PL-15 export version data officially released by China

[SQ8]

Thanks, very nicely laid out. Just dont agree with the above line given AAMs are designed to have an upper bound of 20g to 50gs worth of turning capability.

In theory yes but that all depends on aspect, energy of missile and ECM in place. More often than not in typical endgame engagements the upper bound reduces significantly and remember its 20g load on the missile and not the maneuvering target. The target can still pull 7-8g to create enough separation between missile flight path that it will cause it to miss.

 

[iLION12345_1]

This is based on like nothing really. It looks like you do not read older posts before you type a response.

For recap, the Chinese exclusive PL-15 is 'stated' to have 200 KM target engagement capacity but AIM-120D have 'demonstrated' as much in a recent live-fire intercept attempt. This debate is settled.

I believe that PL-15 will live up to its expectations in combat situations (very impressive A2A missile design) but AIM-120D leverages 'combat proven technologies' to begin with.

AIM-260 is "next generation." Understand this.

AIM120D has not “demonstrated” such a thing, The US has claimed it has, just as China claims it’s missiles can do the same. If we’re going to apply this standard to China, then it must apply to the US as well.

 

[iLION12345_1]

This was a live-fire test in which the AIM-120D missile was armed with actual warhead and the target* was detected, tracked, engaged and destroyed in real-time like it would be in actual combat. The fundamental objective was to see how the AIM-120D will perform in an extreme BVR engagement format but this was also an evaluation of the sensor systems involved** to see if these technologies are up to the task or not. This leak is intentional in my view.

*Target in this case was a BQM-167A UAV. This UAV can perform 9G maneuvers and can also be equipped with some types of countermeasures. It is a fairly complex target for operational validation of a missile.

BQM-167A Air Force Subscale Aerial Target

The BQM-167A is a high-performance, remotely-controlled subscale aerial target used to provide a threat-representative target drone to support the Air-to-Air Weapon System Evaluation Program and other

www.af.mil

**Launching platform in this case was an F-15C. The official statement hints a kill chain setup which suggests that additional assets might be involved in unknown capacity (network-centric approach?).

Details of this test are not disclosed to Public for obvious reasons but WE finally have more than a mere statement to acknowledge Pk potential of the AIM-120D at extreme range(s) in BVR combat situations.

AIM-260 is supposed to be a leap from AIM-120D on various counts; maximum range will be certainly increased but not the 'only' focus.

Boeing Unveils New Two-Stage Long-Range Air-To-Air Missile Concept

The new missile offering from Boeing uses two stages instead of one to increase range and lethality.

www.thedrive.com

It does not say any of this in the article or anywhere else. You simply said it yourself.

I mean no offense, but I often find your statements to be biased in US favor when it comes to technology and I simply have to call it out the same way I’d call out a bias towards Chinese technology. Sometimes you are correct in this, for example when you tried to defend the M1 Abrams’ Pakistani trials while others were claiming it was somehow worst than a Type 59. But other times it just doesn’t come off the right way.

AIM260 is meant to restore the superiority of American missiles over the PL21 and R37M, I assume it will also have the capability to follow parabolic paths, US generals have themselves gone to say that it is meant to counter PL-21, R37M and PL-15, in which case it means surpassing them, because obviously US wants to hold the lead.

For now, I’ll stick to the same thing; these missiles are comparable until they get an actual combat record. Given the known advancements made in the technology and propellant of PL15 and AIM120D, one would even assume that PL-15 was better, however I wouldn’t agree to this given the American expertise in this regard.

 

[Clutch]

The s video gets a bit into the science behind the AA Missile ranges ... What's on paper versus real world performance figures...

 

[Keysersoze]

Thanks, very nicely laid out. Just dont agree with the above line given AAMs are designed to have an upper bound of 20g to 50gs worth of turning capability.

Yes but that might not be the case at longer ranges.

 

[LeGenD]

AIM120D has not “demonstrated” such a thing, The US has claimed it has, just as China claims it’s missiles can do the same. If we’re going to apply this standard to China, then it must apply to the US as well.

So you want to see footage of said test to acknowledge it? Multiple sources have disclosed said information. All are lying?

