Ideal PLAAF Modifications
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
Well, since China has apparently developed Multi-missile racks, I suggest that China reduce/rearrange the pylons on the J-11 wings. As for the fuselage, 3 pylons can be added to the same arrangement of the J-10's.
By the way, what's the size of A-5's engines? Is it closer to that of WS-9 or WS-10A?
By the way, what's the size of A-5's engines? Is it closer to that of WS-9 or WS-10A?
Last edited:
Even smaller than those WS-9? Since the A-5 came from the J-6 and has a solid nose and body, wouldn't it be a good idea to employ it as a fighter also? It can mount a bigger radar if it wishes, fly further, and with 10 hardpoints (well, 8 that works here)/space for it, it would be a much better fighter than the J-7.
I would widen the wing also (More range), and employ multimissile racks.
(Anyone knows if early MiGs were hard to land? They always have the disturbing "sag" due to their short landing gears, reminds me of the old and over loaded Tacomas and sedans that sags. Is that suppose to help?)
I would widen the wing also (More range), and employ multimissile racks.
(Anyone knows if early MiGs were hard to land? They always have the disturbing "sag" due to their short landing gears, reminds me of the old and over loaded Tacomas and sedans that sags. Is that suppose to help?)
Not only its much smaller than the WS-9, its even much smaller than the WP-13, which is a small engine on its own right. And I mean small, you're talking about an engine in the size class as those used in the F-5Es or an advanced trainer.
The Q-5 uses two of these engines (WP-6), and surprisingly the thrust output of a Q-5 or a late model J-6 exceeds that of early and mid generation MiG-21s. Except for a MiG-21bis, which only matches the TWR of a J-6.
The Q-5's nose does not really mount a radar. Experiments to add a radar on its nose, especially one for antishipping use, ended up creating ugly platypuses. The nose of the Q-5 is actually too thin. Compared to the J-6, the thin nose is designed to give an easy downward view---the same principle as the MiG-27. This does not mean the jet cannot dogfight on a visual range level. The Pakistani experience reflects that the plane can dogfight even with F-16As at low altitude.
Back in the seventies when the Q-5 was just coming out, US mags I remember, portrayed the Q-5 like some new Chinese fighter, not as the attack plane it became.
The Q-5's flight characteristics were refined throughout the years, but in the early times it was as difficult to fly as the J-6. The J-7 is a much easier and nice jet to fly. Later, the Q-5;s flight behavior was refined to the ease it is found today but long before it has evolved to its specialized attack role.
In a way, when Q-5 regiments upgrade to the JH-7A, there was their downsides. The Q-5 is a lighter, more nimble, more agile plane with dogfighting characteristics and it had better downward visibility. The Q-5s of an upgraded regiment fortunately, appeared ended up moved to the sister regiments within the same division.
In my view a CAS aircraft caught in low altitude by a Q-5 should expect the fight of their lives.
However there are serious down points on using the Q-5 as a fighter. The nose cone is one, not meant to hold a radar, though it can hold a laser rangefinder. Two turbojets consume a lot of gas more than one turbojet, which consumes more gas than a turbofan. This means the Q-5 has a short endurance. Being a twin engine, its rather complex for a small jet, hence its not a maintenance friendly plane. While its turn rate maybe better than a J-7, its roll rate is not.
Pointblank
Senior Member
In theory, a CAS aircraft should emphasis survivability, durability, and good easy, flight characteristics. This means that the aircraft is easy to handle, meaning more time for the pilot to spend looking out of the airplane searching for targets, survivability when hit by AA weapons, and durability to handle some rough flying if necessary. Most CAS aircraft out there exemplify these traits very well, some better than others.
Hmm? Wasn't the Platypus Bs for launching torpedos? Being such a small and old plane, I wouldn't expect it to have a single pound for the ground if it was a fighter.
Short as the range is, it is still longer than that of J-7 or 8 when similarly loaded.
The plane is able to mount a small radar still. (But if a IRST can replace it with no hindrance, then I guess you have a point)
As for the roll rate, they can increase the width of the wing at the fuselage, basically into a boomerang rather than just a V. That way the ailerons would be more effective. And since the wing is at the middle of the plane on the pitching axis anyway, it should not affect performance much.
Anyone know what the bulge under the nose and the belly is?
Short as the range is, it is still longer than that of J-7 or 8 when similarly loaded.
