Ideal PLAAF Modifications

[sumdud]

Well, the JH-7 Thread has mentioned the lack of such a thread, so here it is. Have an idea for the better of current planes in PLAAF aircrafts? Express your view.

Note, this is for Modifications, not replacements. Violators will be prosecuted accordingly. :)

And since the JH-7 ideas have already started pouring in its thread, it can stay there, but all else, let it be thrown out here!

[panzerkom]

Hmmmm... the biggest problem I have with chinese-built fighters is that the models that have air-to-air refueling capability all have fixed refueling probes. For the love of God, make it retractable, cuz it creates drag, increases the RCS and is an eye-sore, especially on the J-10.

The designers probably didn't take those into consideration when they first designed the aircraft, so it's gonna be tough to make room for a retractable probe and its accompanying hydraulics inside the fuselage. But man, I would be pissed if I were the pilot and a thing is sticking out like that.

[panzerkom]

Oh, while we're on the subject, I think the J-10 can use some twin rail launcher to increase its A-A capabilities too. My understanding is that only the 6 wing pylons can carry A-A missiles. If the two inner pylons are used for fuel tanks, the J-10 is left with only 4 AAMs, 2 of which are WVR AAMs. If I were a J-10 pilot, I'd be kinda pissed if I have to go on a CAP mission with only 2 MRAAMs.

Anyway, as always, just my 2 cents

[tphuang]

Oh, while we're on the subject, I think the J-10 can use some twin rail launcher to increase its A-A capabilities too. My understanding is that only the 6 wing pylons can carry A-A missiles. If the two inner pylons are used for fuel tanks, the J-10 is left with only 4 AAMs, 2 of which are WVR AAMs. If I were a J-10 pilot, I'd be kinda pissed if I have to go on a CAP mission with only 2 MRAAMs.

Anyway, as always, just my 2 cents

why carry so many missiles? That only adds drag, increases RCS and reduces range. If each J-10 in a war scenario can shoot down one opposing fighter, I'd be pretty happy. Also, we have seen multi-missile racks.

[speculator]

Well, i would suggest getting proper 1 piece windshields to more advanced J-8II's and J-7 (E,F) Because if i were a pilot of either of those planes, i'd be pissed off if all i could see was the B-pillar and not the EP-3E i'm supposed to be intercepting.

P.S talking about the windshield, has anyone noticed the lack of window "tint" material on the glass (such as on F-16) of all chinese made units? As seen clearly in this photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris1/566138248/

[PrOeLiTeZ]

China's first twin tail fin domestic fighter for the love of god. All single fin small-medium fighters. I know people gonna mention J-11 is a twin fin but it isnt domestic design. Something in that weight areana would be good.

[panzerkom]

why carry so many missiles? That only adds drag, increases RCS and reduces range. If each J-10 in a war scenario can shoot down one opposing fighter, I'd be pretty happy. Also, we have seen multi-missile racks.

Hmmm... okay, first, on the point of having the racks at this point, I've only seen pictures of racks for bombs on JH-7s and for A-G rockets on J-11s similar to the USAF's MER and TER on F-16s, but not racks for A-A missiles like the USN's Twin Rail Launchers on the F-18s.

Onto the point of the necessity of having more than 2 MRAAMs: Firs, the issue of multi-target engagement -- Former Soviet doctrines calls for ripple firing 2 missiles at a single target, if the PLAAF follows that doctrine, a J-10 with 2 PL-8s and 2 PL-12s will only be able to engage 1 target beyond visual range, which defeats the purpose of its radar having multi-target engagement capability. Plus, firing a missile doesn't guarantee a kill, especially when it comes to BVR engagements, even if you fire it when your target is inside the NEZ. A J-10 pilot might even want to fire the first PL-12 outside of the NEZ if the target is also armed with MRAAMs. Doing this would force the target to put the J-10 on his 3-9 line and thus give the J-10 pilot the upper hand. In this scenario, the J-10 pilot would probably have used 2 MRAAMs against 1 target as well, since he won't be in IR range if and when the target turns back after evading the first MRAAM. Which brings us to the issue of combat endurance. When flying a CAP or escort mission, it's very likely that more than one group of enemy fighters will show up, especially when conducting an offensive operation. In Vietnam, American fighters were often challenged by more than one group of MiGs during a single strike mission. In this kind of situation, being able to handle more than one engagement is important.

