China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations

gelgoog said:

Bleargh. A F-35B like aircraft would be a waste of resources. VTOL means no usable payload. Just build more STOBAR or CATOBAR carriers.

Click to expand...

gelgoog said:

The Chinese also have their own LHD program. They can just use a a navalized WZ-10 and the Z-15 or the Z-20.

Click to expand...

It's not just payload it's also range and speed.
Helicopters beat the air into submission. They sacrifice speed and range for the ability to land anywhere.
Consider the best estimate for Z10 Range I know is 820Km but that seems... low for a ferry range high for a combat range.
Most transport and attack choppers in the same class are ranging out to under 500km.
Now Vtol fighter let's say the old Yak 41 at its worst know range it's matching and easily trouncing the ferry range estimate of the Z10 and with a more conservative load doubling if not tripling the the range of a combat helicopter in this class. And still being far faster on station with a higher altitude.
Now yes a non v/stol machine would be even longer range and higher flying but not always an option. Remember that demands that you have your carrier on station with your LHA. That's not always a option as you may need that CV elsewhere. Having that V/STOL machine with your LHA means that as they launch operations you can have your fighters clear the road. Or self CAP the LHA and can cycle close support missions of the expeditionary forces more rapidly and more deeply than helicopters.
Generally a mixed force like this only has a half dozen V/STOLs as they are more to support other operations vs a full carrier where the other machines are to support fighter ops.

gelgoog said:

If they want to waste time and resources on that they can likely get information on the AV-8S Matador from Thailand (first generation Harrier) or the Yak-141

Click to expand...

The Chinese are said to have studied the Matador but the Thai never got any beyond a single test model.
The Russians offered the Yak 41 to the PRC but it was th early 90s and the Chinese didn't buy in. The US ironically did but for test data as the lift system of the Yak41 is identical to that that was proposed for the Convair model 200/201. The 200 lift system was used as a insperatation for the F35B lift system.

There has been tall talk of the Russians looking at resurrecting there V/STOL program.

Is there any evidence to suggest anywhere that China plans such a aircraft ?

Whether or not China would actually build a VSTOL aircraft depends in a large part on which direction the PLAN Marine Corp and the PLAN will take. Despite the fact that the corps will be expended to a size equivalent of that of the USMC, there is little evidence that China would be using them in the same matter as the US does with its own marines in the form of both rapid reaction and military presence. The demand of the USMC as well as the demands of the USN carriers means that there is very little chance that both service can effectively coordinate their operations especially in a peer conflict.
On the other hand the PLAN Marine Corps still remains a subordinate service to the PLAN, moreover it is very unlikely in the near future that the PLAN's carriers would be in such demand as those of the USN carriers. As such the PLAN Marines can reasonably count on the presence of carrier aviation support in their operations abroad. There is no security treaty or congressional mandate requiring the PLAN to maintain a CBG in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic at the same time like how the USN is required.
So there is little evidence to suggest why the PLAN would want a VTOL in the short term perspective.

I could understand why would Russia want a VTSOL fighter,given that their carrier aviation status. A VTOL aircraft would be the better choice for both their current and future prospective carriers. But China had made it clear that it wants catapult carriers as it's mainstay.

asif iqbal said:

Is there any evidence to suggest anywhere that China plans such a aircraft ?

Click to expand...

Rumors, but little hard evidence.

Viktor Jav said:

I could understand why would Russia want a VTSOL fighter,given that their carrier aviation status. A VTOL aircraft would be the better choice for both their current and future prospective carriers. But China had made it clear that it wants catapult carriers as it's mainstay.

Click to expand...

VTOL aircraft is also useful for operating on vulnerable or makeshift airfields.

In the case that an airfield is heavily damaged, VTOL aircraft has a higher chance of being able to operate instead of waiting for the airfield to be repaired or de-mined.

Another advantage would be the ability to operate off a small makeshift airfield that resembles something closer to a helicopter landing pad. It opens up greater operational flexibility.

China's base in Djibouti has a heliport, not a full sized run way for conventional fixed wing jets. With the addition of VTOL aircraft in China's arsenal, overseas operational capabilities would increase greatly.

