Is China Developing A STOVL Fighter Fro PLAN?

Many believes that Chinese military authority already gained measurable achievement due to the research for an all-weather STOVL platform for its Navy. Although there's no loud voice against this claim but some news and info are floating in the internet suggests that "it might be". Here the original rumors(!). 

AVIC - new VSTOL fighter,

Nation starts research on naval jet

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2015-05/13/content_6488606.htm

(Source: China Daily) 2015-05-13

　　Move addresses gap in PLA's equipment and will further strengthen combat capability

　　China's aviation industry is working on the development of aircraft with short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities needed for an important role in the Chinese navy's future operations, military experts said.

　　"Research and development on components of STOVL aircraft, such as the engine, have started," Wang Ya'nan, deputy editor-in-chief of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told China Daily.

　　"The aircraft's principles are not new. They have been known for more than 40 years, so our aircraft designers should be able to develop the plane on their own," Wang said.

　　In late March, the Aviation Industry Corp of China, the country's leading aircraft maker, announced on its website that two of its subsidiaries - AVIC Chengdu Engine Group and China Aviation Engine Establishment - have signed a cooperation agreement on the development of the STOVL aircraft's engine. The statement said the STOVL aircraft project aims to strengthen the People's Liberation Army navy's amphibious combat capability and address the absence of such a weapon in the PLA's arsenal.

　　Compared with conventional fixed-wing aircraft, a STOVL plane can be readied for action in a shorter period of time and occupies less space in a hangar bay or on the deck of a ship. These features have made it a popular choice for naval powers since late 1960s, when Britain's subsonic Hawker Siddeley Harrier became the first STOVL aircraft to be put in service.

　　Almost all STOVL aircraft in active service are based on the Harrier design, and they form the backbone of the naval forces of India and Spain.

　　This move is not the first time China has aimed to build a STOVL aircraft. In the late 1960s, the PLA asked the aircraft institutes to develop a fixed-wing plane capable of vertical takeoff and landing. The project was later abandoned due to technical difficulties.

　　The PLA also tried to buy the Hawker Siddeley Harrier in the late 1970s, but dropped the attempt because of cost, according to Western military observers.

　　This time, AVIC appears to have made the right decision at the right time as the PLA navy now needs a STOVL aircraft because it will "significantly supplement and improve its amphibious capabilities", Wang said.

　　"Though the PLA navy now has an aircraft carrier - the CNS Liaoning - it still lacks the experience of developing and manufacturing such a sophisticated naval platform, so there won't be more carriers in the short term," Wang said. "Let's assume that a conflict breaks out between China and another nation in the near future; the PLA navy's limited number of carrier-borne fighter jets, the J-15s, would have to engage in long-distance strikes as well as air defense for the carrier battle group, and they would have to be divided into small groups to perform these tasks simultaneously."

　　If China had STOVL aircraft, they could be deployed on the CNS Liaoning and other ships to defend against incoming enemy aircraft, relieving the burden on the J-15s, which could then focus on long-range operations, Wang said.

　　"Actually, in the foreseeable future, I don't see a high probability of China's involvement in a war far from its shores. Being dragged into limited amphibious conflicts in or near our territorial waters would be more likely. The STOVL aircraft will be the best choice for air support in such conflicts," Wang said, noting that it would be a perfect match for China's future amphibious assault ships.

　　Amphibious tasks

　　In November 2013, Yin Zhuo, director of the PLA navy's Expert Consultation Committee, told China Central Television that China is developing an amphibious assault ship whose displacement will be 1.5 times larger than the Japanese Izumo-class helicopter destroyer's 27,000 metric tons.

　　Liang Tianren, a Hong Kong military observer, wrote in Hong Kong's Ming Pao newspaper in January that China is building a 50,000-ton amphibious assault ship that can carry 20 helicopters and 12 STOVL aircraft.

　　"The government decided to build amphibious assault ships after the outbreak of Libyan civil war in 2011, in which some Chinese-owned assets were seized or damaged. China then had few military hardware to protect its properties," Liang said.

　　"The situation made the government realize the importance of amphibious assault ships, which can fulfill various naval operations as well as conduct evacuations or humanitarian missions," he said.

　　The first Chinese amphibious assault ship will be built before the end of this year, he said, reporting at least four such vessels will be made.

　　Once the first amphibious assault ship is built, the navy will have to choose a suitable aircraft for it, Wang said.

　　"The comparatively short deck cannot accommodate the fixed-wing J-15, and attack helicopters like the WZ-10 are slow and have a limited choice of weapons. But STOVL aircraft are fast - the maximum speed of the F-35B is nearly 2,000 km/h, and it has strong firepower," he explained.

