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

sunnymaxi

Major
Registered Member
I think it's weird that PLAN prefer to use AL-31 for their J-15 but the future naval UCAV is using WS-10.
it has been thoroughly discussed. the big reason is, cost and logistics.

PLAN doesn't want to deal with three different Engines. WS-10 , AL-31 and WS-21.

but there are strong rumors, by the end of this year, J-15 new variants could use WS-10 engines.
 

by78

General
Three more.

54769420569_d0e449f1d1_o.jpg
54769182316_8f5441317e_o.jpg
54769639163_f6355d0ef1_k.jpg
 

mack8

Junior Member
What is that pattern on the intake of the Type A (caret intake)? It looks like maybe a bay door, something else? The top narrow bit runs all the way to the gear well.
 

mack8

Junior Member
And just to say, the more i look at the UADFs the more awesome they look, especially the potential they offer, if you slap a cockpit on one or both you have a very formidable light 6th gen fighter with minimal changes, perfect for export (because i assume there will be decades ahead in which most countries would not afford UADFs or heavy 6th gen fighters). Also how about a STOVL out of them? They are single engine so that is a start. I wonder if they were designed with this kind of flexibility/modularity in mind.
 

Nx4eu

Junior Member
Registered Member
Another measurement photo. Made by @LantianYY on Weibo.

View attachment 160215
If 15.23m for Type A UCAV is accurate, I'd say the Type UCAV is close to 15.58m long, Which isn't much larger. I think it looks far larger because the nose sticks farther in front than the Type A, however the type A's tail reaches farther back. If anyone would like to remeasure, go for it, because I'm a bit stumped as well, I thought the Type B UCAV would be at least 16m long.

The Picture is a bit messy and hard tor read sorry bout that. 1757189176040.png

I'm trying to create a 3d model of the Type B UCAV, so some measurements of it would be nice.
 

mack8

Junior Member
Looking forward to your work. Will you do Type A as well? Would be fascinating to better see their details, like the position and size of the bays.
 

terry92

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Hello all,

The consensus here seems to be that the diamond -shaped CCA (Type E) is a mockup, but I would like to discuss what the evidence is, for or against. On the image above, rivets are visible along the front and bottom edge of the vertical stabilizers, and three rivets are visible on the outer tip of the main wing. There are also visible gaps for the panel with a cross (+) symbol below the intake, and a pitot tube on the nose.

I cannot see any discontinuity for the radome near the nose. The front landing gear does not seem to me to leave very much room for a radar system in this planform. It is quite strange to me what the role of this platform is if it does not have a radar sensing capability. Perhaps a purely strike platform, intended to be cued by other network nodes, but we have not yet seen a IWB. But maybe there is some innovative solution, relying on other sensors or conformal antennae (receiver-only radar?). Or maybe that a distinct radome is not necessary, because the entire aircraft is housed in composite (with any RAM material underneath).

The wing control surfaces appear to have actuator housings, although none are present on the rudder. It's possible the rudder uses electrical actuators like on the F-35. The main landing gear appears to have intact wiring for the brake system. I know the exhaust was a point of contention, but perhaps the engine is non-afterburning, so heat resistant materials are not necessary.

Are these details typical for mockups? I am not familiar with how these mockups are made. I wonder what you all think.
Regards
 

phrozenflame

Junior Member
Registered Member
And just to say, the more i look at the UADFs the more awesome they look, especially the potential they offer, if you slap a cockpit on one or both you have a very formidable light 6th gen fighter with minimal changes, perfect for export (because i assume there will be decades ahead in which most countries would not afford UADFs or heavy 6th gen fighters). Also how about a STOVL out of them? They are single engine so that is a start. I wonder if they were designed with this kind of flexibility/modularity in mind.
I dont think a cockpit can just be slapped over. It will require so much re-engineering that it might be just more efficient to have a clean-sheet design, if a light 6th gen is needed for whatever reason. Even if we include such modularity, then it will come at an expense of engineering compromises. I just dont see the need for it.
 
Top