PAF J-10CE News, Updates and Discussion

[Rational Philosopher]

I meant to say - IAF fighters. If they can just fire their missiles staying clear of PL-15s - it's a problem for PAF.

The solution is deterrence via response, not everything has to be entirely defensive. What you can defend, defend; the rest will be deterrence via offence.

You can put them in the same dilemma you are describing.

 

[Mrc]

You cannot defend for ever

In next episode forget about escalation ladder, take them to the top on day 1 either they give up or issue nuclear threat

 

[Ali_Baba]

I meant to say - IAF fighters. If they can just fire their missiles staying clear of PL-15s - it's a problem for PAF.

And, if PAF was equally equipped with SOW, then it is a bigger problem for India ?

 

[Deino]

Um... Deino, China has been using PL-17 missiles in PLAAF for a long, long time.

When it's confirmed in our level, it is not only old, it has already been superseded. PL-17's replacement level missile is surely in PLAAF service.

Basically PL-15s superior is the PL-16 which is thinner and likely an improvement in all parameters. PL-15 is now an ancient missile to China. It is used for practise so they can be expended.

PL-17 is the long range missile. Its replacement has been around for some time according to Chinese forum discussions. There is also another type of missile that outranges PL-17 and PL-17's replacement.

So basically think of PL-12 as beyond ancient. PL-15 is ancient.

PL-16 is standard "mid range". These days mid range = previous years ultra long range due to new energetics, optimised guidance and trajectory computing, new generations of rocket engines, better throttle control and energy (fuel) management, better materials, better aerodynamics. Also tricks like dual or n-pulse controlled rocket motors (can control how many times your engine switches on, how long for, how much force it gives your missile) which open up entire new dimensions of movement optimisation. PL-16's replacement is around. This is how old PL-15 is.

PL-17 is standard "long range" and has been around more than 10 years since J-16 shown to you all flying with it. When it was shown, it would be old. Nothing new is ever exposed. I repeat, nothing novel and new is EVER shown to the internet. Whatever we see online is older than old. Please reverse this whole philosophy of confirming things with official announcement and only when serial numbers are counted. When those happen, these things are boring old stuff.

PL-17's replacement is said on Chinese internet to have been around for some time now. They are not ready to show it at all though. Even PL-17 is rarely shown these days but every few times a year we get a few photos.

In China, every 2 years is a new generation of car. Legacy automakers average is 6 to 8 years per generation of car. 3 or 4 years for a mid life upgrade for the car model. China used to also do that with MLU around 1 year or 2 years. Now it's entire new generation in 2 to 3 years. With missiles and military technology, it is about the same cutthroat iteration pace. Old generations are kept around with some manufacturing capacity left for them for redundancy. Really old stock are completely fired off and tested, intercepted etc.

PL-17 to PAF is not going to be some surprise or remarkable thing. If the business and politics makes sense, it would be easily, too easily done tomorrow. The question is the politics and business. PL-17 is not some safe queen for China. It's from mid 2010 or much earlier.

Not sure what you mean with "long, long time" ... we know it only since November 2016 which does not make it "long long time" IMO and service entry was confirmed only in November 2023 aka 7 years later. So again not a very long time!

Could it be that you are confusing it with the PL-15?

This is the PL-17 I am referring to:




The point is, I'm not sure what you try to tell us in regard to a PL-17 replacement or successor when the PL-17 itself is rather new in service and even more how this all should be relevant to the PAF?

Plain and simple: Until today, the PAF has no fighter in service that can carry the PL-17!

 

[side-winder]

And, if PAF was equally equipped with SOW, then it is a bigger problem for India ?

Nope - most of our bases would still come in their firing range - they have alot of depth in their territory. We'd strike their western bases and key targets close to border. But we'll have to rely on missiles to strike farther deep.

Air launched weapons are more difficult to intercept than the surface launched.

 

[niubi]

Refer to my post above. I've defined proper standards for you there. That's what the world calls a standard and uses it as a standard. We can all have opinions but the world goes by combat ready weapons.

Last thing, you keep calling PL-17 "old technology" and same for PL-15. You don't know what's inside them and what technology set they use. So keep calling the latest "old technology" makes no sense. PL-17 was put in limited operational capacity. We will see a large scale deployment of PL-17 when Fujian becomes operational and they deploy a larger number of J-35's in the PLAN.

