Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Maybe security concerns - someone got worried that other guys could learn too much from the observation of said drone (some non-standard solution, for example)
Chinese UCAV/UAV/CCA - news & technology
- Thread starter Forest Green
- Start date
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 19,230
- Reaction score
- 35,692
This one gives me Chengdu J-20 vibes in the intakes, EOTS, undercarriage design, and looks 'real'.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 19,230
- Reaction score
- 35,692
snne
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 July 2022
- Messages
- 2,432
- Reaction score
- 8,926
It looks like a toothpick to meWhile this dorsal intake feel pretty J-36ish.
It's so ugly
Kommoe
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 3 January 2025
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 182
mini j20 without canards and tails
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 19,230
- Reaction score
- 35,692
Yes overall design is somewhat crude (mockup?) but the dorsal intake design specifically.It looks like a toothpick to me
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 19,230
- Reaction score
- 35,692
Somewhat, yes, single engine (WS-10C?) design, half a J-20.
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 709
The CCA in that photo is the one under flight test, interesting that it'd be the one withheld.
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 1,694
Tailless flying wing aircraft has been attracting tremendous attention due to their remarkable advantages in terms of aerodynamic efficiency, large flying range, and stealth property [1], [2], [3], [4]. Up to now, several advanced tailless aircraft have been developed such as B-2 (US), X-47B(US), Neuron (FRA), etc. There are several challenges to controlling tailless aircraft. The first is the absence of the vertical tail and rudder, leading to the lost stability of course and poor stability of longitudinal. Second, tailless aircraft typically adopt redundant control surfaces configuration to generate three-axis torque, which means if the yaw moment is generated, the pitch and roll moment will be produced simultaneously. Such a design causes the new issue that the deflections of the redundant control surfaces will inevitably result in a serious coupling between longitude and lateral dynamics. Third, how to coordinate multiple control surfaces in ways that optimize performance and minimize energy consumption, minimize additional drags and minimize total control surface deflections. All those cause difficulties in the design and implementation of tailless aircraft controllers. In addition, some crucial problems remain open for tailless aircraft including convergence time, fault-tolerant, and input saturation, whose importance is explained hereafter.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1270963823003693
The stability decrease for increased Mach number is greatest for the tailless configuration and least for the canard configuration. A destabilizing break in the pitching-moment curve at constant Mach number is most pronounced for the tailless configuration,while the canard configuration is least affected. A given 44° trapezoidal wing configuration has a greater lift-curve slope and zero-lift drag and a lower maximum lift-drag ratio than its 60° delta wing counterpart. The effect of the strake on the 44° tailless and aft-tail configurations is to increase the lift-curve slope, maximum lift-drag ratio, trimmed drag performance, and pitching-moment curve nonlinearity.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850019510/downloads/19850019510.pdf
No configurations offers everything, each one loses something while retaining something.
Flat nozzle design advantages
Since about the 80s of the last century, aircraft designers have discovered a number of advantages for military aircraft engines, which can bring the use of a nozzle with a flat cross-sectional shape.
On the one hand, such a design feature improves the take-off and landing performance (CV) of the aircraft and makes it more maneuverable.
And on the other, it allows the combat vehicle to become less noticeable to the enemy radar. This is because the contours of an axisymmetric nozzle of circular cross-section are very difficult to coordinate with other structural elements of the aircraft to make the aircraft not so noticeable to radars. This is much easier to achieve if you use a flat "jet" nozzle. In addition, in order to further reduce the radio sensitivity, in the manufacture of such a nozzle, materials capable of absorbing radiation are used.
Additionally, the infrared radiation of an aircraft using this nozzle shape is also reduced. This is achieved by the height-to-width ratio of the nozzle, significantly reducing the temperature of the outgoing jet.
Of course, this nozzle shape has its drawbacks. Firstly, when switching from a round engine cross-section to a rectangular nozzle shape, there is some pressure loss. At best, about five percent is lost. The second drawback is the need to increase the rigidity and strength of the nozzle, since the design of this shape experiences a greater load than a round nozzle.
