Shenyang/Hongdu "Lijian" (Sharp Sword) UCAV demonstrator

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
Not really much better but anyway a clear sign for "there is at least something out there" !
Deino
 

Attachments

  • Sharp Sword 1.jpg
    Sharp Sword 1.jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 734
  • Sharp Sword 2.jpg
    Sharp Sword 2.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 724
  • Sharp Sword 3.jpg
    Sharp Sword 3.jpg
    22.6 KB · Views: 703

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
Again some news from China: Following some unconfirmed reports on January 26 the prototype of the UCAV-demonstrator "Lijian" (Sharp Sword) performed its first taxi-tests. Now the first images appeared ... not good, but anyway a sign for what's going on.
The "Sharp Sword" UCAV is said to be similar in size to the US X-47B and is reportedly designed by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in cooperation with its Aircraft Design Institute No. 601 and it was allegedly build by the Hongdu Aviation Industrial Group.
Deino
 

Attachments

  • Sharp Sword UCAV collage.jpg
    Sharp Sword UCAV collage.jpg
    181.1 KB · Views: 662

antigravite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
774
Reaction score
133
He's some more stuff about Shenyang Aircraft Co. that might be helpful to connect the dots.

In october 2012, Shenyang's Aerodynamic Research Institute filed an unusual patent for a "Supporting System for pressure measuring test of an entire aircraft". Images speak for themselves.

This does help.


A.
 

Attachments

  • Shenyang-AVIC-Patent-20121101594-01.png
    Shenyang-AVIC-Patent-20121101594-01.png
    32.3 KB · Views: 597
  • Shenyang-AVIC-Patent-20121101594-02.png
    Shenyang-AVIC-Patent-20121101594-02.png
    37.7 KB · Views: 41
  • Shenyang-AVIC-Patent-20121101594-03.png
    Shenyang-AVIC-Patent-20121101594-03.png
    43.1 KB · Views: 35

Reaper

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
219
Reaction score
25
Here the other image that was all over the news:

Lijian.jpg
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
Yes, the one with the two fins ...
 

Blitzo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
407
Reaction score
89
Paging bill sweetman...


via sinosoldier over on SDF.


sharpsword1.jpg





Unfortunately the nozzle doesn't look too stealthy and is very conventional looking... maybe a more internal, stealthy placement reduces thrust too much. Either way, hopefully the final thing will rectify this. Everything else looks expected from this angle.
 

Blitzo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
407
Reaction score
89
via =GT


sharpsword2.jpg



Despite the nozzle, this is no subscale demonstrator. This thing looks the size of X-47B or phantom ray easy. This ain't no X-45A.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
YES, here it is "sharp" and clear ... and IMO it's powered by a RD-93 !!!
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,437
Reaction score
3,271
I guess security in the West is just another "quaint" idea consigned to the dustbin.
 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
849
Reaction score
304
In regards to the nozzle, would it be at all plausible that they jumped ahead with the airframe design and have simply installed an engine (say the RD-93) with nozzle, sub-systems and all, and that the nozzle design is something to be done later on? (Perhaps this is more a prototype for FCS and other control / autonomy systems)
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
446
Reaction score
199
now that i think of it, some other ucav demonstrators have afterburning engines installed but no one talked about their potential supersonic use. Does afterburning engine automatically mean the whole aircraft is designed for supersonic flight? If not, why use afterburner at all?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,437
Reaction score
3,271
totoro said:
now that i think of it, some other ucav demonstrators have afterburning engines installed but no one talked about their potential supersonic use. Does afterburning engine automatically mean the whole aircraft is designed for supersonic flight? If not, why use afterburner at all?

What other UCAVs have afterburners?
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
A bit larger .... ;)
 

Attachments

  • Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 2 part.jpg
    Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 2 part.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 92
  • Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 2 large.jpg
    Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 2 large.jpg
    136.7 KB · Views: 113
  • Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 1 internal.jpg
    Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 1 internal.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 124
  • Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 1 large.jpg
    Sharp Sword UCAV - 14.5.13 - 1 large.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 82

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,925
Reaction score
469
totoro said:
now that i think of it, some other ucav demonstrators have afterburning engines installed but no one talked about their potential supersonic use. Does afterburning engine automatically mean the whole aircraft is designed for supersonic flight? If not, why use afterburner at all?
It isn't supersonic. It's too short. It would have serious wave drag issues and control issues.

