MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: valkyrian 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?
-
well... what about the poor F-20 ::) ::) ::)
-
How about this one. I showed it in another post earlier. 8)
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/
-
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.
-
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..
-
F-20 what a loss........an example of how unpredictable the fighter market can be
-
yes, it could have been soooo great :D But wouldn't have it ended like the F-16: not so light weight?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
@ 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.
-
Sure, but without radar those "multi-role" trainers are as useless as those old Hawks in the fighter role. The Hawk 200 has a APG-66, and could even carry AMRAAMs. So since we are calling all these trainers light weight fighters, let's not leave out the Hawk series.
Maybe we have to clearly define what a lightweight fighter nowadays needs to be, and then look at them again.
- AAMs... short range, or also BVRAAM?
- multi-mode radar?
- supersonic capability?
- RWR?
- Self defense suite?
- In-flight refuelling?
If you answer yes to all of these, the Gripen/LCA/FC-1/MiG-21 upgraded/F-5 upgraded/A-4 upgraded/F-CK-1C/D are the light weight fighters of today, not those trainers with exception maybe the AT-50 and future Yak developments.
-
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
List of jet trainers which could do more? CASA C.101 Aviojet and AT-63 Pampa, I can't think of anymore right now, besides those that already have become recognized combat aircraft in the past, or have become trainer nowadays.
BTW, I don't have much hope for that JL-9, since the PLAAF seems to unpleased with its JJ-7s.
-
So except for the FC-1, and the LCA though it has not been ordered, I can't see a newly designed/made aircraft for being "a light weight fighter" [LWF form now on]. I see from what Niels wrote that most of the nowadays' LWFs are renewed or updated or refurbished old cells (F-5, A-4, MiG-21...), OR, trainers, not newly made aircraft, specifically intended to be LWFs, taking out the firstly named.
-
That's because others don't have a requirement for it, since they are or are moving to a single type. Also because the Cold War is over, quantity is no longer top priority. There are only a small number of countries left who would need to arm itself against an overwhelming attack by a long time enemy.
And the light fighter end of the mix of the USA and Russia just got heavier. With the F-16 being developed to be the light fighter to complement the F-15, and in a sense the MiG-29 in Russia. Those are the follow-up fighters for the F-5 and MiG-21 respectively.
With so many export countries moving to a single type inventory, it's not worth it to develop a lighter fighter than a Gripen/F-16/MiG-29, you need to compromise in some areas, so you loose the bids, or don't fit the requirements at all. Unless of course, you have a need for it yourself...see Pakistan and India. They might get orders from markets untouched by the West in the future, because they're the only ones affordable and politically attainable.
Having said that, with these expensive 4+ and 5 generation fighters, I can see a market opportunity for a lighter/cheaper 5th generation fighter. Can actually be competing with the JSF for markets in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe in the future. But purely export, it has to be a development financed by the company itself... maybe something for Boeing?
You mean not ordered outside their own countries? It will come, at least for the FC-1.
-
Hi to all!. I'd like to stand on what Web Master said, and this is also what i consider as a major issue, the price of a new fighter. As a rule, the lighter and simpler a fighter the more affordable to buy and to operate. It is like cars. You begin with a cheap version, suddenly u add this and other system, and u end up with a more expensive model. Then u think, with this money i can buy a bigger car and so on.
Here is what i think of a light fighter
+9/-3 g airframe - FBW controls to reduce the size and the power requirements.
T/W wet /dry : 1-0.8 (higher values require more thrust, add weight and cost)
Max Mach 1.4-1.5 (no need to mach 2, nor supercruising, due to costs and therefore a simpler air inlets system)
Basic doppler radar with TWS ability (APG66 class radar will be cheap reliable and good enough but with provision for AIM-120 class missiles)
Basic armament of 2 x AIM-9 + 2 AIM-120 + internal gun (like the colts of the F-5 a gatling is heavy and expensive)
Convetional structure, e.g aluminium (composites are expensive)
An F414 engine should be perfect, but in a lighter than Grippen fuselage.
Low optical signature ( a trend that nowdays is somewhat forgotten!) through small size
RCS reduction through careful shaping. No internal gun carriage, as this leads to bigger heavier and costlier designs
Infra red reduction through a 2 d nozzle (TVC is expensive)
This is what i can think for now. Generally a T-50 with some modifications would fit this profile...
-
You guys are talking about things that have been must for a long time and aobut things, that are like 'everyday' life for any given military plane today....