　　Vasily Kashin, a senior China analyst at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, told Sputnik News Agency, "If the PLA navy's amphibious assault ship is equipped with STOVL jets, it can be used as a light aircraft carrier, further adding to its combat capability."

　　Senior Captain Zhang Junshe, a researcher at the PLA Naval Military Studies Research Institute, told China Daily: "The navy can deploy helicopters and STOVL aircraft on the amphibious assault ship, designating helicopters to conduct anti-submarine tasks and using STOVL planes to perform mid-and long-range air defense as well as air-to-surface strikes."

　　Multiple roles

　　The PLA air force will also find potential in STOVL aircraft, Wang said.

　　"Compared with conventional aircraft, STOVL planes are quicker and more convenient to use in contingencies and conflicts because they have few airport or runway condition requirements. Even a poorly equipped airfield or takeoff/landing point can deploy a lot of them," he said. "They would be a good guard for front-line air bases."

　　If the air force's bases were under attack, leading to conventional aircraft being grounded, STOVL fighter jets would still be able to take off to fight, gaining time for repairing the damaged bases and adding resilience to the air force, Wang said.

Is The Design Finalized For Chinese Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier (CVN)?

China-Defense Forum members were somewhat astounded today when pictures were released on Chinese internet forums of what is certainly a model of the first Chinese nuclear-powered aircraft carrier (CVN) on display at an official event in Zhongshan. While it being just a model might not seem that significant to many, there are telltales about the model in these pics that indicate it's genuine. In fact, it represents a final design for the new CVN has been approved by PLAN for production.

The design clarifies some previous questions: four catapults (presumably EMALS), no ski-jump, three elevators. It also appears to be a very large carrier in the NIMITZ/FORD Class displacement range.

The hull number 18 falls in line with previous expectations that the first "all-indigenous" Chinese carrier design would be nuclear-powered and is expected to be the "002 Class". As the currently in-service CV LIAONING is hull number 16, this seems to imply hull number 17 will be the 001A class, a Chinese-built KUZNETSOV-class CV.

IN FOCUS: Advanced Chinese fighters: upping the ante_ Greg Waldron

J-10s were displayed during the army's 85th anniversary celebrations

Chinese fighter prototypes leave little doubt about Beijing's airpower ambitions, but further development will prove increasingly challenging.

The weekend of 15-16 September was the perfect time for a new Chinese fighter to emerge. US defense secretary Leon Panetta was about to visit Beijing, and an East China Sea territorial dispute with Japan had antagonised Chinese protestors into destroying Japanese-owned shops and Japanese cars in the streets of several major cities. The emergence of the yet-to-be designated aircraft at the Shenyang Aircraft factory was reminiscent of the Chengdu J-20's first flight, which occurred during a visit by Panetta's predecessor, Robert Gates.

Then again, the timing of the J-21's appearance - which Chinese bloggers have variously designated J-31 and F-60 - may well have had nothing to do with Panetta's visit or tensions with Japan. With China it is impossible to tell. Apparently Chinese president Hu Jintao, with whom Gates was meeting, was unaware of the J-20's first flight until Gates mentioned it.

In the case of the J-21, the fuselage of an aircraft closely resembling the new fighter was spotted in late June aboard the back of a truck, draped in camouflage netting. The only thing certain about the J-21 is that it is yet another indication of China's commitment to modernising the Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF).

As with the Lockheed Martin F-22 and F-35, the J-21 features canted twin tails, a key design feature of low observable aircraft. A single grainy head-on shot shows widely-spaced intakes, similar to the F-35. One clear difference from the F-35 is the presence of two engines. China observers speculate that these are Klimov RD-93s, the powerplant used in the Chengdu/Pakistan Aeronautical Complex JF-17 fighter.

MONEY TALKS

Based on early images, the J-21 would appear to be a more nimble aircraft than the J-20, suggesting that it is optimised for the air superiority mission. Some experts have suggested that the large J-20 is not intended as a fighter, but as a long-range attack aircraft. Despite the clear differences between the two aircraft in size and layout, some western observers speculate that the J-20 and J-21 are competitors, similar to the Lockheed Martin YF-22 and Northrop YF-23 in the early 1990s.

"China's big strength is that there is a lot of money," says Richard Bitzinger, senior fellow of the Military Transformations Programme at Singapore's Rajaratnam School of International Studies. "As long as the defence budget goes up, this will pay dividends in terms of procurement numbers and research and development. In the last 10 years, they have bought upwards of 400-500 fourth generation fighters such as the Chengdu J-10 and Sukhoi Su-30."

