PL-16 was just a nickname given by the internet when PL-15E was first shown
1 Like
the name is confirmed but without knowing what it is.
1 Like
second dev:
- pl8b got r73 seeker (well bugged one) with all the tracking stats of current pl8
1 Like
I was hoping AIM-9M IRCCM as that is better for range but I’ll take what I can get
but that’s not enough to make J-11B a 14.0 plane. and against gaijin’s words about why they don’t giving J-10 PL-8B
currently it still lacks multi-element seeker and upgraded rockets
@Smin1080p_WT stated the PL-8B was not added to J-10A because it is too powerful, but gaijin turns around and adds a missile that is inferior to R-27 in range and equal to R-73 in seeker performance.
So it simply wasn’t true and the J-10 should have acquired the real world ordnance option instead of the PL-5 it could never carry.
Here is the quote;
6 Likes
I think it needs AIM-9M IRCCM and it’s upgraded motor, it will be very good with the acceleration and range
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
They have denied primary sources for tertiary ones regardless, there is no point in doing such things as it is an arcade game.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
No idea who are rejecting these reports…
1 Like
otherwise we spam the reports on the PL8B until a somewhat competent moderator understands that China is an extremely secretive country and with this kind of open source information it is a gold mine
copy paste report, copy paste, copy paste, copy paste, copy paste, copy paste permanently
1 Like
There’s no proof it ever had or used such IRCCM last I checked. It’s more logical to believe it’s gatewidth based on the IRCCM of existing IR AAMs the country used at the time.
We know for a fact it used dual band like the TY-90. So AIM-9M IRCCM is just as fake as R-73 IRCCM. I want AIM-9M IRCCM because it is better for range, which is what the PL-8B is good at.
3 Likes
Hmm fair enough, I’m sure we’ll get the right IRCCM eventually when gaijin starts adding certain jammers and EW systems to the game so aircraft are more resistant to IRCCM entirely and next gen AAMs can be added with their full capabilities. Makes sense for it to only have one now, similar to the AAM-4.
For balancing reasons however I would like to remind you:
• This is the new best IR AAM in the game for close range headons.
• Giving it suspension IRCCM instead of Gatewidth IRCCM would result in it being the best IR AAM in the game overall respectively. Wouldn’t be extremely OP, but vastly superior by quit why margin given its new motor (which gaijin has yet to add) and it’s overall performance.
1 Like
In headons it won’t actually be that good due to a guidance delay of 0.5 seconds combined with the (hopefully soon added) booster. Besides, that is not its intended purpose. It will be best be used (when it gets its new booster) at around 5km as a mini-R-27T. Giving it IRCCM that is better at close up performance would be like giving a designed dog fighter (F-5E for example) 8 missiles to make it a missile bus. It’s a weird and unnecessary nerf to the PL-8B.
1 Like
TY-90 is not dual band. It is a multi element (quad) seeker with an optimized low altitude DSP algorithm. The Pl-9C, Pl-8B, and TY-90 all share the same seeker technology, the TY-90 favoring a DSP algorithm to help reduce background clutter. The Pl-5EII is dual band multi element seeker with DSP algorithm. The Pl-5EII should actually have better IRCCM than Pl-8B. But because the devs have an unrealistic way they handle IRCCM (gatewidth, IDK where they got this from, none of my books on missiles IRCCM cover it) it ends up being the opposite and generally IRCCM performance is underperforming.
Regardless, the Pl-8B should be a copy paste of the TY-90 IRCCM.
5 Likes
However the Proxy fuze also arms by this time. It may have a guidance delay, but it covers so much distance in that time it’s extremely effective at catching enemies off guard. So long as you aim your plane enough so that it won’t need to turn excessive amounts, it’s will be insanely effective. It’s simply the new best headon IRCCM missile, that’s a fact. Not to mention it’s going to be even better than it is now once it gets the better booster. It may not be its intended purpose, but this is still something that’s extremely noteworthy.
Its seeker is extremely resistant to flares in headons, as is seen by the R-73, and its proxy fuze arms fast enough for it to be capable of destroying targets with ease. If you’re concerned about its time to start turning, you’re launched the missile too close and using it as a R-60M/R-73, when you should be treating it like the Python 3 that it is (and then maybe slightly different when it gets a new booster). I urge you to practice headons with the Python 3 so you begin to understand the launch parameters for headons with this missile. Trust me, even at top tier where your barely use IR AAMs, this is a great advantage, especially when the enemy is multipathing so S/ARH missiles can’t be used.
Ofc a Suspension seeker is still vastly superior, despite the advantages that come with gatewidth, the suspension style IRCCM is still the most effective and practical type of IRCCM. But with the new motor and the capabilities the Python 3 has, I have a feeling it might be a bit too much for the game at the moment. This aircraft already has a outstanding radar, and new wonderful RWR, MAWS, and the best ARH missile the Eastern trees have to offer as of now (With potentially the exception of the new R-77-1). This might make it a bit too strong from the developers perspective which is likely why it was added with this kind of IRCCM, and not the other.
Unfortunately they like doing such patchwork without much research, and then it turns out a weapon that got added is supposed to be much much better than in game