I think PL-2 on J-7E outdated & bad Air-to-Air Missile for aircraft 11.0-11.7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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Define “respected PLA observer”
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
Any evidence to support your claim? Or just your feeling?
I’m sorry but it’s not fair too just call something propaganda simply because you don’t agree with it. The problem with the source your provided is that it doesn’t even mention what separates the PL-5C from the B model, which is confusing and strange. Hell it doesn’t even provide an explanation as too how the C model came too be. The Chinese author on the other hand seems To provide an actual trail of development that didn’t leave out the PL-5C and his story matches photo evidence, since the PL-5C shares the same physical look as the base E model
“propaganda”
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
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.
It doesn’t matter :)
where did they say this?