Finally, about the drag, RCS, and reduction in range caused by the added launch rail and missile -- Let's face it, 2 more MRAAMs is not going to create that much more drag when you are already carrying 2, maybe even 3, external tanks. The added benefits clearly out-weigh the cost here, since it's the difference between a whole strike package aborting and completing a mission.

[tphuang]

Hmmm... okay, first, on the point of having the racks at this point, I've only seen pictures of racks for bombs on JH-7s and for A-G rockets on J-11s similar to the USAF's MER and TER on F-16s, but not racks for A-A missiles like the USN's Twin Rail Launchers on the F-18s.

we have definitely seen pictures of racks that hold multiple AAMs

Onto the point of the necessity of having more than 2 MRAAMs: Firs, the issue of multi-target engagement -- Former Soviet doctrines calls for ripple firing 2 missiles at a single target, if the PLAAF follows that doctrine, a J-10 with 2 PL-8s and 2 PL-12s will only be able to engage 1 target beyond visual range, which defeats the purpose of its radar having multi-target engagement capability. Plus, firing a missile doesn't guarantee a kill, especially when it comes to BVR engagements, even if you fire it when your target is inside the NEZ. A J-10 pilot might even want to fire the first PL-12 outside of the NEZ if the target is also armed with MRAAMs. Doing this would force the target to put the J-10 on his 3-9 line and thus give the J-10 pilot the upper hand. In this scenario, the J-10 pilot would probably have used 2 MRAAMs against 1 target as well, since he won't be in IR range if and when the target turns back after evading the first MRAAM. Which brings us to the issue of combat endurance. When flying a CAP or escort mission, it's very likely that more than one group of enemy fighters will show up, especially when conducting an offensive operation. In Vietnam, American fighters were often challenged by more than one group of MiGs during a single strike mission. In this kind of situation, being able to handle more than one engagement is important.

you don't think PLAAF has figured out how many missiles it needs from all the exercises that it has done, that you would know better? In any of the war scenario I can think of, PLAAF will have numerical advantage, but not quantitative advantage. So, your example of Vietnam and America doesn't apply

Finally, about the drag, RCS, and reduction in range caused by the added launch rail and missile -- Let's face it, 2 more MRAAMs is not going to create that much more drag when you are already carrying 2, maybe even 3, external tanks. The added benefits clearly out-weigh the cost here, since it's the difference between a whole strike package aborting and completing a mission.
J-10's aerodynamic profile is optimized to fly a certain configurations. And as we have seen, that configuration is 3 external fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B. This is the configuration that offers the best compromise in terms of range and maneuverability. They can always go with the 1 external fuel tank + 4 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B combination if they think more MRAAM is needed. Let's put it this way, we have never even seen a picture of J-11B with more than 4 PL-12. They are not going to abort a mission because one J-10 has no more MRAAM left. They have plenty of planes.

[panzerkom]

tp,

i hope this won't turn into a "i know more than you do" thing, because i'm sure everyone here knows something different and there's always something that you know and i don't and vice versa.


we have definitely seen pictures of racks that hold multiple AAMs

i guess you've seen more than i have then. would be nice if you can post a link though, or at least tell us on which aircraft these were installed?


you don't think PLAAF has figured out how many missiles it needs from all the exercises that it has done, that you would know better?

well, if we're talking about experience in air-to-air combat with missiles, no air force can beat the US. the standard A-A loadout for the F-16, which the J-10 is designed to match, is 6 AAMs + 2 ext. tanks + 1 ECM pod. the F-15 has 8 AAMs + 2 tanks; F-14, 8 AAMs + 2 tanks; F-18, usually 8 AAMs + 2 tanks with a max. of 12 AAMs.


In any of the war scenario I can think of, PLAAF will have numerical advantage, but not quantitative advantage. So, your example of Vietnam and America doesn't apply

in the case of taiwan, keep in mind that not all of the PLAAF's 500 or so Su-27/J-11, Su-30, J-10, and J-8II can be deployed in the theatre at once -- which means that when it comes to BVR-engagement-capable aircraft, the PLAAF would barely have numerical superiority against taiwan's 330, and at a disadvantage if the US decides to get involved. and don't forget that in vietnam, the US enjoyed BOTH numeric and qualitative advantage. and US strike packages still get intercepted by MiGs quite often.


