A-5M seems no good cas ability, only unguided weapons
1 Like
But at least we can consider it as A-5C’s TT counterpart
1 Like
Add Q-5L some missiles can also do.
1 Like
I think, its the really funky head nose cone.
1 Like
yes that one. Coloring the nose green made it 100x uglier
1 Like
What is it for, I failed to find any official documents on what the modification was for?
1 Like
This was meant to be a torpedo carrier and Anti ship missile carrier Q-5L and its weaponary - #71 by Sonoda_Kotori
1 Like
Finding surface targets
1 Like
Yo. So uhh, we got CMs on this thing now, FINALLY.
The plane is, however, still missing more CM launchers though, at least to my knowledge.
Anyone got anything on that ( and missiles as well)?
2 Likes
Apparently when the mods closed my acknowledged bug report on this ‘for better sources’ they failed to deliver this page to the devs (either that or the devs didn’t bother looking at it), which specifically shows the Type 941 flare pod in a Chinese book dedicated to the Q-5. Now, I’m just a dumb engineer but that surely looks like 32 small caliber flare slots with 2 units? Sarcasm aside, yes it’s missing flares, yes the Q-5A is also effected, total count should be 64. They copy-pasted the flare pods from the A-5C, which are different flare pods entirely that were requested by the customer. If I have time I may write up the report AGAIN this weekend.
13 Likes
Is it historically true that Q5 can not fly upside down or fuel supply will be insufficient?
I think that may have been a problem with early variants, but certainty not late variants
Well all of them in game have the problem, it seems all planes can’t do it, it’s just a matter of time before the engine stalls.
But there are no photographs showing that the PLAAF Q5 is equipped with AAM.
By the logic of basing on photographs alone, the MiG-19 cannot use an afterburner because there is not a single photograph of video frame showing it in use (even though we obviously know it can thanks to real world technical documentation, etc)
3 Likes
Doesn’t Q5L use same outer pylons as A5III since neither had any major modification to them and they kinda remained the same as the original Q5 but I am not sure if they have been upgraded with the avionics since I can’t find anything on that.
3 Likes
Yes. Q-5III (A-5C) is when the outer pylon was initially developed. Later versions modified this into a wet pylon for smaller external fuel tanks (Chinese really didn’t like the poor range of the plane). Q-5L was based off of the Q-5C/D airframes, neither of which had the 3rd wing pylon initially. 3rd pylon was part of the upgrade to L status. Gaijin argues ‘we don’t know if it’s wired for AAM’s’… which is a load of horse since that technology already existed and one of the design goals and concerns of the plane was the concern of being able to defend itself. I mean, where does Gaijin think the technology came from for the 3rd pylon? They certainly didn’t develop it during the L program, as that was focused on modernization and functionality with guided weapons; they took it from past developments, which is common all throughout the Q-5 program.
3 Likes
Why on earth is wiring a issue when the F-5C uses flares which is completely ahistorical? Or the fact that the YaK-41 has a IRST? Why does it have to be all about documents or manuals but for vehicles like the F-5C or YaK-41 which are currently paper vehicles this isn’t an issue?
When it comes to Chinese vehicles they want perfect historical accuracy which they still fail to bring but for other nation vehicles like USA or USSR this isn’t a issue.
I’m sick of vehicles like the ZTZ99A, J-11A and the Q-5L being treated differently from other vehicles and this will most likely continue unfortunately.
5 Likes
I’m sorry the devs are just very harsh on Chinese vehicles through out, whilst it should be less focused on historical stuff but balance.
2 Likes
I think they have a legitimate bias against chinese stuff, I do not know their reasoning why but they always are staunchly defending additions they do not make but only when it specifically comes to the chinese planes (their response to no AAMs for the Q5, no aim 9Ps for the F100-F, no aim 9Ms for the f16, etc.) Never seen such sentiment echoed with stuff already in the game when it comes to soviet or us additions
3 Likes
They are too lazy. The update is bigger and bigger, but what they can provide keeps the same. So more and more C&P, and when comes to certain TT, old come first, Chinese TT is a relatively new one, compared to Italy and Frence, so they give Italy and French sub TT, though badly made. oh, forget Sweden, it’s their golden goose
3 Likes