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

[iewgnem]

I think people are too attached to the RQ-180 comparison.
The new drone is 30% larger than RQ-180 (130 ft wingspan), so obviously requirements are different. It's obviously not a heavy bomber, but you also don't need to be this big for just long endurance ISR. For the same general layout, range is just function of fuel consumption and LD ratio, neither are directly helped by size.

My guess is it's a VLO, long endurance sensor node with AA capability, its IWB and payload would be more like a heavy fighter rather than a bomber, but its also larger than a pure ISR node like RQ-180.

 

[dingyibvs]

I'm not sure what you're asking, but it overall seems to be in the direction of trying to consider if it's possible for this aircraft to have a weapons bay of any size.

Of course this aircraft is able to have a weapons bay, that has never really been under question. What is under question is whether it makes sense for this thing to have a weapons bay -- any weapons bay it would have, by virtue of its planform, would be rather small for its size. That's why it is thought to be more likely to be appropriate for a recce role.

Yeah, of course it wouldn't be a platform you want to use to deliver significant mass of munitions. I'm just wondering if it can have a meaningful secondary attack role. For example, if it can carry a few PL-17s and/or long range anti-radiation missiles then it'd really augment its survivability since its primary defense is stealth and those types of munitions would keep anti-stealth platforms from getting close.

 

[ougoah]

Just a CG showcase of major UAV models by China, with fighter jets for visualization. Made by @钢铁机机 on Weibo.

母鸡 = Chicken Hen (a roundabout homophonetic way of saying "I don't know" in Cantonese)

From top row, left to right:
1st row: WZ-7, WZ-9, CH-7
2nd row: CH-9, WZ-X, unknown UAV #1, WZ-8, unknown UAV #2
3rd row: J-35/A, J-XDS, Jetank, J-36, J-20

Note:
1. The dimensions presented may not be fully accurate.
2. The unknown UAV #1 likely refers to this one spotted at Gaobeidian last year.

View attachment 154537

Outside of the various Cloud Shadow and CH-7 experimentals and prototypes, did they ever work out what this drone might be?

The video and the promotional graphic doesnt look anything like the CS-5000T demonstrator that has the distinct fuselage and wing sweep angles and geometries. It is not the following.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750883925214273598

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

I think people are too attached to the RQ-180 comparison.
The new drone is 30% larger than RQ-180 (130 ft wingspan), so obviously requirements are different. It's obviously not a heavy bomber, but you also don't need to be this big for just long endurance ISR. For the same general layout, range is just function of fuel consumption and LD ratio, neither are directly helped by size.

Yes, they absolutely do - Especially when considering that unlike the US, China does not have any overseas air base to conduct refueling stops. That means having extremely long range and endurance is a must for strategic ISR missions.

The RQ-180 can choose to make a refueling stop at Oahu, Wake or even Guam before proceeding to loiter at China's frontyard. But the same cannot be said for the WZ-X.

My guess is it's a VLO, long endurance sensor node with AA capability, its IWB and payload would be more like a heavy fighter rather than a bomber, but its also larger than a pure ISR node like RQ-180.

The WZ-X is shorter than even the F-35, so trying to fit IWBs inside it would be a strong-arm move. Moreover, the volume and weight prescribed for the IWB would just be better utilized towards its intended strategic-ISR role and expanding endurance instead.

(Lastly, if there's ever going to be any AA capability onboard, then it'll only be for close-in self-defense (i.e. micro-AAMs).)

 

[BoraTas]

Noticed RQ180/WZ-X is very similar to B21. B21 is more or less a RQ180 with a weapon bay.

They are not similar at all.

Besides the size difference, the proportions are completely different. The first photo is the B-21 and the second is (likely) the RQ-180.




The difference would be even more obvious from other aspects. The bombers are thick to accommodate the munitions. We don't have a front or side profile for the RQ-180. But we have for the RQ-170, which is a smaller UAV of the same role. It is flat.

 

[tankphobia]

Just a CG showcase of major UAV models by China, with fighter jets for visualization. Made by @钢铁机机 on Weibo.

母鸡 = Chicken Hen (a roundabout homophonetic way of saying "I don't know" in Cantonese)

From top row, left to right:
1st row: WZ-7, WZ-9, CH-7
2nd row: CH-9, WZ-X, unknown UAV #1, WZ-8, unknown UAV #2
3rd row: J-35/A, J-XDS, Jetank, J-36, J-20

Note:
1. The dimensions presented may not be fully accurate.
2. The unknown UAV #1 likely refers to this one spotted at Gaobeidian last year.

View attachment 154537

Puts into perspective how large some of those UAVs are. Jiu Tian is gigantic in person and it looks pretty small here.

 

[Tomboy]

if they actually put something like this into production, it should have a very long range and be quite expensive. I would be curious what engines it uses, probably 2 WS-10 without afterburner, I would imagine.

I doubt WS-10 would make the cut, its a antiquated engine with crappy fuel efficiency. As you mentioned this is a expensive asset with strategic importance, as such IMO it should deserve the best the Chinese aviation industry can offer. In this case likely 2 of whatever high bypass turbofan H-20 is using.

