For next war game China should add laser totting seventh gen fighters that can shoot down starlink satellites.
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
For next war game China should add laser totting seventh gen fighters that can shoot down starlink satellites.
How achievable is a range of say 25000km or more for the WZ-X?
If such a range is true, then we're not just talking about a 2IC plane, not even a 3IC plane, but a plane designed to operate across the entire Pacific Ocean.
At that point, it wouldn't just be DF-17 or DF-27 strikes near the second island chain, but possibly guiding a DF-3X across the Pacific Ocean toward areas near the US west coast.
If such a range is true, then we're not just talking about a 2IC plane, not even a 3IC plane, but a plane designed to operate across the entire Pacific Ocean.
At that point, it wouldn't just be DF-17 or DF-27 strikes near the second island chain, but possibly guiding a DF-3X across the Pacific Ocean toward areas near the US west coast.
Where did you get this notion? The WS-10 is roughly comparable to the GE F110 engine, and the higher bypass versions of that engine family are used for the B-1 and B-2, which are both plenty fuel efficient for what they are.
Plenty of fuel efficient for...1990? I see no technological reason that an advanced clean sheet 2020s design will still be restricted by western 1970-1990 level of LBR turbofan technology. Medium/high bypass turbofan technology has improved miles in the 40 odd years since, which is also why B-21 used the medium bypass PW9000s and not just non afterburning F-135s. Also, F-118 is basically just a bog-standard F-110 with a nozzle configured for subsonic cruise and no afterburners while F-101 is the precursor engine to F-110 not it's modification. The only logical reason if they are using WS-10 mod. is that if WZ-X is meant to cruise extremely high considering low bypass turbofans suffer less performance degradation at high alt compared to higher bypass ones due to high specific thrust.
China is no longer the poor, technologically backward country that it was 20 years ago, they can both afford and build the best of the best these days.
Last edited:
Technically not out of the question, but practically speaking in terms of requirements for mission endurance (loitering on station), and the need to have a relatively sanitized/degraded opfor flight path to travel across the pacific, such a mission profile is probably unlikely.
The role of a low profile, long range and long endurance aircraft, imo isn't mostly to provide short periods of BDA or recce -- instead, it is being able to provide a long period/persistent and low profile/low signature recce system able to cover large areas of ocean to search for CSGs at 2IC distances, as well as to provide persistent ISR/BDA over various 2IC distance islands. Having a persistent sensor over areas of the globe to supplement satellite ISR coverage which is may be less consistent and less "real time" means a much more robust sensor web against mobile targets like CSGs, or time sensitive ISR like BDA of islands.
Missions across the pacific would not have much time on station for a UAV like this and you're better off just using satellites (unless they're all shot down, in which case you might have to resort to using a long range UAV... unless your lost satellites include loss of SATCOM too)
If the B-21 were B-2 sized it would be using four engines and its fuel efficiency wouldn’t be that much greater. The fuel efficiency difference between a CFM-56 (same engine core as the F110/F101) and a Leap-1C mostly comes from the bypass ratio, not so much from the technology in the rest of the engine cycle. You’re overstating the differences here. In terms of fuel efficiency most of the gains over the last 30 years have been incremental, not groundbreaking stuff.
Sure, and the TIT for newer versions of the F110 are much higher than the early variants during the 90s. The same would have to be true for the WS-10 if the newest variants on the J-20 are getting 150 kn of thrust. Either way the margin gain in fuel efficiency doesn’t change. If it’s 8% TIT and 2% bypass ratio or 8% bypass ratio and 2% TIT the actual raw efficiency gains between turbofans today and the 90s are not worlds apart. That level of efficiency gain is a big deal for commercial airlines because of the cost savings not because of range. There’s nothing particularly deficient about the WS-10’s inherent design. If the plane has a 10000 km inherent range you might get 500-1000 km more out of a more efficient engine than the WS-10. If it’s a 5000 km inherent range maybe 250-500 km. That’s nice but it’s not life changing.
Last edited:
F-110 hasn't been improved on much performance wise since the early 2000s. TIT of the later F-110 is about 1780K from sources while rumors were saying that WS-10C could reach 1830K. These are strong numbers for 4th gen engines but when it comes to 5th gen and the latest comercial engines these numbers gets dunked on. F-135 is said to have a TIT of ~2260K and PW1000G uses technology from F-135 and thus can't be that much worse off considering its also a newer engine. LEAP series apparently have a TIT of approx 2120K(Not sure how reliable this source is). WS-15/19/CJ-1000A and their derivatives should be able to hit these numbers as well. On paper the gain in relative thermal efficiency from 1830K to 2200K is around 26 percent, accounting in all the loses(like extra turbine cooling loses, non ideal circumstance) even if actual TSFC is down by 10 percent, it could mean a siginificant boost in range for a vehicle with 10000nmi+ range(might mean 2-3 extra hours of on station time which is significant). You could also get less TSFC via higher bypass ratio, H-20's intended engine from what we know should be a medium bypass engine that might be based on WS-15 core which IMO is perfect for this job. It of course is on the manufacturers to pick which engine is the best, whether they'll pick a more efficient but less proven engine(Spotted in testflights only 3 years ago) or proven but less efficient engine is dependant on how much risk are they willing to take. But personally I think China has been recently moving from the mindset of always picking the cheapest/most conservative design to actually trying higher risk/more advanced design. J-36's unique design based on completely new doctrine is a good proof of this shift in strategy IMO.
Last edited: