If I am not wrong with the figure, I think PL-12 has the maximum range of 70 km, while the AIM-120D has the maximum range of 180 km. That's more than 2.5 times the range of PL-12. Couple with a superior AESA radar, I think Chinese are at a huge disadvantage. Even if in the future somehow the gap becomes closer let's say PL-12 with twice the range (140 km) it is still 40 km short of the AIM-120D.
It is hard to say what the future holds, but all we can say is
currently, the missile and radar range are shorter on the chinese side, so, the evolving tactic could only mean the chinese would be on the defensive tactic, while the American can play the defensive
AND offensive.
The PL-12 you make reference first came out around 2005. Variants since then have improved on range; I know at least one variant has 100 km, and I first heard of that a year or two ago.
Now don't ask me for sources -- PLAAF air to air missile development is one of the least chronicled areas -- but I'm certain at present the max range of PL-12 is far beyond 70 km. (I remember an article from Richard Fisher, and another on aviation week which quoted the PL-12s range as beyond 100 km actually. Can't remember if it was two articles or Fisher's article on aviation week though...)
With ramjets the range of any long range missile will be increased dramatically and for the PL-12 at least, should easily match the AIM-120D's current 180 km. (And that's assuming the radars on the PLAAF side have shorter range. With the Flanker and J-20's large radome they should be able to fit radars larger than the F-15 and F-22, respectively. Putting in the fact that the Chinese have experience with AESAs, any dispecrancy between USAF and PLAAF radars shouldn't be that great)
Anyhow, by the time PLAAF fighters start fielding PL-12D and PL-21 along with AESA in substantial numbers (~2015-2020?) I imagine the MRAAM and radars on either side should achieve relative parity and that's clearly the timeline which the supposed USAF tactic has in mind.
------
Also, I wouldn't quote sinodefence, or actually anyone on the real numbers of PLA weaponary or how many units they're fielding of anything. Sinodefence still quotes ~200 Type 99 tanks in service and don't have any developments within the last two years logged in.
------
Also, here's a good post from Crobato, made on CDF when PL-12 first came out, regarding missile range:
"Quoting missile range are useless because manufacturers can 'cheat' by boosting the missle.
For example, if you can launch the missile on a much faster aircraft and at a much higher altitude, the missile will surely travel much farther than it would be at a lower altitude and lower speed aircraft.
So quoting 50, 60, 70, or 100km ranges is useless without the context of the launching platform. What speed is the missile launched? How high?
According to the designer of the SD-10, the Russians got their figures for the R-77 by firing it from a launching aircraft traveling at Mach 1.5 at an altitude of 10,000 meters. For the SD-10 it's 70km launched from an aircraft at Mach 1.1 at 5,000 meters.
Another factor to remember when you have propellant is trading off range for speed. By having propellant that burn faster, the missile travels faster, which increases kill probability but decreases range. And vice versa, you can increase range by trading off speed.
For example the Python 3 is a much shorter range missile than the R-73, 15km vs. up to 30km. But the Python 3 travels at Mach 3, while the R-73 does Mach 2.2. Improved propellant pushes the Chinese version of the Python 3, the PL-8, to 22km however.
So again, what speeds do the missiles travel? I like to compare that in their context of range.
The third factor is how big is the warhead. The bigger the warhead the bigger the explosion radius and the likelihood of a killQuoting missile range are useless because manufacturers can 'cheat' by boosting the missle.
For example, if you can launch the missile on a much faster aircraft and at a much higher altitude, the missile will surely travel much farther than it would be at a lower altitude and lower speed aircraft.
So quoting 50, 60, 70, or 100km ranges is useless without the context of the launching platform. What speed is the missile launched? How high?
According to the designer of the SD-10, the Russians got their figures for the R-77 by firing it from a launching aircraft traveling at Mach 1.5 at an altitude of 10,000 meters. For the SD-10 it's 70km launched from an aircraft at Mach 1.1 at 5,000 meters.
Another factor to remember when you have propellant is trading off range for speed. By having propellant that burn faster, the missile travels faster, which increases kill probability but decreases range. And vice versa, you can increase range by trading off speed.
For example the Python 3 is a much shorter range missile than the R-73, 15km vs. up to 30km. But the Python 3 travels at Mach 3, while the R-73 does Mach 2.2. Improved propellant pushes the Chinese version of the Python 3, the PL-8, to 22km however.
So again, what speeds do the missiles travel? I like to compare that in their context of range.
The third factor is how big is the warhead. The bigger the warhead the bigger the explosion radius and the likelihood of a kill"
I do miss his input, he was always so technical and convincing.