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

[AndrewS]

I think it is prudent, if not obligatory, to assume that fortification of Guam and raising of other 2IC-ish airbases will occur.

Given how vital land based air bases at those distances are to the overall conflict (as well as enabling/force multiplying USN CSGs operating at similar distances), robust methods of engaging and degrading and reattacking them seem prudent to me as a prerequisite for how "assured" the westpac conflict is for the PLA.

Let's say that somehow there are now 6 American bases in the 2IC near Guam, with space for all 200 F-47s that are planned.

Yet that doesn't change the overall strategic balance, because the attacker has:

1. a large advantage in terms of offensive missile costs versus defensive costs
2. The initiative in concentrating overwhelming force, and in striking aircraft whilst they are still on the ground.

---

So let's say a very modest number of say 60 Chinese bombers are produced, and that they have a comparable payload to the B-21.

So in a single sortie, that could be 480 JASSMs or 6000 SDBs.

Then combine that with land based missiles such as the DF-26.

Along with multiple swarms comprising up to 800 low-cost Shaheed-type cruise missiles (as seen in Ukraine) with a somewhat longer range of 3000km

At the same time, there are J-36 air superiority aircraft and naval fighters operating to the 2IC.

---

So whatever air defences are placed on those American bases in the 2IC will still be destroyed or depleted, very quickly.

And that opens up all the runways and ports to attack, so aircraft are destroyed on the ground and those islands are now under blockade and unable to regenerate.

And if just 20 bombers are dedicated to reattack, that could be 2000 SDBs per day.
Plus the 800 Shaheed types per day.

That should be more than enough to keep the 2IC bases destroyed.

Given the geography and the likely force balances, I just don't see how 2IC bases can credibly operate.

---

So you still have the bulk of the Chinese bombers free for missions past the 2IC.

Hence my view that the 2IC represents more of a speed bump, rather than a credible defence line.
So Chinese bomber aircraft should not be designed/optimised for 2IC operations, but for significant distances beyond (against the 3IC and the mobile aircraft carriers. Plus CONUS if feasible)

If designed for 5000km+ ranges, it means US aircraft carriers have to stay far to the rear, unable to support Guam

 

[tphuang]

Huitong opines that the appearance of the GJ-X might indicate that the H-20 project has been cancelled or at least had a spanner thrown in its works.

I don't quite understand why you would need to cancel H-20 when clearly PLA has greater ambition. It just means PLA thinks that an aircraft operating at subsonic regime is not sufficiently survivable in future combat even if it's at next level in stealth because the pace of radar/sensor improvement means by the time it is ready for combat missions, it will already be losing its stealth edge.

I tried finding a source for 2200 NM but could not. Do you have the source mentioning such radius or perhaps at least a ferry range (from which a radius could then be estimated)

That does seem already quite long for B-21. I'm sure it can go further with lighter load. But if it's carrying 10t+ under non-idea operational environment, 4500km combat radius seems more than enough.

Prior to GJ-X being identified, I also believed that such an aircraft was a bit more likely than a B-21 sized unmanned monster.

However, with GJ-X being identified like this, I must say the role of a 20-40t MTOW UCAV seems potentially a little bit redundant to me, if we are operating with the acceptance that GJ-11 will also exist.

I think as soon as J-36 came out, it was quite obvious H-20 cannot just be a subsonic flywing aircraft with 4000 km combat radius. And then when they can casually develop something like WZ-X, then one has to taken the big shrimp comment of supersonic H-20 seriously.

We have to probably reset our thought process of GJ-11 or CH-7 being advanced designs, because that was the case maybe 8 years ago.

Personally, the bomber I want most is a cheap expendable Japan-bomber. Probably some unmanned subsonic vlo flying wing that China can procure in vast numbers and can waste sending them after secondary non critical targets.

GJ-21 on Type 076 can already do that.

On the topic of GJ-X and H-20. One thing everyone seems to forget is that GJ-X can be interpreted as a good number filler, sub-H-20 if you will.

I have to look at unmanned aircraft as aircraft that China thinks it can mass produce cheaply and use in high frequency. So if it thinks it can do this with B-21 sized flywing, then that is quite impressive for its aerospace industry.

 

[tphuang]

one usage case I thought of for WZ-X:

So if it can persist over air space at edge of 2IC or beyond for significant amount of time, then it is going to be quite an asset in terms of picking up any kind of emissions coming from Eastern side of Pacific Ocean.

For US navy, the submarines would get to PD once in a while to communicate with satellites or something. And it would do so at a time and place where Chinese satellites are not flying over head. If you can have these persistent ELINT assets in the air, then you can actually significantly hamper the operation of any US naval assets, including SSNs. And of course, it's also going to be closer to the ships than satellites, so it would be able to detect carrier groups coming even more reliably.

 

[mack8]

On the issue of H-20, some people go in a tizzy here when someone mentions that possibility, or alternatively that a subsonic H-20 would be a large design, possibly bigger than B-2. Imo, even if H-20 is subsonic, i would still expect a supersonic component, ie a regional bomber kind of unmanned airframe, packed with AAMs (but probably could carry strike weapons as well) to provide protection for the highly valuable H-20 as well as the GJ-X CCAs during long range missions.

