Chinese UAV/UCAV development

From Henri K...
- CH-5 has 3-ton MTOW, wingspan of 20 meters, and flight ceiling of 10000 meters
- Export variant will have a payload of 480 kg while domestic variant lifts 800-900 kg
- Its current endurance is 40 hours, but there are plans to increase it to 100 hours

Bltizo said:

What I'm still most curious about is Wing Loong II's external stores capacity...
It has an MTOW of 4.2 tons, which is somewhat lower than MQ-9's 4.8 tons but is still roughly in the same class (heavier than Wing Loong I and MQ-1 at least). However, MQ-9 also has an external stores capacity of 1.4 tons, which is about 29% of its full MTOW. If Wing Loong II were capable of carrying a similar proportion of its MTOW as part of its external payload, it should be able to carry 1.2 tons, but as we can see it can't even carry half that expected payload, at 480kg.
It likely isn't an issue with the powerplant either, because if Wing Loong has a relatively high MTOW of 4.2 tons, then it shows they have the powerplant to get something of that weight in the air.
Therefore one possible explanation, is that possibly Wing Loong II is constructed of heavier materials than MQ-9, therefore it explains the discrepancy in actual useful payload/external stores as well as explaining the similarity in MTOW... but this is also unlikely because I don't think the Chinese would be that behind in materials technology and structural design to result in consequences of that degree.
Another possible explanation is that the Wing Loong II is also expected to permanently carry a relatively heavy internal payload, such a SAR, which may reduce what it can carry externally to some degree...
Finally, another possible explanation is that during the time of advertisement, it could be that Wing Loong II had yet to be tested with heavier external payloads, and maybe the marketing team for some reason decided to not project the intended payload of Wing Loong II rather than merely its currently validated payload instead.
Needless to say, we should keep an eye out in the foreseeable future regarding just what its actual external stores capacity is.

I also have to say that choosing the Wing Loong name as the marketing title is freaking stupid. Calling it Yi Long or simply Pterodactyl that was one of its other many original names instead would have been far better.

Click to expand...

What about endurance? 20 vs. 14. That is very big difference. That can be translated to similar fuel payload difference.

So my guess is that, the difference of external payload (weapon) is partly due to room for internal fuel.

taxiya said:

What about endurance? 20 vs. 14. That is very big difference. That can be translated to similar fuel payload difference.

So my guess is that, the difference of external payload (weapon) is partly due to room for internal fuel.

Click to expand...

I'd be a little wary about endurance figures; a higher endurance could reflect greater fuel fraction, but we also need to remember that different loadouts have differing endurance figures, and we do not know if the various endurance figures are actually reflective of their endurance with similar payloads. MQ-9 is said to have an endurance of 14 hours with a full payload but we don't know if Wing Loong II's 20 hour endurance is for a similar loadout.

Still, it is a plausible possibility.

Bltizo said:

I'd be a little wary about endurance figures; a higher endurance could reflect greater fuel fraction, but we also need to remember that different loadouts have differing endurance figures, and we do not know if the various endurance figures are actually reflective of their endurance with similar payloads. MQ-9 is said to have an endurance of 14 hours with a full payload but we don't know if Wing Loong II's 20 hour endurance is for a similar loadout.

Still, it is a plausible possibility.

Click to expand...

Just adding that when I made my suggestion I counted the 4200kg full takeoff weight. The problem that we have now is that we don't have the empty weight of Wingloong II from that brochure. Plus that, as you said, the internal loadout, like weight difference of fixed instruments, maybe one of them have a heavier internal payload.
The wiki page mentioned "internal payload" of Reaper, I wonder what is that, some internal space that different instruments can be fitted in and changed? In Wingloong's case, such exchangable instrument compartment is very possible, but the Chinese may not count it as payload.
Very complicated thing.

Not sure if this is true but these captured pics are supposedly Chinese operators embedded with Kurds using a DJI Inspire commercial UAV to confirm ISIS sites for French bombing. Anyone seen this video?

That kind of involvement is more like it, rather than directly bombing them. A better way to exact revenge for the killing of the hostage than inserting ground troops.

AssassinsMace said:

Not sure if this is true but these captured pics are supposedly Chinese operators embedded with Kurds using a DJI Inspire commercial UAV to confirm ISIS sites for French bombing. Anyone seen this video?

Click to expand...

Damn that is strange -- why would they need Chinese operators among Kurdish troops to operate a DJI drone? The key selling point of DJI drones is that they're relatively easy to use, you'd think the local troops could learn the ropes quite easily.

Bizarre.

Bltizo said:

Damn that is strange -- why would they need Chinese operators among Kurdish troops to operate a DJI drone? The key selling point of DJI drones is that they're relatively easy to use, you'd think the local troops could learn the ropes quite easily.

Bizarre.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I think the way they fly the drone is going to be a little different to how your average Joe would with his latest man-toy. Unlike almost all recreational drone operators, these guys would almost certainly not be able to keep visual contact with their drones. Anyone could fly a drone while being able to see where it is with out own eyes, having to rely purely on the camera onboard the drone for navigation and control takes a little more skill.

But even that isn't such a hard skill to master, its being able to use the drone's limited time on target to quickly and accurately locate, ID and grid reference targets that is the key skill here.

It takes years to train up forward air controllers to be able to effectively co-ordinate air strikes and ground forces, and I think the real key skills those operators brings to the table would be their FAC training and expertise, as well as intelligence analyst skills rather than their skills at flying the drones.

