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

[Blitzo]

To expand on this.

The 2IC is really just Guam supported by a few mobile airbases in the form of aircraft carriers. That isn't a lot, so there isn't a huge need to optimise weapons systems just for Guam.

I think it is prudent, if not obligatory, to assume that fortification of Guam and raising of other 2IC-ish airbases will occur.

Given how vital land based air bases at those distances are to the overall conflict (as well as enabling/force multiplying USN CSGs operating at similar distances), robust methods of engaging and degrading and reattacking them seem prudent to me as a prerequisite for how "assured" the westpac conflict is for the PLA.

 

[Totoro]

Guam isn't just one base, in a future war it symbolizes half a dozen bases on several islands of the Marianas group. Plus when we talk about 2ic as a range bracket, there is also Palau further southwest, which would definitely be used. And US bases on the Philippines would proliferate so much that even the distant southern parts of the Philippines would be used by the US.
Furthermore, 2ic range is beneficial to missile launches at even farther targets. Like northern Australia, wake island, possibly even Hawaii and so on. All leveraged by US.
I guess all this discussion is more for strategy thread.

 

[tankphobia]

With the US pivoting towards dispersed strike platforms across 2IC with systems like NMESIS, high endurance stealthy strike platform is probably needed to sufficiently suppress them.

 

[pesoleati]

what if the target is not just 2IC, but covering the entire Japan?

 

[Tomboy]

what if the target is not just 2IC, but covering the entire Japan?

? I don't understand, Japan is wholly within the second island chain

 

[drowingfish]

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.

just because it can fly that far doesnt mean it is to be deployed that far. high endurance could also mean that these aircrafts can be based further inland, or approach target (Guam) from alternate routes. 5000km radius would allow this UAV to fly instead of through densely defended airspace around Taiwan and Okinawa, to take a detour over Philippines and approach Guam from there.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I wonder about the refueling options for the GJ-X and whether the PLAAF will procure boom refueling for it (and the H-20). It seems like they really should.

 

[Lethe]

The efficiency gains from going unmanned diminish as the size of the aircraft increases. For an aircraft as large as GJ-X, the gains are probably fairly marginal. Size also correlates with cost, and as such GJ-X is unlikely to be considered an expendable asset. There must, therefore, be other compelling reasons to eliminate humans from the cockpit, sufficient to outweigh the downsides of doing so. A requirement for very long duration, high-persistence missions is one possible answer: an unmanned aircraft does not need to sleep.

American B-2s have been involved in a number of missions with flight times of >36hrs, up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

during the initial operations against Afghanistan. However, these very lengthy missions required multiple in-flight refuelings from (unthreatened) tankers operating from (unthreatened) airfields scattered around the globe, something that clearly does not apply to China's strategic context. It therefore seems unlikely that the limits of human endurance are the reason for GJ-X being unmanned.

So here's a thought: could it be a tanker?

 

[AndrewS]

what if the target is not just 2IC, but covering the entire Japan?

Japan is considered part of the 1IC and would be covered by a different set of mostly smaller aircraft that don't need as much range.

Think the J-20 and J-XDS for air superiority missions for example.

And with air superiority over the 1IC, any aircraft or UCAV can be used for strike.

 

[wuguanhui]

Personally, the bomber I want most is a cheap expendable Japan-bomber. Probably some unmanned subsonic vlo flying wing that China can procure in vast numbers and can waste sending them after secondary non critical targets.