Chinese air to air missiles

[Blitzo]

If tracking distance was the focus then they would compare radar models not AAM models. And the sides would have the longest ranges.

I agree that this probably does not depict merely tracking distance only or radar performance only.
However I do think this is not merely engagement envelope against a standard target -- putting it another way, I think the key is if we accept that 180 degrees is rear aspect and 0 degrees is head on, we need to somehow come up with something which makes sense for the rear aspect distance to be much larger than the head on distance.

If it were engagement envelope alone, that would not make sense (as tail chase/rear aspect should be much shorter than head on/frontal aspect).

That's why it would make sense for it to be against some sort of LO target, as it would make sense that its most vulnerable sector would be the rear (thus greatest "distance"/envelope), while the leas vulnerable sector would be the front (thus shortest "distance"/envelope) and somewhere in between for the sides.

It almost certainly does. I would say it depicts something really high performing. The graph looks like a target-centric employment graph, as also noted by others. The PL-12 was depicted to have an almost zero effective range in chase against what was assumed.

The massive uplift by the PL-15 over PL-12 in that aspect is very notable and supports this position too. In a head-on engagement it has a 200% range improvement. In a tail-aspect engagement the difference is about 600%. The PL-15 is a significantly faster missile with a better speed retention and a dual-pulse motor. The latter improves the average speed in medium range shots by limiting the top speed (hence losses to the air resistance which scale quadratically with the speed).

This said ability to sustain high speeds is very important for tail-aspect shots because the missile has to stay above the speed of the aircraft to get closer. Head-on, a Mach 2 missile is still useful against the F-15. From behind, it is not. The aircraft can just outrun that, hence the range of the missile collapses to the range it can stay significantly above Mach 2.

I agree the graph is for a target centric employment graph, but I'm not sure if it is against a maneuvering target.

Fundamentally, the key thing we are trying to make sense of is why the greatest engagement envelope/range is for the 180 degree aspect (tail/rear aspect) while the shortest engagement envelope/range is for the 0 degree aspect (head on/frontal aspect).
Your hypothesis would make sense if the 180 degree aspect was for head on/frontal and 0 degree for tail/rear, for a moving target.

 

[TK3600]

Is PL-16 a different class to PL-15 or just a better PL-15?

 

[TF2001]

Is PL-16 a different class to PL-15 or just a better PL-15?

It’s a better PL-15, J-20 is supposed to carry 6 of these in its IWB.
Also some unconfirmed rumors that it may work as a dual purpose ARM/AAM, so it can serve as an AARGM/JATM equivalent simultaneously. Don’t recall where I heard the rumors from though.

 

[TK3600]

Honestly kinda nuts how much it improved in similar profile. PL-15 is already thought to be really among western standards, and 16 give a drastic improvement on top.

 

[no_name]

I agree that this probably does not depict merely tracking distance only or radar performance only.
However I do think this is not merely engagement envelope against a standard target -- putting it another way, I think the key is if we accept that 180 degrees is rear aspect and 0 degrees is head on, we need to somehow come up with something which makes sense for the rear aspect distance to be much larger than the head on distance.

If it were engagement envelope alone, that would not make sense (as tail chase/rear aspect should be much shorter than head on/frontal aspect).

That's why it would make sense for it to be against some sort of LO target, as it would make sense that its most vulnerable sector would be the rear (thus greatest "distance"/envelope), while the leas vulnerable sector would be the front (thus shortest "distance"/envelope) and somewhere in between for the sides.




I agree the graph is for a target centric employment graph, but I'm not sure if it is against a maneuvering target.

Fundamentally, the key thing we are trying to make sense of is why the greatest engagement envelope/range is for the 180 degree aspect (tail/rear aspect) while the shortest engagement envelope/range is for the 0 degree aspect (head on/frontal aspect).
Your hypothesis would make sense if the 180 degree aspect was for head on/frontal and 0 degree for tail/rear, for a moving target.

Maybe it simply means the maximum distance that the various missiles can be fired at a target LO aircraft and having a reasonable chance of hitting it. Then it makes sense that the distance is shortest head on because it would be the very orientation that detection reduction are the most optimised for.

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe it simply means the maximum distance that the various missiles can be fired at a target LO aircraft and having a reasonable chance of hitting it. Then it makes sense that the distance is shortest head on because it would be the very orientation that detection reduction are the most optimised for.

... yes that is close to what I've said, but I'm careful to not phrase it so bluntly because there are probably a bunch of other factors contributing to it.

The most significant of which is whether the target is moving or not, because if the target is moving, then it would not make sense for a LO target to have such a long engagement envelope in the rear/tail chase aspect for a moving target even if it was exposing its most vulnerable aspect from a LO pov.

 

[Wrought]

It’s a better PL-15, J-20 is supposed to carry 6 of these in its IWB.
Also some unconfirmed rumors that it may work as a dual purpose ARM/AAM, so it can serve as an AARGM/JATM equivalent simultaneously. Don’t recall where I heard the rumors from though.

Wasn't that because some folks were referring to CM-102 as PL-16 for whatever reason?

 

[ENTED64]

Honestly kinda nuts how much it improved in similar profile. PL-15 is already thought to be really among western standards, and 16 give a drastic improvement on top.

Well PL-15 is now like 10-15 years old and materials science has been improving so it makes sense. It's not like there aren't next gen western projects in the works like AIM-260 that also aim for significantly increased ranges while maintaining roughly the same size. Further PL-15 is a bit larger than AIM-120 so if the same holds true for PL-16 and AIM-260 (they're both meant to fit into existing IWB) then assuming equal tech levels PL-16 would enjoy a range advantage on AIM-260 just like PL-15 does on AIM-120.

The bigger problem for USAF and such is that it's unclear if they can field AIM-260 and such in the numbers that they would really need.

 

[bsdnf]

Wasn't that because some folks were referring to CM-102 as PL-16 for whatever reason?

Some people believe there is a PL-16A or YJ-16A as an ARM version, like LD-10 based on PL-12, but I'm not sure where this comes from.

 

[dingyibvs]

YJ would be anti-ship, no?