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

[Blitzo]

As I recall, we've had rumours that H20 was either cancelled or delayed for "re-imagining", I'm speculating that maybe PLAAF decided to go for an unmanned H-20 in the end, and this might be it. I'm not sure at this stage what advantages a crewed H-20 would have to justify the extra costs. Of course I have no special insight so this is just my speculation, but GJ-X does have a volume similar or greater than B-21 it seems.

So probably the manned H-20 will turn up next month...

Yes, we've had rumours that H-20 was revised, but there were no particular indications of it being converted to an unmanned platform.

If anything, one of the noises that was associated with the idea of a change, is the need to carry long JL-1 sized payloads internally.


Imo if H-20 was converted to an unmanned platform we would've had a hint of it through the grapevine because such a change in requirement would not be done trivially.
So I think we can dispense with this notion for now.

(Not to mention that it has been fairly obvious for years now that a large stealthy UCAV for the PLA makes lots of sense, with or without a manned H-20)

 

[ougoah]

GJ-11/21 are almost definitely not medium altitude.
Medium altitude tends to be the domain of propeller UAVs.

GJ-11/21 should be high altitude, long endurance stealthy strike UAVs, but with lower payload and lower range than GJ-X and WZ-X.

Yes you're right in saying GJ-11/21 are higher ranged than your typical MALE WL and CH family UAVs.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've written but I think you've really brought in a bunch of topics into this post beyond the scale of the thread itself.

Talking about large strokes of application of technology and overall military balance is a bit behind the scope of this thread.

Noted. I mainly wanted to point out that there was one platform the PLA was missing, an umanned stealthy strike platform that doubles or triples the range of GJ-11. It looks like PLA also wants/has this.

No reason to suspect that imo, unless there is a lot of noise from the grapevine suggesting it.

Also, wondering what you've written implies that a large stealthy strike UCAV and H-20 may not both simultaneously be pursued.

I think PLA wants to increase the range at which this fight will be from its shores. We see in the air domain. Obviously this happens over air, sea, space and the digital and electromagnetic dimensions, not land (although PLARF is a vital part of PLA's range push). Naturally this means we will have long range unmanned fighters (UADFs), long range unmanned ISR (WZ-7, 8, 9, 10 and CH-7), long range unmanned strike (these two embody such a platform). The lower ranged stuff is important too but the further out coastal based aircraft can operate, the more they can assist the PLAN in the fight which used to be between shore and 1st island chain, moved to between 1st and second island chain and now it seems PLA wants this fight past the 2nd island chain with PLAN operating around the 2nd island chain.

This means it needs to stretch non-carrier borne ISR, strike and fighter aircraft to have at least 2nd island chain combat radius. This means J-36 and the coastal based long range strike UAVs (what we see here).

 

[Blitzo]

Yes you're right in saying GJ-11/21 are higher ranged than your typical MALE WL and CH family UAVs.



Noted. I mainly wanted to point out that there was one platform the PLA was missing, an umanned stealthy strike platform that doubles or triples the range of GJ-11. It looks like PLA also wants/has this.



I think PLA wants to increase the range at which this fight will be from its shores. We see in the air domain. Obviously this happens over air, sea, space and the digital and electromagnetic dimensions, not land (although PLARF is a vital part of PLA's range push). Naturally this means we will have long range unmanned fighters (UADFs), long range unmanned ISR (WZ-7, 8, 9, 10 and CH-7), long range unmanned strike (these two embody such a platform). The lower ranged stuff is important too but the further out coastal based aircraft can operate, the more they can assist the PLAN in the fight which used to be between shore and 1st island chain, moved to between 1st and second island chain and now it seems PLA wants this fight past the 2nd island chain with PLAN operating around the 2nd island chain.

This means it needs to stretch non-carrier borne ISR, strike and fighter aircraft to have at least 2nd island chain combat radius. This means J-36 and the coastal based long range strike UAVs (what we see here).

The gap/need to have unmanned ISR and UCAV capability for 2IC distances has been fairly recognized for a while now.

The PLA Westpac long range fires complex is fairly well established even up to second island chain distances, but what they've lacked is a persistent, fixed wing, real time or near real time recce/BDA capability and the ability to rapidly prosecute pop up targets of opportunity and assist with multidomain re-attack.

A stealthy, persistent 2IC distance fixed wing ISR and strike capability is likely to synergize well with the existing strike and ISR infrastructure they have.

 

[Tomboy]

Yes you're right in saying GJ-11/21 are higher ranged than your typical MALE WL and CH family UAVs.



Noted. I mainly wanted to point out that there was one platform the PLA was missing, an umanned stealthy strike platform that doubles or triples the range of GJ-11. It looks like PLA also wants/has this.



