in a way, those infrastructures already exist to a degree in the form of whatever infrastructure is used for Y-20.
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G) thread
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
IMO, This is not a reasonable explanation, after all, those 2 UADF that appeared in 9.3 had not been discovered by satellites before.
And they have installed engine, highly likely that flight tests have been conducted.
Speaking of which - I believe I may have messed up regarding the B-21's main IWB dimensions? The B-21's main IWB is not ~6 meters long, but actually ranging from ~7.2 meters to ~8.5 meters long (per Binkov and SPF)?
And given that the B-21 is expected to be able to carry the GBU-57 MOP bomb (which is ~6.2 meters long) - There likely are merits to the longer length of said IWB than what I measured sometime ago. In other words - The B-21's overall length (of ~16.5 meters) is roughly about 2 times (if 8.5 meters) that of its main IWB.
Going back to the WH-X (let's call it that way from now on) - Judging by the approximate location of the two unknown engines (which should be located along the centerline of the aircraft) - That could mean there are two IWBs lined along on the outboard of the two engines on either side.
| Min (taking overall length = ~22 meters) | Max (taking overall length = ~24 meters) | |
| Overall length is 3x IWB length | ~7.3 meters | ~8.0 meters |
| Overall length is 2.5x IWB length | ~8.8 meters | ~9.6 meters |
I refrained from taking the "overall length is 2x IWB length" point into account for the time being, considering the approximate location of the two IWBs on the WH-X, especially when compared to the B-21 and B-2 (both of which have their IWBs lined along the centerline of their airframes, which would be the longest segments of their respective airframes).
But of course, if the satellite imagery is actually deceiving (i.e. that the IWB(s) on the WH-X is actually located along the centerline and the two engines are lined on the outside of the IWB(s), also per Binkov's illustration), then the IWB(s) would be somewhat longer than what is being listed above. As such, ~10 meters of IWB length is not out of the question.
@Blitzo what do you think?
Last edited:
I think there's a wide variety of reasonable weapons bay lengths for this aircraft, from 7m to 9m. The specific length imo isn't too vital at this stage, beyond us being able to confirm that this aircraft overall is in the B-21 size class.
==
As for the name of this UCAV, imo it's probably more prudent to call it GJ-X for now simply because between GJ and WZ, those are designation systems which is already established for unmanned strike/attack and unmanned recce aircraftrespectively.
"WH" on the other hand would require knowing what those letters mean (in reference to H as a prefix for bombers), and though I can't fault the logic of it, for purposes of intuitively conveying the meaning of the aircraft I think GJ-X is more prudent of a placeholder until we know its actual name.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
Nuclear triad is overrated. When you have hundreds of ICBM/MRBMs each of the silo and TEL-launched varieties (with decoys and potentially MIRVs/HGVs) and a dozen or more SSBN each carrying a dozen+ MIRVed/HGV ICBM-rangd SLBMs, all backed by the most advanced, robust, and comprehensive early warning system in the world, what value does aerial delivery offer?
1. Sneak attack/decapitation strike: Unless the US massively beef up its homeland counter stealth efforts (today Washington DC is only defended by NASAMS), a VLO bomber can sneak in and deliver its payload so that the US would only know of an attack when they see a nuclear explosion.
2. Engaging airborne targets: The US heavily rely on airborne command and control for nuclear war fighting (Air Force 1, E-4, etc). Stealth bombers with appropriate weapon (e.g. anti-air HCM) are the best option to target these aircrafts, denying American leadership safe sanctuary.
3. Attacking deeply buried targets: Deeply buried bunkers can survive even multi-megaton ground bursts and are thus nearly immune to long range missiles. Attacking these targets require nuclear armed heavy bunker busters that only strategic bombers can carry.
4. Large payload and potential for multiple sorties: A single bomber can deliver multiple dozens of nuclear bombs per sortie. This is equivalent to or greater than a whole brigade of DF-31s. Unlike missiles, bombers can reload to go on nuclear bombing sortie repeatedly until strategic objectives are met.
Last edited:
Wouldn't be so confident with 094s. They are objectively terrible boats, easily tracked by Americans unless China can keep USN subs far away from the first island chain at the minimum.
You can send a message and let opponents consider the options. You can't recall an ICBM once fired. It allows you to show your guns without firing.
Also if a nuke capable bomber is loitering outside of your national airspace, do you attacked it when it hasn't done anything hostile yet?
Air for intimidation and flexibility. Land for the heavy work. Subs to make sure there are no loose ends.
For some reason, I thought the CH-7 is much larger and heavier than it actually is so please interpret when I said "CH-7" to actually mean a flying wing/cranked kite subsonic drone with 1500-2000nm combat radius and about 5,000-10,000lb internal payload with 20-40t MTOW. I think there is a high likelihood such a program exist with the PLAAF(I would rate something like this as more likely than the actual GJ-X before Sep.18).For the above two mission profiles I described, CH-7 definitely wouldn't be able to do 2)
In terms of 1), it somewhat depends on the payload and range of CH-7, but based on the numbers we do have of it (TOW of under 10tons!), I cannot see it carrying much of a payload to 2IC distances.
By weight, CH-7 is probably even lighter than GJ-11/21, and GJ-11/21 is a UCAV whose range and payload is more optimized to 1ICish and beyond ranges.
