And what does the same Chinese satellite say the wingspan of GJ-X is? Or do you not know the basics of how to do measurement?
Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G)
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
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:
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.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or just utterly dense here but GJ-X is literally measured to be 42-43m wide via satellite pictures. Feel free to look back on this thread.
Could have just answered you don't know how to do measurement lol
In science when you want to compare two objects, you either use two different tools that you know the tolerance of, or you don't know the tolerance but you measure both with the same tool. Which is why I ask you what is GJ-X's measurement on the same Chinese satellite (and viewer software) that you measured B-21 with.
But I understand that's something they teach in college, and not everyone went to college.
Uhm, you can just overlay the satellite image on top of a map tool and measure it. B-21 is ~46m vs ~42m of the GJ-X
There is of course some variance but it's not worth this fuss.
Think about the possible permutations for a future high-end air combat:
H-20, GJ-X, WZ-X, J-36, J-XDS, CCA (x2), UADF (x2), KJ-3000, J-20, J-35, various tankers/special mission aircrafts, various other UAVs
Hmm, I don't know if I understand you. Satellite image only gives you number of pixels. It does not tell how many meters each pixel is. The actual size in meters can be deduced if you known the altitude, angle of the satellite and lens parameters when the image is taken. What kind of "map tool" are you talking about? I don't know any tool that can do the calculation other than the parameters of the actual satellites involved.
Actually the issue of reliability applies to both sides whether B-21 is 40m or 46m, GJ-X is 42 or something else. This is why I am skeptical of all amateur "measurements". We can only get a rough idea of the size, that is all. But if any ariticle/person made a statement that failed math (137 < 132), that is laughable.
Last edited:
Metrology is a science for a reason, if you don't normalize for the tool and process you can't do any real comparisons.
Case in point, GJ-X wingspan using commercial overlay method also gives you ~46m wingspan, not 42m per TWZ.
If TWZ estimated GJ-X as 42m, then their process will also estimate B-21 at ~40m.
Like this
You have done a poor job of overlaying it. You need to make sure it's precise. Use transparency tools to make it more accurate if needed.
Imagine PLARF, PLAN, H-20 and GJ-X destroying airbases so there won't even be air combat.