I think PLA wants to increase the range at which this fight will be from its shores. We see in the air domain. Obviously this happens over air, sea, space and the digital and electromagnetic dimensions, not land (although PLARF is a vital part of PLA's range push). Naturally this means we will have long range unmanned fighters (UADFs), long range unmanned ISR (WZ-7, 8, 9, 10 and CH-7), long range unmanned strike (these two embody such a platform). The lower ranged stuff is important too but the further out coastal based aircraft can operate, the more they can assist the PLAN in the fight which used to be between shore and 1st island chain, moved to between 1st and second island chain and now it seems PLA wants this fight past the 2nd island chain with PLAN operating around the 2nd island chain.

This means it needs to stretch non-carrier borne ISR, strike and fighter aircraft to have at least 2nd island chain combat radius. This means J-36 and the coastal based long range strike UAVs (what we see here).

WZ-X is a ISR drone not strike, CH-7 is very likely export only with the amount of publicity it's gotten at airshows.

 

[Blitzo]

I will note, that if this thing is indeed a UCAV as we all suspect, then simply from the pov of dimensions (42m wingspan, up to 24m length), and also likely by weight, this would be the largest combat aircraft that the PRC has designed and developed to date (previously it would have been J-36).

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Which will naturally lead to the question of powerplants.
Previously we had floated the idea of a single non AB WS-10 or two non AB WS-13/21 engines, and while both options may be viable for this aircraft, I wonder if they may even be ambitious enough to put a non AB WS-15 variant on it (though perhaps its bypass ratio would be less favourable for this role).

Considering the large size of this GJ-X, would having one (or even two, referencing on the B-21) WS-18 be viable instead? With a comparably higher BPR than non-AB variants of WS-10/15 whilst only being slightly larger in diameter than the latter, having one or two WS-18s arranged right beside each other along the centerline could be more fuel efficient (and thus, greater payload capacity and/or longer ranges), while having slightly larger thrust.

Made a quick comparison for reference.

View attachment 161000

Nice comparison.

Both GJ-X and WZ-X are sized perfectly for long endurance strike and ISR missions at second island chain distances respectively, with GJ-X of course more oriented for payload and WZ-X more oriented for loitering, but both still would be quite impressive in both domains by virtue of their size and configuration.

A persistent, stealthy long range strike and ISR capability for re-attack, BDA, and persistent surface monitoring, have been gaps in the overall PLA 2IC strike strategy for a while, and it's been obvious that UAVs would be one major prong in filling that gap.
It's almost remarkable how well sized these two platforms are for that role.

Given GJ-X's size I actually wonder if it may be powered by two non AB WS-10s in the same way as we've suspected for WZ-X.

GJ-X is very very large for a strike UCAV, I imagine it is as big as B-21, if not bigger.

From AvWeek, via Wiki, B-21 stats:

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Length: 54 ft (16 m)
Wingspan: 132 ft (40 m)
Empty weight: 70,000 lb (31,751 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 180,000 lb (81,647 kg)
Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney PW9000 non-afterburning turbofans, 27,000 lbf (120 kN) thrust each
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 0.8+
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
Armament

Hardpoints: 1 × main weapons bay with a capacity of 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) weapon load
Missiles: AGM-181 LRSO
Bombs: JDAM family of munitions

So yes, by the looks of it, GJ-X is slightly bigger. Just going by the design I imagine somewhat faster but not quite as stealthy as a B-21.

I did a rough measurement on the B-21's main IWB, which yielded a length of about 6 meters.

(The measurement is not 100% exact of course, but this is perhaps (one of) the closest photos of the B-21's underside view that is taken while being directly underneath it. I would say that the error should be around ±1 meter at most.)

For comparison, the B-2's IWB is no more than ~7.5 meters long.



I think it would be a reasonable guess if the GJ-X would have one (or likelier to be two) IWBs that could be ~7-8 meters long, and no more than ~9 meters long at maximum?

 

[Blitzo]

Considering the large size of this GJ-X, would having one (or even two, referencing on the B-21) WS-18 be viable instead? With a comparably higher BPR than non-AB variants of WS-10/15 whilst only being slightly larger in diameter than the latter, having one or two WS-18s arranged right beside each other along the centerline could be more fuel efficient (and thus, greater payload capacity and/or longer ranges), while having slightly larger thrust.

It's not impossible, but given for a long time we expected a non AB version of WS-10 to power the "flying wing" rendition of H-20, it is just as plausible for such an engine to power WZ-X and GJ-X.

I did a rough measurement on the B-21's main IWB, which yielded a length of about 6 meters.

(The measurement is not 100% exact of course, but this is perhaps (one of) the closest photos of the B-21's underside view that is taken while being directly underneath it. I would say that the error should be around ±1 meter at most).

