for everything but Russian stuff
2 Likes
All at 400k btw
1 Like
latest being 600k RP
3 Likes
all it gets is a new cockpit HUD colour
3 Likes
I hope this is properly implemented, 8 pl-15 and at least 8 kd-88, will be a really powerfull fighter, that + the biggest aesa radar in a fighter
1 Like
@MightyBaozi
I apologize for bothering you, but could you please take a look at the discussion between me and others regarding the maximum ARH missile carrying capacity of the J-16? I believe that the images provided by myself and another friend may demonstrate that the J-16 can achieve ARH missile carriage positions similar to the in-game Su-30SM without the use of dual-rail launchers. Specifically, this would mean that all hardpoints except the wingtips are capable of carrying ARH missiles, for a total of up to 10 missiles.
If possible, I would like to request a revision to the suggestion regarding the J-16’s air-to-air missile loadout capacity.
For specific information regarding the pylon I highlighted in the red box, please refer to the additional details provided by this friend. @NCC105
Although the image details are not perfectly clear, I am almost certain that it is one of the two shown in the images below.
1 Like
The rail does seem to be the one usually used for these ARH missiles and it does sit at the outer most pylon (not counting the wingtip one) since the 八一 insignia gives it’s position out perfectly… It could very well mean that those two positions can be used for ARH.
4 Likes
great work
in your opinion will it be enough of proof for the gaijin lords? because please lord it would be so good if it could also use those for fox 3 and not just fox 2
4 pl-10 are overkill, almost no situation where you need that many
I wouldn’t consider it to be good enough, no. When it comes to this stuff we need more than just pictures as things can be easily manipulated. Surely it is a good start if compared with any more info.
3 Likes
I think it’s enough, like I explained in original post. this is PFT-15 pylon, “t” for eject here, so only arh missile, PL-10 can’t fit in.
3 Likes
I believe you, it is definitely a pilon for ARH, which makes sense; but unfortunately gaijin only accepts official and reliable documents to make changes, which makes people filter classified documents, only to ignore that data because it is classified.
1 Like
It would be enough if it weren’t for the fact that photos alone are not going to cut it. These can easily be manipulated and lead to errors. Therefore, either we get more info for the future or this is not enough.
not for this I think. shot by a acknowledged photographer, and original post can be find.
3 Likes
We had pictures taken at airshows of stationary weapons being considered ok until they weren’t. No need to go into details, but I just hope to see the pylon with an ARH mounted on it.
5 Likes
hard to see. nowadays photographers are avoiding taking photos of planes with loadouts, or they just censor the loadouts, avoiding classified loadouts leak, especially this kind of normal daily training photo. the famous photo of J-16 with PL-17 is a accident and caused this.
1 Like
Perhaps the only way would be to interview someone high-ranking in China XD
1 Like
Yes, and that’s why I only said “if possible.” Finding direct photographic evidence of ARH missiles mounted on those stations is becoming increasingly unlikely. Nowadays, the PLAAF seems more inclined to showcase fleet scale rather than specific weapon loadouts.
So if we want more photographic evidence, we might have to wait until some future conflict breaks out someday XD. Of course, I was only joking. No one truly wants to see more conflicts break out in reality. After all, conflict always means the loss of lives and many other negative consequences. I sincerely apologize if I caused any offense.
I’m very glad to see so much interest in this topic, and I sincerely appreciate everyone’s discussion and support. In any case, I will continue searching for more evidence by examining additional images from publicly available sources. Wish me luck.
1 Like
These are of course not sufficient, because the issue section requires at least two independent sources to cross-verify each other. (Although the issue section seems to be somewhat out of control nowadays, especially regarding Chinese vehicles and their weapon systems.)
herefore, I also hope that if anyone finds more evidence that could support the 10+2 air-to-air missile loadout capability for the J-16 and other new-generation Chinese Flankers, based strictly on publicly available and non-classified sources, you could share and supplement it here. I really do not want to see any leaks again…
1 Like