No you misunderstood, J-6 drones are already retired.
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
J-6/J-7 unmanned variants were originally developed as target drones, with exhibition panels noting that J-6 unmanned target drones first flew as early as 1995.
For instance, the J-10's certification tests involved firing upon J-7 target drones. According to Yankee's previous live broadcast, the PLAAF conducted a large-scale air-to-air missile target shooting test during the period before and after the new syllabus was formulated (2016-2017), and depleted the entire inventory of the basic J-7 variant. The performance of imported and domestically produced air-to-air ammunition was re-measured according to PLA standards,
The so-called J-6/J-7 unmanned versions, conceived as kamikaze munitions over a decade ago when the PLA still lacked affordable long-range strike capabilities, now appear largely unnecessary. Not to mention converting it into a reusable version
Last edited:
J-6, J-7 are better suitable as Manned backup reserve fighters in the bone yard. They already have a cockpit and rated for manned flight. In a full scale attrition warfare, they will be useful as fighters if China's premier fighters are depleted.
Using them as drones after extensive conversion is costly and not the best use of these planes. Better produce newer drones with better fuel efficiency and other characteristics.
“In a full scale attrition warfare, they will be useful as fighters if China's premier fighters are depleted.”
NO
I think you can have a system that will likely have 90% of their mission set within 2IC, but because they do offer the ability to do further than that, then I would consider that as an asset for the additional missions. For most Chinese systems coming into service now, vast majority of their mission and targeting will be within 2IC.
But there is a difference between assets that can only do with 2IC vs ones that can go further
I think that will be replaced by a combination of assets, since they will have numerous platforms like J-36s and CCAs that can do those missions also.
Not really a direct replacement, since J-15/16 do a bunch of those roles, but GJ-11/21 can certainly do some of that.
One thing GJ-21 can do for example is fly off Type 076 from SCS and strike Darwin. That's not really something you can do very well right now with H-6K let alone JH-7A, since stealth factor is so much greater
A country should always have backups. In ww2, 10 of thousands of planes were shotdown. 2000 planes that PLA has right now are a small number. A surprise attack could deplete them, there could be a new technology that the enemy came up with that could make existing planes easier to shoot down. Many worse case scenarios may happen.
Russia is only alive in the Ukraine war because they had backups in terms of their older tanks, artillery and other weapon systems in storage.
Can you finally start THINKING and stop posting constantly such nonsense?? It's not only embarrassing but just annoying!
PLAAF is not the Ukrainian Air Force with some pilots but no aircraft. If things get so bad to the point that they run out of prime fighters, and production capacity can't keep up (unimaginable), then relaunching old, poorly maintained, and nearly useless J-6s and J-7s won't solve any problem.
It's a sheer waste of pilot lives.
I wonder why US and Russia both keep thousands of old fighters in storage then. They still keep ww2 era tanks and other weapons in storage. US brought back the WW2 era Iowa class, modernized them with cruise missiles and then used them in the Gulf war. US always keeps a reserve fleet of really old ships as backups.
Maybe because they DO think about Plan B, Plan C?
Yes, those storage planes and other vehicles are slowly depleted as target drones, while newer retired planes are then put in storage. But there are always a few thousand planes are in storage as backups.
Having no backup plan is the dumb move. Recent attack by Israel on Iran and Ukrainian attack on Russian bombers should have proven that by now. Even the most full-proof security systems could be compromised. Attack could come from completely unforeseen directions. If you don't have any backup and rely on just your active force, you could be severely depleted in a surprise attack.
Anyways, we are moving away from the thread topic, which is Chinese UAVs and UCAVs.
I get where you're coming from and appreciate the input!
A great deal of uncertainty persists, but there's a reasonable amount of consensus on the general contours of the Lockheed program in question. TBF, the situation isn't too different from certain classified Chinese aviation programs prior to the emergence of photos or satellite imagery.
Aviation Week's Steve Trimble — who tends to be a reasonably informed, experienced and sound commentator on such matters — actually chimed in last month on their podcast.
Not trying to get too off topic, but if anyone is curious: the transcript can be found .
TBH, I referenced and Lockheed's near billion dollar quarterly loss from the program in question largely to see if it'll disarm certain audiences here who might get "skeptical" about a reasonable take when it's applied to the "wrong" country.