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

[Tomboy]

I would second @Blitzo here.

And "... the advancement of Chinese industry in the years in between..." does not mean that Chinese engineers won't need consiserable number of years to figure out and settle on everything needed for building and operating such a massive unmanned flying wing aircraft, especially given how China has no prior experience in designing, building, and operating full-scale flying-wing aircrafts and had to start from scratch (unlike the US, which already began efforts all the way back in the 1970s).

If anything, the development efforts on technologies of similar scale and complexity often take many years, if not decades. You think that the work on the J-20 only started in the 2000s? No, it started way back in the early 1990s, if not in the late 1980s. The same goes for the J-36 and J-XDS/50 - The work started back in the early 2010s, if not in the late 2000s.

I don't think you are getting my point, I'm simply trying to warn against people putting a direct comparison between whatever is depicted in the papers to WZ-X and saying WZ-X must have the exact same design for intakes, engine etc.

Also, it really depends on what you can consider as "pre-research" as one can argue that as every plane takes experience and designs tested in previous generation of aircraft and hence pre research for any plane built after dates back to the original Wright flyer. AFAIK, J-20 as an actual projected intended to produce a functional aircraft was only started in the mid 2000s with pre-research for next generation of aircraft going back to the 90s. Now going back to my point, if you were going to dig up some research from the pre-research era for next generation fighter and say J-20 is going to look exactly like this, have the exact subsystem as is depicted it or have the exact specs in the paper would be rather disingenuous wouldn't it? Anyways my point is that the papers should be only used as a rough reference only.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I don't think you are getting my point, I'm simply trying to warn against people putting a direct comparison between whatever is depicted in the papers to WZ-X and saying WZ-X must have the exact same design for intakes, engine etc.

Also, it really depends on what you can consider as "pre-research" as one can argue that as every plane takes experience and designs tested in previous generation of aircraft and hence pre research for any plane built after dates back to the original Wright flyer. AFAIK, J-20 as an actual projected intended to produce a functional aircraft was only started in the mid 2000s with pre-research for next generation of aircraft going back to the 90s. Now going back to my point, if you were going to dig up some research from the pre-research era for next generation fighter and say J-20 is going to look exactly like this or have the exact subsystem as depicted it would be rather disingenuous wouldn't it?

And you think the WZ-X doesn't need any pre-research work on the concepts, working principles and technicalities before actually starting the development work, whether those works eventually contributed to the final efforts on the WZ-X or not?

On the other hand, I should be the one asking this: What makes you even think that the alleged model of WZ-X is actually depicting the exact same details as the real thing, let alone outright deducing that it has only one engine?

 

[Tomboy]

And you think the WZ-X doesn't need any pre-research work on the concepts, working principles and technicalities before actually starting the development work, whether those works eventually contributed to the final efforts on the WZ-X or not?

Again, not my point. Read my post again. I was simply trying to say not to take preliminary research as final specs or design.

On the other hand, I should be the one asking this: What makes you even think that the alleged model of WZ-X is actually depicting the exact same details as the real thing, let alone outright deducing that it has only one engine?

Is the poster not considered credible around here? His post is obviously hinting that they are related but, yes you are right, I was perhaps to fast on the conclusion of it being single engined. I do apologize for that here.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Again, not my point. Read my post again. I was simply trying to say not to take preliminary research as final specs or design.

Is the poster not considered credible around here? His post is obviously hinting that they are related but, yes you are right, I was perhaps to fast on the conclusion of it being single engined. I do apologize for that here.

Alright.