or based on what Huitong said.. WZ10 engine problems may have led to Z19 being developed as an alternative/rival.
besides they are WZ10 is CAIC, Z19 is HAIC
I’ve heard that theory to but its sort of hard to buy that given how much larger and heavier the WZ-10 compared to the WZ-19. The WZ-19 is almost certainly an armed reconnaissance helicopter rather than a rival to the WZ-10, it doesn’t even have a chin mounted gun on the WZ-19.
When did NATO ground troops go into Serbia/Kosovo?
Those AMXs would have been flying precision strike or interdiction missiles, just like all other multirole fastjets.
I see your point but the AMX is hardly a fast aircraft, its a subsonic attack aircraft that flies about as fast as an Su-25, and for its missions in the Former Yugoslavia it would be laid down heavily with bombs and munitions but yes, they would be performing more a ‘strike’ role than a ground support role (as you have stated there were no NATO ground forces)
CAS often involves getting your hands a lot ‘dirtier’. For example, if your forward ground advance runs into serious organised opposition, that would be the perfect time for CAS planes to come in.
I am not convinced how effective unarmoured planes would be in such situations where you can expect heavy AA fire from small arms and HMGs, and where your own grunts might be calling in danger close fire missions that may well require the pilots to visually ID targets.
Unarmoured attack aircraft have a long history of operating in direct combat situations, in the Cenepa War in ’95 both Ecuador and Peru had fairly modern air defence capabilities with man Soviet and British MANPADs, several unarmoured A-37 Super Tweets were hit by MANPADs but survived and made their way back to base.
A fast jet CAS plane relies on its speed to zoom in and drop ordinates on a well identified target and be gone before the enemy can properly respond.
An armoured CAS plane like the A10 or Su25 can have the flexibility to stay on station over the combat zone for a while to use their own initiative to engage targets of opportunity your own guys on the ground might not have been able to see coming.
All very true.
The job of a CAS plane can be very similar to an attack helo, and there is no question whether a dedicated armoured attach helo is better or a armed transport?
That depends on whatever is needed at any given time. Hinds are both attack helo and transport which give great flexibility to move troops back and forth while at the same time able to provide support for ground troops or to quickly assault a postion from the helo and quickly have troops disembark. The same idea as the MH-60L.
Well if you are going to base the design on an existing plane there is only so much modification you can do before you are better off starting from scratch.
Also, almost all armoured vehicles are aircraft has a distinctive angular feel to them.
Based on those two factors, looking at the design, its hard to see how they could have incorporated a decent level of armour protection.
The L-15 is already a rather small aircraft, I’m not terribly sure how much armour it could take, it will probably be similar to the Q-5 and have an armoured cockpit and fueltank and thats about it.
Well bare in mind that CAS planes will be facing MANPADs most often, and most MANPADs carry a relatively small warhead and relies of proximity fuses.
Adding armour is not an alternative to having decent countermeasures, so I don’t see why you need to give up one to get the other as you seem to be suggesting.
If we take two planes with the same level of decoys and jamming equipment, but one is armoured and the other isn’t, the same MANPAD missile might get through the jamming and decoys of both. But while a close range proximity hit might bring down the unarmoured plane, an armoured plane might easily be able to shrug off the impacts and not only be able to get home later, but could continue to fight in the meantime.
Even if the hit doesn’t bring down the unarmoured plane, armour plating is still a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to replace than having to patch up dozens or hundreds of holes in your plane.
Armor inherently increases weight which can effect the speed, maneuverability and payload of an aircraft. A different design can compensate for that of course but the insistence that without armour, an aircraft could not survive a MANPAD is not necessarily correct.

To be entirely honest there is a good chance that this is just a big pipe dream and it may never progress past this scale model.
look at me, I can use Photoshop and make the J-20 look the same size with another plane :diablo:
how about J-20 and Gripen or J-20 and L-15 next? πUploaded with ImageShack.us
J-20 and F-22. same size wheels and canopy.
A J-20 and a B-52 π
Call me old fashioned, but I always feel a good CAS plane needs some good armour. I know that’s only a model, but the rounded design does not look like it is well suited to being heavily armoured, especially not if its mainly based off of the L15.
While I can see the sense in having a CAS plane that share a lot of parts with your advanced trainer, I can’t help but feel you risk regretting the penny pinching if the planes actually need to go to war.
