Guys you think they going to add “RANK IX” for new 4.5 jets like typhoon with aesa?
remember 4.5 is before 5th gen
4.5 and 5th gen jets should be in a seperate RANK i think
what do you think?
Right, that would be a decent point but there’s several things to consider.
- What is the exact quote that was said?
- When was it said? Before or after Pakistan acquired the AIM-120C?
- Did it say AIM-120C or specifically AIM-120C-5?
- Did it specifically state that the PL-12 has comparable range to the AIM-120C-5? Or did it say comparable performance which could mean other aspects or overall aspects? i.e. perhaps PL-12 had better maneuverability while having worse range than AIM-120C-5?
Does Mk2 not have greater range performances?
It does, but Gaijin don’t accept reports which just show that a radar should have better range than another. You need to be able to say what’s the ranges or how much better it is. As far as I know that information has not been released for ECRS Mk. 2. So I expect it to be a copy paste of Mk. 1, possibly with better gimbal limits.
1 Like
My previous statement specifically addressed your question about how China obtained the AIM-120C5. Regarding your other questions, in a 2004 interview—when the PL-12 was still in its testing phase—Liang Xiaogeng, the deputy chief designer of the PL-12, stated that its design goal was to exceed a range of 100 km (under standard conditions of 10,000 meters at Mach 1.2, as referenced in the context). In a 2006 follow-up interview—by which time the PL-12 had entered service—the same individual noted that “the performance of the SD-10 at this stage is comparable to the American AIM-120C,” while also confirming that its final certification test launches had achieved ranges exceeding 100 km, substantiating this claim.
1 Like
I’m alright, I don’t think there is enough content to justify Rank 9 yet, and increasing research costs while making rank 7 premiums redundant this early seems like a net-negative for players, especially if they start moving current rank 8s into rank 9 (absolutely abhorrent business practice btw gaijin)
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
??? 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