Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G)
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
Hot take: the H-20 project has been cancelled, is completely different from what everyone expected, or evolved into the GJ-X project.
The GJ-X could in theory do everything the B-21 or a notional flying-wing H-20 could do but cheaper and without the risk of losing the crew. Being cheaper and arguably less sophisticated than the B-21/H-20 could allow the PLAAF to scale the production and deployment of these drones. Plus, not having a space dedicated to a cockpit could theoretically imply a larger fuel or weapons capacity compared to a B-21-sized aircraft.
As for the moral qualms regarding the use of drones for nuclear deterrence, this is a non-argument. A human would be controlling these drones on long-range missions and certainly be making the decision to use its weapons. Even if AI is to be incorporated into its flight control system, a sortie as critical as nuclear deterrence would almost definitely involve humans in both the flight and targeting decision aspects of the mission.
In short, I see no justification to build a manned flying-wing-type bomber in the context of the GJ-X (if the GJ-X is indeed what this forum speculates it to be). With the money and human capital required of such an arguably-redundant project, the PLAAF could add many more GJ-Xs to its arsenal; this could mean a critical numerical advantage over the B-21/B-2 that would have profound impact on the military calculus of the 1/2/3IC/Asia-Pacific in general.
The only thing that points to an active H-20 project has been the rumor put forth by the usual suspects on Weibo, although - if true - they could mean that the H-20 has evolved into something completely different from the subsonic flying wing that everyone had been expecting.
The GJ-X could in theory do everything the B-21 or a notional flying-wing H-20 could do but cheaper and without the risk of losing the crew. Being cheaper and arguably less sophisticated than the B-21/H-20 could allow the PLAAF to scale the production and deployment of these drones. Plus, not having a space dedicated to a cockpit could theoretically imply a larger fuel or weapons capacity compared to a B-21-sized aircraft.
As for the moral qualms regarding the use of drones for nuclear deterrence, this is a non-argument. A human would be controlling these drones on long-range missions and certainly be making the decision to use its weapons. Even if AI is to be incorporated into its flight control system, a sortie as critical as nuclear deterrence would almost definitely involve humans in both the flight and targeting decision aspects of the mission.
In short, I see no justification to build a manned flying-wing-type bomber in the context of the GJ-X (if the GJ-X is indeed what this forum speculates it to be). With the money and human capital required of such an arguably-redundant project, the PLAAF could add many more GJ-Xs to its arsenal; this could mean a critical numerical advantage over the B-21/B-2 that would have profound impact on the military calculus of the 1/2/3IC/Asia-Pacific in general.
The only thing that points to an active H-20 project has been the rumor put forth by the usual suspects on Weibo, although - if true - they could mean that the H-20 has evolved into something completely different from the subsonic flying wing that everyone had been expecting.
No, according to some people, this is not the H-20 that everyone, including China military fans, expected, but just a foreplay product.
Attachments
-
Image_1760923061324.jpg
Higher drag is more than compensated for by greater lift. Pure flying wing a la B-2, B-21, GJ-11 means an overall larger aircraft if you want to achieve the same IWB length and operational range. If we took the GJ-xx's diamond fuselage as the indicator of IWB geometry and size, if we applied the flying wing shape and removed the cranked wings, that aircraft would simply not have the same range as the cranked wing. It should have a higher top speed with the same thrust. Turning performance may take a hit with flying wings too vs cranked wings although this is something I'm guessing.
To me, cranked wings = desire to achieve greater range and loiter time. There's no other reason for China to be flying both pure flying wings like WZ-xx, WZ-8, and GJ-11 while also applying cranked tailless design with CH-7 and GJ-xx. Cranked wing must offer some compelling advantage to suit those mission profiles better. It's just that China has so much capacity they are not going with one size fits all and tailoring everything plus also inducting the one size fits all platforms.
Could also be the case that a notional stealth manned strategic bomber is now undergoing significant redesign to prioritize strategic strike since GJ-X can relieve it from theater strike.
It's also never really just rational investment when it comes to a piece of equipment so symbolic that, for the longest time, was exclusively associated with America's military prowess. By the same standard, China has no reason to go for CVNs either. Also if I were PLAAF's chief and for the amount of money probably already spent on H-20, GJ-X would probably not cut it. For all we know GJ-X might be a "cheap" byproduct of the H-20 program.
We'll see.
