dark light

crobato

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,341 through 2,355 (of 3,939 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-5E vs Mirage III/V #2623811
    crobato
    Participant

    If looks were cool I would take the Mirage. But if I were to fly the plane, I would take the F-5E. I don’t like birds that require high takeoff and landing speeds.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2625760
    crobato
    Participant

    You mean this is the same J-10 shown that had oil pans underneath?

    in reply to: J-8IIM Finback #2625765
    crobato
    Participant

    An Air Force like Thailand or Vietnam in the other hand have few fourth generation fighters and even Taiwain relatively has few fourth generation fighters, that makes the huge fleet of J-8II still highly effective.

    Not really. Taiwan has roughly 150 F-16s, 60 Mirage 2000-5s and 124 F-CK-1s. PLAAF J-8II fleet probably only number around the low 300s IMO. It looks to me, the J-8IIs only play a support role to the J-11s and J-10s.

    in reply to: J-8IIM Finback #2625769
    crobato
    Participant

    Personally I’d go with the F-8 over the FC-1,and from what I’ve heard of the F-8IIM is it is about the equivalant of the F-4 Phantom II in terms of agility and speed.This probbley isn’t close to being true.

    It probably has average maneuvability, given the MiG-21 style design, relatively high thrust to weight ratio (for a plane of this design generation), high stressed airframe, and relatively low wingloading. Due to low aspect wings, slow speed maneuverability is probably ain’t so good, but the plane gets better as speed goes high. Maneuverability is probably comparable to early F-4s (so-so) but not to the slatted F-4s. Speed is definitely comparable due to its high thrust.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2626407
    crobato
    Participant

    Actually after I made that last post I found a Q-5 picture with six hardpoints that was in PLAAF markings so I guess that takes care of that question.

    Thanks for your help in answering my questions.

    And you’re right about the four outermost hardpoints being plumbed for tanks.

    That leads me to my next question. When you said the bombs were carried on the inner hardpoints did you mean the two that are usually seen with rocket pods or the two mid-wing hardpoints, with the outermost hardpoints (as opposed to the mid-wing hardpoints) carrying tanks.

    I don’t know why, but I find this little jet just very interesting.

    Let me correct that as in some angles the mid points look like outer points.

    The outer point can carry an AA missile, a bomb or a rocket pod.

    The middle point can carry a bomb, rocket pod or fuel tank.

    The inner point can carry a bomb or rocket pod.

    In addition there are four points in the fuselage that can be used to carry a bomb.

    The total payload is about 2000kg, so you can’t load all the points in a way to exceed that weight.

    Here is an excellent artist representation via CGI.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2627125
    crobato
    Participant

    The Q-5 actually has six underwing hardpoints. I got a picture but it is too big to upload in this forum. Suffice to say, the picture has a bomb on the outer pylon, and two rocket pods on the mid and inner pylon. But I found another picture small enough to be uploaded.

    Most picture show only four pylons, as the pylons can be removed. I believe the middle and the outer hardpoint is wet for tanks. It is possible it can carry AAMs but I don’t have a picture of one, although I do recall it is possible with a PL-5 or AIM-9M on the outer most pylon like this one. The picture shows an export plane with the six hardpoints.

    crobato
    Participant

    The search/surveillance radar for the Type 730 may be or all of the three used in conjunction—MA Fregat and Positiv-Mineral ME in the 052B; the Positiv/Mineral ME and the phase arrays used in the 052C and an unidentified radar on the top mast of the 052C.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2627702
    crobato
    Participant

    crob if a Q-5D was to take-off armed with a pair of LJ-500 (is that the correct designation?) LGB’s, would there be room for fuel tanks? What hardpoints can these weapons be carried on?

    Yes, the Q-5 carries its fuel tanks on the outer wing hardpoints. And yes, the wings are that strong. The bombs are carried in the inner wing hardpoints.

    Also, what about the Blue Sky targeting pod? Would it be used on the Q-5 or does the sensors in the nose make that a moot point?

    Kind of moot. The Blue Sky pod appears for the JH-7 so far, with the J-10 a possibility.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2628053
    crobato
    Participant

    The -D with the rangefinder is actually a laser rangefinder and target designator. It is likely used for laser guided bombs. This model competes with the JH-7A which both have laser and TV guided weapons.

    The two seater is most likely meant for another precision guided weapon, the ones using TV guidance. The second officer is the one aiming and guiding the bomb. In that sense it not only competes with the JH-7A but also with the Su-30MKK.

    If the two seater is ever employed for training purposes, the training would be a course in precision TV guided bomb delivery, and the students might later graduate to the JH-7A or Su-30MKK. I wonder if the two seater J-10 might also be employed in the precision strike role.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2628775
    crobato
    Participant

    The conclusion is although the Q-5 is cheap, it’s obsolete, and will be phased out by the FC-1, JH-7, and J-10.

    CAS duties doesn’t need a very high tech aircraft of ultimate performance. What you need cheap, reliable, and robust. This the Q-5 has in spades.

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2628778
    crobato
    Participant

    I think the J-10 with the PL-12/SD-10 missile under the wings is from the FTTC. J-10s in the FTTC has that pattern of camouflage. The ones alleged on the 44th have no patterns on their greys and I believe that all newer J-10s built since then are all blandly painted this way. The missile itself lacks the visual tracking patterns of the SD-10 prototype missile photographed under a J-8II platform.

    in reply to: PLA (All Forces) Missiles #2046377
    crobato
    Participant

    Yes, all abandoned. Without the design approach used in the Moskit, these missiles are limited in range.

    in reply to: PLA (All Forces) Missiles #2046410
    crobato
    Participant

    That project is completely abandoned. Note it has seperate ramjet engines and rocket boosters. Bad design. It was a major mistake in conceptual design as the Moskit and the Kh-31 missiles later showed to the Chinese engineers. The Moskit taught that it was far more space efficient to utilize one chamber as both your rocket booster and your ramjet engine. The chamber is filled with propellant. As the missile shoots off, the propellant burns away, leaving the chamber empty. Once it is empty, the chamber becomes the ramjet combustion chamber.

    Any future Chinese supersonic ramjet missile is much more likely to use the Moskit design principle (also used in the Kh-31 Krypton, a missile licensed for production in China),

    in reply to: FAC 8th and 9th June – Lots of pics! #2633463
    crobato
    Participant

    First class photography. What lens, film and equipment do you use?

    in reply to: China's News, Pics and Speculation Part 7 #2633471
    crobato
    Participant

    This is said to be from a serial TV drama whose protagonist is a pilot in the PLAAF. Does anyone what is the title of it? So maybe I can look for it in a Chinese DVD/VCD/video store that sells and rents mandarin soap dramas. It shows a lot of things too like the Su-27s, J-7s, etc,.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,341 through 2,355 (of 3,939 total)