Chinese UAV/UCAV development

Blitzo · Mar 19, 2022

tphuang said:
No argument here. A good thing to touch on is what they need in their inventory by 2030 for the air force.

Low/medium altitude, slow moving UCAV supporting army (kind of like Q-5 replacement)

I am not convinced that any UCAV should be "low altitude".
Operating at low altitude is suicide and puts you at risk of even MANPADS.

Medium altitude UAVs may have a role in more permissive environments (those would be your generic MQ-9, WL-2 type UAVs or smaller MQ-1, WL-1, CH-3/4 style UAVs), but against a high intensity foe, it is suicide.

There should be no replacement to Q-5 just like how there should be no replacement to A-10. Operating at low altitude to conduct interdiction or CAS is cold war era thinking.

Interdiction and CAS today is all about having the EO sensors and PGMs on your aircraft that is operating at medium or high altitude, and the same principles exist for manned and unmanned aircraft alike.

tphuang said:
medium/high altitude, medium/high subsonic UCAV capable of attacking air defense, naval ships and other high intensity environment

medium/high altitude, supersonic UCAV capable of A2A combat as well as A2G missions.

I think these are the two most important UCAV roles of the future.

Stealthy strike UCAV, and stealthy A2A UCAV.

Both of those types of UCAVs have their own desirable traits in terms of range, endurance, sensor and weapons loadouts, and ability to be attritible.
That said, I have a feeling that the stealthy A2A UCAV may seek to be developed to be more attritible than a stealthy strike UCAV.

And in case other people raises it -- no, A2A UCAVs will not high performance hyper agile fighters that are pulling crazy amounts of Gs and being slaved to manned fighters. This isn't anime, and the point of developing A2A UCAVs isn't to fly in a more vigorous manner than what stresses the human body can handle.
Instead, A2A UCAVs should be seen as stealthy, distributed, and attritible sensor and weapons platforms, where their sheer quantity helps to massively strengthen your system of systems aerial battlespace, to provide your side with superior first look, first shoot capability at BVR.
In such matchups, stealth, ECM/EW, and distributed A2A UCAVs will be widespread, and the side which wins will be the one that possesses a superior and more robust networked air fleet in terms of both quantity and quality. That is how VLO fighter aircraft will seek to counter each other -- not by blindly encountering each other and then engaging in WVR combat, but seeking to further extend and distribute their sensor and weapons capability by saturating the battlespace with forward deployed MUMT A2A UCAVs to enable themselves to detect and engage the enemy, before the enemy can detect and engage them.

tphuang said:
I agree with all of this. You can keep increasing the thrust (larger engine or more engine) to carry more fuel and payload, but what is the right size? You don't want it to be too large, because then it will be too expensive and not attritable anymore.

If you intend to operate it with just fighter jets, then it would only need maybe 1500 km combat radius and maybe 8 hours endurance at full payload. With 1 non-AB WS-10, could you carry 3t of internal payload with that? Probably

If you intend to operate it with H-20s as well as J-20s, then you'd need 4000 km combat radius. That would require a larger UCAV.

I think the "right size" or indeed, the "right aircraft" fundamentally is dependent on what mature technology and production you have available (a proxy of national wealth), in addition to the role of the aircraft.
A non-AB WS-15 would be more powerful than a non-AB WS-10 for example, but WS-15 is probably going to be in high demand for J-20 production (and possibly 6th gen fighter development) going into the late 2020s, so the likelihood of sparing WS-15s for mass produced UCAVs is unlikely.
But WS-10 and WS-13 are relatively well known quantities, and WS-10 in particular has been in production for a long time now.

For some nations, in the near future they might have the industry and the money to build and mass produce UCAVs with sensor and weapons suites that are equal to that of a manned 5th generation fighter -- but for other poorer and less capable nations perhaps they are unable to even build a manned 4th generation fighter.

optionsss · Mar 19, 2022

tphuang said:
I've been listening to various USAF talk recently about how they plan to defeat China in a West Pacific scenario. Specifically to deal with China's missile threats and air defense system. Most of them is kind of similar like this
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That one does seem to be a joke to me. In reality, their plan is more like having each F-22/35 control several XQ-58A loyal wingman. The concept is sending stealthy, attritable and cheap UCAVs in more dangerous areas to weaken defences for the manned aircraft. So far, the idea is having these systems to overwhelm air defense with a lot of EW pressure and saturate the air defence system. This would allow air defense to be defeated with less risk for the higher valued manned aircraft.

I think it's important to talk about how China could launch similar attacks and to break up these type of attacks.

