J-18 ???

Deino said:

What makes You so sure that there ever was a VSTOL project "initiated purely for technology demonstration and research purposes" ??

IMO the Chinese aircraft design institutes are well overbusy with so many other projects that a VSTOL project is alone from the question of powerplant simply out of reach at the moment. IMO this VSTOL project is simply a HOAX, a FAKE and not real.

Deino

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss it. This kind of vertical lifting and landing technologies can have application in other fields too, like in VSTOL UAV/UCAV, or in space exploration in the design and building of a moon lander. No doubt the institutes are very busy with the first priority projects, but that shouldn't prevent them from having a entirely separate team looking into this kind of technologies even if they may have to put it to a slightly lesser priority.

there is a big difference between a jet fighter and a rocket. Vtol uav's perhaps but would not a helicopter platform be better and more in line with the PLA's development trends? And why start manned when you aim for unmanned? Back in the ninetys sure china was still early in the learning curve but today?
A better option for programmes like space landers and uav vtol would be a flying bandstand which is nothing like a fighter. So then why claim fighter?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

there is a big difference between a jet fighter and a rocket. Vtol uav's perhaps but would not a helicopter platform be better and more in line with the PLA's development trends? And why start manned when you aim for unmanned? Back in the ninetys sure china was still early in the learning curve but today?
A better option for programmes like space landers and uav vtol would be a flying bandstand which is nothing like a fighter. So then why claim fighter?

Click to expand...

When the Harrier Jet lifts off or lands vertically, little aerodynamics is involved at this stage. The technologies involved in this type of maneouvre whether it's jet or rocket powered or powered by any other kind of propulsion are similar.

It doesn't matter which comes first, the VSTOL UCAV or any kind of VSTOL/VTOL aerodynamics or space crafts, as long as you don't get left behind in this kind of technologies. Helicopters do not have the speed and maneouvrebiity of a VSTOL/VTOL jetfighter or UCAV.

No little aero other then cross winds but still Why bother If the PLA can launch a J15 off the Deck of a Carrier then they can do the Same for A UAV or UCAV. I can under stand develupmental aircraft but they are not fighters and this is based on J for fighter.

A VTOL Jet and a lander operate on a difrent base. A rocket is a Chemical Reaction where fuel is burned. a Jet is a based on a combined reaction of Mechanical operation with Fuel and Air. To turn in space for a Vtol uses Thrust vectoring. Too turn in space for a Rocket uses Manovering thristers in a prop configuration around the craft engaging the thrusters too fire at the right time too turn the craft. The key reason being that if you wanted to turn in space too say get the sun to hit your solar panels You need too do so with out changing Orbit or launching your self off in some random direction so throtaling up your main engine would not be a good idea. because inorder too get the thrust too vector you need too have thrust normally from your main engine. Rockets and Jets

Now if you are going too say well What about launching a UCAV from a smaller ship or with out a launch pad.
Rocket boosters. Cheap disposible rocket boosters.
Howabout Hovering a UCAV over the enemy.
If you need too do that you are probubly already close enough for a helicopter type.

The only saving grace for a Chinese Vtol platform would be a simulator for take off and landing of a lander. Thing is thats Dangerous the American Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicles and Lunar Landing Training Vehicles, all crashed save two. Bell only ever built five and three crashed.

To turn in space for a Vtol uses Thrust vectoring. Too turn in space for a Rocket uses Manovering thristers in a prop configuration around the craft engaging the thrusters too fire at the right time too turn the craft.

Click to expand...

That's basically how the Harrier jet hovers and turns in the air with the use of small jet thrusters at the end of both wings and front and aft of the fuselage. This is what I meant by how some technologies are applicable across different fields, and so, are worth putting time and resources into.

Quickie said:

That's basically how the Harrier jet hovers and turns in the air with the use of small jet thrusters at the end of both wings and front and aft of the fuselage. This is what I meant by how some technologies are applicable across different fields, and so, are worth putting time and resources into.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube_share;tfbHMxnlbfI]http://youtu.be/tfbHMxnlbfI[/video]

Okay I get it you are talking about RCS Reaction Control thrusters, here is the bit your not getting. The Harrier, F35 and Yak fighters All used this it's Thrust vectoring for there RCS.
Space Craft use which are small separate rockets. and The PRC would already have those as they are standard on manned Space flight and would be on any satellite with the ability too place and maintain a orbit.

delft said:

Any power that is not the US will not want to build carriers of 100k. They are just too expensive. The old saw is that it is better to build the STOL performance into the ship rather than the aircraft. F-35B is a perfect illustration. But then you don't want to loose as much deck real estate to the take off area. Now what?
Assuming, quite reasonably, that the acceleration of the aircraft will be the same, but that an aircraft leaving a ski ramp needs 2/3 the speed of one leaving a flat deck ( just an example , but in the right ball park ), than the length of the ramp and of the cat built into it is halve of the 103' of the cats of the super carriers, 25 rather than 50 meters. On a carrier with a length of 283 meters, like Vikramaditya, that is a significant saving and provide you with aircraft with a lower cost and a superior performance compared with STOVL or V/STOL ones.

CORRECTION: I was apparently nearly asleep when I calculated those lengths. 103' is 32 meters, so the halve of it is 16 meters. Still a worthwhile saving in flight deck real estate.

Click to expand...

I was clearly not well awake when I wrote about the length of cats. EMALS is long 300', so the advantage for cat in ski ramp is some 150' or 45 meters. Indeed important on a flattop with a length of less than 300 meters

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Okay I get it you are talking about RCS Reaction Control thrusters, here is the bit your not getting. The Harrier, F35 and Yak fighters All used this it's Thrust vectoring for there RCS.
Space Craft use

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

which are small separate rockets. and The PRC would already have those as they are standard on manned Space flight and would be on any satellite with the ability too place and maintain a orbit.

Click to expand...

I know there're different types of propulsion. Rockets do move their exhaust nozzles in different direction to maneouvre, only that they don't call it thrust vectoring but the principles are the same. Btw, the jet thrusters at the four ends of the Harrier are fixed and have control valves for maneouvering. Similarly, the vernier thrusters of the Space Shuttle have fixed nozzles

To maneouvre any kind of craft including taking off, landing and doing combat maneouvres are going to be much more complicated than maintaining satellite orbits. It's interesting to note that the Chang'e 3 moon lander is ready to be launched this year but of course it would not have the ability to fly around the moon surface but will just hover and land on it. I suggest we just move on as we seem to be going in circles.

delft said:

I was clearly not well awake when I wrote about the length of cats. EMALS is long 300', so the advantage for cat in ski ramp is some 150' or 45 meters. Indeed important on a flattop with a length of less than 300 meters

Click to expand...

OK; but in any way the availability of V/STOL could be crucial to a nation that does not have an operational carrier (yet).
Since PRC has al lot of naval issues to deal with (i.e.: Paracel, Spratly and Daiyou islands), extended vulnerable maritime supplylines; and as there are plenty of large second-rate PLAN ships available that could get a second life as V/STOL operating ship, the idea of a V/STOL aircraft "to bridge the gap" to the moment of availability of a number of oprational carriers seems a valid option.
Unless you would like to prefer dressing your neighbours and world opinion (bad for trade!) against you by building large military air & naval bases in disputed waters.
Just like a lonely airstrip, the mere availability of such an item (V/STOL) can be regarded as dissuative without actually be provocative.