China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations

delft

Brigadier
Heads up, I was asked by David Axe about the STOVL project, and gave him a few ideas. If I only had how much of an idea he hates STOVL fighters..

If he'd bothered to ask me any substantial questions about the Chinese military industrial complex, I could have told him that as a rule, most Chinese designs are not foreign copies, and no, most STOVL fighters won't hit the procurement costs of the F-35B.

Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Mr. Axe is forgetting the French ( a Mirage with eight lift engines ), the Dutch ( in collaboration with Republic, that one was not even built ) and probably several others.
 

delft

Brigadier
That means my LHD is being developed! It would be pretty powerful even with just an all helicopter complement.
A 40k LHD with ski ramp and arrested landing facilities makes much more sense. Build the STOL characteristics into the ship, not the aircraft. That aircraft can be a subsonic attack aircraft designed to support landings, with cover provided by one or two proper aircraft carriers.
 

delft

Brigadier
I take it that the fact that the VSTOL or STOVL project is talked about means that it is not a serious project but that it is a serious piece of research through which new engineers are rotated before they are given work on projects that are important.
Working on a difficult problem for which I have two serious configurations I also look at less serious configurations and sometimes I find there problems and solutions that help me solve problems in the configurations I really expect to pay off.
 
A 40k LHD with ski ramp and arrested landing facilities makes much more sense. Build the STOL characteristics into the ship, not the aircraft. That aircraft can be a subsonic attack aircraft designed to support landings, with cover provided by one or two proper aircraft carriers.

That would make sense for a carrier but I think China would want a pure LHD and not take away space from helicopter operations. Just a pure amphibious ops and MOOTW air ops handler to perhaps back up a 071 or two.
 

delft

Brigadier
That would make sense for a carrier but I think China would want a pure LHD and not take away space from helicopter operations. Just a pure amphibious ops and MOOTW air ops handler to perhaps back up a 071 or two.
You might be right but PLAN will consider using winged aircraft as US Marines use Harriers and will use the lemon F-35B. In that case they will consider an aircraft like Su-24K with a ski ramp. To save on deck real estate they might use EM cats in that ski ramp.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
...and will use the lemon F-35B.
Delft...could you keep the personal characterizations of aircraft like the F-35B to yourself perhaps?

It only invites responses...like this one.

The F-35B is no lemon, and will be no lemon.

It is faster than the Harrier it is replacing, it carries more ordinance, it has greater range, it has far better sensors than the Harrier, it is far more stealthy, and much easier to fly and will end up being far safer. It will be not only an excellent CAS aircraft for the Marines, it will be a game changer for VSTOL carriers that employ it.

Hardly a lemon, despite whatever problems it is working its way through...and it most certainly is working through them.

The current operational tests of six of the aircraft aboard the USS Wasp are going very well...in fact better than expected and RN personnel are their soaking it up for their own eventual use.

Anyhow...see?

No need to respond. Leave it at this...because any back and forth now on this thread will be entirely off topic and will just be deleted.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Don't know what to make out this article VSTOL what for?. When China hasn't even reached parity with the combined west and Japan in the number of modern Aircraft(4th gen)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Writing in China’s premier military journal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[中国军事科学] last year, People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) senior captain An Peng writes: “In the last few years, certain great powers have encircled and contained our country, mainly by pushing the ‘rebalance strategy’ . . .” He outlines a strategy to employ “asymmetric advantages” [不对称优势] in

order to “break the enemy’s naval encirclement” [破敌海上围堵]. That’s all conventional wisdom among Chinese military officers, but he goes on to assert that “surveillance flights against us are increasing in frequency year after year.”

The article gets more interesting when he explains, “whoever seizes the aerial advantage will have an even greater strategic initiative in the naval military struggle. . .” In calling for a “mighty sea air military force” [强大的海空军事力量] An is not unique in Chinese military circles, to be sure, but for an air force captain to advocate in Beijing’s most prestigious military forum to focus on the “maritime direction” [海上方向] demonstrates an impressive unity of purpose.

