Chinese UCAV/UAV/CCA - news & technology

Well looks CCA’s aren’t going to help the US Air Force much if China can design and produce (at least) six different CCA aircraft simultaneously seemingly covering a wide range of capabilities. Oh and let’s not forget the two already flying next-generation manned aircraft and two in production stealth manned aircraft…

I don’t see the US Air Force being able to maintain any sense of superiority against Chinese aviation units when their future looks to be F-35, F-47 and what seems to be very basic CCA aircraft. Maybe they have many more projects in the black right now, but these scale of China’s CCA program should be a five alarm fire for the DOD.
 
It is unclear what state of production these aircraft are at and we also have little information concerning PRC software efforts to operate such aircraft. Perhaps the PRC is ahead of the USAF in A2A UCAV production, perhaps not. It certainly is worth categorizing the UAVs and matching them to observed tests and tail numbers when possible.
 
Josh_TN said:
As I noted earlier, the U.S. has a half dozen known CCA class systems that have already been flight tested, though they tend to be smaller than most of the PRC models displayed.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed you post above and I think you raise a good point. Still, seeing all of these CCA's at once from China is very impressive. They are clearly working hard to get a large variety of platforms into production.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
Well looks CCA’s aren’t going to help the US Air Force much if China can design and produce (at least) six different CCA aircraft simultaneously seemingly covering a wide range of capabilities. Oh and let’s not forget the two already flying next-generation manned aircraft and two in production stealth manned aircraft…

I don’t see the US Air Force being able to maintain any sense of superiority against Chinese aviation units when their future looks to be F-35, F-47 and what seems to be very basic CCA aircraft. Maybe they have many more projects in the black right now, but these scale of China’s CCA program should be a five alarm fire for the DOD.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not to mention China's emphasis on airborne electronic warfare assets, which will greatly complicate the effective deployment of CCAs.
 
This reminds me of what I head from an engineer working at one of the big European auto manufacturers about how they engineered their EVs - they might not be strictly better, but they certainly work much quicker and there's a lot of them.
 
Last edited:
Parked in a recently cleared area here: 39.906232 N 116.444810 E
 
So that PRC military parade to celebrate the end of WWII will be akin to the 1st May USSR parades, back in the day ? a way to learn a few things about chinese military hardware ?
 
Nx4eu said:
View attachment 783459
Wow
Click to expand...
interesting to see these drones, but these are obsolete technology, first they are no VTOL, so easy to attack in their bases, second due to DSI intake or even simpler types of Intakes they are slow, lack of ventral or dorsal fins make complex trailing edge control, no vertical tail also means less control at supersonic flight, no horizontal tail controls affect roll effectiveness, having no canards or LERX means when supersonic flight happens they become nose heavy, change the nozzle into a rectangular cross section also means loss of thrust, keep it with round cross section equals larger IR signature.

They are intended more for propaganda than real combat effectiveness, they might offer a bit of advantages in local small conflicts, but for big wars they are obsolete.
 
F-14ATomcat said:
interesting to see these drones, but these are obsolete technology, first they are no VTOL, so easy to attack in their bases, second due to DSI intake or even simpler types of Intakes they are slow, lack of ventral or dorsal fins make complex trailing edge control, no vertical tail also means less control at supersonic flight, no horizontal tail controls affect roll effectiveness, having no canards or LERX means when supersonic flight happens they become nose heavy, change the nozzle into a rectangular cross section also means loss of thrust, keep it with round cross section equals larger IR signature.

They are intended more for propaganda than real combat effectiveness, they might offer a bit of advantages in local small conflicts, but for big wars they are obsolete.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or a new kind of cope.
 
F-14ATomcat said:
change the nozzle into a rectangular cross section also means loss of thrust, keep it with round cross section equals larger IR signature.
Click to expand...
so what shape should the nozzle be to be combat effective? I need this info desperately so I can send to the guys at Lockmart to fix the f-22 and the f-35, because as they stand, they would just fall out of the sky due to the sheer weight of their immense ineffectiveness
 
Nx4eu said:
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or a new kind of cope.
Click to expand...
no a very serious take. I would also like to add - the presence of landing gears add tremendous weight. Lack of them means very limited landing and takeoff conditions. Weapon bays take up space where fuels could be - useless short range. Lack of weapon bays - hope the enemy die from you taking their pictures. Also they are either small - lack range = useless, or big = draggy and expensive = also useless in attrition warfare.
 
F-14ATomcat said:
interesting to see these drones, but these are obsolete technology, first they are no VTOL, so easy to attack in their bases, second due to DSI intake or even simpler types of Intakes they are slow, lack of ventral or dorsal fins make complex trailing edge control, no vertical tail also means less control at supersonic flight, no horizontal tail controls affect roll effectiveness, having no canards or LERX means when supersonic flight happens they become nose heavy, change the nozzle into a rectangular cross section also means loss of thrust, keep it with round cross section equals larger IR signature.

They are intended more for propaganda than real combat effectiveness, they might offer a bit of advantages in local small conflicts, but for big wars they are obsolete.
Click to expand...
Is this intended to be sarcasm?
 
donnage99 said:
Is that why we see couple other drones previously seen missing?
Click to expand...
Rumor has it they held back at the last moment from revealing one high-end drone and one CCA Inc.1-type drone currently in service with the PLAAF. The CCA is said to have been developed by a private company. No idea why they decided to pull those back, along with some highly anticipated hypersonics and strategic missiles...

1756803954650-jpeg.783357


The two similar, heavy, high-end air superiority drones that were revealed to us are detailed and bear serial numbers. Furthermore, all equipment displayed in the parade is officially in service - and they have never given us any reason to doubt their word so far.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Is this intended to be sarcasm?
Click to expand...
not sarcasm for bigger wars the decisive weapons are biological weapons and high energy weapons, most of this drones are slow, only useful for small wars, but a slow aircraft with little agility only will rely on stealth, VTOL aircraft are not easy to make because chemical energy is superior to electric engines the F-35B is truly a VTOL aircraft.

If you compare a electric Vtol like Ehang and you check the range and payload you will discover they can not compete with helicopters in range speed and payload.


Drones can be jammed too, and high energy laser weapons will truly revolutionize warfare, engines are not cheap especially very advanced ones. true UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft but like in 1967 showed enemies can destroy air bases and air strips
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom