Regardless of range, altitude, speed etc, the pl-12s seem to be underperforming, and if you view the missile in flight it rapidly bleeds speed and jerks around constantly as it flies, is this acting as intended or is something busted with its model in game?
2 Likes
According to what, what are you comparing them to?
Other similar missiles in game
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dBRJVCkOwd7J
Known issue. Bigger concern is how chaff happy the missile is.
1 Like
Ah ok, yeah it loses almost all speed as soon as the engine turns off, it’s really frustrating as despite its stated range of 80km you’ll be lucky to get a hit at 30km even if you’re up in space when you launch at mach 1.5.
Comparisons to the other missiles in-game do not indicate underperformance of a specific piece of ordnance. For example, the R-27ER vastly outperforms any other SARH missile. That does not mean the others are underperforming by any means.
The PL-12 is modeled after data for SD-10. If they can prove the two are not identical, there is a case where the PL-12 can be improved. Until sources are uncovered regarding the Chinese service ordnance - we will not know.
This will become very annoying in the future. PL-15E has advertised 145 kilometers of range and I can already predict that Gaijin will probably model PLA-service PL-15 after the export model because of lack of sources. While other nations such as US will get AIM-120C, Russia will get R-77-1, etc. and upgraded Fox 3s with more range, China will be stuck with the mediocre PL-12 for quite some time. It is unclear if any other variant of PL-12 (supposed A/B variant) has better kinematic performance.
1 Like
There are only anecdotal accounts that are unfortunately not primary sources. RUSI estimation that PL-12 is in between AIM-120B and C-4 in kinematic performance, and PLAAF statements that late PL-12 reaches performance metric of AIM-120C-5. As far as I know, there is no declassified source that specifically mentions difference in rocket motor thrust, duration, or weight difference between SD-10 and PL-12, which is what Gaijin needs to see.
Irregardless, it is also dual pulse and likely equipped with an AESA seeker. The performance is well and above anything else currently in the game.
What is more concerning is that China will be stuck with essentially the SD-10 until we get the export PL-15, the gap between early fox-3 Chinese planes and late tier ones going forward will be large.
There is also the SD-10A which has some information available, but Gaijin believes this is analogous to the PL-12A or something. Too little information is available.
This is kind of more of a reason they need to change their standards for performance from “known values” to “best guess,” especially for more and more modern stuff. There won’t be accurate information on anything still in service, and basically everyone knows that. So it would be up to them to make a “best guess” as it were, instead of just disregarding it because “no sources state this.”
1 Like
We don’t know what kind of propellant China uses or the history of the impulse of said propellants. The best guess could be anywhere from 230s to 300s impulse on the PL-15 for example. It entered service at a time where China’s production capabilities greatly expanded and their expertise improved.
That being said, this could mean a difference well in excess of 50-100% depending on who’s “guess” we are looking at and both would be equally well sourced. Instead they’ve used what few datapoints they could salvage from the only known ordnance currently which is the SD-10.
I’m worried about this the most. I hope that when Gaijin adds better Fox 3 missiles they consider a solution. Maybe new PL-12 variant with more powerful motor, even though there isn’t much evidence to support this. Gaijin have added vehicles such as F-16AJ in the past to help nations perform better at high tier for the sake of balance and not necessarily historical accuracy. So maybe we will see something similar in the form of weaponry.
This is why I’m saying they need to start going on best estimations.
Like say the range for a particular missile is given as like 100km then make the in game one more or less equal to something that could match that range given the correct launch parameters. They could honestly just fudge it if they want to, and I don’t think many people would complain or even really notice
I would say that Gaijin should consider the usage of anecdotal evidence as long it is from three different sources, and that they all highlight similar level of capability. Anecdotal evidence can be anything from statements by military officials, original set design parameters/requirements, and analysis by military think tanks.
Take the example that I said above. PLAAF considers PL-12 to be on the same level as AIM-120C. RUSI believes range-wise, it is superior to AIM-120B. That’s two sources. Need one more.
With how pretty much everything new is classified, Gaijin should be more lenient on the information they accept for modeling reports.
Yeah exactly that’s what I was going for I just forgot how to word it.