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

tphuang

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Missiles with the caliber of CJ-10 are a bit of a stretch. At best, it can launch some YJ-15s, AKF-98s, and the ABMs that were shown at last Zhuhai airshow.


View attachment 166204
Right, it doesn’t need to carry CJ10 to be a useful bomb trucks.

if you think about it, GJ11 is significantly more survivable but it has limited carrying capacity. As such, it would be good to have a less survivable platform that’s low cost and have good payloads. They are trying really hard to get commercial and govt adoption so that you get a good price to usefulness ratio.
 

ismellcopium

Junior Member
Registered Member
What's the latest status of WL-3/X & CH-9? Perhaps the piston prop models are seen by PLA as having inadequate payload (IIRC 0.5-2t) compared to the jet ones, despite longer range/endurance? Though the ASW configs advertised would seem very useful & there haven't been other UAVs seen with those so far afaik.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Missiles with the caliber of CJ-10 are a bit of a stretch. At best, it can launch some YJ-15s, AKF-98s, and the ABMs that were shown at last Zhuhai airshow.


View attachment 166204

I think people are just too emotionally invested in this thing due to its cool factor that they are missing it’s key problem, which ironically enough, is very well demonstrated by the catalogue of ideas being thrown out for how to use it effectively.

The Jetank/Jiutian’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness when it comes to frontline combat operational use - its great size makes it expensive and high value, which is the opposite of what UCAVs should be, especially since it lacks the saving grace of stealth to give it sufficient survivability to sufficiently mitigate the risk of investing so much into one platform.

So you have the core contradiction of having a big, slow, none-stealthy, expensive platform that cannot survive on its own in high or even medium threat combat environments that needs to be in combat to justify its existence. So it either needs to stay out of frontline combat roles, in which case why do you need to spend so much money on it instead of buying less cool but far cheaper alternatives; or you need to invest in even more assets to protected it in frontline combat, at which point the obvious question is how is this any cheaper or different than just using existing manned platforms?

The sales pitch should be to focus on its strengths to mitigate its costs. One of the core benefits of an unmanned platform is time on station. So obvious roles for it would be MPA/ASW, which dovetails nicely with its long range and heavy payload capabilities as it can carry torpedos for such roles both internally and on external pylons. Additionally, it can carry a large missile payload for anti-drone boat combat operations, which I suspect will be needed seeing how in vogue that is in the west with Ukraine. China has a long coastline, so that is a genuine niche the Jetank can fill very effectively. But the obvious challenge would be whether it’s better to have one Jetank doing this role or 5 cheaper UCAVs. But either way, if I was in charge, I would prioritise on slapping some air refuelling capacity onto this thing to really set it head and shoulders above the competition.

Other similar roles it can perform would be island denial operations aimed squarely at the U.S. marines island hopping strategy. The idea is that sure you can sneak marines onto remote islands, and it would be cost prohibitive to dig them out with conventional means. But park a Jetank over those islands and those marines are either toast or completely neutralised. Since they need to remain hiding to not get immediately drone-struck, and if they are all hiding in caves all the time, they can’t pose any threats to anyone. With enough Jetanks, the PLA can set up a 24/7 rotating overhead presence and any US marines let alive on those islands can wave the white flag and surrender to the drones or they can die slowly of thirst or starvation in their holes. No need to send PLA marines in to dig them out as the Americans are hoping for.

These are the kind of missions the Jetank should be positioning itself to take, not to try to be the new age A10 or mini-bomber. It’s not fit for tip of the spear operations, but then a well balanced military only needs a very small edge, the overwhelming majority of the volume and weight is the shaft behind the speartip. Don’t try to force this thing to be something it cannot be and play to its own strengths if you want to find for truly useful niche for it.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
No.

Each CJ-10 is ~8.3 meters long and weighs ~2.5 tons.

I believe that is the land-based variant with initial booster rocket.
There are different variants listed with launch weights of 1100-1800kg


The Jetank UAV has a maximum payload capacity of 6 tons. Out of the total of 6 tons, its multi-mission cargo compartment located within the airframe can support a maximum of 4 tons of payload.

However, that compartment only has a length of no more than 7.5 meters. That means there is no way the CJ-10 can fit in there.

Meanwhile, the underwing pylons on the Jetank UAV (of which there are 8 in total) has an estimated payload capacity of no more than 1-1.5 tons for the innermost ones. That mean there won't be CJ-10s hanging underneath the wing either.

So forget about it.

And if they produce a variant with a stronger set of innermost pylon weights?

At this point in time, there's a lot of possibilities that still to be tested out.

We'll just have to wait and see.
 

tphuang

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“九天”无人机搭载的动力系统,是经过适应性改造的成熟的“秦岭”发动机,其长寿命、低油耗、低成本特点为多元化应用拓展提供了广阔空间。该动力装置成功适配 " 九天 " 无人机,全面满足其快速迭代需求与大推力、高飞行速度的性能指标。
Note here that Jiutian picked WS-9, Qinling, due to its long service life, good fuel economy and low cost. That last part is important. the designers understand that they need to keep its cost down.

