The Q-5 is certainly not designed well for the CAS role itself, and definitely not the MiG-19 it was based upon. In many ways, the Q-5 is poor in the CAS task. Though extremely maneuverable and agile, the plane is difficult to fly, and its speed, rate of fuel consumption, and short range makes it a very poor loitering aircraft, which is what you need for CAS. The payload is poor too.

The Q-5 works more like a fast strike aircraft than a tank hunter killer like the A-10 or Su-25 Frogfoot. It’s just a bit too “fighter” than an attack aircraft. I just feel that the Q-5 is more a design that is pressed by necessity to serve a role the basic design was not meant for.

In truth, the PLAAF does not have a proper CAS jet. Perhaps, they’re not looking for one; attack helicopters like the Z-10 can do the job. The role of flying MLRS can still be filled by all the obsolete jets in the PLAAF, the J-6s, early J-7s and J-8s.

I see the FC-1 more as a general purpose fighter in the lighter side; the J-10 is the same but more in the medium side. The J-7 role of point defense fighter and interceptor won’t be succeeded.

But the a J-8F as recognised by the twin wing-fences and the black radome !
I agree with You that it looks more like a genuine picture than a PS !

I don’t think that these are R-73/AA-11 … for me they look like PL-8s without their fins just the same as dummy R-73s.

Deino

They’re not PL-8 dummies. We have seen PL-8 dummies on other J-8II pics. They remove the front canards but still retain the rear fins.

I know but that’s not the case as shown here.

anyways it still would have terrible efficiency with only one bomb…

I would rather guess the normal weapons fit for mud moving to be two LS-6 and one centre line drop tank.

If you check other pictures, you will see the J-8II can fit two tanks on the outer pylon. Which means you can put three bombs in the inner pylons and the centerpoint. I’ve rechecked the J-8II following the second revision airframe introduced with the F-8IIM has seven hardpoints, 3 on each wing. The middle pylon can be fitted with an AAM.

The J11B is already in service, see the last portion of the video, the 2 flankers in PLAAF camouflage taking off are J11B, I screen captured one of the 2 J11Bs, see the black nose this time no mistake., that one with no Russian radar. I had said somewhere before, At the beginning of 2007, we will see 1st J11B regiment.

The picture of the nose if you look closely still has the characteristic pattern mouth like cutout, albeit faded like so many other J-11s. Its definitely a J-11 since the J-11s have a dark patch at the tip of the elevators, and they’re the only Flanker single seaters to have so. But I’m not sure that its the -B version as of yet, and I personally don’t think it’s the J-11B.

I know but that’s not the case as shown here.

anyways it still would have terrible efficiency with only one bomb…

I would rather guess the normal weapons fit for mud moving to be two LS-6 and one centre line drop tank.

This should not mean anything beyond that the plane is only testing a single bomb.

I would think that if you want to make the J-8II carry those bombs, the normal fit would be 3 bombs, not two. One in the centerline, two in the inner pylons, and tanks on the outer pylons. No AAMs though.

Interesting how he says Dassault doesn’t say WHICH F-16 they’re comparing the Mirage (which?) to? 😉

I’d like to see an F-16 Blk 60 compared, and add in the avionics (including its superior AESA radar… ;)) 🙂

Oh, and apparently sustained turning rate matters a lot… to whom? An American F-16 pilot himself said this, especially when dogfighting (war game) a Mig-29. He noted how the Mig-29 had superior instantaneous turning at low speeds (below 200 knots), but the F-16 had more maneuverability at higher speeds (220+ knots); especially its sustained turning rate, which he explains is extremely useful in close-in dogfights. He says the F-16 can ‘power above’ the Mig-29 and have the advantage in the higher speed dogfight. We all know, that high speed is best in a modern-day jet-fighter dogfight, so the F-16 is good for this. So, I’ll take his word for it, over some website talking about WWII fighters, and not modern day fighters. 😉

So what about the word of Tomcat and Bug drivers? Would you not take their word too? The Tomcat and the Hornet would be in a similar situation as the MiG-29 in relation to the F-16, better on instantaneous turn rates, AoA and at lower speeds, while the Viper is better at high. Still, Tomcats and Hornets have their share of “kills” too against Vipers though I must add vice versa too. Also if you read the account on the HAF, the HAF Mirages seems to get more kills against their HAF F-16 counterparts. Likewise I should add that the ROCAF, which also operates both planes, also seem to prefer the Mirage and would have bought another batch if the PRC didn’t put the squeeze on the French.

The advantage of superior acceleration gives you the advantage in vertical maneuver. You don’t need John Boyd to teach you this. By the way, you also don’t seem to know much about World War II planes too, because even back in WWII, planes with superior acceleration and speed, often use the vertical plane maneuvers (e.g. rolling scissors) to undercut against planes with tighter turning circles. American fighters like the Thunderbolt, Lightning and Mustang uses such against tighter turning Japanese and German fighters like Zeros and Me-109s, and Germans use similar tactics against Russian and British fighters like the Spits. As far as it goes, its been universal, since the same classic tactics are also used in the Korean War and Vietnam War (Phantoms vs. MiGs).

Maybe experimental. Perhaps the “6” may denote planes that belong to a new group subordinate to the FTTC or the CFTE. As you know, “7” is used in the front digit for FTTC planes.

I don’t really think this is a J-8H at all, we have not seen an R-73 on a J-8II since the F-8IIM. Likely this is a prototype that may be carrying a Russian Zhuk radar for testing purposes, perhaps one of the two original F-8IIMs that may have been repainted.

The picture is definitely a find if the pic is genuine. I’m leaning in that direction that it is not a ps.

With the lettering on the side, this was probably a few years ago, before the the PLAAF changed their letterings into those five digit numbers in orange at the tail. I’m not sure what to think of it, the cowlings and the nozzle seem different from the standard ones seen; this could mean an Su-27UBK (Russian made) is converted into a testbed, which you might like to do if you plan on fitting the WS-10A engines backward into planes that were already using the AL-31F.