[Harley-One]

.


The so call obsolete Q-5...

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/...5/14865773.html
杭州笕桥基地全副武装的军绿色?强五?[图]--军事频道-中华网-中国最大军事网站

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/...5/14865704.html
偷拍我军某地机棚中成排的新飞豹A[图]--军事频道-中华网-中国最大军事网站

Why do we still field it and why do we still keep upgrading it and pumping it out as if pancakes when we have far superior units such as the JH-7/JH-7A to do an even better job? Anyone care to elaborate?

We know that the original series of the Q-5 is of the same class range as that of the French Mirage F-1 which the Argintine Navy took out two Royal Navy destroyers with eons ago, but, could it (the latest upgrades) be viewed or be deemed as our version of America's A-10 and/or of Russia's Su-25???

After all, these newer versions probably packs quite a bit of punch as ground support/ground attack units and probably just as rugged (armoured) as the two competitors above mentioned.

Could that also be the reason why so many underdeveloped/third world countries from around the world still operates and buys it??? From the pics above provided, it still looks quite awesome, especially when packed with a full load of deadly ordnance as depicted.

[flyzies]

Its nowhere near the class of A-10, that could out-gun and take much more punishment than Q-5 ever could.
As far as i know, PLA are looking for a replacement for it...but no suitable option has been found yet, so its being upgraded to extend its service life.
What i find is the most limiting factor is absence of precision strike ability on the latest models (Q-5D i think). For a good ground support/attack aircraft, this is must have. Instead, PLA makes another model just for precision strike, Q-5E i think, but that apparently can only carry 2 bombs due to increased weight and range decreased significantly.

All in all, its a aircraft limited in almost every way...

[Red Fox Ace]

Harley-One, on May 25 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

Why do we still keep pumping it out as if pancakes

Q-5 still in production? I can understand upgrading existing models, but building new ones is a wasteful distraction IMO.




Harley's proposals are not far off at all; the Q-5 would be an inferior CAS type (kind of like a poor man's MiG-27 in capability, not even approaching A-10) but armor it up, get more engine power for a better thrust:weight ratio, get cannons calibrated for air to ground along with the usual Hydra-type rockets, unguided cluster bombs and a dedicated ATGM (what is the Russian version of Maverick?) and we're in business.

[flyzies]

Red Fox Ace, on May 26 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

Harley's proposals are not far off at all; the Q-5 would be an inferior CAS type (kind of like a poor man's MiG-27 in capability, not even approaching A-10) but armor it up, get more engine power for a better thrust:weight ratio, get cannons calibrated for air to ground along with the usual Hydra-type rockets, unguided cluster bombs and a dedicated ATGM (what is the Russian version of Maverick?) and we're in business.

Seeing as how aircraft engines are China's weakest link, time and cost to do all that would be more than just buying or designing its replacement.

I have suspicion WZ-10 could fill most of Q-5s role in future...ground attack, anti-tank, ground suppression etc etc...plus much more mobile and high tech

[Roger604]

^ Absolutely agree. Z-10 can take over the CAS role. (I also see the need for an upgraded Z-10 with more armour plating.)

AFAIK, the Q-5 hasn't been in production for a while now.

[Harley-One]

flyzies, on May 27 2008, 05:33 AM, said:

Seeing as how aircraft engines are China's weakest link, time and cost to do all that would be more than just buying or designing its replacement.

I have suspicion WZ-10 could fill most of Q-5s role in future...ground attack, anti-tank, ground suppression etc etc...plus much more mobile and high tech

Choppers, however deadly they are armed, and however fully armoured, are still but a very slow, very cumbersome, and very vulnerable to ground fire such as shoulder firing SAMs that even we ourselves had developed and proven as something that can take out even the most sophisticated of chopper gunships durring military excercises.

Besides, thought gunships such as the Z-10 makes for a quality image builder for the Chinese aeronautics industry and a luxury item for the PLA to boast with; given the likely price tag attached to it (if F-22 = bank account drainer to the US, then the Z-10 my opinion should be a bank account drainer for Beijing), then it is something that can only be fielded in limited numbers. I mean can you imagine the PLA fielding thousands of Z-10's???? I don't! Z-9's yes, because it within budget. But the Z-10 have to be extremely costly.

As power for the Q-5 however, if we can power the JH-7A (an extremely heavy plane) with indiginous powerplants which are now said can push it to Mach 1.8 (or to 2.0 even at a mad dash), then we can dfinitely apply this powerplant to the Q-5 since the requirement of the Q-5 is still a plane of subsonic speed. Original JH-7 speed was something like Mach 1.6 only so big difference.

[flyzies]

^ I can see where youre coming from with the WZ-10. Tho we dont know the price of one yet, we'll just have to wait and see...like all things we want to know in PLA

But you cant simply just change the engine of an aircraft and stick a new one in, esp one thats totally different. I dont know the specifics of the engines in the JH-7A and Q-5, the WP-6 and WS-9 respectfully, but i do know that internal fuselages (including its fuel lines) and shape of overall plane (its aerodynamics) can be affected by its engine. Change the engine and youll be changing those as well...

[Harley-One]

.

flyzies, on May 28 2008, 07:22 AM, said:

^ I can see where youre coming from with the WZ-10. Tho we dont know the price of one yet, we'll just have to wait and see...like all things we want to know in PLA

Man!!! The Z-10, if my suspicion is not too far off, is likely a package packed with the most sophisticated of electronics, state of the arts military hardwares, armour plates which alone can be at the cost of the building of a simple Z-8, and likely incorporateds anti-SAM features...

In essence, it's a fortress housed in a flying machine so go figure...

In fact, I'm willing to bet that per unit, it'll even out-cost the price of our most sophisticated of jet fighter, J-10/A/B & C, and, unsubstantiated informations floating around the web had suggested that the J-10's cost (selling price) has already reached the 40M to 50M price tag so go figure...

Quote

But you cant simply just change the engine of an aircraft and stick a new one in, esp one thats totally different.

No one is saying that it'll be as simple as the swtiching to of one engine from another (sources over the last four years aired over the www boasts that China's new Qinling engine is a powerplant that sports 25% more thrust than the original imported engines used in the earlier JH-7s), in other words, as it is with the newer H-6's which too had been suggested to have gone through a "new heart transplant" (Chinese theme for powerplant), minor modifications, naturally, will be a neccessary evil.

Quote

I dont know the specifics of the engines in the JH-7A and Q-5, the WP-6 and WS-9 respectfully, but i do know that internal fuselages (including its fuel lines) and shape of overall plane (its aerodynamics) can be affected by its engine. Change the engine and youll be changing those as well...

WP-6 is a Russian design from the 50's and 60's while WS-9, if I'm not wrong about it, is a copy of the RR used in the initial JH-7s (the JH-7, it was admitted by the Chinese scientific and aeronautic community, to have been the results of the Bill Clinton's tranfering to us of the supercomputer because the supercomputer was what enabled us to do the massive calculations needed for an engineering master piece as sophisticated as the Jh-7).

The Qinling engine above indicated, it was suggested, is an indiginous modern spin off of the RR engine used on earlier JH-7.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thre...22+Base+Located!
WAFF | World's Armed Forces Forum: The Wonderful New H-6K Bomber, To Touch Guam Where American Trident and F22 Base Located!

If they can do it to the H-6, they should have no problem doing same to the Q-5 as it has been proven that, to suite our needs, that nothing is impossible as the conversion from the Mig-19/J-6 to the Q-5 and from the Mig-21/J-7 to the J-7 G&E to that of the J-8 I & J-8 II had illustrated.

