Chinese air to air missiles

Totoro · Dec 4, 2023

SM-6 and PAC-3 MSE are not bad comparisons for performance/size.
Both are fairly new missiles (MSE a bit less so) so one can assume their electronics are fairly compact and leave a lot of room for propulsion.

PL-17 seems to be around 5.7 m long and 0.32 m in diameter.
SM-6 is some 6.5 meters long with booster or 6 m long without it. Diameter being 0.34 m.
PAC3 MSE is allegedly 5.2 m long, no booster, and approx 0.32 m in diameter.

Pac3 mse is credited with approx 100 km range against fighter jet type targets.
SM-6 is credited with a beyond 240 km range, with some estimating it at 370 km or so.

If a pac3mse had a booster getting it to 15 km and mach 1.5 or whatever, it'd surely add quite a bit of range.
Also, sm-6's booster basically gets the first stage to a speed of several mach, and altitude roughly comparable to one of a jet aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

this resource estimates 10 second burn for sm-2 booster. That should amount to roughly 9-13 km of altitude before the booster burns out. (assuming mach 3-4 for the booster)

On the other hand, we already have indications that a much smaller pl-15 can reach 200 km.

With all that, PL-17 reach seems unlikely to be under 300 km, at the very least. But with a more plausible performance bracket being 350-400 km. And ranges approaching even 500 km not being entirely unrealistic. Again, this is all against a certain kind of targets, not necessarily jet fighters but subsonic airliners like force multiplier type planes.

ACuriousPLAFan · Dec 4, 2023

sr338 said:
I think PL-17 and PL-21 are two different thing, not a step up.
PL-17: Large and very long range for external carry on jet like the J-16 or J-10C
PL-21: A Meteor like ramjet-rocket powered missile for the internal bay of J-20 and J-31/35

What are the expected range and speed of the PL-21, and are there any improvements on the PL-21 over the PL-15?

Deino · Dec 4, 2023

ACuriousPLAFan said:
What are the expected range and speed of the PL-21, and are there any improvements on the PL-21 over the PL-15?

Honestly,. I see all this PL-21-talk and already discussion much too premature!

We know at bets there is (maybe) such a program but the PL-21 we know in model-form or on diagrams is per my understanding a rejected contender to what the PL-15 later won. As such, we know in fact only very little.

Atomicfrog · Dec 4, 2023

Totoro said:
SM-6 and PAC-3 MSE are not bad comparisons for performance/size.
Both are fairly new missiles (MSE a bit less so) so one can assume their electronics are fairly compact and leave a lot of room for propulsion.

PL-17 seems to be around 5.7 m long and 0.32 m in diameter.
SM-6 is some 6.5 meters long with booster or 6 m long without it. Diameter being 0.34 m.
PAC3 MSE is allegedly 5.2 m long, no booster, and approx 0.32 m in diameter.

Pac3 mse is credited with approx 100 km range against fighter jet type targets.
SM-6 is credited with a beyond 240 km range, with some estimating it at 370 km or so.

If a pac3mse had a booster getting it to 15 km and mach 1.5 or whatever, it'd surely add quite a bit of range.
Also, sm-6's booster basically gets the first stage to a speed of several mach, and altitude roughly comparable to one of a jet aircraft.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
this resource estimates 10 second burn for sm-2 booster. That should amount to roughly 9-13 km of altitude before the booster burns out. (assuming mach 3-4 for the booster)

On the other hand, we already have indications that a much smaller pl-15 can reach 200 km.

With all that, PL-17 reach seems unlikely to be under 300 km, at the very least. But with a more plausible performance bracket being 350-400 km. And ranges approaching even 500 km not being entirely unrealistic. Again, this is all against a certain kind of targets, not necessarily jet fighters but subsonic airliners like force multiplier type planes.

Being able to get force multipliers to break off even without achieving a hard kill is still a mission kill. .

Fighters cannot press on without the risk of no base return possibility, AWACS and AGS coverage is levelled down and standoff long range weapons need to be used.

Would be interesting to see if a J-16 could carry 4 of them or it is only the inner pylons who are strong enough to carry these PL-17.

supersnoop · Dec 4, 2023

Atomicfrog said:
Being able to get force multipliers to break off even without achieving a hard kill is still a mission kill. .

Fighters cannot press on without the risk of no base return possibility, AWACS and AGS coverage is levelled down and standoff long range weapons need to be used.

Would be interesting to see if a J-16 could carry 4 of them or it is only the inner pylons who are strong enough to carry these PL-17.

It is said in Ukraine that R37M kills a lot of missions not because of actual kills, but because the aircraft have to take action that interrupts the mission. Even without knocking out AWACS/JSTARS/KC-Tankers, you can definitely threaten something fighter-size on an anti-shipping mission.

(Though I loathe to link to David Axe)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Stealthflanker · Dec 4, 2023

Yes, one tactic for BVR missile employment is "Fire for effect" It's basically taking lucky shot but the main purpose would be harassement. Price of the BVR missile is irrelevant when it managed to force the enemy to get away although it's of course debatable. If hit is intended however then a salvo of multiple missiles would be required.

Blitzo · Dec 4, 2023

tamsen_ikard said:
If AIM 260 is the same size as Amraam with such higher range, does that mean PL-15 is much less efficient and could be improved to have much more range due its bigger size?

It's not that simple and it is better to just not think about comparisons in that way.

Is China working on such an improved version of the PL-15?

We know a new BVR AAM is in the works that will allow J-20 to fit six in the central weapons bay.
Anyway it's been literally over a decade since PL-15 first showed up in pictures, so it is safe to guess that a major new BVR AAM should be well in the works by now.

taxiya · Dec 6, 2023

tamsen_ikard said:
If AIM 260 is the same size as Amraam with such higher range, does that mean PL-15 is much less efficient and could be improved to have much more range due its bigger size?

It could more likely mean that PL-15 has a much larger warhead and radar apature than AIM120 and 260.

Missile of cylindral fueslage does not generate lift like aircraft's wings. In aircraft, lift is generated by airfoil. To maintain flat flying, the engine (therefor fuel) thrust is to be equal to drag. Increasing payload mass does not necessarily increase drag or increase drag much slowly.

A cylindral missile does not fly straight forward but always has a AOA, the missile's mass is carried by the downward elemental vector of engine thrust. The AOA is maintained by the air resistance pointing backward which is balanced by the forward vector of engine thrust. This means the payload mass increase will directly increase thrust demand therefor fuel consumption.

In short cylidral body "fly" like a kite, aircraft fly like bird. The difference is to say that missile's range is directly related to its payload mass.