If thinking aobut light fighter...For me that means the planes like the F-16, Mirage 2000, F-18, Gripen, MiG-29 etc etc...NOT any advanced (combat) trainers (like the L-159 etc you mentioned) that have somewhat fighter-like characteristics BUT still far from the true fighter envelopes....
Of course the LWF should have BVR weapons and multirole radar, jammers and sophisticated avionics.....What it would be without them? A piece of rubbish? The LWF is a choise for those nations unable to afford heavy fighters OR for nations who need it to fill/support their heavy fighter fleet...Putting it easy, the LWF multirole fighter need to do everything that their bigger sisters do but of course not in the same scale. Those planes intended only for one or two purposes only are history, not the reality of today! After the cold war, in the times of large defense budger cuts, nations couldn't afford to build/buy different a/c optimized for every different 'job'! They needed to 'make' one plane to do it all. The F/A-18 was one of the first and one of the best to do so! Early F-16s were nothing like that. The Falcon was designed to outlfy and outmaneuvre every Soviet/Russian MiG they might put against it. So, the F-16 was made to do so. Initially it had as its main weapons the AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles not even BVR missiles!!! Of course it didn't take long when Lockheed and USAF realised their mistake...The Hornet was designed from the outset to fight its way trhoug (with BVR) and to drop bombs precisely to intended targets and if necessary to fight its way back...All this without ever making too much compromices over the planes maneuvrability. Yeah, more later about the heavy fighters vs. LWF.
-
You guys are talking about things that have been must for a long time and aobut things, that are like 'everyday' life for any given military plane today....
The F/A-18 was one of the first and one of the best to do so! The Hornet was designed from the outset to fight its way trhoug (with BVR) and to drop bombs precisely to intended targets and if necessary to fight its way back...All this without ever making too much compromices over the planes maneuvrability. Yeah, more later about the heavy fighters vs. LWF.
Consider the succes of the Falcon over the bigger and costlier Hornet, which was designed - as u right said - as a dual role fighter. Hornet was troubled with short range from the very beginning of its carrier, and all the newer versions instead of improving , were worst in this field. You can't have 2 masters.....design for attack, means totally different wings/engines. Look at the A-7 Corsair and the A-6 Intruder. Almost straight, thick wings. Compare the older Intruder wich with less power is a far more better bomber. Ofcourse, it can't defend itself like the Hornet, but i would take a 9 g capable Falcon all the time against a 7.33 capable Hornet.
And again, cheap aircrafts like the F-5, scored a major succes in DACT over Nellis against the mighty Eagle and Tomcat.
As the old saying goes....."Jack of all the trades, master of non. "
-
Thanks for replying...I'll get back on this when I come back from my Interrail tour to Europe... :) So see you guys then.
BTW, If you say that the F-5 beats the F-15 and F-14, its certainly in dogfight.....In reality it can't get even close if thinking BVR! Lighter fighters have 'always' edge in furball....
-
Osuorsa, it is always good to find someone with good arguments to talk about. Ofcourse in BVR a F-5 wouldn't stand a chance, but there was also a modified super dooper F-5 G which later was called F-20 Tigershark that could carry Sparrows......
-
And I am not gonna say our A-4AR is a superstar, but it is light, cheap, has an APG-66 and can carry AMRAAMS ::) (the problem is we don't have the amraams/....)
-
2valkyrian - yes, of cource....but I don't count planes that are not i service.....meaning no real life threat.
-
I was going to say S. 211, but thats really rally light... Nah, GT, our A-4SU is cooler.
-
Count me in for the F-20 bandwagon...Slick plane, certain success for people who could not afford Vipers, great capabilities for the size/price...
When it comes to the no-LWF anymore, maybe it's the specifications too...
* Plugging big jet engines and making the jet have a good range means lotsa fuel. If we have to invent CFTs to fly the newer Vipers, I think they've gon a bit the wrong way too.... :(
* Small or not, it will still need to be strong enough to withstand maneuver load and combat load - for a 9g aircraft, this means a lot of strengthening members. The F-16N was "lightweightly made", and it got cracks in no time. Afterburners are going to be starving the aircraft too...
Basically, it seems that the Gripen and the Viper have been the uber-LWFs, cannot change that much anymore without making one of the same..Gimme a Viper/Fulcrum/Pick-your-LWF anyday :D Big fan of small platforms here !