He estimates that China possesses the world's largest defence R&D budget after the USA. He says that while it is uncertain that aircraft such as the J-20 and J-21 will be fully developed and eventually deployed, he is certain that they serve a useful role as technology demonstrators to learn about advanced technologies such as stealth, advanced engines and the internal carriage of weapons. 

 

The WS-10 powers one of the J-20 prototypes

In early March, China said it would raise its defence budget by 11.2% year on year to CNY670 billion ($107 billion), but provided no details of how this would affect aircraft procurement and R&D. Bitzinger believes that about 10% of China's overall budget for 2012 will be spent in these two areas. He notes that in defence white papers, China has indicated that its budget is divided roughly between three main areas: personnel, operations, and procurement (which also includes R&D).

As for the J-20, Chinese media reports suggest that the aircraft's two prototypes have flown over 50 flights. The US Pentagon takes it seriously. In a May 2012 assessment, it said the aircraft could be operational by early 2018. The J-20 is "still in a prototype phase", says David Helvey, the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia for the US Department of Defense.

"We'd like to be able to continue to monitor developments to understand exactly what China may intend to use it for, and I wouldn't want to speculate at this point for what those specific missions would be," he adds. "We expect the J-20 to achieve an effective operational capability no sooner than 2018. That reflects our judgment and interpretation of how far they are along in doing the research and development and flight testing of the prototypes."

Japan is also concerned. In August, Tokyo released its annual Defence of Japan white paper. Although it did not mention the J-20 by name, it made a clear allusion to the type, noting "the emergence of high-performance fighter aircraft with excellent stealth capability and situation awareness capabilities".

The obstacles in China's path to developing advanced fighters are formidable. While the airframes of the J-20 and J-21 have clear low observable characteristics, Chinese capabilities in the crucial area of radar absorbent materials are difficult to gauge. The Northrop B-2 bomber, F-22 and F-35 require constant support to ensure their highly confidential coatings remain effective. The nature of these coatings is among the USA's most closely guarded secrets. Indeed, the USA was so intent to preserve its lead in stealth that it steadfastly declined to sell the F-22 even to its closest allies.

China's struggles with aircraft engines are well known. Even the relatively basic JF-17 Thunder uses the Russian Klimov RD-93 for the time being, the same engine believed to power the new J-21. One of the J-20 prototypes is believed to be fitted with a pair of Russian Saturn AL-31 engines, the powerplant for the Su-27 and J-10. The second is believed to use the Chinese-made Shenyang Liming WS-10 powerplant. Most experts believe China's lack of an indigenous high-­performance engine is a major obstacle for its advanced fighter aircraft. An engine even remotely equivalent to the F-22's super-­cruising Pratt & Whitney F119 is years, if not decades, away from reality for China.

To fill these gaps, China has three options, according to report by the Washington DC-based Institute for National Strategic Studies entitled Buy, Build, or Steal: China's Quest for Advanced Military Aviation Technologies. The report asserts that while China's fighter capability is still roughly 15-20 years behind the West's, Beijing is increasingly self-reliant in fighter development and production.

The report concludes that China will find it increasingly difficult to develop ultra high-end aerospace technologies, and its traditional partner Russia is ever more wary of sharing technology owing to fear of intellectual property theft. This will force China to rely increasingly on espionage to obtain advanced capabilities.

TECHNOLOGY FRONTIER

"The Chinese government is pursuing a range of 'indigenous innovation' and technology development programmes, but mastering advanced technologies becomes more difficult and expensive as a country moves closer to the technology frontier," write the report's authors.

"This leads to a second related conclusion: China will likely rely more heavily on espionage to acquire those critical military aviation technologies it cannot acquire legitimately from foreign suppliers or develop on its own."

Aside from the technologies involved in the platforms themselves, integrating them into a comprehensive joint force is essential given the sophisticated foes China could face in any conflict over Taiwan or in the East China Sea.

The J-20 is expected to be operational by 2018

"Weaknesses of the PLAAF include the air force's comparative lack of ability to operate effectively as part of a joint force," says Douglas Barrie, an air warfare analyst with the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Furthermore, it has no recent combat experience. The introduction of advanced air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons is also comparatively recent."

He adds that the PLAAF is weak in other key areas such as air-to-air refuelling and transport aircraft: "Its long-range bomber aircraft - the Xian H-6 - is obsolescent, though this is partly offset by the integration of long-range cruise missiles. In terms of rectifying shortcomings, the air force does appear to be trying to carry out joint training in conjunction with other arms of the military, and to introduce more demanding training scenarios."

