-Meteor" ?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Blitzo · May 20, 2011

antiterror13 said:
Could it be PL-13” “Sino-Meteor" ?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I believe the designation for that missile is PL-21?

And this article could be referring to that, or the PL-10/PL-ASR, or a new PL-12 variant or it could be BS... I just searched the title of the article and it seems to have come from china defense mashup, whose writeups are... questionable at best.

Quickie · May 20, 2011

Bltizo said:
^ Where did that article come from? It reads terribly; vague, awkward statements like this "The Key Model is an international-advanced AAM model. It is a secret weapon for gaining air superiority. It plays a crucial role in reinforcing the power of national defense and strengthening the influence of China." -insertfacepalmsmiley-

And "Key model"? I assume it must be something lost in translation..

The article starts with this " 2011-05-19 (China Military News cited from peopledaily.com.cn)"

Chinese air to air missiles

Lion

Senior Member

IronsightSniper

Junior Member

johnqh

Junior Member

Red Moon

Junior Member

RedMercury

Junior Member

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

antiterror13

Brigadier

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Quickie

Colonel