China's V/STOL studies, concepts & considerations

I don't get where Gloire BB and CuriousPLAFan get their confidence that designing a new aircraft and engine, starting a whole new production line (when they are already busy maxing out J-20/35 productions), certifying it for carrier use, figure out new techniques in operations for VTOL, train new pilots for the new aircraft is easier than expanding current manufacturing line for 003 and 076 with china's massive shipbuilding capacity.

Introducing a new aircraft isn't easy, the development of J-20 and 35 took many years too.

And no one has answered me why not just build a runway/airstrip in a FOB. If the answer is the runway gets bombed. Runway can get repaired quickly. They are trained to do that. Control tower, supply depot and hangars can be bombed too for both types of aircraft.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

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.




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.



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?



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.

Click to expand...

I don't understand where PLAN higher up have said they are actually moving on with with this. There are patents, academics and rumors but this isn't the same level of credibility of PLAN higher up announcing that they are going to procure this. Nor have they announce anything that of this specific requirements that a VTOL aircraft is going to fill.

another505 said:

I don't get where Gloire BB and CuriousPLAFan get their confidence that designing a new aircraft and engine, starting a whole new production line (when they are already busy maxing out J-20/35 productions), certifying it for carrier use, figure out new techniques in operations for VTOL, train new pilots for the new aircraft is easier than expanding current manufacturing line for 003 and 076 with china's massive shipbuilding capacity.

Click to expand...

correct. designing a new Engine and aircraft take enormous effort and strong financial backing but the context is different in this case.

606 aka Shenyang Liming engine institute is China's largest and primary engine contractor for PLAAF. they did print money in last couple of years with WS-10/WS-20 production. their revenue skyrocketed. they have been doing research in STOVL class engine since at least early 2010's and efforts accelerated after 2020. not only Liming but other Chinese aerospace did a lot research and they filled couple of patents as well.

up until very recently, this STOVL Engine supposed for research purpose only but the strong rumors and research papers leaked tells us a different story. they are serious and already build a full prototype. this is most likely 606 own program and they might look for PLAN approval for mass production once they present their product to PLAN authorities.

606 institute has enough financial strength and number of engineers to purse different programs in parallel.

so all this heated discussion based on recent information.

Maikeru said:

If China really has reverse engineered the F135 VTOL variant, I can't wait to see what they do with it. Will it be a new and innovative design, or for maximum burn a near identical copy of F35B? Similar to H-60/Z-20 relationship.

Click to expand...

Drones.

One of the chief limitations with deploying top end heavy CCA en mass is that they need the same runways as manned fastjets, so the available runway infrastructure becomes a hard cap on how many drones you can deploy, and also impacts your manned fighter deployment rates.

VTOL sidesteps this problem, and that is the most value this tech can yield for China.

another505 said:

I don't get where Gloire BB and CuriousPLAFan get their confidence that designing a new aircraft and engine, starting a whole new production line (when they are already busy maxing out J-20/35 productions), certifying it for carrier use, figure out new techniques in operations for VTOL, train new pilots for the new aircraft is easier than expanding current manufacturing line for 003 and 076 with china's massive shipbuilding capacity.

Click to expand...

We aren't even coming from that angle, lol. The question is whether VTOLs are useful or not - which they most certainly are, as they introduce a significant new quality which can't be replicated. Especially in SEA.
As for the rest - until some of us here are writing right from CMC in Beijing, which in all probability none of us do - it's honestly irrelevant, we don't call the shots.
The only thing we know is that there's active testing and evaluation campaign, which may or may not lead somewhere. But it's ongoing, money go into it, and people are working on it.

Exactly. They consider building more carriers as ambitious and impractical even though China already build them

Meanwhile they think a STOVL is easy and is the safe way to amplify naval power. The engine is at best prototype stage, and the aircraft design will take at least a decade to enter mass production.

They mocked building more carriers as optimistic. I am going to say a 6th gen carrier plane is coming sooner than a STOVL.