While China appears to be making advances in its fighter fleet - as exemplified by the J-20, J-21 and the hundreds of advanced types it has inducted in the last decade - it still has some distance to go before transforming its improving technical strength into a true combat capability. In addition, the strains of developing a single advanced fighter such as the F-22 or F-35 are vast even for the world's greatest aerospace powers. Attempting to develop both the J-20 and J-21 simultaneously could test even China's determination to join the world's airpower greats. 

 

Source: Flight Global

J-15 Flying Shark Carrier Borne Fighter Jet With Buddy Refuelling Pod

J-15 Flying Shark Carrier Borne Fighter Jet Spotted With Buddy Refuelling Pod

J-15 vs Su-33 vs Mig-29K, How Things Have Changed

J-15 vs Su-33 vs Mig-29K

This past week, there was an article on People's daily called China's J-15 fighter superior to Russian Su-33.

I had a couple of thoughts reading through it. My first thought was that finally China is actually defending itself against some of these Western and Russian accusations. It drove me crazy back in the days to see Russian media quoting different people blasting China for copying its weaponry and for making excuses for not fulfilling contracts like the one for IL-76/78. Through all of that, there was nobody from AVIC1 or PLA that spoke against some of those claims. The only times I heard official denials were regarding claims of China selling J-10s to Iran and purchasing Su-35s from Russia. Those were clearly crazy rumors that spread because China did not step in earlier to deny these things. Going forward, I hope CMC/PLA puts a stronger PR effort out there to defend itself against some of the Russian claims.

My second thought was that while it was good to see China defending against Russian claims that a copy can never be better than the original, it should be obvious to everyone that J-15 is a superior fighter jet to the original Su-33. However, it's really not saying much, because J-15 is being compared against something that was developed in the late 80s. If after 20+ years, J-15 is not better than Su-33, then SAC should stop developing and producing aircraft. Compared to the original Su-33, J-15 include: 

> Having multi-role capability and can fire wide range of AAM, AShM, ARM and ground attack weapons.

> Having a more powerful and multi-role fire control system (probably using an AESA radar)

Having more powerful IRST/FLIR system, EW suite, RWR and MAWs.

> Having more modern avionics with modern data bus, mission computers, holographic HUDs, modern MMI and fiber optic wiring. 

> Using more composite material and lighter electronics to give better T/W ratio 

Now, if the Russians had invested in modernizing Su-33, it could do all of the above. Although, we could argue whether it has the same wide range of ground attack weapons as China or if the sensors/avionics is as advanced or more advanced. It has chosen not to, because it has picked Mig-29K has the future naval fighter.

There are many reasons why it made more sense for the Russians to go with a modern Mig-29K instead of Su-33. My opinion is that India had already paid for the development of a modern Mig-29K as part of its effort to develop a 3 carrier fleet. At the same time, China had rejected Russia's 3 step proposal of first taking the original Su-33s, then upgrading to a multi-role version with Su-30MK2 sensor/weapon suite and eventually upgrading to a final version with PESA radar. As a result, it made more sense for Russia to go with the already developed naval aircraft with production lines rather than re-opening the production lines and pay for the development cost of a modern Su-33. At the same time, Mikoyan needed these orders a lot more than Sukhoi (which has a long backlog of domestic and export orders). 

Looking back, I think that China obviously made the right decision to develop J-15 on its own with some help from the purchase of T-10K-3. The experience from developing naval version of J-11B will help SAC develop next generation of naval aircraft like a naval version of J-31. At the same time, there was no reason for China to pay the Russians to develop modern version of Su-33 if it could develop a modern version of J-15 by itself. It's similar to my last post about China's choice of purchasing MKK rather than getting involved in a long running project like MKI. Imports from Russia are always considered interim solutions. If domestic options can be developed in time, there really is no reason to get involved in a foreign project and pay for the development cost.

Looking ahead, I think China is also better off with a J-15 class fighter than a Mig-29K class fighter. There was a competition between SAC and CAC over the first generation of a naval fighter jet. Flanker variant won over the J-10 variant because it was considered to have better multi-role capabilities. The current version of J-15 is already a multi-role aircraft. In the future, we could see different versions of J-15 like a single-seat buddy-to-buddy refueling, a two-seat EW version like Growler or a two-seated mini AEWC & amp;C version. These are not things you can do with a lighter naval aircraft.

How things have changed

Recently, we’ve been hearing from Russians about a proposed sale of 24 Su-35s to China. As with every other time, a lively debate re-ignited on Sinodefenceforum on whether or not this will/should happen. I got to be so annoyed with the endless debate on this topic that I stopped the thread until confirmation of actual sale happening.