J-10's aerodynamic profile is optimized to fly a certain configurations. And as we have seen, that configuration is 3 external fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B. This is the configuration that offers the best compromise in terms of range and maneuverability. They can always go with the 1 external fuel tank + 4 PL-12 + 2 PL-8B combination if they think more MRAAM is needed. Let's put it this way, we have never even seen a picture of J-11B with more than 4 PL-12. They are not going to abort a mission because one J-10 has no more MRAAM left. They have plenty of planes.

i guess it comes down to doctrine, but at least we can agree that 4 MRAAMs is better than 2, right?

[crobato]

Having more AAMs give you the advantage of redundancy because AAMs are not going to be 100% kill each time you fire them. Thus its actually a policy to fire at least two AAMs per target, the second one a few seconds after the other. If you have to engage two or more targets, then its targets x two for the required AAMs.

But do remember you do take a performance hit with the more missiles and fuel tanks you carry.

What you see in peacetime layouts don't reflect on wartime layouts. An AAMs can only go up a limited number of times and come home. Each time it is subjected to flight stress, its "quality" is compromised. Pictures that show fighters with full AAM layouts are merely for show and advertisement in order to illustrate the full capability. But in peacetim practice you try to avoid carrying live AAMs in order to preserve them for wartime use.

In theory the J-10 can possibly hold a BVRAAM on the outer wing tip, but you always need to have two short ranged AAMs in case of a dogfight. The PL-8/Python 3 is not a small missile for a SRAAM and any pylon that can hold that can hold a MRAAM.

If you double racked the middle and inner pylons, you can hold 8 MRAAMs, then put ECM pods on the points near the intake.

[tphuang]

tp,

i hope this won't turn into a "i know more than you do" thing, because i'm sure everyone here knows something different and there's always something that you know and i don't and vice versa.




i guess you've seen more than i have then. would be nice if you can post a link though, or at least tell us on which aircraft these were installed?

check the JF-17 thread



well, if we're talking about experience in air-to-air combat with missiles, no air force can beat the US. the standard A-A loadout for the F-16, which the J-10 is designed to match, is 6 AAMs + 2 ext. tanks + 1 ECM pod. the F-15 has 8 AAMs + 2 tanks; F-14, 8 AAMs + 2 tanks; F-18, usually 8 AAMs + 2 tanks with a max. of 12 AAMs.

take a look at this, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
check at what the loads were when the combat radius were measured. Does that look like 6 or 8 AAMs to you?

in the case of taiwan, keep in mind that not all of the PLAAF's 500 or so Su-27/J-11, Su-30, J-10, and J-8II can be deployed in the theatre at once -- which means that when it comes to BVR-engagement-capable aircraft, the PLAAF would barely have numerical superiority against taiwan's 330, and at a disadvantage if the US decides to get involved. and don't forget that in vietnam, the US enjoyed BOTH numeric and qualitative advantage. and US strike packages still get intercepted by MiGs quite often.

J-7s will be deployed too. And they are going to destroy enough air fields that Taiwan would not be able to use all of those 330 planes.



i guess it comes down to doctrine, but at least we can agree that 4 MRAAMs is better than 2, right?
depends on the mission.

[panzerkom]

check the JF-17 thread

okay, i might've missed something since i just browse thru quickly, but there's no picture with twin rail launchers for AAMs, there is, however, a picture on pg.21 of a rack for two bombs.


take a look at this, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
check at what the loads were when the combat radius were measured. Does that look like 6 or 8 AAMs to you?

the data on fas.org seems kinda outdated, those seem to be the config they used for testing instead of actual combat loadouts. just look this: "340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks" -- have you ever seen a viper in that config?

it is true that USAF F-16s often flew with only 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders even for combat CAP missions in Iraq and Serbia, but that's because the opfor had been so weak. during the latter half of desert storm, USAF vipers often flew with only 2 sidewinders on their wingtips, which was not considered "safe" before then.

before they got the AMRAAMs, taiwan's F-16s' typical A-A loadout was 4 sidewinders + 2 sparrows; now, it's more like 2 AMRAAMs + 2 sidewinders + 2 sparrows as pictured here on this ADF model.

http://panzerkom.googlepages.com/aa_stores.jpg

[PrOeLiTeZ]

okay, i might've missed something since i just browse thru quickly, but there's no picture with twin rail launchers for AAMs, there is, however, a picture on pg.21 of a rack for two bombs.




