Ask anything Thread


ficker22

Junior Member
Registered Member
one thing to note: unlike cruise missiles, these will take up airbase runway space and time to launch! they can't be launched from containers like missiles. so the value of these cannot be compared to a cruise missile as runway space and time is very limited.

I don't know how many sorties can be generated per day per base, so that is a key determinant of how good this is. they should be compared to something with equivalent opportunity cost like a purpose built drone. And an empty drone piloted J-6 might not be too worth.

Also have to note that a fighter crash doesn't necessarily do much damage. Here's a picture of what happened in WW2 when a kamikaze hit HMS Sussex, a cruiser, not even a battleship.

Japanese_kamikaze_on_HMS_Sussex.JPG

It literally only can scratch the paint.

Now if you add a 1000 kg bomb though... then things get much more interesting. Almost no cruise missiles can hold 1000 kg, but a J-6 can. And 1000 kg is a huge payload that is usually only on drop bombs, but a 1000 kg cruise missile is absolutely devastating.


That pilot was dumb enough to fly direct into the belt armour, which in many late war american cruiser designs (Baltimore-class) or in this case HMS Sussex was thick enough to withstand an 6-inch salvo from some distance, he should have flown into the superstructure to deal any damage.


Also if he was a Zero, well, this plane weighs under 3 tons and is made from aluminium and wood mostly, flying under 500 kph at sea level in a level flight. So really no kinetic impact possible, would just shatter on impact - againt any thick metal surface -

And it appearently didnt have any bomb strapped on, or the bomb didnt fuse, since there is no marking of a bomb explosion on the ship's hull.

So no wonder it didn't leave a dent against 106mm of belt armor.


Any case, even if he where in an Oka, flying against the strongest part of any warship is just stupid.


Oka wouldnt have functioned either because the warhead was HE only, no Armor piercing capability, so at best an Oka would have had an effect like a HESH shell, if the fuse allowed such depolyment.

Edit:
One a better look, the plane looks like a D3A Aichi, since its landing gear is non-retracting, but same story, pilot just hit the wrong spot, a superstructure hit or better a hit into the bridge would have mission killed the ship and took it out of action for some weeks.



Regarding J-6 as a quasi cruise missile, we can replace the landing gear with tundra tires, so it can also start from any strip of grass land.

For a 1000 kg payload, it should be conformally placed on, or in the fuselage.

With a 1000 kg HEAT or AP warhead it surely does sufficient damage to warships.

We have to bear in mind that todays warships have barely to no armor in comparison to WWII designs so even a 1000kg SAPHE Bomb would sink a destroyer sized shit if hit at the right spot (VLS, Magazines)
 
Last edited:

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
That pilot was dumb enough to fly direct into the belt armour, which in many late war american cruiser designs (Baltimore-class) or in this case HMS Sussex was thick enough to withstand an 6-inch salvo from some distance, he should have flown into the superstructure to deal any damage.


Also if he was a Zero, well, this plane weighs under 3 tons and is made from aluminium and wood mostly, flying under 500 kph at sea level in a level flight. So really no kinetic impact possible, would just shatter on impact - againt any thick metal surface -

And it appearently didnt have any bomb strapped on, or the bomb didnt fuse, since there is no marking of a bomb explosion on the ship's hull.

So no wonder it didn't leave a dent against 106mm of belt armor.


Any case, even if he where in an Oka, flying against the strongest part of any warship is just stupid.


Oka wouldnt have functioned either because the warhead was HE only, no Armor piercing capability, so at best an Oka would have had an effect like a HESH shell, if the fuse allowed such depolyment.

Edit:
One a better look, the plane looks like a D3A Aichi, since its landing gear is non-retracting, but same story, pilot just hit the wrong spot, a superstructure hit or better a hit into the bridge would have mission killed the ship and took it out of action for some weeks.



Regarding J-6 as a quasi cruise missile, we can replace the landing gear with tundra tires, so it can also start from any strip of grass land.

For a 1000 kg payload, it should be conformally placed on, or in the fuselage.

With a 1000 kg HEAT or AP warhead it surely does sufficient damage to warships.

We have to bear in mind that todays warships have barely to no armor in comparison to WWII designs so even a 1000kg SAPHE Bomb would sink a destroyer sized shit if hit at the right spot (VLS, Magazines)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


  • HMS Sussex apparently didn't have the additional 4.5inch belt armour fitted but nonetheless was pretty thick skinned with 1inch steel platings on the side.
  • The Ki-51, a light bomber, that hit the Sussex is still pretty lightweight, about 2,700kg loaded.
  • It is speculated that the Ki-51 lost velocity when parts of the airframe hit the water just before impact with HMS Sussex and the usual Kamikaze load of some explosives either got ripped off or failed to trigger.
  • HMS Sussex damage suffered a 8 feet split in the side plating above the waterline as well as some minor distortion to panels on the hull ... not just "scratched the paint"
 

ficker22

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


  • HMS Sussex apparently didn't have the additional 4.5inch belt armour fitted but nonetheless was pretty thick skinned with 1inch steel platings on the side.
  • The Ki-51, a light bomber, that hit the Sussex is still pretty lightweight, about 2,700kg loaded.
  • It is speculated that the Ki-51 lost velocity when parts of the airframe hit the water just before impact with HMS Sussex and the usual Kamikaze load of some explosives either got ripped off or failed to trigger.
  • HMS Sussex damage suffered a 8 feet split in the side plating above the waterline as well as some minor distortion to panels on the hull ... not just "scratched the paint"


Shows just how misguided kamikaze was, they lost 3800+ pilots and even more airframes too, for what? A crack in the armor?

