Kfir with 4 pythons is 11.3 due to its flight performance being way greater than C.2s at 11.0. Also C.7 is much better plane performance wise than J-7.
I think its better to move to other modern variants of J-7. There are plenty of J-7s left to add. Specially I want to see the Super-7 variant.
No matter how you look at it the PL-8 is enough of an upgrade over the PL-5B that a BR increase is needed so either:
The J-7E goes to 11.3 or,
The J-7E now should be at 10.7.
Now lets look at 10.7 and see if the J-7E belongs:
F-5A/E - less engine power, worse missiles, better energy
A-7E - ground attack
F-104G - danger pencil, can’t dogfight, worse missiles
F-4F - worse missiles, similar flight performance
SU-22(U)M3(K) - ground attack
Sea Harrier FRS.1 - better missiles, subsonic, bad dogfighter
Saab J35XS - similar FM, few countermeasures, more worse missiles, no tracers
Kfir Canard - better FM, worse missiles, less missiles
Now as it stands the J-7E would have the best missile of any air superiority aircraft at 10.7, would have a good flight model for 10.7, a powerful engine for 10.7, lots of countermeasures for 10.7, put simply it would dominate 10.7 which is why it is at 11.0
So in short, if the J-7E gets PL-8s it will go to 11.3, and it will suffer at 11.3.
4 Likes
i was referring to the J7D which is a mig 21.
the J7e is not a mig 21 as it has a different wing design as well as armament and nose design
J-7E is already a shit now.PL5B is a just worse R60MK,it will go for flares 100%.PL8 is totally better than J7E,J7E most lacking thing is missiles.not mobility,J7E body is 11.7 jet level.same good as Mirage2000
J7E and J8B now is both 11.0,i dont know where you play wt and think it is 10.7.And J8F with 6 PL-8,head aiming is at 11.7,i dont think J7E without radar,only 4PL8,no head aiming should go to 11.7.it is just good at 11.3.Look at Israel Kurnass2000 with also 6 Python3 missies,and much more bombs,guide bombs,AGMs,still not bad mobility at low air,still at br 11.3,i dont think J7e with only 4 PL8 at 11.3 will be op.And i still dont mention those F4S and Mig23ML OP things at 11.3
1 Like
then you need to wait at least 2 years more.Gaijin is not a company very like China.They would rather to choose give things to Israel,but very lazy on China.They will be very quick when it is Chinese festival and can get much money from Chinese.Even though,they would still copy paste,rather than give a unique and good things to CHina.
3 Likes
If you read my post properly you would realise the point i was making is that the J-7E is at 11.0 for a reason, it’s too good for 10.7 and if you give it the PL-8 it would have to go up to 11.3 but even with PL-8s I think it would be too bad for 11.3, just compare it to the MiG-23MLD, F-4S, Kfir C.7 and Kurnass 2000, the J-7E with 4 x PL-8 wouldn’t be anywhere near as good as those aircraft.
Giving it PL-8s only dooms the J-7E to permanent obscurity, it will never be worth using ever again, at least as it is now it will have a place in the future matchmaker
4 Likes
even so, if not pl8’s then an all aspect pl5b, nothing wrong there, it faces 12.0 a lot and an all aspect pl5 wont break 10.x since there are already all aspect missiles at that BR range (r60, aim9l)
It could potentially receive the PL-5E to give it all aspect capability at 11.0 though I’m not entirely familiar with the capabilities of that missile
I believe the PL-5 is the preferred missile for the J-7 series IRL as the PL-8 weighs considerably more
did it use PL-5E irl?
That’s why we need new J-7 variants if we want new missiles for it.
PL-5E is a PL-8B head on a PL-5B body.It wont be better than PL-8(B) more.And i dont know whether it use it .but i can certainly say it used PL-8A in reality.Since J-7E is just a J-7 redesigned for hanging China bought Python-3 in 1970s,and when J-7E first fire test,it is hanging with PL-8A.or you can say China copied Python-3,after years China get some R73 from Russian,then PLA learn from it and improve the PL-8A to be PL-8B. And now in game PL-8 is a wrong mix of PL-8A and PL-8B.PL-8A is a copy of Python-3 in reality,and PL-8B is much better than PL-8A(totally better anti interference ability than now every Hot Spot missiles in game ,it is even better than not in game R73 ,which PL-8B learn from,rather than Python-3) and add head aiming.And in now wt,Python-3 is a copy of wrong PL-8,since only PL-8B has a not glass eye,while PL-8A and Python-3 eyes are covered by glass.But now in game Python-3 eyes is not covered by glass like it in reality.it is wrong,totally wrong made by gaijin.
Why not just give J-7E PL-8(A),it is just designed for hanging PL-8A in reality.Without PL-8A,China even dont create J-7E.
1 Like
I got an idea could add PL-8 or PL-8A replace PL-2, PL-5B replace by PL-5E or PL-5C because PL-5B quite low flare resistant
J-7E might be increase to 11.3 or 11.7 and move to rank VII
A J-7E at 11.3 doesn’t sound like a fun time, even with the PL-8 it would be outclassed by everything at that BR.
You guess J-7E might increase at 11.7 & move to rank 8 if PL-8A with IRCCM or PL-8 replace PL-2 and PL-5B replace by PL-5E ?
No I think the J-7E would increase to 11.3 where it would be the worst aircraft at that BR, PL-8A is a Chinese built Python 3 with no IRCCM.
I think the J-7E should receive just the PL-5E and stay at 11.0.
Any move to 11.3 or higher would be bad for the J-7E
The J-7E absolutely doesn’t deserve to be at 10.7.
It would absolutely club everything and becomes an absolute monster on the second sortie. I’m sorry but the plane itself is a very powerful aircraft and doesn’t need Python 3s either.
The issue people should be recognising is not the plane itself but the BR it sits. Right now 11/11.3/11.7 are all essentially 12.0 BR brackets.
BR decompression is needed, not buffing of the J-7E.
3 Likes
Instead of BR decompression I think lowering the matchmaker range from 1.0 to 0.7 would be much easier to implement and solve most if the issues with the matchmaker right now.
2 Likes