What's new

Chinese Flanker Family: J-11, J-16 ... Su-27SK/UBK, Su-30MKK

. . .
J-16
49eca83dgy1h29bbh616fj20u00k1mxo.jpg
49eca83dgy1h29bbf38z2j20u00k077f.jpg

Via 34号军事室
 
.
J-16
View attachment 844418
Via 34号军事室

Again with these rocket attacks utilizing high value platform. It seems like China is not learning anything from Russian experience in Ukraine by putting these expensive plane at risk of MANPADS. There is no reason to risk advanced strike planes to perform low altitude attacks with standoff munition and armed drones these days.

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the PLAAF was really competent.
 
. . . . . .
Again with these rocket attacks utilizing high value platform. It seems like China is not learning anything from Russian experience in Ukraine by putting these expensive plane at risk of MANPADS. There is no reason to risk advanced strike planes to perform low altitude attacks with standoff munition and armed drones these days.

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the PLAAF was really competent.

Not just MANPADS but any modern AAA-SAM system such as Pantsir S1, 2S6, Mk15 Phalanx CIWS, tactical SAM would pose serious threat to 4th generation & 5th generation fighters under 1.5Nm the effective range of rockets.

In fact yes, any 4th generation fighters or newer still carrying unguided rockets and bombs today is dumbest move ever, either too poor to buy proper guided munitions like Russian forces in Ukraine or seriously lacking the FLIR targeting pod & smart targeting munitions technology. At the other hand, US F-15EX, F-16V, F/A-18E/F don't carry unguided rockets nor unguided bombs nowadays because they just aren't practical anymore.

Probably China laser guided missiles/bombs and FLIR targeting pod were still under development testing when this photo was taken that the J-16 wanted to attack ground targets but there's no air to ground missile available.
 
.
Not just MANPADS but any modern AAA-SAM system such as Pantsir S1, 2S6, Mk15 Phalanx CIWS, tactical SAM would pose serious threat to 4th generation & 5th generation fighters under 1.5Nm the effective range of rockets.

In fact yes, any 4th generation fighters or newer still carrying unguided rockets and bombs today is dumbest move ever, either too poor to buy proper guided munitions like Russian forces in Ukraine or seriously lacking the FLIR targeting pod & smart targeting munitions technology. At the other hand, US F-15EX, F-16V, F/A-18E/F don't carry unguided rockets nor unguided bombs nowadays because they just aren't practical anymore.

Probably China laser guided missiles/bombs and FLIR targeting pod were still under development testing when this photo was taken that the J-16 wanted to attack ground targets but there's no air to ground missile available.
There was this PLAAF insider on cjdby forum a few years back when the place was still open. He commented that it wasn't because they didn't have funding or lack the means to perform standoff strikes. They did these rocket attacks because senior leaders love to see them since they look more spectacular. Rather than equipment or weapons, I'm more worried about the culture of the organization and units operating to please the top brass rather than win a war.
 
Last edited:
. .
There was this PLAAF insider on cjdby forum a few years back when the place was still open. He commented that it wasn't because they didn't have funding or lack the means to perform standoff strikes. They did these rocket attacks because senior leaders love to see them since they look more spectacular. Rather than equipment or weapons, I'm more worried about the culture of the organization and units operating to please the top brass rather than win a war.
If it's for fancy demonstration, that explains reasonably. Cheaper to launch them too than a single air to ground missile. Like the Wu Jing military movie, he hired PLA to fire rockets instead of missiles to keep cost low. Besides, the unguided rockets and bombs are obsolete in war nowadays, better to use them only for training & for fancy demonstration since there's plenty in stock.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom