No the person making the issue said that, that was what i was talking about. His other issue said that the PL12 should have less Gs.
I meant the AGM183A guy who made the issue.
You replied to a post that uploaded my answer of bug report, which means you’re trying to make it appear that I said those things.
Also, he is a completely different person than the reporter, stop telling about this.
Sorry, messed up the two reports/issues cause I just looked it up on the issue website and saw this one. I replied to wrong post.
I did not mean to say you said those things or the reporter did.
Well unfortunate but exciting news nonetheless
I’m glad you closed it, it’s hilarious.
PL12 uses the same 9B-1103M guidance head as R77-1
No, it doesn’t. The R-77-1 seeker was not in production until after the PL-12 was in service. The PL-12 initially used the standard R-77 seeker.
Pl-12 could use 9B-1103M (1993), but R-77-1 might use better 9B-1103M-200 (2001). From MNII Agat book 9B-1103M saved their financial condition and one of first contact after SU fall was contract with China.
3 Likes
A nice thing that i’ve noticed is that they gave 126 large countermeasures to the J11A and brought the Su-27SM down to 96.
The PL12 has never used the 9B-1348E guidance head. The PL12 was in service in 2004 and used the 9B-1103M guidance head, which was completely produced in China. The 9B-1103M and 9B-1103M-200 were in service in 1992 and 2001, respectively. After one year of service in the PL12, the Russian Academy of Agate Sciences exhibited a reduced version of the 9B-1103M, also known as the 9B-1103M-150. The performance of these three guidance heads is similar
2 Likes
I thought you indicated they were using 9B-1103M-200. The initial PL-12 uses the 1348E more likely than not, whereas production models might have moved to the 9B-1103M.
as I remember, the original source say “for reference”, they asked Russian for help, to build a Chinese seeker. Consider that PL-12 is quite different from R-77 in design and size, maybe a customized seeker based on the design of 9B-1103M, so 9B-1103M could be a better reference. kind like the relationship between object 941 and Z-10. Russian offer the basic design and tech, Chinese do the detail job.
All the information I have, both public and non-public, shows that PL12 uses 9B-1103M, and PL12 has never used 1348E since its development. And the R-77-1 was put into production because China paid the technical fees after the successful mass production of PL12. So it is unreasonable to say that the PL12 guide head is different from R77-1 because it was put into service earlier than R77-1
5 Likes
Without solid data on seeker they will have to copy / paste R-77 data
China’s confidentiality is very strict, and now we can only prove that PL12 and R77-1 have the same guiding head, but there is no data about the guiding head
4 Likes
A small clarification… According to Soviet tradition, air-to-air missiles in Russia are not accepted separately for service - only as part of a complex that also includes, for example, automated control systems, and so on…
That’s right…
- ground-based interception complex (Ground) - mainly anti-aircraft missile systems…
- air-based interception complex (Air) - mainly Air Defense Aviation…
State tests R-77-1 completed in 2006… but the Su-35S was not ready… The interception complex based on the Su-35S was put into service in 2010…
The head for Pl-12 was created in cooperation with the Agat Research Institute on the basis of 9B-1103M, but is not identical to that…
There is also information that 1348E. technology was sold separately.
2 Likes
I don’t see any evidence it uses the 77-1 seeker.
Do you know for sure if it uses the enhanced model seeker?