For the former, we have seen GJ-11, CH-7 and FH-97 thus far. The CASC UCAVs are likely just for the export market, so I don't think CH-7/FH-97 will join service with PLA. It's pretty easy to see how GJ-11 and follow-on class could be used to launch saturation attacks against enemy air defense/military base/naval ships. Having very stealthy flywing type of UCAV could allow them to get close enough to a carrier group, start jamming/confusing/spoofing naval radars and then launch PGMs or ARMs against high valued naval ships to take out the sensor/VLS systems on them. Between something like GJ-11 and XQ-58A, I would much rather have GJ-11, since the former would have better stealth, range and payload. On top of that, the flywing design also allow carrying larger conformal electronic antennas to perform ISR tasks and EW missions. While it would be interesting for them to develop something like FH-97 for domestic use, I don't if it would have any advantage over GJ-11.

For the latter, I think there needs to be continued investment in 3 areas: EW, AEW and interception. For the first one, that could come in the form of having even more EW aircraft in the air. That could be either manned or unmanned. Any manned/unmanned teaming solution would lose a lot of its effectiveness if the UCAVs lose communication with the manned aircraft. USAF has talked about operating F-22/35 without communication in a really competitive high intensity environment. I'm not sure how something like XQ-58A would far in such an environment.

Secondly, I think they will need to continue investing in procuring more manned (like KJ-200/500) and unmanned (like Divine Eagle) AEW solutions. If there are more targets coming that are stealthy, then you also need more AEW platform in the air to detect them and coordinate interceptions. In order to cover China's very long air space, quantity really matters.

Thirdly, how do you intercept more attacking aircraft? The most obvious suggestion would be expanding their brigade/bases sizes to have more J-20s and J-16s in the coastal areas. They are already doing that. It should be very easy for a modern manned aircraft to shoot down a first or second generation UCAV. Aside from that, could they develop more A2A type of UCAVs? Such a UCAV would have lower cost, maintenace and longer endurance than a manned aircraft. They'd be more attritable. They could be used to attack UCAVs and helicopters and larger aircraft. As AI continue to improve, such UCAVs will also become more capable. Although, I don't think they will be able to defeat manned fighter jet anytime soon. We've seen something like Anjian UCAV. That looks to be what I would imagine an A2A UCAV would look like. I'd be curious to see if PLAAF gives funding to put that concept into a real program in the near future.

I think the key word is "targetting", they are talking about sending our a wave of low tech drone for precise guidance, using inexpensive drone to saturate Chinese fleet air defense and keeping the ships lit for the incoming missile attack. If they can destroy the naval fleet, there would be no Taiwan invasion.

With the introducion of long range hypersonic/ballistic antiship missiles entering servise, I think naval aerial combat will focus more on recon/target accusiation instead of strike.

It's a intesting because the problem facing China and US navy are very different and come up with different solutions. American fleet will want to operate on the high sea and presumably stay away from the major shiping routes. Chinese is developing things like WZ-8 reconnaissance drone, recon satelite to find the American fleet and guiding the antiship ballistic missile. They are also talking about developing stealth platforms to shadow the enemy fleet and only open up the radar at the final stage of missile strike. China does not really need to worry about differeicating the targets. Americans trying to stop Chinese fleeting landing will need to destroy ships in a congested operation theatre. There going to be a lot of fishing and commercial boat in the area. American need the missiles to hit the right ships.

Philister · Mar 20, 2022

I think, for a future non-stealthy MALE drone which do CAS and reconnaissance missions(may be a little EW too?), being able to take off with a rocket booster is quite important, provides you a much more agile capability especially in a complex terrain, Mojave is quiet close , it would be perfect if it features folding wing design and booster take off capability

tphuang · Mar 20, 2022

Bltizo said:
I am not convinced that any UCAV should be "low altitude".
Operating at low altitude is suicide and puts you at risk of even MANPADS.

Medium altitude UAVs may have a role in more permissive environments (those would be your generic MQ-9, WL-2 type UAVs or smaller MQ-1, WL-1, CH-3/4 style UAVs), but against a high intensity foe, it is suicide.

There should be no replacement to Q-5 just like how there should be no replacement to A-10. Operating at low altitude to conduct interdiction or CAS is cold war era thinking.

Interdiction and CAS today is all about having the EO sensors and PGMs on your aircraft that is operating at medium or high altitude, and the same principles exist for manned and unmanned aircraft alike.

Not necessarily low altitude, but something that can operate in both low and medium altitude. They don't need to operate at Q-5 altitude to replace it's role. It'd be stealthier, faster and carry more ground attack missiles than attack helicopters and slower and have less payload than your JH-7A/J-10s operating in the ground attack roles. Also drop very few PGMs. WL-II types are launching mostly small AGMs and ATGMs. Basically what TB-2 has been doing, but something more autonomous, have better range/endurance.

Ideally something that can still operate autonomously if communication is cut off from remote operating station. Would be a lot cheaper than the VLO UCAV.

Bltizo said:
I think these are the two most important UCAV roles of the future.

Stealthy strike UCAV, and stealthy A2A UCAV.

Both of those types of UCAVs have their own desirable traits in terms of range, endurance, sensor and weapons loadouts, and ability to be attritible.
That said, I have a feeling that the stealthy A2A UCAV may seek to be developed to be more attritible than a stealthy strike UCAV.

Well, if they are going with a flywing design, it's already going to be super difficult to pick up and probably expensive (so less attritable).

Bltizo said:
And in case other people raises it -- no, A2A UCAVs will not high performance hyper agile fighters that are pulling crazy amounts of Gs and being slaved to manned fighters. This isn't anime, and the point of developing A2A UCAVs isn't to fly in a more vigorous manner than what stresses the human body can handle.
Instead, A2A UCAVs should be seen as stealthy, distributed, and attritible sensor and weapons platforms, where their sheer quantity helps to massively strengthen your system of systems aerial battlespace, to provide your side with superior first look, first shoot capability at BVR.
In such matchups, stealth, ECM/EW, and distributed A2A UCAVs will be widespread, and the side which wins will be the one that possesses a superior and more robust networked air fleet in terms of both quantity and quality. That is how VLO fighter aircraft will seek to counter each other -- not by blindly encountering each other and then engaging in WVR combat, but seeking to further extend and distribute their sensor and weapons capability by saturating the battlespace with forward deployed MUMT A2A UCAVs to enable themselves to detect and engage the enemy, before the enemy can detect and engage them.

I think the A2A UCAVs must get more autonomous also. In the future, you need them to take-off and intercept quickly, maybe before the manned aircraft is ready (if the attacking group is really VLO). May need to make decisions by themselves.

Ideally, your A2A UCAVs would be able to intercept strike UCAVs and be really hard for enemy manned aircraft to find. With stealthy AEW UAVs in the air, maybe they could even be shooters against manned fighters.

Bltizo said:
I think the "right size" or indeed, the "right aircraft" fundamentally is dependent on what mature technology and production you have available (a proxy of national wealth), in addition to the role of the aircraft.
A non-AB WS-15 would be more powerful than a non-AB WS-10 for example, but WS-15 is probably going to be in high demand for J-20 production (and possibly 6th gen fighter development) going into the late 2020s, so the likelihood of sparing WS-15s for mass produced UCAVs is unlikely.
But WS-10 and WS-13 are relatively well known quantities, and WS-10 in particular has been in production for a long time now.

okay, makes sense to put the more mature, cheaper systems on your more attritable aircraft.

Although, give how cost of new American platforms always seem to balloon. I'm not sure how well they will actually achieve the goal of cheap, attritable.

Seems to me getting to the right balance of cost and capability is important here. The last thing you want is to keep adding features to be 15% better and then doubling the cost.

Bltizo said:
For some nations, in the near future they might have the industry and the money to build and mass produce UCAVs with sensor and weapons suites that are equal to that of a manned 5th generation fighter -- but for other poorer and less capable nations perhaps they are unable to even build a manned 4th generation fighter.

Let's just say we are only concentrating on US vs China scenario. We know both countries will have UCAVs with advanced sensors and weapon suites.

optionsss said:
I think the key word is "targetting", they are talking about sending our a wave of low tech drone for precise guidance, using inexpensive drone to saturate Chinese fleet air defense and keeping the ships lit for the incoming missile attack. If they can destroy the naval fleet, there would be no Taiwan invasion.

I think that article is quite naiive. USAF is unlikely to use something like that. The drones would be many, but higher tech than what we are talking about.

optionsss said:
With the introducion of long range hypersonic/ballistic antiship missiles entering servise, I think naval aerial combat will focus more on recon/target accusiation instead of strike.

It's a intesting because the problem facing China and US navy are very different and come up with different solutions. American fleet will want to operate on the high sea and presumably stay away from the major shiping routes. Chinese is developing things like WZ-8 reconnaissance drone, recon satelite to find the American fleet and guiding the antiship ballistic missile. They are also talking about developing stealth platforms to shadow the enemy fleet and only open up the radar at the final stage of missile strike. China does not really need to worry about differeicating the targets. Americans trying to stop Chinese fleeting landing will need to destroy ships in a congested operation theatre. There going to be a lot of fishing and commercial boat in the area. American need the missiles to hit the right ships.

hmm, there will be plenty of need for a Chinese UCAV to swarm USN group or military base. You cannot keep a military base down with ballistic missile, but you can with repeated PGM strikes over the top. Similarly, ASBM (assuming it works) still have a range limit and get less accurate the further they are out. They can probably only attack carrier sized targets. If you can have a group of UCAVs jamming/confusing a Burke class destroyer and then dropping a bunch of PGMs and ARMs on there, that could take them out of action.

tphuang · Mar 20, 2022

Oh, one other type of UCAVs they need will be something that can take off and land from carriers and Type 076.

