Chinese UAV/UCAV development

timepass said:

Fake ???

View attachment 71851

View attachment 71852

Click to expand...

Those images are clearly CG but the WZ-8 can be carried under the H-6... just not this variant of the H-6 shown in the images. Perhaps only capable of being currently carried and launched by H-6.

It's also a high altitude drone so the CG is a poor representation of how WZ-8 is used. Just lazy creator I suppose.

The WZ-8 is launched from a H-6K/N/G platform and dropped at altitude and the drone then climbs. It isn't some low altitude attack drone to be dropped just above treetops.

siegecrossbow said:

Obviously fake. WZ-8 is mounted under the wing hard points, not the fuselage where the bomb bay is supposed to be. Also, the aircraft is supposed to be released at high altitude.

Click to expand...

I thought WZ-8 is indeed meant to be mounted under the fuselage mount point on the H-6N (which doesn't have a bomb bay) similar to how it carries air launched ballistic missiles

Temstar said:

I thought WZ-8 is indeed meant to be mounted under the fuselage mount point on the H-6N (which doesn't have a bomb bay) similar to how it carries air launched ballistic missiles

Click to expand...

How would that work with H-6's landing gear configurations?

Temstar said:

I thought WZ-8 is indeed meant to be mounted under the fuselage mount point on the H-6N (which doesn't have a bomb bay) similar to how it carries air launched ballistic missiles

Click to expand...

At the moment it is carried under the center-fuselage by a few modified H-6MW (?)

siegecrossbow said:

How would that work with H-6's landing gear configurations?

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it work?
The dimensions of the WZ-8 fit below the H-6 airframe's ventral fuselage fine, with enough clearance to the nose landing gear and the rear/side landing gear.

To "load" an H-6 with a WZ-8 of course would require the WZ-8 to be slid in under the aircraft from the rear, but that's perfectly resonable.


On the other hand, WZ-8 is clearly far too large to be carried by H-6s on the wings.
To be honest I'm somewhat surprised by this -- since WZ-8 emerged those few years go, I've never seen any suggestion that WZ-8 could even fit on the wings of H-6 and I don't think it's even been considered by anyone as the carriage method for WZ-8???


The pictures of course are absolutely obvious CGIs (launching a WZ-8 at such low altitude among grassy hills, yeah lol) -- but the carriage method of the WZ-8 on the H-6 airframe depicted in the CGI is exactly what I expect to see in real life.

Bltizo said:

Yes, and those companies tend to wither on the vine in due time, whether this company will be one of those... who knows.
That's just the inherent degree of inefficiencies and cost of admission for any sort of system that encourages competition and where state funds are available to support and seed new companies. Many will fail, but some will succeed.

My point is that there's no need to describe it as if it is such a severe thing that is beyond the pale, nor is it something with an easy or obvious solution.

Click to expand...

The subject is a personal pet peeve of mine after seeing so much money and resources wasted on these companies when they could have been put to better use strengthening actual companies who are doing real work.

PeoplesPoster said:

The subject is a personal pet peeve of mine after seeing so much money and resources wasted on these companies when they could have been put to better use strengthening actual companies who are doing real work.

Click to expand...

Would you rather the money just go to stuff like real-estate?

China is a nation of 1.4 billion people. There are smart ones and there are dumb ones, and there are good and bad companies. As with semi-conductor, it is better to 千金买马骨 rather than let the money sit and fester in some unproductive corner of the economy.

siegecrossbow said:

Would you rather the money just go to stuff like real-estate?

China is a nation of 1.4 billion people. There are smart ones and there are dumb ones, and there are good and bad companies. As with semi-conductor, it is better to 千金买马骨 rather than let the money sit and fester in some unproductive corner of the economy.

Click to expand...

At least in real estate the investor will get a return lol.

like you said, there are good and bad companies, I just wish the local governments would be better able to or more willing to vet what’s real and what’s a scam.

PeoplesPoster said:

At least in real estate the investor will get a return lol.

like you said, there are good and bad companies, I just wish the local governments would be better able to or more willing to vet what’s real and what’s a scam.

Click to expand...

For a lot of them, all they got is a scam. That is an unfortunate fact of life.

I think it is better to look at it this way. During the late fifties the U.S. invested heavily in century series of fighters and other crazy prototypes. Many of them were bad or mediocre, but the knowledge gained from some of them helped the US achieve aerial dominance from the seventies onwards.

PeoplesPoster said:

The subject is a personal pet peeve of mine after seeing so much money and resources wasted on these companies when they could have been put to better use strengthening actual companies who are doing real work.

Click to expand...

Innovation is inherently wasteful. Over 95% of attempts to innovate fail miserably. R&D in green field areas is pretty much just blindly throwing darts at a wall and hoping you hit something nice.

This is because green field innovation is literally trying or exploring things you have very little or even no idea about.