the data on fas.org seems kinda outdated, those seem to be the config they used for testing instead of actual combat loadouts. just look this: "340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks" -- have you ever seen a viper in that config?

it is true that USAF F-16s often flew with only 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders even for combat CAP missions in Iraq and Serbia, but that's because the opfor had been so weak. during the latter half of desert storm, USAF vipers often flew with only 2 sidewinders on their wingtips, which was not considered "safe" before then.

before they got the AMRAAMs, taiwan's F-16s' typical A-A loadout was 4 sidewinders + 2 sparrows; now, it's more like 2 AMRAAMs + 2 sidewinders + 2 sparrows as pictured here on this ADF model.

http://panzerkom.googlepages.com/aa_stores.jpg
Probably pictures on net gets you sidetracked on how many BVRAAM J-10 load out can take. China isn't currently in any threat or engaged in war right now so their is no use everytime a J-10 is in the air to pack it full with AAM.

Mostly J-10 in flight training is equipped with fake AAM, to simulate a live AAM being attached to it. Fake AAM has replicated weight as the real AAM but just without the explosive, engine and guidance so pratically a dead AAM.

Misconception is that really full load out for J-10 is 6+BVRAAM but the missles as average of 100 flight hours, so it'll be very expensive to equip the J-10 with live AAM everytime you do flight training. In war time scenario or when they feel threaten they will then equip them with live AAM's.

Question to you guys is that J-10 and F-16 are in "simular" weight class but then why does F-16 have a bigger payload than J-10? Shouldn't it be at least equivalent?

[sumdud]

Why are you talking about CAP? There I would agree with Tphuang, but if you are talking about air superiority or covering for strike planes during an offensive, you can expect a lot of enemy planes.

Good point, the J-7 could really use a bubble/mostly-bubble canopy. The fighter is nothing but a dogfighter and eye vision is very important here.

[King_Comm]

Question to you guys is that J-10 and F-16 are in "simular" weight class but then why does F-16 have a bigger payload than J-10? Shouldn't it be at least equivalent?
==Delta wings of J-10 give it much higher take off and landing speed than F-16, so it's not safe to carry too much.

[tphuang]

okay, i might've missed something since i just browse thru quickly, but there's no picture with twin rail launchers for AAMs, there is, however, a picture on pg.21 of a rack for two bombs.

the data on fas.org seems kinda outdated, those seem to be the config they used for testing instead of actual combat loadouts. just look this: "340 nm (630 km) w/ 4 2,000-lb bombs + 2 AIM-9 + 340 US gal external tanks" -- have you ever seen a viper in that config?

it is true that USAF F-16s often flew with only 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders even for combat CAP missions in Iraq and Serbia, but that's because the opfor had been so weak. during the latter half of desert storm, USAF vipers often flew with only 2 sidewinders on their wingtips, which was not considered "safe" before then.

before they got the AMRAAMs, taiwan's F-16s' typical A-A loadout was 4 sidewinders + 2 sparrows; now, it's more like 2 AMRAAMs + 2 sidewinders + 2 sparrows as pictured here on this ADF model.

http://panzerkom.googlepages.com/aa_stores.jpg
well, the Taiwanese actually have an issue where they are encountering a numerically stronger fleet of mostly J-7s, so it would actually make sense for them to do so. And it also would not sacrifice range if they did it this way.

I listed fas for f-16/f-18, because those ranges are measured for those missions specifically. So in those missions, F-16/18 are expected to carry that kind of load.

[panzerkom]

Why are you talking about CAP? There I would agree with Tphuang, but if you are talking about air superiority or covering for strike planes during an offensive, you can expect a lot of enemy planes.


actually, my original post talked about both CAP and escort missions. but even when flying CAP missions, whether BARCAP or TARCAP, where you are expected to loiter over an area for an hour or two, it is conceivable that multiple groups of enemy fighters will come in to contest the local air superiority.

also, when it comes to the point of whether CAS and strike packages would abort when no one is flying CAP, think about it this way, if you were a J-7 or Q-5 or even JH-7A pilot flying a plane laden with bombs, and your RWR is showing that an F-16 has a lock on you dead ahead, are you going to fly right into him?

