It woes me that this is an actual, acceptable reason and not just a joke.
5 Likes
They shouldve just used the same J10C one but technical compatibility is only valid for the money bringers…for china they cant even get pilot models right…idk what miracles made they do the Z10ME right
2 Likes
that is also just a copy pasted TARGO 2
and not the actual symbology that china uses
1 Like
I know but still better than the red cricle of doom…
7 Likes
actually worse because its in fake units. Give me circle of death
3 Likes
7 Likes
No mention of i10 or j15…
2 Likes
James-10 hud being in kt´s and ft is weird, aslo the heading indicator just glitching out
btw them not straight up saying J-11B is making me curious as the basic J-11 shouldnt get it,
11BG incoming?
or maybe they want to give it to the J-11A as well?
could be but would also be weird imo, idk tho
I hope gajin don’t add it
if they add it with WS-10B and “PL-12A” plus the chinese standard AESA, i think it would be fine
even with WS-10A it would be
(only shite part would be the RWR and missile count)
It’s a good aircraft, but I’d like to see it and J-10B appear sometime in the future as a 14.0-BR plane with standard PL-12
1 Like
No point, and it would be a waste of a good airframe
1 Like
Why make the 11BG a top aircraft with the PL12A?
11D is better suited for this
Btw, I forgot about the naval version of the 11BG.
Then one J-11 as 14.0 with PL-12, and the second as 14.3 with the PL-12A
How I would arrange Chinese fighters in the future:
J-11B, J-10A, J-15 this starting point - 13.7
J-10B, J-11BG, Su-30mk2(+ RVV-SD) = +0.3 BR(14.0)
J-10C(6x PL-12A), J-11BGH(+PL-12A), JF-17 blk3(+PL-15) = +0.7BR(14.3)
J-11D(PL-15), J-15T(PL-15), J-10C in TT(8x pl-15) = +1.3 BR(15.0)
j-16(pl-17) = +2.0 BR(15.7)
seems alright but I don’t see why the MK2 would get R-77-1 without a corresponding radar upgrade
Hasn’t the Chinese Su-30Mk2 been spotted with RVV-SD a couple of times?
Yes.