Chinese Engine Development

staplez · Mar 29, 2023

BoraTas said:
I read posts of a few Royal Navy officers on Quora. They argue that CTOL to STOVL conversion is much easier than CTOL to CATOBAR conversion so by going for STOVL you eliminate an expensive training program and you can replenish pilots fast during wartime. They argue STOVL is the better option unless you are going to field 4+ carriers. They had to crash train a lot of pilots for Harriers during the Falklands War so they put a premium on fast trainability.

My opinion? V/STOL is dead end tech just like swing wing was. Comes with way too many compromises for supersonic non-mini aircraft and high costs. The F-35B is utterly complicated as people mentioned here. It would be a very expensive aircraft without some of the development wasn't being paid for by F-35A and C sales. China doesn't need to bother its LHDs with CV duties either. It has the industrial capacity to solve the problem by just building more actual carriers. I bet a few tech demonstrators existed for research purposes but I don't think they will push for procurement.

View attachment 110087

Yeah like I said, the UK has been obsessed with STOVL ever since the Harrier. They make up all kinds of crazy excuses for why it's better and why they need it. Even though on paper it's clearly a terrible idea. Oh, it's more expensive, shorter range, less weapons capacity? But uh, it makes our carriers cheaper and uh, we don't need to train as much!!!! YAY, STOVL victory.

Everyone else is just shaking their heads in confusion.

As you said, since China isn't some dying empire like the UK, China should just build more carriers, which they will.

But again, if one of China's partners suddenly wants Type 076 with STOVL FC-31 and will pay, why not? China just definitely shouldn't do it on their own.

kurutoga · Mar 29, 2023

Kejora said:
With WS-15 becoming operational what's the chance of China researching STOVL fighter?
A Yak-141 style fighter with separate engine for hovering probably faster to research than researching F135-PW-600 style engine.

My guess is the chance is zero. The limitation factor of STOVL jets on a light carrier is that all the other type of airplanes (drones, tanker, AEW...) on the same ship needs vertical landing capability as well. China seems have chosen to use EMALS.

CMP · Mar 29, 2023

STOVL is unnecessary unless you're imperialist scum seeking to coerce and dominate foreign countries. If your primary aim is self-defense, just build more long runways, harden them against missile/drone attacks, and keep construction equipment and consumables in nearby underground facilities that can be brought out for rapid repairs.

AF-1 · Mar 29, 2023

In mid term STOVL might be really necessary as Chinese influence, investments, assets growing all over the world. Quick response and fast deployable strong force will be necessary to efficiently protect Chinese assets, and assets of Chinese allies without maintaining lot of expensive airforce bases around the globe.

latenlazy · Mar 29, 2023

AF-1 said:
In mid term STOVL might be really necessary as Chinese influence, investments, assets growing all over the world. Quick response and fast deployable strong force will be necessary to efficiently protect Chinese assets, and assets of Chinese allies without maintaining lot of expensive airforce bases around the globe.

Why do that with STOVL when you can just loiter drones.

gelgoog · Mar 29, 2023

staplez said:
Yeah like I said, the UK has been obsessed with STOVL ever since the Harrier. They make up all kinds of crazy excuses for why it's better and why they need it. Even though on paper it's clearly a terrible idea. Oh, it's more expensive, shorter range, less weapons capacity?

Back in the Cold War, the much touted supposed advantage of STOVL aircraft was that you could takeoff and land basically anywhere. In case of full conflict with the Soviet Union, the airfields were all supposed to be targeted with tactical nukes by the Soviets anyway, so they would not be available. But the cold hard reality is that STOVL aircraft cannot takeoff and land anywhere. They need prepared pads, and those are also just as vulnerable as airfields, what emerged as the best choice in the Cold War actually was to make aircraft capable of operating from any stretch of highway, like the Swedes did with their aircraft.

sunnymaxi · Mar 29, 2023

gelgoog said:
Back in the Cold War, the much touted supposed advantage of STOVL aircraft was that you could takeoff and land basically anywhere. In case of full conflict with the Soviet Union, the airfields were all supposed to be targeted with tactical nukes by the Soviets anyway, so they would not be available. But the cold hard reality is that STOVL aircraft cannot takeoff and land anywhere. They need prepared pads, and those are also just as vulnerable as airfields, what emerged as the best choice in the Cold War actually was to make aircraft capable of operating from any stretch of highway, like the Swedes did with their aircraft.

i have one question.

i have been discussing CJ-2000 engine with my Chinese friends. one Chinese guy said, we don't have large aircraft for high altitude test. Y-20 is not powerful enough to carry big CJ-2000 engine .we need aircraft like 747 for CJ-2000 airborne testing like GE do.

isn't Y-20 big enough to carry CJ-2000 engine. ? i think Y-20 is enough to perform any type of duty include high altitude test for large engines.

what is your expert opinion sir.

BoraTas · Mar 29, 2023

gelgoog said:
Back in the Cold War, the much touted supposed advantage of STOVL aircraft was that you could takeoff and land basically anywhere. In case of full conflict with the Soviet Union, the airfields were all supposed to be targeted with tactical nukes by the Soviets anyway, so they would not be available. But the cold hard reality is that STOVL aircraft cannot takeoff and land anywhere. They need prepared pads, and those are also just as vulnerable as airfields, what emerged as the best choice in the Cold War actually was to make aircraft capable of operating from any stretch of highway, like the Swedes did with their aircraft.

Really though modern aircraft have short take-off runs. With mobile ramps, I bet you could easily get an airstrip from a 400 meter long highway section.

sunnymaxi said:
i have one question.

i have been discussing CJ-2000 engine with my Chinese friends. one Chinese guy said, we don't have large aircraft for high altitude test. Y-20 is not powerful enough to carry big CJ-2000 engine .we need aircraft like 747 for CJ-2000 airborne testing like GE do.

isn't Y-20 big enough to carry CJ-2000 engine. ? i think Y-20 is enough to perform any type of duty include high altitude test for large engines.

what is your expert opinion sir.

They could just test on the intended aircraft, CR-929. Or rig a large passenger jet.

gelgoog · Mar 29, 2023

I am no expert on engines. But from what I know the engine would have to fit below the wing of the aircraft. The Y-20 has a high mounted wing compared with the 747. So even if it is smaller overall it might just be it would easily fit in the Y-20. The aircraft would also need to have the capability to keep the engine fed with fuel, and to be able to operate with that engine out. That is where things could be dicier.

latenlazy · Mar 29, 2023

sunnymaxi said:
i have one question.

i have been discussing CJ-2000 engine with my Chinese friends. one Chinese guy said, we don't have large aircraft for high altitude test. Y-20 is not powerful enough to carry big CJ-2000 engine .we need aircraft like 747 for CJ-2000 airborne testing like GE do.

isn't Y-20 big enough to carry CJ-2000 engine. ? i think Y-20 is enough to perform any type of duty include high altitude test for large engines.

what is your expert opinion sir.

lol this is nonsense. Where are they even getting this idea of “powerful enough” from.

Chinese Engine Development

staplez

New Member

kurutoga

Junior Member

CMP

Senior Member

AF-1

Junior Member

latenlazy

Brigadier

gelgoog

Lieutenant General

sunnymaxi

Major

BoraTas

Captain

gelgoog

Lieutenant General

latenlazy

Brigadier