Perhaps, the words of a former USAF pilot describe this situation the best: The Silver Dawn and BigEye missions ( [note by panzerkom]CAP and AWACS, respectively) were considered important enough by higher-headquarters so that if there was no CAP available, other missions over North Viet Nam were cancelled. Aircrews tasked for these MIG CAP missions quickly learned that it was prudent to carry along food and drink, and "piddle packs."

http://home.att.net/~g.rust/12/cap.htm

[adeptitus]

Question to you guys is that J-10 and F-16 are in "similar" weight class but then why does F-16 have a bigger payload than J-10? Shouldn't it be at least equivalent?

The F-16 has already went through almost 3 decades' worth of upgrades. The max weapons load, fuel capacity, and operational range of the late-model F-16's cannot be compared fairly to the first generation J-10's.

As for actual combat load, I'd point to this example:
http://www.janes.com/defence/news/kosovo/jdw990401_01_n.shtml
Flying in the air defense role, the F-16AMs at Amendola each carried four AMRAAMs, two external fuel tanks and a Northrop Grumman ALQ-131 ECM pod. In addition four of the eight aircraft also carried two Raytheon AGM-65G Maverick air-to-ground missiles each.

(This was an actual combat mission over Serbia, where the lead F-16 engaged and shot down a Serbian MiG-29).

[panzerkom]

we have definitely seen pictures of racks that hold multiple AAMs.

hey, i'm sold. sczepan just posted this pic on the jh-7a thread -- very impressive triple rail launcher. now if that could be cleared for stations # 2 and 10 on the J-10, i'd go on a 4 hour TARCAP mission in a J-10 any day of the week.

actually, if they can make that re-fueling probe retractable, i'd fly that mission twice on the weekend :D

[tphuang]

hey, i'm sold. sczepan just posted this pic on the jh-7a thread -- very impressive triple rail launcher. now if that could be cleared for stations # 2 and 10 on the J-10, i'd go on a 4 hour TARCAP mission in a J-10 any day of the week.

actually, if they can make that re-fueling probe retractable, i'd fly that mission twice on the weekend :D

That's a space issue. These things aren't hard to develop. It's all about whether the original design accounted for this or not. The modified J-10 might see built in IRST + retractable IFR, since they are actually redesigning it.

As for wanting to see triple rail launcher on J-10, you are concerned with something that's really very trivial here. PLAAF has obviously determined what the best configuration for J-10 is. It has it's own doctrine and rule of engagement. There are far more areas that you can improve on that are more critical.

[crobato]

Just relax. We know the PLAAF have their own policies. That's why this thread is about forum user brain storming and modifications. Sometimes we like to see what the reader input is.

[sumdud]

Well, since China has apparently developed Multi-missile racks, I suggest that China reduce/rearrange the pylons on the J-11 wings. As for the fuselage, 3 pylons can be added to the same arrangement of the J-10's.

By the way, what's the size of A-5's engines? Is it closer to that of WS-9 or WS-10A?

[crobato]

Q-5 engines are really small. Remember there are two of them in that small jet.

[sumdud]

Even smaller than those WS-9? Since the A-5 came from the J-6 and has a solid nose and body, wouldn't it be a good idea to employ it as a fighter also? It can mount a bigger radar if it wishes, fly further, and with 10 hardpoints (well, 8 that works here)/space for it, it would be a much better fighter than the J-7.

I would widen the wing also (More range), and employ multimissile racks.
(Anyone knows if early MiGs were hard to land? They always have the disturbing "sag" due to their short landing gears, reminds me of the old and over loaded Tacomas and sedans that sags. Is that suppose to help?)

[crobato]

Even smaller than those WS-9? Since the A-5 came from the J-6 and has a solid nose and body, wouldn't it be a good idea to employ it as a fighter also? It can mount a bigger radar if it wishes, fly further, and with 10 hardpoints (well, 8 that works here)/space for it, it would be a much better fighter than the J-7.

Not only its much smaller than the WS-9, its even much smaller than the WP-13, which is a small engine on its own right. And I mean small, you're talking about an engine in the size class as those used in the F-5Es or an advanced trainer.

The Q-5 uses two of these engines (WP-6), and surprisingly the thrust output of a Q-5 or a late model J-6 exceeds that of early and mid generation MiG-21s. Except for a MiG-21bis, which only matches the TWR of a J-6.