Given that a country like the US can destroy enemy airfields and thus obtain air superiority, VTSOL can serve a purpose. If China does have thousands of miles of missile tunnels, they could serve the same purpose playing a shell game. China's unique where chances are enemy ground troops won't be occupying much. The US these days is more dependent on air superiority to control territory. Cause trouble for enemy aircraft and that affects the ground game.

Even in that situation I do not think it is that big of a deal to have VTL. Yes, you would want the capability to perform short takeoffs and landings in a near-peer conflict. But as experiences with both the Viggen and the Tornado in the 1970s-1980s show, all you need for that is good thrust-to-weight ratios/lift and some sort of engine thrust reversal mechanism. Which is much easier to retrofit into an aircraft than making the single huge engine that is required for a real VTL aircraft. With that and some inexpensive near-roadside bases, like Sweden does, you can basically turn the country's entire highway and road infrastructure into airstrips in case of war. China's paved road network is quite extensive and it is already there. No need to build helipads which can resist the blast of a jet engine for VTL. Experiences with the Harrier showed landing on non-prepared surfaces was a really bad idea and the same seems to be even worse of an issue in the case of the F-35B.

In several cases the Chinese do not have thrust-reversal on their aircraft but they can be fitted with landing parachutes. Thrust-to-weight ratio is already decent as is. So I would not say it is that dire. I think it would be a massive waste of resources on a dead-end VTL project. I think EMALS is the ticket here. Just spam enough CV-17/CDG sized CATOBAR carriers and you can have a carrier fleet which smaller per unit costs than the US, mass production efficiencies, and you make it so the enemy has to hit more targets to completely disable your fleet. Combine that with an approach where you use smaller single engine UCAVs as part of a mixed forces approach and I think you can bring a tremendous amount of airpower to bear on a target or a front. Only once China has like a dozen of those do they really need to start thinking about supercarriers IMHO. While the pocket carriers half the size of the Kuznestov, I suspect, will not work properly with the F-35B without major retrofits. Like adding ramps and resurfacing to withstand high temperature exhaust gases and things like that.

I could see them installing a smaller EMALS catapult and using it to launch drones on the LHDs though. A flying wing design could have a lot of lift and range and be used for reconnaissance and bombing with the carrier as the drone operation facility. The USA seems to have somehow lost its bearings on the UCAV front after a significant head start. So that's a place where China could clearly lead with minor investments in comparison to a VTL. If the LHD needs protection from enemy aircraft, it should either depend on the carriers, or on the frigates IMHO. Assuming a worst case scenario where the US gets hypersonic anti-ship missiles, or has superiority in terms of the submarine fleet, you will need proper escorts vessels...

SilentObserver said:

VTOL aircraft is also useful for operating on vulnerable or makeshift airfields.

In the case that an airfield is heavily damaged, VTOL aircraft has a higher chance of being able to operate instead of waiting for the airfield to be repaired or de-mined.

Another advantage would be the ability to operate off a small makeshift airfield that resembles something closer to a helicopter landing pad. It opens up greater operational flexibility.

China's base in Djibouti has a heliport, not a full sized run way for conventional fixed wing jets. With the addition of VTOL aircraft in China's arsenal, overseas operational capabilities would increase greatly.
View attachment 48827

Click to expand...

That did be China wanting a VTOL for a very singular reason only. Personally I don't think Djbouti will be major Chinese base in Africa, the location it is situated in is just too full of competition. So it just having a heliport suits it's purpose just fine to get China's feet wet in the business.
There has been much talk regarding the so called higher operationability of VTOL's over conventional aircrafts but AFAIK none of these talks ever come to fruitition. Like the talks of constructing giant concrete "lily pads" for Harriers to take off from during the Gulf War.
Morevere, depending on the kind of VTOL in question the promise of higher operationalbility is not always a given. The F-35 with its powerful engine blast can actually melt the tarmac of the runway, one can easily imagine how much havoc that down blast will play on rough airstrips with all the dirt and pebbles flying about.

Honestly I don’t think we will see VTOL from China

I don’t see the scope for one not now and not in the foreseeable future

Tilt rotor yes VTOL no