Is 7 year too long for a ship design? Then what do we make of WS-15 then, how long did we wait already? 15 year? Now imagine a STOVL engine, which will be even harder because it is a whole different category. We will be waiting a looooong time for this. So speed of acquisition is really not the attraction here.

You will see China having 7 carriers and carry 6th gen aircrafts before these STOVL coming to relevant number. China has 3 right now, 2 more laid down. By 2035 there will be 5 operational, 2 on fitting out, along many 076 style amphibious ships. There will be plenty of catapult deck space.

Now they will fall back to "OK there will be many existing flat top to use" as if 075 is not urgently needed on its own. It will be very very busy doing its intended mission. You need to cannabalize existing asset from its important roles to get flattop carriers which is a no go. And if you do not cannabalize existing ships and build more, then why not more carriers? So you see the "we have many cheap flattop already" argument fall apart.

Never mind the fact you dont just use 075 for carrier on whim. It is not layout for a carrier. It needs special treatment to not burn a hole from vertical take off. You add accomodations for aircraft, special deck treatments, you no longer looking at a cheap flat top. Is America class really a cheap alternative Nimitz class? Or you arrive at something like QE class. Not something to jealous over.

plawolf said:

Drones.

One of the chief limitations with deploying top end heavy CCA en mass is that they need the same runways as manned fastjets, so the available runway infrastructure becomes a hard cap on how many drones you can deploy, and also impacts your manned fighter deployment rates.

VTOL sidesteps this problem, and that is the most value this tech can yield for China.

Click to expand...

There is literally no case of aircraft deployment being hampered by the lack of airstrips since WW2. There are also no reasons to think CCAs will be significantly cheaper than a manned jet, given similar capabilities. Countries, China included, operated massive air forces in the Cold War without any shortage of airstrips. Most countries used to have fleets 3-4x larger than what they have today. Finally, a VTOL jet would be a hilariously inefficient way to solve that problem even if we assume it is a real problem. They could just build more airbases.

Andy1974 said:

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.

Click to expand...

No. Just no. This is another one of your oversimplifications. You cannot just operate a 25+ tonne fast jet from a landing pad intended for small drones. The F-35B required aircraft carriers to get special modifications to operate it and it is much simpler than what you suggest. And it isn't even VTOL capable. It absolutely requires a rolling take-off for combat relevance. VSTOL (let alone VTOL) jets, being more expensive and less capable platforms, will never ever make more than a niche part of the Chinese air power. If China has already lost its airfields to such a degree that it needs to depend on VTOL jets it is already over. If it failed while having 2000 normal jets it for sure isn't getting air superiority anywhere with VTOL jets.

siegecrossbow said:

I don’t think STVOL is a priority for PLA.

Click to expand...

Me neither. If they are going for it, it will mean a single thing to me. They getting very serious with amphibious assaults on Okinawa and even more distant places. The idea behind the original Harrier was being able to move them shoreside as soon as a secure beachhead was achieved (read: Rapid Rover concept), and giving the fleet some extra high-end CAS capability until then. Nowadays the bar for the former is even higher because long range guided munitions are dime a dozen. It probably means the conquest of an entire island as a staging base for PLA. If they are really looking for this, I expect these two conditions:

1- It will be lower end than the J-35, or the notional J-50T if their timeline for the VSTOL is in the mid-2030s. Less stealthy and lighter...
2- It will be more strike forward than air-to-air. There are no reasons why a country would try to assault somewhere without using its carriers.

Such a thing would actually be useful. It would significantly boost the amphibious capability. It may even find uses on a CATOBAR vessel because of its unique strike capabilities and fast operations tempo.

Gloire_bb said:

We aren't even coming from that angle, lol. The question is whether VTOLs are useful or not - which they most certainly are, as they introduce a significant new quality which can't be replicated. Especially in SEA.
As for the rest - until some of us here are writing right from CMC in Beijing, which in all probability none of us do - it's honestly irrelevant, we don't call the shots.
The only thing we know is that there's active testing and evaluation campaign, which may or may not lead somewhere. But it's ongoing, money go into it, and people are working on it.

Click to expand...

