Some comments on AT-3 article

[adeptitus]

Saw this link popup on the left side today:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_004476.php
"Taiwan Modifies Aircraft To Carry Anti Ship Missiles"

If anyone is curious about what the plane looks like:
http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/at3/0825_ca.jpg

Here's the specs:
http://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/at3.html

AIDC built 60-62 of these, of which 10 has been lost to accidents. The upgraded attacker variant has APG-66T radar, and can carry HF-2 AShM. This is a ROCAF aircraft that's often overlooked because it's a trainer/light attacker.

[MIGleader]

light, cheap, and deadly. and it can sink a million dollar destroyer. this is exactly the same asymetrical arefare chian has been beveloping so long, but now it must face it!!

whats with the accident rate? 10/50? thats 20%!

[darth sidious]

old subsonic trainers will not destory the PLAN

they will most likely be shot down before they even see their target

[adeptitus]

light, cheap, and deadly. and it can sink a million dollar destroyer. this is exactly the same asymetrical arefare chian has been beveloping so long, but now it must face it!!
whats with the accident rate? 10/50? thats 20%!

The AT-3 is ROCAF's primary jet/fighter trainer, and the accident rate reflects 20 years of use (1984-2004?). I think training combat pilots is not easy, and if you look at the accident description, about half of the incidents resulted in fatality for both the trainer and the student. X_X

In terms of performance, the AT-3 is similiar to a BAE Hawk. They both have 5 hardpoints and can carry up to 6,000 lbs of munitions. The AIDC upgrade to AT-3 includes APG-66T radar, new fire control system (for HF-2 AShM), new MFD's/HUD, HOTAS, etc.

Since the US won't allow ROCAF to modify the F-16's to carry domestic weapons, the ROCAF is probably looking at the AT-3 as alternate platform to the IDF for anti-shipping roles in emergency situations. So far I think only a few AT-3's have been modified.


old subsonic trainers will not destory the PLAN
they will most likely be shot down before they even see their target

It's not the trainer, it's the anti-ship missile. AShM's are long-range stand off weapons that do not require line of slight. Both the AT-3 and HF-2 are not that advanced, but then most of PLAN's ships don't have modern anti-missile systems either.

[darth sidious]

before they approach the PLAn they willl be intercepted by flankers

if they manage to surive that then they will still have to braved the HQ-9 sam lonched from chinas new destoryer

given that its nither fast or does it carry a large pay load that thing will not be very useful in wars

[MIGleader]

i really dont see a couple of at-3s or hesueng fengs hitting a chinese ship. the hq-9 is said to have range of around 120 km, allowing the missle to reach right over taiwan strait and shoot down the trainer. i think the plan intends to use the 52cs and bs as fleet air cover, so the missle has little chance of scoring a hit.

[adeptitus]

before they approach the PLAn they willl be intercepted by flankers
if they manage to surive that then they will still have to braved the HQ-9 sam lonched from chinas new destoryer
given that its nither fast or does it carry a large pay load that thing will not be very useful in wars

I don't think anyone is going to seriously compare the air combat capability between a Su-27 and an AT-3. LoL.

The AT-3 is slow, but it can carry ~6,000 lbs of munitions. I don't know the HF-2 missile's weight, but can cite the air-launched Harpoon at 1,160 lbs. So the AT-3's pylons are likely rated at >1,000 lb capacity.

Are these aircraft of any value in combat? Prolly not in air to air engagements, but can still perform short range close air support. The BAE Hawk 200 is a good example.

[darth sidious]

your the one that thinks the At-3 is superior not me

if the at-3 is attacking the plan then it will be meet by some kind of fighter before it even gets

its silly to assume that it can just approch and lunch its missiles

after that thereis also the hq-9 missile waiting for it!!!

so no the AT-3 willl not be able to inflict massive damage to the PLAN

[sumdud]

Ahem! No one talked about which is superior!!!
Dude, if China, or Canada, is in Taiwan's shoes right now, what will they do?
I mean comm'on, it may not be advanced, but it works.