Not that the japanese ever tried to care about their field officiers, or their pilots, lest to say their rank and file. Jpn argueably had the best trained naval aviators and pretty solid army aviators during the beginning of the war, but similiar to the germans, they did not rotate their aces between front and teaching new flight cadets, so during the course of war, all good pilots got attritioned to dust.

Also their jpn high command would make the post purge soviet command of 1941 look good in regards to competency.


If they really, rellay have had meant it, at least cripple cargo vessels, who are less armoured, with less AA, smaller escorts, etc., to give the allies a logistical nightmare ala Ostrfront '44. Use their stupid Kaiten or something against them too.



The Ki-51 is one the same level of desperation as the A3M, is just slow as hell, like barely 400 kph max speed in lvl flight, no armor for pilot, gunner or engine, abysmal bombload of 250kg.



At this rate it is just like driving your car with 200 miles per hour without airbag or seatbelt into a tree.

The Ki-51 btw is an Army aircraft, the fact that they use army aviation to fend of naval threats shows, that the war really was over for them in 1943 already.
 

ficker22

Junior Member
Registered Member
Does anyone have any reports on reliability issues of Chinese fox-3s missiles specifically the export SD-10, PL-15E, or is this claim unfound?


Like when did those accusation arise, which buyer complained and what is the issue, reliability issue is a stretched term.

Engine, seeker, tail section, warhead, shelf life? What is unreliable?


Accusations without substance...
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
Shows just how misguided kamikaze was, they lost 3800+ pilots and even more airframes too, for what? A crack in the armor?

Not that the japanese ever tried to care about their field officiers, or their pilots, lest to say their rank and file. Jpn argueably had the best trained naval aviators and pretty solid army aviators during the beginning of the war, but similiar to the germans, they did not rotate their aces between front and teaching new flight cadets, so during the course of war, all good pilots got attritioned to dust.

Also their jpn high command would make the post purge soviet command of 1941 look good in regards to competency.


If they really, rellay have had meant it, at least cripple cargo vessels, who are less armoured, with less AA, smaller escorts, etc., to give the allies a logistical nightmare ala Ostrfront '44. Use their stupid Kaiten or something against them too.



The Ki-51 is one the same level of desperation as the A3M, is just slow as hell, like barely 400 kph max speed in lvl flight, no armor for pilot, gunner or engine, abysmal bombload of 250kg.



At this rate it is just like driving your car with 200 miles per hour without airbag or seatbelt into a tree.

The Ki-51 btw is an Army aircraft, the fact that they use army aviation to fend of naval threats shows, that the war really was over for them in 1943 already.

This particular Ki-51 was from a Army Air Training estab. and occured in 1945. Which is typical of the Kamikaze usage - freshly minted "pilots" using obsolete or purpose built planes in deliberate attacks or (in this case), last ditch defense of outpost that were beyond support and hope.

Back to the original question that triggered this, it is interesting to consider how much it will cost to convert J-6 into heavyweight loitering/suicide drones ... especially since the work to convert the j-6 into an actual pilotless platform has already been done (target drone). Nothing fancy even, just a man in the loop, tv feedback will do. Actual damage aside, it also helps to flood the Taiwan AD on D-Day with hundreds or thousands of bogies that are inconsequential to the PLAF.
 

XiDada

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Any recent studies on PLAAF sortie production rates? Only thing I found was a 2105 RAND paper that talks about the 2012 PLAAF not being able to execute a 12 turn 12 op without days of prep before and days of recovery after.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Does China have any missile deployment system like the Rapid Dragon (which is currently close to being put into service with the USAF and USN) under development or already in service?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wrt to this, do you guys believe that the PLA have needs for such capabilities in possible military conflicts occuring at present or near future (within this decade)?
 
Last edited:

stannislas

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wrt to this, do you guys believe that the PLA have needs for such capabilities in possible military conflicts occuring at present or near future (within this decade)?
That is going to be my exact answer… where it will be deployed? What’s the need?

US don’t have a land that is large enough to hide its deployment in westpac, but China has mainland…

but all in all, I regard this as another congress bait for money, I can’t see the war goes this way if not go complete nuclear, us must exhaust all its bombers, otherwise why they are not simply using b-52 and b-1b…
 

Top