Thanks for this, Pakistan had ordered 500 AIM-120C-5s and received the first batches in 2010. So this def rules out the possibility of the Chinese having compared it with the PL-12.
It allows them to compare PL-12 to their design specification (C-5), besides PL-12 was nerfed in order to add it with other early fox-3s, fairly sure this was acknowledged by gaijin.
Either way there is a capacity for PL-12 to get Kinematic buffs at the very least, or a new ‘unlimited’ variant possibly under the title PL-12A.
This was a public-oriented interview, and the mention of the AIM-120C was solely to help the general audience conceptualize what a 100 km range represents.
What do you mean by design specification? The design specification to be on par with the 120C-5? But like I said, it’s speculation on the Chinese part unless they obtained classified specification on the performance of the missile.
I’ve been following closely with PL-12 reports, and they never said anything that amounted to this that I’ve seen, and this type of statement is not usually something Gaijin would ever try to admit publicly for fear of outrage. This is the kind of statement that would have had the Chinese community outraged for over a year.
Possibly, I can’t ever rule out any buffs for it if someone comes forward with sources.
Yeah I think this was just a statement not meant to be taken literally and just meant to paint a picture, but it’s something that people here on this forum tout as evidence when it wasn’t meant to be evidence of its performance.
making the PL-12 perform equivalent to the AIM-120C-5 would be a massive nerf as the missile is garbage
Who knows, The Chinese MIC for it’s part has managed to get it’s hands on numerous leaked and stolen NATO documents, wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if a few about the AMRAAM were included
Perform along C-5 stats ≠ Perform identically to C-5.
The C-5 is bad because all AMRAAMs are bad currently, giving the current PL-12 a better motor would lead to a net increase in performance, not a nerf
eh imo it’s best the way it is rn because currently it’s still kinda possible to avoid getting Slapped by ARH AAMs
The interview, however, provided specific performance figures—such as a delta-V exceeding 1020 m/s (which would be higher for the 198 kg PL-12 compared to the 180 kg SD-10), reaching Mach 4 at 7,000 meters, and a maximum range over 100 km—none of which are achieved by the current PL-12.
2 Likes
??? That’s a very broad statement, what do you mean
A better motor would increase its turn circle, being a nerf to maneuvering.
It would accelerate better though.
define better
I’m glad to hear that MRML racks are still under review. Realistically either the F-15C GE needs to get MRML racks to stay 14.3, or it needs to go down in BR to 14.0.
Considering the Su-27SM and Su-30SM both got access to their dual-rack R-77s when those are only proven for the Su-35, the same precedent should apply for the CGE; which is at the very least theoretically compatible with MRML and definitely mounted them.
Also considering the Taiwanese and Indonesian AH-64Es aren’t compatible for JAGM but they got them anyways to supplement FnF helis in those trees, the same precedent should apply for the CGE; where the US tree lacks a competitive 14.3. (Emphasis on the word “competitive,” not “usable.” The CGE is a F-15 with AMRAAMs, ofc it will be usable. It’s just lacking stuff that would make it competitive at its BR.)
1 Like
more missiles haven’t made the F/A-18C more competitive, why should that work for the F-15C (GE)?
1 Like
The F-15C GE can actually go faster than M1.2, meaning it can actually employ its AMRAAMs.
2 Likes
but it already has AMRAAMs
iirc it currently carries 8 of them
twice as much as Gripen and 2 more than Eurofighter
now you want 4 MORE AMRAAMs?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
It was proven to be on Su-30/35, not just 35. Whether Su-27SM3 can or not, IDK because I haven’t researched that one.
Beyond the double racks being able to fit, I’ve yet to find evidence from either the rack manufacturer or Sukhoi/journalists that prove SM3 can.
It doesn’t help that the document for the double rack predates the SM3.
Boeing and LockMart both claim all AH-64Es can use them, and older AH-64A/Ds can with a software update.
F-15C GE getting MRMLs will change precedent, that would allow Su-30MKI to get double racks despite being older than the aircraft the rack manufacturer cites, as an example.
F-15C GE is already better than the 14.0 Mirage 2000, and F-16I at minimum.
So those would have to move to 13.7 if F-15C GE moved to 14.0 for fairness. Which isn’t what I personally want.
The Eurofighter and Rafale dramatically outclass the F-15C GE in flight performance.
The Gripen is 13.7, the F-15C GE is 14.3
Considering you haven’t played very much of top tier air at all, it’s not surprising you don’t understand why the F-15C GE is in dire need of something to make it competitive.
3 Likes