But all these disadvantages more than overlap with the benefits
https://en.topwar.ru/171233-nuzhno-li-rossijskim-voennym-samoletam-ploskoe-soplo.html
The thrust-vectoring in particular “Fluid” type is of increasing interest for the maneuverability and the agility of combat and fighter aircraft. This has been employed for different nozzles mainly axisymmetric and 2-dimensional. For the latter, the aspect ratio, i.e. the ratio of the long-to-short side of the nozzle has significant influence upon the exhaust and thrust-vectoring performance. The effectiveness of a high aspect-ratio nozzle in order to deflect the jet engine’s thrust has been demonstrated {Hiley, 1975} but, such large aspect ratios often causes increasing of the structure weight and internal pressure losses. Here, the design of a two-dimensional nozzle with respect to the thrust-loss factor of a small jet-engine is presented. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) techniques were used in order to simulate the nozzle’s flow characteristics under various engine’s operating settings as well as different aspect-ratio designs. Computations results were obtained from the “Fluent” program. All developed models are 3-D and meshed by using “Gridgen” code. Moreover, the boundary conditions were obtained by using of the engine’s performance model developed in TURBOMATCH program. Also, the paper describes an experiment in order to predict the engine’s performance for a test case that has aspect ratio of 8.5. The CFD results were compared with experimental measurements. The results showed that nozzle with higher aspect-ratio results in larger pressure losses, while, its thrust discharge coefficient is not far from the moderate aspect-ratio nozzle
https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_a_Planar_2-D_Nozzle_for_a_Small_Jet-Engine
The "flat" nozzle will reduce the Su-57's thrust somewhat, but it will improve the rear fuselage stealth characteristics that are so essential for this type of aircraft.
https://en.topwar.ru/255577-snizit-...ijskij-istrebitel-su-57-s-ploskim-soplom.html
A serpentine nozzle directs the jet engine exhaust through bends, to improve flow characteristics and reduce thermal signature, incurring a slight thrust penalty. This property of serpentine nozzles is beneficial for military aircraft operating in hostile airspace, as it improves stealth characteristics. The present work aims to develop a serpentine nozzle model and simulate the flow characteristics using a computational tool. The computational model has been validated against literature data. Four different inlet and outlet geometries have been investigated at Mach 0.9 at 2000 m AMSL. The effect of changing these geometrical parameters on pressure contours and velocities has been analyzed. Based on this study, a cambered rectangular inlet serpentine nozzle is optimal for the target application. Computational results indicate that, for serpentine nozzles, increasing the exhaust velocity after a certain threshold, based on nozzle geometry, leads to unfavorable pressure characteristics. Furthermore, reducing the exit area 0.5 times when compared to the inlet area allows for the best possible expansion characteristics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377434104_Computational_Analysis_of_Serpentine_NozzlesThe serpentine convergent-divergent nozzle represents an optimal configuration for next-generation fighter aircraft characterized by low detectability and high thrust-to-weight ratio. In contrast to the serpentine convergent nozzle, such configuration offers increased design flexibility with additional parameters, leading to heightened interactions among these parameters. As such, it is crucial to reveal the influence of design parameters on the aerodynamic performance of the serpentine convergent-divergent nozzle and the multifactor interaction, as well as its mechanism. Therefore, the influence, interaction and sensitivity of parameters on the aerodynamic performance of the nozzle were numerically investigated using the orthogonal test method. Additionally, the influence mechanism of the convergence angle, throat aspect ratio, and axial length to inlet diameter on the flow characteristics of the nozzle was investigated in detail. The results show that the convergence angle is identified as the main factor affecting the aerodynamic parameters of the nozzle. As the convergence angle increases, the thrust coefficient, total pressure recovery coefficient and discharge coefficient gradually decrease. The interaction between throat aspect ratio and other parameters is obvious. Different design parameters affect the local loss and the friction loss by affecting the curvature and wetted perimeter area, resulting in different aerodynamic characteristics of serpentine convergent-divergent nozzle.
https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.1016/j.cja.2024.07.017
is not sarcasm
Last edited:
The tailed ones are obviously lower tier, the real stars are the large Type A and Type B. Their tailless aerodynamics are much closer to the 6th gens than 5th gens like J-20. Yeah the intake on B is similar type to J-20 and J-35 but then how much different a DSI intake could be? Type A has caret intakes. The side intakes are tailored for agility and allowing large bays. Both types look capable of supersonic and supercruising speeds, nothing like that kind of UCAV exist anywhere else.
On another note, is it me or there is an aperture for possibly a gun on Type B's right intake? And from that, consider this, these high tier CCA/UADFs will not be limited by human tolerance for g-limits, around 9g, they can pull say 12g or even more, limited only by the materials they are built from. So not only they could be far more agile than any manned fighter being unfortunate enough to oppose them in closer combat, but also be more able to evade any missiles fired at them for example.
