Chinese UAV/UCAV development

Status
Not open for further replies.

by78

General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
:

Ah, the link is back up.

pb19980515 was talking about Anjian/Dark Sword.

Here's his exact quote:
"这个就是未来的无人僚机,一架有人战斗机 可以指挥一架到数架。。。。。。。。不过这个还早得很
a15.gif
"

And here's a screen capture:
27712078417_8b6979de6e_b.jpg



Begin Translation:
This (i.e. the Dark Sword) is the future 'wingman' drone. A manned fighter can control one to several of these... The project is still in its early days.​
End Translation.

 

latenlazy

Brigadier
So here’s a slightly outlandish idea. What if the Dark Sword is meant to be a high speed striker and interceptor that can also act as a deep penetrating forward node for a formation. It could fly in fast, probe the situation, and pick off as many key air and ground threats as possible before turning back and dashing away. A high maneuverability requirement would aid survivabiliy from counter attacks. Small aspect ratio wings with canards seem to indicate a design towards very high instantenous turn rates at very high speeds, which wouldn’t be good for sustained dog fights but might be execellent for shaking missiles off its tail. Without a human pilot the Dark Sword might be able to execute high G supersonic turns greater than what manned platforms could, doing away with the need for good sustained turn rates as a defensive necessity.
 

ougoah

Brigadier
Registered Member
Indeed a huge part of future air combat. But if this is still "early days", wouldn't it be unnecessary for a manned platform to be controlling or directing unmanned platforms when these things become commissioned? If some machine learning is already claimed to be employed on current fighters like su-35 and J-20 (probably many others) surely by the time these UCAVs are ready for service, a better "AI" networked squadron of varying UAV platforms, serving different roles, will replace a huge chunk of the existing manned structure in an ideal theoretical case. Surely command can build up a good enough awareness of a combat ecosystem by then without having manned fighters directing drones? Why can't they be completely directed by ground stations/ AWAC like aircrafts far from the combat zone, while fighting alongside manned aircraft. Seems like using human efforts to command these things is wasted energy and misdirecting attention. If they can operate well enough autonomously, whatever and whenever they need human input could be done by those ground and air based control stations? I can't imagine a situation where the job can't be done by the latter group and must require a nearby fighter pilot to do but that's just my very limited understanding of how these things work.

The above suggests to me the possibility that these UCAVs are far closer to operation than they are hinting. Basically this decade where "AI" is still nowhere near strong enough for UCAVs to be autonomous and much of the command and control planning for these platforms are already done so they've gone with the control it by aircraft/ maybe ground bases route instead of freeing up most of the human input. Or perhaps they are planning for near autonomous UCAVs and the leaker is just mentioning the manned fighter bit to mislead or downplay actual plan/ability.
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
The link obviously worked for you. But it didn't for me. You are a sample size of one.
If the link works for me but not for you, the only explanation I can think of is technical issues on your side. That isn't something you should try to blame on others.


And how was I supposed to know what pb19980515 was referring to, when your post wasn't in reply to anyone, and with your link being inaccessible to me? Remember, this thread is about Chinese UAVs in general, not just the Dark Sword.
It's unfortunate that you couldn't understand it was about the same topic as 25 out of 27 posts made in the last 12 hours.


Please be clear about the context and provide original quote, instead of machine-translated pigeon English. Otherwise, you are just causing confusion.

If you don't want to go the necessary mile, then don't bother at all.
The translation is perfectly understandable and the link works. Please refrain from making bad faith responses to my posts.
 

by78

General
If the link works for me but not for you, the only explanation I can think of is technical issues on your side. That isn't something you should try to blame on others.

I didn't blame it on you or others. I merely pointed out your committing the fallacy of 'proof by example'. I don't see how you can take that as some sort of accusation that you were somehow responsible for the link being inaccessible.

It's unfortunate that you couldn't understand it was about the same topic as 25 out of 27 posts made in the last 12 hours.

It's unfortunate that you expect me to understand the context and the subject when you randomly inserted a pigeon translation from pb19980515. I'm not telepathic. Has it occur to you that even if the link worked or works perfectly in perpetuity, not all who click on it can read Chinese and therefore understand the context?

The translation is perfectly understandable and the link works. Please refrain from making bad faith responses to my posts.

No, the translation is pure, unadulterated garbage. Tell me, do you understand the sentence "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"?

And no, the link didn't work for me. Just because it worked for you, it doesn't mean it worked for everyone. Just because I have running water, it doesn't mean all humans everywhere do too.

I'd appreciate it if you could stop acting like a thin-skinned, petulant child who takes criticisms as malicious personal attacks.
 
Last edited:

by78

General
So here’s a slightly outlandish idea. What if the Dark Sword is meant to be a high speed striker and interceptor that can also act as a deep penetrating forward node for a formation. It could fly in fast, probe the situation, and pick off as many key air and ground threats as possible before turning back and dashing away. A high maneuverability requirement would aid survivabiliy from counter attacks. Small aspect ratio wings with canards seem to indicate a design towards very high instantenous turn rates at very high speeds, which wouldn’t be good for sustained dog fights but might be execellent for shaking missiles off its tail. Without a human pilot the Dark Sword might be able to execute high G supersonic turns greater than what manned platforms could, doing away with the need for good sustained turn rates as a defensive necessity.

Not outlandish at all; sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
So with the current info. we can ascertain that for now there is at least 2 stealth drone designs that are under serious consideration by the PLAAF. The Sharp Sword flying wing drone, and the Shadow Sword drone that is portrayed above.
If the PLAAF decides to run with both designs, it will be interesting to see what kind of role these drones will assume. The Sharp Sword is more optimized for greater stealth, range and payload. Whereas the Shadow Sword's design offers greater speed and agility.
Can it be possible for the Sharp Sword to work as a intelligence gathering/deep strike drone, whereas the Shadow Sword performs the job of the much taunted "AI wingman" for manned fighters ?
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Ah, the link is back up.

pb19980515 was talking about Anjian/Dark Sword.

Here's his exact quote:
"这个就是未来的无人僚机,一架有人战斗机 可以指挥一架到数架。。。。。。。。不过这个还早得很
a15.gif
"

And here's a screen capture:
27712078417_8b6979de6e_b.jpg



Begin Translation:
This (i.e. the Dark Sword) is the future 'wingman' drone. A manned fighter can control one to several of these... The project is still in its early days.​
End Translation.

The final portion of his claim can be a tad ambiguous. By saying "this is still very early", he could be referring to the UAV itself or its capability to act as a "wingman" to a manned fighter platform.
 

by78

General
The final portion of his claim can be a tad ambiguous. By saying "this is still very early", he could be referring to the UAV itself or its capability to act as a "wingman" to a manned fighter platform.

If we look at the platform as a holistic package (hardware + software), then yes, it's possible he's only referring to the 'software' part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top