[flyzies]

^ Youll probably never win or lose that bet cos there may not ever be "official confirmation" of price tag on WZ-10.
How youve describe the WZ-10 there makes it sounds like its as good as, or even better than, the AH-64D! Which it clearly wont be...i would be more than impressed (for now) if the 1st batches of WZ-10 turns out to be as good as the Tiger or Rooivalk or Mangusta.
And considering the AH-64D costs less than USD $30million each, i doubt our WZ-10 would cost more than $50million as you suggest it might...

Q-5 will be in our arsenal for now and into the foreseeable future as theres no replacement. Its future is limited considering PLA hasnt launched an upgrade onto it since the early 1990s. Hongdu even developed by itself a twin-seater in 2005 i think which PLA rejected...

[Harley-One]

flyzies, on May 29 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

Q-5 will be in our arsenal for now and into the foreseeable future as theres no replacement. Its future is limited considering PLA hasnt launched an upgrade onto it since the early 1990s. Hongdu even developed by itself a twin-seater in 2005 i think which PLA rejected...

Actually, the J-10 "C", as is suggested by western inteligence is precisely geared for this role.

[flyzies]

J-10C? What the supposed twin engine J-10 or 2 seater?
2 seater is called J-10S, which is mainly used for training purposes...
The twin engine J-10 was cancelled long ago...if it even got off the drawing board in the start.

When you say "western intelligence" i really hope you dont mean strategypage or abovetopsecret, cos those sites are known to be full of BS.

[Sampanviking]

I have been under the assumption that the J10 as a Multirole Aircraft would be used for Fast Ground Attack and compliment the direct fire support role of the Attack Helicopters and carry out the deep strike missions.

For a dedicated Ground Attack Aircraft, you would surely want VTOL, (for local/green field rearm/fuel etc) good armour as well as being able to fly Supersonic. That is quite a tall order and so no surprise that the PLA is in no hurry for such a specialised, dedicated and expensive piece of kit just yet.

[flyzies]

^ Precisely.
I always think of J-10 doing for PLA what F-16 does for US and Israel - and it has done alot of things throughout its history in service. With good training, those are the type of missions PLAAF J-10s would be able to undertake.

[Harley-One]

J-10 "C"

flyzies, on May 30 2008, 08:20 AM, said:

.
J-10C? What the supposed twin engine J-10 or 2 seater?
2 seater is called J-10S, which is mainly used for training purposes...
The twin engine J-10 was cancelled long ago...if it even got off the drawing board in the start.

When you say "western intelligence" i really hope you dont mean strategypage or abovetopsecret, cos those sites are known to be full of BS.
.

Not my doing. Copy and pasted from a western site known as "The Strategy Page"

"In the end, the J10 did not perform all that well in air combat, so the Chinese have been reconfiguring some of them as a fighter-bomber (the J-10C). This version can carry over four tons of bombs and missiles and has been equipped with a fire control system for delivering missiles and smart bombs. The Chinese designed targeting pod is similar to the Israeli Litening, and they were showing it off as early as 1998. American warplanes use a later version of the Litening. The J10C will have a weapons officer to concentrate on hitting things on the ground. China already has over 90 J10s in service, and Pakistan has some on order."

I would however ignor this part (In the end, the J10 did not perform all that well in air combat) as western pride has likely already and probably been hurt and broken by the debute of the J-10A and surprisingly followed by the J-10B (latter supposedly a trainer) and now a ground attack version known as the "C"??? That, I'd say, is just a little too much for western comfort to bear I guess, therefore they have to bash it somehow...

[Red Fox Ace]

Harley-One, on May 30 2008, 10:07 AM, said:

I would however ignor this part (In the end, the J10 did not perform all that well in air combat) as western pride has likely already and probably been hurt and broken by the debute of the J-10A and surprisingly followed by the J-10B (latter supposedly a trainer) and now a ground attack version known as the "C"??? That, I'd say, is just a little too much for western comfort to bear I guess, therefore they have to bash it somehow...

