Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G)
- Thread starter VESSEL
- Start date
8 modern UAVs? There's actually a lot more.
GJ-11/21 (or whatever the folding wing naval variant of GJ-11 is)
CH-7
WZ-8
WZ-9
UADF Type A
UADF Type B
CCA 1
CCA 2
CCA 3
unknown UADF/CCA that wasn't shown
GH-xx
WZ-xx
And don't forget whatever this is (much smaller than GJ-xx but similar configuration)
Yes a few of those may not be in active service yet (GJ-xx, WZ-xx and if PLA ever went with CH-7) but there are far more advanced UAVs that are research and tender only. Far more than 8 active advanced UAVs and more than 20 types of heavy advanced UAVs flown. This is several times more than the rest of the world combined.
Last edited:
Fair. The Japanese did basically invent airborne AESA. But since the beginning with J/APG-1, Japanese airborne AESAs have always been very low tier and low performance. They managed to extract only ~50km range out of AESA radars. They are by no means the mainstay or at the forefront with any aircraft or missile AESA today even though they were the first to field them. Hence why they weren't on my radar excuse the pun. AMRAAM still does not have AESA seeker.
Nah, this time Xi'an should do it at noon or early-afternoon of the 25th, Beijing time.
Imagine the amount of rage and fury those Pentagon peeps would have if they're forced to cancel their Christmas leave when they're just about to go into bed (if not just got into bed) for Christmas the next day, time zones considered.
Last edited:
You are of course right though i was only focusing on the models in the spotlight recently that we have become acquainted with both from spottings and the 9.3 parade.
Maybe with the early GaA J/APG-1. But the GaN J/APG-2 is better than that.
The US is way behind the Japanese in radio electronics I think. Which are behind China at this point. But this is a recent thing.
I have to make a few complaints. The artistic taste of local residents really needs to be improved. I hate these background music. In fact, I prefer them to use the original sound.
Or for non-3IC/CONUS missions, the J-36 with its massive range (especially once fitted with VCE/ACE) should be one other potential manned component of this MUMT formation with the GJ-X too.
Although, missions that are significantly farther from the 2IC would require either mid-air refueling or have the main/centerline IWB of the J-36 fitted with additional fuel tanks (and carrying only LRAAMs in the side bays for self-defense).
I'm still trying to find a plausible reason for why they'd forego a pure flying wing design. It doesn't make sense to sacrifice stealth for aerodynamics in a subsonic bomber.
I wonder if maybe Chinese engines currently do not provide sufficient thrust for a pure flying wing bomber of this size and weight. At least not in a 2-engine configuration. They can build a 4-engine B-2 size bomber. But not a 2-engine B-21 size bomber. So they gave this a cranked wing design to reduce aerodynamic drag, and allow the bomber to fly with only 2 engines.
The H-20 will probably be a larger 4-engine pure flying wing bomber like the B-2.
I'm pretty sure there's a name for the cognitive fallacy you're demonstrating.
Also cranked wing design has higher drag than flying wing, specifically induced drag due to lower aspect ratio.
But please do re-run your deductions regarding engine thrust given this updated information.