The Q-5, J-7, J-8 and older PLAAF aircraft

A

ACuriousPLAFan

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
MeiouHades said:
But the GJ-11 isn't kamikaze is it? I was just thinking because China has thousands of these old air frames, this might've been a good use for them since they're way faster than your typical kamikaze drones, but of course if the cost of conversion is too high then it's likely not worth the trouble.
Click to expand...

??? Since when is GJ-11 a kamikaze drone?

The GJ-11 (or to be more specific, the carrier-based variant, i.e. GJ-21) is literally a slightly smaller counterpart to the XQ-47B (had the latter not been canned by the US Navy in the 2010s). At the same time, the GJ-11 is land-based.

In fact, the GJ-11 is quite close to being on par with the high-tier UADFs (i.e. Type A, B, and F) in terms of size, complexity, importance, and price tag.
 
Squadson

Squadson

Junior Member
Registered Member
The question is whether China actually has anything comparable to what the J-6W can do. We have seen that China has learned and adapted many battlefield tactics from recent conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine war and the Iran war. However, one key lesson they seem not to have fully adopted is the development of a mass-produced loitering munition platform similar to the Shahed series, or even a more advanced variant. I’m not sure what the underlying issue is, but in my view, focusing on a single, scalable platform for mass production is more effective than simultaneously testing multiple systems.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
J-6 airframes are super old by now. Even though they only need to fly one way trips, one still need to make sure they don’t crash/explode on the runways during takeoff, or drop out of the sky on their way and bombed mainland cities.

They have most likely reached the point where the cost of their maintenances is not worth what the replacements can do.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Squadson said:
The question is whether China actually has anything comparable to what the J-6W can do. We have seen that China has learned and adapted many battlefield tactics from recent conflicts such as the Russia–Ukraine war and the Iran war. However, one key lesson they seem not to have fully adopted is the development of a mass-produced loitering munition platform similar to the Shahed series, or even a more advanced variant. I’m not sure what the underlying issue is, but in my view, focusing on a single, scalable platform for mass production is more effective than simultaneously testing multiple systems.
Click to expand...

How would we know if they've adopted any type of munition en masse????

On what earth do we get to have that sort of pricilege?


The only reason we get a partial glimpse of things like aircraft (and yes J-6Ws are included in that category as they are still full sized tactical aircraft) and extrapolate numbers partly, is because they aren't able to hide all of them.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
vincent said:
J-6 airframes are super old by now. Even though they only need to fly one way trips, one still need to make sure they don’t crash/explode on the runways during takeoff, or drop out of the sky on their way and bombed mainland cities.

They have most likely reached the point where the cost of their maintenances is not worth what the replacements can do.
Click to expand...
They mostly serve as a distraction to exhaust Taiwanese air defense. If they can hit target then all the power to the J-6. But if they don’t hit anything or got shot down then they still achieved the primary objective.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
They mostly serve as a distraction to exhaust Taiwanese air defense. If they can hit target then all the power to the J-6. But if they don’t hit anything or got shot down then they still achieved the primary objective.
Click to expand...

You are thinking too optimistically imo

The problem with these aircraft is their age and need for maintenance to ensure they are flight worthy.

They are still aircraft after all, and one should not assume that they will even be in a position to exhaust ROC air defenses or "not hit anything".

Instead, they should first ensure that they do not crash on the runway during takeoff, or fall out of the sky over mainland airspace. These are all realistic risks for aged airframes if they aren't maintained adequately.


This is why the maintenance need probably makes the J-6Ws less viable with time -- the aircraft are getting older, less viable, and still need an air base and maintenance to remain viable. The overall air base and maintenance footprint for glorified one way decoys is juice which is probably not worth the squeeze.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
Blitzo said:
You are thinking too optimistically imo

The problem with these aircraft is their age and need for maintenance to ensure they are flight worthy.

They are still aircraft after all, and one should not assume that they will even be in a position to exhaust ROC air defenses or "not hit anything".

Instead, they should first ensure that they do not crash on the runway during takeoff, or fall out of the sky over mainland airspace. These are all realistic risks for aged airframes if they aren't maintained adequately.


This is why the maintenance need probably makes the J-6Ws less viable with time -- the aircraft are getting older, less viable, and still need an air base and maintenance to remain viable. The overall air base and maintenance footprint for glorified one way decoys is juice which is probably not worth the squeeze.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that they can reliably perform the task now. I’m just outlining the original philosophy behind the implementation, which started shortly after the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis. Obviously it is not up to the task now, which is why they are nearing retirement.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
siegecrossbow said:
I’m not saying that they can reliably perform the task now. I’m just outlining the original philosophy behind the implementation, which started shortly after the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis. Obviously it is not up to the task now, which is why they are nearing retirement.
Click to expand...

Uh, okay.
But your last reply was to Vincent's post and his post was talking about their viability now...

... Not their viability in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top