Show me the standards you've shared? At no point did you share a global standard you call as "world uses". There is no standard definition for missile ranges and class. Only a general one defined by legacy missile range estimates and corresponding missile sizes. This old standard has long become worthless as a means to estimate range.

PL-17 and PL-15 are old technology. You know why? Because both of these missiles are old missiles. PL-17 is at least 10 years old now. PL-15 is at least 14 years old now. China introduces an update within the same family class every year or so as a new updated batch with upgraded electronics, software, sensors, guidance etc to keep up with the rest of the entire sensor and shooter network also being upgraded. Every 5 or so years is a completely new generation and type of missile.

PL-17 does not fit within J-35. So we won't see large scale deployment of PL-17 when Fujian becomes operational. J-15T and J-15DT may use PL-17 but even if J-15B and J-15D already use PL-17 today onboard type 001 and type 002, they are not photographed. Just because no photographs appear on the internet doesn't mean it hasn't been a standard thing for a long, long time. PLAAF equipped PL-17 back before 2016.

 

[niubi]

Not sure what you mean with "long, long time" ... we know it only since November 2016 which does not make it "long long time" IMO and service entry was confirmed only in November 2023 aka 7 years later. So again not a very long time!

Could it be that you are confusing it with the PL-15?

This is the PL-17 I am referring to:

View attachment 143748View attachment 143749


The point is, I'm not sure what you try to tell us in regard to a PL-17 replacement or successor when the PL-17 itself is rather new in service and even more how this all should be relevant to the PAF?

Plain and simple: Until today, the PAF has no fighter in service that can carry the PL-17!

Again this is a mistake. I can't understand why this is hard. PL-17 you agree was shown on the internet in 2016. Service was confirmed in 2023? This is just like saying F-117 was confirmed in 1988 so therefore F-117 must have only become in active duty in 1988 and not a day earlier than the date of official confirmation. But the F-117 was flying in active duty before 1983. The gap period for missiles is far greater than for an aircraft. It's also so much easier to hide and there is much more reason to hide missile capability when it is strategically valuable to. I mean even a light non-secret missile capability like PL-15's was able to clap out several latest batch Rafales. It is important to keep missile secrets more than the shape of a new aircraft.

PL-17 was confirmed officially in 2023 but it has been in active duty well before 2023. The fall in logic is being rigid in the thinking that officially confirmation date must be actual date of active duty. This is the fallacy and also incorrect.

 

[Deino]

Again this is a mistake. I can't understand why this is hard. PL-17 you agree was shown on the internet in 2016. Service was confirmed in 2023? This is just like saying F-117 was confirmed in 1988 so therefore F-117 must have only become in active duty in 1988 and not a day earlier than the date of official confirmation. But the F-117 was flying in active duty before 1983. The gap period for missiles is far greater than for an aircraft. It's also so much easier to hide and there is much more reason to hide missile capability when it is strategically valuable to. I mean even a light non-secret missile capability like PL-15's was able to clap out several latest batch Rafales. It is important to keep missile secrets more than the shape of a new aircraft.

PL-17 was confirmed officially in 2023 but it has been in active duty well before 2023. The fall in logic is being rigid in the thinking that officially confirmation date must be actual date of active duty. This is the fallacy and also incorrect.

Sorry in case I was not clear enough: I never said it entered service in 2023, but it was confirmed only then and even if surely operational by then "some time" I don't think - and in fact we have no such hints - the PL-17 entered service "years or even a decade before and as such could be rated "old"!

I totally agree with you that based on the confirmed dates we must add some years of "unconfirmed but expected" service before and yes also "Just because no photographs appear on the internet doesn't mean it hasn't been a standard thing for a long, long time." but I strongly disagree it could actually be like your second part, namely "PLAAF equipped PL-17 back before 2016"!

This IMO is a constant error overoptimistic (fan) boys do: In the same way it is wrong to think "Just because no photographs appear on the internet" means it must be already in service for a long, long time aka several years (almost a decade).

 

[rafale]

Nope - most of our bases would still come in their firing range - they have alot of depth in their territory. We'd strike their western bases and key targets close to border. But we'll have to rely on missiles to strike farther deep.

Air launched weapons are more difficult to intercept than the surface launched.

Which is why it is important to make new air and naval bases on the western balochistan side.

