Chinese MALE, HALE (and rotary, small, suicide) UAV/UCAV thread

[Blitzo]

Its funny they think you has to choose between dominating small UAV and dominating "proper" UCAV like GJ11

The piece was written by a retired USAF general and its basically the airforce equivilent of American old men arguing against computers in cars

Also its hilarious he used B2 deployment againt Houthis as argument for the need for expensive bombers... He proberbly wrote this in response to the recent NGAD article

I'm not saying that one has to choose between small UAVs/quadcopters and larger more proper UCAVs like GJ-11.

I'm saying that for high intensity, air/naval/missile conflicts, the former are much less relevant and impactful due to their inherent limited deployability and range and payload and signature, whereas high end capabilities such as strike fighters, bombers, long range missiles and long range high end UCAVs are more important.

The use of B-2s against the Houthis are very much somewhat overkill and could've been done with other means, however it is also a demonstration of the role that VLO long range bombers have -- being able to conduct a long range penetrating mission against a foe in permissive airspace sounds easy, but doing it in a way that no one else in the rest of the region is able to even be aware of is more difficult.
In a high end conflict, that sort of capability will be the minimum even if you want to conduct standoff range rather than penetrating strikes.

 

[iewgnem]

I'm not saying that one has to choose between small UAVs/quadcopters and larger more proper UCAVs like GJ-11.

I'm saying that for high intensity, air/naval/missile conflicts, the former are much less relevant and impactful due to their inherent limited deployability and range and payload and signature, whereas high end capabilities such as strike fighters, bombers, long range missiles and long range high end UCAVs are more important.

The use of B-2s against the Houthis are very much somewhat overkill and could've been done with other means, however it is also a demonstration of the role that VLO long range bombers have -- being able to conduct a long range penetrating mission against a foe in permissive airspace sounds easy, but doing it in a way that no one else in the rest of the region is able to even be aware of is more difficult.
In a high end conflict, that sort of capability will be the minimum even if you want to conduct standoff range rather than penetrating strikes.

They're not mutually exclusive, e.g. what do you classify a mission where a fleet of say, 24x GJ11s flies to Guam and each drop 50x 10 kg self targeting loitering drones over the island, now you have 1200 small UAVs flying overhead for hours, shutting down all flight ops and destroy every aircraft, vechicle etc. Yeah you can also drop 100 tons of glide bombs on hangers with the same 24 UCAV, but they cant loiter nor hunt and certainly cant destroy 1200 targets.

Now replace 10kg loitering drones with 2 kg drones and replace Guam with an aircraft carrier. Putting a hole in the carrier is nice, destroyong the entire airwing on deck and in hanger is much better.

 

[Blitzo]

They're not mutually exclusive, e.g. what do you classify a mission where a fleet of say, 24x GJ11s flies to Guam and each drop 50x 10 kg self targeting loitering drones over the island, now you have 1200 small UAVs flying overhead for hours, shutting down all flight ops and destroy every aircraft, vechicle etc. Yeah you can also drop 100 tons of glide bombs on hangers with the same 24 UCAV, but they cant loiter nor hunt and certainly cant destroy 1200 targets.

Now replace 10kg loitering drones with 2 kg drones and replace Guam with an aircraft carrier. Putting a hole in the carrier is nice, destroyong the entire airwing on deck and in hanger is much better.

Fine, in that case the small loitering drones are the payload whereas the primary delivery system that has to do the difficult part of actually traversing the distance, entering employment range/distance and penetrating the air defenses is still the high end UCAVs as well as other high end fires (strike fighters, bombers, long range missiles) to conduct SEAD/DEAD.

You're really missing the whole point of why I posted that article -- which is to say that discussions boasting about China being the world's production center for small UAVs and quadcopters is relatively empty and fruitless for a high intensity conflict, because you need very capable high end aircraft, missiles and UCAVs first to actually be in a position to employ them.


As I wrote in my previous post: "This is important when people discuss "Chinese UAV production capability" because while China is far and away the leading producer of quad copters and small UAVs and potentially also small suicide drones, their relevance in a high end air-naval-missile fight is limited."


People focusing on small UAVs and quadcopters for the high intensity conflict should really stop doing so, and instead look at the importance of high end platforms instead.

 

[iewgnem]

Fine, in that case the small loitering drones are the payload whereas the primary delivery system that has to do the difficult part of actually traversing the distance, entering employment range/distance and penetrating the air defenses is still the high end UCAVs as well as other high end fires (strike fighters, bombers, long range missiles) to conduct SEAD/DEAD.

You're really missing the whole point of why I posted that article -- which is to say that discussions boasting about China being the world's production center for small UAVs and quadcopters is relatively empty and fruitless for a high intensity conflict, because you need very capable high end aircraft, missiles and UCAVs first to actually be in a position to employ them.


As I wrote in my previous post: "This is important when people discuss "Chinese UAV production capability" because while China is far and away the leading producer of quad copters and small UAVs and potentially also small suicide drones, their relevance in a high end air-naval-missile fight is limited."


