Aye, in terms of cost, durability and reliability an older IC architecture format has more of the issues worked out and optimized than the later cutting edge that isn't specifically built for military purposes.
Chinese air to air missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
There is a Luoyang employee on Zhihu who worked on both PL-12 and PL-15 and according to him/her the level of automation and novel manufacturing techniques for PL-15 far outstrips it’s predecessor.
Speaking of the bolded sentences, assuming that the information is accurate:
#1 - If the new variant of PL-15 (let's call it PL-15X) can already achieve a strike range of 300-400 kilometers (the present variant is said to be 200-300 kilometers), and if the PL-17 and PL-21 are meant to supersede the PL-15 - Then it should be reasonable that the strike ranges of the PL-17 and PL-21 be expected to go (way) beyond that of the PL-15X. (Preferably 500+ kilometers or even more)
#2 - As newer LRAAMs are getting strike ranges that are longer and farther out - What would be the end game? Would that be -
#2a: The theorectical maximum possible strike ranges of LRAAMs have already been reached? Or
#2b: Future LRAAMs will be able to snipe targets that are in the high 100s of kilometers away, and perhaps with the LRAAMs being further developed into ULRAAMs with 1000+ kilometers of strike range? Or
#2c: Future aircraft-mounted CIWS-type weapons (miniaturized HHQ-10 pod, laser pod, etc) would render the effort of using AAMs for aerial warfare more challenging or more redundant?
#3 - The increasing interests in the development, deployment and proliferation of LRAAMs and ULRAAMs (and their related systems and counter-systems) will play a pivotal role in the transformation on how we fight aerial warfare into the future. The way of how we fight high up in the skies into the coming years would very well be drastically different than what most of us are accustomed to, right now.
Note:
AAM = Air-to-air missile
LRAAM = Long-range + AAM
ULRAAM = Ultra + LRAAM
I can't remember who pointed this company out to me, possibly @tphuang
This is a major US DoD fab company
90nm is still their main process.
Shelf life is one of the variable to take into account while producing ammunitions.
Good to have number when it counts but also production capacity when it counts.
Doing giant stockpiles that need to be refurbished or scrapped because they are not used is costly. At the same time, stockpilling give the possibility to be ready anytime if your stockpile is in good shape..
Kinda a double edged sword.
2A: Hughes YAIM-152 achieved beyond 200km in a wingless 140mm form factor launched from an environmentally controlled tube. AMRAAM-AXE would have exceed D7 by a margin of over 50% using the proven ESSM Blk 1 motor.
A notional PL-21 with a wingless/full-bore scramjet engine, flying a suppressed trajectory with a nose full of MKVs could easily exceed 500km in range. Then have shipboard/AEW AESA guide it... SM-5 Mountain top were using AEGIS CEC along with E-2Ds to guide missiles, and were even proposed to have ramjets. AAMs propulsion still have a long way to go. MaRVs acting as SAMs were proposed many times for SAC, IIRC.
2B: 1000km is a bit too much considering proliferation of distributed EW and interceptors tbh. However on paper it is entirely possible. A controllable-thrust rocket motor flying a semi-ballistic gliding trajectory in extreme altitude, fitted with decoys and penaids, and warhead? Just give it a nuke. Terminal guidance should be SARH to lower electronics count as much as possible. Only usable against B-52s though. The return of the Phoenix?
2C: CUDA and MTHK ( even Peregrine) were marketed to have anti-missile cability. Peregrine being an MRAAM. AIM-9X would be usable in a CRAM though ( as demonstrated by IFPC). A SAC patent was posted on reddit for a Ace Combat-esqe, mini VLS silos for CRAM missile. I'd see if I still have the link. Or, just shoot energy beams from the EOTS tbh.
Dang I forgot ASALM. Liquid ramjet, Mach 4.5, 480km. And 1990s techs. And the prototype was actually made in numbers and flown.
One of the many USAF stupid mishaps.
Maybe PLAN will make a full-bore HHQ-9 for ABM and then PLAAF can borrow some of their research. Or just buy the same thing. Cross-service compatibility, idk. A F/A-18 was shot carrying a SM-6 once.
You mean a HQ-9 equivalent AAM? There are HQ-x series ABMs already, designations HQ-26 and HQ-29 based on available info. And HHQ-x ABMs launched off 055... at least that is part of the 055's role and inventory.
As for AAM... you are nuts if you think a long range SAM can be placed under the wing or fuselage of any fighter. SM-6 is one thing (doubt that ever happened) but HQ-9 is like twice the volume of a SM-6. What the F-18 tested was a totally different type of missile to the SM-6. It bears a resemblance. Sort of like how YJ-91 and YJ-12 bear resemblance but a J-10 isn't going to be taking 2x YJ-12s into the air.