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.
Some comments on AT-3 article
- Thread starter adeptitus
- Start date
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:
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.
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:
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
Banned Idiot
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.
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...
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.
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.
You mean this one?
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...
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...
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?