Short range missiles are a lot easier to integrate than BVRAAMs. Wonder when they’ll start integrating PL-15.
Chinese air to air missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Short range missiles are a lot easier to integrate than BVRAAMs. Wonder when they’ll start integrating PL-15.
That’s indeed a mystery for the moment and I’m not sure if it is simply not yet transferred or if it will indeed be retained? … but how then does it fit into the new structure?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think people might be a little premature in thinking the PL17 is purely for taking out AWACS and tankers at extended range.
Indeed, I myself would be a little disappointed if they went with such a one-dimensional approach.
Looking at the size of the thing and expected future development paths for air combat, I do wonder if it might have exo-atmospheric engagement capabilities.
It isn’t. It is fully capable of engaging fighter sized targets but the priority is to target AWACs because they are higher value.
Even R-37, which is more tailored for killing specialty aircraft, had a kill against a Ukrainian Mig-29 recently. There is nothing stopping PL-17 from doing better.
They are not that old and have probably a lot of flying hours left...where would they fit the best ?
Frankly speaking, the US alone has more than 400 tankers. Large numbers of those are going to be deployed to the IndoPac theater in order to support USAF and USN operations against the PLA across vast distances. There is no lack of targets for Chinese LRAAMs and ULRAAMs to choose from, including the PL-17.
Besides, there are plenty - And I mean plenty - Of US&LC warplanes in the WestPac theater that can rightfully demand the use of LRAAMs and ULRAAMs in the Chinese arsenal.
Even beyond the AEW&C, tanker and fighter aircrafts, you have:
1. Maritime patrol aircrafts like the P-3s, P-8s and P-1s, which the US and Japan have a lot of them, as they are useful for hunting PLAN subs within and around 1IC and even 2IC;
2. ELINT and SIGINT aircrafts like the RC-135s, MQ-4s and RQ-180s, which should also be present in large numbers as well, and will be patrolling and snooping along warzones for PLA transmissions and communications either in the distance (standoff) or stick up close (VLO);
3. ECM and EW aircrafts like the E/A-18s, which can seriously working on messing up PLA radars, sensors, guidance and communication + transmission in the warzone;
4. Airlifters of all types and sizes like the C-17s, C-130s and C-2s, which can be used for rapid warzone resupply of enemy troop positions across WestPac islands; and
5. Last-but-not-least, bombers like the B-52, B-1B, B-2 and B-21, which can either lob standoff missiles from far away, or get in close (VLO) to attack the PLA.
To put it simply - Don't worry. In case Pacific War 2.0 breaks out, China won't be running out of long-range and ultra long-range aerial targets anytime soon.
Sure, hopefully it can be utilized against enemy satellites in the future - And perhaps even certain enemy orbital spacecrafts too (yes, I'm talking about you, X-37).
Last edited:
Hmm? According to this image, some claim, the third AAM carried by the J-20 and future J-35 internally has been revealed and they discuss the designation PL-16.
However is it legit and wasn't the PL-16 the next generation short-range AAM?
(Image via @柳成梁 on FB)
However is it legit and wasn't the PL-16 the next generation short-range AAM?
(Image via @柳成梁 on FB)
Looks similar to this. I wonder where it will sit in capability ladder.
Currently:
TY-90 -> For helo and potentially small UAV self defense
PL-10 -> Short range IIR missile
PL-12 -> Relatively low capability RF BVR missile for things like CMD and C-UAV
PL-15 -> High capability main BVR missile. AESA radar guided
PL-17 -> Very long range AAM
PL-16 (let's assume the name) -> It is RF-guided and I guess it is for optimal internal carriage. I wonder if it matches the capabilities of the PL-15. The design looks more contemporary with strakes and thinner body.