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

[Blitzo]

Wasn't trying to say much beyond: "Similar-ish programs likely do exist on the other side of the ledger, but things might not be going well or at least as well as their equivalent Chinese programs."

TBH, I'm a bit surprised by the definitiveness of your interpretation, especially given my employment of verbiage like: "according to the grapevine," "presumably," "might," and "reportedly."

The uncertainty of those terms are a bit undermined by the initial question of whether that Lockheed project is even unmanned to begin with, or whether it had flown.

I think your overall argument would have been stronger if the specific example wasn't referenced at all, but that may just be me.

Totally agree with you: there are a lot of unknowns with these sorts of classified programs.

This is also why I have a habit of hedging language to communicate or address uncertainty, but I'm starting to suspect that the hedging more often than not goes unnoticed.



Sometimes besides financials released due to regulatory requirements and maybe a few other limited data points, there just isn't much to work with when assessing or discussing certain classified DoD acquisition programs.

If the argument is that there are classified programs on both sides, and that one or more classified programs of the US may represent (at minimum) a medium range stealthy strike UCAV, I think that's a reasonable position to take, but I wouldn't go much further than that.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

The uncertainty of those terms are a bit undermined by the initial question of whether that Lockheed project is even unmanned to begin with, or whether it had flown.

I think your overall argument would have been stronger if the specific example wasn't referenced at all, but that may just be me.




If the argument is that there are classified programs on both sides, and that one or more classified programs of the US may represent (at minimum) a medium range stealthy strike UCAV, I think that's a reasonable position to take, but I wouldn't go much further than that.

US doesn't have the cost control to mass produce expensive stealth drones. In this current market, Each Medium sized stealth drone will probably cost $100+ million in the US.

The reason most advanced programs die in the US is because the cost keep ballooning until they realize the extra capabilities are not worth the cost. So, they either cancel the program or reduce it down to only a few units or just decide to upgrade old hardware.

 

[Blitzo]

US doesn't have the cost control to mass produce expensive stealth drones. In this current market, Each Medium sized stealth drone will probably cost $100+ million in the US.

The reason most advanced programs die in the US is because the cost keep ballooning until they realize the extra capabilities are not worth the cost. So, they either cancel the program or reduce it down to only a few units or just decide to upgrade old hardware.

None of that has any bearing as to what we were discussing.

We were not talking about the viability of the US mass producing stealth strike drones, but rather whether such drones may be in development and/or testing.
Production and procurement is a few steps ahead of that, so I'm not sure why it needs to be considered in context of the prior discussion.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

None of that has any bearing as to what we were discussing.

We were not talking about the viability of the US mass producing stealth strike drones, but rather whether such drones may be in development and/or testing.
Production and procurement is a few steps ahead of that, so I'm not sure why it needs to be considered in context of the prior discussion.

Well what's the point of US having advanced development programs if they can't actually put them into service? If we are comparing advancement of US vs China in the UCAV domain, we need to also consider US track record to actually deliver on any advanced air platform in recent times.

 

[Blitzo]

Well what's the point of US having advanced development programs if they can't actually put them into service? If we are comparing advancement of US vs China in the UCAV domain, we need to also consider US track record to actually deliver on any advanced air platform in recent times.

You are making arguments which are like two or steps ahead, for hypothetical programs whose status and existence we are not even able to verify.

I'm not saying you are incorrect, but what you are doing is also further broadening an already slightly off topic discussion to one that encompasses other aspects of industry and procurement.


Please try and post in a manner that allows off topic posts to be pruned and contained rather than replying to a conversation that creates another off topic offshoot.

 

[Totoro]

Are we seeing a new family of Chinese strike oriented aircraft, to succeed and augument older, manned aircraft fleet?

Compared to the JH-7, GJ-11/21 should offer at least similar if not two times greater combat radius, though likely carrying a lighter payload.
Compared to the JH-7, this new GJ-X should offer several times greater combat radius with a comparable payload, or still a few time greater combat radius with something like a 10 ton internal payload.

So, for years we've heard of possible JH-XX. This may be it. But instead of a single plane to replace it, we've got a family of two separate classes.

So what would a weight guesstimate be for this thing? I see the B-21 is listed as 80 tons, even assuming for a sec the GJ-X is a tad smaller, it might still be something like 60-70 tons full? And what about the WZ-X, that would be say 50-60 tons?

Not sure about 80 tons for B-21. If B-2 would be shrunken down to B-21 size, it'd likely weigh around 60 tons empty and might have a MTOW of some 145 tons. This GJ-X appears a little bit longer though with a little bit narrower wingspan. Very roughly speaking, it's empty weight might/should be around 60 tons, with MTOW weight being comfortably over 2 times said value. Possibly even reaching 140 tons.

 

[Tomboy]

Are we seeing a new family of Chinese strike oriented aircraft, to succeed and augument older, manned aircraft fleet?

Compared to the JH-7, GJ-11/21 should offer at least similar if not two times greater combat radius, though likely carrying a lighter payload.
Compared to the JH-7, this new GJ-X should offer several times greater combat radius with a comparable payload, or still a few time greater combat radius with something like a 10 ton internal payload.

So, for years we've heard of possible JH-XX. This may be it. But instead of a single plane to replace it, we've got a family of two separate classes.

GJ-X could likely even replace most of H-6's job of striking second island chain targets.

 

[Totoro]

GJ-X could likely even replace most of H-6's job of striking second island chain targets.

Oh, absolutely. It likely has a greater combat radius than H-6. The only reason I didn't mention H-6 as one of the planes it can replace is because of the H-20. I mean, we may refer to it here as the GJ-X but for all intents and purposes, it's a theater level bomber.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Now let's not forget about these guys...

Pics likely from before the parade. Found on Twitter

 

[Blitzo]

Are we seeing a new family of Chinese strike oriented aircraft, to succeed and augument older, manned aircraft fleet?

Compared to the JH-7, GJ-11/21 should offer at least similar if not two times greater combat radius, though likely carrying a lighter payload.
Compared to the JH-7, this new GJ-X should offer several times greater combat radius with a comparable payload, or still a few time greater combat radius with something like a 10 ton internal payload.

So, for years we've heard of possible JH-XX. This may be it. But instead of a single plane to replace it, we've got a family of two separate classes.

I think what is very clear is that the PLA have quite a few options for stealthy fixed wing strike, any combination of which could replace JH-7/As and complement H-6K family aircraft, including:
- GJ-11/21
- GJ-X (if it is indeed procured)
- And also J-20 family and J-35/A family to an extent
- Possibly some of the CCA/UADF designs

Then if we accept that H-20 is still on the cards in some form, and then consider advancements in other domains of regional fires, it opens up many permutations for how JH-7/A (and beyond that, J-16 and H-6K family eventually) can be replaced in terms of fixed wing strike.