Indeed, I know I'm annoying with my critical and skeptical nature, but I have to agree with you, or rather "you all" now... but I'm still unsure about the Dorito-like CCA, especially because the exhaust looks very much like a mock-uo only!
But again I agree with all the others now; it strongly suggests real aircraft.
View attachment 160094
My understanding is the current claim is that GJ-21 and the two "high end" CCAs/UADFs are meant to be real airframes.
The two "lower end" CCAs are likely still mockups/not real airframes.
Maybe a static test airframe, they just cut corners on parts unrelated to structural integrity like landing gear, nozzles, and other non-load-bearing components. Official claim that all equipment is in service does not mean that the real equipment must be displayed.
Right now the discussion isn't challenging the idea of whether the various UCAVs/CCAs are in service or not (I think by this point we all accept they are in service).
Rather, the question is about how many of the UCAVs/CCAs are real airframes.
Because it is a rather big surprise for us to discover that the GJ-21 and the two high end CCAs/UADFs are real airframes, so it's now about wondering whether the two lower end CCAs may also be real, or if they're mockups, or something else.
The discussion about how many of the UCAVs/CCAs are real airframes, has no bearing on the general acceptance that they are in some level of PLA service.
