Does China currently have vertical take off and landing aircraft? What do you think?

At present, China does not have any jet VTOL aircraft, this is because there are many technical difficulties in VTOL fighters, first of all, the engine thrust should be large enough, and the nozzle should be able to deflect down 90 degrees, and secondly, the lift generated by the lift fan should be large enough, at least enough to match the lift generated by the tail engine, and finally the flight control should be good enough.

Personally, I think China needs VTOL fighters. With China's continuous rise, the real opponent that China will face is no longer any other country, but the United States, the world's number one military power, to be able to cope with the attack of the US Air Force, any of China's military bases, ports, fleets, and local key places must have sufficient emergency air defense capabilities to buy time for the main air supremacy group to take off and counterattack. Anti-aircraft missiles are inherently inferior to air-to-surface because they take off from the ground or sea, so vertical take-off and landing fighters are the best emergency air defense.

Yes, China's current development trend is already leading the world, no matter what the field. In fact, China has built vertical take-off and landing aircraft a long time ago, but this kind of aircraft is generally a military aircraft, and this kind of aircraft can reach the target location more quickly on the battlefield and carry out accurate strikes. In addition, at present, civilian aircraft still rely on taxiing to land.

The only pioneering design in China's aerospace field, a miracle produced by alternative ideas! Overthrow the existing model of human vertical take-off and landing aircraft, rockets, and starships! Mobility and efficiency over all models!

I've designed a VTOL aircraft with a new principle and a new structure, a starship!

1. New principles and new structures for vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

Simpler than the F35 and V22, the technical difficulty is extremely low, and the F35 lift fan takes up too much space and hangs up into a cumbersome weight. Avoid the F22 rotor change total accident, the interference and internal friction of the rotor and the horizontal wide transverse wing!

2. Designed to be used for rockets and starships with zero difficulty**:

Eliminate the first class of Musk rocket** method, more stable, low difficulty, 90% increase in success rate Eliminate Musk Starship, flexible and simple ultra-smooth vertical take-off and landing! The failure rate is close to zero!

Looking for domestic and foreign aerospace enterprises to invest in the application for patents and occupy 1 shares, the overall buyout of 100 million yuan! (cabbage price).

No, China does not have VTOL aircraft, and if there is, it is propeller UAVs. Now China's aviation technology is relatively backward and can only reach the second echelon, if there is a high-thrust engine, then our vertical take-off and landing is just around the corner.

China currently does not have vertical take-off and landing aircraft, and I think China needs this kind of aircraft very much now, because it can take off and land quickly without being restricted by airports in wartime.

The advantage of vertical take-off and landing flight is that there is no need to fly the runway, and the take-off and landing of the aircraft can be completed in the way of direct ascent and direct landing, which can increase the number of aircraft taking off and landing at the same time of the aircraft carrier, and improve the combat effectiveness of the aircraft carrier with a relatively small deck, and the vertical take-off and landing can be carried out in a harsh battlefield environment.

No, I don't think it's necessary, VTOL aircraft need to consume a lot of fuel when taking off, which leads to a serious decrease in the combat radius.

The advantage of vertical take-off and landing is that it does not need a large field to take off, does not need a catapult, and can quickly form an air defense circle, the disadvantage is that the aircraft itself can not be too heavy, the failure rate is high, the maintenance cost is extremely high, it is expensive, the combat radius is particularly short, and the vertical take-off and landing consumes 20% of the fuel at a time, and it cannot be fully loaded.

The cost of money and time required to study vertical take-off and landing is extremely huge, and the combat effect is basically a very average level, which is far inferior to carrying a large stealth reconnaissance and combat integrated UAV on a large and medium-sized ship with electric bombs.

Yes, there is a 'Harrier' in the Aerospace Museum of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics

In fact, such an aircraft is more suitable for carrying out surprise missions in field conditions with helicopters, because it has lower requirements for support and is more convenient, and does not require a large field, in the 90s, it was envisaged to use several armored vehicles, tank chassis and then make a flat plate on top to make this equipment take off and land.

