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

[Tomboy]

For some reason, I thought the CH-7 is much larger and heavier than it actually is so please interpret when I said "CH-7" to actually mean a flying wing/cranked kite subsonic drone with 1500-2000nm combat radius and about 5,000-10,000lb internal payload with 20-40t MTOW. I think there is a high likelihood such a program exist with the PLAAF(I would rate something like this as more likely than the actual GJ-X before Sep.18).

I don't think GJ-X is going to have a much larger combat radius like you think. B-21 only has a estimated unrefueled combat radius of about 2200nmi as this drone is likely to carry approximately the same payload as a B-21 while also being a bit smaller but is unmanned it is reasonable to expect a similar combat radius.

 

[Neurosmith]

Huitong opines that the appearance of the GJ-X might indicate that the H-20 project has been cancelled or at least had a spanner thrown in its works.

Nevertheless, with the emergence of multiple large stealth fly-wing UAV/UCAV designs (e.g. GJ-X), the prospect of this manned subsonic bomber is becoming increasingly less clear.

The following is why I disagree.

1. The size of the drone does not permit intercontinental strikes without aerial refuelling nor does it give the IWB enough space to house strategic weaponry like the JL-1. The ability to conduct strikes far beyond the 2IC is something the PLAAF views as a steadfast requirement going forward.
2. While the drone is indeed B-21-sized, it does not necessarily replace the role of a notional H-20. In fact, one of the selling points of the B-21 is its lower cost and simpler manufacturing processes - this allows the USAF to purchase over 100 airframes. Assuming that the GJ-X leverages a comparable set of technical and industrial advantages, this would provide the PLAAF a "low-cost" option to conduct VLO strikes out to the 2IC with a numerous yet still-capable platform. However, this still does not usurp the H-20's role of being an intercontinental-range aircraft capable of loading outsized strategic A2G weaponry.
3. The PLAAF and PLA in general have always approached the procurement and development of new weaponry with a conservative mind. It is extremely unlikely that they would delegate the task of very-long-range strikes and even airborne nuclear deterrence to an unmanned platform of unprecedented size and complexity. I don't think the PLAAF is quite ready to have drones and AI replace humans, especially for such critical missions as nuclear deterrence and faraway strikes on highly critical targets.
4. There has been zero chatter from the grapevine about such a cancellation - in fact, the recent rumors point towards the possibility of the H-20 being unveiled relatively soon.

This is what I predict the GJ-X would fulfill within the PLAAF, assuming that it is indeed a UCAV to begin with.

• Provide the PLAAF with a long-range VLO strike platform that is relatively affordable and whose production could be massively scaled. Having 100+ B-21-sized aircraft capable of attacking high-value targets out to the 2IC would provide the Chinese with a monumental leap in strategic reach while increasing the "threat ring" against potential adversaries.
• Replace legacy interdiction aircraft such as the JH-7 and H-6.
• Addressing potential shortfalls in PLAAF recruitment, as the GJ-X would likely require a lot less operator training versus putting human pilots through long courses and familiarization programs. This would free up pilots to operate and gain experience with in-service manned fighters.
• Serve as a testbed for AI and even the H-20.

==

On another note, Huitong seems to think that the following drone, which was first spotted a few months ago IIRC, is in fact the GJ-X. If so, it would confirm that it is twin-engined.

 

[Totoro]

B-21 only has a estimated unrefueled combat radius of about 2200nmi

I tried finding a source for 2200 NM but could not. Do you have the source mentioning such radius or perhaps at least a ferry range (from which a radius could then be estimated)

 

[Tomboy]

I tried finding a source for 2200 NM but could not. Do you have the source mentioning such radius or perhaps at least a ferry range (from which a radius could then be estimated)

I recall a report from ASPI that said it could fly 4000km with more payload than F-35. As far as I can find online most people/reports/websites say estimated ferry range in the range of 5000nmi.

 

[Blitzo]

For some reason, I thought the CH-7 is much larger and heavier than it actually is so please interpret when I said "CH-7" to actually mean a flying wing/cranked kite subsonic drone with 1500-2000nm combat radius and about 5,000-10,000lb internal payload with 20-40t MTOW. I think there is a high likelihood such a program exist with the PLAAF(I would rate something like this as more likely than the actual GJ-X before Sep.18).