Well I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so quickly. I think the J-10 wasn't intended for ultimate air-to-air either. We are seeing a "High-Low" combination in China like that in the West; "High" meaning fighters intended for air supremacy, of which we see the Su-27SK and J-11 in the PLAAF (and maybe J-XX in the future,) while "Low" means fighters for the "air-to-mud" role of bombing and ground attack - the J-10 may be the "Mud Hen" of the PLAAF, borrowing USAF lingo.


So the J-10 may not perform that well in air to air because it's not entirely meant to, just like the F-16, the USAF's Mud Hen, isn't the hottest dogfighter around either. Leave the dogfighting to the Flankers.

[Harley-One]

Red Fox Ace, on May 30 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

Well I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so quickly. I think the J-10 wasn't intended for ultimate air-to-air either. We are seeing a "High-Low" combination in China like that in the West; "High" meaning fighters intended for air supremacy, of which we see the Su-27SK and J-11 in the PLAAF (and maybe J-XX in the future,) while "Low" means fighters for the "air-to-mud" role of bombing and ground attack - the J-10 may be the "Mud Hen" of the PLAAF, borrowing USAF lingo.


So the J-10 may not perform that well in air to air because it's not entirely meant to, just like the F-16, the USAF's Mud Hen, isn't the hottest dogfighter around either. Leave the dogfighting to the Flankers.

Finally, Ace, nothin' for you to feel overly concened with anymore because this suggests that the J-10 is inferior to your American F-16, French Mirage-2000's, and your home made Goosehawk/IDF whatever you like to call it ...

But, I wouldn't worry either way because, if this http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90...85/6421213.html is any indication, my hope of the PRC flag flying in unision with the ROC flag both for King and country will be realized in my lifetime anyway and definitely in yours.

By which time you'll likely have no choice in the matter but to adopt the same frame of mind as mind, as those of all of the Red Guardians here, and as all of the idiots out there who is letting the world know what it means to be Chinese with a sea of Chinese flag to show their unity in kinship than viewing/segregating yourself as you guys do -- as the distant cousin ...

[flyzies]

Harley-One, on May 31 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

J-10 "C"


Not my doing. Copy and pasted from a western site known as "The Strategy Page"

"In the end, the J10 did not perform all that well in air combat, so the Chinese have been reconfiguring some of them as a fighter-bomber (the J-10C). This version can carry over four tons of bombs and missiles and has been equipped with a fire control system for delivering missiles and smart bombs. The Chinese designed targeting pod is similar to the Israeli Litening, and they were showing it off as early as 1998. American warplanes use a later version of the Litening. The J10C will have a weapons officer to concentrate on hitting things on the ground. China already has over 90 J10s in service, and Pakistan has some on order."

I would however ignor this part (In the end, the J10 did not perform all that well in air combat) as western pride has likely already and probably been hurt and broken by the debute of the J-10A and surprisingly followed by the J-10B (latter supposedly a trainer) and now a ground attack version known as the "C"??? That, I'd say, is just a little too much for western comfort to bear I guess, therefore they have to bash it somehow...

Strategy page is one site you should never believe or trust...like i said in my previous post; it known to be full of BS. Why would you even bother to go there and digest its crap?

Maybe the idiots there decided to call two seater J-10S the J-10C...whatever. But in the end its no different to the normal J-10 in air-to-air, perhaps it has additional avionics equipment; we dont know for sure. Being suspicious it might be used for a deep strike/precision strike role is validated...

Red Fox Ace, on May 31 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

Well I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so quickly. I think the J-10 wasn't intended for ultimate air-to-air either. We are seeing a "High-Low" combination in China like that in the West; "High" meaning fighters intended for air supremacy, of which we see the Su-27SK and J-11 in the PLAAF (and maybe J-XX in the future,) while "Low" means fighters for the "air-to-mud" role of bombing and ground attack - the J-10 may be the "Mud Hen" of the PLAAF, borrowing USAF lingo.

