they cant
because iirc they get the stats from skimming players service records, which arent split into ground and air
1 Like
Lad, that was the thing I asked Smin. But the PzH.2000 we are getting is based of the only 2 PzH.2000 100% german, not modifications or nothing by Italy, that Italy bought before to test them and all.
That why I asked if we will get the Italian PzH.2000 too, and not just the German copy-paste.
Edit: Ik the Italian had the LwS, also with GALIX, and other things. And that’s the one I thought at first Italy would get, but I was a fool to believe they wouldn’t be that lazy to just Cntrl C + Cntrl V.
@Alpharius11348 @KhorneFlakez1337
did a spreadsheet for total Air/ground kills vs Spawn and deaths for a few aircraft if you are interested
| British AESA | F-15C GE | Rafale C F3 | German AESA | Su-30SM2 | Average AESA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Games played | 88,850 | 363,173 | 290,907 | 279,678 | 751,684 | 152,934 |
| Spawns | 95,798 | 379,327 | 300,325 | 297,003 | 777,230 | 163,530 |
| Air Kills | 113,463 | 480,831 | 365,723 | 278,869 | 641,527 | 165,233 |
| Ground Kills | 26,775 | 37,612 | 84,274 | 98,196 | 553,569 | 54,009 |
| Total Kills | 140,238 | 518,443 | 449,997 | 377,065 | 1,195,096 | 219,242 |
| Deaths | 64,410 | 282,297 | 221,347 | 221,222 | 578,194 | 117,687 |
| K/D | 2.17 | 1.83 | 2.03 | 1.52 | 2.06 | 1.86 |
| K/S | 1.46 | 1.36 | 1.49 | 1.26 | 1.53 | 1.38 |
Edit: Added an average for all 3 AESAs too
My takeaway:
The SM2 clearly needs a buff in the A2A department as it has a negative K/D against air targets ;]
1 Like
A2G*
Clearly those KH-38MTs and KH-31s arent good enough
1 Like
I don’t know why, but I had the idea that K/S might be a better metric to determine air to air performance, but that makes not much sense. I think I’m too tired right now to discuss this properly.
It is too bad that statshark can’t filter based on mode and always includes deaths from both ARB and GRB.
I will admit that now knowing that the ground kills don’t get factored in, the Rafale and the Typhoons definitely perform better.
From a specs point of view (ignoring player performance) I still think the F-15C GE should be (or rather, should have been, now that the pylons are being fixed) 14.7. Either that or the J-15T should sit at 14.3 and a bunch of 14.3s should sit at 14.0.
That’s just a compression problem though.
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT How long must Germany’s Leopard 2A7V maintain an incorrect armor protection rating?
Germany’s sequence of additional armored development was as follows. After the IVT, whose name was changed due to the installation of the IFIS (Integrated Command and Information System) system at KVT, the KVT, IVT, and other development vehicles followed. Based on the experience gained from this development program, a prototype of the TVM series was produced.
The TVM Max later demonstrated an armored protection level associated with Sweden’s Strv 122 series. The vehicle developed from the TVM series was the Leopard 2A6EX. Starting with Leopard 2A6EX, the Leopard 2A7 series adopted the same protection testing approach and added several improvements.
But why haven’t Germany’s Leopard 2A7V and Hungary’s Leopard 2A7, Embt, and others yet been modified to reflect a protection rating like TVM’s? It appears to maintain a lower protection rating, corresponding to earlier IVT technology. Even though the bug lift passed
Why hasn’t this mismatch been fixed yet? Community Bug Reporting System
3 Likes
i agree that J-15T should be 14.3, but only 14.3 that could be moved down is PoBIT maybe since it really just has nothing going for it
POBIT needs double amraam rack, idk if that exists IRL or not but 8+2 would make it competitive
triple rack for it is more real than double for eft
has been shown in renders, proposed and even ordered by turkey (before order was canceled)
so would either be 10 or 14 (idk where youd get the +2 because f16 runs amraams on wingtips)
double racks also exist in renders, also the dual racks exist for the aim9s and are compatible with the AMRAAM so not really fake
1 Like
ignoring all the other factors I see
proof?
So it seems we can finally replace the 2 outer PL-8Bs on this flight model for PL-12As on the J16.
However, at the same time it has lost the ability to carry double racks like the J-15T did?
Can someone explain why this is the case? It seems like the J16 should be able to carry 12 PL-12As considering that it’s bigger than the J15T
1 Like
maybe thats because the J15 shouldnt have those double racks either…
I’m not suggesting that anything besides the J-15T should actually be moved down.
What I was trying to say is that compared to the F-15C GE certain 14.3s really seem pretty week, that includes the PoBIT as you mentioned, but also the F-16V, the F/A-18E/F and (at least according to what I’ve heard from others) the J-10C.
As I’ve said, this is a compression problem and actually moving anything down just makes it worse.
Now that the F-15C GE is getting that missile rack fix, I am completely on board with it staying at 14.3, but prior to that, it should have been sitting at 14.7 with the Typhoons and Rafales for the sake of even the tiniest bit of decompression.
Hopefully Gaijin will raise the top BR again soon…
Are new air to ground munitions planned for j-16 since its in the ground attack line ?
I just had a B-17 tank a 75mm from the Hs-129 to its engine ._.
A complete, component-by-component reconstruction — based on an official Chinese standard, an official aircraft handbook, Sukhoi’s own archived technical data, and itemized weights for crew, cannon, ammunition, launch rails, and unusable fuel — puts J-16’s empty weight at roughly 16,988–18,088 kg, with a midpoint around 17,540 kg. The current test-server value of ~18.3t sits above this entire range.