The Italian AMXs flew 250 sorties over Serbia and they turned out fine, also we cant really tell how armored or even what engine it will use. All we can tell the nose has been enlarged and slightly canted downwards. For attack aircraft nowadays, we can see from experience in Yugoslavia and Georgia that for jet powered attack aircraft, unlike COIN aircraft, the major concern is SAM missiles, there should be emphasis on electronic countermeasures in that case
the (usually) reliable huitong has updated his site with this small picture
http://cnair.top81.cn/attack/Q-6.jpg
now there’s really nothing more to this new picture other than scale model from…. something but it looks like Hongdu has finalized their Q-6 design based around the L-15 which would probably put it in the same class as the similar sized AMX ground attack aircraft.
Indeed China knows it hasn’t got a chance of winning the Marine 1 contract but that isn’t the point.
Its more about saying to the world:
“Look here we are!”
Its amusing to say the least…as for John Kirkland well its publicity isn’t it!
I agree, we have to look at this from AVIC’s perspective. We will see the Hongdu L-15 having to go through T-X tests and trials against all the best advanced trainers in the world from a country that many believe have the most rigorous and thorough testing process in the world. As long as AVIC can market the results as positive, they can use it to win other bids since they have no REAL change winning this competition.
Seriously, The F-117, and its LO technology, was designed in the 1970s – does the Chinese aerospace industry still have a lot to learn from such a “clunker”?:confused:
The problem with the aerospace news in China is that there is no big names everybody turns to like aviationweek or flightglobal or something. There are places like Kanwa but those in the end get all their information from mini-bloggers, forums and rumours, where everything is based on a perception of whether this guy is just a well connected insider or somebody blowing hot air, reputations take years to build but in the end because of the anonymous nature of the internet would never be considered citable sources here in the west.
From the Chinese internet rumour mill, while Chinese scientist did examine F-117 wreckage they found the RAM coating to be rather primitive to what the Chinese were working on at the time. There are more specifics to this but I’m sure one of the forum’s more active and well connected posters can fill in the rest
K-8 sales to Bolivia
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_625712.html
another batch of ‘militarized’ K-8s, cant wait to see any differences it may have with the standard K-8 and if they’re similar or the same as Venezuela’s K-8Ws
Canada seems to be fine with 80 Hornet airframes which cannot muster near the same number of sorties as the F-35 any version can sustain.
The final order in ’82 was for 98 CF-188s of which 17 have been lost due to accidents/fatigue/etc. over about 28 years. I think aircraft purchases should be thought about in the long term as well as the short as retiring military aircraft in Canada can often be a long, labourious process. If we were to lose 17 F-35s we would be left with less than 50 of course by then the Canadian government would probably be looking for a replacement. We also have to consider from past experience with twin engine aircraft such as the Super-bug have met with instances where they were able to limp back home over water on a single engine after of the other engines showed signs of bad health. This is simply not possible with a single engine aircraft.
In the Canadian experience
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/836658–controversy-dogs-fighter-jet-contract
A Star review of Transport Canada records dating back to 1993 reveals that CF-18 pilots suffered engine failures on 10 flights and engine βproblemsβ on other 11 flights.
These could have been very serious incidents if these were single engine aircraft
I think a point that nobody has really touched on is yet is the numbers. For about $16 billion including maintenance and supplies we are getting 65 aircraft. 65 aircraft to patrol and defend the 2nd largest country in the world at any given time AND to be deployed overseas in any foreign operation Canada is engaged in. For 65, single engine aircraft to do so reliably and safely is RIDICULOUS it seems. The Cold War is very much over but just in terms of stress we can assume the airframes will be experiencing attempting to make up for roles a fleet twice as big once performed (138 CF-188’s were originally ordered) is a very expensive prospect.
The Super-Hornet is an obvious option but the F-15SE Silent Eagle could also be an option. The CF-18s still have a bit more life left in them anyway so its not a life and death decision like countries looking to replace F-5Es, they had a modernization in 2005 after all.
hey,
CAC started out making J-7s and they only stop making modifications last year. J-7E/PG is as about as far as you can squeeze out on the original Mig-21F-13
Guizhou’s found a way to squeeze out a little more from the MiG-21 π
If only they have even heard of the J-9 and could read Song’s papers on canards’ RCS among many other things, those commentators wouldn’t be embarrassing themselves with such biased ignorant comments.:D
I really wish that Song paper would get translated eventually, my kindergarten level simplified Chinese is nowhere near enough to read all that and I hear its very informative
he’s not the star today, no need to report on him. Just the J-20.
also since we’re at it. who is this Semi-Lobster, half lobster half man?
I am as much a lobster man as you are a delicious J-20 made from hotdogs…. so yes. :p
Embraer already has 54 orders for its newest project, the KC-390. The plane did not take off and there are already buyers. The list of countries are:
Brazil (FAB) – 28
Chile – 6
Colombia – 12
Portugal – 6
Czech Republic – 2It is expected that the first flight in 2014 and begin deliveries beginning in 2015.
Isn’t Argentina on board as well?