That's why they are promoting it for
既能承担偏远山区、海岛的重型物资运输与精准物流投送,也能在应急救援中快速恢复通信、投送救灾装备,还可提供地理测绘、灾情评估、矿产普查等服务。
Note, all these activities that it can do but your current WL-1 and WL-2 cannot do. China has desperately tried to find additional usage cases for WL-1/2 so that there can be non-military users and get acquisition and maintenance cost down. That's a problem this design looks to address. It uses WS-9, which already has a usage base and maintenance network + industrial base. It clearly has higher speed than your regular drone and longer range, so can get to like a natural disaster or do transport activity and get to destination faster than a turboprop aircraft like W5000.

Guancha guys in their podcast especially talked about finding other use cases for Jiutian, get its cost down and platform mature, so that the military can purchase it and operate it at low cost.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Screenshots from CCTV1 news reporting on the Jetank UAV's first flight, now with the new name "九天苍穹" (Sky of Nine Heavens/Nine Heavens Firmament*). Posted by @沉默的山羊 on Weibo.

*Translation courtesy of Deepseek.

View attachment 166111
View attachment 166112
View attachment 166113
View attachment 166114
View attachment 166115
View attachment 166116
View attachment 166117
View attachment 166118
All dual wheeled landing gears, it will carry some weight for sure.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
I believe that is the land-based variant with initial booster rocket.
There are different variants listed with launch weights of 1100-1800kg

Odd, because all the sources which I have come across indicated that the CJ-20/A (which is the air-launched variant of the CJ-10/A) has a weight of at least 2 tons.

And if they produce a variant with a stronger set of innermost pylon weights?

At this point in time, there's a lot of possibilities that still to be tested out.


We'll just have to wait and see.

You should go back to the "and if" and stop right there. Going further like that and you might as well suggest that the Jetank be fitted with rocket engines that could bring the UAV into the thermosphere.

Also, weapon pylons are far from the only thing that matters when it comes to payload capacity.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
You should go back to the "and if" and stop right there. Going further like that and you might as well suggest that the Jetank be fitted with rocket engines that could bring the UAV into the thermosphere.

Also, weapon pylons are far from the only thing that matters when it comes to payload capacity.

I don't see how increasing pylon capacity from 1-1.5 to 2 tonnes is fantastical.

The point is that Jetank is a platform with 5 tonnes of payload, so there may be worthwhile use cases for heavy munitions on pylons.

We'll just have to see.

---

I would also note that the JAASM is listed at 1 tonne and Storm Shadow at 1.3 tonnes
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think people are just too emotionally invested in this thing due to its cool factor that they are missing it’s key problem, which ironically enough, is very well demonstrated by the catalogue of ideas being thrown out for how to use it effectively.

The Jetank/Jiutian’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness when it comes to frontline combat operational use - its great size makes it expensive and high value, which is the opposite of what UCAVs should be, especially since it lacks the saving grace of stealth to give it sufficient survivability to sufficiently mitigate the risk of investing so much into one platform.

So you have the core contradiction of having a big, slow, none-stealthy, expensive platform that cannot survive on its own in high or even medium threat combat environments that needs to be in combat to justify its existence. So it either needs to stay out of frontline combat roles, in which case why do you need to spend so much money on it instead of buying less cool but far cheaper alternatives; or you need to invest in even more assets to protected it in frontline combat, at which point the obvious question is how is this any cheaper or different than just using existing manned platforms?

The sales pitch should be to focus on its strengths to mitigate its costs. One of the core benefits of an unmanned platform is time on station. So obvious roles for it would be MPA/ASW, which dovetails nicely with its long range and heavy payload capabilities as it can carry torpedos for such roles both internally and on external pylons. Additionally, it can carry a large missile payload for anti-drone boat combat operations, which I suspect will be needed seeing how in vogue that is in the west with Ukraine. China has a long coastline, so that is a genuine niche the Jetank can fill very effectively. But the obvious challenge would be whether it’s better to have one Jetank doing this role or 5 cheaper UCAVs. But either way, if I was in charge, I would prioritise on slapping some air refuelling capacity onto this thing to really set it head and shoulders above the competition.

Other similar roles it can perform would be island denial operations aimed squarely at the U.S. marines island hopping strategy. The idea is that sure you can sneak marines onto remote islands, and it would be cost prohibitive to dig them out with conventional means. But park a Jetank over those islands and those marines are either toast or completely neutralised. Since they need to remain hiding to not get immediately drone-struck, and if they are all hiding in caves all the time, they can’t pose any threats to anyone. With enough Jetanks, the PLA can set up a 24/7 rotating overhead presence and any US marines let alive on those islands can wave the white flag and surrender to the drones or they can die slowly of thirst or starvation in their holes. No need to send PLA marines in to dig them out as the Americans are hoping for.

These are the kind of missions the Jetank should be positioning itself to take, not to try to be the new age A10 or mini-bomber. It’s not fit for tip of the spear operations, but then a well balanced military only needs a very small edge, the overwhelming majority of the volume and weight is the shaft behind the speartip. Don’t try to force this thing to be something it cannot be and play to its own strengths if you want to find for truly useful niche for it.

ASW looks like an ideal role.

It's operating over friendly airspace, and can carry large numbers of Sonobuoys and a decent number of torpedoes.
 
Top