That’s too overpowered. Just wait for J-16 with PL-10/15/17 (J-16 is not compatible with PL-8B) and choose J-15 with PL-8B/12 for now.
currently Chinese CAS basically based on how soon Gaijin can bring some more loadouts, there are plenty choices. Sadly they haven’t added C704 series this update but only models.
also, IR LS-6 with turbo engine in triple pylon is also a choice, Chinese equivalent of AASM.
Can the J-16 not use the PL-9C? If it indeed can then it could be added with that instead of the PL-8B for balancing reasons, I do recall the basic PL-9 model itself being hidden away in the files so it could be put to good use with the J-16 if added.
I’d much rather a J-16 with PL-9C/12 than a J-15 offering not a whole lot of improvement over what we currently have.
The PL-9 series is an export series not used by domestic aircraft.
It’s hard to imagine that there are two fools who keep attacking Chinese planes, turning a blind eye to the mistakes that have been pointed out. Only believe what you want to believe.
2 Likes
No. Because of the wingtip pylon, J-16 only use PL-10.
Damn, I don’t expect Gaijin to introduce advanced IR missiles very soon so that’s a shame, unless the PL-8B gets improved soon enough IR missiles and Radars are the only things holding back top tier China air.
The PL-8B’s are great though.
Eh… they aint bad, but I wouldn’t call them great. Too much energy for just FOV IRCCM
Definitely great. Its the same IRCCM as missiles like the magic 2’s and R-73s, also great missiles
“Too much energy” is a new one though, never heard that before.
Im not saying it bad or that it IRCCM is weak, only that it (the FOV IRCCM) most potent in point-blank shots and/or within 2km. PL-8 is too fast to be effectively used in this manner, so you had to use it from greater range akin to 27T/ET, but it invites a possibility of missile being flared
1 Like
They are good missiles, far from performing poorly. However they aren’t exactly stellar in comparison to other top tier IR missiles. If it gets the proposed IRCCM changes like it should, then I expect it to be much more popular, as I know some people using the J-10A still prefer PL-5EIIs over the new PL-8B simply due to the IRCCM.
They have the same IRCCM…
0.75° fov post launch
Yes, but due to the lower speed than the PL-8B, the IRCCM is seen by some to suit the PL-5EII much better than it does the PL-8B, its got less pull than the PL-8B but still has more time to make such manoeuvres at close range thanks to its speed.
The python is no slouch for acceleration on its own, the difference in timings are quite small.
I mean comparing closely to another great missile like the PL-5E2 is more of a praise of the Pl-8B than anything
Both PL-5EII and PL-8B are great missiles. I just hope that the PL-8B gets the IRCCM changes so that it functions better at medium ranges, as while having a very good medium range IR missile with very good short range IRCCM works, its not exactly ideal in many situations.
The suggested changes would make the PL-8B the only plane AAM like it, with the best of both types of IRCCM.
Like the TY-90, but with even greater handling and flare resistance.
If they’re going down that road, you can expect other nations to get similarly powerful changes as well.
Personally I’m waiting for either the J10B or C haha, going to love those.
1 Like
PL-8/Python-3 has 40G limit, but it’s true limit is its fins, it actually can’t pull better than PL-5.
A lot of people just want the IRCCM to change to Seeker shutoff like what the AIM-9M has rather than keeping the Gatewidth we have right now. I highly doubt gaijin could be persuaded to overhaul all top tier IR missiles with IRCCM to realistic specifications, but changing from one type of IRCCM to another when the missile in reality uses a combination of both, that I can see as a possibility.
The gigantic PL-8B poll clearly shows player’s preferences for the change: IRCCM type on the PL-8B [Poll]
1 Like