1 Like
Did it fire R73?
The version that may have been capable of using the R-73 never saw production or service.
What does that have to do with what I said
That the plane in the video would not be capable of firing R-73. I assumed you confused the planes because of the similar paint scheme, but now I think I got it wrong with the F-8II being R-73 compatible
Edit: nvm I just read your reply too quickly 👍
I mean if both missile had their proper irccm
R73 would be basically unflareable
Same for the magic 2 but it’s even smaller gatewith than the r73 and has the 9m irccm incorporated with it
It would be beyond broken
PL-5EII is using a 2-color multi-element seeker and onboard DSP for flare rejection. It would literally have similar, if not slightly better flare resistance than TY-90 if it was implemented realistically. Obviously, it had to be nerfed for balancing reasons.
I’ll do you one better:
PL-7s on an Iranian F-5E >:D
(it gets worse, there’s one of a Iranian F-5 with R-60s 😭)
3 Likes
I got an even better one!
IRIAF F1BQ with PL-7s, almost full circle back to Magic Is
2 Likes
Is there any particular reason they opted for a 4 element seeker on the PL-11AE over an IIR one? AFAIK only 4 element seekers use Magnesium Fluoride glass in Chinese service.
They are behind in IIR seeker design and production. They are not small enough or cheap enough to produce for disposable weapons. They just recently started using more modern thermals on their tanks as another example.
If the multi-element conventional IR seeker is considerably cheaper and gets the job done - there is no need for the IIR seeker (yet). Similarly, we do not use IIR on some air to ground ordnance still in the US.
1 Like
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you.
I disagree with your point of view. PL-108 uses the same IIR guidance head as PL10, while PL-11AE is an export missile. It is reasonable to use a non IIR guidance head
Moreover, it is evident that the PL-108 warhead is smaller than the PL11AE warhead
2 Likes
IDK where you get some of your info. Pl-10 is IIR with a higher pixel density than the Aim-9X and IIRC the IRIS-T too. The only thing questionable about the Pl-10’s performance is whether it has a built-in system to defend against DIRCM.
IIR seekers and multi-element seekers with advanced DSP provide a small difference in terms of flare rejection but have a large difference in terms of cost. Additionally, for missiles meant for medium range+ IIR becomes even more costly as it will require greater pixel densities than normal to maintain superior flare rejection capability at distance. On the other hand, multi element seekers do not suffer this downfall and a DSP algorithm can be tuned to specialize in flare rejection at range.
Multi-element seeker makes logical sense, a maybe 10% increase in flare rejection is not worth a 200%+ price increase for a missile, especially when you factor in these missiles would be fired in conjunction with IRST to not trip any warnings.
8 Likes
Do you have data to support this?
This isn’t true
I would like to ask data that suggests PL-10 doesn’t use IIR seeker, because this is known fact by a huge majority of the PLAAF community.
And also, China was fielding 2nd generation thermal on production MBTs such as the original ZTZ99 in the early 2000s. So there are no bottlenecks there.
You can ask the Pakistanis about the Al-Khalid, which or the Thais regarding their VT-4, whom the tankers said that the sights performed better than the system on the Oplot, thermal performance was a big consideration for the purchase of VT-4.
2 Likes
I think wants evidence of greater pixel density than the 9X and IRIS-T, not that it isn’t IIR. I’ll have to try and dig that info up over the weekend; along with the book of IRCCM since there seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation on how seekers actually work IRL.
Do we have any evidence on resolution of thermals for VT-4’s? Currently gunner and commander is only Gen 2, which seems a bit silly for a very modern tank. If there’s evidence saying the resolution, then it should be an easy bug report.
2 Likes
The Thai manual states target detection range of 10.5km, max distance to identify target is 4km range. The detector matrix is 288 x 4.
But I’m not sure if I can post the Thai manual.