Can use air refuelling to launch jets towards the east.....but that Bholari air base location was bad from the start. It should have been further west.

 

[RajaBaja]

I am not her

Show me the standards you've shared? At no point did you share a global standard you call as "world uses". There is no standard definition for missile ranges and class. Only a general one defined by legacy missile range estimates and corresponding missile sizes. This old standard has long become worthless as a means to estimate range.

PL-17 and PL-15 are old technology. You know why? Because both of these missiles are old missiles. PL-17 is at least 10 years old now. PL-15 is at least 14 years old now. China introduces an update within the same family class every year or so as a new updated batch with upgraded electronics, software, sensors, guidance etc to keep up with the rest of the entire sensor and shooter network also being upgraded. Every 5 or so years is a completely new generation and type of missile.

PL-17 does not fit within J-35. So we won't see large scale deployment of PL-17 when Fujian becomes operational. J-15T and J-15DT may use PL-17 but even if J-15B and J-15D already use PL-17 today onboard type 001 and type 002, they are not photographed. Just because no photographs appear on the internet doesn't mean it hasn't been a standard thing for a long, long time. PLAAF equipped PL-17 back before 2016.

I am not here to waste time in argument. Deino above responded to your claims also. Learn a few things since you are here and then start debates with others. I've wasted 3 posts and now Deino wrote similar stuff for you on PL-17 and PL-15. I guess both of us wasted time.

 

[RajaBaja]

The solution is deterrence via response, not everything has to be entirely defensive. What you can defend, defend; the rest will be deterrence via offence.

You can put them in the same dilemma you are describing.

The next war will see a "Rabit run escalation". Things will happen so fast that things will go out of hands quickly without any real escalation management in place for a while. There is no "deterrence" the next time. It's either do or die.

The "deterrence" and patience was ONLY for May 2025, a one time offer! The world has taken a serious note and we've educated every major country about the level of threat we face.

The Hindutva lovers want us to go extinct! Because in Hindutva and it's illegitimate child "Akhand Bharat" there are n NO Muslims, let alone having one of the largest Muslim nation as a neighbor.

 

[aurelianpilled]

Absolutely PAF needs to up their stand off munitions game.we should develop something in collaboration turkey like scalp sort of thing because China relies on rocket force on these sort of missions.

Exactly and we literally have a partially damaged SCALP-EG too, I believe it is just a matter of time before we pull another Tomahawk/Babur moment typa shi with a new, more refined (China/Turkey help), similar to SCALP-EG, ALCM or refine our Ra'ad, etc. with newer variants

 

[niubi]

Sorry in case I was not clear enough: I never said it entered service in 2023, but it was confirmed only then and even if surely operational by then "some time" I don't think - and in fact we have no such hints - the PL-17 entered service "years or even a decade before and as such could be rated "old"!

I totally agree with you that based on the confirmed dates we must add some years of "unconfirmed but expected" service before and yes also "Just because no photographs appear on the internet doesn't mean it hasn't been a standard thing for a long, long time." but I strongly disagree it could actually be like your second part, namely "PLAAF equipped PL-17 back before 2016"!

This IMO is a constant error overoptimistic (fan) boys do: In the same way it is wrong to think "Just because no photographs appear on the internet" means it must be already in service for a long, long time aka several years (almost a decade).

Fair. I am glad you are not of the belief that official confirmation = date of entry and nothing else. That was my main concern.

As for actual date of entry into service, I am presenting just what quite reputable rumour mills have been discussing since nearly a decade ago. PL series air to air missiles have gone much further these days with discussion on PL-17 treated like how this forum would talk about SD-10 missile.

 

[kimjongun]

Exactly and we literally have a partially damaged SCALP-EG too, I believe it is just a matter of time before we pull another Tomahawk/Babur moment typa shi with a new, more refined (China/Turkey help), similar to SCALP-EG, ALCM or refine our Ra'ad, etc. with newer variants

View attachment 143894View attachment 143895View attachment 143896

that warhead is a BROACH type meaning is able to destroy hardened shelters and bunkers...it feels like deja vu when you see our history with tomahawks

 

[White Privilege]

that warhead is a BROACH type meaning is able to destroy hardened shelters and bunkers...it feels like deja vu when you see our history with tomahawks

did we also give acces to the Silent Hawk helicopter, crashed during Bin Laden raid,to the Chinese for reverse engineering??