The HF-2 has a range of 80km and is very light.
It weights 685 kg.

PS-AT-3 is only a basic trainer, right? It does not look sleek, but bulky and not very aerodynamic from my eyes.

[Gollevainen]

Dont boast here gentelmens. Air launched SSMs are tricky and deadly weapons like adeptious told you. And you cannot exept unbrakable (land based) Flanker umbrella over PRC fleet and execp it to do all the workload of carrier airwing linked via functioning datalink to the fleet units and controlled from the navy's point of view. Im not expert of how capaple chinese interarms co-operation is, but i due understandaple reasons wouldnt praise it so high that any areal thread Taiwan sends should be considered as some sort of joke.
Also, Chinese navys biggest froud still is SAM, and only trhee ships in forseeable future are armed with long range SAM, thougth we dont know much about their anti-missile capapilityes. Sthill and HQ-7 arent the top of nothc missilepoppers and even those seems to be an exeption, than rule in chinese ships. And most likely target for these planes and missiles are the landingship waves closing on Taiwanese soil. And those poor things have nothing against air thread that isent WWII era propellor planes making divebombings. Chinese missile ships (O52Cs&051Cs) cannot effectively provide unpenetrable aircover for both amphfleet and distant operating ships, (to counter Taiwanese/possible US ships) So in some theather, AT-3s have a change to triumph for succses.

So please, lets try to give a 'mature' view to others and leave the most sillyest 'those planes are crappy, cos their taiwanese' BS in to our little heads.

Thougth I wonder why not taiwanese choose AIDC for this convertion. It isent much of a intercetor, but has better range, playload and speed compared to AT-3. Supersonic is a good advantage, expecially in counternaval operations, were some sort of airthread can be expected...

[Totoro]

Planes such as these ones would be used as weapon launching platforms anyway. Detecting and targeting would be made from different planes with better radars. Plus, who's to say only these trainers would be used? Taiwanese could mix it up, put squadrons of f16s and f5s with squadrons of at3s. For chinese radars, they could all be the same at a certain distance. You should then always assume the worst possiblity, that they're all f16s, for example.

[adeptitus]

Hi guys,

I looked around the web and could not find specs on the AN/APG-66T radar. It'd appear that this version was made for F-5 upgrade program. Specs for this radar is not likely to be impressive, but against a ship-sized target, I think it'd have pretty good detection range.

I found this article dating back to 1999:
http://www.tdreview.com/free3.html

One potential new customer is the ROC Navy, which has been interested in a maritime strike version of the A-3/AT-3B light attack aircraft, a derivative of the AT-3 advanced twin-turbofan trainer used by ROCAF. AIDC senior management had, at one point, projected a ROCN requirement of up to 40 such aircraft, to form the core of naval aviation's anti-ship attack capability. However, budgetary limitations, the fact that ROCN has had very little experience in fixed wing aviation (having only recently inherited the remaining S-2T ASW/MP aircraft from ROCAF), and lack of necessary infrastructure to operate an aircraft type of this level of sophistication, have thus far thwarted any proposals to acquire the A-3/AT-3B.

For the record, the A-3 (No. 30902) and AT-3B (No. 30825) radar-equipped light attack prototypes are currently HF-2-capable. Both aircraft have been equipped with the AN/APG-66(V) fire-control radar and improved cockpit avionics, including multi-function displays. Yet, ROCAF's apparent decision to step up its anti-ship role, by procuring 58 AGM-84 Harpoon missiles for the F-16s and by planning to equip some of its IDF aircraft with MGB-2C (HF-2) missiles, is likely to further chill the prospect of an ROCN order for maritime attack aircraft in the foreseeable future.

As most of you know, Taiwan's military purchases tend to invoke scandals and political in-fighting. It's highly doubtful that the ROCN would purchase "new" subsonic light attack aircraft. But modifying existing trainers, or possibly manufacuring new/replacement trainers with multi-mission capability, might wiggle through the defense budget.

