1m-1.5m dollars seems like it's way too much. A HQ-9B missile costs only 800k dollars and that thing is massive compared to PL-15. Sale price to Pakistan might be something around that though because China wants to profit.
Chinese air to air missiles
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Economies of scale are going to matter a lot as well. The US treats the AIM-120 as a special weapon and makes only 1200 a year, and that's for every single plane in the world that can fire them. In comparison, the PLA treats the PL-15 as a standard munition and has automated factories to build them. I'm willing to bet that China makes at least 1000 units per month.
Most of the cost is the radar seekers.
So given:
1. The much larger diameter available for the HQ-9 missile
2. Its role as a defensive SAM, where the targets are heading towards the search/acquisition radars with a lot more power than a fighter
You can go with a much cheaper radar seeker on the HQ-9 than an AAM
1000 per month of the PL-15 is way too many.
That would be 12K per year, and it's been 10 years now. That would be a total of 120K missiles, which is far in excess of the number of opposing air targets.
They could produce say 20K in total (2K per year) which should be more than enough. And with the savings, buy thousands more DF-17 instead, to destroy the aircraft whilst on the ground.
Traditional MRAAMs are still unavoidably expensive, especially with AESA seekers. Every missile is ultimately a full standalone unmanned aircraft with onboard navigation, autopilot, seeker/fuzing(fire control), comms and engine.
But overall this is a big deal, because for that very reason, only 3 nations on Earth produce enough traditional missile ammo to fight long term. Which also means that only those who buy from these 3 have emergency option for additional largely unlimited stock just in case.
(Another snab at Europe and those who buy rafales in particular).
Last edited:
A sidewinder has a 20 year shelf life for example.
But the point still stands. Instead of buying excessive numbers of AAMs, it's better to buy fewer AAMs and buy more DF-17.
While we don't know, but I would not be surprised if the production of missiles like the PL-15 could reach around the ~1000 a month at max throughput (three 8 hour shifts a day).
While regular output (1 shift likely not even running at 100%) would likely be less than 1/3 of the 1000.
That said, the PL-15 might have stopped, but the new PL-16 or whatever its successor is, can probably do the same.
Or in short, whatever current non wartime production, for China atleast, ramping it up to probably 3x or way more in a short time frame (a month maybe) should not be hard.
While regular output (1 shift likely not even running at 100%) would likely be less than 1/3 of the 1000.
That said, the PL-15 might have stopped, but the new PL-16 or whatever its successor is, can probably do the same.
Or in short, whatever current non wartime production, for China atleast, ramping it up to probably 3x or way more in a short time frame (a month maybe) should not be hard.
I don't think any of us here have any basis to start from, but realistically the problem isn't just automated linebor volume, it's also access to rather advanced SRFs in bulk.
Given Chinese aircraft fleet actually capable of using PL-15, I honestly would expect numbers like of 1000-2000/year, resulting in a stock of ~15-20k units, and it being still in production. It's still a significant chunk of yearly expenditure, even for PLAAF.
AAMs are not some sort of non-perishable canned goods that can last indefinitely. They too need to be maintained regularly even if not used and if they are carried externally, their lifespan decreases even faster. There is little sense in keeping too many missiles in storage. In fact, PLAAF regularly needs to use up AAMs nearing expiration in live fire exercises.