Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
There aren't many use cases for S bend intake and high bypass ratio engines.
A few replies on certain points
3. I think the idea of using a high bypass engine like WS-20 in this aircraft would still be somewhat unlikely. The positioning of the engines would be in the central fuselage, which is prime weapons bay location. Given the diameter of an engine like WS-20, the idea of having two such engines seems ambitious to me. The use of a non AB WS-10 variant (like use of F118s in B-2) is just a reflection of the need that a stealthy flying wing has to compromise with an engine of a smaller diameter to fit its fuselage
5. Indeed, one of the major benefits of a cranked kite versus a continuous leading edge flying wing is the ability to have a longer weapons bay without increasing aircraft weight as much (that benefit would make the slight RCS detriment of a cranked kite a worthwhile tradeoff if it is an important part of the aircraft's requirements). I'm unsure if this aircraft will be able to carry something as large as JL-1, but I do believe there is a case to be made that VLO bomber aircraft being able to carry long range standoff weapons is actually somewhat important especially if you are striking at heavily defended targets.
6. Using GJ-X in a one way, suicide mission role is certainly very viable given it is unmanned. I think the idea of using such a valuable platform for launching nuclear weapons against CONUS is somewhat unnecessary/unlikely however. Not to mention the consequences of what it actually means for PLA nuclear strategy (if they're conducting aerial nuclear bombing of CONUS then you'd be at strategic nuclear exchange most probably anyhow, so this notion can probably be safely ignored for now)
Indeed, but defining how high the "high bypass" ratio actually is, and the stage of maturity is a whole other topic.
Given how cautiously we approach PLA/PRC engine matters, I agree with Deino that a somewhat high degree of evidence shoudl be required to characterize what exactly we're talking about.
Hello guys I made a comparison image of GJ-X and B-21, and assuming that the wingspan of B-21 is 46m.
Speaking of which:
Still remember this fella? You guys here in this forum know what to do, lads (lmfao)
I don't think this forum has a record of making enthusiast derived patches.
Is this assuming GJ-X has a wingspan of 42m?
I'll have to check it when I'm back at my computer, but the visual difference seems a bit large if it's only a difference of 4m in wingspan
I agree with your assessment that ~8m long IWB is reasonable. This length incidently would allow back-to-back packing of whatever weapon that fits in PLA's tactical jets. BTW, we now have confirmation from Orca that the H-20 is not going to fit the JL-1 (he implied this idea is stupid). ()
Nuclear bombing of any kind is (hopefully) a very low likelihood event. However, the mere possibility of this would force American strategists to rethink CONUS defenses and allocate resources in ways that are arguably very favorable to Chinese interest.
I would argue given the significant benefits of a high bypass turbofan, we should presume they will equip China's premier aerial assets unless there are strong evidence against it. Historically, the use of low bypass engines on the B-2 was due to flow distortion as explained by this from Bill Sweetman:
Sorry, the intended audience is actually the PLA-watching community on the other side of the wall, a few of which does make non-official patches related to the PLA. My bad.
By taking the runway centerline marking in front of the GJ-X at 30 meters long (obtained from Google Maps) for measurement referencing, a wingspan of ~42 meters (and possibly up to ~43/44 meters, accounting for discrepancies) and a length of ~24 meters are obtained for the GJ-X.
Last edited:
I think one of the benefits of a longer but thinner versus shorter but wider weapons bay, is exactly that a longer weapons bay will still allow you to fit back to back packing of weapons that fit in a shorter/wider weapons bay as well as longer unitary weapons if needed... but the reverse is not true for a shorter/wider weapons bay.
From a planning point of view that's reasonable, though I do think if it's reached a situation where there is a cusp of nuclear exchange, GJ-Xs would be better used to bomb locations closer than CONUS... or if they were used in such a role, they would probably launch something like YJ-18C or the PLA equivalent of LRSO rather than dropping unpowered nuclear PGMs.
There are of course very significant benefits to a high bypass turbofan, that isn't in any doubt.
The question is whether a high bypass turbofan of sufficient dimensions and maturity is available for the PLA to fit in GJ-X, WZ-X and H-20.
Simply from a fuselage cross section point of view, I am very hesitant to point at WS-20 and say that it would be appropriate.
(For example, what would B-2 have looked like with four CFM-56s?)
===
So, taking that image of B-21 (btw is it an actual satellite image? I actually haven't seen it before), assuming it is 46m wingspan, I measure it at 390 pixels.
If we assume GJ-X has a wingspan of 42m, that's 356 pixels wide, which looks somewhat more like this:
Last edited:
