PLA Air Force General News Thread:

Chinese aviation can take part in strikes against terrorists in the Syrian province of Idlib

..if China takes part, it could be air strikes against Uighur terrorists in the north-west of Syria. If the decision is made, Chinese aircraft can be based at the air bases of Khmeimim or Abu-duhur. The Chinese military are primarily interested in headquarters, field commanders and concentrations of rebel fighters. group "Islamic Party of Turkestan" (banned in Russia).
China is interested in eliminating the Uighur terrorists that make up the backbone of the Islamic Party of Turkestan, so that they do not bring the combat experience of the Syrian war to Xinjiang (where they come from). Chinese politicians and intelligence agencies have shown interest in this since 2015, but so far limited to sending advisers - experts on Uyghur extremists.
http://warsonline.info/siriia/novosti/siriia/china-syr030818-2.html

And why not jump on that bandwagon? They may even send some
J-15 naval pilots there, but on the SU-30s.

China 'likely' training pilots to target US, Pentagon report says
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/china-military-mission-targeting-us/index.html

I don't think they'll target CONUS with them, rather US bases in Indo-Pacific & regional adversaries. Let's hope it won't go past the current
US-PRC trade war.

What else would they be training to do?

"The United States of America is training to destroy China and Russia... here are the war plan and preparations" News at 11.

The official US reports can be counted upon to be biased to fit the policy; the media just parrots & dramatizes them. China now is preparing to defend her newly acquired "co-prosperity sphere" that will be bigger than the original Japanese of 1930–1945 vintage: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-pentagon/china-complains-about-pentagon-report-says-it-is-pure-guesswork-idUSKBN1L300S

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere

Does the Chinese still operate Nanchang Q-5? I have been reading articles saying and some saying no.

Also people's views on the aircraft? And what's the replacement? I would have thought a similar aircraft with similar or slower speed buy with longer range and possibly armoured cockpit something similar to su-25 would have been good.

I doubt they still fly them in large #s:

The PLAAF flew them into 2017 before retirement, and perhaps even a few now are operational. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-would-have-launched-nuclear-war-against-russia-or-26079

Those who still operate them may get the retired 1s for parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanchang_Q-5#Operators

Military Museum of the Chinese Revolution (PHOTOS)

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3404154.html

Would be interesting to find out what their impressions of the aircraft and its performance is... it is pretty much basically a MiG-19 but adapted for the ground attack role with more hard points and a radar.

The Soviets found early on that the faster planes were less and less effective in the CAS role, yet short and medium range strike aircraft were still designed to be fast.

The MiG-15 was found to be better at ground attack than the MiG-17 and MiG-19 and MiG-21.

Based on this they developed the Su-25, which was very successful, but continued with the Su-7/17/22 and MiG-27 families of faster light strike aircraft, but their targets were different and generally further from the front line.

Then of course there was the medium strike Su-24 and now Su-34, and heavy strike... originally Tu-16 and then Tu-22m.

Now with the chance in policy the Tu-160 and Tu-95 are technically heavy strike as well.

I think there will remain a need for an armoured straight winged aircraft with bombs and rockets and guns to deal with targets near friendly troops on the battlefield... the question really is... will it be manned...

Alright, this is funny

https://vpk.name/news/234678_odolzhili_kitai_sozdal_oruzhie_protiv_f22_i_f35_rossii_otvetit_nechem.html

So the Chinese claim they surpassed Russia in terms of Radar capabilities, and their proof of it was a 600t/r module front and side view radars to be used on JF-17.

Here is the kicker in all of this.

https://defense-update.com/20181106_lfk601e.html

So this radar, which China is hailing as advanced, more so than Russia's, has a 170km tracking range of fighter sized targets. This is the ranges Russia got with its MiG-35D tested in India back in 2007, with same amount of modules. So this gives full indication that they are using GaAS modules of roughly 5W each for such radar.

Zhuk-A of earlier use was about as advanced as this over glorified by Chinese media, radar. They showed a radar stating it has 450km detection range and more advanced than Russia's. Yet Nebo-M, in production much longer, has longer range (600km).

The Chinese are terrible in ther news. they do not even try with their lies.

miketheterrible wrote:Alright, this is funny

https://vpk.name/news/234678_odolzhili_kitai_sozdal_oruzhie_protiv_f22_i_f35_rossii_otvetit_nechem.html

So the Chinese claim they surpassed Russia in terms of Radar capabilities, and their proof of it was a 600t/r module front and side view radars to be used on JF-17.

Here is the kicker in all of this.

https://defense-update.com/20181106_lfk601e.html

So this radar, which China is hailing as advanced, more so than Russia's, has a 170km tracking range of fighter sized targets.  This is the ranges Russia got with its MiG-35D tested in India back in 2007, with same amount of modules.  So this gives full indication that they are using GaAS modules of roughly 5W each for such radar.

Zhuk-A of earlier use was about as advanced as this over glorified by Chinese media, radar.  They showed a radar stating it has 450km detection range and more advanced than Russia's. Yet Nebo-M, in production much longer, has longer range (600km).

The Chinese are terrible in ther news.  they do not even try with their lies.

Most of the radars they showed in Zuhai air show are soviet copies. Not even russian but really soviet analogues.

Apparently Zhuk-A was shown as well. But of course I don't find much info on it.

To be fair, they rarely make exact copies, and sometimes their improvements do make the copies better in some respects... but their main problem is that over the same time period the Soviets/Russians have moved on with even newer technology and have often made their own upgrades so the improvements are lost in terms of them being not the best to begin with.

