My guess would be there's probably some two-way datalink connection that only the newer generation AESAs can utilize or sth. Cuz I doubt if J-11B's gigantic radar couldn't provide enough range for PL-15.
Chinese air to air missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The radar and electronics upgrades are probably modest, with the biggest focus on networking rather than individual platform sensors.
It’s logical that J11 upgrades would include PL15 compatibility, but without top of the range AESA radars, even the upgraded J11s may not be able to make the most out of the PL15.
In that context, it makes sense that we don’t see J11s carry PL15 much during exercises, since in real world combat scenarios, the J11s would most likely function as glorified extended magazines for the top tier fighters and with extensive AWACS support when using PL15s. There just isn’t a great deal of training value to be had in fly safely in the back row and loosing missiles at targets your radar can’t even see. Not for real world flying anyways. That’s the sort of thing you can practice with 100% effectiveness on simulators back at base without wasting your precious flying time on.
It’s logical that J11 upgrades would include PL15 compatibility, but without top of the range AESA radars, even the upgraded J11s may not be able to make the most out of the PL15.
In that context, it makes sense that we don’t see J11s carry PL15 much during exercises, since in real world combat scenarios, the J11s would most likely function as glorified extended magazines for the top tier fighters and with extensive AWACS support when using PL15s. There just isn’t a great deal of training value to be had in fly safely in the back row and loosing missiles at targets your radar can’t even see. Not for real world flying anyways. That’s the sort of thing you can practice with 100% effectiveness on simulators back at base without wasting your precious flying time on.
Would be interesting to see if the J-10As refitted with the new JKL-24 AESA would appear with PL-15s.
Pakistan operates PL-15Es on J-10CE/CPs yes.
And Pakistan JF-17 Block III will also be compatible with PL-15Es.
But I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I wrote, which for the PLA.
Range isn't the biggest concern here - while not having full missile envelope(eg. against a cooperative target doing its best to get hit) from the radar is sorta bad, it doesn't affect the absolute majority of normal firing situations.
The reason is probably much simpler - this is indeed an older J-11. While we can't know for 100% sure, chances any J-11 is a Plug'n'Play aircraft are simply nil(original Sukhois are the direct opposite of "easy integration" of anything). There was only one such aircraft until very recent times (Gripen) - and even that was because Swedes were sorta desperate.
Other than this very specific exception, the true ease of integration of new weapons is gradually becoming a feature only about ~now (a/c designed on 2010s architectures).
PL-15 isn't a "forward pass"-type weapon. It's a normal rank-and-file MRAAM.
Last edited:
Depends on the opfor doesn't it?
It's a normal rank and file MRAAM in terms of physical size, but it has fairly impressive range to the extent that having offboard guidance/CeC (whether it's friendly fighters or friendly AEW&C) should be a viable conops.
OPFOR is AIM-120D, which is just barely shorter-ranged (somewhat less dV, but somewhat lower drag, too) for equal launch conditions. 'Missile truck', by the very virtue of being thus loaded (drag, reflection), will get itself within opponents' engagement zone. At this point trucker himself is within a2a engagement - and thus consequently isn't really a pass anymore, just a team engagement.
It's just a normal range for modern MRAAMs. To properly forward pass a weapon you'll probably need ~1.5 the reach, yet from a lower expected energy state(if we are to carry many weapons), yet at a similar time to target.
This naturally leads to a big weapon, or something else entirely (say, the truck carries flying pylon-type CCAs instead)
Last edited:
It may be a difference in our view of modern air combat, but I see AIM-120D as being viable in the sort of system of systems CeC/friendly offboard guidance conops as well in the same way that PL-15 is.
In my view, the ability to support system of systems CeC/friendly offboard guidance conops doesn't require you to necessarily have weapons that significantly outrange the enemy, but rather it's about having dispersed and well networked sensors and shooters all operating cooperatively.
The "shooter platform" doesn't have to be inherently invulnerable or have a weapon that outranges the enemy, but rather if it can bring the relevant weapons to the fight, then even if your "shooter platform" itself gets shot down it's okay if its contribution of fires lets you achieve the overall mission.
So yes, to me I don't see any inherent problem with modern or upgraded Sino-Flankers carrying PL-15s as providing additional A2A weapons volume.
But it's exactly that, CEC - i.e. normal mid-late 2020s air combat (relevant even now - but for parts of overall fleets only). It isn't trucking per se, and it doesn't let non-LO airframes to perform as ones.
It's a normal networked air combat.
I do not understand. J-11BG as a dedicated ASF should have same priotity as J-16 multi-role no? Could it be it lack certain capability J-16 has making PL-15 less useful?