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

[siegecrossbow]

To be honest just giving a flying wing a single engine non afterburning WS-10 would be a rather major increase in capability and size from GJ-11 which uses a non afterburning WS-13/21 class engine.

Two WS-13/21s is probably better off just going for a single WS-10, and if you need more than a single WS-10 then you'd be getting to WZ-X size category.

That would be a Okhotnik class drone.

 

[Blitzo]

That would be a Okhotnik class drone.

Yes. Or X-47B weight class.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otter claims that J-6 suicide drones have been retired.

 

[Tomboy]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otter claims that J-6 suicide drones have been retired.

I think you forgot the more important part of the claim which is the units that operated them now use GJ-11

 

[Blitzo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otter claims that J-6 suicide drones have been retired.

I think you forgot the more important part of the claim which is the units that operated them now use GJ-11

Copying those posts over here in the UCAV/CCA/flying wing drone thread, given it's about GJ-11....

If the units are actually using GJ-11 then it would be just a matter of time until we see them on satellite.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

To be honest just giving a flying wing a single engine non afterburning WS-10 would be a rather major increase in capability and size from GJ-11 which uses a non afterburning WS-13/21 class engine.

Two WS-13/21s is probably better off just going for a single WS-10, and if you need more than a single WS-10 then you'd be getting to WZ-X size category.

Umm, actually I was (at least partially) rehashing what you and @ZeEa5KPul have briefly touched upon in the H-20 thread sometime mid last year:

More and more, I'm coming around to your way of thinking. Much as it galls me, the truth is China will have to be able to absorb some shots without being able to reciprocate on the US mainland. The crucial thing is that nothing too expensive or crucial be lost in the US's opening salvo. The best way to accomplish that is by not having anything too expensive or crucial to begin with.

Buying many more cheaper GJ-X UCAVs will still be very useful and will provide a very robust strike capability over the 2IC+ theatre. The great thing is a lot of the cost of developing a GJ-X has already been paid into the H-20 program. Improved autonomy and MUMT with Sino-NGAD (or J-XD as you call it) has opened up a lot of options. Ironically, this was the original intent of the JH-XX (a limited range theatre bomber).

I wonder if the GJ-X could be made with two engines and be similarly sized to the B-21. Does that blow up the cost and run into the limited number hangar queen H-20 problem?

Yes, the way I see it, the goal is to have a large quantity that can disperse as much as possible, while keeping each individual platform sufficiently large and capable to be relevant to the conflict you're fighting.
In fact I would say that approach can be seen in every military product that is being procured today.

I'm not sure if a twin engine (say, two non-AB WS-10s) would be appropriate as it would likely be at least as big as B-21 and it would be well and truly be much larger than a big tactical sized aircraft.
Unless you go for say, two non AB WS-13 sized engines, which is certainly an option.

Anyway, the goal of "greater quantity + greater ability to disperse" while retaining "useful capability for 2IC+ distances" I think is probably a useful way of thinking about what a "fixed wing penetrating strike bomber" may be, if indeed H-20 is being pushed back.

Also, given the step-up requirements in terms of meaningful payload capacity and combat radius (upto the 2IC - 2.5IC regions), this might entail a larger centerline IWB, which would mean that having two non-AB WS-21s/19s could be a better configuration than just having one non-AB WS-10.

 

[Blitzo]

Umm, actually I was (at least partially) rehashing what you and @ZeEa5KPul have briefly touched upon in the H-20 thread sometime mid last year:

As I wrote then in that post, twin WS-13s would certainly be an option, but as I wrote originally in my suggestion for a "GJ-X" which started the discussion at the time, I was in favour of a single a non AB WS-10 as the first choice (which is what I continue to believe now, as I wrote in the last page in #1210):

H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

Using only stealth aircraft would be cost prohibitive. Yes budgets do matter. You just havent build enough. I wonder how do people view aircraft cost here ? Is "Production cost curve" not applies to stealth aircraft ? The more you build the cheaper it goes. You can see F-35 for example...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

GJ-X would likely be somewhat larger than the GJ-11 -- something that's bigger than X-47B or S-70, but powered perhaps by a single uprated non-AB WS-10 engine (as opposed to four such engines on H-20).

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

As I wrote then in that post, twin WS-13s would certainly be an option, but as I wrote originally in my suggestion for a "GJ-X" which started the discussion at the time, I was in favour of a single a non AB WS-10 as the first choice (which is what I continue to believe now, as I wrote in the last page in #1210):

H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

Using only stealth aircraft would be cost prohibitive. Yes budgets do matter. You just havent build enough. I wonder how do people view aircraft cost here ? Is "Production cost curve" not applies to stealth aircraft ? The more you build the cheaper it goes. You can see F-35 for example...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

I was basing my idea on having one larger and deeper centerline IWB (where two non-AB WS-21/19s would sandwich them in the middle), in contrast to having two smaller and shallower IWBs arranged in parallel (and sandwiching the engine compartment in the middle) like the GJ-11/21.

Of course, we can agree to disagree. Though I do believe that having the necessary strike radius while still carrying sufficient amount of payload would be more effective for such platforms to conduct operations in and around the 2IC - 2.5IC region. There's also the benefit from the economies of scale from having a larger WS-21/19 family production run from this, too.

 

[Blitzo]

I was basing my idea on a larger and deeper centerline IWB (where two non-AB WS-21/19s would sandwich them in the middle), not two smaller and shallower IWB arranged in parallel (and sandwiching the engine compartment in the middle) like the GJ-11/21.

Of course, you're free to disagree, though I do believe that having the necessary strike radius while still carrying sufficient amount of payload would be more effective for such platforms to conduct operations in and around the 2IC - 2.5IC region.

If the goal is to have a deeper weapons bay for larger diameter weapons, then a twin engine setup would make sense and twin non AB WS-21/19s would certainly be the most obvious function.

Though I also think if the goal is to maximize weapons bay efficiency for such an aircraft, weapons bay length might be more desirable than weapons bay depth (weapons bay depth is more conducive to rotary bomb bays, or for larger diameter unitary loads, both of which seem a bit ) -- a longer weapons bay of moderate depth would enable the carriage of standoff weapons (which tend to be longer) as well as continuing to carry multiple unitary bombs of normal/regular diameter.


A twin engine design with a single longer weapons bay, similar in planform to X-47A or the CAC UADF might be more desirable, if a twin WS-21/19 design was actually desired imo.
Meanwhile, for a more traditional longer wingspan flying wing, a single WS-10 for pursuit of SFC seems more logical to me.

 

[Deino]

A flying wing UAV model from the Chinese Academy of Sciences is being prepped for the upcoming Changchun Air Show.

View attachment 160811

Another image showing the same UAV/UCAV (?) from behind.