Talk:PL-15

Military Watch Magazine - source credibility

Hi, I removed the citation for this missile being available for the JF-17 because "Military Watch Magazine" is an amateur blog with a lot of wild unsubstantiated claims. Ghost1736 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

clarification of text needed

What is this supposed to mean: "Compared to ramjet-powered Meteor, which advantages in sustained flight profile with a fly-out speed between Mach 3 and 3.5, the dual-pulsed solid propellant rocket motor of PL-15 potentially offers higher burn-out speed excess of Mach 5, then gradually loses its velocity at the terminal phase."

If it intends to say, "the Meteor has advantages in sustained flight..." please omit the comma after Meteor. 

Also, the phrase "which advantages" is awkward perhaps "with advantages" would be better. 75.72.161.233 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I too think the current wording is next to gibberish and it's impossible to know with any certainty what the author is trying to say. Reading through the citations for this missile, most of it is circular citation of the work of one man - Douglas Barrie at the IISS.

The fly-out speed of the Meteor is likely between Mach 3–3.5, whereas at burn out the PL-15 is likely travelling in excess of Mach 5.

With all the "likely" wording it's clear that most of the "facts" cited on this page are in fact just speculation, including the missile's use of an AESA radar in the seeker.

If anyone is interested in knowing anything useful on the PL-15 I'd recommend they read the citations, keeping in mind that even they are mostly speculation. This page says little except the Chinese have a new missile and it's gooder.

I'd edit the page but in my experience some tool who knows just enough to be dangerous would just come along and revert it back into garbage, so I'm not going to waste my time (nor donate to this pathetic example of Gresham's Law applied to reference material called Wikipedia) --Solidpoint (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Mention of AIM-260 JATM

In the "History" section for the PL-15 missile, it shows late 2022 as a possible deployment date for the US AIM-260 JATM, whereas the wiki page for the AIM-260 JATM has it in late 2023.

I'm not sure if either date is correct, at this point, and couldn't suggest a source to find out. Just wanted to bring this up and maybe some editor will see it and take a look. Patlan82 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2025

it is believed that by using PL-15, Two or three Indian rafale aircrafts went down inside India’s border, according to Indian officials, Western diplomats and local media reports. 91.230.124.133 (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/how-pakistan-shot-down-indias-cutting-edge-fighter-using-chinese-gear-2025-08-02/

And remove unreliable Indian links 24.80.141.155 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Please provide viable source for the claims. Do not mislead users by giving unauthenticated sources from those media channels who's own sources are unconfirmed and likely wrong information and context over different raw footages from people. 2405:201:6005:5822:18D2:A968:5264:525B (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Meteor

The MBDA Meteor is an European Rocket, not only by France and the UK. Sweden, Italy and Germany were also part of the developpement and use it. 45.156.240.101 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources are not quoted correctly when attributing that PL15 shot down Rafale

the reference 21 is TRT saying that BBC verify has confirmed that PL15 has shot down Rafale but BBC Verify has not made any confirmation on that.

Refence 22 is of BBC page which doea not definitely says that either. The sentence in its current form is misleading and likely false. MaxSharma571 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@MaxSharma571 misleading yes. Likely false? Let neutral sources of information decide that. Digimanpk (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Citing Ref 21, this wiki article does noy claim a PL15 shot down a rafale. BBC Verify, has however mentioned that it has verified 3 wreckages and quotes a sources which claims these wreckage can be from Mirage 2000 or Rafale. The BBC verify article also mentions image of an aircraft tail, believed to be Rafale, emphasizing Google did not return any previous result for the image , pointing toward its recency and lower chances of fabrication.

So, no change is needed. Digimanpk (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Request to review the importance and class of the article

This article was initially classified as Start Class with Low Importance. With the current (India-Pakistan Conflict May 2025) context, I believe it is important to review both Class and Importance of this article now. Digimanpk (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've reassessed the article to C-class; there's definitely missing performance information (and it may be missing because the information is not publicly available in a RS-citable format) that prevents it from reaching B-class; and I don't think we've got it in quite stable enough of a state for long enough to say that we've reached B-class levels of no obvious omissions or inaccuracies. I can't speak for the China wikiproject's assessment of importance, as I'm not involved with them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on the usage of PL-15s vs PL-15E's in the 2025 Indo-Pakistani War

Right now the article says:

"On 7 May 2025, the PL- 15/15E was deployed in combat during the 2025 India–Pakistan strikes by Pakistan Air Force (PAF), marking what analysts believe to be the missile's first combat deployment.

According to the Pakistan authorities, PAF used Chengdu J-10C and PL-15/15E missiles to shoot down a number of Indian aircraft.

Photos of several PL-15E missile debris found inside Indian territory surfaced. A relatively intact rear section was found in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, India. On 13 May 2025, the Indian authorities also confirmed the usage of PL-15/15E by Pakistan."

I believe that the use of "PL-15/15E" is potentially confusing, as those are two missiles with very different capabilities, with very different implications. Is there a consensus on whether it was a PL-15 or a PL-15E that was used? I understand that the two sources linked refer to it as the PL-15, but both WPost and TWZ refer to it as the PL-15E

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/17/china-j10-jet-pakistan-india-kashmir-combat/

https://www.twz.com/air/parts-of-a-pakistani-pl-15e-air-to-air-missile-came-down-relatively-intact-in-india-after-air-battle/ Colin Zhong (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you specify how they are "very different capabilities with very different implications"? My understanding is the only substantive difference between them is the range. Substantively they are otherwise the same missile. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

That range difference alone warrants clarification. The difference between a missile’s engagement envelope of a missile that's ranged to 145km versus a missile that's ranged at 210km is massive. Furthermore, it would also be significant if China had supplied Pakistan with the domestic PL-15 rather than the export PL-15E, since that could indicate a greater level of military trust and technology sharing. As such, it is important to distinguish Pakistan's usage of the two missile models. Colin Zhong (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If there's reliable sourcing to the "very different implications" of the engagement envelope at 145km vs 210km, and it's able to be condensed down into an amount that's WP:DUE for supporting a single word in a single sentence, great. But what you're referring to aren't "very different implications" -- you're talking about the exact same kinematics as any other BVR missile engagement, but with slightly greater dimensions (to an unknown degree) to the distances and things like NEZ, pole distances, etc. That is not a different capability. But regardless, if there's conflict between sources as to the exact variant, per NPOV the correct action for us is to report what both sets of sources say, which is what we do; there's no need to explain the distinction while that ambiguity still exists (if people want to learn about missile kinematics generally, there are other articles for that); and if we were to get a consensus confirming it was the PL-15E, then there's nothing left to be confused about and thus no need to make any distinctions about their range differences. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)