People focusing on small UAVs and quadcopters for the high intensity conflict should really stop doing so, and instead look at the importance of high end platforms instead.

China is also developing hypersonic warheads with clustered loitering drones inside, and you can also say people should focus on hypersonics over small drones, and theres a thread for hypersonics.

Both small and large drones serve a role and the two are not overlapping. Small drones provide a set of capabilities and larger ones other capabilities, the small one is just newer and has far less counters than larger ones which is why its capabilities gets more attention.

 

[Michael90]

From that yicaiglobal piece:

LOL. God bless the US economy.

Do this Chinese companies make much profit? It would Seem their profit margins are really tight I guess. Shouldn't be this cheap to this extent? Or maybe it's due to the intense competition among Chinese companies? Overall, its a good thing for consumers.

 

[Index]

Do this Chinese companies make much profit? It would Seem their profit margins are really tight I guess.

In the end probably less tight than US state champions like skydio. A more developed industrial base can produce better products at a lower cost.

The per model profit margin might be slightly less(?) than US equivalent, but they sell maybe 50 to 1.

Shouldn't be this cheap to this extent? Or maybe it's due to the intense competition among Chinese companies?

It's just the way things are I guess. If you showed a 2020s phone to person from the 2000s, they'd be surprised that it wouldn't cost as much as a car. The march of progress waits for no one.

Overall, its a good thing for consumers.

 

[iewgnem]

Do this Chinese companies make much profit? It would Seem their profit margins are really tight I guess. Shouldn't be this cheap to this extent? Or maybe it's due to the intense competition among Chinese companies? Overall, its a good thing for consumers.

Drones are very much like modern EVs in a lot of ways: batteries, electric motors, controllers, navigation, etc. Just like EVs XAG's P100 Pro, which is what they're talking about is only cheap in China, in the US through their approved 3rd party dealers they're sold for ~$40k USD, still better than $60k / 20 kg, but XAG is obviously in it to make a profit, know the competition and know what they can get away with.

Also just like EVs very few people truely comprehend just how big a price difference between having and not having access to China's suppy chain, the cost to build each motor for example is FAR, FAR higher if you don't have volume, and without scale the cost to build batteries is astronmical.

 

[SanWenYu]

Do this Chinese companies make much profit? It would Seem their profit margins are really tight I guess. Shouldn't be this cheap to this extent? Or maybe it's due to the intense competition among Chinese companies? Overall, its a good thing for consumers.

LOL. You should really ask why the American companies have to sell their inferior products at such absurdly high prices.

If you are comparing cost of Chinese products to the American competitions and thinking it "shouldn't be this cheap", you are doing it wrong. It has been well known for long that American companies are not the benchmarks for cost efficiency in manufacturing.

Regarding the intense competition among Chinese companies, isn't free market all about competition? If it's "good for consumers", what's the worry?

That yicaiglobal piece has showed how fast XAG has grown. If the company's margin was thin as you think, how could it have allowed this kind of business expansion globally:

The company, founded in 2007, began expanding overseas in 2017, initially in Japan. Since then, it has entered 63 more countries and regions, and has now sold over 100,000 unmanned aerial vehicles abroad. Brazil has become XAG's biggest overseas market, where thousands of its drones are sold each year.

XAG's revenue from its overseas business soared by 128 percent in 2022, according to the firm’s website. That year, year-on-year growth in Southeast Asia and Latin America reached 155 percent and 248 percent, respectively, along with a more than 100 percent increase in European and American markets.

At the end, this is the secret why the Chinese tech companies are winning:

Cost-efficiency is one of the key factors behind the successful overseas expansion of Chinese tech companies, Gong noted, adding that China's edge in technology and its quality labor force are also important.

 

[Blitzo]

China is also developing hypersonic warheads with clustered loitering drones inside, and you can also say people should focus on hypersonics over small drones, and theres a thread for hypersonics.

Both small and large drones serve a role and the two are not overlapping. Small drones provide a set of capabilities and larger ones other capabilities, the small one is just newer and has far less counters than larger ones which is why its capabilities gets more attention.

Small drones have a role in warfare, that is not something I'm disputing.

What I am saying, is that small drones have a relatively limited role in high end warfare, and their effectiveness will be determined by the outcome of battles fought by higher end capabilities, so boasting about China's manufacturing of small drones does not have much consequence. At the minimum, they need to be weighted accurately to what they are actually able to achieve.

 

[Gloire_bb]

As I wrote in my previous post: "This is important when people discuss "Chinese UAV production capability" because while China is far and away the leading producer of quad copters and small UAVs and potentially also small suicide drones, their relevance in a high end air-naval-missile fight is limited."


People focusing on small UAVs and quadcopters for the high intensity conflict should really stop doing so, and instead look at the importance of high end platforms instead.

Small UAVs and high-end uavs shouldn't be in the same thread; it's a self-inflicted problem
More seriously, in general smaller munitions are more relevant for land fights. Land fights are high-end fights, and they're an integral part of Chinese contingencies.