In this Dragon Eye series, the issue of Beijing’s concept of “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” has been addressed, in particular focusing on an array of new missiles (e.g. YJ-12) and land-based strike aircraft (e.g. J-16) that are already filling out China’s arsenal. This column will examine two additional aircraft that may join China’s air forces sometime after 2020, but that could impact the overall naval strategic balance. These platforms are the J-18, a prospective Vertical and/or Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) aircraft, as well as a tilt-rotor transport, notionally identified as the “Blue Whale” [蓝鲸].

A few scattered reports have emerged in Western news outlets over the last couple of years regarding the J-18 V/STOL fighter, but newly available evidence lends additional weight to the theory that China has a third fourth generation fighter program (in addition to J-20 and J-31 that are well known already). The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reported out in mid-2015 on the announcement of a contractual agreement between two major Chinese aviation industry entities to partner on the so-called “short takeoff project” [短垂项目]. There had been a Jane’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a couple of years back that was related to an interesting Internet photo. And there may even have been some disappointment among PLA-watchers after the September military parade in Beijing, wherein the PLA declined to show off any new combat aircraft—though some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
media had predicted the J-18 might even be revealed. Unquestionably, there is now a surfeit of articles, both strategic and technical, concerning V/STOL aircraft now appearing in Chinese journals, such as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[推进技术].


To be sure, this tidal wave of current writing about V/STOL is, at least in part, related to the U.S. Marine Corps and its reasonably successful debut of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
variant last year. However, the editor of the Chinese magazine Aerospace Knowledge [航空知识] saw fit to lead off a mid-2015 issue with some thoughts about a “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” aircraft. He first discusses the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning’s relatively small fighter complement and suggests that future iterations will not exceed 50 fighters, but those numbers will not afford China the requisite firepower. He brings up the Falklands case, moreover, and notes that Great Britain’s force of Harriers prevailed even though the U.S. Navy allegedly predicted at the time that Royal Navy airpower was too weak. While professing no special knowledge about “whether the J-18 type [fighter] . . . exists or not,” he suggests that the urgency is high for Chinese naval aviation and the outlook bright for a Chinese STOVL fighter, concluding: “. . . perhaps in the near future, we will get some really good news. hope that’s the case.”

Another report from about the same time in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[中国国防报] did not mention the J-18 by name, but appeared in this official military newspaper under the headline “How Will China Develop a Short Takeoff Fighter?” This piece makes several interesting assertions, including that China has been working on V/STOL technology since the 1960s and also that Beijing apparently acquired a Russian V/STOL Yak-141 prototype fighter to tinker with and study back in 1994.

And what of China’s planned tilt-rotor transport? The same military publication summarized above also ran a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(by the same author) on the “Blue Whale”—along with a photo of a model from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The striking aspect of the design from the photo is that it has four engines (instead of two in the V-22 Osprey) mounted on two wings (instead of one on V-22). The article summarizes the expected characteristics of the Chinese design: a cruising speed of 538km per hour, a range of 3,106 km and the capability to heft 20 tons of cargo. The piece is not modest about Blue Whale’s objectives: to exceed the performance of the V-22 Osprey with an aircraft that is “lighter and more clever, simple and direct, [more] effective with lower cost, and easier to maintain. . .” [更轻巧, 简捷, 高效能, 底成本和维修方便. . .] On the other hand, a detailed article covering Osprey accidents (including one from May 2015) in the official China Air Force magazine [中国空军] injected a note of skepticism into Beijing’s pursuit of tilt-rotor aircraft by reminding Chinese aerospace analysts not to simply look at the advantages of the Osprey, but also its “defects” [缺点]

It remains to be seen if these Chinese aircraft projects will ever take wing, but the balance of probability is that they will. After all, one obvious characteristic of a cold war is the mechanistic effort to surpass the opponent in every aspect of military technology. When they do fly, Western commentators will no doubt howl that they are “just imitations” and do not represent genuine technological innovation. But that may miss the point that imitators can often be rather successful within strategic rivalries. It’s simple enough to recall that the British cleverly invented the first tanks, but it was the Germans who labored patiently on the borrowed technological concept and eventually perfected their use in battle.

