+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: PLAAF's Q-5 Fleet.

  1. #1
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,218
    Country: Guatemala

    PLAAF's Q-5 Fleet.

    Just wrote this.....


    Q-5J is back?

    Hongdu HAIC was greeted with doubts when it displayed the tandem-seat trainer “J” variant of the old Q-5 (A-5, NATO reporting name: Fantan) during the 2004 Zhuhai Air shows. The Q-5 attacker has been in service with the PLAAF for 40 years and production has been reduced to replacement due to attrition. The justification for pouring more resources into this old design is not apparent as more advanced designs such as the K8, L-15 and JH-7 are now available. Indeed, there has been no status update on the Q-5J project since the air show. Meanwhile, the PLAAF continues to stretch the Q-5’s service life by converting it from a dumb iron bomb dropping mud-mover into a laser-guided bomb carrier for precision strikes. The new modified striker sports a laser spot tracker (similar to Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAS-35V Pave Penny) inserted in its front nose.

    Together with the “J” variant proposal, analysts question the rationale for the PLAAF’s decision to extend the life of the Q-5. Q-5’s survivability in a modern battlefield is questionable given its aging airframe, poor aerodynamic performance, and lack of modern EW suite. It will not be a viable weapon platform without complete air superiority. And that would be difficult for the PLAAF to achieve as most of China’s potential OpForces are more advanced in regards to air power.

    Recently released photos suggest that the Q-5J project has developed into an airborne forward controller variant. The rear seat is slotted by a weapons officer whose job is to operate the strike package. Instead of laser bombs, the controller is likely to be equipped with a laser designator and other EW pods. The PLAAF has more modern and capable platforms in its inventory than the old Q-5 and cost seems to be the only rationale for this development.


    The tandem-seat Q-5J "trainer"
    Attached Images    
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  2. #2
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,218
    Country: Guatemala
    Q-5's nose laser spot tracker and laser guided bombs

    White camo = PLAAF 5th attack div
    Green camo = PLAAF 26th attack div
    Attached Images          
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  3. #3
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,218
    Country: Guatemala
    one more
    Attached Images  
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    Maybe the PLA intends to use the Q-5 in less-than-modern battlefield strike missions? You don't need an F-35 to drop a bomb on a terrorist cell...
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,233
    That's still a lot of Q-5Js, if they intend to convert a significant number of the existing inventory into bomb trucks and observation platforms.

  6. #6
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    18 Nov 05
    Location
    Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the we
    Posts
    1,038
    Country: United States
    Honestly its a good idea, as long as you have something of local airsuperiority why have these things flying around providing tacticle strike, helo hunting and airstrikes of opertunity?

    They also have a radio so they'd be able to call out bearing and such when wingmen fall out of the sky due to stealth fighters.

  7. #7
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,218
    Country: Guatemala
    Thursday, November 05, 2009

    J-8II Ground Attacker –replace the center fuselage tank with a bomb and call it good.

    The J-8II was designed to perform as a high speed interceptor to counter enemy bomber fleets. With the introduction of the more modern Su-27/J-11/J-10, the PLAAF is moving the J-811 to a secondary role of "PGM Trucks" similar to the Q-5D/E modernization path.

    Modification of the new J-8IIs include replacing the center fuselage "wet" drop-tank hardpoint with a weapons station and a newer "look-down/shoot-down" radar, similar to the KL-10, to provide secondary ground attack capability. This change will not only reduce the J-8II range but also impact its already poor aerodynamic performance. But, with the J-8II’s high-speed, it is expected to deliver the PGM payload quickly in any hit-and-run bombing exercise.

    According to the latest rumor, the new G-modification will include the capability of launching two YJ-91 anti-radiation missiles in a SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) role. It is not certain if the new G model will be a conversion from existing stock or a new factory build.

    Just like the Q-5, the PLAAF is modeling its old fleet to get every last mile out of them.
    Attached Images          
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. why the elimination of armor in modern naval ships?
    By eocoolj in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 24 Sep 09,, 22:19
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02 Dec 08,, 03:44
  3. Annual Naval Review(Quite long)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19 Mar 06,, 19:39
  4. USN 30-Year Fleet Structure Plan
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28 Mar 05,, 23:45
  5. Russian Navy
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17 Feb 05,, 04:55

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts