JF-17/FC-1 Fighter Aircraft thread


ougoah

Major
Registered Member

VLRAAM PL-15?? Excuse me but I believe the PL-15 is not even a LRAAM like Aim-54 Phoenix or modern LRAAMs like R-37M, PL-20 or whatever it's called.

PL-15 is thoroughly a MRAAM but with far greater effective range than the previous benchmarks for MRAAMs that are around 70km and a much smaller NEZ. PL-15 was speculated to have around 150km range? No clue on what that figure is supposed to mean but assumed as max effective range so essentially very little energy and maneuvering potential for good P(kill).
 

siegecrossbow

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
VLRAAM PL-15?? Excuse me but I believe the PL-15 is not even a LRAAM like Aim-54 Phoenix or modern LRAAMs like R-37M, PL-20 or whatever it's called.

PL-15 is thoroughly a MRAAM but with far greater effective range than the previous benchmarks for MRAAMs that are around 70km and a much smaller NEZ. PL-15 was speculated to have around 150km range? No clue on what that figure is supposed to mean but assumed as max effective range so essentially very little energy and maneuvering potential for good P(kill).

Fun fact about AA missile range -- the relative velocity and altitude of respective aircraft matter a LOT. For Western or Chinese AA missiles, the so-called max range is for two fighters approaching each other at Mach 1.2 at an altitude of 10KM. Russians use the standard of two aircraft heading toward each other at Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 20KM. This boosted the R-77's maximum range by 30KM.

Right now very little is known about the PL-15. We know that it uses a dual-pulse engine, which will boost its range relative to something like a PL-12 or AIM-120C. I agree that PL-15 is probably not a VLRAAM since it is not large enough to be one.
 

Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
Fun fact about AA missile range -- the relative velocity and altitude of respective aircraft matter a LOT. For Western or Chinese AA missiles, the so-called max range is for two fighters approaching each other at Mach 1.2 at an altitude of 10KM. Russians use the standard of two aircraft heading toward each other at Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 20KM. This boosted the R-77's maximum range by 30KM.

Right now very little is known about the PL-15. We know that it uses a dual-pulse engine, which will boost its range relative to something like a PL-12 or AIM-120C. I agree that PL-15 is probably not a VLRAAM since it is not large enough to be one.
One question. Can these missiles carry nuclear payload? Are these jets configured for nuclear capacity?
 

Nobonita Barua

Junior Member
Registered Member
Can AA missiles carry nuclear payload? No they are far too small.

Can JF-17 carry a nuclear bomb? Yes, through the Ra'ad Nuclear ALCM.
Not even the tactical ones? Sorry I'm not very learnt regarding nuclear payload size.
The reason it came to my mind is because, a couple of years ago there was a report that India was lobbying to stop f16 sales to Pakistan because they were "converting " it into nuclear capable platform. It was very surprising to me because as far as I know the control system & firing mechanisms can't be altered without source codes & particular ecosystem which are never shared. So if Pakistan comes up with missiles carrying tactical nukes, will it be able to fire those using this platform? Isn't it banned?
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Not even the tactical ones? Sorry I'm not very learnt regarding nuclear payload size.
The reason it came to my mind is because, a couple of years ago there was a report that India was lobbying to stop f16 sales to Pakistan because they were "converting " it into nuclear capable platform. It was very surprising to me because as far as I know the control system & firing mechanisms can't be altered without source codes & particular ecosystem which are never shared. So if Pakistan comes up with missiles carrying tactical nukes, will it be able to fire those using this platform? Isn't it banned?
Any plane that can carry bombs is a nuclear capable platform. There's no way for a plane to tell whether the bomb it has on hardpoint X is a nuclear or conventional bomb.
 

ougoah

Major
Registered Member
Fun fact about AA missile range -- the relative velocity and altitude of respective aircraft matter a LOT. For Western or Chinese AA missiles, the so-called max range is for two fighters approaching each other at Mach 1.2 at an altitude of 10KM. Russians use the standard of two aircraft heading toward each other at Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 20KM. This boosted the R-77's maximum range by 30KM.

Right now very little is known about the PL-15. We know that it uses a dual-pulse engine, which will boost its range relative to something like a PL-12 or AIM-120C. I agree that PL-15 is probably not a VLRAAM since it is not large enough to be one.

Yep which is why I included the 150km often dropped range for PL-15 is very fluid. Ranges depend on many factors but the Russian max ranges certainly do get buffed up by how the max effective range is specced. In any case, PL-15 is 100% not a VLRAAM. I would have many doubts it can even be considered a LRAAM. There is no clear consensus what a LRAAM's range numbers should be within/beyond but taking Phoenix as a reference point since it was a benchmark for LRAAM range, then it should be above 190Km. Maybe if the PL-15 was fired on a target approaching with relative velocity of mach 3 of above and fired at above 20Km at an angle of 45 degrees... maybe then?

Anyway calling PL-15 a LRAAM is at best inaccurate. It's certainly not a VLRAAM like Timepass suggested. It's essentially a more advanced and capable PL-12. The first wholly Chinese design after PL-11 is sinocised Aspide and PL-12 is Chinese tech evolved from the starting point of Aspide and experience with Soviet MRAAM performance (R-77 and R-27) and perhaps to some greater detail within its structure, with a more Aim-120 body but different vortex management. The PL-15 marks greater confidence to develop in its own way and introduces multiple seekers and dual pulse motors. It is basically a superior PL-12 in every way except size. Firmly a MRAAM but just boosted in range like all Soviet/Russian and American mainstay MRAAM have received huge boosts to range between now and the 1990s.


Not even the tactical ones? Sorry I'm not very learnt regarding nuclear payload size.
The reason it came to my mind is because, a couple of years ago there was a report that India was lobbying to stop f16 sales to Pakistan because they were "converting " it into nuclear capable platform. It was very surprising to me because as far as I know the control system & firing mechanisms can't be altered without source codes & particular ecosystem which are never shared. So if Pakistan comes up with missiles carrying tactical nukes, will it be able to fire those using this platform? Isn't it banned?

Air to air missiles are not designed to carry nuclear warheads. They shouldn't and technically cannot unless one bothers to miniaturise a warhead down to a size that can fit which would be a daunting task and if accomplished, putting it on a AAM is probably one of the last things that anyone would be interested in because the purposes do not align in any way at all, ever.

For nuclear delivery there would be much superior systems that are more effective and destructive.
 

Top