For comparison, the B-2's IWB is no more than ~7.5 meters long.

View attachment 161004

I think it would be a reasonable guess if the GJ-X would have one (or likelier to be two) IWBs that could be ~7-8 meters long, and no more than ~9 meters long at maximum?

Given the central fuselage length seems to be about 24m, a weapons bay length that is about 1/3 of that length seems reasonable.

 

[Tomboy]

Considering the large size of this GJ-X, would having one (or even two, looking at the B-21) WS-18 be viable instead? With a comparably higher BPR than non-AB variants of WS-10/15 whilst only being slightly larger in diameter than the latter, having one or two WS-18s arranged right beside each other along the centerline could be more fuel efficient (and thus, greater payload capacity and/or longer ranges).

Why not simply just two of H-20's engines for both the GJ-X and WZ-X. Whatever engine H-20 will be using should be far along by now if the rumors of first flight later this year is true. I'm not sure why people are against high bypass ratio engines in flying wings especially when there is evidence that H-20's design will use it. Like this tender below that specifically called for high bypass engine not medium.

 

[Jason_]

Some additional thoughts on the GJ-X:

1. This thing is a big deal. A B-21 sized stealth UCAV for the PLAAF is not on anyone's radar. Unmanned+A2B2 VLO stealth+potentially very long IWB makes the GJ-X the most futuristic aircraft in the world in my opinion.

2. The most similar aircraft to it is the B-21. Aviation week puts the B-21's wingspan at 40m but I have also seen estimates at 45m. This would make the B-21 either slightly smaller, the same or slightly bigger than the GJ-X. The B-21's straight leading edge is the gold standard for stealth but the cranked kite is extremely good as well. Think 24 carat gold vs 20 carat gold.

3. If we assume a MTOW around 80 ton, and the thrust requirement is about 25 to 30% of the MTOW, we are looking at 20-24 tons of thrust. Unlike the B-21 the engines of the GJ-X seems to be on the centerline and thus likely the thickest part of the airframe. That would make WS-18/D-30 or even the 2.2m diameter WS-20 candidates for propulsion. I think no-afterburner WS-10 or WS-15 with no change to bypass ratio are less likely given that specific fuel consumption are critical to the range and operational reach of bombers.
4. Being unmanned saves a lot of space for weapons and fuel. Even assuming less efficient engines, the GJ-X would likely have B-21-class range and payload. This is a true peer and symetrical counter to the B-21. I made this graph a while ago which I think mostly still stands. I would guess the GJ-X fills the Hawaii/Australia bomber role.



5. A major benefit of the cranked kite configuration is longer fuselage and thus potentially longer weapon bays. This is consistent with recent rumors suggesting a PLAAF requirement to integrate long missiles for its strategic bombers. However, I seriously doubt JingLei-1 or other missiles of its length/range-class would be integrated given its long stand-off range is a poor use of VLO bombers.

6. Since GJ-X is unmanned, its more acceptable for it to go on suicide missions. This would make nuclear bombing with several dozens of B-61 style gravity bombs against CONUS a real possibility.

7. How does the GJ-X impact the H-20 program? I think the existence of a unmanned Hawaii/Australia bomber implies that the H-20 will be more optimized for CONUS missions. This might mean an unrefueled combat radius enough to launch stand-off HCM against CONUS targets or penetration of NORAD with only one refueling. Notably, the GJ-X could potentially be used as a stealth tanker which would give the H-20 or other GJ-X global reach. The fact that the PLA is heavily investing in subsonic A2B2 VLO as a penetration strategy should also put an end to any suggestion that the H-20 will be supersonic.

8. As for how the GJ-X will be used, allow me to advertise for my infographic here. The GJ-X fits in the same role as I described for the H-20.

9. For math/statistics nerds: The emergence of the GJ-X is Bayesian evidence that allow us to update the prior distribution of our estimate of China's bomber/large aircraft industrial base by significantly increase the mean and reducing the standard deviation. In other words, we now have higher certainty of very strong capability of the Chinese defense industrial base. I would now be less surprised if China builds e.g. a flying wing C-5 class transporter or a 250 ton MTOW H-20.

 

[Blitzo]

Why not simply just two of H-20's engines for both the GJ-X and WZ-X. Whatever engine H-20 will be using should be far along by now if the rumors of first flight later this year is true. I'm not sure why people are against high bypass ratio engines in flying wings especially when there is evidence that H-20's design will use it. Like this tender below that specifically called for high bypass engine not medium. View attachment 161005

It's not so much that people are against the idea of H-20s engines being used in WZ-X or GJ-X (as in my previous post, I think two such powerplants per type is fairly viable)... But the idea of a high bypass engine for H-20 or WZ-X or GJ-X really depends on how "high" the bypass ratio actually is, not to mention how mature it is.