China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations

[TK3600]

And before anyone who say J-35, helicopters, STOVL are apple to oranges that cannot be compared, sure they can. Any resources spent on them is one less for other 2. They all require shared deck space. They require limited amount of skilled personnel. They compete in production and budget, and having more complicates logistics. They compete against each other. Not apple to orange at all. And before you say "no, STOVL require no EMAL" it is no longer a problem. China solved it in 076 even marines get access to those. So why do you need vertical take off and the compromise it entails? To save money on EMAL?

 

[another505]

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.

You still need to create land infrastructure for VTOL. You can't land on an untreated pavement nor expect it to be rearmed and refueled in an efficient manner without the logistic train. This niche you imagine doesn't get fulfilled by VTOL. And IF VTOL does get introduced, there would be more than 3 carriers at that point.

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.

And which SEA/NEA nation can even thrwat a 076 with Sept 3 drones on it? Maybe Indonesia might give a bit of an headache but the rest is an absolute over kill for fifth gen VTOL.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Give me a STOVL that can travel to Mars and back in 3 minutes. Why list a random requirement?

The requirements aren't random. That's why SVTOL fighter jets (or literally anything that are man-made) exist in the first place.

"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.

And before anyone who say J-35, helicopters, STOVL are apple to oranges that cannot be compared, sure they can. Any resources spent on them is one less for other 2. They all require shared deck space. They require limited amount of skilled personnel. They compete in production and budget, and having more complicates logistics. They compete against each other. Not apple to orange at all. And before you say "no, STOVL require no EMAL" it is no longer a problem. China solved it in 076 even marines get access to those. So why do you need vertical take off and the compromise it entails? To save money on EMAL?

(Note that all the discussions here are about the Navy side of things, i.e. operating from LHD/As.)

To start with:
S/VTOL fighter jets are simultaneously equipped with the capability to operate from and to short flight decks that are located within vicinity to the warzone (the carrier-based J-35 and land-based J-35A couldn't), able to provide rapid responses to the warzone (the carrier-based J-35 and land-based J-35A couldn't), have LO capabilities (helicopters don't), can fly at Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.6 and at 30-50 thousand feet (helicopters couldn't), and are able to conduct both A2G and A2A missions using the same airframe (helicopters couldn't), to state a few.

Of course, there are also reasons related to the operational and strategic aspects of things that would justify the existence of a SVTOL jet. For instance:

"Just build more carriers man" - How long does it take for proper CVs like Fujian from laying down the first pieces until declared IOC/FOC? And how long do LHD/As take to go through the same process? Plus, how much money, manpower and resources does each of these costs to design, build, operate and maintain, respectively?
"Just send the carriers man, they'll do the job" - What if the carriers (which are actually more limited in numbers and availability than LHD/As) are also needed elsewhere and won't be available to provide support?
"SVTOL jets only compete production slots and budget, complicate logistics and operations duh" - There are always cases and scenarios where money, manpower and resources have to be spent in order to achieve the required capabilities deemed crucial by the higher ups of the PLAN, of which they deem cannot be effectively fulfilled by other assets that are already available to the PLAN. In fact, such situations do apply for the other branches and arms of the PLA as well.

Not that I'm supporting or refuting the importance and necessity of having V/STOL fighter jets in the PLAN (both sides of the argument have their own merits) - But there certainly are pretty good reasons for BOTH the higher ups of the DoN and the PLAN to go "Yeah, we should dedicate X amount of our money, manpower and resources towards developing (and operate) this thing."

So if you are unhappy with what the PLAN is doing, AND you believe that you do know better than everyone else in the PLAN - Instead of ranting about it here in this forum, how about you go to the August 1st Building and voice your objections to the higher ups of the PLAN over there?

 

[Gloire_bb]

Great just build more carriers.

Just build more carriers. Mind you, 003 took 10 years to comission. It isn't operational yet and working up it to FOC will take a while.
Right now PLAN is two CATOBAR units, which may outright struggle "just" against coastal dispersed marine fighters from Philippines. Against almost a dozen on the opposite side.

Problem solved.

And at the same time the problems i've mentioned aren't quantitive even - the only mention of quantity was that PLAN doesn't have enough carriers even for their own tasks, and won't normally risk them over static 3rd point.
They're qualitive.
Carrier (and seapower) is temporary presence at sea. Land power is permanent, but tied to airbases. I don't want this answer to become an essay for WW2 Pacific war, but this is as major as it gets. It's just harder to recognize, because back then all fighter bombers on theater were essentially STOL, and very often even that wasn't enough.

