MILAVIA Forum - Military Aviation Discussion Forum

Author Topic: Where are the light weight fighters?  (Read 24652 times)

Offline valkyrian

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Country: gr
  • Goodbye my friend Tigershark, R.I.P.
Where are the light weight fighters?
« on: July 25, 2007, 09:32:02 PM »
Has anyone thought what a small light weight fighter, basically an air to air hot rod, would look like? Would it need an enormous F119, ultra high tech radar, stealth shaping and all this black box technologies to survive?  Why there isn't such a design in the west (America Europe)? Personally i think that if such an aircraft existed it could kick @ss in the market. What nation can afford 40+ million dollars to buy costly Mercedes fighters? Why not......a FIAT fighter? Northrop paved the way with the brilliant F-5 in the fifties, so where is the light weights now?

Offline Globetrotter

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 838
  • Country: ar
  • I'm Thomas (now Globetrotter)
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2007, 11:16:14 PM »
well... what about the poor F-20 ::) ::) ::)
"Ad Astra Per Aspera"   (5º Grupo de Caza ≈ A-4AR Fightinghawk)

 ~ MALVINAS ARGENTINAS ~


Offline Viggen

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1413
  • Country: se
  • We are not promised a tomorrow.
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2007, 01:05:23 AM »
How about this one. I showed it in another post earlier.  8)
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/
  • Interests: SAAB 37 Viggen
Patrik S.

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2007, 04:01:35 AM »
You bring up my beloved F-20 what a lost and a shame it wasn't produced I know it would still be flying in some air force somewhere.   The Mako hasn't been produced yet and may never, the advance trainer market is difficult.  The days of Mig-21s and F-5s are over the closes thing at least built in numbers was the F-16.  Even that has grown in weight so much it's not a little daylight only fighter anymore it's grown into a mid size type.    Currently there's no ultra high tech radar avoiding stealth shaped fighters out there and won't until different weapons and fuels are designed and used.   The closest aircraft in weight and size to F-5/Mig-21 types is the JF-17, the rest are high priced advance trainers.   I always wonder what a F-15 type engine thrust+power in a Mirage 2000-5 would be like.  I know the air flow would change, weight balance, and others but can you imagine it?   It would turn into a little rocket and wouldn't bleed off speed like the current models do.   But you still come back to a basic problem put a big engine in a mid or small size jet and you still can't enough fuel to be useful. 



Offline valkyrian

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Country: gr
  • Goodbye my friend Tigershark, R.I.P.
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2007, 01:16:52 PM »
As nonpilot said, the MAKO is still a paper project and must first survive in a market dominated by Hawk, and also from newcomers like T-50, M346, YAK-130...otherwise looks great..

Offline valkyrian

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Country: gr
  • Goodbye my friend Tigershark, R.I.P.
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2007, 05:17:16 PM »
F-20 what a loss........an example of how unpredictable the fighter market can be

Offline Globetrotter

  • Hero of Flight
  • ******
  • Posts: 838
  • Country: ar
  • I'm Thomas (now Globetrotter)
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2007, 07:02:07 PM »
yes, it could have been soooo great  :D But wouldn't have it ended like the F-16: not so light weight?
"Ad Astra Per Aspera"   (5º Grupo de Caza ≈ A-4AR Fightinghawk)

 ~ MALVINAS ARGENTINAS ~


Offline Viggen

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1413
  • Country: se
  • We are not promised a tomorrow.
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2007, 11:45:33 PM »
As nonpilot said, the MAKO is still a paper project and must first survive in a market dominated by Hawk, and also from newcomers like T-50, M346, YAK-130...otherwise looks great..

True, but its lightweight and could end up as a heavyweight in this category. There is a maximum to how much development/upgrades a jet can have, like the old Hawk. Btw the Hawk has never been a fighter, mostly used for AG and training. The others you mentioned are diffrent, they have multirole capabileties. It is an open market still on small jets ,but not as adv  trainers. Many airforces seem to choose the Pilatus PC-9 due to costs over a small jet to train future pilots.

For a small jet to be recognised as a lightweight fighter, it has to preform just as well as its bigger siblings. Otherwise it wont succed at all.
  • Interests: SAAB 37 Viggen
Patrik S.

