Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unmanned J-6 fighter jets put on Fujian air base
Focus Taiwan ^ | 2013/01/07 | Stanley Cheung and Lilian Wu

Posted on 01/08/2013 12:12:44 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Unmanned J-6 fighter jets put on Fujian air base

2013/01/07 17:19:30

Hong Kong, Jan. 7 (CNA) A large number of old J-6 fighter jets that have been converted into unmanned attack aircraft are being stationed at Liancheng Air Base in Fujian province, according to the latest issue of Kanwa Defense Review.

China's cited the Canadian online magazine as saying that satellite photos taken on July 31, 2011 showed there were at least 55 of the J-6 aircraft on the base.

The magazine said the air base most likely has more J-6s than any other base in Fujian, showing that the Chinese Air Force attaches great importance to the capabilities of the unmanned fighter.

Reports said the J-6, the Chinese-built version of the Soviet MiG-19 "Farmer" fighter aircraft, was produced by Shengyang Aircraft Corp. and formed the backbone of the Chinese Air Force in the 1960s and the 1970s.

The J-6 fleet was retired in the late 1990s. But because of the J-6s' maneuverability, high thrust-to-weight ratio, and light weight and their suitability for close-distance combat, the planes have since been converted into unmanned attack fighters.

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; china; j6; mig19; taiwan

1 posted on 01/08/2013 12:12:59 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: sukhoi-30mki

I wonder if they don’t actually mean target drones. We don’t even have unmanned fighters in use.

3 posted on 01/08/2013 1:21:41 AM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond

I think these are basically cruise missles.

4 posted on 01/08/2013 1:28:55 AM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
"If they can send out waves of unmanned fighters in numerically superior numbers and overwhelm our carried based fighters, the only solution might be to nuke Beijing."

By the end of a second Obama term, I doubt we will have an operational nuclear capability and if we do, Obama would rather use it on us than any of his fellow thinkers.

5 posted on 01/08/2013 2:34:52 AM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: staytrue

They are decoys, meant to soak up lot of missiles and deplete our magazines.

7 posted on 01/08/2013 3:18:50 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Drones on the cheap?

8 posted on 01/08/2013 3:22:53 AM PST by Does so (Dims don't think ... they PLOT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

Exactly. These are MiG-19s, people, a design that came out in the mid-1950s. Hugely outdated. Little range, since they didn’t want pilots to be able to defect in them. The only reason keeping them running, for anything, works, is because labor is so cheap for the Chinese. For now.

9 posted on 01/08/2013 3:47:26 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Thanks for posting
To US not a significant development but particularly to Taiwan, concernable.

10 posted on 01/08/2013 4:10:42 AM PST by mosesdapoet ("A voice crying in the wilderness make streight for the way of the Lord")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

No “volunteers” stupid enough to fly these old buggies? ;-)

11 posted on 01/08/2013 4:53:20 AM PST by Average Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I think these are basically cruise missles.

Yep. Kamikaze drones.

12 posted on 01/08/2013 5:57:52 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

I fear a showdown is coming with China—in the next six months there could be war. These people are not our friends and they see Obama as unwilling to act against Chinese interests. They might move on Japan, or Vietnam or Malaya. These could be used to trap a US Carrier and sink her—One carrier lost would—they think—have us put up the white flag. The Chinese don’t really know us very well. Ever wonder why they want the US disarmed? To keep the people from storming the White House and pulling Obama out if he tries any treason.

13 posted on 01/08/2013 6:16:33 AM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

I don’t think so, at least in the near term. China knows Obama is pro-anything Communist. Why force him to act, when you can get much through his passivity?

Obama is fearless in the application of ruthless legal and legislative manipulation, but I believe he’s a complete coward when anything real is involved. He won’t fight anything risky or significant (not that I want a war), and the Chinese must know this.

14 posted on 01/08/2013 7:11:35 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Blond
No, not target drones. Basically jury-rigged UCAVs - and I have to say it is a remarkably intelligent idea. Remarkably. Every time I've raised the issue of the extreme vulnerability of US carrier groups in the S.China Sea (and I do not mean vulnerability to the so called 'carrier killer- ballistic missile, which is really not that much of a threat and based on something the Soviets had in the late 70s, but rather to more conventional cruise missile attacks) I always get met with the ubiquitous 'but we have AEGIS capability, with Standard missiles present to make short work of any vampires coming in.'

Well, here is the answer to the AEGIS/Standard combination. Simply have a large number of cheap airframes vectoring in on the ships. Now, the defending position is simple - either a) shoot down the oncoming targets, or b) do nothing. For the first option, it will probably take two missiles fired per target based on past AEGIS engagements (e.g. the shooting of the Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes). That means that each incoming target will soak two missiles. For the second option, doing nothing, there is the danger that the plane will do damage to the ship.

How does this play into Chinese strategy?

