There are many domestic netizens in China who look down on the Indo-Pakistani air combat, believing that it's just about shooting down a few planes. Don't the Americans shoot down enough fighter jets? But internationally, it's like hearing thunder in silence. More than 20 days have passed since the Indo-Pakistani air combat, yet the in-depth discussions caused by it are still ongoing! A former officer of Japan's Self-Defense Forces has simulated and evaluated the range of China's domestically used PL-15 missiles, and the result reveals that the rumored 300-kilometer range may be true, posing an extremely great threat to U.S. and Japanese fighter jets in the future!
After the Indo-Pakistani air combat, various countries have found that China's weapon performance specifications are significantly exaggerated. However, unlike the United States, which exaggerates data to demonstrate global supremacy, China adopts reverse under-specification. The PL-15E is marked with a range of 145 kilometers but was able to shoot down enemy aircraft at a distance of 180 kilometers! So here's the question: are the data publicly released by China now accurate? What are the actual ranges of PL-17 and PL-21? What other hidden weapons does China have?
The Indo-Pakistani Air Combat: Depreciated Domestically, but a Thunderous Surprise Internationally
On May 7th, during the Indo-Pakistani air combat, within about an hour, the Indian Air Force lost six fighters: three Rafales, one Mirage-2000, one MiG-29, and one Su-30MKI! This outcome shocked the entire world. According to Pakistan's public information, the combat distance exceeded 80 kilometers, with the farthest strike occurring at a distance of 180 kilometers. Now, all countries want to know how China's PL-15E, with its published range of only 145 kilometers, managed to hit enemy aircraft from 180 kilometers away.
Another question that countries are most curious about is how India's fighters were shot down. The Rafale fighter jet possesses the globally advanced electronic warfare system, but throughout the entire process from the start of the attack until the aircraft was shot down, there was no lock warning sound recorded in Pakistan's publicly released communication recordings of the Indian Air Force! This has already led multiple countries to reconsider whether they should choose the Rafale fighter jet. The delegation from France's Dassault Corporation urgently wants to know the reason and plans to visit Indian air bases for investigation, but they were directly refused by the Indian government, citing security concerns.
Social media platforms in China are buzzing with excitement because China's domestically produced weapons achieved such excellent results in their first real-world application, proving the unparalleled excellence of China's weapons systems. The future export prospects are boundless! However, amidst the celebratory voices, there is also a discordant note. Some netizens on social media have expressed that during World War II, hundreds of aircraft often fought in large-scale battles, and during the Gulf War, the U.S. military completely overwhelmed the Iraqi Air Force. Are six aircraft really that significant?
Why does the Indo-Pakistani air combat, which only shot down six aircraft, have such a huge impact?
The answer is actually quite simple. Fighters today are extremely valuable. During World War II, each country had thousands of combat aircraft, but now, only China and the United States have over a thousand fighters worldwide, and only 23 countries have more than a hundred! Another statistic: the Gulf War lasted 38 days and resulted in the downing of 41 aircraft, including five helicopters, one transport plane, and 32 second-generation fighters like the Mirage F-1 and MiG-21 that were "included" in the count. Only five third-generation MiG-29 fighters were comparable to the F-15 in terms of capability.
In the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999, which lasted 78 days, only six MiG-29 fighters were shot down. In the three-year Russia-Ukraine war, Russia's air force managed to shoot down about 30 relatively high-performance Ukrainian fighters (in total, 76 fighters were reported), while suffering heavy losses themselves. According to publicly available information, Russian fighters were shot down 97 times (most were downed by anti-aircraft weapons).
This gives you a good idea of what kind of data it is to shoot down six fighters in one instance, especially when three of them are Rafales! India only has 36 Rafale fighters in total, purchased for a total of $8.8 billion from France, at $244 million per aircraft. They are organized into two squadrons: the 17th "Golden Arrow" squadron deployed in the north facing Pakistan (Kashmir), and the 101st squadron deployed in the east near Bangladesh towards the Siliguri Corridor direction.