If the H-20 is supersonic, it could self-escort/protect itself on such missions, on the other hand the subsonic GJ-X is too slow to keep pace in missions that require high-speed operation. Considering that current aerial warfare is moving more and more towards CCAs and MUM-T, i would be surprised if even a supersonic H-20 would not be paired with like-performance CCA/UBAs (unmanned bomber aircraft), considering how many different types of CCAs/UADFs are to operate with the manned fighter component.

Hopefully if the H-20 will fly as hinted by the grapevine very soon, we'll get an answer as to what direction was chosen.

 

[Wrought]

Let's say that somehow there are now 6 American bases in the 2IC near Guam, with space for all 200 F-47s that are planned.

Yet that doesn't change the overall strategic balance, because the attacker has:

1. a large advantage in terms of offensive missile costs versus defensive costs
2. The initiative in concentrating overwhelming force, and in striking aircraft whilst they are still on the ground.

---

So let's say a very modest number of say 60 Chinese bombers are produced, and that they have a comparable payload to the B-21.

So in a single sortie, that could be 480 JASSMs or 6000 SDBs.

Then combine that with land based missiles such as the DF-26.

Along with multiple swarms comprising up to 800 low-cost Shaheed-type cruise missiles (as seen in Ukraine) with a somewhat longer range of 3000km

At the same time, there are J-36 air superiority aircraft and naval fighters operating to the 2IC.

---

So whatever air defences are placed on those American bases in the 2IC will still be destroyed or depleted, very quickly.

And that opens up all the runways and ports to attack, so aircraft are destroyed on the ground and those islands are now under blockade and unable to regenerate.

And if just 20 bombers are dedicated to reattack, that could be 2000 SDBs per day.
Plus the 800 Shaheed types per day.

That should be more than enough to keep the 2IC bases destroyed.

Given the geography and the likely force balances, I just don't see how 2IC bases can credibly operate.

---

So you still have the bulk of the Chinese bombers free for missions past the 2IC.

Hence my view that the 2IC represents more of a speed bump, rather than a credible defence line.
So Chinese bomber aircraft should not be designed/optimised for 2IC operations, but for significant distances beyond (against the 3IC and the mobile aircraft carriers. Plus CONUS if feasible)

If designed for 5000km+ ranges, it means US aircraft carriers have to stay far to the rear, unable to support Guam

The second island chain doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's explicitly there to support the first island chain. You can't just fly past all the bases in Japan and so forth without first degrading and/or neutralizing them. While you're busy doing that, those bases in and around Guam will be busy supporting the counterair operations over Japan.

The SIC bases can't stand alone, but they aren't designed to.

 

[AndrewS]

The second island chain doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's explicitly there to support the first island chain. You can't just fly past all the bases in Japan and so forth without first degrading and/or neutralizing them. While you're busy doing that, those bases in and around Guam will be busy supporting the counterair operations over Japan.

The SIC bases can't stand alone, but they aren't designed to.

The assumption is that the 1IC has already been neutralised.

After all, there's no point in developing long-range aircraft systems against the 2IC for air superiority, if there is still resistance in the 1IC. Operational American airbases in the Japan pose a far bigger threat to mainland China.

Also, Chinese aircraft would largely be flying via the Bashi Straits to the South of Taiwan.
So they would be at least 1000km+ distant from the Japanese Home Islands

---

Remember that all of the Japanese Home Islands are within 1300km of mainland China. That is within range of:

1. Subsonic Tomahawk/JASSM class missiles and hypersonic DF-17 class missiles (~$2 Million each) for the initial strikes

2. Very low-cost Shaheed type cruise missiles for sustained strikes. (we see Russia launching salvoes of up to 800 in Ukraine today)

3. Tactical stealth fighters, when supported by Tankers for air superiority.
Note that in 10 years time (2035), we're likely looking at 1500-2000 5th gen stealth fighters such as the J-20 and J-35. Plus the first 6th gen air superiority aircraft like the J-36 and J-XDS. Along with the 6th gen UADFs in service.

---

When I compare this against what the US could field in Japan in 2035 , I do expect Japan to be neutralised and under effective blockade.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

And then when they can casually develop something like WZ-X, then one has to taken the big shrimp comment of supersonic H-20 seriously.

Which big shrimp, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[DanWangJZ]

Xuan Ge-120FH VTO Fixed-Wing making its debut alongside JC-M150 Multirotor at Changchun Air Show. Look set to be more for civilian than military use though. Any thoughts?

 

[tphuang]

Which big shrimp, if you don't mind me asking?

I thought it was Ayi and orca saying it IIRC.

there are some constraints on PLA in terms of airport infrastructure on how big all its aircraft can be. But it definitely seems to going in the direction of bigger = better.

if you think about PLA's direction with drones:

first it builds these first generation attack drones with piston engines that can probably just operate nearby because that was all they could do with the engine tech they had.

Then they built turbojet drones like WZ-7 and WZ-10 which have range limitations but can at least fly high and operate to part of 1IC.

Next, they get to small turbofan flywing drones like GJ-11/21 because that's all the material science and propulsion tech allowed for a few years ago. And now, you can operate even further than 1IC when operating them off Type 076. Otherwise, it's competent within 1IC and fairly modern.

And then the next step, they now have the propulsion tech and sensory tech + more importantly the material science tech and satellite communication to operate to 2IC and beyond. So that's what we have with WZ-X and GJ-X.

 

[vincent]

Then they built turbojet drones like WZ-7 and WZ-10 which have range limitations but can at least fly high and operate to part of 1IC.

Fairly certain WZ-10 uses two turbofans.