The Q-5's nose does not really mount a radar. Experiments to add a radar on its nose, especially one for antishipping use, ended up creating ugly platypuses. The nose of the Q-5 is actually too thin. Compared to the J-6, the thin nose is designed to give an easy downward view---the same principle as the MiG-27. This does not mean the jet cannot dogfight on a visual range level. The Pakistani experience reflects that the plane can dogfight even with F-16As at low altitude.

Back in the seventies when the Q-5 was just coming out, US mags I remember, portrayed the Q-5 like some new Chinese fighter, not as the attack plane it became.

The Q-5's flight characteristics were refined throughout the years, but in the early times it was as difficult to fly as the J-6. The J-7 is a much easier and nice jet to fly. Later, the Q-5;s flight behavior was refined to the ease it is found today but long before it has evolved to its specialized attack role.

In a way, when Q-5 regiments upgrade to the JH-7A, there was their downsides. The Q-5 is a lighter, more nimble, more agile plane with dogfighting characteristics and it had better downward visibility. The Q-5s of an upgraded regiment fortunately, appeared ended up moved to the sister regiments within the same division.

In my view a CAS aircraft caught in low altitude by a Q-5 should expect the fight of their lives.

However there are serious down points on using the Q-5 as a fighter. The nose cone is one, not meant to hold a radar, though it can hold a laser rangefinder. Two turbojets consume a lot of gas more than one turbojet, which consumes more gas than a turbofan. This means the Q-5 has a short endurance. Being a twin engine, its rather complex for a small jet, hence its not a maintenance friendly plane. While its turn rate maybe better than a J-7, its roll rate is not.

[Pointblank]

Not only its much smaller than the WS-9, its even much smaller than the WP-13, which is a small engine on its own right. And I mean small, you're talking about an engine in the size class as those used in the F-5Es or an advanced trainer.

The Q-5 uses two of these engines (WP-6), and surprisingly the thrust output of a Q-5 or a late model J-6 exceeds that of early and mid generation MiG-21s. Except for a MiG-21bis, which only matches the TWR of a J-6.

The Q-5's nose does not really mount a radar. Experiments to add a radar on its nose, especially one for antishipping use, ended up creating ugly platypuses. The nose of the Q-5 is actually too thin. Compared to the J-6, the thin nose is designed to give an easy downward view---the same principle as the MiG-27. This does not mean the jet cannot dogfight on a visual range level. The Pakistani experience reflects that the plane can dogfight even with F-16As at low altitude.

Back in the seventies when the Q-5 was just coming out, US mags I remember, portrayed the Q-5 like some new Chinese fighter, not as the attack plane it became.

The Q-5's flight characteristics were refined throughout the years, but in the early times it was as difficult to fly as the J-6. The J-7 is a much easier and nice jet to fly. Later, the Q-5;s flight behavior was refined to the ease it is found today but long before it has evolved to its specialized attack role.

In a way, when Q-5 regiments upgrade to the JH-7A, there was their downsides. The Q-5 is a lighter, more nimble, more agile plane with dogfighting characteristics and it had better downward visibility. The Q-5s of an upgraded regiment fortunately, appeared ended up moved to the sister regiments within the same division.

In my view a CAS aircraft caught in low altitude by a Q-5 should expect the fight of their lives.

However there are serious down points on using the Q-5 as a fighter. The nose cone is one, not meant to hold a radar, though it can hold a laser rangefinder. Two turbojets consume a lot of gas more than one turbojet, which consumes more gas than a turbofan. This means the Q-5 has a short endurance. Being a twin engine, its rather complex for a small jet, hence its not a maintenance friendly plane. While its turn rate maybe better than a J-7, its roll rate is not.

In theory, a CAS aircraft should emphasis survivability, durability, and good easy, flight characteristics. This means that the aircraft is easy to handle, meaning more time for the pilot to spend looking out of the airplane searching for targets, survivability when hit by AA weapons, and durability to handle some rough flying if necessary. Most CAS aircraft out there exemplify these traits very well, some better than others.

[sumdud]

Hmm? Wasn't the Platypus Bs for launching torpedos? Being such a small and old plane, I wouldn't expect it to have a single pound for the ground if it was a fighter.

Short as the range is, it is still longer than that of J-7 or 8 when similarly loaded.

