China's Additional fighting power (What do you think?)

They might do that, but we have seen the PLAAF use dedicated target drones as well. Plus pictures of cut up J-6s and J-7s to the scrapyard don't seem to suggest that the PLAAF is turning old planes into drones in a large scale.

Twin seater J-5s and J-6s are still retained in the PLAAF as flight trainers.

Couldn't one just use a J-6 drone as a cheap way to make the ROCAF expend some long range SAMs or AAMs? They can't really afford to allow those drones to go flying over Taiwan, even if they're unarmed.

I agree with Crobato when he stated;

Its a deplorable strategy to say the least

Click to expand...

What about the pilots? What a waste of training. Now..drones that may work to some extent until they get countered by any ECM.

I have always favoured this idea. These old 50 - 60 year old buckets can indeed be fitted with armament and could not therefore be ignored. If all they do is soak up ground based or Air launched missiles (usually worth many times more than the Aircraft they are targeting) they will have been well used. Enemy Radar and Missile sites will be revealed, Stealth Aircraft will be forced to break cover and valuable missiles depleted before the real PLAAF arrives.

Send them after Refuelling tankers, AWACS or against SAM and Radar Sites, they should have excellent range (as no one would plan on them coming home).

Couldn't one just use a J-6 drone as a cheap way to make the ROCAF expend some long range SAMs or AAMs? They can't really afford to allow those drones to go flying over Taiwan, even if they're unarmed.

Click to expand...

Enemy radar will be able to identify the type of aircraft, and will reserve less potent assets such as shorter range SAMs or WVR fighter interception to deal with them.

If all they do is soak up ground based or Air launched missiles (usually worth many times more than the Aircraft they are targeting) they will have been well used. Enemy Radar and Missile sites will be revealed, Stealth Aircraft will be forced to break cover and valuable missiles depleted before the real PLAAF arrives.

Click to expand...

Depends on the type of assets being dedicated to intercepting them. The cost of fighter interception at gun-ranges will be minuscule. The only use I can see for such a strategy is a large-scale saturation attack occurring with a full-scale PLAAF strike, where the older unmanned jets can thin out enemy fighter cover, tie up enemy short-to-medium range assets, and tax the enemy information and combat management networks.

IMO such a platform is just a low-cost LACM with reduced capabilities.

According to the site:

Additionally, the PLA Air Force is believed to be exploring the possibility of using the unmanned Ba-5 drone for ground attack role. The aircraft simply serves as a ‘cruise missile’ by flying to the target zone and then plunge into a large area target such as airport or depot.

Click to expand...

SampanViking said:

I have always favoured this idea. These old 50 - 60 year old buckets can indeed be fitted with armament and could not therefore be ignored. If all they do is soak up ground based or Air launched missiles (usually worth many times more than the Aircraft they are targeting) they will have been well used. Enemy Radar and Missile sites will be revealed, Stealth Aircraft will be forced to break cover and valuable missiles depleted before the real PLAAF arrives.

Send them after Refuelling tankers, AWACS or against SAM and Radar Sites, they should have excellent range (as no one would plan on them coming home).

Click to expand...

You can do this with cheap, one time use composite based drones with expendable engines. Heck if you want to draw off SAMs, you can even use old Silkworm or Seersucker antiship missiles. There is plenty of old antiship missiles that can do the trick.

A J-5 or J-6 is relatively expensive to maintain in flying condition. You can save off the maintenance cost, plus the value of the scrap metal, and like I said, one seater J-5s can be sold to warbird collectors. Twin seater J-5s and J-6s should be saved and are, as pilot trainers.

Additionally, the PLA Air Force is believed to be exploring the possibility of using the unmanned Ba-5 drone for ground attack role. The aircraft simply serves as a ‘cruise missile’ by flying to the target zone and then plunge into a large area target such as airport or depot.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point! These platforms at the present serve to provide some kind of low-end LACM capability that the PLA currently lacks and in the future can serve to bolster the effectiveness of actual LACMs by drawing away attention from enemy air defense.

You can do this with cheap, one time use composite based drones with expendable engines. Heck if you want to draw off SAMs, you can even use old Silkworm or Seersucker antiship missiles. There is plenty of old antiship missiles that can do the trick.

Click to expand...

True, but since you already have the airframe for these older aircraft it does not cost much extra to refit it with a rudimentary guidance system. They also have a longer range than the 95km of the Silkworms. You can also reduce maintenance costs by mothballing these platforms until the time for their actual deployment comes around. Although by themselves these systems will make a negligible impact on the battlefield they can serve to boost the effectiveness of other platforms when deployed at the same time.

There has been thousands of J-5s and J-7s produced, I'm not sure if the warbird market can absorb the hundreds that have still not been scrapped.

crobato said:

You can do this with cheap, one time use composite based drones with expendable engines. Heck if you want to draw off SAMs, you can even use old Silkworm or Seersucker antiship missiles. There is plenty of old antiship missiles that can do the trick.

A J-5 or J-6 is relatively expensive to maintain in flying condition. You can save off the maintenance cost, plus the value of the scrap metal, and like I said, one seater J-5s can be sold to warbird collectors. Twin seater J-5s and J-6s should be saved and are, as pilot trainers.

Click to expand...

I am sure that is a valid pointof view and I have no idea of the maintenace/vs production costs of the arguement. Are the two strategies mutually exclusive? I doubt it and the old buckets can still serve a variety of interim purposes while the numbers of newer platforms are built up.

Stick a Silkworm under an old Jet and send them both off together for maximum range and to get as much metal flying through the air as possible in the hot zone.

Take another step and disguise these things to look like more modern systems and perhapse hide a few modern jets or UACVs in the mass of drones, the possibilities are endless and the psychological impact on the other side dramatic.

The question I want to ask is, how rugged is J5/6? How much maintaince is needed to have it into fly-able condition when they've been siting around collecting dust? They no longer need to associate with safety. Although its still more worthwhile that the engines don't fail moments after take off.

This would be a one time use booster, to be used with either surprise or that its absolutely essential that PLAAF NEED this screening. If it cannot perform either function, it would be a big waste of efficency and money. PLAAF can make more money reselling J5/6, put it into musems or decomission them. Then use that money to fund better things.

I think I've seen this question already being raised in the Taiwan military thread. More info should be available there.