The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft

FORBIN

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Totoro said:
It actually makes some sense not to give new planes to units currently operating Q5. Surely part of the reason is money, perhaps even that's the biggest part.

But there's also the role of the plane and the training needed to switch from it to something newer.

Q5 pilots trained exclusively for low level subsonic flight, for short range air support missions, possibly with fairly little night training. and most of their trained attacks were for very close range unguided weapon attacks. (more units had no models that could use targeting pods than units that did have them. And it's also unlikely there were targeting pods available for most planes per unit)
.
Click to expand...
:eek: but it is not a museum piece

CH Q-5.jpg
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Well the Chinese sold off a number of Q5 to allies and close neighbors. The North Koreans and Myanmar for example.
Q5 represents a concept of a aircraft that has increasingly fallen out of favor. Close attack with guns and dumb bombs. Was a necessity for a long time but comes at a cost as survivability is not really a guarantee for the pilot.
I mean if you are in range to spray 23mm shells at an enemy armored division, the enemy armored division is with in range to spray you.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
sanblvd said:
I know Q-5 is an old and obsolete aircraft but it does has its functions, it fly slow and carry a lot of bomb for close air support, the closet China has to A-10 and Su-25. JH-7 and J-16 are more off stand off missile carriers and not the same role.

After Q-5 is gone is there anything to replace it? Or China is going directly to drones?
Click to expand...
Drones have limitations that prevent them from taking the direct attack role, most are to light, there are issues of targeting and communications to. What has really killed direct replacements for such is first the cost, second increased attrition rates for such platforms, third increased availability of Attack Choppers, fourth reduced need thanks to advanced long range high accuracy antitank guided missiles. These have pushed to allow multirole fighters and light weight armed trainer class aircraft to take the mission set more and more.
The top 2 tank buster aircraft the A10 and SU25 have survived mostly because they have adapted to this and carry missiles and smart weapons with there cannons and rockets.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


A pair of JL-7s.

015805jp2pmjpq32p6233z_zpstzgxfyaz.jpg
 
P

PanAsian

Major
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Drones have limitations that prevent them from taking the direct attack role, most are to light, there are issues of targeting and communications to. What has really killed direct replacements for such is first the cost, second increased attrition rates for such platforms, third increased availability of Attack Choppers, fourth reduced need thanks to advanced long range high accuracy antitank guided missiles. These have pushed to allow multirole fighters and light weight armed trainer class aircraft to take the mission set more and more.
The top 2 tank buster aircraft the A10 and SU25 have survived mostly because they have adapted to this and carry missiles and smart weapons with there cannons and rockets.
Click to expand...

Why the A10 and Su25 were chosen to persevere is also because they have armor for better crew protection and the aircraft themselves were designed to be tougher and more survivable even with battle damage.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
PanAsian said:
Why the A10 and Su25 were chosen to persevere is also because they have armor for better crew protection and the aircraft themselves were designed to be tougher and more survivable even with battle damage.
Click to expand...
In combat the A10 took more damage and losses compared to F16 in the first Gulf war despite the fact that far more F16 were deployed and doing some of the same missions. This is because the Multirole fighter stands off out of ground fire with guided munitions well A10 comes in close to ground fire. Even if it can soak up damage, It's safer not to be in the firing range.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
TerraN_EmpirE said:
In combat the A10 took more damage and losses compared to F16 in the first Gulf war despite the fact that far more F16 were deployed and doing some of the same missions. This is because the Multirole fighter stands off out of ground fire with guided munitions well A10 comes in close to ground fire. Even if it can soak up damage, It's safer not to be in the firing range.
Click to expand...

To clarify my point wasn't that these planes soldiered on because they were better vs multi-role fighters but better vs other ground attack aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top