Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading

Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Romance -> take off my aviation age

Chapter 1353 Optimal Solution

Previous page        Return to Catalog        Next page

    ¡°It carries 6.2 tons of fuel and has a payload of 6 tons It also has the ability to fly at supersonic speeds. This level is really"

    The leader from the Naval Aviation Force couldn't help but murmur to himself, but the more he talked about it, the more incredible it became. In fact, it was not only the leader of the Naval Aviation Force, but also the chief and leaders of the Air Force Aviation Force who listened to Zhuang Jianye's introduction just now.  Everyone's eyes widened and they felt very shocked.

    As we all know, the fuel and bomb load inside a vertical take-off and landing fighter jet is unbearable due to its unique take-off and landing method and aerodynamic layout.

    Take the well-known British "Sea Harrier" fighter jet. Its internal fuel load is only a little over 2 tons, and its maximum bomb load is only about 2 tons. This is based on short takeoff data. If it uses vertical  For takeoff and landing, the bomb load will be reduced by half, leaving only 1 ton of payload.

    The combat radius is even more unbearable. It can¡¯t even reach 300 kilometers for ultra-low-altitude penetration. Even if the high-medium-high combat profile of battlefield interception is implemented, it can barely reach a combat radius of 800 kilometers.

    That's all. The key point is that the "Sea Harrier" fighter jet does not have the ability to fly at supersonic speeds. Even if the United States later magically modified the "Sea Harrier" to develop a special AV-8B vertical take-off and landing attack aircraft for the Marine Corps, it would be regarded as a  The data has improved a lot, but the characteristics of short legs, small bomb load, poor mission flexibility, and slow speed have not changed qualitatively.

    Because of this, the US military has been seeking alternatives to the AV-8B.

    However, compared to the British "Sea Harrier" and the subsequent AV-8B modified by the Americans, the Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing fighter installed in the Soviet era is even worse. Not only does it have a short range, a small bomb load, but also has poor safety.  Very poor, basically equivalent to a flying coffin.

    Basically, there is nothing worthy of praise except that it can take off and land vertically on the aircraft carrier deck.

    Even its follow-up model, the Yak-141, has little improvement in other aspects except its ability to achieve supersonic flight and its original three-bearing rotating vector nozzle.

    However, these inherent flaws, which have almost become ironclad rules for vertical take-off and landing fighters in the industry, seem to be completely broken in China's take-off vertical take-off and landing demonstration aircraft.

    The empty weight of 5.8 tons, the internal fuel load of 6.2 tons, and the effective weapons load of 6 tons. The three key data are almost in a 1:1:1 relationship. Not to mention that the internal fuel load is three times that of the "Sea Harrier".  Not to mention that the effective weapon load is twice that of the modified AV-8B, just talking about this 1:1:1 data will undoubtedly reveal China's deep foundation in the aviation field.

    As the saying goes, laymen only see the excitement, and insiders see the door. Many of the chiefs and leaders present have spent half their lives in the aviation force. It is not an exaggeration to say that they are experts in aircraft. Because of this, their perspective on problems is completely different from that of ordinary people.  Likewise, the payload of fuel and weapons inside is almost equal to the empty weight of the aircraft. What does that mean?

    Most people may think that data is just beautiful and makes people feel happy.

    But in the eyes of these army chiefs and leaders, it means that China's takeoff vertical take-off and landing demonstration aircraft has a super-class aerodynamic layout, amazing structural mass control and very surging power output.

    With one less of the three, the three key data are almost 1:1:1.

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

    You must know that this indicator is not only for vertical take-off and landing fighter jets, but also for fixed-wing carrier-based aircraft. This is because without catapult assistance, carrier-based aircraft simply cannot take off by ski jump.  Full of fuel and bombs, with an average combat radius of 1,200 kilometers and a bomb load of at least 5 tons, it is already at the same level as the Russian heavy-duty carrier-based aircraft Su-33 aircraft carrier in its daily status.

    You must know 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 aircraft in the world besides the US F-14.

    It would be fine if China Takeoff made a copy of the Su-33, but in the end it had to build a vertical take-off and landing fighter, and its basic indicators were comparable to the Su-33. Therefore, China Takeoff-related research was published in the industry through academic publications and was criticized by the industry.  widespread doubts.

    Some people think that China¡¯s take-off is too ambitious and ambitious.

    Some people think that China¡¯s take-off is a little too arrogant. They think that they are brave and talented, but they will be beaten to death by reality.

    Some people have conspiracy theories and speculate that China¡¯s take-off is an opportunity to hype and play gimmicks in order to make profit differences in other fields.

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

    ¡­¡­

    In short, no one believes that China Takeoff can accomplish this matter.?

    To be honest, China Takeoff itself didn¡¯t have much confidence at that time. After all, the natural disadvantage of vertical takeoff and landing in fighter jets was there. And did China Takeoff have relevant development experience? In fact, let alone China Takeoff, the entire country  No similar experience is used as a reference.

    The only thing that can provide a reference for China to take off is that the acquired Yakovlev Design Bureau has retained some technical data of the Yak-38 and Yak-141.

    But even so, it still cannot meet the actual needs of China's take-off. After all, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many subsystems were split together, resulting in the aviation industry chain becoming extremely incomplete. In addition, the Russians began to worry about intellectual property rights.  , resulting in many things that were easily obtained in the past being held back by the old man.

    All these factors have led to China¡¯s take-off and cannot continue to move forward on the basis of the Yakovlev Design Bureau. It can only find another way and work hard from a path that subverts tradition.

    There is no other way. After all, the country is not the United States. In addition to amphibious assault ships and super aircraft carriers, it can receive support from naval carrier aviation at any time.

    ??It¡¯s okay if we develop regular aircraft carriers in China, but what if we use European strategic delivery ships as the core ship type?

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

    It¡¯s just a joke.

    Therefore, even vertical take-off and landing fighter jets must have performance and combat capabilities that are no less than those of fixed-wing combat aircraft. Only in this way can domestically adopted strategic delivery ship concepts have combat capabilities that are no less than that of light aircraft carriers.

    "It's just that it's easy to set a target, but it's extremely difficult to actually achieve it.

    Among other things, China Tengfei designed 1,589 aircraft models for this purpose and conducted a total of 6.78 million hours of wind tunnel testing. It built 524 full-scale models of wind tunnel testing alone, which took 10 years to complete.  Among tens of thousands of design plans, the optimal solution for aerodynamic layout similar to that of a flying wing was determined!

    If you like Soar My Aviation Age, please collect it: Soar My Aviation Age is updated the fastest.  (Remember the website address: www.hlnovel.com
Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report