PLAAF Munitions

by78 said:

Flexible production line for AAMs, capable of round-the-clock automated production.

Click to expand...

Neurosmith said:

What exactly is this "PL-16" that everyone is talking about? My understanding is that it is just a miniatured PL-15 with a new rocket booster so that it could be six-packed into the J-20's weapons bay. Is there something unique about it?

Click to expand...

Tomboy said:

Cute Orca say it's basically better JATM in a smaller than PL-15 form factor and has been in service for the past two years

Click to expand...

CaribouTruth said:

There's no consensus if the '6 pack' PL-15 is actually called PL-16 anymore. Last time we saw the folding fin PL-15 it was labeled PL-15E if i recall correctly. Just a baffling naming system.
Then there's noises about a new operational bvrAAM which is being tentatively called PL-16 instead.

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

It comes in a smaller package but has similar if not superior performance envelope to PL-15. According to credible rumors there are no control fins in the front.

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

So uhh, just to get things straight here...

1. The PL-15 is basically what the US wanted for their AIM-260;
2. The PL-16 is basically a slimmed-down version of the PL-15 (with similar or improved performance than the PL-15); and
3. The PL-17 is basically PL-15/16 Pro-Max (i.e. greatly extended range than the PL-15/16).

Is my understanding close enough?

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

So uhh, just to get things straight here...

1. The PL-15 is basically what the US wanted for their AIM-260;
2. The PL-16 is basically a slimmed-down version of the PL-15 (with similar or improved performance than the PL-15); and
3. The PL-17 is basically PL-15/16 Pro-Max (i.e. greatly extended range than the PL-15/16).

Is my understanding close enough?

Click to expand...

defenceman said:

Hi,
so which of the three PLs are for J20 bay like folded to house six missile in it
thank you

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

So uhh, just to get things straight here...

1. The PL-15 is basically what the US wanted for their AIM-260;
2. The PL-16 is basically a slimmed-down version of the PL-15 (with similar or improved performance than the PL-15); and
3. The PL-17 is basically PL-15/16 Pro-Max (i.e. greatly extended range than the PL-15/16).

Is my understanding close enough?

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

PL-17 is in its own class.

Click to expand...

neutralobserver said:

Is it fair to compare the AIM-174B to the PL-17 or are they fundamentally different systems type of missiles?

Click to expand...

neutralobserver said:

Is it fair to compare the AIM-174B to the PL-17 or are they fundamentally different type of missiles?

Click to expand...

Blitzo said:

I wouldn't say that.

1. PL-15 is competitive or superior to AIM-120D variants, and the AIM-260 was developed partly informed by PL-15 as a response to it. We don't know if AIM-260 is comparable to PL-15 or if it may even be superior. However we do know that AIM-260 should have a AIM-120C/D footprint meaning it's a bit smaller than PL-15
2. PL-16 should have a smaller footprint than PL-15, but it should also be more capable than PL-15
3. PL-17 is a larger class of AAM than AIM-120D, PL-15 or AIM-260 or PL-16, both in terms of range and in terms of footprint.
- In terms of size/footprint (not necessarily capability only), PL-17 >>>> PL-15 > AIM-120C/D = AIM-260 = PL-16

Click to expand...