The plane is able to mount a small radar still. (But if a IRST can replace it with no hindrance, then I guess you have a point)

As for the roll rate, they can increase the width of the wing at the fuselage, basically into a boomerang rather than just a V. That way the ailerons would be more effective. And since the wing is at the middle of the plane on the pitching axis anyway, it should not affect performance much.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/images/q5_11large.jpg
Anyone know what the bulge under the nose and the belly is?

[crobato]

The modification was meant for a sea search radar, and the Q-5s modded for it were capable of using torpedoes and air launched YJ-81 (C-801 as it was better known then). However, that experiment did not prove to last long as they stopped doing this long ago.

On that picture, the bulge on the nose may be that for an laser rangefinder or targeting designator. Don't know what the fuselage bulge is, can be for additional fuel.

Despite its larger size, two turbojets will eat more fuel than a single one, so this is not a good fuel economical arrangement. The future PLAAF CAS aircraft will have to be turbofan powered.

As for the flight characteristics, the Q-5 started being rather difficult to fly, since the J-6 was truly difficult (Korean War ace Han Decai even said so). But in time, it became very stable and easy to fly. Its not hard to figure out what can improve the stability. The J-6 has an open nose and not much weight in the front, but with the new nose and adding more weight there, the Q-5 becomes more stable, though at the slight expense of maneuverbility. And no doubt the Q-5 is a tough plane in the old Cold War Communist tradition.

The short range of the Q-5 is what I think makes the plane questionable in a true CAS sense. The Q-5 is more of a mini attack jet in the same sense as the Jaguar or MiG-27 is. But to be like the Su-25 or A-10, you need enough range and loiter endurance to stay on the air for long periods of time to be able to hunt down targets autonomously, instead of being called in demand from the ground for strikes.

[beijingcar]

"Don't know what the fuselage bulge is, can be for additional fuel." Your guess is right, it is confirmal tank like the J6 was modified by the PAF. Even as of last year, the new A5's are still being made, i do not know in what #'s, maybe just to replace the older woren out airframes. The new ones have ability to delevery PGM's( laser, not TV) of course. As we all know the PLA ground troops are getting trained by able to call in CAS at at-least the company level, and with Z-10 slow in coming, the Z9G too slow and lack of warload, so the A5s are here to stay. As for range of the A5, covering Taiwan with 30 mins of on station time is doable for the A5.

[sumdud]

How much range did it have? I guess you can convert it for a single engine but that would make it a new plane.
Actually, I don't think either A-10 or Su-25 have much range either, but yes, loitering time is important. And uh, A-10s are called in for strike often also (while they are sometimes used as an attack jet, I think F-16s are often used rather than A-10s for this role.). At least the A-5 can land on rough fields, so it can always be in close vicinity of the front.
As China begins to use WZ-10s, A-5s will likely be put in the role of mini attack jet anyway.
But again, what's with the "saggy" landing gears?

[crobato]

Its sagging from all the weight I guess. The picture shows the plane carrying two 500kg LGBs my estimate based on the size.

The background of this picture seems familiar. I bet its the PLANAF 5th Division that recently had JH-7As.

[sumdud]

No way, all/most of the USSR's fighters were Saggers until probably the 70s. Short landing gears.

I thing I just noticed: the conformal fuel tank meant that the 4 body stations are gone. I guess no more tanks on the wings.... How often did the A-5 use its body stations/use all 10 of its pylons?

[panzerkom]

How much range did it have? I guess you can convert it for a single engine but that would make it a new plane.


that's actually a pretty good idea, like how the F-20 tigershark was a re-designed F-5E tiger. width-wise and length-wise, putting a single turbofan in the rear fuselage of the Q-5 shouldn't be a problem, just gotta increase the height slightly and you'd be able to put a turbofan in the same class as the F404 or even F414 in there.

[Pointblank]

that's actually a pretty good idea, like how the F-20 tigershark was a re-designed F-5E tiger. width-wise and length-wise, putting a single turbofan in the rear fuselage of the Q-5 shouldn't be a problem, just gotta increase the height slightly and you'd be able to put a turbofan in the same class as the F404 or even F414 in there.

But by then, your better off starting from scratch, as the upgrade potential is now fairly limited due to the age of the platform.

[panzerkom]

But by then, your better off starting from scratch, as the upgrade potential is now fairly limited due to the age of the platform.

you're probably right about that one too, given how the F-20 didn't sell at all. sumdud is saying that new airframes of the Q-5 are still being built, so i'm just saying what he said about replacing the two turbojets with a turbofan is not completely insane.