In theory yes; in practice most airframes are not rated for that kind of performance. I suppose an unmanned type might simply decide to risk airframe damage by an out of envelope turn. The other issue would be sustained turn rate - there would be a lot of energy loss in the maneuver.
The bigger advantage I see for software agent controlled aircraft would be the potential to precisely time counter measure deployment, and possibly even deployment angle, with a turn/dive precisely angled to maximize said countermeasures. An AI should be able to maximize the amount of time spent in a region masked by countermeasures in a way a human pilot could not.
ETA: this does presume the UAV sees the incoming and has at least a vague idea of it’s angle and performance, and ideally range information if it can be provided.
There is another aspect. By their virtue CCAs/UCAVs don't need to fly 200 hours every year to maintain pilot skill, so they don't need to be rated at 6000 or 8000 or 10,000 hours like a manned fighter is. Presumably they might be needing to fly once in a while to stretch their legs so to say, but that would only be a fraction of what a manned fighter needs to. So the UCAV/CCAs structure and it's whole design philosophy could be optimized for more performance or more range or more weapon capacity etc. etc.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 2,199
- Reaction score
- 3,472
They're still pretty relatively small inside so we're not talking about large weapon loads. Might just be 2 x AAMs. But carrying them a lot more expensively than say YFQ-44. Looks cool though. There's some big noses on some of them but I can't see any sign or a radome / radar?
There's such a wide range of different aircraft that it's difficult to know what is really being done. ~6 aircraft types (more if you count the crewed equivalents like J-10) to basically do the same low end fighter role would seem like a massive waste of resources elsewhere. You'd think that some would be "better" and some would be "cheaper" and that production would focus on those ones.
And then the loads are much higher so the structure needs to be much heavier and so you can't carry as much fuel/payload.
Tomboy
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 4 January 2025
- Messages
- 543
- Reaction score
- 1,972
The last two are very big for drones, the larger one of the two is actually larger than a F-16 and is roughly J-10 sized. It even uses the exact same engine as the J-20A/S, so they could probably supercruise. It's easily large enough for a full sized bay for 4-6 AAMs.
The last two "Unmanned air superiority aircraft" has large radomes and this one even has a EOTS and DAS system.
Indeed, and the larger UCAVs we are seeing might be more focused on saving lifecycle costs (pilot training, peacetime sortie rate) than up front airframe cost that the U.S. designs address.
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 709
AAMs? Come on now, it has weapon bays and wings, it's obviously a bomber!
The 53X3X serials suggest a WTC UAV brigade. These serials could be associated with the UAV unit at Malan. We see a ton of different UAV designs there, suggesting it's a training/evaluation/etc. unit, which would account for seeing a bunch of different types there. Plus, they have the new expansion to the northeast, so they can house a lot of airframes now.
The 53X3X serials suggest a WTC UAV brigade. These serials could be associated with the UAV unit at Malan. We see a ton of different UAV designs there, suggesting it's a training/evaluation/etc. unit, which would account for seeing a bunch of different types there. Plus, they have the new expansion to the northeast, so they can house a lot of airframes now.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 4,539
- Reaction score
- 10,261
Teeny tiny landing gear
Based on the look of the nozzles, it appears the large delta uses an engine similar to the J-20A/S nicknamed WS-10C2, while the lambda wing uses an engine similar to the WS-10C.
With such detailed distinctions and other features present on the large Delta, many people suspect that they aren't just simply mockups.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,147
- Reaction score
- 8,894
I once spent my Saturday babysitting the BAE Systems company Eurofighter mockup at a company open day. First thing I had to do on getting there was pick up the tip of the arrestor hook, which had fallen off overnight. How many people looking at a mockup like this even realise there should be an arrestor hook on a non-naval aircraft?
My point is the level of detail on mockups varies, and often goes beyond what is strictly needed. And just because some parts look genuine doesn't mean everything is. Nor, even if all genuine, would it necessarily be a flyable vehicle.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,147
- Reaction score
- 8,894
Teenier, tinier landing gear doors on the top one!
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,147
- Reaction score
- 8,894
The undercarriage definitely looks real, my main concern is the undercarriage bay looks a bit too clean! The rest of it I'm 50-50, could be real, could be a good mock-up, but likely a genuine design.
Perhaps they they will treat them as Elon does Starship.
Boeing shot itself in the foot with union-busting--and having shareholders interfere with engineering.
Today's China is in my opinion the one nation on Earth that values aerospace engineering the most.
