It’s still a Mig 21, the improved flight performance you’re seeing is because of the extra surface area on the wings as well as the altered wing shape.
This doesn’t change the information that the airframe, is factually that of a Mig 21.
1 Like
Bruh what.
It is literally best dogfighter at its BR rn also, I wouldn’t surprised if it gets higher BR even more.
IMO, It is fine at its BR but, would like to see J-7E gets PL-8 and move up to 11.3BR. J-7E with PL-8 would be good counterpart of Kfir C.7 that has Python-3.
1 Like
Personally I’m happy with where the E is at the moment although I’d really like to see the G be implemented with a better missiles set, the extra thrust alone will be nice to have.
1 Like
Yeah J-7G would be a nice addition along side export J-7s such as F-7 PG with AIM-9L or BG/BGI with PL-9C/PL-5EII.
looks at F-104S at 11.0 with garbage AIM-9Ps
1 Like
So you want a unfair advantage?
I got an idea hope gaijin consider PL-8 instead PL-2, and PL-5B replace by PL-5C, and could add 2nd Air-to-Air Missile PL-5E
J-7E is never getting Pythons.
Gaijin are notoriously stingy with giving planes proper loadouts. This is another symptom of the BR compression.
1 Like
At least they should give it PL-5E.It is somewhat comparable to magic 2(In terms of maneuverability)
1 Like
PL-5E has too strong ECCM, would be literally unfareable, it also has all aspect lock. this combination is too much at 11.0. They would go to 11.7 at least just like Harrier GR.7
No PL-5E lacks IRCCM but PL-5EII has IRCCM.PL-5E only received a better seeker and slightly better motor(not sure).
It should perform somewhat similar to R-60 but with higher range and slightly higher g overload
pl5e from what i understand is just the b with an all aspect seeker probably similar to the aim9L and python 3. The g overload should also be increased to 35
1 Like
Yes it does get 35g overload but it lacks IRCCM.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking, it would basically be an AIM-9L with a different motor which would make it better than the 9L but probably worse than the Python 3
It would probably perform similar to Magic 2
Doesn’t the Magic 2 have a delay before it starts tracking though? It always felt less manoeuvrable than the 9L to me anyway.
i mean in terms of performance (specially g overload) it should be similar.
im thinking, give the j7e the HMD at least (and fix the ‘radar’) and maybe give it all aspect pl5 variant. and replace the pl2 with the pl2e (which i believe is meant to be a aim9e) and maybe also give the j7II the pl2e and move it to 9.7
1 Like
The FCR on the J-7E already acts like an HMCS, and it REALLY doesn’t need anything better than the PL-5Bs.
The fact this thread is still ongoing is outright delusional when the J-7E is already hands down the best 11.0 air to air jet in the game, and easily hangs with 11.3 jets, which is realistically where the J-7E SHOULD be, along with the MiG-23MLA/D and F-14A.
1 Like
The J-7E is moving up to 11.3 (from what I’ve seen) and this decision is… Weird?
The J-7E sure has a excellent flight model but lacks All-Aspect missiles, moving it to 11.3 will just force players to fly “handicapped”. The range finding radar isn’t practical as a helmet mounted sight and shouldn’t be used as a excuse to not add them, and now thanks to the new 11.3 BR it will be forced to engage new F-16s.
The introduction of Python 3s to the platform may be a far stretch but PL-5Es would be amazing for the vehicle, it wouldn’t invoke a battle rating increase (since it’s already going to 11.3) and it would have similar characteristics to the PL-5B plus the Python 3 seeker.
1 Like