Lyle J. Goldstein is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
To be sure, this tidal wave of current writing about V/STOL is, at least in part, related to the U.S. Marine Corps and its reasonably successful debut of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
variant last year. However, the editor of the Chinese magazine Aerospace Knowledge [航空知识] saw fit to lead off a mid-2015 issue with some thoughts about a “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” aircraft. He first discusses the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning’s relatively small fighter complement and suggests that future iterations will not exceed 50 fighters, but those numbers will not afford China the requisite firepower. He brings up the Falklands case, moreover, and notes that Great Britain’s force of Harriers prevailed even though the U.S. Navy allegedly predicted at the time that Royal Navy airpower was too weak. While professing no special knowledge about “whether the J-18 type [fighter] . . . exists or not,” he suggests that the urgency is high for Chinese naval aviation and the outlook bright for a Chinese STOVL fighter, concluding: “. . . perhaps in the near future, we will get some really good news. hope that’s the case.”
From the Sounds of it this would suggest a two pronged carrier formation. a few really advanced Liaonings suplimented by Sea Control carriers with Vtol fighters. at least that's what it seems then we hit the Blue whale.
And what of China’s planned tilt-rotor transport? The same military publication summarized above also ran a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(by the same author) on the “Blue Whale”—along with a photo of a model from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The striking aspect of the design from the photo is that it has four engines (instead of two in the V-22 Osprey) mounted on two wings (instead of one on V-22). The article summarizes the expected characteristics of the Chinese design: a cruising speed of 538km per hour, a range of 3,106 km and the capability to heft 20 tons of cargo. The piece is not modest about Blue Whale’s objectives: to exceed the performance of the V-22 Osprey with an aircraft that is “lighter and more clever, simple and direct, [more] effective with lower cost, and easier to maintain. . .” [更轻巧, 简捷, 高效能, 底成本和维修方便. . .] On the other hand, a detailed article covering Osprey accidents (including one from May 2015) in the official China Air Force magazine [中国空军] injected a note of skepticism into Beijing’s pursuit of tilt-rotor aircraft by reminding Chinese aerospace analysts not to simply look at the advantages of the Osprey, but also its “defects” [缺点]
Sino JHL?
Blue Whale in concept is similar to the Design concept form Bell Boeing called "Big Boy" which aimed for a Quad Tilt rotor capable of transporting a Stryker Vehicle ( about 19 tons) What it would offer is the ability like the Russians have with the Mi26 And the ability to transport BMD series vehicles in a pinch. It's a really interesting option because you could in theory land assault forces behind the enemy lines drop ship style. The US Army has wanted that for the FCS and JHL programs and even today there JMR requirements include a Ultra class lifter in the same weight class. Basically it would be a A300M that could land on a Amphib and take off again launching ops.
 
Don't know what to make out this article VSTOL what for?. When China hasn't even reached parity with the combined west and Japan in the number of modern Aircraft(4th gen)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Writing in China’s premier military journal
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[中国军事科学] last year, People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) senior captain An Peng writes: “In the last few years, certain great powers have encircled and contained our country, mainly by pushing the ‘rebalance strategy’ . . .” He outlines a strategy to employ “asymmetric advantages” [不对称优势] in

order to “break the enemy’s naval encirclement” [破敌海上围堵]. That’s all conventional wisdom among Chinese military officers, but he goes on to assert that “surveillance flights against us are increasing in frequency year after year.”

The article gets more interesting when he explains, “whoever seizes the aerial advantage will have an even greater strategic initiative in the naval military struggle. . .” In calling for a “mighty sea air military force” [强大的海空军事力量] An is not unique in Chinese military circles, to be sure, but for an air force captain to advocate in Beijing’s most prestigious military forum to focus on the “maritime direction” [海上方向] demonstrates an impressive unity of purpose.

In this Dragon Eye series, the issue of Beijing’s concept of “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” has been addressed, in particular focusing on an array of new missiles (e.g. YJ-12) and land-based strike aircraft (e.g. J-16) that are already filling out China’s arsenal. This column will examine two additional aircraft that may join China’s air forces sometime after 2020, but that could impact the overall naval strategic balance. These platforms are the J-18, a prospective Vertical and/or Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) aircraft, as well as a tilt-rotor transport, notionally identified as the “Blue Whale” [蓝鲸].

