Chinese PL-17 (250nm Range!??)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- Mover and I chat about the PL-17. Nothing to see here other than pure speculation.
Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between. Send your topic ideas to cwlemoine at cwlemoine.com!
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
Kids Coloring and Activity Books!
www.amazon.com...
As a former airlift guy, I have to say your tanker jokes are spot on
You mean the hotel joke? I don’t get it
The Chinese internet has quite a few articles on the PL-17, indicating the flight path to be a climb to 100,000+ feet and Mach 4+ speed, where it would do a Phoenix dive onto the target. Somewhere after the initial climb to altitude, the second boost phase will occur, giving the missile its terminal speed. There's some speculation that the missile is actually a 2-stage job and that the first stage will drop off before the second stage ignites, I kinda doubt that. Insofar as guidance goes, it has data link guidance, as well as active radar and IR guidance in the terminal phase. Every article I've read on the Chinese internet agrees on one thing: the PL-17 is an area denial weapon, designed to shoot down low-speed, non-maneuvering targets like AWACs, tankers, and lumbering B-52s. Can it shoot down fighter-like targets? Can't answer that question until detailed performance specs for the PL-17 become public. Good luck with that.
During the flight, PL-17 would rely on inertial guidance, satellite navigation, and data-link to track targets. During the terminal phase, the missile would turn on its multimode seeker with both active AESA radar and IR-homing to track the target autonomously.
That sounds complex for Chinese equipment. The Chinese are known for on paper weaponry and have frequently shown mock-up fancy gear at air shows that just became vaporware. While the Chinese military industry can fool the Chinese government, it has found itself with few international buyers and those buyers tend to be unable to get weapons from other countries.
@@orlock20 Ture. Like anything Chinese its usually a knockoff that performs way worse then the thing they knocked off. If it can do what they say.....VERY highly doubt it, just like anything else Chinese made. Only thing that has quality thats 100% chinese made and designed is food and only like 2% of it.
@@JSRJSObviously take everything the chinese claim with a grain of salt, but NEVER underestimate your enemies. China has been massively catching up in the manufacturing sector over the last 15 years or so.
I think it would be a choice between radar and ir versions of missiles
hmm yes just like japan ww2, chinese pilots will have inferior equipment, they cant fly well due to their slanty eyes
Gonky, I see the pics of it on the plane, but question the efficacy of such a weapon as a practical very, very BVR weapon. Break, But I really wanted to tell you guys that to play a joke on the annoying Russian "Trawler" following our ship in 1973, the Ordies in my squadron created a 20 ft fake missile and hung on an outboard station on an A-4. Parked the a/c on the port side. No way an areodamically viable weapon for the A-4. We all watched the "Trawler" come close aboard with its crew out with their Japanese cameras. Our Intell also got a good look at their antennas, etc. LOL and Smile!
LOL! Pete I love it!
2:55
The BONER. B-1R. I laughed too hard at that
Take away their per diem? That would make for a long trip back to Scott AFB. 😁
LOL!
Suppressing per diems and denying internet access are excellent examples of asymmetrical tactics.
If its an AWACS killer, what are the chances its got an anti radiation seeker vs active radar?
I know flankers have the central mounting points which normally have AA-10s/AA-12s/PL-12s. a potential loadout be putting one of these center mounted, and a normal loadout on other pylons (So itd be 4x2x1 of these?). Theres lots of talk of datalink targeting/guidance via AWACS these days, if thats a thing it could be worth losing 2 PL12s to make an AWACS go defensive/shut its radar off and take a targeting solution off the table for blue air. Or if they have radar seekers, you could cause chaos yeeting them into tanker tracks. Large force refueling is chaotic by itself. Even if they don't get a hard kill, if they can force tankers defensive and prevent strikers from getting gas thats mission accomplished.