Not exactly. "Hi-Lo" mix refers to 2 types of fighters; one being the heavier having greater range and payload (hence packs more punch) while the other is a lighter fighter that could do pretty much the same things but with lesser range and payload. Just think of USAF "Hi-Lo" mix; the F-15 and F-16 duo...or the future version of that; F-22 and F-35.
In PLAAF, the hi-lo mix will be J-11B and J-10.

This does not mean the "lo" fighter wont be as good as dogfighter as the "hi" fighter; not at all. Usually both fighters are multi-role, meaning they could both do the air-to-air intercept role and deep precision strike just as well.

Quote

So the J-10 may not perform that well in air to air because it's not entirely meant to, just like the F-16, the USAF's Mud Hen, isn't the hottest dogfighter around either. Leave the dogfighting to the Flankers.

FYI, in all the exercises PLAAF as undertaken with J-10 vs Su-27/Su-30MKK etc, the J-10 has came out on top every time.
This is exactly why PLAAF decided they need the J-11B, the avionics and fire-control systems on the Flankers are just not good enough. J-10 defeated those fighter with superior electronics and mobility.

[Harley-One]

Deadly, though a very Jerassic speciment.

http://tuku.military.china.com/military/ht...4672_890286.htm
Q-5 -- 军事图库-中华网-国产激光制导炸弹


Think I'll throw this
one in here too... This series is what I classify
as the J-7E firewall...

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/...3/14905555.html
中国空军空中大练兵：J-7E演练攻击[组图]--军事频道-中华网-中国最大军事网站

With a 25% increase in range; Mach 2.2 tops; and revamped to hug
the latest and the deadliest of toys; IMHO, this J-7 series is not something to take lighly even by F-22/F-35
standards because for every F-22 twenty J-7E can be had (F-22=100M J-7E=5M) and, if laced with a coating of RAM
and Guam now in range, this bird is still something to be contend with.

[Violet Oboe]

With all these Q-5 and J-7 still around I cannot help but think that PLAAF still has contingency plans about a kind of secondary campaign like a possible intervention in SE Asia (Myanmar?, Cambodia? or even Laos?).

Indeed having a considerable fleet of more than 1000 planes being essentially expendable could give PLAAF some maneuvering room to finish the ?job? (e.g. stabilizing a China-friendly regime in Myanmar against a foreign intervention) (though with some losses) but showing simultaneously up with full Flanker and J-10 strength over the eastern seaboard and the South China Sea against USN, USAF and JSDF, deterring any potentially aggressive move there.

[flyzies]

Harley-One, on Jun 13 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Deadly, though a very Jerassic speciment.

http://tuku.military.china.com/military/ht...4672_890286.htm
Q-5 -- 军事图库-中华网-国产激光制导炸弹


Think I'll throw this
one in here too... This series is what I classify
as the J-7E firewall...

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/important/...3/14905555.html
中国空军空中大练兵：J-7E演练攻击[组图]--军事频道-中华网-中国最大军事网站

With a 25% increase in range; Mach 2.2 tops; and revamped to hug
the latest and the deadliest of toys; IMHO, this J-7 series is not something to take lighly even by F-22/F-35
standards because for every F-22 twenty J-7E can be had (F-22=100M J-7E=5M) and, if laced with a coating of RAM
and Guam now in range, this bird is still something to be contend with.

The latest most advanced J-7; J-7G entered service in 2004 in limited numbers, replacing the oldest models of J-7s. At the time this aircraft was, and still is, a stop gap measure until sufficient numbers of J-10s and J-11Bs comes into service.

I still think the JF-17 should be inducted to replace all the J-7s and J-8s...whilst keeping only those most advanced models in service until theyre worn out.
But on that point, whether it would be economically beneficial to is debatable. There's been alot of talk on this recently, mainly suggesting top-of-the-line JF-17 (the version PAF wants to acquire) would cost a little less than J-10, but offering far less performance.