So they properly modeled the armor? They did the bare minimum which should’ve been done when these vehicles were first added? Obviously means they love China and would never neglect their tanks! The ‘Accepted’ tag 2 years ago in question
1 Like
Just to add to the EW thing, China doesn’t possess a single vehicle with a Towed Decoy, if they ever get added, China wont have any.
Also I think RU only has the Su-57 (Tested the Foxbat with one too)
Mig-29 as well.
So if China eventually gets a subtree with a mig-29 they can get towed decoys
1 Like
Which mig29 variant get decoy ?
Also china can only get Bangladesh and N korea mig29 who are 9.12 and .13 variant.
any mig-29 can get it
2 Likes
is this made by China?
give j15t proper cms , like they did with all viggens , or give it its irl wingtip jamming pods
1 Like
what even…
the J-15T CM´s are correct and it doesnt carry wingtip pods, those are J-15D´s
you could give the J-15T 200 CMs and it still wouldn’t be 14.7 worthy, the chinese missiles are too trash rn
4 Likes
Yeah even at br 14 it would be meh
It does posses ecm pods on its wingtips it has 5th gens avionics. I know it has 48 cms but for 14.7 its unplayable just give it more cms so its actually playable since electronic warfare is non existent
1 Like
It doesnt? Show me a single picture of the 15T carrying them.
And you can claim as much as you want with 5th gen avionics, what gaijin wants is concrete proof, not hearsay and sepculation.
The 5th gen avionics are literally claimed by wikipedia and chinese sources i dont work for chengdu to provide classified data its how it relies on defending irl via electronic warfare its a jet that entered service in 2024!
wiki is not a reliable source for chinese stuff (or in general), show me these credible chinese sources,
and where does this reliance on EW thought of train even come from.
otherwise:
why? each source it pulls from can be reliable, but the moment you compile them into one wikipedia article its suddenly not trustworthy anymore?
2 Likes
most of them are also from 3rd party websites, that also pull their info from speculation and hearsay.
For example the wikipage for the J-10C was wrong for quite some time, eg empty mass was wrong quoted for a placard that quoted from a website dating from a time where the 10C didnt even exist.
The PL-12 wikipage is still full of shit for some parts.
1 Like
Add to that broken links and unrelated stuff
1 Like
Drive flank（no matter which flank) and fly low is no different from committing suicide ,due.
Wiki is a good source of sources, but isnt a good source itself, and its well worth double checking that said sources are actually good, and not just parroting nonsense. Its also quite good at paraphrasing a lot of sources (Usually better than AI)
LMM Martlets for example list IR/IIR guidance with no source and the general consensus is that its only SAL at the moment. So wiki alone isnt a good source
1 Like