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.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Speaking of GJ-X being unmanned arsenal aircrafts for AAMs, similar ideas have indeed been brought up on the other side of the lake just a couple weeks ago:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So, yes - Something like the GJ-X should be able to carry at the very least a few AAMs inside its IWBs. And given the overall length of the center-body (~22-24 meters), the GJ-X can actually have an IWB that is ~9-10 meters long.

This would mean that a at least couple PL-17s could be fitted inside the GJ-X's IWB. Though, if we want to go further and utilize the full length of the IWB, that would mean XLRAAMs in the high-hundreds of kilometers (>600 kilometers) of maximum strike ranges. Otherwise, a 9-meter long IWB would enable a longitudinal dual-stacking of PL-15/16 LRAAMs.

This hasn't yet touch on the possibility of either a rotary launcher or vertical dual-stacking of AAMs inside the IWB, but that's a discussion for another time.

---

In the meantime, though - I'd prefer something in between the GJ-11/21 and GJ-X in terms of dimension, MTOW and payload capacity for such roles. This should make the platform not just being a viable and significant upgrade in terms of payload capacity and range/endurance over the GJ-11/21, but also not as expensive and is less prone to attrition than the GJ-X to enable procurement in greater numbers.

Click to expand...

Yep this is my thinking. I lean more towards "GJ-x" being a multirole heavy weight platform that fulfills roles both as a ULO arsenal aircraft for A2A and stealth supplement to H-6 (without the ability to carry and launch ALBMs like the H-6 but for cruise missiles, similar payload.

The discussion about being a tanker for H-20 is strange to me since it clearly doesn't have the size to be a tanker that can support H-20 out to beyond northern equivalent of 2IC, refuel the H-20 for enough range to hit Continental US and RTB. It appears to only have enough fuel for itself. No point refueling H-20 at a less distant location because that likely would not provide H-20 with enough range to return after hitting continental US. H-20 will still need to be huge.

China would need regional bases like the US has in order to make B-2 sized bombers useful enough to hit continental US.

mack8 said:

GJ-X could potentially also easily carry the notional 1000km range AAM we discussed not long ago, a concept also looked at (and tested?) across the pond recently.

Click to expand...

Yes but as others have pointed out, these missiles will require an advanced and resilient sensor network which China has but when the US is shooting back, how survivable is that network to bet big on this + 1000km range A2A against large lumbering targets like tankers and AWACS? Probably not enough to justify these platforms being so focused on this mission. I think it's more a step by step approach.

oldtowncrab said:

JH-X likely got split between J-36 and GJ-X

The role of a rapid response supersonic strike platform can be handled well enough by J-36, J-36 can carry YJ-20, YJ-17, and YJ-19, and maybe YJ-21 at supersonic speeds to hit targets of opportunity, this is while being able to defend itself from enemy aircraft.

The role of regional bomber is fit by the GJ-X, especially since the GJ-X can and probably would carry large amounts long range cruise missiles to overwhelm enemy ad at standoff ranges.

With these two roles filled there isn't much point for JH-X to exist.

Click to expand...

Agreed. JH-x just doesn't have a role at all since the program initial development of GJ-x and J-36 started which would have been approximately a decade ago. All of PLAAF is focusing on tailless, not just tailless but supersonic tailless. They can't manage that for a regional bomber/multirole like GJ-x but everything smaller seems PLAAF and PLAN demanded supersonic ULO performance way back then.

At this point PLA is playing around with flying saucer level tech in 2025 if 2015 allowed this level of USA leapfrogging tech in the air. USA seems to be struggling hard to figure out how to make tailless aircraft go supersonic. Otherwise they'd be able to produce some heavy UADFs like Type A and Type B. Instead their fanboys are coping with the lie that Type A and B are mockups despite China officially stating that these UADFs in the parade are actual aircraft rather than the mockups used for the CCAs, flying clearly supersonic driven J-XD and J-36 and also never having lied for official announcements on military procurement. In their universe, J-36 and J-50/J-XD must be programs aimed exclusively at deceiving the US. There is no way these aircrafts can be fully kitted 6th gen programs. They must be deception programs like Iran's Qaher.

enroger said:

Knowing we have a Guam bomber is good enough for me. This thing can provide sustained low cost strikes and suppression from 1IC up to Guam, a missing capability in PLA up till now.

That it is unmanned shows PLAAF has a lot of confidence in comm network and AI.

Click to expand...

We have had Guam killers for a long time. US bases in Guam, Diego Garcia, South Korea and Japan are all able to be kept shut via Chinese cruise missiles, MRBMs, IRBMs and ALBMs. They don't have much magazine depth in interceptors even if we assume every single interceptor has perfect rate and each one can intercept HGV, HCM and MaRV (which they absolutely cannot do and would struggle to even get a 5:1 ratio).

Having an unmanned (thus lower human life risk and training demand) platform that can drop cheaper munitions to keep these bases shut and force the US to fight using only carrier groups is the new capability with unmanned ULO regional bomber.

China's capability with networking, command and control is seriously lapping the US. People will doubt this but there is hardly a comparison. AI would be similar but these things have minimal autonomous. It's mostly going to be semi-autonomous but with airborne command centres operating closer to those US bases. With non-nuclear strikes, there is less risk with going completely autonomous if they wanted to. At worst just implement self destruction mechanisms if a series of conditions are detected and triggered. This applies even to ground or air based human control at a distance.

siegecrossbow said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Otter says that GJ-X is not H-20.

Click to expand...