[beijingcar]

you're probably right about that one too, given how the F-20 didn't sell at all. sumdud is saying that new airframes of the Q-5 are still being built, so i'm just saying what he said about replacing the two turbojets with a turbofan is not completely insane.

As far as I know, the WP6 is being updated, so the newer A5 may have better TWR and longer range than the older ones. Forget the WS( turbofan ) idea. two of WS will cost too much for the A5, there is no WS in develpoement in China now that is designed for the A5 anyway. A copy of RD93 is still too big. The smaller WS for the JL8 is too small and lack military power( no after burners). So an up-rated WP6 will have to do the job.

[crobato]

It would require significant structural modifications, that makes much of the plane's internal structure new. That would increase the cost of the plane since the cost would have to be amortized for the rest of the production run. If the remaining production run is limited, then it won't be worth it, but if it intends to stay around much longer then perhaps something that can be worth looking at. At this point however, you're probably competing with the likes of the JF-17.

[panzerkom]

As far as I know, the WP6 is being updated, so the newer A5 may have better TWR and longer range than the older ones. Forget the WS( turbofan ) idea. two of WS will cost too much for the A5, there is no WS in develpoement in China now that is designed for the A5 anyway. A copy of RD93 is still too big. The smaller WS for the JL8 is too small and lack military power( no after burners). So an up-rated WP6 will have to do the job.

what sumdud suggested was to replace the 2 turbojets on the Q-5 with 1 turbofan. but i agree with what most ppl have already said -- that it would be a significant re-design.

[sumdud]

Wasn't a suggestion, but heck, this thread is about creativity, so let it pour! Let your fantasies run wild!

I was going to suggest the engines from L-15, but those are even weaker. I wouldn't say no to the WS of JL-8s, since adding afterburners aren't hard. (Just look at the fastest fighter in the world.)

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Wouldnt reinstalling single turbonfan inplace of twin turbojets orginally designed for it would require a enormous overhall. It would require airinlets, fitting of turbofan etc...to much of a structural design to be still classified as Q-5. This would be completly new aircraft and would be designated entirely different.

This would require testing, production certificate, etc....and list goes on so by the time it does come out the money, time and resource wasted wouldn't be as beneficial to PLA.

Not pointing fingers at anyone here so dont take offence...

Since the thread states PLAAF it doesnt refer to what part of it, so modification would be a shorter variant of Z-9 but in special recon mission for tight manuvering with minimal noise engines for scouting ahead for info

[crobato]

I would rather chose to improve the WP-6s, improve their reliability, make them lighter, and perhaps add a digital FADEC to improve on their efficiency. Its hard to say but something tells me they may have already done their part. The Q-5 is an old aircraft but one that has been hammered and refined throughout all these years that every bolt and nut on it has been reconsidered.

I think once they can make the engines locally for the L-15, that for me can be made into a potential CAS aircraft on a single seater mode.

[King_Comm]

Why not make FC-1 into a CAS air craft? just armour up the cockpit and the engine, then add twin 30mm guns, sacrifice some thrust to weight ratio and internal fuel load, put in a smaller radar and a full optronics suit, and you have a dedicated CAS plane.

[sumdud]

Sacrifice fuel load? As a light fighter, its range isn't that great, loitering time will be much worse if you take out fuel.

Since the JF-17 can designed originally with the ability for laser guided weapons, I don';t thhink you really need to modify anything. The A-10 only had a laser guidance and it did well. CAS missions doesn't need GPS, unless maybe you are trying to help take out bunkers/buildings during an offensive.

If you want to carry more, you can always use multi-missile/bomb racks.

[crobato]

==Delta wings of J-10 give it much higher take off and landing speed than F-16, so it's not safe to carry too much.

The wings on the F-16 are clipped deltas, so that does not have much of a difference. The wing area of the J-10 is much greater than the F-16's, which means less wing loading. In the videos, we have seen J-10s taking off and landing at short distances, each taking rather steep angles in take off and approach. These kinds of stunts suggest the plane has low wing loading,and afford lower landing and takeoff speeds.

I think its more of the question of the width of the wings. There has to be a minimum distance between pylons and the attached payloads, otherwise you would have aerodynamic intererence.