Chinese Air-To-Air missiles, History, Performance & Discussion

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
33

I might hope gaijin consider PL-5C replacement PL-5B and PL-2 replace by PL-8 on J-7E & increase BR higher 11.0 this year

34

That should be PL-5EII.J-7s and JH-7s can use PL-5E.Modernised J-7s can use PL-5EII

35

E2 is a upgrade from E, there’s no conflict between using the E or E2

36

plz dont ask PL8 for J7E! PL5is enough! i dont want see the F16C when im in the J7E!

2 Likes
37

+1 💀

38

Actually 6 aircraft mounted PL-8

I don’t mind gajin increase Air RB & Air SB to 11.3 or 11.7 BR. for J-7E

J-8B could get PL-8

1 Like
39

Yes but I dont think JH-7s ever used PL-5EIIs

40

export only😁

41

I guess gajin might consider PL-9 replacement PL-5B on JH-7A in the future but not sure that up to 12.0 BR ?

42

11.3 is crazy enough it will see the F16C and Mig29SMT/G always, its will be a yummy cookie for them. and the 11.7 is even much crazier that we may see the F15 and SU27 one day. so just dont ask PL8 for J7E and J8B OK? just look how sad those germanymain knew the F4 ICE may be jet come with FOX3, bad FM with OP missiles will make them worse

43

PL8→PL8B/PL9, PL9 may not allow to take at the place of PL5s

44

I think PL-2 on J-7E outdated & bad Air-to-Air Missile for aircraft 11.0-11.7

J-8B could get 2nd guidance infrared Air-to-Air Missile PL-8 and increased at 11.3 BR

I might expect gajin consider PL-5C stock replacement PL-5B & PL-2 replace by PL-8 for J-7E but no problem up to 11.3 or 11.7 BR.

Let me guess J-10A equipped guidance IR PL-8 & PL-8B and BVRAAM PL-11 (SARH) & PL-12 (ARH)

I guess Guizhou FTC-2000G & Chengdu FC-1 Xiaolong mounted guidance IR PL-5E & PL-9C and ARH BVRAAM SD-10

45

dude no one use PL2 in J7E just like no one will use the R60 in Mig29A, there’s no problem with the PL2 in J7E or you think the R60 in Mig29A will be changed to R73?

1 Like
47

Unfortunately Janes is an extremely unreliable source. May as well never post anything from Janes… Rather just quote whatever they quote for any proven and reliable information.

2 Likes
50

I think the problem here is that this source isn’t reliable, and also makes no distinction between the B and C variant, which is strange, but does offer potentially insightful knowledge about the E model. Thaing is, someone had already posted a Chinese article that was detailing the development of the PL-5 missle, and it claims that the PL-5E, is just the export variant of the C, and if the E does infact possess a aim-9L type all aspect seeker, then we can conclude that the PL-5C should also be all aspect. This is back up by the language on the JH-7A devblog where they allude too the PL-5C having a better seeker

51

The idea that Jane’s is somehow is less reliable than a random Chinese blog is quite absurd to me. Reminder that Jane’s is referenced frequently by DOD publications.

But fine I’ll keep my sources to myself and you guys can keep using blogs.

52

The fact that Jane’s unreliable is unrelated to whether Chinese source is reliable or not. Both can be just as unreliable. However from my years of following PLA military, i would say Jane’s is certainly not top tiered source for PLA military (many unchecked facts). I would rather believe some respected PLA observer in this aspect.

2 Likes
53

Define “respected PLA observer”

1 Like
54

Such as @Rupprecht_A (@RupprechtDeino) / X (twitter.com)
He is the author of several books on PLA airforce
If you read his tweets, you will know that he always base his opinions on objective evidence

3 Likes
56

Any evidence to support your claim? Or just your feeling?

4 Likes