As far killing an AWACS not likely
The PL-7 claims Mach 4 ish with 250 range
With those figures, it covers 250 miles in 5 mins roughly
in 5 mins, an AWACS can change its position by as much as 40 miles
Which means that J-11 would have to close to at least 190 miles to maximize its chances of getting lock
And thats assuming that AWACS is unguarded
Lastly consider that newer air to air missiles are advanced enough to target other air to air missiles
Expending an AIM-120 to save an AWACS is completely acceptable
that idea sounds cool, like SEAD but i guess SEAO because you'd be supressing the offence not the defence
According to online sources, during the flight, PL-17 would rely on inertial guidance, satellite navigation, and data-link to track targets. During the terminal phase, the missile would turn on its multimode seeker with both active AESA radar and IR-homing to track the target autonomously. Very low probability of kill I imagine in any modern battle with various western EW/Countermeasures capabilities. Against Russia? I'm sure it would work great.
@@JSRJS
The simplest method is jamming communication between missiles and the launching aircraft so the missile cant stay on target
@@verdebusterAP exactly
Gun only is fun in video games. Would never want to only have guns in real life. That's when to bug out.
You will bug out unless you are Gonky!!!!
I'm not an expert on BVR missile systems, but wouldn't the PL-17 need to be guided with a jet using a powerful radar to lock and track plane at 250 miles? I read that the suspected locking range of the J-20 radar is around 100 miles, so the extra range of the missile seems to be a waste of engineering. Maybe, the PL-17 has a longer maneuvering range due to the extra-large rocket engine. Possibly, an AWACS would be able to guide the missile to a 250-mile target. The USA response is the AIM 260 in which its targeting ability is also limited the range of the aircraft carrying it.
As for the Aim 260, theoretically another plane can provide the targeting data to the missle. For instance, an F-15 Ex could be the missile truck and a few F-35s could provide the targeting data from a much closer distance. I do not know if the Chinese can do that nor do they have aircraft that are stealthy enough to stay undetected.
I am not sure where you get the 100 mile range figure for the J-20 radar, against Tankers and AWACS it is certainly far greater.
The planes that will carry this one is the J-16 and and the updated J-11 versions, they have room for a huge AESA radar in the nose and plenty of power to run it so they should have good ranges. When missile ranges are stated that is the maximum range when fired from high and fast against a non evading target. Real or rather realistic ranges are often much much less, a missile with a stated range of say 100km may need to get within 25km to have any chance of hitting the target when fired from down low against an evading target.
Basically , the F-14 with AIM-54 and MIG-31 with R-33/37
Aircraft with radar's powerful enough to guide missiles all the way to target but the problem with radars that powerful is they easily trigger the target's missile approach warning system (MAW) and Radar warning receiver (RWR)
It was the F-14's problem in the Gulf, the AWG-9 easily lit up Iraqis MAWS and RWR letting them know they were being targeted
Even though AESA is ow probability of intercept , when you are targeting at long ranges, you are still putting out a lot of power
Here's the equation
The PL-17 claims Mach 4 ish with 250 mile range
With those figures, it covers 250 miles in 5 mins roughly
in 5 mins, an AWACS can change its position by as much as 40 miles
Which means that J-11 would have to close to at least 190 miles to maximize its chances of getting lock
Then you have to add the fact that AWACS likely has powerful electronic countermeasure (ECM) suites which likely include Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammers
When F-14 with AIM-54 and MIG-31 with R-33/37 were top of the line, shooting down tankers, AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft was a very real possibility
As technology has advanced quite a bit
not so much
In 2017, the USAF tested Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator (SHiELD) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) program which basically making laser weapons for aircraft
While fitting a LWS an F-15 or F-18 is challenging for various reasons
Adding LWS pod to an AWACS
There is ample space for power and cooling for two 150kw system
its a changing situation
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165
Not likely
its called Automatic Target Recognition Unit (ATRU) and Digital Matching Correlator and its been around for since the 80s
Onboard systems match the target with an image stored in the memory
The key problem is you would have to know what you are targeting
Secondly AAMs travel at high speed and have very little time to for corrections
Against tankers and AWACS which have a large RCS, onboard radars can detect them moreso with cued search. F-22 has this capability as it can function as a mini-AWACS. While F-35 can get in close enough and relay the target's position. So F-22 is the sniper and F-35 is the spotter.