Again, it would need have stealth, strengthened airframe to handle rigors of deck operation, carry AShMs, ARMs, PGMs, A2G missiles, strong EW capabilities, foldable wings and ideally high payload with short take off/landing.

I would not have an issue if naval strike UCAV is less attritable and more expensive than the ground version. I'm not sure if flywing design (like X-47B) would be more appropriate here or wing-body-tail designs like MQ-25. They could also make a dedicated EW version of this.

Ideally, this type of planform can also be used for other roles like refueling tanker.

And then, your future air wing would basically consist mostly of J-35 and different variants of this UCAVs, KJ-600 and some helicopters

tphuang · Mar 23, 2022

A couple of days ago, there was news that USAF is looking for a UCAV that has 4000+ lb payload and 1500+ nm combat radius for a unit cost of at least $300 million. If that sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. B-21 is only projected to have unit cost of $639 million in 2019 dollars. So, the cheap accompanying UCAV would be almost as expensive as the half the cost of B-21 itself and higher than the unit cost of F-22.

Needless to say, I was a little concerned about my own projection of accompanying UCAV for PLAAF. Was it too much to ask to have a flywing type of UCAV with 2t payload and 1500 km combat radius for lower cost than J-20? I was originally thinking of a flywing design with 2 non-AB WS-10 to accompany H-20 (assuming the latter uses 4 non-AB WS-10) and either 1 non-AB WS-13 or 1 non-AB WS-10 for UCAV accompanying J-20. Ideally the one accompanying H-20 would be more powerful and expensive. The one accompanying J-20s would be cheaper and more attritable. In both cases, they need to be very stealthy.

Previously, Shilao podcast had talked about GJ-11 as the first Chinese UCAV to be able to be used against a strong military. So, we should expect there to be more development along this line going forward.

Anyhow, Shilao podcast today actually went over this USAF proposal. They were absolutely shocked by the price tag of this UCAV RFI. They don't see how UCAV using 1 non-AB F-135 could cost this much, which is basically X-47B with F-135 instead of F-100.

They speculated that the cost of B-21 is actually ballooning and NG can use this project to recuperate losses from selling B-21 at the projected cost. They also speculated this UCAV platform could form the basis of a unmanned tanker that could refuel B-21 and accompany UCAVs.

Anyhow, based on those comments, I have now lowered my projection of mass produced GJ-11 (or follow up version) to be closer to $50 million each and a large 2 engine strike UCAV to $100 million each in today's money.

siegecrossbow · Mar 23, 2022

tphuang said:
A couple of days ago, there was news that USAF is looking for a UCAV that has 4000+ lb payload and 1500+ nm combat radius for a unit cost of at least $300 million. If that sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. B-21 is only projected to have unit cost of $639 million in 2019 dollars. So, the cheap accompanying UCAV would be almost as expensive as the half the cost of B-21 itself and higher than the unit cost of F-22.

Needless to say, I was a little concerned about my own projection of accompanying UCAV for PLAAF. Was it too much to ask to have a flywing type of UCAV with 2t payload and 1500 km combat radius for lower cost than J-20? I was originally thinking of a flywing design with 2 non-AB WS-10 to accompany H-20 (assuming the latter uses 4 non-AB WS-10) and either 1 non-AB WS-13 or 1 non-AB WS-10 for UCAV accompanying J-20. Ideally the one accompanying H-20 would be more powerful and expensive. The one accompanying J-20s would be cheaper and more attritable. In both cases, they need to be very stealthy.

Previously, Shilao podcast had talked about GJ-11 as the first Chinese UCAV to be able to be used against a strong military. So, we should expect there to be more development along this line going forward.

Anyhow, Shilao podcast today actually went over this USAF proposal. They were absolutely shocked by the price tag of this UCAV RFI. They don't see how UCAV using 1 non-AB F-135 could cost this much, which is basically X-47B with F-135 instead of F-100.

They speculated that the cost of B-21 is actually ballooning and NG can use this project to recuperate losses from selling B-21 at the projected cost. They also speculated this UCAV platform could form the basis of a unmanned tanker that could refuel B-21 and accompany UCAVs.

