Chinese air to air missiles

Hi
by the way if in future one can have ULRAAM missiles with a range exceeding
450/500km is it not possible to fire them from surface to air kind of missile, what’s
the point of putting fighter jets & pilots in the air can be fired from surface to air
thank You

defenceman said:

Hi
by the way if in future one can have ULRAAM missiles with a range exceeding
450/500km is it not possible to fire them from surface to air kind of missile, what’s
the point of putting fighter jets & pilots in the air can be fired from surface to air
thank You

Click to expand...

Because fighter jets can move through the air, and SAMs can't.

There are also kinematic advantages from launching missiles at high altitude from a moving aircraft, instead of a ground-based launcher.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Speaking of the bolded sentences, assuming that the information is accurate:

#1 - If the new variant of PL-15 (let's call it PL-15X) can already achieve a strike range of 300-400 kilometers (the present variant is said to be 200-300 kilometers), and if the PL-17 and PL-21 are meant to supersede the PL-15 - Then it should be reasonable that the strike ranges of the PL-17 and PL-21 be expected to go (way) beyond that of the PL-15X. (Preferably 500+ kilometers or even more)

#2 - As newer LRAAMs are getting strike ranges that are longer and farther out - What would be the end game? Would that be -
#2a: The theorectical maximum possible strike ranges of LRAAMs have already been reached? Or
#2b: Future LRAAMs will be able to snipe targets that are in the high 100s of kilometers away, and perhaps with the LRAAMs being further developed into ULRAAMs with 1000+ kilometers of strike range? Or
#2c: Future aircraft-mounted CIWS-type weapons (miniaturized HHQ-10 pod, laser pod, etc) would render the effort of using AAMs for aerial warfare more challenging or more redundant?

#3 - The increasing interests in the development, deployment and proliferation of LRAAMs and ULRAAMs (and their related systems and counter-systems) will play a pivotal role in the transformation on how we fight aerial warfare into the future. The way of how we fight high up in the skies into the coming years would very well be drastically different than what most of us are accustomed to, right now.

Note:
AAM = Air-to-air missile
LRAAM = Long-range + AAM
ULRAAM = Ultra + LRAAM

Click to expand...

We're nowhere near this hypothetical future.

And it doesn't look like the PL-17 supersedes the PL-15, it's a different class of weapon.

Furthermore, range is not the end-all and be-all from my reading on the subject. Missile kinematic profiles need to be examined in their totality.

ougoah said:

You mean a HQ-9 equivalent AAM? There are HQ-x series ABMs already, designations HQ-26 and HQ-29 based on available info. And HHQ-x ABMs launched off 055... at least that is part of the 055's role and inventory.

As for AAM... you are nuts if you think a long range SAM can be placed under the wing or fuselage of any fighter. SM-6 is one thing (doubt that ever happened) but HQ-9 is like twice the volume of a SM-6. What the F-18 tested was a totally different type of missile to the SM-6. It bears a resemblance. Sort of like how YJ-91 and YJ-12 bear resemblance but a J-10 isn't going to be taking 2x YJ-12s into the air.

Click to expand...

The first thing that pops up when you google "F-18 SM-6" is a photo of whatever that resembles a Standard on an F/A-18. It's not the SM-6 though, my mistake there, since it doesn't have the Mk72 booster.

I'm pretty sure I specifically stated "full-bore HHQ-9" there. By yours reply I inferred that you have photos/diagrams of the HQ-26/HQ-29/HQ-19 or whatever is its designation and the rounds these systems field are full-bore. For reference, this is how a full-bore looks like:


Specifically, the SM-3 Blk IIB is what I'm referring to. I can only find pictures of the HHQ-9B on the net, which is unlike what depicted above, and I can only speculate on whatever an ABM round fielded for the HQ-9 will be similar to those developed by the Russians. None of which are full-bore. 77N6 still have a giant booster section that slopes inward.

As for HQ-9 on fighters, it could be possible if, ya know, rip off the booster. Being high in the clouds certainly takes care of that. Like how AMRAAM has 100km from a fighter but 19km from a NASAMS launcher. But certainly that is too far-fetched, I agree ( although, if my memory doesn't fail me, then the missiles fielded on the S-400/500 are two-stage).

yeetmyboi said:

The first thing that pops up when you google "F-18 SM-6" is a photo of whatever that resembles a Standard on an F/A-18. It's not the SM-6 though, my mistake there, since it doesn't have the Mk72 booster.

