At least not SAC, which is located in Liaoning
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
At least not SAC, which is located in Liaoning
there is a major airforce base there.
yes, but that’s an operational fighter base - Feidong, home of the former 4th Naval Air Brigade - and nothing related to a factory or test-site
Last edited:
The drones are all operational
Which ones and really all? In fact I don‘t believe it
Yes, CCTV said it multiple times
I think we discussed this indeed already several times and even if CCTV and other official sites reported this, I think it is highly unlikely or even impossible!
I don't want to say they lie and I'm well aware that we surely have a delay from "first seen" to "what truly happened" of several months if not more than a year, so let's assume all these 6 CCA/UCAVs are indeed in test-flight, it remains still most unlikely that they - even more so all - are operational and in production!
My main argument is the GJ-11 and in 2019 the same was reported, but we know (quite sure) that it was at least not back then.
Even today when the show the naval GJ-11J (or GJ-21) it is IMO almost impossible to be "in service"!
My guess therefore is, it is in test, in prototype-production phase and maybe a few were handed-over to the future operator for OPEVAL, but it is never in widespread PLAN NA service and surely NONE of these CCAs is in PLAAF-service yet.
IOTE is different from prototype or even test flying phase, it's beyond this. GJ-11 could simply be another case of CJ-100, where it was only fielded in very limited numbers or never left IOTE phase because they wanted more capabilities than originally designed. GJ-21 could also be ready for service and awaiting the commissioning of Fujian, J-35 was operational before the Fujian.
I just want to note it isn't CCTV and official sites reporting it, but rather official Chinese MoD stating it.
At this stage I don't think there's a need to challenge the "operational" statement because we all know there are differing levels of "operational".
No one is under any delusions that all systems are in FOC, or even necessarily IOC. Some may be in IOTE, but that still would be considered in operation.
If one wanted to be more specific to avoid misunderstanding, perhaps "a level of operational status with the PLA" would be more specific and account for the variability, but for most of us I think it is already assumed.
I disagree, I think as of 2019 GJ-11 was likely operational with the PLA, likely in a IOT&E status.
Between 2019 to now, it may have evolved and progressed in IOTE to something akin to IOC (which would make sense given GJ-11 is such a major advancement in sophistication to other unmanned systems I suspect it also formed a pathfinder for other UCAV/CCA type platforms), but the key point is it was being operated with the end service user (PLA) rather than having the platform itself still be in development.
The problem is that the word "operational" makes one think of full operational capability or initial operational capability, and if inevitable near term full rate production.
It isn't always the case, but even for platforms which don't immediately enter IOC/FOC will typically still have a version of it enter service eventually.
(For example, the ZTZ-98 tank in the 1999 parade was operational with the PLA, but never entered service in large numbers though it eventually lead to the ZTZ-99).
We literally never had any reason to think GJ-11 was not in some level of service/operational readiness with the PLA back since at least 2019 if not earlier (using Blitzo's terminology for those who need it).
GJ-11 being revealed in 2019 parade was discussed by state media (not Chinese MoD) as a stealth strike (air to ground only) UAV within the PLA and has been in service. Has been in service. They didn't say how long but a late prototype of GJ-11 was photographed and videoed flying way back in 2013.
Furthermore, we had Chinese MoD member back in 2019 or 2020 (I recall it was a higher ranked officer) discuss the performance of a new stealth air to ground platform. He mentioned that it was revolutionising how PLA conducts war and the new platform was exceeding their expectations/estimations of how effective it is to have a stealth strike platform. What other aircraft could that have been in reference to?
Since then, there was never a single announcement of GJ-11 being cancelled or being slowed. In fact, there was barely a mention of it. I think this simply hinted the sensitive nature of these platform types. When they revealed the rest of the CCA accompaniment in the last month, they did so with the entire set. Showing just how much work has been taking place during the last 10 or 15 years. PLAAF has been revolutionising itself in the past decade.
I suspect the poorly held belief that GJ-11 hasn't reached service is simply because they used a mockup in the 2019 parade. The problem with this line of logic is that almost all the missiles and drones used in the parade are mockups. This is just how they operate. YJ-18 missiles are mockups too, any doubt of their authenticity? That would be a step many of the more juvenile and deluded NAFO fanboys want to take but come on, get real. I meant there were NAFO out there who were adamant J-20s were all photoshopped going back 10 years ago.
The other reason I suspect is because Chinese state media never bothered commenting much on the GJ-11 after that one interview with the officer. They also never showed the actual aircraft. It is possible the aircraft applies some advanced, non-moving thrust vectoring control. See the BAe Magma program that also tested this. GJ-11 might have applied it and this contributed to its relative secrecy. This bit is speculation though, based mostly on the 2019 parade's mockup.
They might have updated the original GJ-11 (possibly more than once already) since its initial service. IOTE is also just speculation. There is no reason to conclude GJ-11 has just been in IOTE until now or that it's a DF-100/CJ-100 thing where the PLA has much better strike UAVs on the horizon and they decided not to go all in with GJ-11, inducting only token units. GJ-11 is the perfect airframe for strike drone. No reason to expect PLA to have better now when new tech can easily be integrated to updated batches of GJ-11. The rest is simply a question of size, payload and range.
GJ-11 being revealed in 2019 parade was discussed by state media (not Chinese MoD) as a stealth strike (air to ground only) UAV within the PLA and has been in service. Has been in service. They didn't say how long but a late prototype of GJ-11 was photographed and videoed flying way back in 2013.
Furthermore, we had Chinese MoD member back in 2019 or 2020 (I recall it was a higher ranked officer) discuss the performance of a new stealth air to ground platform. He mentioned that it was revolutionising how PLA conducts war and the new platform was exceeding their expectations/estimations of how effective it is to have a stealth strike platform. What other aircraft could that have been in reference to?
Since then, there was never a single announcement of GJ-11 being cancelled or being slowed. In fact, there was barely a mention of it. I think this simply hinted the sensitive nature of these platform types. When they revealed the rest of the CCA accompaniment in the last month, they did so with the entire set. Showing just how much work has been taking place during the last 10 or 15 years. PLAAF has been revolutionising itself in the past decade.
I suspect the poorly held belief that GJ-11 hasn't reached service is simply because they used a mockup in the 2019 parade. The problem with this line of logic is that almost all the missiles and drones used in the parade are mockups. This is just how they operate. YJ-18 missiles are mockups too, any doubt of their authenticity? That would be a step many of the more juvenile and deluded NAFO fanboys want to take but come on, get real. I meant there were NAFO out there who were adamant J-20s were all photoshopped going back 10 years ago.
The other reason I suspect is because Chinese state media never bothered commenting much on the GJ-11 after that one interview with the officer. They also never showed the actual aircraft. It is possible the aircraft applies some advanced, non-moving thrust vectoring control. See the BAe Magma program that also tested this. GJ-11 might have applied it and this contributed to its relative secrecy. This bit is speculation though, based mostly on the 2019 parade's mockup.
They might have updated the original GJ-11 (possibly more than once already) since its initial service. IOTE is also just speculation. There is no reason to conclude GJ-11 has just been in IOTE until now or that it's a DF-100/CJ-100 thing where the PLA has much better strike UAVs on the horizon and they decided not to go all in with GJ-11, inducting only token units. GJ-11 is the perfect airframe for strike drone. No reason to expect PLA to have better now when new tech can easily be integrated to updated batches of GJ-11. The rest is simply a question of size, payload and range.
Last edited: