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

[drowingfish]

The efficiency gains from going unmanned diminish as the size of the aircraft increases. For an aircraft as large as GJ-X, the gains are probably fairly marginal. Size also correlates with cost, and as such GJ-X is unlikely to be considered an expendable asset. There must, therefore, be other compelling reasons to eliminate humans from the cockpit, sufficient to outweigh the downsides of doing so. A requirement for very long duration, high-persistence missions is one possible answer: an unmanned aircraft does not need to sleep.

American B-2s have been involved in a number of missions with flight times of >36hrs, up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

during the initial operations against Afghanistan. However, these very lengthy missions required multiple in-flight refuelings from (unthreatened) tankers operating from (unthreatened) airfields scattered around the globe, something that clearly does not apply to China's strategic context. It therefore seems unlikely that the limits of human endurance are the reason for GJ-X being unmanned.

So here's a thought: could it be a tanker?

incorrect, it is much easier to scale up UAV because you dont need as many pilots. as well, long endurance flights are taxing on pilots, UAV eliminates this problem.

the idea of it being a tanker is quite plausible, making it a multi-purpose platform like H-6 to HU-6.

 

[Jason_]

Prior to GJ-X being identified, I also believed that such an aircraft was a bit more likely than a B-21 sized unmanned monster.

However, with GJ-X being identified like this, I must say the role of a 20-40t MTOW UCAV seems potentially a little bit redundant to me, if we are operating with the acceptance that GJ-11 will also exist.

After all, the role of a regional striker for the PLA is one where there are plentiful relatively well defended high end targets where the benefits of greater payload and/or endurance or range can be exercised, either in the form of more airframes, or of fewer airframes (but each airframe carrying greater payload).

Ironically, I made an infographics arguing against the 20-40t MTOW 2IC ranged UCAV before. However, I have changed my mind after seeing six new drone designs in the 9/3 Parade. Clearly China has design bandwidth. A 1500-2000nm drone would fill the row as a high end CCA for 6th gens and would be operated by tactical fighter units instead of likely bomber units for the GJ-X. Additionally, a navalized 20-40t MTOW drone makes sense for the next generation supercarriers.

 

[latenlazy]

The efficiency gains from going unmanned diminish as the size of the aircraft increases. For an aircraft as large as GJ-X, the gains are probably fairly marginal. Size also correlates with cost, and as such GJ-X is unlikely to be considered an expendable asset. There must, therefore, be other compelling reasons to eliminate humans from the cockpit, sufficient to outweigh the downsides of doing so. A requirement for very long duration, high-persistence missions is one possible answer: an unmanned aircraft does not need to sleep.

American B-2s have been involved in a number of missions with flight times of >36hrs, up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

during the initial operations against Afghanistan. However, these very lengthy missions required multiple in-flight refuelings from (unthreatened) tankers operating from (unthreatened) airfields scattered around the globe, something that clearly does not apply to China's strategic context. It therefore seems unlikely that the limits of human endurance are the reason for GJ-X being unmanned.

So here's a thought: could it be a tanker?

Scaling capacity without human pilot bottlenecks and attritability still matter a lot for a bomber fleet. Sortie frequency as well.

 

[vincent]

The efficiency gains from going unmanned diminish as the size of the aircraft increases. For an aircraft as large as GJ-X, the gains are probably fairly marginal. Size also correlates with cost, and as such GJ-X is unlikely to be considered an expendable asset. There must, therefore, be other compelling reasons to eliminate humans from the cockpit, sufficient to outweigh the downsides of doing so. A requirement for very long duration, high-persistence missions is one possible answer: an unmanned aircraft does not need to sleep.

American B-2s have been involved in a number of missions with flight times of >36hrs, up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

during the initial operations against Afghanistan. However, these very lengthy missions required multiple in-flight refuelings from (unthreatened) tankers operating from (unthreatened) airfields scattered around the globe, something that clearly does not apply to China's strategic context. It therefore seems unlikely that the limits of human endurance are the reason for GJ-X being unmanned.

So here's a thought: could it be a tanker?

The benefits of unmanned planes are elimination of pilot training (which takes years) and pilot fatigue (much higher turn around time).

China's industrial machine can churn out unmanned planes much much faster than training competent pilots (look at how long Ukraine took to train enough F-16 pilots). A lost plane can be replaced by another one in a few months while a pilot takes years to train.

With aerial refueling, an unmanned plane can remain in the air as long as its engines can keep up. A manned plane can only stay in the air as long as its pilot can.
During a combat campaign, unmanned planes can landed, ground crew perform basic maintenances, and take off again. Can't do that with manned planes because the pilots need to rest.

