Take Off My Aviation Era

"The internal fuel load is 6.2 tons, the payload is 6 tons... and it has supersonic flight capability. This level... it's really..."

The leaders of the naval aviation force couldn’t help muttering to himself, but the more they talked, the more they felt a little unbelievable. In fact, it was not just the leader of the naval aviation force, even the head and leader of the air force aviation force who heard the introduction just now by Zhuang Jianye. Each of them opened their eyes wide and felt very shocked.

As we all know, vertical take-off and landing fighters can hardly bear to look directly at them because of their unique take-off and landing methods and the fuel capacity and bomb capacity inside the aerodynamic layout.

Take the well-known British "Sea Harrier" fighter jet. The internal fuel load is only a little over 2 tons, and the maximum bomb load is only about 2 tons. This is still the data of short take-off. If you use the vertical When taking off and landing, the bomb load has to be reduced by half, leaving only 1 ton of payload.

The combat radius is even more unbearable to look directly at. Even if it is a high-medium-high combat profile that performs battlefield interception, it can barely reach a combat radius of 800 kilometers if it penetrates at an ultra-low altitude.

That's all, the key is that the "Sea Harrier" fighter jets do not have the ability to fly at supersonic speeds. Even if the United States magically changed the Marine Corps AV-8B vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft on the basis of the "Sea Harrier" in the later period, it would be considered a general The data has improved a lot, but the short legs, small bomb load, poor mission flexibility, and slow speed still have no qualitative changes.

It is precisely because of this that the US military has been looking for alternative models of AV-8B.

However, compared to the British “Sea Harrier” and the subsequent American’s magically modified AV-8B, the Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing fighter aircraft installed in the Soviet era is even more unbearable. Not only has a short range, a small amount of ammunition, and safety. Very poor, basically equivalent to a flying coffin.

Basically, apart from being able to take off and land vertically on the aircraft carrier's deck, there is nothing to be commended.

Even its successor model, the Yak-141, has little improvement in other aspects except that it can achieve supersonic flight in speed and the original three-bearing rotating vector nozzle.

However, these have almost become inherent defects of the iron law of vertical take-off and landing fighters in the industry. The vertical take-off and landing verification aircraft that took off in China seems to be completely broken here.

With an empty weight of 5.8 tons, an internal load of 6.2 tons, and an effective weapon load of 6 tons, the three key figures are almost 1:1:1. Not to mention that the internal load is three times that of the Sea Harrier. Not to mention that the effective weapon load is twice that of the AV-8B after the magical modification. The 1:1:1 data alone will undoubtedly reveal China's deep foundation in the aviation field.

As the so-called laymen watch the excitement and experts watch the doorway, many leaders and leaders present have spent half their lives in the aviation unit. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are experts in aircraft, because of this, they have a completely different perspective from ordinary people. Similarly, the payload of the internal fuel and weapons is almost equivalent to the empty weight of the aircraft. What does it mean?

Ordinary people may think that it's just a beautiful view of data, which makes people happy.

But in the eyes of the heads and leaders of these forces, it means that China's take-off vertical take-off and landing verification aircraft has a superb aerodynamic layout, amazing structural total control and very surging power output.

There is one less of the three, and all three key data are almost 1:1:1.

This is indeed the case. China Ascendas has set two key indicators when designing the vertical take-off and landing verification aircraft. One is an average combat radius of 1,200 kilometers; and the second is an effective weapon load of at least 5 tons.

You have to know that this index is not to say that it is a vertical take-off and landing fighter, that is, the data of fixed-wing carrier-based aircraft is not low, because without the aid of a catapult, carrier-based aircraft cannot do it by just skidding. Full of fuel and bombs, an average combat radius of 1,200 kilometers and a load of at least 5 tons of bombs are already at the same level as the daily state of the Russian heavy carrier Su-33 aircraft carrier.

It should be understood that the Su-33 is a carrier-based combat aircraft improved on the basis of the Su-27. It is the only heavy-duty carrier-based fighter in the world, except for the US F-14.

It would be fine if China took off to make a copy of the Su-33, but in the end it had to get a vertical take-off and landing fighter, and the basic indicators were comparable to that of the Su-33. Therefore, China’s take-off related research was published in the industry through academic journals and was met by the industry. Widely questioned.

Some people think that China's take-off is too high.

Some people think that China's take-off is a bit fluttering. They think that they are brave, and they will inevitably be beaten by reality.

Some conspiracy theories speculate that China's take-off is a speculation and gimmick in order to make a difference in other areas.

There are also people who believe that China’s take-off is a lie.

...

In short, no one believes that China Ascendas can do this.

To be honest, China took off at the time and did not have much confidence in itself. After all, the natural drawbacks of vertical take-off and landing in fighter jets lay there. And whether China Ascendas has relevant development experience, in fact, let alone China’s take-off, it is the entire domestic market. No similar experience was used as a reference.

The only reference to China's take-off is that the Yakovlev Design Bureau, which was acquired, retains part of the technical data of Yak-38 and Yak-141.

But even so, it is still unable to meet the actual needs of China's take-off. After all, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, many sub-systems were fragmented together, resulting in an extremely incomplete aviation industry chain. In addition, the Russians who have recollected began to care about intellectual property , Leading to many easy-to-obtain things before being pinched by the old Maozi.

Such as these have led to China's take-off and cannot continue to advance on the basis of the Yakovlev Design Bureau, but can only find another way and work from a path that subverts tradition.

This is also no way~www.readwn.com~ After all, the country is not the United States. In addition to amphibious assault ships, there are also super aircraft carriers, which can be supported by naval carrier aviation at any time.

If the domestic development of a regular aircraft carrier is fine, what if the European strategic delivery ship is used as the core ship type?

Do you expect a low-level combat aircraft like the Sea Harrier, whose range and speed cannot even be matched by anti-ship missiles, to protect the increasingly busy trade routes and energy channels, and to compete with potential enemies for maritime air supremacy?

It's just kidding.

Therefore, even a vertical take-off and landing fighter must have the performance and combat capabilities of a fixed-wing combat aircraft. Only in this way can the domestic use of the concept of a strategic projection ship have a combat capability comparable to that of a light aircraft carrier.

It's just that it's easy to set the target, but it is extremely difficult to make it out.

Not to mention anything else, China Ascendas designed 1,589 models for this purpose, and carried out a total of 6.78 million hours of wind tunnel tests. The optical wind tunnel test made 524 isometric models, which took 10 years. In tens of thousands of design schemes, the optimal solution similar to the aerodynamic layout of the flying wing has been determined!