The GJ-x is certainly not a replacement for a strategic bomber that fulfills a nuclear role.

GJ-x is regional ranged, H-20 needs to have most of the US under its operational radius with at most 2 refuels on the way and 2 on the way back. H-20 has to be manned to cover nuclear missions. China doesn't currently have a ULO tanker that can accompany strategic bombers. The US doesn't either. Such a tanker would be larger than B-2 sized since the second refuel will be at twice the distance of the 2IC. The GJ-x would barely be able to fight at 2IC and get back with its fuel reserves for itself only. Weapons bays as fuel tanks wont add enough to accompany H-20. The ULO tanker will be so large tech at that time will probably allow for a B-2 sized bomber to fly back and forth with only 1 refuel when second gen variable cycle engines are available.

These two platforms are barely a MUMT style combination like UADF + CCA + manned fighters are.

I think the purpose of GJ-x is just to have an unmanned ULO platform that has regional reach (to 2IC) and magazine depth. It can therefore do everything the H-20 does regionally (except maybe carrying larger ALBMs). It therefore alleviates pressure to produce a certain minimum number of H-20s that would otherwise be used to perform strikes on those regional US bases and USN within 2IC. H-20 may still be called upon for all of that because it likely has a longer IWB than GJ-x.

Previously China had to rely on ballistic and cruise missiles, carrier based fighters and UAVs to perform strikes on US bases and USN up to 2IC. Now it has the world's first unmanned ULO tactical bomber. It really is basically B-21 unmanned. This allows you to save so many ballistic missiles against cheaper static targets on US bases that otherwise would be a waste to spend ballistic missiles and maneuverable hypersonics on.

A bonus with networked warfare and CEC is that GJ-x can just as easily be applied to serve as a A2A platform lobbing PL-17s at opposition aircraft well within 100km from flanks. The P(K) of those PL-17s at less than half its NEZ is going to be nearly 100% especially against large unstealthy targets.

GJ-x >> GJ-11

This is why PLA officers mentioned years back around GJ-11 reveal that China has some much more capable and useful unmanned strike aircraft than just GJ-11, ignoring GJ-21 which is carrier capable.

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

You lack imagination. If China is fighting the US, it is fighting the US in the whole world and US will also use all its bases in the whole world on this fight. Which means US bases in Diego Garcia to the Middle-East to Europe, any of them can launch Bombers and Missiles against China. And China will also not let those bases intact either. It needs to destroy them to prevent not only US ability to airlift supplies but also prevent those long distance tanker supported attacks.

And for H20, the entire CONUS should be its target. Entire US ability to wage war including air bases, training centers to factories should be targets for H20.

So, No, there is no lack of targets and 100 Bombers are an awefully low number. And I haven't even brought all the allies of US yet, if they support US military, they are also legitimate targets.

tamsen_ikard said:

You lack imagination. If China is fighting the US, it is fighting the US in the whole world and US will also use all its bases in the whole world on this fight. Which means US bases in Diego Garcia to the Middle-East to Europe, any of them can launch Bombers and Missiles against China. And China will also not let those bases intact either. It needs to destroy them to prevent not only US ability to airlift supplies but also prevent those long distance tanker supported attacks.

And for H20, the entire CONUS should be its target. Entire US ability to wage war including air bases, training centers to factories should be targets for H20.

So, No, there is no lack of targets and 100 Bombers are an awefully low number. And I haven't even brought all the allies of US yet, if they support US military, they are also legitimate targets.

Click to expand...

I think you're extending this scope way too much.

Guam, certainly. Diego Garcia, at a stretch.

US launching ballistic missile attacks on China from further away can potentially be interpreted as a nuclear attack. If they do take the risk, China just launches missile attacks on US mainland as well using air and ship/sub launched ballistic missiles, HCMs and HGVs. Not to mention those bases will all be attacked by China and since they take ages to repair, they can be reliably shut down and the fight falls into stalemate and attrition.

At most the critical bases are those in Guam, DG, Japan and South Korea. If Japan and South Korea get involved in war of aggression* then they are legitimate military targets well within range of the tens of thousands of Chinese cruise missiles, SRBMs and MRBMs that can be dedicated just for those bases.

* those bases are intended (on paper) to be defensive only and repel North Korean attacks or Chinese invasion of Japan. If they are used as springboards to attack China, I wouldn't even hesitate to scrub the no first use policy and employ tactical nukes there to save resources and get the job done within hours. You can bet your life the US will certainly 100% find a way to back out of nuclear defense pact with Japan as soon as everything becomes existential.

US has weaseled its way out of countless things and TACOed around. It's administration dependent but someone like Trump and his crew would be able to spin a back out of MAD for Japan's sake as a positive and win near majority support at home. Their reputation abroad is shot beyond repair anyway.

Japan quantifies this and with Trump admin, they probably put a 20% chance the US goes MAD for nuclear umbrella pact. At best, they think it's a 50/50. Retaliate and die for Japan or weasel your way out with political spin and words. Therefore Japan is likely to also weasel its way out of commitment. Even if they dont, it opens the door wide open for Chinese retaliation. China's military is pound for pound now >> 5x that of US (in theatre so approx 3 carriers and 300 odd 5th gens) + Japan (approx 100 5th gens). Where it counts though is just navy, air and space where the balance is much more closer to 1 to 1.

Any way you play it, these are risks and numbers that the US cannot tolerate even a fraction of. If they can't even get actively involved in war with Russia, China is military easily more than 5x effectiveness of Russia in conventional force)