Thinking back to the early days of joining sinodefenceforum (around 2005), it’s really interesting how much things have changed and how much my perspectives have changed over the times. Back then, J-10 had just joined services and Su-30MKK was considered the most powerful fighter jet in PLAAF. There was much discussion started by Indian posters online regarding the superiority of MKI over MKK. 

I bugged me a lot back then that Russians are restricting their export of advanced technologies to China. A big deal was made out of the advanced Israeli avionics, TVC nozzle and BARS radar on MKI that were not offered for MKK. Even Su-30MKK3s that were offered to China at that time were using Zhuk-MSE radar instead of phased array radar like Bars. Indians were convinced that their friendship with Russia and European embargo ensures that Russia would never be offering their best stuff to China.

 I still remember thinking to myself and wondering why the only phased array radar offered to China was the Pero antenna on top of N-0001VE radar. I remember being extremely excited when hearing that China was testing out Irbis radar. Finally, I thought China was getting something better than what India received. I was somewhat confused that China never opted for it. That was just one the many cases where it seemed like the Russians were denying their best stuff to Chinese requests. Others included a leasing of Akula nuclear submarine, outfitting of Admiral Gorshkov carrier and even Amur submarine.

It’s funny looking at how my perception of these situations have changed over the past 7 to 8 years as I have seen how things played out and found out more about what went on behind the scenes. Even as recent as 2008, I thought it made sense for China to get a couple of regiments of Su-35s as an interim option until the next generation of fighter jet comes into service. 

I was also in favour of import of Su-33s for a long time just in case that J-15 program hits some kind of snag. Probably the program that caused the biggest delays to PLAAF was the import of IL-76/78. When the original order of 38 of these aircraft were nullified due to the inability of Tashkent plant, we heard that Kazakhstan actually were offering to sell almost everything needed for IL-76 (with the exception of engine probably) to China, since the Russians were planning to move production back to Russia. For whatever reason, either Chinese hesitancy (due to domestic interests) scuttled the deal. These days, China is purchasing revamped/upgraded IL-76s that were in Russian storage as the interim option. Other than this, it seems like China knew exactly what was going on all along. It took what’s immediately available from the Russians and did not buy into any of the plans and development programs that they were offering.

In most of the naval program, it has become apparent in the recent years that Russian shipyards are in a bad condition, whereas Chinese shipyards are capable of cranking out modern war ships. I remember when the Ukrayina (an unfinished Slava class cruiser) was offered to China and it seemed to make a lot of sense at the time for China to purchase it, since they already have 051C using the same air defense system. 

Now, having looked at the development of 052C/052D while also seeing the problems that Sov have experienced with PLAN, it has certainly become inconceivable for China to go for this option. At the same time, China’s success in the Liaoning project along with the Russian struggles in INS Vikramaditya has shown that they made the right choice to go alone. The troubles experienced in the development of Amur submarine have forced Russia into procuring kilo submarines again.

 While at the same time, China has been mass producing 039B while building a mysterious new diesel submarine that is supposedly replacing the old Gulf class test sub. China has taken pretty much all it needed from Russia in its current generation of surface combatants and moved on to a newer generation of ships. It would make more sense now for the Russians to purchase ships from China rather than vice versa.

In aerospace world, much of the myths from back in 2005 have also been rejected. All along, it seemed like China looked at Su-30MKK as an interim solution in developing an offensive platform with mature technology while indigenously developing domestic options like J-11B. While the Chinese flanker program has suffered setbacks such as the delays in FWS-10 project, SAC has now turned it into a success with the recent progress in J-15, J-15S and J-16. 

As time goes on, it makes less and less sense for China to purchase Su-35 or other Russian options. It seems to me that China realized very early on to not fall for Russian sale pitches and only go for systems that are already mature. In the long term, it relied on its own defense industry for developing new weapon systems rather than Indian method of relying on co-production of imported technology. Even though we do not hear about it, PLAAF always had a plan of how it was good to develop a strong domestic military aviation industry. 

Its goal in original dealings with Russians was to use foreign technology to develop domestic industry rather than just getting finished products. China’s fourth generation aircraft programs no longer need any Russian assistance. In areas such as UAV and ground attack weaponry, China has already surpassed Russia. In the race to next generation fighter jet, China is at least on par with Russia in the development process. The only major areas it remains to be behind Russia are engine production, transport helicopters and military transport. And as we can see, those are pretty much the only items that China still purchases from the Russians.

Since 2005, China has experienced generational improvements in different defense areas. It is hard to see same level of improvement in the next 7 years. I have learnt to not speculate too much about the future, because I end up looking quite foolish in the process.