The source proves that OTHER improved variants besides the A-5C can mount AAM’s. And we’ve gone over this, Q-5IA is not considered an improved variant, it is the base for multiple improved variants like the Q-5L. I further outlined that it is common place within the entirety of the Q-5 program that even though the base may be different for one variant, it isn’t uncommon to receive the same upgrades from an older variant as part of an improvement. If you actually read the document which details the many other types of Q-5’s and their development, you would’ve noticed this. But yet in the text they mention how the Q-5L outer (wingtip) and inner light pylons can mount rocket pods. This was a change, yet it wasn’t mentioned despite being new for this variant. The only reason it was mentioned at all in the text was because they were describing how 2 laser guided bombs was a limited ordnance and that these other pylons can be used to enhance it’s ground strike abilities. This ability was taken directly from past Q-5 programs and used on the Q-5L. Furthermore the A-5C program already established the wingtip pylons are wired for Pl-5 compatibility.
But since you are appear to be a US main, lets flip the script. There is no photos of USAF F-5C’s with flares. Know why that is? The countermeasure pod wasn’t developed until AFTER plane was withdrawn from services. Here’s a forum post discussing this inconsistency: F-5C Flares need to be removed. It is FICTIONAL - #12 by MiG_23M In THEORY it could mount them with a conversion, therefore it was deemed it could get them in game.
I have provided a stronger reasoning on why the Q-5L can carry AAM’s than the US F-5C getting flare pods that didn’t exist throughout it’s entire service. If the AAM’s get denied, then I’m afraid the US F-5C, F-5A, etc are gonna need there flare pods to be removed.
Your guess is just based on what you think the improved options for the Q5III were also added to the Q5II. However, the information you sent only indicates that the Q5III received this modification, and does not indicate that the Q5II received the same upgrade. It was also not possible to find any photographs of PLAAF Q5s carrying AAM.
Similarly, I think it is acceptable for F5C to remove CMD.
My “guess” or logic is that 1) other variants deemed as ‘improved’ can carry AAM’s 2) the Q-5L directly takes the wingtip pylons from other improved variants despite the IA base not having them nor was it part of the L program development 3) these wing tip pylons have the same capabilities as the ones used for the A-5C
But outside of of getting the PLAAF to make a statement on this or Nanchang providing information (neither will happen) this is the best information available that we have to work with. Gaijin has made it a point where they will add capabilities to aircraft that theoretically can equip them, that is what I am making this case for with the AAM’s.
You disagreeing with Gaijins take on adding theoretical capabilities is entirely valid but that is an issue you would have to petition for them to reverse.
I’m just trying to help the community have the best chance of being successful with the report. I can’t speak to decisions made on other aircraft as I don’t make them haha.
Image found captioned as with an anti-ship missile
Anybody have any further information on these images I dug up? The first one is very interesting, looks like a Pl-2 and with the original variant prototype. That would support some peoples claims that all Q-5’s, even before the Q-5III (A-5C) development.
First of all the people over in the Tornado thread showed with evidence that the Tornado is capable of carring GBUs there and it wasnt applied by using “logic”, second the PSO doesnt have its addon armor because they denied it, but it should have, and the people in the PSO thread also proved that, and again not by using “logic”. And they, in both cases, had more evidence then here in the case of the Q-5L.
The others I do agree with tho.
I hope you guys who reported my post for being “off-topic” report the post I was replying to aswell, or youre all abusing the reporting system, just classic.
The top image was the original wooden mockup for the very first Q-5 design called Xiong Ying 302, built by personnel from both Shenyang and Nanchang. It wasn’t an actual aircraft so that can’t serve as a proof of all Q-5s can fire AAMs.
The bottom image was supposed to be a prototype AGM and NOT a YJ-8X series AShM as much as the Chinese internet sources loves to claim. The 1970s Q-5Yi was supposed to carry the predecessor of the YJ-8X/C801 series called the YJ-8K, but was cancelled when JH-7 was commissioned as the future AShM carrier [1]. The aircraft in picture is clearly not a Q-5Yi as the sole prototype was scrapped ages ago and featured a slanted nose with a radar. The missile also looks too small to be a YJ-8X series missile.
Here’s the same plane from another angle:
According to the description from the Chinese Aircraft Encyclopedia, this was the Q-5E prototype that carries two unnamed laser guided bombs, first flown in 1999. The Q-5F laser guidance aircraft with the targeting pod first flew in 2000. The idea was to employ buddy lasing with one or more Q-5F carrying drop tanks guiding LGBs dropped from multiple Q-5Es also carrying drop tanks, as equipping both the bombs and a targeting pod would mean a significant reduction in combat radius. The bombs were said to be shelved when development wrapped up in 2004 [2]. It was replaced by the Q-5L which first flew later in the same year and carried both the pod and LGBs.
However, the other book claims that this was a Q-5F laser guidance aircraft, carrying two unnamed AGMs in place of the extra fuel tanks [3], and that the Q-5E was actually carrying the LT-2/LS-500J that was later used on the Q-5L/N variants, not some prototype LGB.
This book also claimed that the Q-5E was painted in a tricolor camouflage while the Q-5F was unpainted and remained in primer yellow on page 133, further backing up its claim.
Indeed, we can find an actual image of the Q-5E with the LT-2/LS-500J here:
So I’m inclined to think that it was indeed some sort of prototype AGMs. The warhead also resembles a transparent seeker window.
[1] Chinese Aircraft Encyclopedia, Page 145
[2] Chinese Aircraft Encyclopedia, Page 157-158
[3] 东风乍起-中国强-5强击机传纪, Page 79
Bonus: Here’s a Q-5 (probably a Q-5L judging from the white livery) carrying a 250kg FT-6 gliding guided bomb with a claimed max range of 80km. Obviously it was an inert for accuracy testing and it was 4.5m off the target.
If the claim below from 东风乍起-中国强-5强击机传纪 is correct, then all 3 sets of wing pylons can carry these lightweight guided ordinances:
机翼内侧和外侧的轻载挂架也能够挂载这些重量较轻的小型空地导弹，这样就大大增加了强五L飞机的武器挂载方案，作战能力和使用灵活性更佳。
The inboard and outboard (lightweight) pylons are now capable of carrying these smaller AGMs, significantly increasing the Q-5L’s suspended armament, improving its combat capabilities and mission versatility.
Here are some photos for the FT-series guided bombs:
I believe that there is a 强5乙 version designed with a down leaning front to increase visibility to the sea surface. Is it probable for that variant to carry the ASM? I am just speculating. Also, I believe the 强五甲 is able to carry hydrogen bombs, is it true?
It have better engine compared to Jaguar, and comparable cas weapon, 2 LGB. Give it flares would be fine, and AAMs better, but still no proof of it having aams.
I am just curious about the translation, I suppose 甲 means Q5I, but is it not weird how it can carry a 5 ton nuke, but only 4 250kg bombs otherwise, that’s 1 tonne of payload, there is no way they increased its payload by 4 tonnes right?
The Q5L is going to 10.7, but where is the SU25, still 10.0 whilst A10 is 10.7 as well. If this is not biased, then what is? The Su25 enjoys much better payload than Q5L, and also has flares, why is it 0.7lower BR? The supersonic ability is not worth all of its downsides and 0.7 BR.
