Currently in the game, countering both types of IRCCM is not very difficult as long as you have the skill. The PL-9C’s long-range attack capability is better suited for the J-15’s poor limited number of CM—you basically have no chance to use the PL-8 within the 1.5 km range that guarantees a kill.
the only counter is preflaring and you cant do that forever
this is just how its going to have to be played run only flares and multipath the radar missiles of the enemys then catch someone low and force them into a fight youll outperform every american plane in a IR/SARH missile dogfight and russians one only counters are the SM2 and the Rafale and EFT
the PL8B or PL5EII is a better option for this scenario the aim 9Ms gimmick of range only works well cause its smokeless but even that doesnt make it very good
PL9 would be a very poor choice you can add it as a secondary but if i had to pick one missile for it to carry it would be the PL8B or PL5EII
Currently in the game, I don’t recommend using low-altitude, multi-path terrain masking to evade missiles. The hit rate of Fox 3 missiles launched from high altitude in high-energy BZ attacks is already very high, especially after setting contrails to appear at 9000 meters.Facing the new missiles like 120d equipped with GNSS seekers will be even more challenging, as they have a higher hit rate against multipath clutter.You can’t even locate the direction of the enemy attacking you in the first place. At high altitude, they are mostly outside your radar scan unless you give up on enemies in the mid-altitude and adjust your radar in advance solely to deal with high-altitude threats… Furthermore, Flanker-type aircraft are not particularly agile at low altitude, and they lack thrust vectoring. I still recommend fighting at high altitude rather than engaging in dogfights.
At low altitude, you’re always on the defensive, struggling on the ground like an ant, which is why I advocate for seizing the initiative at high altitude. However, the range of the PL-12 limits the J-15’s combat distance at high altitude… It renders one both amused and exasperated.
And as you said, having an additional option isn’t a bad thing. The purpose of adding the PL-9C isn’t to replace the PL-8B.
A potentially reasonable modification: remove the two completely fictional wingtip PL-8B pylons and replace them with the actual ECM pods. Before their electronic warfare functions are fully implemented, they could function as BOL modules to provide additional countermeasures.
2 Likes
Comparing J-10 and F-16 to F-15 and Su-30s is false equivalence.
Twin engines in general are under-BR’d.
@CollectorOfSins @庄方宜
Also do you have an unclassified manual saying that J-15T can’t fire PL-8s?
Also, adding non-functional ECM pods won’t change anything. Also without evidence of them carrying countermeasures, they can’t add countermeasures.
1 Like
Everything about the j-15t is still classified and the Chinese release info much less than NATO. Thus the reason why even though every single j-15t is seen with only pl10 doesn’t mean that it could not carry pl8 as it’s still part of the j-15 family. I’m currently trying to find info on whether pl10 and pl8 can be used on the same hard point as I have a suspicion that the hardware in the j-15t wings are different to support the pl10 as it’s mounted differently compared to the pl8.
Then claiming any of the weapons of the J-15T in War Thunder are incorrect should be ignored.
Claims require evidence. And in the case of a claim that would nerf something… I would want to see that evidence if the claim is doubled down on.
As for store positions, they’re mass limited primarily, and that mass limitation drives the second limitation of pylon and weapon mounting.
Good luck in information gathering.
1 Like
J15T couldnt carry the pl8s because its outer wing pylons were rewired to support the pl10 system
Yeah but the question is, could it be fitted with the older pylons? Are those wingtip pylons modular or not?
In my knowledge china doesnt make modular pylons for their aircraft, they fully hardware+software all together, not like the gripen E which separates the hardware from the software, which suggest the j15T only able to carry pl10s because pl8 require a whole different connection point or hang point
1 Like
That’s too bad then. Because it will be one more inaccurate thing in the game, as Gaijin will do it anyway
Pl-8B physically dont fit on the wing tip pylons of the j-15T
J-15 uses PF8KAZ
J-15T uses PF-10AZ
I think you missed the fact that the J-15T in game has the old pylons rather than the new ones of the J-15T. So the missiles do fit on the pylons, the pylons simply aren’t the right ones.
They just made a frankenstein of J-15 and J-15T like they often do
J-15T is slightly faster to mach 1.5 than Su-30SM2 with weapons attached:
36 seconds from 0 - 1000kph.
66 seconds from sea level to 10,000 meters.
70 seconds from mach 0.95 to 1.5.
Edit: Here’s the video evidence: The stock loadout of S-13s was used as that mass and drag is almost identical to the BVR loadout of J-15T.
Brakes off was at 3 seconds:
2 Likes
Yes I know but that’s not enough evidence. Gaijin needs proof J-15T can’t carry PF8 pylons
J-10C Radar
J-15T Radar
SU-30SM radar ( source of the J-15T model, but shouldnt the J-15T radar be tilted? )
J-15T IRL
Spoiler
J-15T WT
Spoiler
J-15 IRL
Spoiler
9 Likes
XD BEST JOKE EVER SEEN THIS YEAR.lolllllllllll
Let’s summarize the issue of the 48 countermeasures for the J-15T: so, on BR 14.7, we received only 48CM—why? Because that’s actually how much this aircraft had, OK, but there’s a reason it only has 48CM in reality—it has that amount because the aircraft is equipped with an electronic device that jams enemy ARH missiles, the so-called “ECM.” So, is it implemented in the game? No. So, as compensation, did the aircraft receive a greater number of standard countermeasures in War Thunder? - NO.
I’m afraid that the new top-tier aircraft for China is a DOA, or actually already EOL after release.
8 Likes