China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations
- Thread starter kickars
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It's one thing to make a electrically powered toy it's another to make a turbine powered transport. Especially if you have no experience in manned aircraft and Tiltrotors.Looking at these I think the army can just outsource the project to DJI. Nobody makes a better quad.
The F-35B has a 6,800 kg payload. The J-15 has a payload of ~6,500 kg. That would put them to being comparable.
VTOL would be used for landing and for very specific combat situations. Most flights are STOL...STOL with the STOBAR is a useful combo, ask the Brits.
Why do these sensationalist National Interest articles always ask if China can build some weapons with Russian assistance??? When has Russia really ever provided technical assistance to China apart from the 1950's (even then it was not substantial)? There is zero chance Russia and China would ever collaborate on a major defense project, especially now since Russian power is in decline.
hmm. I wonder where the J-15 design came from. Or those Su-33s they recently bought. or...?
Yes, the NI is often sensationalist. However, there can be some nuggets under their guff.
You misunderstood my point. Under which part did Russia actually co-develop/design the J-15 with China? The J-15 was developed from a purchased Ukrainian prototype ... where was Russia in this equation? I never said there was no Russian influence ... I only said there is no Sino-Russian arms collaboration. And yet these mainstream articles are hyping up Chinese-Russian joint development, which is all but impossible.
My apologies. I meant the Su-35 but had been double checking the J-15 so I typed Su-33.
The CR929 isn't a joint project.
No future joint projects hinted there:
I do believe the Russians are falling behind in aerospace and are mining a lot of tech and knowhow from the Soviet era. However, there are a few things the Russians know that, as yet, the Chinese do not. With the Indians increasingly telling the Russians to take a hike a hike, the Russians are going to be willing to sell more to even the Chinese. The Chinese would rather learn so they can skip ahead rather than struggle their way through it and VSTOL is a headache. I am sure the Chinese are smart enough to figure it out, but why not just skip ahead, oh, 5 to 10 years instead?
Had the heirs of Augustus delved a bit into the knowledge, or more so than they did, of a faded power in Alexandria, they might have found the work of Hero/Heron. And history would have been extremely different. I doubt this (or an equivalent moment in their own history) has been lost on the Chinese.
The CR929 isn't a joint project.
No future joint projects hinted there:
I do believe the Russians are falling behind in aerospace and are mining a lot of tech and knowhow from the Soviet era. However, there are a few things the Russians know that, as yet, the Chinese do not. With the Indians increasingly telling the Russians to take a hike a hike, the Russians are going to be willing to sell more to even the Chinese. The Chinese would rather learn so they can skip ahead rather than struggle their way through it and VSTOL is a headache. I am sure the Chinese are smart enough to figure it out, but why not just skip ahead, oh, 5 to 10 years instead?
Had the heirs of Augustus delved a bit into the knowledge, or more so than they did, of a faded power in Alexandria, they might have found the work of Hero/Heron. And history would have been extremely different. I doubt this (or an equivalent moment in their own history) has been lost on the Chinese.
I doubt that 6,800 kg payload is on a carrier without a ramp. Also the engine on the F-35 is much more advanced in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio. So yes, it might be comparable. Which is why I say it's a waste of time and resources. Look at the size of the Queen Elizabeth-class or the US America-class. They are about the same size as the Kuznetsov-class.
The exception to this would be something like the Canberra-class (where they opted to only carry helicopters) which is based on the Juan Carlos (which *can* carry the Harrier). Or the Japanese and Korean helicopter carrier classes. Those have about half the tonnage.
The Chinese also have their own LHD program. They can just use a a navalized WZ-10 and the Z-15 or the Z-20.
I think it's a waste of time to bother with VTOL. If they want to waste time and resources on that they can likely get information on the AV-8S Matador from Thailand (first generation Harrier) or the Yak-141 or its predecessor the Flogger. But the Yak design has issues. For example it requires lift engines. So it has THREE engines per aircraft. If the lift engines fail the aircraft can crash on takeoff or landing. While the first generation Harriers are much worse in performance compared to last generation designs. Both the Harrier and the Yak had engines with over 100 kN dry thrust which are not available in China. At best they can get the Soloviev D-30 which has poor thrust-to-weight capabilities (3.8:1). It's more for an interceptor, bomber, or transport. Ideally they could get something like the Kuznetsov NK-32 engine which has 7.35:1 thrust-to-weight with 137 kN dry thrust/245 kN wet thrust. But even the Russians cannot manufacture that engine anymore, production stopped when the Soviet Union fell, it is also considered strategic material for their Tu-160M2 and PAK-DA bombers. Using a twin-engine design on a VTOL was discarded by the Russians as problematic because of roll-over issues in case of engine failure.
So a VTOL combines the two worse issues in Chinese technology. Lack of advanced engine technology and novel VTOL engine technology and software control systems. For IMHO worse performance than a STOBAR carrier with an aircraft which can be a derivative of a land-based aircraft with already available engine technology.