Without getting into the "which plane/missile/ship is better" arguement, I'll just say that for the ROCAF, having up to 50 AT-3's that can be upgraded to carry anti-ship missiles, is a bonus. It'd free up F-16's and IDF/F-CK-1's for other combat duties.

[MIGleader]

gollevainen, three modern air defence ships? im getting a count of 10, the four sovs, the 52cs, 52bs, and 51cs. lets not forget all the and based sams that can cover the fleet, and fighters. hf-2 has a range of 80km, the hq-9 120 km. taiwan strait is 160 km. that means the light trainer will have to fly 80 km without getting shot down by sams or fighter(unlikely), then fire its missle. assuming its on the other end ot the strait, the hq-9 has a 40km window to shoot down the plane, and an 80 km window to shoot down the missle. escort f-16s protecting the at-3 would be powerlessto stop sams, because they most likely wont try to take the hit for the at-3.

[Gollevainen]

Yeas three modern airdefence ships with LONG RANGE SAMS...as i said, the Shtill is only medium range missile, incapaple for real fleet coverup...and land based systems aren't really effective for fleet defence...remember, there is no single Command & controll general looking thru monitor and ordering all the troops at the same time...

[MIGleader]

if we count out the sovs and 52b, im still couting 4, not including the 54a fitted with hq-16. how did you get three?

[Gollevainen]

ONE, the first 052C with HQ-9 SAM system
TWO, the seccond 052C with HQ-9 SAM system
THREE, The 051C with RIF SAM system

rest of the ships, Sovs and 052B have a medium range SAMs which are NOT capaple for real fleet defence work. Rest of the chinese destroyers have SHORT RANGE SAMs which are only usefull for close-in defence.

[MIGleader]

last time i checked, there were 4, the two 52cs, and the two 51cs(yes two, as ive seen pictures of both 115 and 116). when did u get the impression of one?

[Gollevainen]

You mean this one?

http://img416.imageshack.us/img416/7808/post1211349704584kj.jpg

Hate to brake your bupple but this pic is photoshopped...the orginal pic is found iin here as well...

But we are drifting way offtopic in here, this things should be in the naval section...

[MIGleader]

no, not thatone. ive seen seperate pics of em. sinodefenc has a pic of 115
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9236/51ca0eo.jpg

Dont you see the other ship in the background!!??

courtesy of onedream

and early image, labled 115
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3912/1156ev.jpg

a later image, with no number
http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/5103/51c0ai.th.jpg

[Gollevainen]

those are pics of ships whit number or whitout, you cannot proove anything with them, so back to the topic...116 is only a rumour, and its stays so untill we have clear evidence of that there is two seperate ship, Ok?

[adeptitus]

xD Guys, I don't think having 1 more or less PLAN ship equipped with HQ9 will make much difference in the long run. It's obvious that the PLAN intends to field more ADS (air defense ships) in the future anyway.

As for missile ranges, just as PLAN ship's air defense missile range improve, so does ROC anti-ship missiles. There are extended range vairants of the HF2 and the HF3 is said to have 180km-200km range.

If the situation continues for another decade, I think both the PRC and ROC are going to have large stockpiles of long-range cruise missiles that can just fly over and strike at each other's ports. Then it'd be a competition of my missile vs. your anti-missile missile defense and vice versea. I'd hate to be a pilot flying through the Taiwan strait if that happens, with long-range anti-air missiles flying in from both directions. @_@;; Remember the F/A-18 that was accidently classified as a SCUD by a PAC-2 battery? Oops...

[f2000]

now,for sure plan cant fully protect fleet with current capability.
i dont think that rocaf will fly their birds on taiwan strait bcoz they will be disadvantages with chinese ship sam.they already outnumbered by flanker in the near future.they will struggle not to fight above their main city
the only thing that pla can do is launch ballistic or cruise missile on rocaf
airfield until rocaf unable to jeopardise their fleet n leave rocn alone