Talk:PL-15

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Chinese

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Chinese military history task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]