These two locations are extremely important for India, particularly the Siliguri Corridor. India's six northeastern states are connected to the mainland through a narrow strip of land as little as 20 kilometers wide, and the north of the corridor is China's Donglang region. India fears the Siliguri Corridor being cut off by China. The deployment of India's Rafale fighters here is intended to counter China's J-20, highlighting the importance India places on the Rafale fighter jets!
However, India's ace fighter jets were shot down by China's export weapons. The Rafale's "Spectra integrated electronic warfare system" couldn't even detect anything, not even an alarm. During exercises against F-22s, this system could interfere with the F-22's onboard radar to prevent locking, but in the Indo-Pakistani air combat, this system was effectively blind and deaf. To this day, they still don't know how they were locked onto and shot down, which is truly frightening. Even worse, Pakistan said nothing and only publicly released a recording of the pilot's conversation at the time of the shoot-down, leaving you to imagine the details yourself!
The Rafale fighter jet is considered one of the top-tier fighter jets in the international arms market, second only to the F-35 among Western fighters. This Indo-Pakistani air combat is also the highest level in terms of technology, scale, and weapon generation gap since the 1982 Bekaa Valley air combat. Pakistan achieved a 6-to-0 absolute victory over India, almost a complete rout. Western major media outlets have not yet provided professional detailed analysis of this Indo-Pakistani air combat and are in an extreme state of speechlessness!
This is a weapons system that can leave Western media outlets utterly speechless! Pakistan's display of this system surpasses the air superiority tactics consistently employed by the U.S. and the West. Currently, there are no countermeasures to deal with Pakistan's overwhelming global system combat model. What's more shocking is that Pakistan is using technology from over a decade ago, so how strong is China's self-use version? If J-20 and J-35 are involved, what kind of overwhelming would occur? And if J-36 and J-50 were to get involved, they might beat extraterrestrial beings!
How Far is the Range of China's Self-Use PL-15 Missile?
The star weapon of the Indo-Pakistani air combat, aside from the J-10C, was the PL-15E air-to-air missile. The fact that it was labeled with a range of 145 kilometers but shot down enemy aircraft from 181 kilometers away left the whole world astonished. How did the PL-15E achieve this? What is the actual range of China's self-use PL-15 missile?
On May 19th, the Japan Jbpress Business Intelligence website published an article written by a retired officer of Japan's Self-Defense Forces, which was quite professional. This person is indeed an expert, and his analysis was quite professional. The author analyzed the advantages of the PL-15 air-to-air missile from multiple angles:
- Why is it better than the Meteor mid-range air-to-air missile with similar range?
- Why is a dual-pulse rocket engine more advantageous than a single-pulse one?
- What is the actual range of China's self-use PL-15 missile?
- How much of a threat does it pose to the Self-Defense Forces and U.S. fighter jets?
In the article, the author specifically mentioned the Meteor medium-range air-to-air missile, which has a range of around 200 kilometers and performs excellently. However, unlike the PL-15E, the Meteor uses a solid-fuel ramjet engine, which is quite excellent in terms of the engine itself. But using a ramjet engine in a highly maneuverable air-to-air missile presents some problems because the ramjet mode requires air intake, and maintaining the ramjet intake environment under high-maneuver conditions is difficult. Under continuous maneuvering conditions, such missiles are prone to flameout!
Another issue is that the size is slightly larger because a ramjet engine needs at least one intake duct, and the Meteor uses two, located on either side of the fuselage, making the missile much bulkier. Of course, this doesn't affect external carriage, but a larger size means a higher probability of detection, allowing the opponent to maneuver early to exhaust the missile's maneuvering energy prematurely and escape the attack.
The second question: Why is a dual-pulse better than a single-pulse?
A dual-pulse refers to having two segments of propellant, somewhat similar to a two-stage rocket, but a dual-pulse engine is not a two-stage rocket. Instead, it involves loading two segments of propellant into the same charge tube of a single engine, separated by an interval. This seemingly simple concept is actually quite challenging because this interval can be arbitrarily controlled, but when the second pulse ignites, it must burn quickly without leaving any residue (as residue would affect the performance of the second pulse). This is why the Americans have been unable to break through this problem.