It would be like getting your hands on a CD and improving the material it is made from so it is more resistant to scratches... but producing it at a time when others are using flash memory devices with no moving parts and ever increasing capacity.

BTW anybody developing anything is not going to admit it is worse than what is being copied.

The Israeli copy of the Grad rockets could be described as inferior to the original because they modified the design and it has a slightly shorter range.

The Israelis adapted the design by making the warhead heavier and more effective with the result that the range is shorter, so those people fixated with range would say it is inferior... those on the receiving end would likely disagree of course because the purpose of artillery rockets is to kill and do damage, not reach as far as possible.

The Israelis adapted the design by making the warhead heavier and more effective with the result that the range is shorter, so those people fixated with range would say it is inferior... those on the receiving end would likely disagree of course because the purpose of artillery rockets is to kill and do damage, not reach as far as possible.

Before, more range meant less accuracy. Today it is not the case anymore. Most big armies have new howitzers wither more than 40km range and goes up to 70km for last versions and they are much more precise than any grad. With Krasnopol type round they can even hit moving targets so reducing range is not smart.

More range means also you can deal with more targets. And high value targets are always further behind enemy lines. Command post, refueling bases, munition depots on the ground and AWACS, tankers in the air.

PLA to use Y-20 airlifter for aerial refueling
The J-20, China's most advanced stealth fighter jet, is able to receive aerial refueling, China Central Television (CCTV) reported earlier this month. Several other aircraft in the Chinese air force such as the J-11 and the Su-35 are capable of in-flight refueling.
China needs aerial refueling capability to extend the range of its fighter fleet as it is engaged in a maritime dispute with Japan, South Korea and the United States over control of the South China Sea.
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23742/China_Finds_Il_78s_Expensive__Developing_Aerial_Refueling_Version_of_Y_20_Airlifter#.W_7JYktKiyI

Su-35 fighters in PLA Air Force











https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3443224.html

Before, more range meant less accuracy. Today it is not the case anymore. Most big armies have new howitzers wither more than 40km range and goes up to 70km for last versions and they are much more precise than any grad. With Krasnopol type round they can even hit moving targets so reducing range is not smart.

More range means also you can deal with more targets. And high value targets are always further behind enemy lines. Command post, refueling bases, munition depots on the ground and AWACS, tankers in the air.

You are missing the point... what if you don't know where the enemy is but you know he has a significant force and it is moving to attack a friendly force.

What if it is an infantry attack on a friendly base and hundreds of enemy fighters are coming in from one side of the base but are not all standing together so you can hit them with one artillery shell?

The purpose of Grad rockets is not to hit this vehicle or that room of a building... it is to rapidly deliver HE and fragments in high concentrations... an enemy force hiding in a forest next to a base... a 152mm gun waiting for target coordinates with its shells... a Grad unit sets 6 aimpoints for its 6 vehicles and then launches a salvo of rockets to cover the forest in fragments and kill or injure as many enemy combatants as possible as quickly as possible... to deliver the same amount of HE the 152mm gun would be firing for days but only the first few rounds would have any effect because when the rest of them arrive the enemy troops will have already found cover so only a direct hit would be effective...

Sometimes some people focus too much on accuracy... when duck shooting you need a scatter gun because that suits the target... no level of accurate rifle would be as good.

Solemn meeting of the last batch of PLA Su-35 fighters arrived from Russia

As bmpd colleagues previously reported, China ordered 24 Su-35 fighters under a contract with Rosoboronexport JSC, concluded in November 2015. The first four Su-35 fighters under this contract were built at the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Plant named after Yu.A. Gagarin PJSC "Company" Sukhoi "in 2016 and distilled in the PRC on December 25, 2016, the next five Su-35s were distilled in the PRC on July 3, 2017, five more were distilled in the PRC on November 30, 2017, and another five - in June 2018. The last party was surpassed in the People's Republic of China in November 2018. In the PLA Air Force, Su-35 fighters entered service with the 6th Aviation Brigade (formerly the 6th Aviation Regiment of the 2nd Aviation Division) at the Suiji Airfield near Zhanjiang (Guangdong Province ), equipped with Russian Su-27SK fighters.





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3461178.html

China has already built at least 20 heavy military transport aircraft Xian Y-20

Judging by satellite images of the Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation in Xi'an, China, made in October 2018, in addition to the seven combat aircraft of the PLA Air Force military transport aircraft, another 13 aircraft of this type were observed at the flight test station of the airline.







https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3523725.html

I wonder why they are using such outdated engines on the Y-20 when we have better offerings.

Vladimir79 wrote:I wonder why they are using such outdated engines on the Y-20 when we have better offerings.  

I give China credit, they will use their own even if there is some inefficiencies rather than giving money to somebody else. Something Russia should have learned with the Il-96....

miketheterrible wrote:

I give China credit, they will use their own even if there is some inefficiencies rather than giving money to somebody else.  Something Russia should have learned with the Il-96....

They aren't using their own, they are using D-30s.

Vladimir79 wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

I give China credit, they will use their own even if there is some inefficiencies rather than giving money to somebody else.  Something Russia should have learned with the Il-96....

They aren't using their own, they are using D-30s.  

Touche.

Are they D-30's made locally or no?

I think a lot of people don't appreciate how complicated and high tech modern engines of all types actually are...

Aircraft engines even more so.

Not only are they complex, but require sophisticated manufacturing techniques and some expensive and exotic materials too.

Lots of countries make aircraft... not nearly as many make good engines.

A bit like telescopic sights... only a few countries can make decent quality optics... pretty much anyone can set up a factory to assemble them...

Chinese army doesn't seem to fully trust its industry.

Chinese Su-35 at the Chinese airport





https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3557821.html