Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread

[Blitzo]

One thing I have been thinking about this whole Loyal Wingman/CCA concept is, even though it sounds great on paper ( use unmanned, attritable drones to air battles), it might not be that useful in practice due to range limitations.

PLA operates very large fighters like flankers and J-20 with long range. This enables PLA to fight an air dominance battle in the first island chain and even over Japan. It allows PLA air force to attack First island Chain US allies and US bases with its fighters, gain air dominance and perform bombing runs.

However, these CCA drones are by design smaller and thus have limited range. They probably don't have range parity with China's larger fighters. Which means, either China's large fighters will not be able to use their full range if they want to fight aerial battle with CCA's in tow. Essentially limited to ranges where the CCAs can fight and get back to base.

Or These CCA's are on a one way mission and thus cannot get back to friendly air bases due to lack of fuel. But I don't think sending CCAs on a one way mission is cost effective. Even if these CCAs are cheaper than manned fighters, they will be very expensive.

Also, Carriers cannot be the launch pad for Air force CCAs. So, that is not a solution to the CCA range problem. Moreover, Carriers are also vulnerable if they get too close to the enemy shores. So, CCAs are still range limited even if launched from carriers.


So, I think there needs to be good solution for the CCA range problem before they can become useful in air warfare.

I can think of two ways that can happen. One is, you have some kind of transport air craft that can carry these cca planes to the distant battlefield and then launch them into battle with the manned fighters. But again, maybe you can launch them, but how can you get them back to base? It becomes a one way mission again.

Another option is produce very large CCAs with enough range to keep up with J-20s, J-36s. But that will make them even more costly, thus less mass producable and probably less attritable in a real battle.

Yes, overall I think this limits CCAs in a distant attack roles and kind of relegates them to a more limited home defense role. I don't think PLA wants to use its air power for home defense anymore. It is thinking more about how to use air power offensively to gain dominance over the enemy. So, these current small CCA planes are less useful in such missions.

The nature of CCAs being unmanned (no cockpit), and having less structural demands on it than a manned fighter of equivalent size, means that typically a CCA has disproportionately greater range/combat radius.


Part of the whole reason why CCAs are attractive, is that they allow a smaller CCA to have the combat radius/range of a larger manned fighter.

So range/combat radius shouldn't be a major concern. Even small/medium size CCAs are likely to have combat radius that challenges that of a heavyweight manned fighter.

 

[siegecrossbow]

With mid air refueling I’d argue that CCA has greater practical range/loitering time than manned aircraft.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

The nature of CCAs being unmanned (no cockpit), and having less structural demands on it than a manned fighter of equivalent size, means that typically a CCA has disproportionately greater range/combat radius.


Part of the whole reason why CCAs are attractive, is that they allow a smaller CCA to have the combat radius/range of a larger manned fighter.

So range/combat radius shouldn't be a major concern. Even small/medium size CCAs are likely to have combat radius that challenges that of a heavyweight manned fighter.

How much weight does the human pilot and cockpit add to the overall weight of a fighter jet? Even if a CCA doesn't have a cockpit, it might need more space to carry more robust communication equipment to be able to be remote controlled or bigger computing element which will add to its weight.

Overall weight gain might be much less.

Also about structural integrity. I thought CCAs can do more Gs since they don't carry a human. A plane that can handle more Gs has to be more robust. Thus, structural weight could be actually higher.

Overall, I don't think CCA have that much greater range than manned fighters unless they have much higher bypass engine, and thus more efficient that way. But that will mean they probably can't do supersonic dashes during aerial battle.

 

[Tomboy]

There is literally an extremely simple solution, and it's called aerial refueling. MQ-28 was hinted to have the ability to refuel, also these subsonic CCAs are very fuel efficient as they mostly use civilian medium to high bypass engines.

 

[Blitzo]

How much weight does the human pilot and cockpit add to the overall weight of a fighter jet? Even if a CCA doesn't have a cockpit, it might need more space to carry more robust communication equipment to be able to be remote controlled or bigger computing element which will add to its weight.

Overall weight gain might be much less.

Also about structural integrity. I thought CCAs can do more Gs since they don't carry a human. A plane that can handle more Gs has to be more robust. Thus, structural weight could be actually higher.

Overall, I don't think CCA have that much greater range than manned fighters unless they have much higher bypass engine, and thus more efficient that way. But that will mean they probably can't do supersonic dashes during aerial battle.

Let's put it this way, the XQ-58A (9m long) has a range of 3000miles, which is 4800km, which if you halve it and then minus some distance for on station time, you get a combat radius of probably 1800-2000km. Of course, XQ-58A saves some space by not having internal landing gear.