There are two reasons for doing this: one is to increase the range, and the other is to greatly expand the non-evade zone. Under certain conditions, most of the range can become a non-evade zone! Based on currently available public data, the PL-15 missile climbs after launch and flies toward the target along a parabolic trajectory. The first pulse burns out before reaching the apex of the parabola, then naturally ascends to the apex point and enters a dive. When the speed drops to a certain level, the second pulse charge is ignited, and the missile continues to fly along a sawtooth flight path.
This approach has several advantages: it allows for gliding acceleration in the middle phase and diving acceleration in the final phase. For extremely long-distance flights, the missile maintains a relatively high terminal speed, and the enemy aircraft is less likely to detect it due to the radar angle from the zenith. Another advantage is that the segmented timing of the pulses can significantly increase the range. According to domestic public papers, without additional design, simply using the dual-pulse mode can increase the range by at least one-third, and with targeted ballistic optimization and high-energy fuel ratio adjustments, the range can increase significantly.
This approach has the benefit that the interval between the first and second pulses is adjustable, and the longer the interval, the farther the range, but it will affect the terminal velocity. For example, against low-speed targets, the interval can be extended as much as possible to increase the range; against highly maneuverable targets, a shorter interval can be used to increase the speed. It is essential to understand the concept of the non-evade zone for fighter aircraft when dealing with air-to-air missiles:
The non-evade zone is the range within which the missile can maneuver and catch up regardless of how the fighter aircraft evades. This range is the non-evade zone.
The range of the non-evade zone varies; it decreases when tailing and increases when attacking head-on or laterally. The non-evade zone for a single-pulse air-to-air missile is usually less than half the range. For example, the AIM-120D has a range of approximately 160 kilometers, but its non-evade zone is only around 60 kilometers.
A dual-pulse air-to-air missile can double the non-evade zone. Assuming the target is 100 kilometers away, using AIM-120D may exceed the non-evade zone and may not necessarily hit. Assuming a dual-pulse engine air-to-air missile is used, the missile can extinguish at 40 kilometers and glide another 40 kilometers before igniting again. At this point, the fighter aircraft 100 kilometers away is within the second segment of the non-evade zone of the dual-pulse rocket engine air-to-air missile. This segmented range can be adjusted according to the target distance.
This is where the advantage of the dual-pulse rocket engine lies. Back then, the U.S. claimed that the AIM-120D had a dual-pulse engine, causing China great concern. After years of research and development, China finally developed the PL-15 missile with a dual-pulse rocket engine. However, it turns out that the U.S. AIM-120D is actually a single-pulse. The Americans exaggerated the performance and presented a dual-pulse PowerPoint presentation, but honest Chinese took it seriously. The end result was that the Americans panicked and quickly launched the dual-pulse air-to-air missile AIM-260, which started development in 2017 and is reportedly still in testing.
The third question: What is the actual range of China's self-use PL-15 missile?
This retired Japanese Self-Defense Forces officer spent a lot of words arguing about the range of China's self-use PL-15 air-to-air missile and concluded that the range is between 200 and 300 kilometers, consistent with the currently published data. The reason for the significant difference is the issue of pulse intervals. He simulated various scenarios, and the approximate data is as follows:
- If the second pulse ignites when the missile's speed drops below 3 Mach, the range is approximately 200 kilometers (terminal speed 1.5 Mach);
- If the second pulse ignites when the missile's speed drops below 1.5 Mach, the range is approximately 240 kilometers (terminal speed 1.5 Mach);
- If the second pulse ignites when the missile's speed drops below 1.0 Mach, the range is approximately 250 kilometers (terminal speed 1.5 Mach);
Under 1.5 Mach conditions, it is entirely feasible to maneuver and attack targets laterally or head-on, and most unpowered fighters can also be engaged. If the terminal speed is relaxed to 1.0 Mach, the range can exceed 280 kilometers, and at this speed range, targets such as helicopters, refueling aircraft, and AWACS aircraft, which are large but not fast, can be attacked, or even defenseless fighter aircraft can be shot down. This may be the main reason why the reduced version PL-15E shot down Indian fighters from 180 kilometers away.