I'll believe it when I see it. Chances are, it's another PL-15 derivative designed to snipe tankers, bombers and AWACS etc. I highly doubt it'll be capable of hitting fighters at those quoted ranges.
Exactly, I think it's just the CCP throwing out their propaganda for the fanboys.
Was this missile even tested? It's not hard to freak out the Western military industrial complex by inventing a non-existent threat.
I'm only a casual viewer of this channel, so I'm sure this was covered at some point. But why is the guy who reads the articles (Doug?) never pictured in the Zoom chat windows?
Pretty impressive inert missiles, gotta say.
LOL!
@@peekaboopeekaboo1165Ukraine Air Force is getting destroyed by Russian su-35s
you forgot take away cell phones
That is one comically large missile jesus, and yeah like you guys said would hate to be the guy tasked with carrying it.
Cruise missiles are massive and can be carried by fighters. I would think that pilots would be briefed on current threats by intelligence services and not be reading them from a magazine.
Man, the Germans were fr making mobile bunkers with their Tiger IIs. Meanwhile, the Chinese seem to have strapped rockets to telephone polls to shoot at the Americans 💀
You may say a lot of things, but in today space battle domain, chinese and russian AAM could be inertially guided by its new AWACS or satellite means to a position >8NM of a high value target, and then turn on an active radar, or be semiactive guide XLR long burn missile.
I know nothing of air to air combat (though I enjoy this channel as well as 10 Percent True), but as on of those simpletons who used to make extra money by jumping out of aircraft, this thing seems like a credible threat to slow moving lift or rotary wing. It seems possible to me that in a conflict with china, we would start adjusting the threat acceptance for these aircraft when the need to reinforce or redeploy forces arises quickly, and this thing seems like it could be a bad surprise to a group of C-130s or osprey beebopping around the first island chain.
In the 6+ minutes it takes to cover that distance, your AWACS can perform a rapid descent, land and shut off its engines :)
In the middle of the Pacific.
Turn off engine will also lose the power supply to radar.
Decoys forever
If you want the standard loadout then what's the point of stealth fighters then?????????
250mm range is pointless if they can't control it
At that range, EW can effectively soft kill with jamming
250nm? So does this thing has to loft at 100K + to get that range?
Probably work great against Russian planes....Western...not so much
yay 1st in :)
Chinese technology has not been tested in conflict
✌😎🎼🎶🎵🎶🍻
like most of china's "innovations", it just doesn't sound that impressive
CCP taking notes of comments 😅
They’re having engine reliability problems
Honestly sounds more like a PR gimmick than anything in reality. Though you're going to have a whole bunch of DCs nerds, they're going to get all hot and bothered by it.
Yes I'm a DCS nerd but I try to stay in reality. But honestly to be able to get through all the jamming environment and the flight time involved and just turned cold I mean honestly the more you break it down the more it sounds like a PR gimmick
You are saying the military industrial complex wouldn't try to fool its own government? Not only is some Chinese company cranking out fake missiles, the western countries are going to spend billions of dollars creating a defense for missiles that don't exist.
Wouldn’t a missile that size have a decent radar signature of its own? Meaning that if you shoot it at an AWACS from 200 miles away, there’s a really good chance the AWACS could pick it up on radar, and then another fighter just shoot it down?
@@albinorhino6 The missile speed is based on a curve since it's more like a guided bullet than a UAV when it comes to fuel. Small fins means poor maneuverability. So while it's at its glide stage and slowing down, the aircraft could pull up forcing the missile to lose speed because it has no means to generate lift. Higher altitudes means less air which makes it harder for missiles to steer. Meanwhile the missile has to contend with chaff and electronic warfare.
if range only 250 nanometer, why waist people's time here. take a shower and go to the bed.
Here come the UA-cam military aviation experts/DCS nerds thinking they know more than REAL fighter pilots... lol.