A good reason is that subsonic missile lobbing sucks. By a lot. For reference, aim120 later versions have a total delta-v of around 900 meters per second, while pl15 have delta-v around 1300 meters per second. For fighters simply by turning your afterburners on you wipe out an entire generation of missile technology progress. Even VLRAAMs fired subsonically significantly hampers their effective range, which is one of the reasons why hanging huge missiles to the already slow fa18e is such a bad idea.
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G)
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
Yes I noted this. Even with a 50% reduction in initial energy state, a PL-17 launched at this reduced energy should still have similar total energy compared to a PL-15 fired by a J-20 at mach 1.2. The difference is, the stealthiness of this platform allows this aircraft to flank targets in a way 5th gen fighters simply can't do quite as well. By flanking and combined with ULO stealthiness, they can get far closer than a J-20 or J-35 can head on. This means GJ-x can be far more effective in BVR air superiority than J-20 and J-35 in certain situations that allow GJ-x to get vectored in to intercept and flank opposing aircraft.
There is a value here that is simply not offered by J-20 and J-35. The GJ-11 has tiny payload capacity in comparison and is air to ground focused.
UADF Type A and Type B are the only air to air platforms that can do such a thing with ULO stealth. While they are supersonic, they can't hold more than 4x PL-15/16 missiles, if even this amount. As impressive as Type A and Type B are with heavy thrust engines, they simply don't have the magazine depth of GJ-x which should be able to carry 6x PL-17s. Overall the PL-17's longer range balances out the initial energy advantage of the PL-15/16s off supersonic UADFs but the GJ-x has two additional missiles. All three of these tailless aircraft are amazing additions for air superiority shooter nodes. Outside of Russia's S-70, nothing else is tailless and air to air capable that's in service. B-21 isn't in service yet. Unlike S-70, China's Type A and B UADFs are supersonic capable.
Typical 5th gen fighters are less stealthy than these tailless and smaller stealth UAVs. Therefore, they offer completely unique air superiority capabilities.
Last edited:
Beyond the 1IC, I don't see a requirement for lots of AAM launches at a distance of 200+ km, because there just won't be that many opposing aircraft.
So there should be enough J-36 and UADFs to obtain control of the air, with stealth bombers focusing on destroying the airbases and carriers in the 2IC.
I see China acting to expand land based air superiority beyond 1st island chain. While we have PLARF reaching beyond 2nd island chain with anti-access, area denial, PLAN progress and programs indicate a desire to meet and fight USN far beyond 1st island chain. This effort comes with the support of PLARF but the missing component is all the other land based PLA assets. None of the land based cruise missiles that isn't HCM has range that can support this fight. So PLAN fighting USN beyond the 2nd island chain is on its own with only PLARF.
PLARF will need ship based assets to coordinate A2AD. Whether that's from ships feeding the data or ship launched aircraft, PLAN needs to be able to slug it out against USN so far from China's coast. Space based assets for sensor and guidance can't be guaranteed and resilience of these networks require PLAN to be actively present in this part of the world.
PLAAF doesn't have the range to go that far. UADF Type A and B can't fly from coastal airfields all the way out to 2nd island chain, fight and get back. That's nearly twice their operational radius. J-20 and land based J-35 can't either.
PLAAF and PLAN have supplemented shortcoming in PLAN size vs USN with ALBMs, H-6 and various hypersonic weapons but until PLAN can match USN numbers and carrier borne aircraft numbers, PLAAF needs to do some lifting too. A few squadrons of GJ-x performing air to air actually is a deadly addition in the PLA inventory. These will have the range to fly out to 2nd island chain, perform their air to air missions (possibly also anti-ship) and RTB.
If China isn't able to keep USN at around the 2nd island chain, US strike packages from ship and submarine launched cruise missiles, LRHW and air launched long range weapons could potentially begin threatening China's coastal military installations. Right now, the US doesn't quite have that range yet until near the 1st island chain but China should be pushing as the rising power. PLA has pushed US from within 1st island chain to dominance only beyond to 1st island chain in the 2000s and since all the A2AD weapons of the 2010s and PLAN progress, now pushed US to the 2nd island chain. Since that A2AD network requires presence of PLAAF, PLAN or space based assets, it's best to continue pushing the US back.
It makes sense to bolster air superiority, particularly since right now it's only a handful of J-35s, UADFs and a few squadrons worth of J-15s on three carriers and a couple of UAV LHD carriers vs hundreds of F-18s + F-35s on half a dozen active supercarriers on USN side.
We should recognise that PLA has a lot of strike options for regional US bases and USN within 2nd island chain:
Do the same list for long range air to air options and the list is zero if we don't count carrier fighters and air superiority focused UAVs.
Within 1st island chain is easy, this is within reach of PLAAF. Beyond 1IC is getting difficult and require PLAAF to refuel. Towards 2IC and surrounds, PLAAF would need to carry out significant Y-20 refueling and USN and allies have F-35s to erode this chain if not prevent it as an option altogether. Until J-36 are available in numbers, PLAAF and PLAN need a long range ULO aircraft for air superiority. Being subsonic is the tradeoff for having ULO stealth and the range to fight in 2IC when based on coastal airfields.
- Carrier borne aircraft (J-15 and J-35)
- LHD launched strike UAVs (UADF Type A, Type B and GJ-21)
- land based MaRV ballistic missiles, HGVs and HCMs *
- ship and even submarine based HGVs (YJ-17), HCMs (YJ-19) and ballistic missiles (YJ-20) *
- H-6 launched ALBM (YJ-21) and surely also HCM and HGV *
Do the same list for long range air to air options and the list is zero if we don't count carrier fighters and air superiority focused UAVs.
Within 1st island chain is easy, this is within reach of PLAAF. Beyond 1IC is getting difficult and require PLAAF to refuel. Towards 2IC and surrounds, PLAAF would need to carry out significant Y-20 refueling and USN and allies have F-35s to erode this chain if not prevent it as an option altogether. Until J-36 are available in numbers, PLAAF and PLAN need a long range ULO aircraft for air superiority. Being subsonic is the tradeoff for having ULO stealth and the range to fight in 2IC when based on coastal airfields.
Bad math. Here's what some weirdo named Tyler Rogoway wrote about this aircraft:
In comparison, the B-21 has a wingspan of around 40m.
They'd probably have to shove their "B-21 three gorge dams hurrr" memes where their sun doesn't shine if it turns out that the B-21 isn't that unique.
The idea that China just casually built a drone bomber larger than an American manned bomber they consider the pinacle of their capability is a something they know will psycologically break them if they acknowledge.
This gem from the Cope Zone:
American math: 137 < 132
The cope level is reaching uncharted territory lol
This is just a misinfo that has been widely circulated, ironically via a Chinese satellite we can basically confirm a wingspan of 46m for the B-21. As far as I know 46 is larger than 42.
Tyler Rogoway isn't some weirdo, he's the Editor-in-Chief of the Cope Zone