In conclusion, the range of Pakistan's PL-15E may be around 200 kilometers, while the maximum range of China's self-use PL-15 is around 300 kilometers. He also stated that this result is quite bad news for the U.S. military and the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Judging from the results of the Indo-Pakistani war, the combination of long range and system combat model easily outperforms the single aircraft performance king Rafale. The Japanese Self-Defense Forces need to urgently improve the quality of their weapons, otherwise, they will face a great threat from China's long-range air-to-air missiles in the future.
Reverse Under-Specification: After the Indo-Pakistani Air Combat, China's Weapons Have Become Unpredictable!
A range of 200 kilometers, but China marks the maximum range as 145 kilometers and sells it! Pakistan shot down Indian fighters at 180 kilometers, what exactly does this operation mean? Up until now, we've mostly seen news about the U.S. constantly reducing the performance of its weapons. Just like the AIM-120D's dual-pulse PowerPoint presentation, which turned out to be a big scam! There's also the U.S. F-22's engine performance metric thrust-to-weight ratio, which has always been marked at 10+, but last year it was revealed to be less than 8. Then there's the Patriot missile's interception rate of 90%, which was tested to be only 40%.
Aside from these, there are also cases of F-35's stealth performance being overrated, the Ford-class aircraft carrier's electromagnetic catapult performance being overrated, the steel performance of nuclear submarines being overrated, the lift coefficient of F-22 being overrated... Readers will undoubtedly see more examples of performance overrating in the comments section. However, Chinese habits are completely opposite. They hide and conceal performance, revealing only the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese have always valued not showing off or flaunting their abilities, and this habit carries over into their weapon systems. Therefore, after the Indo-Pakistani war, the world must reassess the actual strength of China's weapons.
For example, in the field of air-to-air missiles, China has PL-15, PL-17, and PL-21 aside from PL-15. The range of PL-17 is reportedly 400~500 kilometers, while PL-21's range is 800~1000 kilometers. Originally, the J-16 or J-20 could barely threaten U.S. fighter jets taking off from Guam with PL-21 missiles, but the question is whether the data China publishes is true? Should we reassess whether China not only has ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles capable of threatening Guam but also air-to-air missiles that can do so?
Another question is the range of DF-17, a gliding hypersonic missile that is extremely difficult to intercept. The nominal range is 1500 kilometers, but how far can it actually reach? 2000 kilometers? Then how far can DF-21D reach? From 2000 kilometers to 3000? And how far is DF-26? It's likely driving the Americans crazy, expanding the threats by 1/4 to 1/3. Does the U.S. military's defensive perimeter need to retreat further? Some netizens commented that this is how China's defense industry works:
When working in the defense industry, requirements are considered with redundancy at the top level, and then further redundancy is added during the design phase. Sometimes third parties are involved, adding another layer of redundancy design. These layers of redundancy add up, resulting in a performance monster.
This is the true reason behind China's reverse under-specification! Over time, this has become a habit, and in key data, China only releases 80%~90% of the information. There are real-life examples, such as comparing China's average GDP growth rate after joining the WTO in 2000 with the total in 2020. It can be found that the average growth rate is far higher than the publicly announced growth rate at the time. China marking low GDP figures is merely to avoid provoking the U.S. However, even the downwardly revised growth rate still shocked the world.
The composition of GDP between China and the U.S. is quite interesting. The U.S. statistical method is very detailed, calculating income from household maids, street vendors, and even various gray areas into GDP, whereas China's GDP calculation has always been rough, with many fields not included. The relationship between the overvaluation and undervaluation of currencies between China and the U.S. also leads to a significant difference in GDP. Therefore, the World Bank's purchasing power parity index is used to evaluate GDP, and it turns out that China's actual GDP has exceeded $30 trillion, while the U.S.'s has shrunk to $24 trillion!
So, how should we view the data comparison between China and the U.S.? Whose figures should we believe?
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7509467675111719478/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author. Feel free to express your opinions by clicking the 'like/dislike' buttons below.