1. Primary source data
The Concise Chinese Aircraft Handbook (简明中国飞机手册, Aviation Industry Press, October 2023) gives:
- Design takeoff weight: 24,900 kg
- Design landing weight: 21,840 kg
Chinese aviation researchers compiling this table note the J-16 figures track closely to a blend of Su-30SME and Su-30MK data — the design takeoff weight matches Su-30MK’s normal takeoff weight exactly.
2. Independent confirmation from Sukhoi’s own data
Sukhoi’s official Su-30MK technical page (archived: web.archive.org/web/20110716144928/sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su30mk/lth/) independently confirms:
- Maximum internal fuel: 9,640 kg
- Normal internal fuel: 5,270 kg (a separate figure — not to be confused with the above)
- Normal takeoff weight (2×R-27R1 + 2×R-73E, 5,270 kg fuel): 24,900 kg — matching the handbook’s J-16 figure exactly
3. GJB 34A-2012 back-calculation (§4.5.9.1)
Normal landing weight = usage weight + 0 (no external stores) + 30–40% internal fuel (fighter category). Using 21,840 kg and 9,640 kg:
| Fuel fraction | Fuel weight | Usage weight |
|---|---|---|
| 30% | 2,892 kg | 18,948 kg |
| 40% | 3,856 kg | 17,984 kg |
4. Usable oil (engine)
Per the AL-31F engine construction manual (Falaleev, Samara State Aerospace University, 2013), §9 “Oil System”: oil tank fill quantity is 15+1 L per engine. At ~0.9 kg/L, two engines ≈ 28 kg, subtracted per GJB §4.5.3’s usage-weight definition.
(Hydraulic fluid — confirmed at 110 L / ~93.5 kg total for both hydraulic systems, per the Su-27 technical description, using АМГ-10Б fluid — is a closed-loop system fluid conventionally already counted within empty weight, and is not separately subtracted here.)
5. Fixed load, itemized
Per GJB 34A-2012 §4.4.1 (“fixed load” = crew, unusable fuel/oil, cannon, ammunition, non-jettisonable racks/launchers):
| Item | Weight | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Crew (2 × 90 kg) | 180 kg | user-specified baseline |
| GSh-30-1 cannon (dry) | 46 kg | Wikipedia / manufacturer specs |
| Ammunition (150 rounds × 0.832 kg) | 125 kg | 30×165mm HEI-T round spec sheet (Arcon Consult) |
| Non-jettisonable launch racks (2 medium + 2 short-range, “2+2” loadout) | 240–280 kg | AKU-470 (90kg)/APU-470 (70kg) for medium-range, APU-73 (~50kg) for short-range |
| Unusable fuel (2.5–3.5% of 9,640 kg internal capacity — typical modern aircraft range) | 241–337 kg | general aviation engineering convention |
6. Final empty weight estimate
Combining all of the above across the fuel-fraction and unusable-fuel sensitivity range:
| Scenario | Result |
|---|---|
| 30% fuel + light rack + 2.5% unusable fuel | 18,088 kg |
| 30% fuel + heavy rack + 3.5% unusable fuel | 17,952 kg |
| 40% fuel + light rack + 2.5% unusable fuel | 17,124 kg |
| 40% fuel + heavy rack + 3.5% unusable fuel | 16,988 kg |
Estimated empty weight range: 16,988–18,088 kg, midpoint ≈ 17,540 kg.
7. Independent cross-check — Su-27SK official empty weight + increment method
Su-27SK’s officially-cited empty weight is 16,380 kg. Applying the known normal-takeoff-weight increment from Su-27SK to Su-30MK (+1.47t, per independent Chinese aviation research), the estimated Su-30MK usage-weight-class figure is ≈17,850 kg — consistent with, and falling within, the range derived above via a completely independent method.
8. Public reporting
Chinese media has separately cited J-16’s empty weight as 17.7t (17,700 kg) — also within the calculated range.
Conclusion
Every independent line of evidence — official handbook data, Sukhoi’s own factory specifications, a component-level weight reconstruction, an independent increment-based cross-check, and public reporting — converges on an empty weight in the 16,988–18,088 kg range. The current test-server value of ~18.3t (18,300 kg) sits clearly above this range by at least ~200 kg even under the most conservative combination of assumptions. I’d ask the team to review this figure against the sources below.
Sources:
- 简明中国飞机手册 (Concise Chinese Aircraft Handbook), Aviation Industry Press, Oct 2023
- GJB 34A-2012, “Piloted Aircraft (Fixed Wing) Flight Performance,” §4.4–4.5
- Sukhoi official Su-30MK technical data (archived via Wayback Machine)
- С.В. Фалалеев, “Конструкция ТРДДФ АЛ-31Ф,” Samara State Aerospace University, 2013 (oil system data)
- Su-27 technical description (hydraulic system data)
- GSh-30-1 and 30×165mm ammunition manufacturer/reference specifications
- AKU-470 / APU-470 / APU-73 missile launcher specifications (Vympel and related sources)
- Independent Su-27SK official weight data and Su-30 family increment analysis (Chinese aviation research)
- Public Chinese-language aviation reporting citing 17.7t empty weight
The issue tracker currently does not accept any issues regarding base weight or empty weight, so I have to post this here instead.
AIM-7 Sparrow mogging R-27ER, AIM-120 is not something I was expecting xD
1 Like