Anyhow, based on those comments, I have now lowered my projection of mass produced GJ-11 (or follow up version) to be closer to $50 million each and a large 2 engine strike UCAV to $100 million each in today's money.

A 3D printed cup could cost $7000 so why not.

Philister · Mar 23, 2022

siegecrossbow said:
A 3D printed cup could cost $7000 so why not.

300m for 4000pounds of coffee cups, with an UCAV, I call it a steal

latenlazy · Mar 23, 2022

tphuang said:
A couple of days ago, there was news that USAF is looking for a UCAV that has 4000+ lb payload and 1500+ nm combat radius for a unit cost of at least $300 million. If that sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. B-21 is only projected to have unit cost of $639 million in 2019 dollars. So, the cheap accompanying UCAV would be almost as expensive as the half the cost of B-21 itself and higher than the unit cost of F-22.

Needless to say, I was a little concerned about my own projection of accompanying UCAV for PLAAF. Was it too much to ask to have a flywing type of UCAV with 2t payload and 1500 km combat radius for lower cost than J-20? I was originally thinking of a flywing design with 2 non-AB WS-10 to accompany H-20 (assuming the latter uses 4 non-AB WS-10) and either 1 non-AB WS-13 or 1 non-AB WS-10 for UCAV accompanying J-20. Ideally the one accompanying H-20 would be more powerful and expensive. The one accompanying J-20s would be cheaper and more attritable. In both cases, they need to be very stealthy.

Previously, Shilao podcast had talked about GJ-11 as the first Chinese UCAV to be able to be used against a strong military. So, we should expect there to be more development along this line going forward.

Anyhow, Shilao podcast today actually went over this USAF proposal. They were absolutely shocked by the price tag of this UCAV RFI. They don't see how UCAV using 1 non-AB F-135 could cost this much, which is basically X-47B with F-135 instead of F-100.

They speculated that the cost of B-21 is actually ballooning and NG can use this project to recuperate losses from selling B-21 at the projected cost. They also speculated this UCAV platform could form the basis of a unmanned tanker that could refuel B-21 and accompany UCAVs.

Anyhow, based on those comments, I have now lowered my projection of mass produced GJ-11 (or follow up version) to be closer to $50 million each and a large 2 engine strike UCAV to $100 million each in today's money.

I don’t know if US MIC inflation should make us expect Chinese MIC inflation. Totally different systems. China’s MIC has built in cost controls that defense firms can’t lobby around.

chlosy · Mar 24, 2022

tphuang said:
A couple of days ago, there was news that USAF is looking for a UCAV that has 4000+ lb payload and 1500+ nm combat radius for a unit cost of at least $300 million. If that sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd. B-21 is only projected to have unit cost of $639 million in 2019 dollars. So, the cheap accompanying UCAV would be almost as expensive as the half the cost of B-21 itself and higher than the unit cost of F-22.

Needless to say, I was a little concerned about my own projection of accompanying UCAV for PLAAF. Was it too much to ask to have a flywing type of UCAV with 2t payload and 1500 km combat radius for lower cost than J-20? I was originally thinking of a flywing design with 2 non-AB WS-10 to accompany H-20 (assuming the latter uses 4 non-AB WS-10) and either 1 non-AB WS-13 or 1 non-AB WS-10 for UCAV accompanying J-20. Ideally the one accompanying H-20 would be more powerful and expensive. The one accompanying J-20s would be cheaper and more attritable. In both cases, they need to be very stealthy.

Previously, Shilao podcast had talked about GJ-11 as the first Chinese UCAV to be able to be used against a strong military. So, we should expect there to be more development along this line going forward.

Anyhow, Shilao podcast today actually went over this USAF proposal. They were absolutely shocked by the price tag of this UCAV RFI. They don't see how UCAV using 1 non-AB F-135 could cost this much, which is basically X-47B with F-135 instead of F-100.

They speculated that the cost of B-21 is actually ballooning and NG can use this project to recuperate losses from selling B-21 at the projected cost. They also speculated this UCAV platform could form the basis of a unmanned tanker that could refuel B-21 and accompany UCAVs.

Anyhow, based on those comments, I have now lowered my projection of mass produced GJ-11 (or follow up version) to be closer to $50 million each and a large 2 engine strike UCAV to $100 million each in today's money.

Is it possible to post a link to Shilao's podcast?

Chinese UAV/UCAV development

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

optionsss

Junior Member

Philister

Junior Member

tphuang

Lieutenant General

tphuang

Lieutenant General

tphuang

Lieutenant General

siegecrossbow

General

Philister

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

chlosy

Junior Member