I would imagine trust would also be a factor.

It's million dollar bombs and missiles these guys are guiding in. But they are only as good as the targeting information fed into them. The last thing anyone wants is collateral damage from a bad grid reference.

I am sure the French would feel a great deal happier about trusting the targeting information they are getting knowing its from Chinese military operators (obviously there in an official civilian capacity) with relevant training and experience rather than some random who ordered a drone off ebay/Amazon.

plawolf said:

Firstly, I think the way they fly the drone is going to be a little different to how your average Joe would with his latest man-toy. Unlike almost all recreational drone operators, these guys would almost certainly not be able to keep visual contact with their drones. Anyone could fly a drone while being able to see where it is with out own eyes, having to rely purely on the camera onboard the drone for navigation and control takes a little more skill.

But even that isn't such a hard skill to master, its being able to use the drone's limited time on target to quickly and accurately locate, ID and grid reference targets that is the key skill here.

It takes years to train up forward air controllers to be able to effectively co-ordinate air strikes and ground forces, and I think the real key skills those operators brings to the table would be their FAC training and expertise, as well as intelligence analyst skills rather than their skills at flying the drones.

I would imagine trust would also be a factor.

It's million dollar bombs and missiles these guys are guiding in. But they are only as good as the targeting information fed into them. The last thing anyone wants is collateral damage from a bad grid reference.

I am sure the French would feel a great deal happier about trusting the targeting information they are getting knowing its from Chinese military operators (obviously there in an official civilian capacity) with relevant training and experience rather than some random who ordered a drone off ebay/Amazon.

Click to expand...

That is possible... but why wouldn't these operators use actual military micro UAVs instead of DJI commercial consumer drones? DJI drones are obviously very capable, and the Inspire 1 is the top of their product range, but an off the shelf kit seems like a very vulnerable system to send in, and there's no evidence it's been modified in any way to provide more robust military functions.
I also think it's really a stretch to call these Chinese drone operators real "forward air controllers"... based on the few photos we have, they could just be Chinese individuals who happen to have some experience in piloting commercial drones, and we don't know how closely the Chinese operators themselves are coordinating with the supposed French aircraft in the airstrikes.

So I'd be very interested if there is further clarification (hopefully a full video) as to whether these Chinese operators are Chinese nationals, or foreign Chinese and whether they are professionally trained by the Chinese military (doubtful imo), and/or if they are tied to DJI or not (doubtful, given DJI's public statements that they do not directly sell to military and would likely be even less willing to send in civilian contractors into a war zone)
I'd also be interested in knowing just how well coordinated these Chinese Inspire operators are with the supposed French aircraft conducting the air strikes, and whether the presence of the Chinese operators was related to a French request or not, or if they merely happened to be there before hand.

I personally imagine these may merely be Chinese individuals (nationals or overseas Chinese) who are there in the middle east out of their own sense of obligation, and who happen to have some own expertise and experience in operating drones and the Kurds have decided to leverage some of that experience for short to medium range recon and artillery spotting.
Not too different to ISIS last year previously using some DJI Phantoms for recon, but in this case they happen to be Chinese operators who may be a little more experienced in using those drones.

That said, I'd be pleasantly surprised (and a little confused) if it turns out those Chinese operators are in the region on behalf of the Chinese govt in any semi-official capacity.

Bltizo said:

That is possible... but why wouldn't these operators use actual military micro UAVs instead of DJI commercial consumer drones?

Click to expand...

Plausible deniability.

A Chinese military micro UAV crashes or gets shot down, and its proof positive of Chinese military involvement. A downed commercial drone widely sold all around the world proves nothing.

I personally imagine these may merely be Chinese individuals (nationals or overseas Chinese) who are there in the middle east out of their own sense of obligation, and who happen to have some own expertise and experience in operating drones and the Kurds have decided to leverage some of that experience for short to medium range recon and artillery spotting.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that for these specific individuals featured in the video, they would likely be civilians there by their own choice. They would never have allowed themselves to be filmed and interviewed if they were Chinese special forces there on a covert mission.

However, these guys may be being promoted as cover for real Chinese covert operations personnel to operate in the region, so if and when pictures and videos of Chinese personnel operating in Syria do surface, the Chinese government could point to that video and suggest they are just Chinese nationals there of their own free choice.

That said, I'd be pleasantly surprised (and a little confused) if it turns out those Chinese operators are in the region on behalf of the Chinese govt in any semi-official capacity.

Click to expand...

I think it is a safe bet that the Chinese government would have covert operatives on the ground in Syria from early in the conflict.

They have their own serious concerns about radicalised nationals going there to get training and organised so they could return to launch attacks at home. Even if they did not have such serious direct security concerns, they would want reliable intelligence on what is happening over there.

American Intelligence prefers to observe from a safe distance by send drones, satellites, hack telephones and emails, and developing locals as assets. Chinese intelligence does all of the above, but also have a proud and celebrated history of being very effective at getting agents and operatives right into the thick of the action to provide first-hand observations and intelligence unobtainable otherwise. Its a more risky approach, but it does produce results.

I have little doubt that Chinese agents in the field were keeping close tabs on Uighur extremists and had detailed and extensive target lists ready and waiting when the Russians started their bombing campaign.

The real question, I think, would be whether China has made its assets in the field in Syria available to the Russian and French to help them with targeting information, after action damage assessments etc.