thats wild
Because why should china manufacturer give j-15t pl-8 when they can give it pl-10?
Imagine adding a plane then not giving that plane the correct missile count because the missiles haven’t been added to the game
Don’t think they can add pl-10 yet tho
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EqaKwkaVOqD4
Tried using official images, China hasn’t published the loadout for the J-15T so idk where Gaijin got the PL8 for the J-15T. Are they doing this because J-15T is technically part of the whole J-15 family even though its completely different from the older J-15…
1 Like
It’s because the alternative would be to add the J-15T without ir missiles
In a game that strives for realism, they should remove the PL8 and lower the br
striving for realism is not what they do, but what they advertise they do. but I don’t think they should add a plane, if they have to reduce half the missile amount because the ir missiles are too op to be added. Better to add some other plane then
Would like to note the brimstone situation
1 Like
Too late now to change to the older J-15 which I have no idea why they skipped. Could have just added the PL12A to just the J-10C and an older J-15 to the TT. Add the J-15T when ECM and PL10 get added later.
3 Likes
Think the orignal intent was to give china something good, but they butchered it.
J11D or J10 with thrust vector would better
2 Likes
CAS at top tier of the game has ruined ground battles.
Nothing like spawning in an AA system to see a bunch of Kh-38’s flying towards you from a guy who has barely taken off from the runway, and spammed them towards the battlefield by abusing the map marking feature.
The AA systems will run out of ammo, but he will just land instantly after firing them and rearm and repeat the process making even the best AA in the game useless, while he is completely impervious.
Gaijin you need to address this.
In the game’s unused resources, there is also a little-known PL-9.
pl9
The PL-9 is essentially a PL-8 that uses the fins of the PL-5 (this design was for export, to avoid copyright issues with the Python ). The game’s resource library contains the complete model and fully developed data for the PL-9. Compared to the PL-8, it has a longer range and longer endurance, but correspondingly, it only has 35G of overload.
If the PL-9C were given an IRCCM seeker similar to the AIM-9M, it would be very suitable for high-altitude, high-speed jets like the J-11/15. However, currently, only the issue of the J-10 carrying the PL-9C has been approved.
2 Likes
exact thing happened to mig 29 btw
1 Like
PL9 would be a down grade just off the seeker
PL-9 in the game’s assets is indeed a downgraded version; it lacks IRCCM. But the PL-9C is not. Its IRCCM should function in-game similarly to the AIM-9M’s.
1 Like
doesnt neccesarily make it better its only use is niche long range shots the seeker FOV IRRCM of the PL8 And PL5EII is unflarble within 1.5KM the 9M can be dodged by spamming flares
PL8 and PL5 guaranteed can kill if launched right the 9M cant really
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