It depends on what Gaijin thinks… AAM-4 and PL-12 are both AIM-120C level in terms of kinetic performance, but ingame they have shorter range than AIM-120A and B. China will be stuck with PL-12 until PL-15, which is a massive jump. If China is stuck with PL-12 in its current state when AIM-120C is added then that may be an issue. Right now PL-12 is using data of export SD-10 with reduced motor burn time due to lack of information.
AAM-4B is more on the level of AIM-120D and even better in some aspects, with it using an AESA seeker.
I’m sure that Gaijin knows it’s strong. We but fortunately the aircraft that can use the AAM-4 (F-2 and F-15J(M)) can be placed pretty high in BR and keep being up BR’ed as necessary with decompression. Thus they can up the AAM-4 performance over time as it goes up in BR.
So true… PL-15 is at most a Meteor equivalent, at the very least an AIM-120D equivalent. But whether Gaijin will actually model it somewhat accurately remains to be seen.
Oh, so this is THAT deep the rabbit hole goes…
No, I didn’t know the NATO codification (and in general I don’t use it, preferring the original names) until I became interested in why the snail called the Su-27 “slotback”
it’s hard to compare PL-15 and Meteor, Meteor is quite a special missile. But it’s surely PL-15 is better than any AIM-120, because of its size and dual rocket, so the AIM-260 is developed to catch the gap.