VTOL fighters are chicken ribs.

No, it's useless to ask for this now, you see how much the 35b is equipped.

There may be relevant technologies. VTOL aircraft have a small combat radius and high maintenance costs, which is not necessary for China.

It depends on the needs of use, if it is defense-oriented, what do you want to do? If it is both offensive and defensive, is it a question of whether it can be done with the country's scientific and technological level? Only the length of time is the problem.

The Vertical Fighter was useless, and Britain used decades to sell the technology to the United States, and the fuel travel was short

China currently has research and development of vertical aircraft.

If you have vertical take-off and landing, can you engage in a diving carrier and carry a squad of fighters for special operations (brain-opening)?

China considered importing the Soviet Yak-141, but later cancelled the plan.

Our country should independently issue a vertical take-off and landing fighter.

Some people say that it costs oil, it is useless, and so on, but it is all an excuse for their own country. In a word, there is still no technology! The technology of vertical take-off and landing is of great significance, whether it is useful or not, the key is whether you have this technology or not, vertical take-off and landing looks domineering and sci-fi.

At least not in the last 5 years.

When it comes to "short vertical take-off and landing fighters", you may think that in the eighties of the last century, Yang Shangkun, who was the **** at that time, had negotiated with Britain on the introduction of "Harrier" fighters, but in the end due to pressure from all sides, it was ultimately unsuccessful.

So we are guessing when it is estimated that when our "short vertical take-off and landing fighter" will make its first flight, we must also study whether it is necessary to build it, whether it is necessary or irreplaceable, and whether it is necessary to have it!

And about, why don't we have it yet? Is there no technology for this? In my opinion, this is "battlefield demand drives ** research and development".

Taking a step back, is there a demand, is it very urgent, and whether it is very urgent to compare with the "unmanned aerial vehicle", "fourth-generation aircraft", "carrier-based aircraft", and "aerospace aircraft" such as "unmanned aerial vehicles", "carrier-based aircraft", and "aerospace aircraft". After all, we have to admit that China's aviation industry is still relatively weak and cannot be "on the same foot" as the United States. Then, "just use it on the blade", there must be a priority!

That's why China's "four generations" and "aerospace aircraft" have been born recently. And if the "short vertical take-off and landing fighter" is as important as "two bombs and one satellite", even if there are more technical difficulties, we will use the strength of the whole country to overcome them!

So when comparing with these "cutting-edge" fighters in the future battlefield, and then taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of "short vertical take-off and landing fighters", I think that "short vertical take-off and landing fighters" is not "necessary urgency". If China's "short-range vertical take-off and landing fighter" must be launched, I think it should wait until our army's fourth-generation aircraft matures and begins to be installed in the troops, and the research and development of the "short-range vertical take-off and landing fighter" will be put on the agenda.

This is my analysis point of view, if you still have any questions, you may wish to communicate offline, **......

About the advantages and disadvantages of the "short VTOL fighter":

It's hard to give up.

First, it can be transferred to ground forces at any time, can take off and land in a small place, and can also take off from a damaged airfield, thus greatly improving the survival rate on the battlefield.

Second, because it can take off and land vertically, an aircraft carrier that is golden in every inch of land can increase the number of aircraft carriers.

Third, because of its uniqueness, it is between an ordinary fighter and a high-difficulty action that other aircraft cannot do, such as fast cruising in the air, hovering in the air, flying upside down and turning on the spot.

Of course, the shortcomings are not small, and even some fatal.

First, it is too fuel-intensive, and it consumes one-third of the total fuel when taking off vertically, so it does not have the ability to sail far.

Second, the bomb load is too small, the Harrier fighter has a bomb load of only 2271 kg, while the US F-14 has 6577 kg in the same period, which is clear at a glance. Even the latest F-35B under development is not going well because it is overweight.

Third, the engine has high environmental requirements when it is running at full load, and once the sand raised by take-off is sucked into the running engine, immeasurable consequences may occur.