China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations

L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Gloire_bb said:
As it it's a single most advanced deployed (mature) mil engine in the world. Especially in jet VTOL field, where China is an absolute newcomer.
F135s, for all their shortcomings, fly and power over a thousand aircraft.

Designs/technology are curse worse at this point.
Right now China, in production, is at WS-10C.

In American terms this is mid 1990s, which is 30 years ago. F135 is two 10-year cycles and full generation ahead of that. Maybe WS-15 is just around the corner (it is for many years), which will still put the situation in the same general spot, as through 1990s, F119s powered F-22 prototypes without major issues.

What's the point of "designs" - I'd guess any seriously competent engineering professor in this field from university in Tehran or Pyongyang will come up with a reasonable design. What matters is not that, what matters is deployment. And here F135 is solid ahead, as a finished step.
Of China, of Europe(yes, even with RR F136 in mind, which wasn't deployed), of Russia, of everyone.

You can't take a flight in an aircraft powered with forum/substack technologies. You need an article.
Click to expand...
The F135 is not a major leap from the F119.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Colonel
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Are there helicopters capable of carrying ~5-6 tons of payload inside its fuselage while flying at Mach 0.8/0.9 over hundreds of kilometers?
Click to expand...
Give me a credible scenario that neither J-35 nor helicopters (including compound and tilt rotors) can fulfill that requires VTOL type can. Justify that niche is worth more than just buying more helicopters/J-35. Go ahead.

Because as far as I can see J-35 can carry 5-6 tons. Now give me a purpose relevant enough for the spec you insisted, while also need vertical take off.
 
Last edited:
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Give me a credible scenario that neither J-35 nor helicopters (including compound and tilt rotors) can fulfill that requires VTOL type can. Justify that niche is worth more than just buying more helicopters/J-35. Go ahead.

Because as far as I can see J-35 can carry 5-6 tons. Now give me a purpose relevant enough for the spec you insisted, while also need vertical take off.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my initial question. Give me a helicopter that can go Mach 0.8/0.9 while still hauling 5-6 tons of missiles and/or bombs first. Oh, and at 30-50 thousand feet of altitude at that.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Colonel
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
You haven't answered my question. Give me a helicopter that can go Mach 0.8/0.9 while still hauling 5-6 tons of missiles and/or bombs first.

Also, why are you comparing apples with oranges? Both aren't even the same category of things.
Click to expand...
Give me a STOVL that can travel to Mars and back in 3 minutes. Why list a random requirement?

I am asking why the your mission requirement is relevant to justify STOVL over J-35 and helicopters. If a helicopter cannot carry 5 ton, a J-35 sure can.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Because as far as I can see J-35 can carry 5-6 tons. Now give me a purpose relevant enough for the spec you insisted, while also need vertical take off.
Click to expand...
Any situation where land infrastructure is not available and continued full size carrier presence (of which China has 3, and they aren't under plan mc command) is untenable.

Land infrastructure takes a lot of time to create and it is fixed (funny how people project this only one way in Taiwan thread). Ships are inherently operating on temporary basis, and that's before anyone starts shooting.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
Give me a STOVL that can travel to Mars and back in 3 minutes.

I am asking why the your mission requirement is relevant to justify STOVL over J-35 and helicopters. If a helicopter cannot carry 5 ton, a J-35 sure can.
Click to expand...

So you can't even answer my initial questions coherently.

Answer my question - Yes or No?
 
TK3600

TK3600

Colonel
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
Any situation where land infrastructure is not available and continued full size carrier presence (of which China has 3, and they aren't under plan mc command) is untenable.

Land infrastructure takes a lot of time to create and it is fixed (funny how people project this only one way in Taiwan thread). Ships are inherently operating on temporary basis, and that's before anyone starts shooting.
Click to expand...
Great just build more carriers. Problem solved. You talk as if STOVL is an off the shelf technology that can immediately boost Chinese naval aviation. By the time 2030 rolls out, China will have 5 carriers. By the time STOVL is in relevant number if start produced in 2030, we would be in 2035 and China have 7 carriers. All of a sudden it is obsolete the moment it arrives.
 
TK3600

TK3600

Colonel
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Oh really? Because I really don't see any reasons to compare (let alone equate) apples with oranges.
Click to expand...
"I am asking why the your mission requirement is relevant to justify STOVL over J-35 and helicopters."

And you have yet to justify it. I gave you time of 3 posts and you still can't do it. I will repeat this as many times as I need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top