PL-15E and HQ-16FE improvements needed?

[Toxic]

You dont need more air defense system, they are very expensive, and air defense system are static, besides defend against ballastic missiles they are not that useful.Given your limited resources, you need more offence system, not defence system.

For instance, in your fleet, JF-17 is too light weighted to carray large strike weapons, whilst J-10C/F-16 are mostly for air-superiority role, you need some heavy fighter-bombers or attackers or at least some heavy UAVs to carry air-strike.

Basically after the first day, India give up the air space to you, resort to just UAVs and missiles, you lack the offence capability to take advantage of it.

That's the role the J-35 will fill

 

[Harbyharb]

While the performance of the PL-15E this month has made profound changes to air power. The missile worked because it operated within a very specific flight envelope; like a sniper shot.

Deviations at such long ranges by the enemy aircraft if they know the missile is coming can limit the efficacy of the missile.

Therefore the missile needs a wide area it can maneuver in mid flight, so it has enough of a window to move in for the final kill.

Both the PL-15E and HQ-16FE are relatively small missiles, at economical prices, that could easily form the backbone of the air defense of the PAF and PA air defense forces.

The addition of lateral thrusts in the mid body as on the Aster 30 would help achieve the desired improvement I mentioned above.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

PL-15E have gas rudder and HQ-16FE does have lateral thrusters. But both are not really designed for long range terminal lethality in mind, but rather increase interception envelope closer to the bottom left, when the missile have yet to accumulate enough velocity for aerodynamic control surfaces to generate enough control authority and direct thrust vectoring would be needed to supplement.

I think what you are referring to is how these missiles adopt a ballistic trajectory to achieve a greater Rmax, and you think these missiles require greater lethality against a maneuvering target. I think you have a slight misconception as of how can that be achieved. Missiles designed to intercept air breathing targets below 20000 meters (so most aircraft) does not require lateral thrusters like a KKV, for the air is still dense enough that airfoils, both fins and the body of the missile itself, can still generate sufficient moment to steer the missile. In this case what does increase a missile's terminal lethality is in most cases velocity.

We've already seen several measures taken to increase terminal velocity, from dual pulse rocket motor adopted by PL-15s, eliminating large fin surface like on HQ-16FE (this is a more peculiar case), and adopting air-breathing propulsion like the MBDA Meteor.

If you want to further increase their terminal lethality, making them more difficult to detect by enemy MAWS and RWR, thus cutting reaction window would be more effective -- and we probably already saw this at play. According to intercepted Rafale comms, the SPECTRA system combining RWR and MAWS did not detect the incoming PL-15E until impact, and the wreck of the PL-15E suggests it very much could possess LPI/LPD capability.

I would say PL-15E(assuming it got the dual pulse motor)/HQ-16FE are already at the forefront as being some of the most lethal anti-aircraft ordnance there is.

 

[FarhanSiddiqui]

PL-17 or more powerful missiles are a given. Pakistan may consider repairing its diplomatic relations with Russia in order to get a license to buy from China the J16. which can fire the PL-17.

J-16 is a Chinese fighter and you still need Russian approval ? So China does not have IP rights for the Chinese Flankers ?

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Sooner or later Pakistan will need HQ19. there will only be more and more missiles like Brahmos in the future and the popularity of GMD is inevitable.

Some new type of AD system will almost certainly arrive in the future. It all depends on what China is comfortable with exporting.

 

[Harbyharb]

J-16 is a Chinese fighter and you still need Russian approval ? So China does not have IP rights for the Chinese Flankers ?

It is a past historical issue that were sustained through concessions.

When China and Russia first signed Su-27SK deal, the original terms were that China only have the right for domestic assembly with Russian supplied subsystems, no right to modify the original design and certainly no right for full reverse engineering. Obviously that didn't last, Russia very understandably protested, threatening to cut off supply of critical components like engines and munitions. Through an arduous negotiation, two nation eventually arrived at a concession - Russia turn a blind eye toward the indigenous development of Chinese flankers, in return China would refrain from taking cuts out of Russia's flanker export market.

The outcome of the negotiation became a mutually beneficial and mutually respected arrangement. China get to collaborate with Russian firms on certain systems without raising eyebrows, while Russian manufacturers, especially KnAAZ that supplied China with Su-30MKK, MK2, Su-35SK, remained afloat.

 

[MH.Yang]

J-16 is a Chinese fighter and you still need Russian approval ? So China does not have IP rights for the Chinese Flankers ?

All Chinese-produced Flankers require Russian consent to be exported.

This is a historical issue, China and Russia have an agreement where Russia allows China to produce and improve its own Flankers, but China cannot export them without Russia's permission.

 

[MH.Yang]

That's the role the J-35 will fill

The PL-17 is 6.6m long and the J-35 can't use it.

 

[Toxic]

The PL-17 is 6.6m long and the J-35 can't use it.

No I meant as a strike platform, the J-35 unleash it's payload and get out without even being detected.

 

[safriz]

While the performance of the PL-15E this month has made profound changes to air power. The missile worked because it operated within a very specific flight envelope; like a sniper shot.

Deviations at such long ranges by the enemy aircraft if they know the missile is coming can limit the efficacy of the missile.

Therefore the missile needs a wide area it can maneuver in mid flight, so it has enough of a window to move in for the final kill.

Both the PL-15E and HQ-16FE are relatively small missiles, at economical prices, that could easily form the backbone of the air defense of the PAF and PA air defense forces.

The addition of lateral thrusts in the mid body as on the Aster 30 would help achieve the desired improvement I mentioned above.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Pl 15 does have a second thruster which fires up near the target, for chasing a maneuvering plane.