Well, the first wave would be comprised of these drones ...which would primarily be meant to soak in any and all available missiles (be they from ships or planes). A secondary objective would be to do actual damage, but the main goal is to act as a missile sieve. Once that is done, the second wave of incoming cruise missiles from bombers (the Chinese are getting more TU-22M bombers, a design that would be obsolete were it not for the fact that it carries supersonic cruise missiles) and aircraft, as well as from D-E submarines. That is the real threat, and in the crazy milieu brought about by the drones and partially depleted missile magazines, there is a great chance the second/third saturation wave will be successful.

Does this mean sunk ships? Not necessarily, although that could happen to an Arleigh Burke. But it will most probably mean some level of mobility kill looking at what happened to the USS Cole, and will most definitely mean a capability kill due to damage to sensors.

These are not target drones. They are a cheap way of ensuring that some of the bite from USN AEGIS capability is muted a tad, and hopefully (to the Chinese) muted sufficiently to ensure a higher success probability against USN assets in the area.

I would say that as it stands right now, the only US tactical assets that can operate with total impunity in the S.China Sea are the Virginia Class SSNs and the Ohio-based cruise-missile carrying SSGNs. Even the F-22 Raptor cannot operate in the area (not because it would be shot down, but because, based on a study by RAND, there would be so many targets that after the Raptor's finished all their missiles, there would be enough Chinese Sukhois left to shoot down the refueling planes, and the Raptors would run out of fuel eventually and crash in the sea).

16 posted on 01/10/2013 1:46:39 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

What about Phalanx systems?

17 posted on 01/10/2013 9:36:33 AM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond
The Phalanx is a nice last ditch defense, and it is quite effective against subsonic anti-ship cruise missiles. Ol' R2D2 is not bad. However, it is absolutely useless against supersonic cruise missiles. In the terminal engagement stage the missiles would be moving at between Mach 2.9 to Mach 3.1, and zigzagging. First of all there is a substantial chance the depleted uranium rounds will not even hit the missile. Secondly, even if it were to hit the debris field from the missile (broken metal parts and fuel) would be moving at sufficient speed to achieve a mission kill. There is a YouTube video on a test by the Indians using their BrahMos missile against a ship, and even though the BrahMos being tested has an inert warhead the kinetic energy from the hit is absolutely devastating on the target ship.

Using the Phalanx against modern supersonic missiles (not to mention the in-development hypersonic ones) would be tantamount to trying to slice raindrops with a knife. This is why the USN and other leading navies are replacing their gun-based Phalanx/Goal-keeper type R2D2 type systems with systems that are missile based (eg the ESSM and the Rolling Airframe Missile). Simply because the efficacy of gun-based systems against modern supersonic cruise missile threats is basically nil.

18 posted on 01/10/2013 10:10:23 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I don’t believe these Mig 21 drones are capable of Mach 2+ speeds.

19 posted on 01/11/2013 10:21:31 AM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond; spetznaz

Pardon me, Mig19 based drones.

20 posted on 01/11/2013 10:26:05 AM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blond

The drones? No, the MiG 19s can’t go that fast. I meant the supersonic cruise missiles that have terminal closing speeds somewhere between sizzling fast and searing quick. All the drones do is soak up missiles. I doubt any ship will let a MiG 19 sized UCAV get close enough to be engaged with a Phalanx or Goalkeeper type gun-system ...something that big that close could be carrying something, could be manned, could have missiles would definitely be shot at from quite some distance, since the risk of doing nothing is too great, hence it’s utility as a strategy for soaking Standard and ESSM missiles. This gives the follow-on waves of Moskits/Yakhonts/Klub/(insert favorite supersonic cruise missile type here) a far greater chance of success than it might have otherwise had. There was a wargame that was done where the person acting as red force was sinking AEGIS ships with speed boats. Got so bad they rebooted the thing and had him stop ‘being clever.’ There are threats out there, and while my money should be on the USN I am at the same time not naive to believe the US will always have the good fortune of always fighting stupid poor enemies. Someday it might fight clever rich enemies, and that is why out of the box thinking is important becAuse you can bet such an enemy will not be riding a camel praying hard to Allah to save him from jdams. Looking at Chinese military spending it is easy to see where it is geared.

21 posted on 01/11/2013 11:06:26 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I was only talking about the drones, the particular threat of which I think is overstated. Don’t believe they would overcome basic anti-air defense, let alone be engaged by AEGIS. More probably use would be against Taiwan, maybe? Hypersonic cruise missiles, whole different story. I appreciate the depth of your knowledge and intelligent posts.

22 posted on 01/11/2013 3:31:47 PM PST by Mr. Blond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

They don’t need to go fast. They need to make abrupt turns to draw off interceptors. It’s easy to shoot down something coming in a straight line. An unmanned jet fighter can out maneuver a missile. It’s the “crow chasing the butterfly” principle.
We could do the same thing with old F-8, A-4 and F-86 airframes.

23 posted on 01/11/2013 3:40:54 PM PST by AppyPappy (You never see a massacre at a gun show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson