How do we know that it is a new AAM and not an anti-radiation missile?
Good question!
How do we know that it is a new AAM and not an anti-radiation missile?
You need to read that paper published earlierHow do we know that it is a new AAM and not an anti-radiation missile?
You need to read that paper published earlier
What paper is that? Can we get a link?You need to read that paper published earlier
That post has been removed since the engine lacks the TVC nozzle. Don’t know exactly what it is.Hi Huitong. Going off topic for a bit but I got to do this since I finally got a hold of you.
Can you reveal additional info about the WS-15 illustration that you posted recently?
The paper taking about a VLAAM concept was posted in this thread before. You can find one illustration at the PL-17 section of my web siteWhat paper is that? Can we get a link?
Peculiar thing that an JH7 of all planes would be testing it. JH7's radar has possibly shorter range against air target than the useful reach of this missile.
That being said, the size and configuration of the missile might actually make it very good for other roles as well, if other variants exist or are in development. Anti-radar mission would likely be served very well. And due to its compactness, the missile might be easier to carry and more of those missiles could be carried, compared to a plane laden with YJ91 missiles.
With satnav guidance, it basically becomes a VERY long range guided multiple rocket launcher-like round. Possibly effective against all sort of non-moving time critical targets, before they relocate. GMLRS rounds are said to enjoy <5 m errors in precision. That seems adequate precision for most targets, save for bunkers, given the probable size of the warhead on that thing. (probably between 50 and 100 kg) And due to the likely profile - swooping down on defenses at mach 3 or above at steep angles - even various close in defense systems and AA artillery are not likely to do well against multiple such missiles.
I dont' think we have any reason to believe this missile is anything other than a VLRAAM at this stage. Whether it may have a secondary A2G role is something that is yet to be determined.
Also, the paper that huitong is talking about I suspect is this one (attached).
For the rationale for why JH-7/A is testing PL-X, I would offer a more interesting suggestion -- that JH-7/A is intended to be capable of firing and launching the VLRAAM against aerial targets, essentially making it a rather potent interceptor.
Obviously you're entirely correct in saying that JH-7/A's sensors are very low capability an obviously unable to support the fire control for a PL-X ranged weapon on its own.... however that is probably also true for aircraft like J-16 as well -- a fighter's own FCR is probably just not powerful enough to exploit PL-X at its maximum practical range.
IMO it was pretty obvious from the beginning when PL-X emerged that the concept of operations for it would only really work with a level of CeC/offboard datalinking, whereby the launch platform is able to receive targeting information from other platforms to enable the max range of the missile. Whether it's friendly AEW&C or potentially even friendly fighter aircraft closer to the opfor's targets.
The fact that we are seeing this missile tested on JH-7/A -- strongly suggesting it is intended to be able to be capable of carrying and launching PL-X --- IMO strongly suggests that the concept of operations of PL-X does indeed require a rather complex CeC system. From the perspective of upgrading JH-7/As it obviously doesn't really make sense to overhaul its entire avionics suite, but giving it a modern datalinking system which can enable (among other things) a CeC esque system seems fairly logical.
So what this means for JH-7/A of course, is that it essentially gives the aircraft a high end VLRAAM capability that was previously only thought to be intended for J-16 or Flankers.
That makes JH-7/As more flexible in its overall role as it adds VLRAAM/interception duties to its strike/maritime strike/EW mission -- however it also increases the number of platforms that the PLA has at its disposal which is able to launch PL-X as well, as now they are potentially able to add all of the JH-7/A airframes that they want to integrate this capability with.
Of all of the PLA's fighter aircraft outside of the Flanker family, giving JH-7/A the ability to fire PL-X is definitely the next most sensible platform imo, given its large size, payload and range/endurance, so tbh it makes sense to me.
JH-7A is too slow to qualify for an interceptor nowadays. PLANAF originally operated it as an interceptor against Japanese F-4s because China didn't have any fighter other than a handful of flankers with long enough range to tangle far from shore. Nowaday, like you said, they've got the J-11B/J-16 and maybe Su-35 with avionics integration later down the road for that role.