 

[Harbyharb]

No I meant as a strike platform, the J-35 unleash it's payload and get out without even being detected.

What's the point of a VLO aircraft if you are gonna have it carrying BVR+ missile on the external hardpoint

The very idea of VLO is that you get to approach enemy assets undetected and get to employ the same weapon and sensors with greater lethality, if you really want to employ the J-35 in tandem with the PL-17 a more effective option would be having the J-35 as your forward ISR platform to enable other platforms to employ PL-17 from beyond their own sensor range.

Theoretically even the JF-17 could be used to deploy the PL-17s. Not like it's gonna be much heavier than the CM-400AKG anyway (if at all).

 

[Toxic]

What's the point of a VLO aircraft if you are gonna have it carrying BVR+ missile on the external hardpoint

The very idea of VLO is that you get to approach enemy assets undetected and get to employ the same weapon and sensors with greater lethality, if you really want to employ the J-35 in tandem with the PL-17 a more effective option would be having the J-35 as your forward ISR platform to enable other platforms to employ PL-17 from beyond their own sensor range.

Theoretically even the JF-17 could be used to deploy the PL-17s. Not like it's gonna be much heavier than the CM-400AKG anyway (if at all).

Brother do you know what a strike platform means? It will carry it's payload in it's IWB, Also we could see an upgraded variant of the PL-15e in the future combined with their VLO they could be very effective AWAC hunters.

 

[Harbyharb]

Brother do you know what a strike platform means? Also we could see an upgraded variant of the PL-15e in the future combined with their VLO they could be very effective AWAC hunters.

Sorry I misunderstood your point.

Yes J-35's ideal loadout would be 4 PL-15s (6 PL-15 for the future folding fin version) with tremendous lethality against critical enemy assets like tankers and AWACS, and honestly that's about what the J-35 should be employed as.

While the SAC have proposed several A2G loadouts that could fit into J-35/FC-31's internal munitions bay...


...keep in mind that VLO jets like J-35 are going to be expensive to procure and sortie, thus even ideally speaking the PAF wouldn't be able to field more than a squadron of them in the foreseeable future. In this case the magazine depth of the J-35s themselves would not be sufficient on an operational level in the event of a large scale aerial campaign and should be exclusively reserved for critical enemy force multipliers, C&C, and early warning assets.

 

[Great Mal]

Sorry I misunderstood your point.

Yes J-35's ideal loadout would be 4 PL-15s (6 PL-15 for the future folding fin version) with tremendous lethality against critical enemy assets like tankers and AWACS, and honestly that's about what the J-35 should be employed as.

While the SAC have proposed several A2G loadouts that could fit into J-35/FC-31's internal munitions bay...
View attachment 121396
View attachment 121397
...keep in mind that VLO jets like J-35 are going to be expensive to procure and sortie, thus even ideally speaking the PAF wouldn't be able to field more than a squadron of them in the foreseeable future. In this case the magazine depth of the J-35s themselves would not be sufficient on an operational level in the event of a large scale aerial campaign and should be exclusively reserved for critical enemy force multipliers, C&C, and early warning assets.

Pakistan would eventually field around 2 squadrons even 3 if we take into account our southern borders.

 

[Developereo]

After the initial loss of aircraft on May 7, the IAF was missing in action.

It seems likely that India will rely on BrahMos decoyed by a swarm of cheaper missiles to do the heavy lifting in any future war. Pakistan's weak spot is AD against BrahMos and a counter to BrahMos. Those should be prioritized.

 

[Jungibaaz]

PL-15E have gas rudder and HQ-16FE does have lateral thrusters. But both are not really designed for long range terminal lethality in mind, but rather increase interception envelope closer to the bottom left, when the missile have yet to accumulate enough velocity for aerodynamic control surfaces to generate enough control authority and direct thrust vectoring would be needed to supplement.

I think what you are referring to is how these missiles adopt a ballistic trajectory to achieve a greater Rmax, and you think these missiles require greater lethality against a maneuvering target. I think you have a slight misconception as of how can that be achieved. Missiles designed to intercept air breathing targets below 20000 meters (so most aircraft) does not require lateral thrusters like a KKV, for the air is still dense enough that airfoils, both fins and the body of the missile itself, can still generate sufficient moment to steer the missile. In this case what does increase a missile's terminal lethality is in most cases velocity.

We've already seen several measures taken to increase terminal velocity, from dual pulse rocket motor adopted by PL-15s, eliminating large fin surface like on HQ-16FE (this is a more peculiar case), and adopting air-breathing propulsion like the MBDA Meteor.

If you want to further increase their terminal lethality, making them more difficult to detect by enemy MAWS and RWR, thus cutting reaction window would be more effective -- and we probably already saw this at play. According to intercepted Rafale comms, the SPECTRA system combining RWR and MAWS did not detect the incoming PL-15E until impact, and the wreck of the PL-15E suggests it very much could possess LPI/LPD capability.

I would say PL-15E(assuming it got the dual pulse motor)/HQ-16FE are already at the forefront as being some of the most lethal anti-aircraft ordnance there is.

I wonder to what extent PL-15’s dual pulse characteristics also influence the reaction time for MAWS?

Given that likely IR MAWS probably most easily detects the plume of the missile during boost phase. An AMRAAM or MICA launched at ranges and have flight profiles that MAWS systems might be designed to handle and these older missiles might have their plumes detectable during boost phase.

Whereas PL-15 will launch at extended ranges where the plume for the initial phase will look smaller, and then it will coast ar lofted altitude at a more intermediate range and become less detectable plus LPI kill-chain fools the opposing RWR, and then by the time the missile body or the second plume from the dual phase is visible, the PL-15 is much closer and now accelerating towards target again.