Chinese air to air missiles

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
It totally makes sense to integrate this missile with JH-7A and H-6K/N in CEC environment. I'm just surprised PLAAF has CEC for air to air. That's damn impressive. I was under the impression CEC was reliable only for larger, less mobile targets like ships or ground targets.

Bombers are going to become missile platforms. Better if you can fly them high and fast. So far JH-7A and H-6K/N can only offer range and payload. Rather than only have the flanker series be capable of launching these, less kinematically competent aircraft should be launching platforms if anything. J-16 and other flankers have superior utility at medium range fights since that's where their specific set of kinematic skills yield maximum returns. Having J-16's launching four PL-17s is the almost the same as those four missiles coming off the wings of a JH-7A or the fuselage/wings of a H-6 (albeit with less speed). This means one less J-16 taking the medium range position. At least the JH-7A can get up to a respectable speed while the H-6 has the advantage of payload.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
JH-7A is too slow to qualify for an interceptor nowadays. PLANAF originally operated it as an interceptor against Japanese F-4s because China didn't have any fighter other than a handful of flankers with long enough range to tangle far from shore. Nowaday, like you said, they've got the J-11B/J-16 and maybe Su-35 with avionics integration later down the road for that role.

Plus there's the fact there aren't that many JH7 to go around. PLANAF JH7 are mostly there to do antishipping missions, which is a pretty crucial mission. So PLAAF's JH7 would likely have to be used. Chinese air forces have a rather low number of dedicated strike planes with crews training for strike roles. Makes more sense to give the AAM to various Flanker platforms. Heck, even J10 platforms make some sense. While they could carry probably fewer missiles - there are many more of them to go around. And sensor wise, J10A are probably not really behind JH7. J10C is probably ahead in sensor department.

While there's a worldwide push towards networked weapons - the air force as a system still benefits from more platforms having decent sensors being in the air - such formations will more easily create an image of the battlefield, than having a mix of platforms with good sensors and platforms like JH7, which are suited better to being simple trucks to actually carry the payloads. J16 (and theoretical modified J11B) are the best platforms for the new AAM. There are a lot of them (with modified J11B included), they have good sensors, they can carry as many missiles as JH7, their crews have been trained for interception missions more than JH7 crews and they have better acceleration/speed than JH7.

Now, the question, in my mind, isn't at all whether the big missile carried by J16 is an AAM. It probably is. And the missile seen under the JH7 may indeed be an identical missile. An AAM. But there still might be a possibility that PLA is developing added variants of the missile. Such a large missile is perfect as a basis for added variants. We've seen other missiles, which started of as AAMs, to at least entertain the idea of added variants. AIM9 was tested an air to ground missile. Chinese makers promoted SD-10 in an antiradar variant. Meteor missile has recently gotten a mention from BAE about the possibility of an SEAD variant. And so on...
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Yesterday I read a post at Twitter, that this new PL-17 ULR-AAM is aimed for being launched by long range striker like the J-16, JH-7A and also the H-6K/N bombers in order to wipe out AEW assets and tankers at very long range. Not sure however how reliable this is.

If that’s the case then it looks like the B-1B interceptor idea will be reincarnated in China!
 

by78

General
Please help me translate this. It appears to have something to do with seekers for PL-15 and PL-20, and something about composites saving weight an extending range. Not sure how credible this is.

49771162501_d0133261a0_o_d.jpg
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Plus there's the fact there aren't that many JH7 to go around. PLANAF JH7 are mostly there to do antishipping missions, which is a pretty crucial mission. So PLAAF's JH7 would likely have to be used. Chinese air forces have a rather low number of dedicated strike planes with crews training for strike roles. Makes more sense to give the AAM to various Flanker platforms. Heck, even J10 platforms make some sense. While they could carry probably fewer missiles - there are many more of them to go around. And sensor wise, J10A are probably not really behind JH7. J10C is probably ahead in sensor department.

While there's a worldwide push towards networked weapons - the air force as a system still benefits from more platforms having decent sensors being in the air - such formations will more easily create an image of the battlefield, than having a mix of platforms with good sensors and platforms like JH7, which are suited better to being simple trucks to actually carry the payloads. J16 (and theoretical modified J11B) are the best platforms for the new AAM. There are a lot of them (with modified J11B included), they have good sensors, they can carry as many missiles as JH7, their crews have been trained for interception missions more than JH7 crews and they have better acceleration/speed than JH7.