The reasons to use an afterburning engine is
a) The engine already exists.
b) acceleration.
c) I don't see any evidence of an afterburner. I see an axisymmetric nozzle, but unless you can get me a picture inside the rear of the engine, we don't actually know if it has an afterburner, or if it has the AB installed, but disabled.
d) I'm willing to bet a production variant would not have the same engine/nozzle arrangement.
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
446
Reaction score
199
i have no idea if the aircraft is supersonic. but i am wondering what do non-afterburning engines used in combat planes look like? how do their nozzles look? does anyone have some images? (the ones i managed to google are quite small and not detailed, but it seems such engines don't really have nozzles like this, but have simpler nozzles)

IF the engine is afterburning one, it wouldn't be a simple switch to non afterburning one. we're talking a 1 to 1,5 meter longer/shorter engine, a few hundred kilos more/less and center of gravity of the whole plane being pushed back, compared to plane with a non-afterburning engine.

pretty much all planes are designed around the engine requirements. some planes did have different variants of engines installed but i can't think of many (any?) examples where nonafterburning engine was switched for an afterburning one, let alone vice-versa. Can someone list a few of such examples?
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
;)
 

Attachments

  • Sharp Sword dimensions estimated.jpg
    Sharp Sword dimensions estimated.jpg
    341.3 KB · Views: 560

2IDSGT

Ah tale yew wut!
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
371
Reaction score
3

I'm not sure why Flightglobal said it isn't designed for RCS reduction. It appears to be a frugal demonstrator using an available engine to grasp the fundamentals of operating a flying wing. The gear doors alone seem to indicate that in end-product is intended to be very difficult to find. Also, X-47's nozzle doesn't look to be all that *stealthy* either.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,214
Reaction score
2,746
sferrin said:
I guess security in the West is just another "quaint" idea consigned to the dustbin.

It seems I read alternating news stories

1) Chinese continue to hack computers in US
2) Look a new Chinese weapon system that looks a lot like its western counterpart produced much earlier than we thought :mad:
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,925
Reaction score
469
totoro said:
i have no idea if the aircraft is supersonic. but i am wondering what do non-afterburning engines used in combat planes look like? how do their nozzles look? does anyone have some images? (the ones i managed to google are quite small and not detailed, but it seems such engines don't really have nozzles like this, but have simpler nozzles)

IF the engine is afterburning one, it wouldn't be a simple switch to non afterburning one. we're talking a 1 to 1,5 meter longer/shorter engine, a few hundred kilos more/less and center of gravity of the whole plane being pushed back, compared to plane with a non-afterburning engine.

pretty much all planes are designed around the engine requirements. some planes did have different variants of engines installed but i can't think of many (any?) examples where nonafterburning engine was switched for an afterburning one, let alone vice-versa. Can someone list a few of such examples?

I do have an idea of whether or not it's supersonic; it isn't. As for the afterburner, you just have to pull the flame holders and spray bars out. As noted up thread, it's an existing engine. They aren't going to make too many mods to the engine just to get an aerodynamic developmental prototype flying.

If the Chinese built that UAV just for that engine, a reference to your sizing comment, then they've failed miserably. But they didn't. It's just an engine to get into the air for aerodynamic testing. The reason you're confused by the engines length is due to the fact that section currently taken up by the afterburner and nozzle will eventually be replaced by an LO nozzle system, which isn't short.
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
446
Reaction score
199
so what other aircraft, demonstrators or not, have ever been installed with afterburner but were not capable of supersonic flight? and what other aircraft had, at any point during their lifetime, changed their engines from afterburning one to a non afterburning one?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,919
Reaction score
926
totoro said:
so what other aircraft, demonstrators or not, have ever been installed with afterburner but were not capable of supersonic flight? and what other aircraft had, at any point during their lifetime, changed their engines from afterburning one to a non afterburning one?
Afterburner, subsonic: North American F-86D, Lockheed F-94C. This is just from memory, there might be more examples.
Some F-86Ds were converted to F-86Ls, having their afterburning J47-GE-17B engine replaced by a J47-GE-33. I think the J47-GE-33 had no afterburner.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
;)
 

Attachments

  • Sharp Sword UCAV 5.jpg
    Sharp Sword UCAV 5.jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 383

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,441
Reaction score
7,088
In my opinion, yes, its using an off-the-shelf RD-93 for the prototype, to be replaced by a non-afterburning RD-33/WS-13 with a LO-configured exhaust. Still feels a little small for the engine though.
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
IMO that thing under the cover is not that UCAV but a tail .. maybe the Y-20's tail !?