Prior to GJ-X being identified, I also believed that such an aircraft was a bit more likely than a B-21 sized unmanned monster.

However, with GJ-X being identified like this, I must say the role of a 20-40t MTOW UCAV seems potentially a little bit redundant to me, if we are operating with the acceptance that GJ-11 will also exist.

After all, the role of a regional striker for the PLA is one where there are plentiful relatively well defended high end targets where the benefits of greater payload and/or endurance or range can be exercised, either in the form of more airframes, or of fewer airframes (but each airframe carrying greater payload).

Huitong opines that the appearance of the GJ-X might indicate that the H-20 project has been cancelled or at least had a spanner thrown in its works.


The following is why I disagree.

I think what you wrote is better suited for the H-20 thread than this thread.

I will just state that Huitong isn't suggesting that H-20 has been cancelled or had a spanner thrown into its works, but rather acknowledging that the existence of GJ-X does lead us to further question if H-20 will be the standard flying wing we all expected for prior years... especially because in the last year or so we've had other preceding indicators that H-20 may not be a standard flying wing.

 

[Totoro]

I recall a report from ASPI that said it could fly 4000km with more payload than F-35. As far as I can find online most people/reports/websites say estimated ferry range in the range of 5000nmi.

Just read that report. Authors say 4000 km is a very conservative estimate based on b2 public figure of 11000 ferry range.
Aspi is just a think tank with no special info access and I've found at least one instance where one of reports authors mentions 5000+ km radius estimate for b-21, in another aspi article.

Basically , b-21 radius is unknown but personally, I would be surprised if it was under 5000 km. That's because b-21 isn't meaningfully smaller than b2. For somewhat smaller wingspan, it's also lighter and likely has more efficient engines. I wouldn't be surprised if it matches b2 radius figure completely. (At half the combat payload though)
And even that might be very conservative figure. When b2 was made, it's perfectly plausible b52 range (14 000 km with payload, 16 000 km empty) was somewhat of a target. Approximately 6000 NM stated at AF website could very well be deliberate simolification. If so, I would put both b2 and b21 combat radius at 5000 to 7000 km, depending on the actual payload.

Sadly, no think tank really has any more accurate data or estimates than people on forums can conjure up.

 

[AndrewS]

[*]Replace legacy interdiction aircraft such as the JH-7 and H-6.

View attachment 161169

Minor point.

---

For the 1IC, the missions conducted by the JH-7 and H-6 would suit a smaller VLO aircraft.

But if the Chinese Air Force have air superiority, you don't need VLO aircraft to launch glide bombs.

---

For the 2IC, the H-6 still has a role as a very low-cost missile truck, given that the 1IC would be secure.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

1. Sneak attack/decapitation strike: Unless the US massively beef up its homeland counter stealth efforts (today Washington DC is only defended by NASAMS), a VLO bomber can sneak in and deliver its payload so that the US would only know of an attack when they see a nuclear explosion.

2. Engaging airborne targets: The US heavily rely on airborne command and control for nuclear war fighting (Air Force 1, E-4, etc). Stealth bombers with appropriate weapon (e.g. anti-air HCM) are the best option to target these aircrafts, denying American leadership safe sanctuary.

3. Attacking deeply buried targets: Deeply buried bunkers can survive even multi-megaton ground bursts and are thus nearly immune to long range missiles. Attacking these targets require nuclear armed heavy bunker busters that only strategic bombers can carry.

4. Large payload and potential for multiple sorties: A single bomber can deliver multiple dozens of nuclear bombs per sortie. This is equivalent to or greater than a whole brigade of DF-31s. Unlike missiles, bombers can reload to go on nuclear bombing sortie repeatedly until strategic objectives are met.

#1 completely stupid/suicidal - you think surprise attack or attempted first strike can circumvent MAD?

#2 not feasible within foreseeable future.

#3 dont see why a bunker busting warhead cannot be designed for ballistic missiles?

#4 in a nuclear war, there wont be multiple sorties.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Or China has a working FOBS HGV. No need for transit refueling. They said the US would've been able to detect if China's ASBM was ever tested. So what do they know since China has them now in service?