You talk as if STOVL is an off the shelf technology that can immediately boost Chinese naval aviation.

It absolutely can. In a way far more impactful than additional 2 carriers.
Precisely for the reason it's 2030. As of then, Pacific war becomes ultimately unlikely to be solved via one climactic strike - US loses capability to do that. It becomes tug of war, similar to what happened during the previous run. Tug of war in naval warfare is game of bases and logistics, centered around land power. VTOL airpower is key enabler that allows to move the needle around, in all too many ways.
Even more so now, as VTOL unit isn't just individual capability, rather it's just as valid as commanding unit for VTOL formation.

By the time 2030 rolls out, China will have 5 carriers.

Hopefully. Your schedules are quite optimistic. In any case, it doesn't change much - see above about carriers, and keep in mind that this isn't nowhere near enough to equalize US carrier might.
This means that PLAN carriers aren't really a first consideration for risky offensive operations, and most certainly keeping them tied to it is suicidal.

 

[AsuraGodFiend]

China have to get stovl for the future anyway for space exploration don't yall play star citizen all the space ships are vtol space exploration from planets to planets will not get no runway to takeoff

 

[TK3600]

To start with:
S/VTOL fighter jets are simultaneously equipped with the capability to operate from and to short flight decks that are located within vicinity to the warzone (the carrier-based J-35 and land-based J-35A couldn't), able to provide rapid responses to the warzone (the carrier-based J-35 and land-based J-35A couldn't), have LO capabilities (helicopters don't), can fly at Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.6 and at 30-50 thousand feet (helicopters couldn't), and are able to conduct both A2G and A2A missions using the same airframe (helicopters couldn't), to state a few.

Cool but you are still not answering the question, why are these requirements relevant? Sure it can provide rapid response using (*insert the specs), but why are they relevant enough to justify the alternatives? And that is why comparing them to helicopters (for menial tasks) and J-35(where quality like speed and payload matters) is relevant. They compete for the same deck. It is not like comparing a tank to a fighter jet.

"Just build more carriers man" - How long does it take for proper CVs like Fujian from laying down the first pieces until declared IOC/FOC? And how long do LHD/As take to go through the same process? Plus, how much money, manpower and resources does each of these costs to design, build, operate and maintain, respectively?

Fujian is the first of her type. Most of the time is consumed for research, training, testing purpose, and not reflective of its peak war time production rate. If China is tasked to build an identical ship to Fujian, I am sure it will be done much much faster. 10 years for a carrier is not the norm.

Cost wise STOVL is not 'cheaper', the cost of a EMAL is peanut compared to cost of high skill pilots and expensive aircrafts. With the same budget it is impossible to beat a true carrier fleet using STOVL as a cost saving strategy.

One reason you want STOVL is their unique capability of vertical take offs, and wanting to pay a premium for it. That is about the only real reason one possibly want them. And I am all ears. Because like I said earlier, "change my mind". I am listening to potential reasons.

"Just send the carriers man, they'll do the job" - What if the carriers (which are actually more limited in numbers and availability than LHD/As) are also needed elsewhere and won't be available to provide support?

If there is a shortage of carriers, see above, just build more, which China certainly will.

So if you are unhappy with what the PLAN is doing, AND you believe that you do know better than everyone else in the PLAN - Instead of ranting about it here in this forum, how about you go to the August 1st Building and voice your objections to the higher ups of the PLAN over there?

A forum is a place for autistic ranting, but that is besides the point. I see no reason to complain because we do not know its purpose. It could be a project not intended for mass production. It could be a scientific research to build a VTOL engine and learn about it, use the experience for other things. Why should I object to that?

 

[Andy1974]

China is building a low altitude economy and there will be thousands of landing pads available to a VTOL fighter.

Logistics shouldn’t be hard because fuel will be available and weapons can be easily loaded, they would just have a rapid program, like rapid raptor.

A stealthy VTOL fighter can provide air superiority over a 1000km radius.

You need a VTOL because your airfields might be inoperable.

