Why the Air Force generally does not procure VTOL fighters to enhance wartime response capabilities?

Short take-off and landing and even vertical take-off and landing are generally carried out on ships, because they are limited by the length of the deck runway, which has to be done as a last resort, resulting in a reduction in load, that is, only the ** of the load can be reduced, and the result is a decrease in combat effectiveness. The land-based has the guarantee of the length of the runway of the airport, so it can carry as much as possible to improve its ability to take off into the air at one time, so the Air Force rarely procures vertical or short take-off and landing fighters, because not only can not enhance the wartime response capability, but weakens the combat capability.

During the honeymoon period between China and the West, the Air Force proposed to buy the British "Harrier", the Navy to buy the "Broadsword", and the Army to buy the "Leopard" type.

2. Vertical short take-off and landing fighters have their own shortcomings, in order to take off and land vertically, they must sacrifice the load, so they can't fly far and can't carry too heavy **. Britain later abandoned it and used it only for small aircraft carriers.

3. The United States is now launching the F35 vertical short take-off and landing fighter, and no one knows what the performance is, which has not yet been mass-produced.

Most of the fighters meet the actual needs, but it is okay to equip some vertical fighters to meet some tactical needs, and a large number of equipment is not necessary.

Too much fuel and short fighting.

1. Low-altitude raid: The hovering of armed *** has become its advantage. Because the fighter is good at chasing and attacking high-speed moving targets, if you want to deal with low-altitude or stationary targets, the fighter can only dive and attack, and at this time, the armed *** can cast decoy bombs to effectively evade.

2. Low-altitude hand-to-hand combat: After the fighter aircraft attacked the armed forces unsuccessfully, the two sides were convenient for chasing battles. If I fly an armed ***, the lower I can fly, the better. Armed *** can make good use of low speed to get rid of the fighter, detour to the rear of the fighter, and counterattack the attack.

3. High-altitude encounters: Hehe, I don't think there will be any advantage in arming, or almost none. The fighter completely gives full play to its advantages - chasing, armed *** only to be beaten.

4. Defense analysis: The type of task of arming *** - vertical strike, determines that its armor is very thick, which can defend against the invasion of millimeter caliber machine gun shells, and the mobility of the fighter determines that its overall material must be very light, so almost the fighter is vulnerable.

5. Kill analysis: The target of the armed *** is armored vehicles and personnel, so it will be equipped with 20 mm cannons and anti-tank missiles, and air-to-air missiles can also be equipped. The main task of fighter aircraft is to strike air targets, such as fighters and bombers, so they will be equipped with medium and long-range air-to-air missiles, or combat missiles, and aircraft guns or aviation machine guns are secondary.

6. Summary: A fighter is equivalent to an eagle, and an armed fighter is equivalent to a tortoise. The eagle wanted to eat the turtle's meat, so it had to take the turtle to a high altitude and fall down hard, breaking the turtle's shell. And the turtle wanted to eat the meat of the eagle, so he had to wrestle with the eagle on the ground.

Fighters, of course.

The speed of the fighter is several times that of the armed ***, and the maneuverability is much stronger.

By the way, everyone hangs up machine guns, not machine guns.

Armed *** and fighter aircraft are not comparable, they are used differently and have different roles. The preparation is also very different. Even if you add air-to-air missiles to arm, it is also to deal with ***, so it is a nightmare when you encounter a fighter.

Even if you don't hang up the bomb, the fighter will be completely abusive. Fly low ......Do you think it's still the 80s of the last century, and radar is not resistant to ground clutter. The chance of meeting is very small, Lao Mei is basically empty, so I went to *** to play.

Fighters have an advantage. Speed is the advantage, hit and run.

What can be explained as "two worlds", the chance of colliding is very small, each has its own advantages... For example, the gyroplane (***) flies at a very low altitude and can hover at treetop height. It is impossible for a fighter to fly very low, unless he wants to die.

Let's talk about fighter jets; The rotorcraft is locked by fighters at high altitude, just wait for death. (Of course, if your gyroplane can skydive, you can still pick up a life).

In fact, everyone does not have any advantage, because the difference in speed and combat altitude is too great, so they can't touch it at all, and it is difficult to attack the opponent.

The missiles are all short-range fighters can use medium-range bombs *** You can't see the fighters.

The exception to this is ***equipped with a laser**.

In 1981, the U.S. Air Force launched the development program codenamed "Sky Elders". After a long period of research, the Air Force has put forward a series of requirements for future advanced tactical fighters, including the use of new composite materials, light alloys, advanced flight control systems, advanced advanced propulsion systems, and stealth technology. The top brass of the Air Force believes that when the ATF entered service at the beginning of the 21st century, that is, when third-generation fighters such as the F-15 and F-16 were retired from obsolescence.

Looking at it now, it can be said that the technical goals of the ATF have been fully achieved. In June 1981, the U.S. Air Force issued its first information request on advanced tactical fighters and invited nine companies to participate in the discussion: Boeing, Fairchild, Grumman, Lockheed, McDonnell, Northrop Macro, Rockwell, and Walter.

In July, the Air Force released an RFI for ATF propulsion systems, inviting seven manufacturers to participate. In October 1981, the Air Force released an overview of ATF mission elements.