Deino
 

Vahe Demirjian

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
624
Reaction score
305
Sharp Sword looks to be a lethal drone compared to the X-45 and X-47. If the X-45 and X-47 are painted dark gray, why did the Chinese decide to paint the Sharp Sword black and not dark gray?

On another question, isn't the Sharp Sword suitable for both land and carrier operations?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,437
Reaction score
3,271
Vahe Demirjian said:
Sharp Sword looks to be a lethal drone compared to the X-45 and X-47.
Based on?

Vahe Demirjian said:
On another question, isn't the Sharp Sword suitable for both land and carrier operations?

What makes you say that?[/quote]
 

flanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
910
Reaction score
167
Vahe Demirjian said:
Sharp Sword looks to be a lethal drone compared to the X-45 and X-47. If the X-45 and X-47 are painted dark gray, why did the Chinese decide to paint the Sharp Sword black and not dark gray?

On another question, isn't the Sharp Sword suitable for both land and carrier operations?

Am i imagining things, or are you measuring "lethality" on choice of paint?
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
209
Reaction score
116
flanker said:
Am i imagining things, or are you measuring "lethality" on choice of paint?

Well, there was this thing about lead paint in Chinese toys not too long ago ...
 

Reaper

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
219
Reaction score
25
Even considering that the Chinese aircraft doesnt match western technology yet, their output is still very impressive. Every year and less a new plane!
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
Could You explain what You mean with "when somebody else is doing the heavy lifting for you" ??

Deino :-\
 

Attachments

  • Sharp Sword clear 6 but grrrr.jpg
    Sharp Sword clear 6 but grrrr.jpg
    81.1 KB · Views: 310

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
Oh, so Your statemet is once again simply stupid BLAHBLAH, that fits nicle the common sense !?
But on a more serious note: What design was now ripped-off again and even more how could they get hands on these foreign data of say the X-47B !!?? ... and following Your conclusion, the Neuron is also a rip-off ??

And the possibility that China has in the meantime managed at least a minimum ability to develop such things on their own is way beyond Your imagination !?

Deino
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
But You have no proof ??!! I know - maybe better than some others here - the history of Chinese Aviation but I also know these repeatedly quoted stupid statements since it is so much easier if it fits the own point of view, opinion or limited horizon to keep that line even if the facts are completely different in the meantime.

As such tell us from what type of UCAv these blue-prints were stolen ... ???

Sometimes I really have the feeling that we are too close to Keymag's poor quality,
Deino :mad:
 

Deino

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,985
Reaction score
1,165
No, since I thought the difference to Keymags is that we argue, we tell us facts - at least what we know so far - and then discuss ... instead of simply posting stupid notes of things that are not confirmed.

Take it reverse: China has a secret base on the moon and stealth bombers with a Klingon warp drive ... only since I
don't have them on video stealing CATIA files we've sunk to the level of Kemag when it's as obvious as the sky is blue? Okay. . .
I think YES ! At least YOU seem to be.

Otherwise taking Your line of arguments one could say: Posting stupid and ignorant things, behaves stupid and ignorant, as such is ....

Deino
 

chuck4

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
803
Reaction score
12
Leaving the charming digression about whether it speaks well or ill of the chinese to avail themselves of good defence ideas where they find them (Speaks very well of the right sort of hubris that doesn't go to their heads, unlike the wrong sort sometimes exhibited on this board, IMHO), I just like to ask why does the engine nozzle on that drone look like it is in full open, after burner position if it is only capable of dry thrust?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,437
Reaction score
3,271
chuck4 said:
Leaving the charming digression about whether it speaks well or ill of the chinese to avail themselves of good defence ideas where they find them (Speaks very well of the right sort of hubris that doesn't go to their heads, unlike the wrong sort sometimes exhibited on this board, IMHO), I just like to ask why does the engine nozzle on that drone look like it is in full open, after burner position if it is only capable of dry thrust?

Is there any evidence that the afterburner is NOT operational? Did they just ditch the afterburner and slap the nozzle on the end of a shorter engine? And why would nozzle setting on a stationary aircraft determine anything anyway? And I don't believe anybody has said anything about copying being good/bad, just that it makes things easier. Theft on the other hand is completely worthy of condemnation. YMMV.
 

Similar threads

Top