 

[UmbraPenumbra]

With China making more security/ economic agreements with Pacific island nations in the future to come, employing an island hopping tactic might provide certain advantages and more flexibility with the availability STOVL/VTOL as well as in dispersing assets up to 2IC. Basically using the same US tactic against them. Also, there's the potential military export/commercial applications to think about. Consider that even among the top 20 largest economies and military powers only a few can afford carriers and their naval wing, the rest are mostly some form of LHD. A STOVL/VTOL stealth fighter, at very least superior to the F35B, that can also control CCA drones would be a boon to nations who can afford it.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Cool but you are still not answering the question, why are these requirements relevant? Sure it can provide rapid response using (*insert the specs), but why are they relevant enough to justify the alternatives? And that is why comparing them to helicopters (for menial tasks) and J-35(where quality like speed and payload matters) is relevant. They compete for the same deck. It is not like comparing a tank to a fighter jet.

For instance:
Can the helicopters last longer than fighter jets at low altitudes where the ground is still contested (if not also the air)? Can carrier-based and land-based fighters operating from the many-100s or even 1000+ kilometers away be capable of providing immediate/rapid, on-the-spot/proximity support for the amphibious forces on contested ground?
And then some.

And before someone brings up drones - Unless the 075 LHDs can undergo significantly large modifications in the future to fit EMCATs, then SVTOL jets are pretty much the only solution for delivering large amounts of payload for rapidly supporting amphibious operations from these ships (of which the PLAN operates four and possibly increasing).

Also, there won't be SVTOL jets competing with J-35s for deck spaces on the 075/076 LHD/As, because the J-35 will NOT appear on their flight decks. Similarly, neither will the SVTOL jets compete with the J-35s for deck spaces on the proper CVs.

Fujian is the first of her type. Most of the time is consumed for research, training, testing purpose, and not reflective of its peak war time production rate. If China is tasked to build an identical ship to Fujian, I am sure it will be done much much faster. 10 years for a carrier is not the norm.

If there is a shortage of carriers, see above, just build more, which China certainly will.

Ah yes, keep chanting the "Just build more man! It won't be hard, duh!" mantra, whlist having little actual understanding on how real life doesn't just work like 1+1=2.

If you still refuse to figure out why "Just pump out more carriers duh" this isn't as easy as you think it is, then there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. I'm not here to babysit.

Cost wise STOVL is not 'cheaper', the cost of a EMAL is peanut compared to cost of high skill pilots and expensive aircrafts. With the same budget it is impossible to beat a true carrier fleet using STOVL as a cost saving strategy.

I certainly don't see how having SVTOL jets based on the 075/076 LHD/As can turn the latter into lightning CVs that is capable of going toe-to-toe with proper CVs, considering how their roles and missions are pretty different from one another. Why are you insinuating that to be the case?

And need I state here again: "There are always cases and scenarios where money, manpower and resources have to be spent in order to achieve the required capabilities deemed crucial by the higher ups of the PLAN, of which they deem cannot be effectively fulfilled by other assets that are already available to the PLAN, even if/when such capabilities may be deemed as niche. In fact, such situations do apply for the other branches and arms of the PLA as well."

Which part of this do you not understand?

A forum is a place for autistic ranting, but that is besides the point.

In that case, looks like you have mistaken SDF with r/LCD and r/NCD. I would suggest you to migrate to those forums instead.

 

[AndrewS]

In terms of mission requirements, you can simplify it as follows:

1. Within the First Island Chain, STOVL/VTOVL aircraft are not required because land-based aircraft are more cost-effective for missions, and China has many airbases which are effectively secure.

2. Then you have a huge gap of empty ocean until you reach the Second Island Chain.

In that area of empty ocean, again, you would be better off with non-STOVL/VTOVL aircraft because EMCATS are available on both full-size carriers and on the Type-076.

Note that a Type-076 takes 12 months to assemble and it should be straightforward to build a lot of them and the associated aircraft in 5 years, given that development time of a STOVL/VTOVL aircraft would be at least 5 years

3. Once you reach the Second Island Chain, you have a cloud of small islands.

Only then, can you conceive of a Chinese island hopping campaign, where STOVL/VTOVL aircraft would be useful.

But to get to this point, you need enough force to obtain significant air-sea superiority over Guam (and opposing carriers) first, using non-STOVL/VTOVL aircraft. Enough that Guam is completely neutralised, and the Chinese Navy can contemplate a forward island airbase.

That is at least 15 years away.

And overall, I just don't see enough advantage in a STOVL/VTOVL aircraft in any of these scenarios.

Repairing runways is a straightforward exercise these days, which can be done in hours, and aircraft have a large logistical requirements. And the number of STOVL/VTOVL aircraft required make it a very expensive niche product