The Drive happens to be a well-informed source in particular. It is not mirch masala like Global Village and Eurasian Times.

To give you some prespective, as per your line of thought, RQ-180, B-21 Raider, NGAD prototypes and other classified articles are also mere 'claims' because USA have not shown them to you in person. You see where this is heading now? This is not constructive line of thought and position.

Americans have declassification practice which is appreciation-worthy. Many countries do not have this practice and try to keep Public in the dark with politically-motivated "misconceptions." Give credit where due.

It does not say any of this in the article or anywhere else. You simply said it yourself.

I mean no offense, but I often find your statements to be biased in US favor when it comes to technology and I simply have to call it out the same way I’d call out a bias towards Chinese technology. Sometimes you are correct in this, for example when you tried to defend the M1 Abrams’ Pakistani trials while others were claiming it was somehow worst than a Type 59. But other times it just doesn’t come off the right way.

AIM260 is meant to restore the superiority of American missiles over the PL21 and R37M, I assume it will also have the capability to follow parabolic paths, US generals have themselves gone to say that it is meant to counter PL-21, R37M and PL-15, in which case it means surpassing them, because obviously US wants to hold the lead.

For now, I’ll stick to the same thing; these missiles are comparable until they get an actual combat record. Given the known advancements made in the technology and propellant of PL15 and AIM120D, one would even assume that PL-15 was better, however I wouldn’t agree to this given the American expertise in this regard.

You make this sound like as if USA is not global technology leader since decades but on catch-up trajectory against its perceived near-peer adversaries instead. The very computer systems WE all use are powered by American and British hardware components and software applications - without which these systems will be mere showpieces.

I never asserted that USA develops each and every item better than all potential competitors around the world. Different countries have rolled out excellent products from time-to-time, and have innovative contributions to mankind.

Americans invest the most in security applications however. This is a domain that they continue to take seriously.

There is much that USA could develop and operationalize long before others if not for the INF and START pacts with Russia but they committed to these ends to assuage global perceptions. This can change in coming times. Time will tell.

Americans have a history of overhyping technologies of its perceived near-peer adversaries when it suits them (to fund conceptualized countermeasures), to the point that this can undermine their own established narratives and positions from time-to-time. Their own try to set the record straight at some point but perceptions of some observers are hardened by then.

Some years ago, they were making hue and cry over a range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. American senators were spooked by all the noise at the time. Come 2017 and suddenly multiple counter-options and countermeasures began to pop out from various quarters. I rolled my eyes while witnessing this game of narratives.

You are lashing out in frustration now.

I clearly pointed out in my first response to you in this thread that the maximum stated range of any missile is not robust metric in view of target complexity and potential countermeasures among other factors.

In regards to maximum stated range of PL-15, if you check my posting history, you will notice that I always posted reliable information and was modest in my claims.

I never claimed that AIM-120D outranged PL-15 but I realized that both are 160+ KM capable in person. I avoided making arguments in this matter. This was until recent live-fire intercept test of AIM-120D in which it put many claims to rest about it. So it makes sense to give credit where due. There is obvious difference between 'claimed' and 'operationally validated'.

Anyways, you can choose to not respond to me if my views tend to upset you. I will do the same as well if you desire this to be the case.

 

[maverick1977]

Is there any confirmed MRAAM kill besides Feb 27th AIM120C5 kill of MiG21 and SU30MKI ?

 

[Keysersoze]

Is there any confirmed MRAAM kill besides Feb 27th AIM120C5 kill of MiG21 and SU30MKI ?

C5 specifically?

 

[siegecrossbow]

Is there any confirmed MRAAM kill besides Feb 27th AIM120C5 kill of MiG21 and SU30MKI ?

There are at least 8 I think. Just off the top of my head there was a very recent kill of a Su-22 by Super Hornet using a AIM-120.

 

[khanasifm]

PL-15 is a step above AIM-120D. PL-15 is same class as AIM-260.

With aesa radar onboard, satellite comm and ins plus dual way data link not sure which version of aim-120 or 260 has all of the above ?

No other missile so far has aesa onboard ?? Is it ?

260 is still in Dev

 

[maverick1977]

C5 specifically?

All MRAAM kills so far, anything with sparrow AIM7E, AIM54A Phoenix, meteor, R77, AIM120 or PL12s

 

[Big_bud]

I don't know how much bluffing has been done on the range of PL 15 by chinese and pakistanis ranging from 250 to 350 km. Now China claims it to be 145 so it should be around 100 km at its best.

Good, send more MIGs. Lets test them!

 

[leviathan]

So question:
How is the PL-15 achieving significantly greater kinematic performance than the PL-12 while basically being the same size?

	PL-12	PL-15	Difference
Length	3934 mm	3996 mm	+62 mm
Weight	199 kg	210 kg	+11 kg
Diameter	203 mm	203 mm	Nil
Max Range	70 km	145 km	+75 km

This has to be some revolutionary progress in rocket motors. Or PL-12 was undersold or the PL-15 is being oversold.

Using this for data:
View attachment 780497

Beside new fuel, the Electronic components is much lighter and smaller. (2000 vs 2015 tech) It make more room for fuel.

 

[iLION12345_1]

So you want to see footage of said test to acknowledge it? Multiple sources have disclosed said information. All are lying?

The Drive happens to be a well-informed source in particular. It is not mirch masala like Global Village and Eurasian Times.

To give you some prespective, as per your line of thought, RQ-180, B-21 Raider, NGAD prototypes and other classified articles are also mere 'claims' because USA have not shown them to you in person. You see where this is heading now? This is not constructive line of thought and position.

Americans have declassification practice which is appreciation-worthy. Many countries do not have this practice and try to keep Public in the dark with politically-motivated "misconceptions." Give credit where due.


You make this sound like as if USA is not global technology leader since decades but on catch-up trajectory against its perceived near-peer adversaries instead. The very computer systems WE all use are powered by American and British hardware components and software applications - without which these systems will be mere showpieces.

I never asserted that USA develops each and every item better than all potential competitors around the world. Different countries have rolled out excellent products from time-to-time, and have innovative contributions to mankind.

Americans invest the most in security applications however. This is a domain that they continue to take seriously.

There is much that USA could develop and operationalize long before others if not for the INF and START pacts with Russia but they committed to these ends to assuage global perceptions. This can change in coming times. Time will tell.

Americans have a history of overhyping technologies of its perceived near-peer adversaries when it suits them (to fund conceptualized countermeasures), to the point that this can undermine their own established narratives and positions from time-to-time. Their own try to set the record straight at some point but perceptions of some observers are hardened by then.

Some years ago, they were making hue and cry over a range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. American senators were spooked by all the noise at the time. Come 2017 and suddenly multiple counter-options and countermeasures began to pop out from various quarters. I rolled my eyes while witnessing this game of narratives.

You are lashing out in frustration now.

I clearly pointed out in my first response to you in this thread that the maximum stated range of any missile is not robust metric in view of target complexity and potential countermeasures among other factors.

In regards to maximum stated range of PL-15, if you check my posting history, you will notice that I always posted reliable information and was modest in my claims.

I never claimed that AIM-120D outranged PL-15 but I realized that both are 160+ KM capable in person. I avoided making arguments in this matter. This was until recent live-fire intercept test of AIM-120D in which it put many claims to rest about it. So it makes sense to give credit where due. There is obvious difference between 'claimed' and 'operationally validated'.

Anyways, you can choose to not respond to me if my views tend to upset you. I will do the same as well if you desire this to be the case.

Calm down, Your messages did not anger or frustrate me, if anything I’m glad you always respond with a well educated reply. I understand what you’re saying, and in my own way I agree with you.

Lets leave it there, I respect you because you’re one of the few on this forum who always backs up what they say with sources and logic and you’ve done the same for me in the past, I’m sorry that my posts came across as rude, in hindsight they are worded too aggressively, it was not my intention at all.

 

[untitled]

sparrow AIM7E,

Plenty of kills for the AIM-7. The first air to air kill for the Americans in Vietnam was with an AIM-7

AIM54A

See Iran's use in the Iran-Iraq war

meteor,

Hasn't seen action yet

R77,

Hasn't been fired in anger yet

AIM120

Plenty

or PL12s

Hasn't seen action yet