 

[qwerty3173]

American B-2s have been involved in a number of missions with flight times of >36hrs, up to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

during the initial operations against Afghanistan. However, these very lengthy missions required multiple in-flight refuelings from (unthreatened) tankers operating from (unthreatened) airfields scattered around the globe, something that clearly does not apply to China's strategic context. It therefore seems unlikely that the limits of human endurance are the reason for GJ-X being unmanned.

US bomber pilots are basically taking highly suspicious drugs to ensure that they can stay awake for ultra-long ranged strike missions. No doubt this is harmful to the physical and mental wellness of pilots and can potentially create loads of addiction problems after retirement. WW2 Japan also trusted very long mission times but when the real war started the elite pilots they had were worn down to the point of no return.

 

[TK3600]

Where is GJ-X spotted? Who might be making something this large? Normally bombers are from XAC but idk if they do drones.

 

[Deino]

Where is GJ-X spotted? Who might be making something this large? Normally bombers are from XAC but idk if they do drones.

Come on, this was mentioned in the very First Post: at Malan AB

 

[ougoah]

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.

Actually the Type A UADF was identified long before 2025 9-3 parade.

Two satellite images that made its way to public were from 2021 or 2022 and back then it was speculated to be CAC's 6th gen fighter prototype. We later were treated to an even cooler 6th gen design from CAC albeit one that sort of resembles the planform. Another satellite image from 2024 showed something that appears to be of one of the heavy UADFs that ended up being pulled from the parade. It looks like it has dorsal "artefacts".

Another little clue (similar to all the 6th gen manned fighter clues dropped since 2020) is a simulator. Image was published early 2020s and back then also speculated to be a placeholder for 6th gen. Turned out to be Type A UADF.




We saw this with 6th gen manned fighters. There were images and logos showing the planform of the J-XDS in more than one place. We always considered it placeholder shapes but after reveal of those two 6th gens, then the pieces came together thanks to ruthless tracking by various members.

 

[ougoah]

On the topic of GJ-X and H-20. One thing everyone seems to forget is that GJ-X can be interpreted as a good number filler, sub-H-20 if you will.

Sure there are plenty of advantages to unmanned and GJ-X may be able to do 70% of H-20's role 90% of the time but it's that additional 30% being done 10% of the time that absolutely make the H-20 irreplaceable by an unmanned water down version.

I suspect plenty of studies for flying wings and supersonic tailless have gone into the two halo products - manned, stealth strategic heavy bomber (H-20) and unmanned long range heavy strike platform (GJ-X).

GJ-X clearly is not supersonic. H-20 is unknown. The US has not yet made a supersonic tailless that's known to the public. China has J-36, J-XDS, Type A UADF and Type B UADF. Both the UADFs are disclosed officially as operational. That's what the official claim is. Take it as you please. Both sides can be assumed to reveal no more than the other. If US has top secret super duper projects and weapons, China should be assumed to as well. Given the relative level of secrecy surrounding B-21 for US and J-36 and J-XDS for China, both operate at pretty much similar levels of disclosing some stuff and possibly not disclosing others.

Since China has always shown initiative to start projects even if they aren't that useful today, by every means, they will complete H-20 even if GJ-X is going to be far cheaper and easier to build than H-20 and do even 99% of its job. The purpose of completing the H-20 program and putting them into service isn't only for its military utility.

We're all forgetting the importance of creating a tech branch if you have any desire to have that in future. For these reasons, China even has VTOL engine programs even though it has little use for VTOL currently and it is obviously a less urgent need for PLA. It just recognises that every journey has to start and one day perhaps VTOL tech is more important or necessary than it is today. The same applies to manned stealth strategic bombers.

Plus there's always the threat of unmanned platforms being digitally disrupted in ways manned platforms can be made far more resilient against. There's so many reasons for H-20 even if GJ-X can equal H-20 in military utility (which it probably doesn't).

How great would it be though that the H-20's former program ended up delivering a subsonic flying wing platform similar to B-21 (pretty much just B-2 modernised with new tech and materials) but they decided it wasn't groundbreaking enough in light of how far leaping the rest of China's military aviation have come from hypersonic reusable aircrafts to supersonic tailless fighters of so many types. So the H-20 program got repurposed to create a supersonic stealth strategic bomber instead of a subsonic one. There are plenty of supersonic stealth aircraft so the two aren't mutually exclusive by any means. If we're hypersonic then sure it's thermal signature is too great to call stealthy but F-22, F-35, J-20, J-35 and now J-36 and J-XDS are all supersonic stealth... for the last two, ULO like the B-21 will be.

The work on former H-20 program was used to inform the GJ-X which is basically initial H-20 program but unmanned.

TLDR, China does things sometimes because it recognises it needs to make a start on a tech. It can't leave manned stealth strategic bomber tech even if it has that in unmanned form. There are too many reasons why manned is still a need. Unmanned has its comms issues and potential for disruption where manned ones can be far more resilient.

 

[Deino]

Via FB