Offline Webmaster

  • MILAVIA Webmaster
  • Administrator
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2842
  • Country: nl
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2007, 01:55:12 AM »
One of the problems is that it needs to do more than just be a point defense fighter, day-light and not-so-bad weather nowadays. The cost and weight will increase so much as you make it multi-role, it will be in the F-16 class before you know it. On the other hand, if you can afford to leave out some of the requirements of the multi-role aspect, under todays budgets, you have no other option than to combine it with your trainer fleet. So then you'll have a Yak-130, AT-50, M346, Hawk, etc.

Anyway, we have those, and the LCA, FC-1/JF-17, L-159. The Gripen is pretty light as well.

Indeed not much in the western market for above reasons. With no domestic need for it, and other industries booming in this area, I wouldn't be surprised if no US light fighter/combat aircraft will ever see the light of day. I guess it needs times like the Cold War for the US to offer light-weight non-complicated fighters again... and less F-16s on the second hand market.

@ Viggen, never been a fighter? The Hawk had actually a secondary air defense task during the Cold War, armed with AIM-9 Sidewinders and cannons. I think even in Finland (that's why they had so many, weren't allowed to have more 'real' fighters) and maybe Switzerland.


  • Interests: Su-15, Su-27, Tu-22, Tornado, RNLAF
Niels Hillebrand
MILAVIA Webmaster

Offline tigershark

  • News Editor
  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 2025
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2007, 03:12:05 AM »
Webmaster you know you right about the Hawk use as secondary air defense task during the Cold War.  I read that somewhere in forum or somewhere a guy wrote about how his squadron training for it.  I couldn't believe they were going to throw Hawks at incoming Russian fighters and bombers but they were.   It's going to bother me not knowing where I read it.   I like all those advance trainers and did a COIN thread with a few of them in it.     

Could advance trainer be good COIN aircraft?
http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=713.0

Let me know if I left any big names out.

M346
http://www.aermacchi.it/M346.htm
Yak-130
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/yak_130/
T-50
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/k...i/t-50/T-50.htm
MIG-AT
http://www.ainonline.com/Publicatio...4/d2migp66.html
MAKO
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/
HAWK
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hawk/
L-15
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/trainer/l15.asp
JL-9
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/trainer/jl9.asp
SAAB 105
http://www.vectorsite.net/avsa105.html
ALPHA JET
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/alpha-jet.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...urope/amx-t.htm
L-159
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/l159/
L-59
http://www.aero.cz/main.php?pageid=32

Offline valkyrian

  • Fighter Ace
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Country: gr
  • Goodbye my friend Tigershark, R.I.P.
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2007, 09:07:47 AM »
To my friend nonpilot. If you'd like to know how a big engine on a small airframe could perform, search for the CL-1200 Lancer, Lockheed's answer to the FX program. Basically a F-104 with F100 engine....C.L. Johnson, believed it could beat F-15 any time....

The British used combinations of F-4FGR@ and Hawk. A pair of them, used the long range radar/missile ability of the Phantom, while in close in, Hawk could handle.....question how do u intercept a supersonic Blackjack or Backfire with a Hawk Answer....you cross your fingers and wait for the russian bomber to abort its mission due to engine failure....
Back to the topic...
I think the Chinese light fighters are lucking quality....just bcz they have a nice shape they are not also qualitive products.....

The LCA has no orders yet, and i think in the face of new fighter aquisitions, it will be buried....
MAKO is a nice case at least on the paper......T50 is at least a real aircraft... M346 just subsonic no chance...
IDF Ching  Quo would be a new F-5 but there is no chance also...

Offline Viggen

  • General of Flight
  • *******
  • Posts: 1413
  • Country: se
  • We are not promised a tomorrow.
Re: Where are the light weight fighters?
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2007, 12:50:44 PM »
@ Viggen, never been a fighter? The Hawk had actually a secondary air defense task during the Cold War, armed with AIM-9 Sidewinders and cannons. I think even in Finland (that's why they had so many, weren't allowed to have more 'real' fighters) and maybe Switzerland.




This i didnt know about. But as you put it, "secondary air defense task".  The Hawk was not made to be a fighter and Finland also used the Draken as a fighter. So even there the Hawk comes in as secondary. Now i m not saying its a bad aircraft, but it is best suited for AG and adv training.
  • Interests: SAAB 37 Viggen
Patrik S.

 



AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com click to vote for MILAVIA