Chinese air to air missiles

wifi999 said:

I think contract information is more credible. Considering each AIM-120D3 costs 3m dollars, it is more reasonable that the price of the PL-15 is 1m-1.5m dollars than 180k dollars.

Click to expand...

1m-1.5m dollars seems like it's way too much. A HQ-9B missile costs only 800k dollars and that thing is massive compared to PL-15. Sale price to Pakistan might be something around that though because China wants to profit.

Economies of scale are going to matter a lot as well. The US treats the AIM-120 as a special weapon and makes only 1200 a year, and that's for every single plane in the world that can fire them. In comparison, the PLA treats the PL-15 as a standard munition and has automated factories to build them. I'm willing to bet that China makes at least 1000 units per month.

doggydogdo said:

1m-1.5m dollars seems like it's way too much. A HQ-9B missile costs only 800k dollars and that thing is massive compared to PL-15. Sale price to Pakistan might be something around that though because China wants to profit.

Click to expand...

Most of the cost is the radar seekers.

So given:

1. The much larger diameter available for the HQ-9 missile
2. Its role as a defensive SAM, where the targets are heading towards the search/acquisition radars with a lot more power than a fighter

You can go with a much cheaper radar seeker on the HQ-9 than an AAM

4Tran said:

Economies of scale are going to matter a lot as well. The US treats the AIM-120 as a special weapon and makes only 1200 a year, and that's for every single plane in the world that can fire them. In comparison, the PLA treats the PL-15 as a standard munition and has automated factories to build them. I'm willing to bet that China makes at least 1000 units per month.

Click to expand...

1000 per month of the PL-15 is way too many.

That would be 12K per year, and it's been 10 years now. That would be a total of 120K missiles, which is far in excess of the number of opposing air targets.

They could produce say 20K in total (2K per year) which should be more than enough. And with the savings, buy thousands more DF-17 instead, to destroy the aircraft whilst on the ground.

No horse in the race, but you don't build 1 bullet for every enemy soldier. You might need to fire 10 for each actual kill. Also, as far as I know, don't munitions have a shelf life? So you would need to keep making more anyway.

gd47 said:

No horse in the race, but you don't build 1 bullet for every enemy soldier. You might need to fire 10 for each actual kill. Also, as far as I know, don't munitions have a shelf life? So you would need to keep making more anyway.

Click to expand...

Traditional MRAAMs are still unavoidably expensive, especially with AESA seekers. Every missile is ultimately a full standalone unmanned aircraft with onboard navigation, autopilot, seeker/fuzing(fire control), comms and engine.

But overall this is a big deal, because for that very reason, only 3 nations on Earth produce enough traditional missile ammo to fight long term. Which also means that only those who buy from these 3 have emergency option for additional largely unlimited stock just in case.
(Another snab at Europe and those who buy rafales in particular).

gd47 said:

No horse in the race, but you don't build 1 bullet for every enemy soldier. You might need to fire 10 for each actual kill. Also, as far as I know, don't munitions have a shelf life? So you would need to keep making more anyway.

Click to expand...

A sidewinder has a 20 year shelf life for example.

But the point still stands. Instead of buying excessive numbers of AAMs, it's better to buy fewer AAMs and buy more DF-17.