Where are the light weight fighters?

[Webmaster]

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.

[Webmaster]

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.

[Globetrotter]

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.

[Webmaster]

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.

[valkyrian]

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...

[osuorsa]

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.

[valkyrian]

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. "

[osuorsa]

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....

[valkyrian]

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......

[Globetrotter]

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/....)

[osuorsa]

2valkyrian - yes, of cource....but I don't count planes that are not i service.....meaning no real life threat.

[Raptor]

I was going to say S. 211, but thats really rally light... Nah, GT, our A-4SU is cooler.