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

At the absolute minimum imo the H-20 should at least match B-21 numbers (at least 145 planned so far?) and then at least a bit over, so probably lower hundreds for H-20 alongside mid-hundreds for GJ-X, plus probably high-tens or even low hundreds for WZ-X. Since such a program will likely be spread over a decade/decades, this is quite conservative.

Actually the idea of GJ-X as a flexible tanker for H-20 makes a lot of sense, as well as GJ-X being a bomber in its own right. Potentially this would enable H-20 to reach CONTUS with 1 refueling, meaning H-20 could be a bit smaller (=cheaper) than some of the projections made on this and other fora.

Edit: or maybe 2 refuelings, 1 from YY20 in friendly airspace, another from GJ-X further out in the Pacific.

Anyone has any articles that point to what kind of line-of-sight communication technologies used in these kinds of drones?

mack8 said:

At the absolute minimum imo the H-20 should at least match B-21 numbers (at least 145 planned so far?) and then at least a bit over, so probably lower hundreds for H-20 alongside mid-hundreds for GJ-X, plus probably high-tens or even low hundreds for WZ-X. Since such a program will likely be spread over a decade/decades, this is quite conservative.

Click to expand...

They have a different mission sets and requirements.

The B-21 is supposed to conduct attacks on mainland China, which has tens/hundreds of thousands of worthwhile aimpoints.
So the US could usefully use many hundreds of bombers.
Of course, that assumes there are bases available and the bombers aren't destroyed on the ground.

---

In comparison, let's work with the assumption that for the Chinese:

1. the GJ-X is primarily for the 2IC
2. the H-20 is for the 3IC and beyond

It just seems to me that even 100 of each type is overkill in terms of direct attack mission requirements.
After all, it is only a handful of isolated airbases, naval bases and aircraft carriers.

---

You could make a case for large numbers of GJ-X stealth tankers to support the H-20s for long distance missions.. But you very quickly come up against physics, with the tankers burning much of the fuel just to reach the refuelling locations. That applies even at a distance of only 2000km from mainland China. So you conceivably would need a lot of stealth tankers for every bomber.

But my guess is that in 5-10 years time (which is when a new stealth tanker could come into service), the Chinese Navy and Air Force should be able to provide air superiority to a distance of 2000km offshore anyway. So they can just use Y-20 tankers, which already exist, and are a significantly cheaper option.

---

NB. The US has the same problem if they want to operate bombers from Hawaii to China.
But it's arguably worse given that the H-20 is likely being designed for more range (and longer ranged weapons) than the B-21

The US would need tankers refuelling tankers, in order to reach China.

In comparison, the H-20 might not need any tankers, if they are using 2000km-3000km range large hypersonic missiles.

Maikeru said:

Actually the idea of GJ-X as a flexible tanker for H-20 makes a lot of sense, as well as GJ-X being a bomber in its own right. Potentially this would enable H-20 to reach CONTUS with 1 refueling, meaning H-20 could be a bit smaller (=cheaper) than some of the projections made on this and other fora.

Edit: or maybe 2 refuelings, 1 from YY20 in friendly airspace, another from GJ-X further out in the Pacific.

Click to expand...

You would still need the equivalent of at least 2 GJ-X tankers to fully refuel the H-20, say at a distance of 4000-5000km from mainland China.
And those 3 aircraft would each need a YY-20 refuelling, say at 2000km offshore.

---

So you can't sustain many H-20 sorties based on these numbers.
The same applies for the US if they attempted to fly CONUS-China bomber missions.

But having said that, there are undefended, high-value targets in CONUS...

AndrewS said:

You would still need the equivalent of at least 2 GJ-X tankers to fully refuel the H-20, say at a distance of 4000-5000km from mainland China.
And those 3 aircraft would each need a YY-20 refuelling, say at 2000km offshore.

---

So you can't sustain many H-20 sorties based on these numbers.
The same applies for the US if they attempted to fly CONUS-China bomber missions.

But having said that, there are undefended, high-value targets in CONUS...

Click to expand...

B-2 has unrefueled range of ~11000km with 75t fuel. Let's assume H-20 being much newer can do 14,000km i.e. combat radius of 7000km on a similar (say 70t) fuel load, i.e. 1t fuel per 200km. Take-off takes a lot of fuel to get up to cruising height so 1st refueling is over China itself or near coast and tops up to full. H-20 flies another 3000km (i.e. 15t fuel) and then tops up again from GJ-X. It can fly a further 14000km from that point, let's say 5000km out with warload and 9000km back with no warload. That gets it 8000km from China coast with full warload and ability to return without refueling until it hits the Chinese coast. Let's finally assume H-20 carries missiles with a 3000km range. Thus, it can hit targets 11000km from Chinese coast.

Shanghai to San Diego is 10,700km by Great Circle route. Tweak the parameters I gave upwards a bit, and/or add another refueling, and much more of CONTUS is ranged.