It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Standard Fighter Thread

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Standard Fighters are lightweight, cheap to run and maintain but are all single engined and mostly single seated

Here are some of them:

F-5 Freedom Fighter, F-16 Falcon, Helwan HA-300, Dassault Mirage, F-21 Kfir,
Mig 21, Mig 23.




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Don't forget about the F-20 Tigershark. Yeah I know it never entered production and the F-16 was the right choice for the USAF but still a very capable warplane and cheap to buy and maintain.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Browno,

>>
Standard Fighters are lightweight, cheap to run and maintain but are all single engined and mostly single seated

Here are some of them:

F-5 Freedom Fighter, F-16 Falcon, Helwan HA-300, Dassault Mirage, F-21 Kfir,
Mig 21, Mig 23.
>>

I agree with most of these except for the MiG-23 which is again, too heavy and too well equipped as a dedicated interceptor or BAI/Strike machine with a full function weapons suite not typical of lightweight aircraft or fighters. It should also be noted that, with it's fussy and manual VG; the Flogger is not a maneuvering airframe and can be easily taken by even an F-4 in the right hands.

Both the later F-16 blocks and the Mirage _2000-05_ and onwards are also getting up in weight and capabilities more towards the medium weight end of the game and indeed, the F-16 is probably the quintessential 'medium fighter' from the perspective of landbased operations, routinely operating at mission gross numbers in the 42-48K range.

Only by including monsters like the 100Klb F-111 and 80Klb F-15E as well as the A2G optimized Su-30MK variants as the 'heavy weight' end of the spectrum can you truly justify 40K and upwards jets as 'lightweight'.

Better examples of lightweight aircraft include the first generation Harrier, the Jaguar (which is used as a fighter by countries like Oman), the F-5A/E/G, the Hawk 100/200, the FCK-1/A-1 Ching Kuo, the Mystere, the MiG-17 and 19. The F/A-50 Golden Eagle and the Mako also look set to replace the F-16 as the baseline LWF system for cheap export as much as weight reasons.

Conversely, while the Mirage III could be considered a 'lightweight' fighter with an interceptor's radar but CAVU only weapons, the non-2000 baseline Kfir is really not suited to that mission and is itself a rather heavier design what with the J79 and A2G specific structural beefing and increased stores station count as much as the 2001 range-only radar.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Don't forget about the F-20 Tigershark. Yeah I know it never entered production and the F-16 was the right choice for the USAF but still a very capable warplane and cheap to buy and maintain.


I dont like the F-5 FreedomFighter much but i do quite like the F-20 Tigershark though, Believe it uses an F/A-18 Hornet Engine

Most NATO countries would probably be using the F-20 if it entered production, They are using F-16s cos they are cheap to run and maintain.

If i owned an Air Force, I would use this for a Standard Fighter, The F-21A Kfir


Basically a Mirage with an F-4 Phantom Jet Engine


[edit on 1-8-2006 by Browno]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Hope your airforce doesn't have to fight or anything, cause that thing was obsolete 20 years ago.
When I dream of my own airforce, I don't settle for anything below Mirage 2000



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
If a standard fighter is "single" engine, how did you get the F-5?

Both the F-5 and F-5E are twin engine aircraft. The F-5 is powered by Two General Electric J85-GE-13 turbojets. The F-5E has Two General Electric J85-GE-21A turbojets.

F-5 Tiger and F-5E Tiger II

Also why is the F-18, which isn't too much bigger than the F-16 on the list?

Come up with one definition and stick with it.

Tim



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
Standard Fighters are lightweight, cheap to run and maintain but are all single engined and mostly single seated

Here are some of them:

F-5 Freedom Fighter, F-16 Falcon, Helwan HA-300, Dassault Mirage, F-21 Kfir,
Mig 21, Mig 23.


As it was said previously, MiG-23 is in the class of F-4 Phantom and doesn't belong in this list.

My list of lightweight fighters would be: F-104 Starfighter, F-8 Crusader, XF8U-3 Crusader III, F-5 Freedom Fighter / Tiger II, BAC Lightning, Mirage III/5/50, IAI Nesher/Dagger/Finger, Atlas Cheetah, IAI Nammer, IAI Kfir, Mirage F1, J35 Draken, MiG-21 "Fishbed", Helwan HA-300, JA37 Viggen, F-16 Fighting Falcon / Mitsubishi F-2, YF-17 Cobra / F/A-18 Hornet, F-20 Tigershark, F-35 Lightning II, Eurofighter Typhoon, Mirage 2000, Rafale, JAS39 Gripen, IAI Lavi, F-CK-1 Ching Kuo, Chengdu FC-1, Chengdu J-10, MiG-29/35 "Fulcrum", MiG 1.44 MFI "Flatpack", HAL Tejas

edit on 4-7-2011 by kondor because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2011 by kondor because: type error



posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 


I don't think you could include any twin jet fighters, except the F-5, in a list of lightweight fighters. Several of the types you named are at least in the size and weight class of the F-4, even types like the single engine Viggen are quite large, the the MiG 1:44 is absolutely huge! At least as big as the F-22.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Also what does the standard here suppose to mean?
The F-15 is the most agile fighter or say a kind of fighter for dogfight, why it was kicked out of your standard?
If a fighter more light more lovely to you, I recommend Gnat to you. Highly maneuverable for the time she served.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join