Now, the question, in my mind, isn't at all whether the big missile carried by J16 is an AAM. It probably is. And the missile seen under the JH7 may indeed be an identical missile. An AAM. But there still might be a possibility that PLA is developing added variants of the missile. Such a large missile is perfect as a basis for added variants. We've seen other missiles, which started of as AAMs, to at least entertain the idea of added variants. AIM9 was tested an air to ground missile. Chinese makers promoted SD-10 in an antiradar variant. Meteor missile has recently gotten a mention from BAE about the possibility of an SEAD variant. And so on...

Well I think the question I would ask is why we think it is unlikely for the JH-7/A to receive an VLRAAM payload in the first place?

Fundamentally, if we all accept that the maximum range of this VLRAAM can only be exploited through CeC-esque capability which even more advanced aircraft like J-16 will have to rely on to use PL-X, then what reason is there to doubt that a JH-7/A may be an inappropriate platform for PL-X?


After all the way I see it is that the benefit of PL-X and its reliance on CeC is that its maximum capability can be exploited without requiring the launch platform itself to have any kind of sophisticated fire control system, but only that it requires the plane have a sophisticated datalinking capability.

From that point of view, IMO the entire concept of PL-X should have been suspected to be a weapon that may be potentially much more widely fielded beyond J-16, but potentially all combat aircraft capable of physically interfacing with the missile -- other Flankers, JH-7/As, maybe even H-6s and J-10s.


Looking specifically at JH-7/As -- they are a very attractive combat aircraft family after the Flanker family to receive this missile, considering JH-7/As size means it will be able to carry a respectable number of PL-Xs while still retaining capable range and endurance.
In fact I would argue that J-10s make less sense to carry PL-X than JH-7/As, because of that exact reason above.


In fact, you describe the JH-7/A as being "simple trucks suited to carry loads" -- which I actually fully agree with and it is why I think the idea of it being a PL-X carrier makes sense. PL-X theoretically shouldn't require the carrier aircraft to have sophisiticated sensors of its own, but rather it can rely on the rest of the friendly force's networked sensor capability and just lob missiles to where those friendly sensors and networks directs it to.
In a way a JH-7/A carrying PL-X is not too different to being the aerial version of its air to ground missile truck role that it already has.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yesterday I read a post at Twitter, that this new PL-17 ULR-AAM is aimed for being launched by long range striker like the J-16, JH-7A and also the H-6K/N bombers in order to wipe out AEW assets and tankers at very long range. Not sure however how reliable this is.

Which tweet was this?

Anyway, it's far from illogical.
PL-X should be a missile that doesn't significantly rely on an aircraft's own organic sensors to make use of its capability, so technically any combat aircraft with the requisite physical compatibility and the requisite datalinking capability should be able to carry and field it.

I wouldn't be surprised in future if H-20 gets PL-17 compatibility (or whatever future variant of it is called).
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please help me translate this. It appears to have something to do with seekers for PL-15 and PL-20, and something about composites saving weight an extending range. Not sure how credible this is.

49771162501_d0133261a0_o_d.jpg

The passage mentions YH-550 series of material. YH-550-1, which serves as signal transparent windows for AA missiles, are used in XX-15 and XX-20 and helped enhance accuracy and detonation sensitivity. YH-550-2 is used to create high heat resistant radome and composite gas canister (tolerant up to 420C degrees) and instrument cover for XX missile. Apparently the composite gas canister is a special innovation and filled a domestic gap for China. YH-550-3 is used to create large sized composite fins, replacing titanium and decreasing the weight of each missile by 50kg. It increased the range of the missile by 200-400km and helped enhance China’s counter-carrier capabilities.

YH-550-1 is definitely used for air to air missiles (PL-15 and PL-20). YH-550-3 is obviously used for anti-carrier roles (one of the DF series) but I am not sure what YH-550-2 is used for. That said, the language style of this passage is consistent with that of military bagu articles. I think it should be authentic.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Hui Tong now calls the PL-17 PL-20 -
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a050.gif

Frankly I think the designations for all of these "new" BVR missiles are going to be all over the place for the next little while.

In terms of new/upcoming BVR AAMs that have been either confirmed/rumoured:
- PL-X/PL-17/PL-20, which is the VLRAAM seen carried previously on J-16 and now on JH-7/A, whose existence is basically confirmed but whose designation is not.
- PL-20/smaller size BVRAAM for J-20, which is the BVR AAM mentioned by the likes of yankee and so on in the past that J-20 is meant to carry six of.
- PL-21/ramjet BVRAAM, which is of course the ramjet BVR AAM similar in concept to meteor that has been rumoured on and off for the last decade.

IMO the designation of all of these missiles are all still up in the air at present.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
It could also be that ramjet missile and more compact missile for j20 will turn out to be one and the same.
 
Top