Pretty much the best description of STOVL aircraft strengths. Now, this coming directly from PLA, does this mean that building a STOVL fighter is pretty much confirmed? Especially the last sentence imo is enlightening, China is in the era of "anything you can do i can do better" relative to the west/US so to speak, so a chinese STOVL fighter, especially a 6th gen one, would chalk another of those "anythings".
China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations
- Thread starter kickars
- Start date
No. What it means is that they're interested in exploring the technology, and to see what the design tradeoffs are, and whether they're worth it for the extra flexibility. It's also possible (if highly unlikely) that STOVL is the ideal way to make combat aircraft and the reason why current ones suck is just because the Americans suck at making them.
Personally, I don't think that STOVL aircraft are a good fit for the PLA. None of the use cases are all that compelling, and China doesn't have any interest in expeditionary war so it eliminates the one edge case out there. That said, just because a technology doesn't seem promising doesn't mean that it should be ignored altogether, so putting some resources into it makes sense. You can bet that they're going to test the hell out of the idea before it ever gets implemented into a proper warplane. My bet that if we ever do see STOVLs in service, it'll be in the form of drones rather than manned aircraft.
Novel as in, barely any nations in the world except UK and USMC uses VTOL and they are to bomb third world countries and terrorist.
My main point is this, there is no point to have an austere base without sufficient support because the aircraft is neutered and defenceless. If you build up a base to support vtol, might as well make the runway. If the runway can be bombed, the same can be applied to a vtol airbase logistic and infrastructure that there is very little difference.
Because it ISN'T as austere as much as you dream it to be. You need the whole logistic train going with it or it is a very ineffective plane. There's no point landing a vtol aircraft with a heat resistant platform in a small island in the middle of the pacific without sufficient support and defense. The more austere it is, then it is even easier it is to be attacked and disrupted. It isn't some WW2 aircraft anymore.
I said it before "
If PRC has some FOB to over watch SEA/NEA as you mentioned in a previous post. Both VTOL and airstrip airbase requires accommodations, radars, fuel, supply, food, maintenance, spare parts, control tower, support staffs, engineers and etc.. The only difference is that one has a special treated platform for VTOL take off and landing, and one has an airstrip. At that point, might as well build an airstrip."
The very same logistic train to support both kinds of aircraft with take weeks to develop and build, and easily seen by satellites. So the fear of a runway taking too long to build doesn't make sense. It isn't that complicated. It's a literal road. You can even take over preexisting highways, airbases and airports to use it.
Exactly. Do we really want to station fighter jets on the unsecured frontline where a small drone team can wipe everything? These days hardened air field with air defense is unreliable if stationed too close. The idea of parking your plane super duper close to front line is over. Imagine if Russians somehow land and secure Odessa and just land some STOVL to take off on the highways. How long do you think it will live?
For these situation you just use helicopters and be done with it.
To build a new carrier you also need to build a couple of large destroyers, a couple of medium destroyers, a couple of frigates, a nuclear submarine, a large supply ship and an air wing and supply them with troops and weapons.
For the same money as 1 or max 2 carrier battle group you develop a whole fighter program with a new engine.
For the same money as 1 or max 2 carrier battle group you develop a whole fighter program with a new engine.
OK a flatdeck like America class do not need escort like a proper carrier? Nice joke.
To be honest, i don't understand some of the violent opposition to VTOL planes i see here. They are obviously serving a specific niche, have been doing so for decades and will do so for many more to come in numerous world navies. Their advantages have been stated quite well by that PLA paper, so i won't go there much, but just to go over again WHERE could they best serve.
First, on the at least 6 075s and whatever number of 076 will be built, though there is still a possibility 076 might use CTOL planes. In a pinch, you can probably fly a couple from the 071s too.
Then, in times of need/hostilities, ro-ro and similar merchants could be converted to operate a few VTOL fighters. China is now the economic and building engine of the world, if someone could pull that off is China.
Needles to say, the capability to fly from small islands and random clearings outside normal airbases, that COULD be incapacitated in a conflict.
Yes, there is a downside to VTOL planes, the need for reduced payload, range or performance in whichever mix, BUT they will still bring to the game the same advanced electronics and weapons as CTOL planes, that otherwise will not be possible to with conventional planes.
Do not forget, the US lackeys Japan, ROK and Australia have another 8 LHDs to add to the US ones, despite what the official statements say, does anyone doubt that in case of conflict with China those will not be flying as many F-35Bs/Harriers as they can stuff in, either american or their own?
So yeah, i can only agree with that PLA paper, within PLAN's aspirations of a world class navy VTOL planes are a necessity.
First, on the at least 6 075s and whatever number of 076 will be built, though there is still a possibility 076 might use CTOL planes. In a pinch, you can probably fly a couple from the 071s too.
Then, in times of need/hostilities, ro-ro and similar merchants could be converted to operate a few VTOL fighters. China is now the economic and building engine of the world, if someone could pull that off is China.
Needles to say, the capability to fly from small islands and random clearings outside normal airbases, that COULD be incapacitated in a conflict.
Yes, there is a downside to VTOL planes, the need for reduced payload, range or performance in whichever mix, BUT they will still bring to the game the same advanced electronics and weapons as CTOL planes, that otherwise will not be possible to with conventional planes.
Do not forget, the US lackeys Japan, ROK and Australia have another 8 LHDs to add to the US ones, despite what the official statements say, does anyone doubt that in case of conflict with China those will not be flying as many F-35Bs/Harriers as they can stuff in, either american or their own?
So yeah, i can only agree with that PLA paper, within PLAN's aspirations of a world class navy VTOL planes are a necessity.
Last edited:
The opposition comes from the limitations of VTOLs and the lack of practical applications. Look at what was written above: "These aircraft can be deployed on amphibious assault ships, aircraft carriers, islands, reefs, and simple airfields," The islands, reefs, and simple airfields part is obviously nonsense. If this VTOL is an advanced fighter plane, then it's going to need extensive facilities to maintain it. You're not going to park it on an improvised airfield or anything like that because you're just going to lose it to attrition that way. If said VTOL is a rugged and simple plane like a Super Tucano or OV-10, then it's more reasonable, but why would you bother pairing a plane like that with complex and maintenance intensive hardware?
So the only part that would make sense for the PLAN would be assault ships and aircraft carriers. And even here, the aircraft carrier part doesn't hold up because China has no need for light carriers, and you're going to want to operate non-compromised fighter planes off of full-sized carriers.
It's far more realistic to just escort any amphibious attacks with full-sized carriers. Also, the 076 has a catapult and arresting gear so you woudn't bother putting a VTOL fighter on it.
Why would this matter? You counter these light carriers by using proper aircraft; whether land-based or off of proper carriers.
I can see one use case for a STOVL fighter that might not have been brought up yet. If China intends to use Liaoning and Shandong in real combat then it'd make sense for them to carry 5th gen fighters. If they somehow can't get the J-35 to work on them, then maybe a STOVL fighter could be a hedge against that. But even then, I don't imagine it makes a whole lot of sense to make a new platform for just a few dozen fighters, and even if it were, it's more an argument for a STOL fighter rather than a STOVL one.
Guys ... Instead of getting lost in overly hypothetical discussions and dismissing the opinions of others, wouldn't it be better to focus on what is known? And if that's not enough to discuss configuration, role, and operational scenarios because simply too little is known, then that's just how it is, and perhaps it's better not to post anything at all?