contact a bug report mod
Do u have anything that specifically mentions the 4 element IRCCM for PL8B. The only issue is that even if it is 4 element they can technically still deny this.
That’s the classified information part. Everyone knows it is but anything that would explicitly state it is classified.
1 Like
The introduction section of that master’s thesis mentioned it
Spoiler
1 Like
Must’ve missed that when translating. This could be helpful, but knowing gaijin they’ll pull something out of their ass and say you need to have a source which explicitly states the PL-8B and exactly what it does.
I’ll try to find another source which says something similar to this. Thank you for your continued support.
5 Likes
the most reliable source I have is this
https://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2006-03-12/1003356519.html
though it’s third party web, but the article is provided by Military Digest, an official magazine published by CASIC, so it is a reliable source, but the mod don’t think so
3 Likes
I don’t see how this is any less reliable than a “coffee table book” but the mods have weird standards
5 Likes
We can try to trick Gaijin, where we let them do the motor first, and then we do the IRCCM, if they accept this for motor then no reason not to acknowledge this for IRCCM.
5 Likes
the rocket improvement is confirmed to be just a concept.
Can’t believe this is the stuff we have to try and pull to get the missile modelled accurately
2 Likes
Has anyone tried using these two articles as sources? Both articles are biographies of Jin Xianzhong, the chief designer of the PL-8 series. One of them clarifies the correspondence between the code names and the missiles: Type I missile = Python 3; Type II missile = PL-8A; Type III missile = PL-8B; the other article mentions “Project 8,” which was the codename for the project to import the Python 3 missile and carry out domestic improvements for its localization. And it also points out that the Type III missile features a multi-unit IR seeker.
Article 1:
Article 2:
7 Likes
When I get time I’ll take a full look through these and see if I can add them to the second report. Thanks for sharing!
4 Likes
added not a bug
closed issue
closed comments
2 Likes
Is it just me or is the PL-8B’s IRCCM really bad? It feels worse than the PL-5EII
1 Like
Yeah, tried today too, gonna give more after finish spading Mirage, but Im having a bad feeling. Also on rail FOV seems to be also way bigger than other IRCCM missiles (but I dont know how big/small it “should be”)
I think its sadly still using a R-73 IRCCM seeker
Idk, it feels more flare hungry than the R-73.
I think the rail FOV is pretty high.
Apparently there is a new problem with the PL-12 after the update
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ICChPe76QxlC
According to this issue post after 10km of tracking a target the radar of the missile turns off and it goes into inertial nav mode without the radar turning back on, I do notice the PL-12 not being as reliable at longer ranges this update compared to previous.
2 Likes
Well damn, thats explains. Does it still uses the data link? (so you could at least lead it by your own radar)
No, cause the datalink turns off after ARH seeker turns on.