Outside of whatever drones/aircraft are in Groom Lake, the US has become hostile to the concept of maintaining tribal knowledge--a losing proposition.
- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 19,230
- Reaction score
- 35,692
Perhaps "Type A" is Shenyang (planform similar to "J-50") and "Type B" Chengdu (J-20 resemblances) designs to the same requirement.
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 709
Regardless of if they're competing designs or not, it certainly does seem like "A" is a SAC product and "B" is a CAC product, based on their design features.
"B" also has a mock sensor fitting under its nose, similar to the J-20. Perhaps "B" is a standalone UCAV while "A" is closer to a CCA. The beefier, twin wheel nose gear of "B" also makes you wonder if a derivative won't appear on an 076 or Fujian.
Could be an industrial base decision, where there is a need for x number of aircraft types and a decision that every type will have at least 2 manufacturers producing.
Recent U.S. wargames revealed that less capable, but cheaper CCAs were more valuable than high end ones, reflected in the decision to move forward with Anduril and Atomics offerings over the more exquisite ones from the traditional aerospace giants. Have the Chinese come to a different conclusion? Their CCAs are massive gold-plated monsters. I wonder if we are at a point where we're losing in both quality AND quantity.
Well, even if we're only looking at the ones displayed, clearly two of them are a bit on the lower end and size of things, while two are on the higher end and larger.
No particular reason to think they wouldn't pursue both sides of the spectrum.
The GA and Anduril YFQ-42 and 44 are Increment 1 after all; we'd have to see what Increment 2 looks like to get a better gauge of what higher capability but not "exquisite" (as Kendall had described it previously) would mean.
The landing gear (and their doors) look sized about right for those UCAV's weight/size class.
The delta with the tails however does look like it has a fairly high ground clearance based on the height of its landing gear
F-14ATomcat
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 26 May 2024
- Messages
- 785
- Reaction score
- 1,694
well explained with a good practical example
add
Conclusion
The discharge coefficient and thrust coefficient of the double S curved 2-D nozzle are smaller than those of the axisymmetric nozzle with the same inlet/outlet area ratio, The difference first increases and then decreases with the increase of pressure ratio. And the maximum difference of thrust coefficient is 4.0%.For the layout of wing/embedded power devices, the nozzle pressure ratio has an impact on the afterbody drag, when the flight Mach number is small, the afterbody drag increases with the increase of the pressure ratio. when the Mach number is large, the afterbody drag decreases with the increase of the pressure ratio. The increment of afterbody drag coefficient corresponds to a single value of nozzle pressure ratio.The database of afterbody drag coefficient increment under other engine conditions is established by CFD method, and the afterbody drag increment under a certain flight condition is predicted accordingly,then calculate the available thrust of the engine and ultimately determine the aircraft resistance.
source
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Simulation Study on Engine Nozzle and Afterbody Drag Characteristics of Flying Wing Configuration To cite this article: Yuan Huang and Xuxing Wei 2025 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 3004 012045
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/3004/1/012045/pdf. The total thrust of engine after installing the juxta position serpentine nozzles designed with the twin engine layout is no more than 4.58% lower than that with the original nozzle. The designed serpentine nozzles have better aerodynamic performance.
https://hkxb.buaa.edu.cn/EN/10.7527/S1000-6893.2023.28930
Last edited:
If the Chinese have decided to go with more exquisite CCAs, it's not clear how or if that should affect America's CCA strategy.
Increment 2 will not necessarily be more exquisite than increment 1. It might be less exquisite. There have been rumours to that effect. It probably hasn't been decided yet.
- Joined
- 11 February 2007
- Messages
- 4,147
- Reaction score
- 8,894
I'm not sure about the geometry of getting the nose gear through a hole the length of the nose gear door when the nose gear leg appears to be rather more than twice that length. There could be another door that opens transiently and then closes again, but there's not a huge amount of nose depth to play with (hence the teeny-tiny-tyres).
If China's high-end CCAs end up being cheaper than America's cheap, junk ones—just look at what the Constellation-class frigates or the LCS program cost.
mokahete
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 18 April 2025
- Messages
- 196
- Reaction score
- 298
Its basically a unmanned single engine stealth fighter jet
More closer to fighter jets than CCA's whose philosophy is relative low cost and attritability.
Similar threads
-
-
'Neuron 2.0' - New Dassault UCAS launched at Saint-Dizier, 8 October 2024
- Started by Jackonicko
- Replies: 20
-
-
-