I'm pretty sure I specifically stated "full-bore HHQ-9" there. By yours reply I inferred that you have photos/diagrams of the HQ-26/HQ-29/HQ-19 or whatever is its designation and the rounds these systems field are full-bore. For reference, this is how a full-bore looks like:
View attachment 117595

Specifically, the SM-3 Blk IIB is what I'm referring to. I can only find pictures of the HHQ-9B on the net, which is unlike what depicted above, and I can only speculate on whatever an ABM round fielded for the HQ-9 will be similar to those developed by the Russians. None of which are full-bore. 77N6 still have a giant booster section that slopes inward.

As for HQ-9 on fighters, it could be possible if, ya know, rip off the booster. Being high in the clouds certainly takes care of that. Like how AMRAAM has 100km from a fighter but 19km from a NASAMS launcher. But certainly that is too far-fetched, I agree ( although, if my memory doesn't fail me, then the missiles fielded on the S-400/500 are two-stage).

Click to expand...

So you did mean ABM... thought you were talking about converting HQ-9 into a A2A missile for the PLAAF. PLAAF doesn't operate ABMs hence why I thought you mistyped ABM and meant to write A2A. This is the A2A thread after all.

As for ABM and off topic discussion. What advantages do full bore have over angled profiles and fins? I'm not aware or knowledgeable but interested to know.

As for HQ series ABM the only photos (I didn't download the video/s that were made available on Chinese TV) and just have a few images that were captured from the video and shared on the internet. The video program was linked in this forum ages ago.



Looks like there's an angle but similarly slim bodied like full bore.



Different type possibly HQ-19? Someone more knowledgeable can weigh in.






Talks about testing "emergency response". Not sure if this is a emergency, fast response satellite launch vehicle being tested or interceptor. Looks more like the size of an interceptor.

Oh and since it was disclosed (and shown on video) that Type 055 indeed does launch anti-ship ballistic missiles (YJ-21 is the designation apparently), there are a few unknown missiles here outside of the circled YJ-21 ASBM.



There are two distinct types there that look like full bore SAM/BMD missiles (2nd and 6th from left). Notice how HHQ-9A and YJ-21 shown are identical to their real counterparts. Same goes with the HHQ-16A/B basically. Although that could be a different missile but the size indicates HHQ-16A/B.

With how real this image is now that YJ-21 was disclosed (years after this image was shown to public in a Chinese defence expo), we have to assume those two three as yet unidentified missiles are also designed to be onboard Type 055. We've known for some time that Type 055 is meant to carry at least one type of ABM.

As for ABM and off topic discussion. What advantages do full bore have over angled profiles and fins? I'm not aware or knowledgeable but interested to know.

Click to expand...

Full-bore means stretching the round's body to the limit of the launch cell's dimension.
For example, the SM-3 Blk 3 that I referenced in my last post has a 27-inch diameter propulsion that is literally beyond the standard capacity of the VLS cell! And it got that wide to the entire nosecone. The navalized ATACMS also got into the same situation and had to do with a specialized thin-shell canister. So geometrically a full-bore round would be more efficient, as it can utilize more cell space. Literally why it's named "full-bore", or full diameter after all. However that is only in the area of shaping optimization as there are also more tactical and operational requirements that also matters. A full-bore missile would means significantly heavier payload and worse aerodynamics which would necessitate a highly capable propulsion system, and so on and so forth. If the PLA feels they dont have that capability yet, or have to deal with other, more critical areas, then they shouldn't spend much fundings into RnD for a "Block IIB-ed" HHQ-9.

All the missiles that you posted seem to have a not insignificant amount of taper on their body. However what's close to a full-bore design in PLA arsenal is the HQ-22! Just remove the tail control section and beef it up. The whole body is an entire straight line after all.

yeetmyboi said:

Full-bore means stretching the round's body to the limit of the launch cell's dimension.
For example, the SM-3 Blk 3 that I referenced in my last post has a 27-inch diameter propulsion that is literally beyond the standard capacity of the VLS cell! And it got that wide to the entire nosecone. The navalized ATACMS also got into the same situation and had to do with a specialized thin-shell canister. So geometrically a full-bore round would be more efficient, as it can utilize more cell space. Literally why it's named "full-bore", or full diameter after all. However that is only in the area of shaping optimization as there are also more tactical and operational requirements that also matters. A full-bore missile would means significantly heavier payload and worse aerodynamics which would necessitate a highly capable propulsion system, and so on and so forth. If the PLA feels they dont have that capability yet, or have to deal with other, more critical areas, then they shouldn't spend much fundings into RnD for a "Block IIB-ed" HHQ-9.

All the missiles that you posted seem to have a not insignificant amount of taper on their body. However what's close to a full-bore design in PLA arsenal is the HQ-22! Just remove the tail control section and beef it up. The whole body is an entire straight line after all.

Click to expand...

Right okay so it is a trade off between energy and aerodynamic performance.

And the first two types of missiles I posted are two of the known ABMs in PLA/PLAN service.

Looking at historic ABMs of China, US, and the USSR, tapering seems to be universal. Only the US SM-3 and GBI approaches full bore with a flatter end than the THAAD or the top HQ-xx image. This makes sense as an exoatmospheric ABM but might climb to altitude slower than a more tapered missile?

The most impressive ABM in my opinion is the Sprint missile. Just the acceleration and the glow from atmospheric drag.

I think the choice for tapering may have to do with acceleration and possibly heat dissipation/control? After all non-full bore missiles would be more a constraint for ship based ABM.

The HQ-xx honestly seems pretty close to full bore it's just a much more dramatically tapering front. THAAD, GBI, S-500, Arrow, they all operate with different acceleration and top speeds so makes sense for slight differences in design. Some have obvious stage separations.

Training rounds for the Russian R-27 and R-77 missiles.

Old articles confirming that the J-10 once upon a time held the longest kill record of any PLAAF fighter aircraft. Supposedly a target obliterated at a range exceeding 100KM by PL-12. Probably achieved under optimal circumstances but impressive for early 2000s Chinese military tech nonetheless. All six PL-12s launched by the J-10 during the trial period found their respective marks.

siegecrossbow said:

View attachment 120408
View attachment 120409

Old articles confirming that the J-10 once upon a time held the longest kill record of any PLAAF fighter aircraft. Supposedly a target obliterated at a range exceeding 100KM by PL-12. Probably achieved under optimal circumstances but impressive for early 2000s Chinese military tech nonetheless. All six PL-12s launched by the J-10 during the trial period found their respective marks.

Click to expand...

Oh, so it's similar to PL-15E.
While the self-use PL-12 has an effective range of more than 100KM, the SD-10 as a foreign trade product has a range of only 70kM.
What I'm curious about now is when the effective range of PL-1OE is 20KM, will the range of own PL-10 be 30KM. . . .

test1979 said:

Oh, so it's similar to PL-15E.
While the self-use PL-12 has an effective range of more than 100KM, the SD-10 as a foreign trade product has a range of only 70kM.
What I'm curious about now is when the effective range of PL-1OE is 20KM, will the range of own PL-10 be 30KM. . . .

Click to expand...

I think you're misinterpreting it slightly.

The advertised range for missiles are dependent on the circumstances of the launch aircraft and the circumstances of the target.
For example, it's absolutely possible for a BVRAAM with a listed range of 70km to be able to hit a target at 100km distance if the circumstances of the launch aircraft and the target are complementary enough.

However that doesn't mean 100km is worthwhile listing as an advertised range because if the circumstances are unrealistic and significantly non-representative of combat conditions, then why even list it?
For the SD-10A specifically, we do not know whether it was a downgraded version of the domestic version available at the time or whether there is a better domestic version available.

It may well be possible that the kill at 100km range is using a PL-12 variant at the time which was not greatly superior to the SD-10A, and that SD-10A itself is also capable of kills at 100km range in similar circumstances. After all, the PL-12 in the early 2000s would have been succeeded by more capable PL-12 variants before PL-15 emerged.



For PL-15E, we have definitive confirmation already from the institute at the airshow last year that the domestic version has superior performance including range (200km+) to the export version (150km)
For PL-10E, it is possible but who knows.