As one of TK3600 and mine argument is that VTOL is unnecessary with more aircraft carrier being ready by the time this comes in, both of you were coming from the point that aircraft carrier is too difficult and too long to build while VTOL aircraft will be faster or fulfill this gap in this time.
Of course, this is just one of your many points but I still do not see that they are useful in SEA/NEA against USA or others. The "new quality that can't be be replicated" needs to be proven that it is useful, practical and worthwhile, not just because it is novel makes it good.

Just build a runway in the FOB. Heck, a highway can be adopted as a runway probably faster than creating specially treated platform for VTOL. A quick search that Guam, Hawaii, and Okinawa have reasonably wide and long highways. Meanwhile, chinese occupied airbases in these locations can be repaired and used.

another505 said:

As one of TK3600 and mine argument is that VTOL is unnecessary with more aircraft carrier being ready by the time this comes in, both of you were coming from the point that aircraft carrier is too difficult and too long to build while VTOL aircraft will be faster or fulfill this gap in this time.

Click to expand...

Please read what i write. I can't fight imaginary castles in your mind,
While aircraft carriers are absolutely long and difficult to create, and fleet carriers are not used tied to static point(as they're infinitely more valuable and vulnerable that way), the point is not that.
VTOL is austere/deployable air power, which is extremely difficult to fully disrupt. Yet they're still provide everything manned fighter does.
Carrier air, J-35 or J-36 is not that. Nor are drones - especially left without wing leader.

another505 said:

Of course, this is just one of your many points but I still do not see that they are useful in SEA/NEA against USA or others. The "new quality that can't be be replicated" needs to be proven that it is useful, practical and worthwhile, not just because it is novel makes it good.

Click to expand...

Novel is a bit old in teeth for technology dating back to early 1960s, and since then continuously used.

another505 said:

Just build a runway in the FOB.

Click to expand...

One that is good for VTOLs? Sure. This is indeed doable via pre-fabed heat resistant plates with near zero individual value. You can have many, and they don't have to correspond anyhow with where the actual aircraft are, provided they're small enough.

Normal airstrip may take weeks or months. It is a huge object visible from the beginning construction right from space, easily disruptable, or worse(happy Japanese experience at Guadalcanal).
Or happy american experience after, when in few carrier battles tied to the same Guadalcanal US lost almost all of what was left of their pre-war carrier strength - Saratoga and Enterprise in deep repairs, deficient Ranger half a world away in Atlantic, and that was all. Carriers like being tied and vulnerable.

This doesn't mean that airfield shouldn't be built - it should. It just takes time, and providing air support from carriers for that long is unfeasible/risky(Samar is not just a happy David v Goliaf story, it's also a story how Taffies were forced out of Leyte, and as a result entire McArthur invasion was left without sufficient air support for weeks).

This is an introduction from a paper by the PLA Naval Research Institute on the significance of STOVL aircraft, which sufficiently answers the question for those who do not understand why the PLA Navy is interested in STOVL aircraft

STOVL飞机兼具直升机垂直起降、悬停和固定翼飞机高速巡航、大包线机动、携载能力强等优点，具有部署灵活、生存能力好、作战能力强、“小平台，大威力”的显著特点，可在两栖攻击舰、航母、岛礁和简易机场使用，可极大增强两栖作战能力和对争议海域的控制能力，是海军遂行两栖作战、岛礁夺控等作战任务不可或缺的利器，是世界海军强国的标志性装备。

STOVL aircraft combine the advantages of helicopters, such as vertical takeoff and landing and hovering, with those of fixed-wing aircraft, including high-speed cruising, extensive maneuverability, and strong carrying capacity. They are characterized by flexible deployment, strong survivability, high combat effectiveness, and the notable feature of "small platform, great power." These aircraft can be deployed on amphibious assault ships, aircraft carriers, islands, reefs, and simple airfields, significantly enhancing amphibious combat capabilities and control over disputed waters. As an indispensable tool for naval forces in amphibious operations, island and reef control missions, and other combat tasks, STOVL aircraft are a hallmark of world-class naval powers.