A few scattered reports have emerged in Western news outlets over the last couple of years regarding the J-18 V/STOL fighter, but newly available evidence lends additional weight to the theory that China has a third fourth generation fighter program (in addition to J-20 and J-31 that are well known already). The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
reported out in mid-2015 on the announcement of a contractual agreement between two major Chinese aviation industry entities to partner on the so-called “short takeoff project” [短垂项目]. There had been a Jane’s
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a couple of years back that was related to an interesting Internet photo. And there may even have been some disappointment among PLA-watchers after the September military parade in Beijing, wherein the PLA declined to show off any new combat aircraft—though some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
media had predicted the J-18 might even be revealed. Unquestionably, there is now a surfeit of articles, both strategic and technical, concerning V/STOL aircraft now appearing in Chinese journals, such as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[推进技术].


To be sure, this tidal wave of current writing about V/STOL is, at least in part, related to the U.S. Marine Corps and its reasonably successful debut of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
variant last year. However, the editor of the Chinese magazine Aerospace Knowledge [航空知识] saw fit to lead off a mid-2015 issue with some thoughts about a “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” aircraft. He first discusses the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning’s relatively small fighter complement and suggests that future iterations will not exceed 50 fighters, but those numbers will not afford China the requisite firepower. He brings up the Falklands case, moreover, and notes that Great Britain’s force of Harriers prevailed even though the U.S. Navy allegedly predicted at the time that Royal Navy airpower was too weak. While professing no special knowledge about “whether the J-18 type [fighter] . . . exists or not,” he suggests that the urgency is high for Chinese naval aviation and the outlook bright for a Chinese STOVL fighter, concluding: “. . . perhaps in the near future, we will get some really good news. hope that’s the case.”

Another report from about the same time in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[中国国防报] did not mention the J-18 by name, but appeared in this official military newspaper under the headline “How Will China Develop a Short Takeoff Fighter?” This piece makes several interesting assertions, including that China has been working on V/STOL technology since the 1960s and also that Beijing apparently acquired a Russian V/STOL Yak-141 prototype fighter to tinker with and study back in 1994.

And what of China’s planned tilt-rotor transport? The same military publication summarized above also ran a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(by the same author) on the “Blue Whale”—along with a photo of a model from the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The striking aspect of the design from the photo is that it has four engines (instead of two in the V-22 Osprey) mounted on two wings (instead of one on V-22). The article summarizes the expected characteristics of the Chinese design: a cruising speed of 538km per hour, a range of 3,106 km and the capability to heft 20 tons of cargo. The piece is not modest about Blue Whale’s objectives: to exceed the performance of the V-22 Osprey with an aircraft that is “lighter and more clever, simple and direct, [more] effective with lower cost, and easier to maintain. . .” [更轻巧, 简捷, 高效能, 底成本和维修方便. . .] On the other hand, a detailed article covering Osprey accidents (including one from May 2015) in the official China Air Force magazine [中国空军] injected a note of skepticism into Beijing’s pursuit of tilt-rotor aircraft by reminding Chinese aerospace analysts not to simply look at the advantages of the Osprey, but also its “defects” [缺点]

It remains to be seen if these Chinese aircraft projects will ever take wing, but the balance of probability is that they will. After all, one obvious characteristic of a cold war is the mechanistic effort to surpass the opponent in every aspect of military technology. When they do fly, Western commentators will no doubt howl that they are “just imitations” and do not represent genuine technological innovation. But that may miss the point that imitators can often be rather successful within strategic rivalries. It’s simple enough to recall that the British cleverly invented the first tanks, but it was the Germans who labored patiently on the borrowed technological concept and eventually perfected their use in battle.

Lyle J. Goldstein is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

All this seems far fetched given China's engine development problems. They also have yet to either produce or procure enough traditional fixed wing and rotary transports.
 
Top