“propaganda”
1 Like
I wasnt even arguing about the PL-5. However as far as im aware, the PL-5C is bascically a Pl-5B with an all aspect seeker head. Also, Gaijin doesnt go off of Pictures so the only way to make the PL-5C “better” in game is to actually present HARD stats and data on the Legitimate performance of the missile. Unfortunately thats the hard part because its a Chinese missile and all that data is, I’d say 100% classified.
Also, PSA, News reporters/autors are 99% incorrect about this type of stuff. “trail of deployment” doesnt make sense.
Heck, the news reorted isnt even in the Chinese military or hasnt been.
Maybe what you say is true, the problem is it still doesn’t validate the source you provided, and forgive me but I’m just focusing on the first page you provided that was talking about the PL-5, since the PL-5C is coming and no one seems too be confident about what it is exactly. The Chinese article does a better job provide some background knowledge, and makes the claim that the PL-5C is just the Domestic version of the PL-5E, which we do know too have an all aspect seeker, so there it’s probably the most reasonable conclusion too say that the PL-5C is infact an all aspect missle, probably similar too the aim-9L.
Also as I’ve said before, this matches up with what the JH-7A devblog says about it, where it says that the PL-5C has an improved seeker
1 Like
Maybe we need to cool down a bit and see what’s Gaijin’s interpretation of PL-5C first
Indeed, which hopefully we’ll be able too see soon, either through a Datamine, or maybe even the update drops next week
Lmao, I’m so sorry, I thought you were someone else, also it looks like the original post I was referring too was deleted
DoD publications are also often quite wrong, sometimes on purpose. A higher authority quoting an erroneous source doesn’t validate the source.
Would be like saying DCS’ PHOENIX is accurate and forecast international is a valid source because ED says so.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter :)
where did they say this?
We don’t know what the seeker is like with absolute certainty, all we know is that according to gajjin, the “PL-5С short-range air-to-air” has “improved target sensors” as per the devblog. Given all the evidence I’ve seen that suggests that the PL-5C is just the Domestic version of the PL-5E(which is an export missle with all aspect) then I’m assuming that this all means that the PL-5C is all aspect.
But since where all left in the dark, @Smin1080p, would you be able too tell us if the dev are planning too introduce the PL-5C with an all aspect seeker or not? The description in the dev blog is very vague.
They didn’t outright, but they seem to suggest it in the devblog: “PL-5С short-range air-to-air missile with improved target sensors”
If this is truly what the pl-5b looks like irl then I’d think the previous 20G value was correct, unless the PL-5C is more than 30G. That double delta canard should definitely make a difference in pull, also my claim is supported by the fact the 5c is said to have lower minimum distance.
Minimum distance is heavily based on the safe/arm time of the proximity fuse, or the safe distance from the warhead to explode. Wouldn’t have anything to do with maneuverability.
1 Like
I think the the problem is, that the PL-5B we have in game currently, is a cross between the fins of the PL-5C and the seeker of the IRL PL-5B. The current 30G’s we enjoy now on the PL-5B, is going too be identical on the PL-5C, unless gajjin decides too nerf the PL-5B. The only difference we should have is that the PL-5C will have a better seeker, that’s most likely all aspect. So kinda the Chinese equivalent of the R-60-R-60M
Well it depends. Arming distance obviously determines the theoretical minimum range you can engage targets at, but if you want you missle too be more effective at close range, you might want too increase it’s ability too make sharp turns off the rails, and in the PL-5’s case maybe lower its acceleration so it doesn’t overshoot targets at close range. But yeah, either way I think what we’re looking at is a change too the seeker, not the physical prefromance itself
PL-5C/E are 35/40g (PL-5E-II is known to be 35g however secondary sources claim PL-5E was 40g though I find it hard to believe the PL-5E-II downgraded maneuverability)
3 Likes
There is also the contact fuse, which will have a shorter arming time than the proximity fuse. The guidance delay for missiles such as Magic 2 is 0.2s or less irl, which would apply to the PL-5B/C as well since they are of similar sophistication in design. Other examples are R-73 with 0.15s guidance delay.
In any case, the minimum safe distance is largely determined by the warhead. If there were only changes in the seeker, it would not have any bearing on minimum engagement range. The ability to maneuver tightly off the rail and hit a target off boresight has nothing to do with the minimum range.
30G laterally would imply 42G combined plane. This would correlate well to the point they are making. The PL-5C/E is capable of only 30G in single plane more than likely. The only change seems to be the seeker.