The answer is clearly yes since China has the non-afterburning WS-10 engines available for use on these stealth bombers and UAVs. B-2 engines are non-afterburning F-110. The B-21 uses modified non-afterburning F-135 engines.
China has WS-10 and WS-15 as heavy and super heavy thrust engines they could use for these platforms.
The question isn't engine related but range and loiter time related. I hypothesize the GJ-xx applies a pair of modified non-afterburning WS-10 engines. Video and photo clearly show a two engine set up. Where GJ-11 uses a single modified non-afterburning WS-13/21/19 (unknown what it uses but WS-19 wasn't ready when GJ-11 reached service so more likely to be WS-13 or WS-21 based). I don't think a subsonic large bomber needs more than 2x WS-10s with with pretty heavy payloads. 2x WS-10s get the J-20 to supercruise beyond mach 1.2 (iirc it was mach 1.5 or 1.6 that was hinted semi officially). Compensating between heavier payload of GJ-xx and much higher kinematic performance of J-20, I think it's fairly safe to say 2x WS-10 is more than enough for a GJ-xx sized regional unmanned bomber. Don't forget no need for any life support equipment for unmanned.
This would be the world's largest unmanned aircraft with the highest level of thrust. Nothing else on Earth currently employs 2x heavy thrust turbofans on an unmanned platform. Nothing outside of Russia' S-70 Hunter and China's UADFs even use a single high thrust turbofan.
You probably don't want nuclear weapons to be purely in the hands of an autonomous machines without a human onboard to press the red button. I would think PLA is quite conservative in that regard. You wouldn't build a ballistic missile USV either.
In my opinion, the reason is obvious-fuselage space, a longer fuselage means a longer bomb bay, although it may not be able to hold the JL-1 on the military parade, and it may also accommodate other super heavy ammunition of the PLA.
No way this is true. Cause the whole notion of a "strategic bomber" is to perform strategic strikes, that is, nuclear strikes. China just barely got going on a Nuclear triad but on a stopgap tactical Bomber like the H-6. As a Nuclear power equal to Russia and US, they also want a strategic bomber with the range and payload capacity to strike adversaries on the other side of the globe.
And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a drone will never be doing nuclear strikes. So, you need a manned Bomber with the range and payload capacity to be able to strike US mainland.
China might have given up on the JH-X project, a tactical stealth Bomber and likely some drone will replace it. China will likely use GJ-X on conventional strike missions in the second island chain and possibly even Hawaii. But in order to reach CONUS they will need a bigger bomber.
GJ-x can't possibly be "H-20".
GJ-x is not strategic ranged and the primary purpose of H-20 is to have strategic range with inflight refueling. This means stealth tankers which China doesn't currently have. US gets around this because they use B-2s against nations like Iran who have no ability to intercept those refuels and the US also has bases dotted around the world where they can have those B-2s fly in without tanker support. China does not have those and Y-20 tankers are not going to survive strategic strike on US.
H-20 would need to be huge to do round trips to US without refuel.
GJ-x also cannot be relied on to perform strategic nuclear strike with human controller nearby. Where is that human going to be?? They can't be ground based, the signals could be disrupted even if the delay is acceptable due to being level cruising and nuclear delivery rather than air superiority like the UADFs. Relying on any narrow AI and air gapping the platform is also not an option at all for something as serious as nuclear delivery. Could fail or falter in far too many ways when even the most minor failure or faltering could spell the possible end for humanity. Not even North Korea would consider this.
GJ-x is not strategic ranged and the primary purpose of H-20 is to have strategic range with inflight refueling. This means stealth tankers which China doesn't currently have. US gets around this because they use B-2s against nations like Iran who have no ability to intercept those refuels and the US also has bases dotted around the world where they can have those B-2s fly in without tanker support. China does not have those and Y-20 tankers are not going to survive strategic strike on US.
H-20 would need to be huge to do round trips to US without refuel.
GJ-x also cannot be relied on to perform strategic nuclear strike with human controller nearby. Where is that human going to be?? They can't be ground based, the signals could be disrupted even if the delay is acceptable due to being level cruising and nuclear delivery rather than air superiority like the UADFs. Relying on any narrow AI and air gapping the platform is also not an option at all for something as serious as nuclear delivery. Could fail or falter in far too many ways when even the most minor failure or faltering could spell the possible end for humanity. Not even North Korea would consider this.