Two WS-10 likely won't be enough to power such a large aircraft, I expect this drone to be in a similar weight class as the B-21. ISR equipments alone could weigh several tons along with all the comms, ELINT equipment, possibly a decently large nose/leading edge radar if it can act as a forward sensing node, the overall payload could be quite heavy. Also this aircraft is probably mostly solid with very little free space as most of it would be fuel granting it a very high fuel percentage but also making it extremely heavy when fully fueled. WS-10s likely can't offer the required electrical capacity and cooling capacity to fully utilize the aforementioned electronics onboard.

High BPR turbofans also have much lower thermal signature than low BPR ones and coupled with advanced exhaust designs could seriously enchance survivability especially considering this is a extremely expensive platform meant to operate in hostile airspace.

 

[Blitzo]

Yeah, of course it wouldn't be a platform you want to use to deliver significant mass of munitions. I'm just wondering if it can have a meaningful secondary attack role. For example, if it can carry a few PL-17s and/or long range anti-radiation missiles then it'd really augment its survivability since its primary defense is stealth and those types of munitions would keep anti-stealth platforms from getting close.

PL-17s would not be used for "secondary attack" -- such weapons would be considered very high end, long range A2A.
Anti radiation missiles would also be considered relatively specialized A2G weapons.

If the goal is to give an aircraft like this a self defense capability, imo such measures would be last ditch at best and likely will not augment its survivability. This thing is likely so slow and so un-maneuverable, that if it is detected then it will be swatted out of the sky.


Space used for kinetic self defense weapons imo are better used to augment its sensors to allow it to operate at greater distances from its target, or to give it a more potent self defense EW suite.

Actual defense of this asset should ideally be done by friendly forward deployed tactical air as well as large scale SEAD/DEAD and fires to make the enemy unable to mount a robust air search campaign/system to begin with.

 

[dingyibvs]

PL-17s would not be used for "secondary attack" -- such weapons would be considered very high end, long range A2A.
Anti radiation missiles would also be considered relatively specialized A2G weapons.

If the goal is to give an aircraft like this a self defense capability, imo such measures would be last ditch at best and likely will not augment its survivability. This thing is likely so slow and so un-maneuverable, that if it is detected then it will be swatted out of the sky.


Space used for kinetic self defense weapons imo are better used to augment its sensors to allow it to operate at greater distances from its target, or to give it a more potent self defense EW suite.

Actual defense of this asset should ideally be done by friendly forward deployed tactical air as well as large scale SEAD/DEAD and fires to make the enemy unable to mount a robust air search campaign/system to begin with.

You're correct if you're thinking of using this in a traditional AWACS role, with the advent of the J-36 I think we need to try to reimagine air combat. What if this aircraft is actually meant to be the spearhead of an assault, staying in front of an attack group? Its primary purpose would then be as the eyes in front, with long range but low explosives munitions it would be used against enemy AWACS and ground based radars. Without them enemies would need to come closer to take it down, but then they'd come within range of the rest of the attack group following behind, with long range missiles of their own guided by this UAV. While undoubtedly expensive for an UAV, it would be much more expendable than an actual AWACS. So if an enemy aircraft does get through and shoot it down it may not be as much of a loss as say a 6th gen fighter or perhaps even a F-35 when you take into consideration the likely pilot loss.

 

[Blitzo]

You're correct if you're thinking of using this in a traditional AWACS role, with the advent of the J-36 I think we need to try to reimagine air combat. What if this aircraft is actually meant to be the spearhead of an assault, staying in front of an attack group? Its primary purpose would then be as the eyes in front, with long range but low explosives munitions it would be used against enemy AWACS and ground based radars. Without them enemies would need to come closer to take it down, but then they'd come within range of the rest of the attack group following behind, with long range missiles of their own guided by this UAV. While undoubtedly expensive for an UAV, it would be much more expendable than an actual AWACS. So if an enemy aircraft does get through and shoot it down it may not be as much of a loss as say a 6th gen fighter or perhaps even a F-35 when you take into consideration the likely pilot loss.

Well, I don't see this as an AWACS, but rather an air to surface ISR aircraft.

As for an aircraft like this being the spearhead of an assault, I doubt it.

This airframe is oriented for endurance and range.
If you want a UAV design to spearhead an assault you'll want something that is somewhat less optimized for endurance and more on kinematic performance, air to air sensor configuration and more oriented for weapons carriage.



Now, I'm actually a big believer in the "UAV-ification" and "flying-wing-ification" of everything, but this aircraft just doesn't make sense as a weapons platform or a forward positioned "spearhead" type of UCAV/UAV.


If anything, people should be celebrating the emergence of an uber large, highly specialized strategic ISR stealthy UAV. This is exactly the type of aircraft that the PLA has been missing, which can enable a robust, 2nd island chain surface surveillance and BDA capability that is so vital to enabling long range anti ship and anti surface fires. Such a capability is many times more significant and important than such a platform being able to fire a few missiles or something.
Instead, being optimized for sensors, networking, endurance, range and stealth, is exactly what the PLA needs.