The MQ-28 (12m long) which has internal landing gear and is a bit bigger, has a range of 2000nmi which is 3700km, which again if you halve it and minus some distance for on station time, you get a combat radius of probably some 1500km.

If we look at the combat radii of aircraft like F-22 or F-35, they are actually a fair bit less than these small/medium sized CCAs.

Considering the PLA's CCAs and larger UADFs, I would be very surprised if they did not have combat radii ranging from 1500km to well over 2000km or even reaching 3000km (depending on the specific design one has in mind).


So no, I don't think range/combat radius is too big of a concern, because it is a design feature that UAVs/CCAs tend to have impressive range/combat radii for their given sizes.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Let's put it this way, the XQ-58A (9m long) has a range of 3000miles, which is 4800km, which if you halve it and then minus some distance for on station time, you get a combat radius of probably 1800-2000km. Of course, XQ-58A saves some space by not having internal landing gear.

The MQ-28 (12m long) which has internal landing gear and is a bit bigger, has a range of 2000nmi which is 3700km, which again if you halve it and minus some distance for on station time, you get a combat radius of probably some 1500km.

If we look at the combat radii of aircraft like F-22 or F-35, they are actually a fair bit less than these small/medium sized CCAs.

Considering the PLA's CCAs and larger UADFs, I would be very surprised if they did not have combat radii ranging from 1500km to well over 2000km or even reaching 3000km (depending on the specific design one has in mind).


So no, I don't think range/combat radius is too big of a concern, because it is a design feature that UAVs/CCAs tend to have impressive range/combat radii for their given sizes.

Getting rid of the landing gear seems like a good innovation to save on space and weight, so I guess that is one way of having more range.

But one thing to point out is that both planes are subsonic and thus pretty much completely sitting ducks in any kind of air battle. Yes, you can probably forward deploy them as spotters, but they will be quickly shot down by missiles and probably can't out run missiles with their low speed.

These subsonic CCAs have good range due to use of high bypass engines. But then they are no longer proper fighters. A proper fighter must have supersonic dash capability to perform high g manuevers to be able to dodge missiles, dog fighting and so on.

Its like using P-58 mustang from WW2 in a modern setting. Not that useful as an actual fighter rather than a sacrificial juicy target that will likely be destroyed for sure upon contact.

 

[valencia aurelia]

Got this from discord they said it's from 2022
View attachment 160699

PS'd J-20

 

[Blitzo]

Getting rid of the landing gear seems like a good innovation to save on space and weight, so I guess that is one way of having more range.

Well that's only the case for XQ-58 because it's a smaller aircraft.
I'm not saying that is desirable or standard for all CCAs.

But one thing to point out is that both planes are subsonic and thus pretty much completely sitting ducks in any kind of air battle. Yes, you can probably forward deploy them as spotters, but they will be quickly shot down by missiles and probably can't out run missiles with their low speed.

These subsonic CCAs have good range due to use of high bypass engines. But then they are no longer proper fighters. A proper fighter must have supersonic dash capability to perform high g manuevers to be able to dodge missiles, dog fighting and so on.

Its like using P-58 mustang from WW2 in a modern setting. Not that useful as an actual fighter rather than a sacrificial juicy target that will likely be destroyed for sure upon contact.

Considering the role of CCAs and UCAVs in an air to air role is likely to act as forward emplaced, low signature sensor/weapons platforms to operate in a massed, network centric manner, rather than replacement fighter aircraft (in the near term), that is perfectly fine.

 

[Deino]

Got this from discord they said it's from 2022
View attachment 160699

You really should better check what you post ... this is well known since some time and was posted by @地产画匠 who is famous for creating and posting several CG/PS images. Here's the original one:

 

[siegecrossbow]

How much weight does the human pilot and cockpit add to the overall weight of a fighter jet? Even if a CCA doesn't have a cockpit, it might need more space to carry more robust communication equipment to be able to be remote controlled or bigger computing element which will add to its weight.

Overall weight gain might be much less.

Also about structural integrity. I thought CCAs can do more Gs since they don't carry a human. A plane that can handle more Gs has to be more robust. Thus, structural weight could be actually higher.

Overall, I don't think CCA have that much greater range than manned fighters unless they have much higher bypass engine, and thus more efficient that way. But that will mean they probably can't do supersonic dashes during aerial battle.

It is not just weight if pilot and cockpit. It also includes display, I/O, life support, ejection seat, and other miscellaneous items that contribute greatly to the weight of the aircraft. The cockpit itself also adds a lot of aerodynamic drag.