Chinese air to air missiles

[AndrewS]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on Twitter is claiming that according to "his sources", the PL-16:
1. Has a smaller diameter than that of PL-15's and next gen fighters can carry more of them in its IWBs.
2. Can handle BVR, WVR and anti-radiation missions.
3. Has a dual-mode seeker with dual-band radar and IR imaging.
4. Improved dual-pulse engine with a TVC nozzle.
5. Range exceeding 300kms, maximum speed exceeding Mach 5. (Obviously just speculation)

We already know that the PL-16 is going to be an improvement over its predecessor, but I'm wondering if some of these claims here are plausible instead of being complete bogus. Have any of y'all heard similar things from top PLA watchers?

If points 2 and 3 are true, then the PLA might be looking to merge the PL-10's mission profile into a multirole missile instead. Could explain why there aren't side IWBs for the J-XDS.

If accurate, it sounds like the PL-16 is optimised for combat against stealthy 5th gen and 6th gen aircraft.

These are far more immune to missile X-band radar seekers and also long range radars in general.

So a dual radar and IR seeker makes sense.

At the same time, missile engagements will typically be at significantly shorter BVR ranges than against a non-stealthy aircraft.

So in terms of missile kinematics, you want a faster missile so at to reach the target first and you can accept a shorter range than for a PL-15.

But having said that, if the PL-16 is also replacing the PL-15 (instead of being complementary), I don't see how they would make the PL-16 smaller. That just means less rocket propellant and less space for a dual radar/IR seeker.

As for TVC, that comes with a range/weight penalty. But it might be worth it, if you are going after targets at very long range or manoeuvrable fighters.

 

[Tomboy]

But having said that, if the PL-16 is also replacing the PL-15 (instead of being complementary), I don't see how they would make the PL-16 smaller. That just means less rocket propellant and less space for a dual radar/IR seeker.

That's not strictly true though, I doubt it'll be much shorter, but it'll be thinner to fit atleast 6 into J-20's bay. Thinner also comes with extra benefit of less drag so you do need less delta-V for the same range

As for TVC, that comes with a range/weight penalty. But it might be worth it, if you are going after targets at very long range or manoeuvrable fighters.

Weight saving in removing the front fins and installing only a small base fin like the PL-17 is going to be huge, plus aforementioned much less drag cause your missile now is basically just a stick. It isn't impossible to get an increase in range from a decrease in diameter of the missile IMO. We know that PL-16 probably don't have too much fin area since cute orca said PL-16 looks like JATM which also doesn't have a front fin.

 

[qwerty3173]

That's not strictly true though, I doubt it'll be much shorter, but it'll be thinner to fit atleast 6 into J-20's bay. Thinner also comes with extra benefit of less drag so you do need less delta-V for the same range

Weight saving in removing the front fins and installing only a small base fin like the PL-17 is going to be huge, plus aforementioned much less drag cause your missile now is basically just a stick. It isn't impossible to get an increase in range from a decrease in diameter of the missile IMO. We know that PL-16 probably don't have too much fin area since cute orca said PL-16 looks like JATM which also doesn't have a front fin.

Well, newer batches of pl-15 already can be fit six into j-20 and j-35 bays, so I doubt further reducing diameter will be necessary. For solid rocket motors, more length means more thrust and more diameter means more burn time.

 

[qwerty3173]

For missiles in internal bays a lot of space is taken up by fins and other aerodynamic devices, shrinking diameter is not an efficient way of denser packing. The only time when you want to shrink diameter is when weight is the confining factor since weight is the square of diameter.

 

[Tomboy]

Well, newer batches of pl-15 already can be fit six into j-20 and j-35 bays, so I doubt further reducing diameter will be necessary. For solid rocket motors, more length means more thrust and more diameter means more burn time.

Really? I have never heard of a new PL-15 that could fit 6 into IWB. Are you sure you aren't talking about the PL-15E folding fin export variant? Plus, I was talking about reducing diameter compared to a standard PL-15 which almost definitely can't fit 6 into a IWB if this new variant were to exist. But it is possible that the missile body itself may have a larger diameter but has tiny fins to achieve the same effect of packing more into the same space.

 

[ismellcopium]

I can confirm that rumors about dual mode seekers and dual use in WVR scenarios are flying everywhere in relevant social media in china. Smaller diameter not so sure, some say that it has tiny fins and is slightly longer, thus looks like its thinner instead of a truly smaller diameter.

Any rumours about service status/production numbers of this missile?

 

[qwerty3173]

Really? I have never heard of a new PL-15 that could fit 6 into IWB. Are you sure you aren't talking about the PL-15E folding fin export variant? Plus, I was talking about reducing diameter compared to a standard PL-15 which almost definitely can't fit 6 into a IWB if this new variant were to exist. But it is possible that the missile body itself may have a larger diameter but has tiny fins to achieve the same effect of packing more into the same space.

Um, the e in Pl-15 is just for export, not a particular variant. Pretty sure folding fins are the norm for all newer batch missiles. For PLA the designation on the surface is often extremely oversimplified, there are at least three slightly different batches of missiles all labeled "PL-15" with the newest batch being all foldable. Export versions I know less of, but similar principles apply.

 

[ougoah]

PL-17 can only be carried by J-16 at the moment and maybe outside of IWB for J-20.

J-36 will be able to easily fit at least 6x PL-17 missiles internally but it sounds like the PL-17's successor is designed for J-36. Lofted flight, ballistic trajectory, ~1000km range and >mach 5. It'll probably be a boost glide HGV and aimed at AWACS and the like. Basically the next generation PL-17 designed to be more survivable and longer reach. Much longer reach.

There were hints of HGV air to air missiles for a few years now. It's only the natural development for anti tanker and AWACS.

PL-16 sounds exactly like what we expect PL-15's successor to be.

Just like with the car industry, Chinese industry produces a new generation every 2-3 years instead of the typical 7-10 years. Fighter generations will be shortened to one every ~15 years instead of ~30 years. J-20 reached service 2017. J-36 and J-50 will beat that estimation.

Air to air missile generations will at least match this and adapt to developing air combat philosophies faster than fighter generation.

PL-15 and PL-17 have been around for some time. Their replacements sound like they're getting ready before next gen fighters reach LRIP.

These newer missiles, at least the PL-16 should be able to be adopted for use by older fighters. Even the JF-17 is able to fire PL-15.

 

[Neurosmith]

(Deleted)

 

[vincent]

Allegedly a PL-15 missile:

Note how the dual-pulse solid motor kicks in for the final bit of acceleration.

It's the shoot down of the S-70 by the Su-57 in Ukraine.