Wing sweep angle gave it away?
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
Yes for sure … however I didn‘t check the overall dimensions esp, the centre section so far.
CH-7 has a wingspan of 26-27m, this new cranked kite has a wingspan of 137ft or 41m, which is a fair bit larger
I think we're at a point where we don't need to observe or mock their comment sections anymore.
Let's just take what is actually productive and useful rather than generating derision or outrage on this forum from what other communities say.
I know, but the idea I have is, that maybe the Center section is „similar“ … as such, to know both UAV’s length would be interesting, but I‘m too tired at the moment!
If you are implying that the CH-7 and this new UAV have any sort of structural similarity, I doubt it.
The central fuselage section of the new UAV is quite a bit longer and larger than the equivalent central fuselage section of CH-7.
I suppose in theory one cannot exclude the possibility that this new UAV is a highly evolved, very enlarged version of CH-7, but it is just as likely (if not more likely) that it is just a clean sheet design.
There's nothing too unique about cranked kite aircraft after all.
This (GJ-X?) is clearly a clean slate design whose only similarity with the CH-7 is its cranked kite configuration. At 137ft / 42m, it is likely the largest and most capable UCAV ever made. Its higher wing sweep angle is more consistent with a strike role flying at high subsonic speed than an ISR role flying at medium subsonic speed. Lengthwise, its looks to be around 20 meters long (50% of width), which would permit very long IWB(s).
By my very rough measurement, it's a bit longer than 20m, at ~24m. Length to width ratio is about 0.57. Again very rough
I agree, this GJ-X seems like a natural next generation, larger and more refined platform than GJ-11 as a land based UCAV.
The planform is definitely more oriented for strike and payload than WZ-X's flying wing geometry (which favoured endurance), and the cranked kite geometry versus the GJ-11/B-21 style continuous leading edge platform suggests to me that they wanted the central fuselage to be fairly long without incurring additional weight that would occur if they maintained the same dimensions but utilised a continuous leading edge design.
Which will naturally lead to the question of powerplants.
Previously we had floated the idea of a single non AB WS-10 or two non AB WS-13/21 engines, and while both options may be viable for this aircraft, I wonder if they may even be ambitious enough to put a non AB WS-15 variant on it (though perhaps its bypass ratio would be less favourable for this role).
Needless to say, I think with WZ-X and this GJ-X, if they do enter service along these proportions and dimensions, then they would prove to be formidable "optimized" flying wing UAV/UCAV sizes for land based operation. The benefits in long range and long endurance ISR and strike this go without saying.
this is quite interesting. It's amazing the kind of long thin wing design you can crank out once you achieve certain level of high strength + light material and gotten the cost down.
As for engine, it does seem pretty large for just a single non-AB WS-10, especially if it is expected to carry decent amount of payload.
As for engine, it does seem pretty large for just a single non-AB WS-10, especially if it is expected to carry decent amount of payload.
Made a quick comparison for reference.