The plane is able to mount a small radar still. (But if a IRST can replace it with no hindrance, then I guess you have a point)
As for the roll rate, they can increase the width of the wing at the fuselage, basically into a boomerang rather than just a V. That way the ailerons would be more effective. And since the wing is at the middle of the plane on the pitching axis anyway, it should not affect performance much.
Anyone know what the bulge under the nose and the belly is?
The modification was meant for a sea search radar, and the Q-5s modded for it were capable of using torpedoes and air launched YJ-81 (C-801 as it was better known then). However, that experiment did not prove to last long as they stopped doing this long ago.
On that picture, the bulge on the nose may be that for an laser rangefinder or targeting designator. Don't know what the fuselage bulge is, can be for additional fuel.
Despite its larger size, two turbojets will eat more fuel than a single one, so this is not a good fuel economical arrangement. The future PLAAF CAS aircraft will have to be turbofan powered.
As for the flight characteristics, the Q-5 started being rather difficult to fly, since the J-6 was truly difficult (Korean War ace Han Decai even said so). But in time, it became very stable and easy to fly. Its not hard to figure out what can improve the stability. The J-6 has an open nose and not much weight in the front, but with the new nose and adding more weight there, the Q-5 becomes more stable, though at the slight expense of maneuverbility. And no doubt the Q-5 is a tough plane in the old Cold War Communist tradition.
The short range of the Q-5 is what I think makes the plane questionable in a true CAS sense. The Q-5 is more of a mini attack jet in the same sense as the Jaguar or MiG-27 is. But to be like the Su-25 or A-10, you need enough range and loiter endurance to stay on the air for long periods of time to be able to hunt down targets autonomously, instead of being called in demand from the ground for strikes.
On that picture, the bulge on the nose may be that for an laser rangefinder or targeting designator. Don't know what the fuselage bulge is, can be for additional fuel.
Despite its larger size, two turbojets will eat more fuel than a single one, so this is not a good fuel economical arrangement. The future PLAAF CAS aircraft will have to be turbofan powered.
As for the flight characteristics, the Q-5 started being rather difficult to fly, since the J-6 was truly difficult (Korean War ace Han Decai even said so). But in time, it became very stable and easy to fly. Its not hard to figure out what can improve the stability. The J-6 has an open nose and not much weight in the front, but with the new nose and adding more weight there, the Q-5 becomes more stable, though at the slight expense of maneuverbility. And no doubt the Q-5 is a tough plane in the old Cold War Communist tradition.
The short range of the Q-5 is what I think makes the plane questionable in a true CAS sense. The Q-5 is more of a mini attack jet in the same sense as the Jaguar or MiG-27 is. But to be like the Su-25 or A-10, you need enough range and loiter endurance to stay on the air for long periods of time to be able to hunt down targets autonomously, instead of being called in demand from the ground for strikes.
beijingcar
New Member
"Don't know what the fuselage bulge is, can be for additional fuel." Your guess is right, it is confirmal tank like the J6 was modified by the PAF. Even as of last year, the new A5's are still being made, i do not know in what #'s, maybe just to replace the older woren out airframes. The new ones have ability to delevery PGM's( laser, not TV) of course. As we all know the PLA ground troops are getting trained by able to call in CAS at at-least the company level, and with Z-10 slow in coming, the Z9G too slow and lack of warload, so the A5s are here to stay. As for range of the A5, covering Taiwan with 30 mins of on station time is doable for the A5.
How much range did it have? I guess you can convert it for a single engine but that would make it a new plane.
Actually, I don't think either A-10 or Su-25 have much range either, but yes, loitering time is important. And uh, A-10s are called in for strike often also (while they are sometimes used as an attack jet, I think F-16s are often used rather than A-10s for this role.). At least the A-5 can land on rough fields, so it can always be in close vicinity of the front.
As China begins to use WZ-10s, A-5s will likely be put in the role of mini attack jet anyway.
But again, what's with the "saggy" landing gears?
Actually, I don't think either A-10 or Su-25 have much range either, but yes, loitering time is important. And uh, A-10s are called in for strike often also (while they are sometimes used as an attack jet, I think F-16s are often used rather than A-10s for this role.). At least the A-5 can land on rough fields, so it can always be in close vicinity of the front.
As China begins to use WZ-10s, A-5s will likely be put in the role of mini attack jet anyway.
But again, what's with the "saggy" landing gears?
Last edited: