How can single Engine produce such a thrust.. then you need large Engine ?? maybe they could do this with 178kn machine.
China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations
- Thread starter kickars
- Start date
Those bumps don't look to be able to pivot up to 90-degrees downwards, which is necessary for a VSTOL aircraft.
Frankly speaking, I think we'd be good enough if the VSTOL J-XX (if this project really exists) turns out to be a direct F-35B counterpart, i.e. scaling down our expectations.
Who is the chinese poster who posted the above btw?
iirc, the current models people could find from semi-public sources still say it's going to be a single engined aircraft. IMO, it might be the production representative system is going to be larger than the F-135. 178kN is less powerful than the F-35B system and the aircraft is likely larger.
She is one of the peoples who digs into publications and patents, reasonably well known.
This looks like the perfect job for a modified, uprated (200-ish kN) version of the WS-15. It's the only single engine currently powerful enough (second only to the F135, basically) to powerful something like this barring next-gen ACE/VCE turbofans.
If WS-15 can do 18tf, than a larger variant based on the same core doing 20-22tf isn't impossible imo.
Size comparison between J-35 and F-35A (Which is basically the same size as F-35B). J-35 is 17.5m long and the rumored aircraft is ~18m long. Illustrates my point that assuming the proposal in the paper is actually used, they are going to need a sizable improvement in thrust compared to even the F-135+Liftfan system.
I brought Yak-141 above b/c it was a much lighter aircraft than F-35(MTOW(vertical was just 1t above empty F-35B), despite its 18m length.
I.e. it's for sure won't be a small and light aircraft, but we should exercise caution just extrapolating.
All the more since we don't know PLAN requirements. Will it prescribe vertical/ultrashort take off? Or won't prescribe even rolling one, because EMCAT(CATOVL?)
Going back to yak-141, for example, it had all the options (VT; 6m take off run; 60m take off run; 120m take off run; normal). Sure, F-35 is STOVL rather than VTOL, but....we just don't know enough about PLAN ideas.
Assuming that this SVTOL J-XX does exist:
Let's just say that if the PLAN intends for the J-XX to operate from both the 075 LHDs and 076 LHD, then both STO and CATO capabilities would be required.
The mission radius and endurance for J-XX that operates from the 075s would be shorter than those of the same J-XX operating from the 076, without mid-air refueling.
Last edited:
Well, US case is unique as their current STOVL is 3-service jet, tied to common airframe and size/weight class by extension. STOVL was unavoidable, US marines themselves would of course prefer VTOL, if it would be for them alone.
If "JV-XX" exists and it is indeed a marines support bird, it's reasonable for PLAN to expect it to operate from everywhere, not just(and perhaps not even most importantly) from ships. 076 is ideal option, but it can also be beachheads or island garrisons. 075 in fact can be suboptimal in the first place, or even unsuitable (STOVL is a significant design consideration for deck, you have to plan for it early on in flatdeck design).
If we go by harrier (F-35 is different - it's a bird which forces USMC to orbit around itself, rather than helps USMC), it was(and still is) meant to go from ship onto land ASAP. Navy can run away and leave marines behind.
One may say, that this type of aircraft is less required nowadays b/c of CCAs. IMHO, the opposite is true: if you can deliver RATO CCAs(or even rotate them from afar), even a few forward-deployed VTOL fighters can become massive force multipliers for all missions.
TLDR: F-35 is a beacon, but by having a separate airframe, there is a lot of freedom to move around. It's often said that F-35B compromised F-35A. Ironically, the opposite is true.