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 Medium Fighter Thread

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Medium Fighters are probably the most common Fighters, They are a cross between Standard and Heavy Class Fighters and are mostly Multi Role capable

Here are some examples:

HAL HF-24 Marut, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SEPECAT Jaguar, F/A-18 Hornet, Mitsubishi F-1, F-35 Lightning, Mig 29, Panavia Tornado, SAAB Viggen




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Browno,

>>
The Medium Fighter Thread

Medium Fighters are probably the most common Fighters, They are a cross between Standard and Heavy Class Fighters and are mostly Multi Role capable
>>

Here I would argue that the definition of Medium Fighter is too vague both by mission role and time period to have much meaning. The Naval F-4, operating off a carrier is a 'medium' fighter by comparison with the F-111 or F-15E. Only the F/A-18, by dint of it's starting out as an LWF and 'becoming' a navalized jet can truly be labeled as medium by intent. And this due largely to the limitations of the carrier launch system and engine thrust as much as any real desire to maintain the types middle 45-48K operating gross.

>>
HAL HF-24 Marut, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SEPECAT Jaguar, F/A-18 Hornet, Mitsubishi F-1, F-35 Lightning, Mig 29, Panavia Tornado, SAAB Viggen
>>

HAL HF-24 Marut is a Hunter/Super Mystere Clone and with only roughly a 24,000lb gross and no really sophisticated missile based weapons system is entirely lacking in what I would call medium fighter characteristics. Say instead it was a limited production attempt to maximize the Hunters fighter-bomber capabilities while maintaining a bargaining position in getting best possible value for the Su-7BM which is what the Indians really wanted.

Eurofighter Typhoon
The Typhoon is in the same weight category as the F-15 and dimensionally similar to the F-4 Phantom and is thus still quite large. Intended as a frontal fighter replacement for RAF-G Phantoms and Lightnings, it combines agility compareable to the F-18 with T/Wr more akin to the Su-27 and an ARH driven weapons suite. It is not an interceptor as the optimized Tornado F.3 is and yet the high likelihood of it's employment in at least partially OCA driven taskings over a high threat area begs the question of adequate fuel fraction and signature margin.

Dassault Rafale
Is what you get when you forceably shave 2 metric tons off the EFA requirement and then try to multi-basingmode the result as a dual service weapons system. It is compromised by it's limited pylon carriage options and relatively low internal fraction for a twin. Certain technology limitations in the MICA and RBE also amplify the types shortcomings as BVR dominates over agility and the Europeans are all a little too close in emphasis to the Soviet Model for mixed agility and sprint rather than cruise performance.

What will define both these systems performances will be what happens to wingloading and mission loads when they try to increase payload:radius margins as part of a 'multirole expanded mission set' on a 500-540 square foot wing. It may well be that lift @ drag and high altitude cruise performance goes right into the sewer. Because at the higher 50-55K gross' both these jets will be operating at 'heavy weight' performance levels roughly akin to a Strike Eagles with PW220 engines.

Sepecat Jaguar
Is purely a BAI/Strike platform bought on the cheap with inadequate (for Europe especially) avionics as a consequence to the original trainer requirement under which it was created. Low installed thrust and huge wingloading issues as well as (again) limited pylon counts for 'The Certain Credit Card' RTB guarantees of EW, Self Defense and Targeting systems to offset basic fuel and primary mission payload all conspire to relegate this platform to a has been status ever since the development of LDSD and FLCS largely invalidated the manual terrain contour chase abilities of the types principal penetration mode. By avionics alone, the Jaguar is not really even a fighter, given its 16K empy, 35K gross takeoff weights, I would not say it is a medium fighter.

F/A-18 Hornet
Again probably the only 'true' middle weight fighter by definition, it is also one of the least capable. Having too few shots and too much drag to function effectively as a BVR platform and too few pylons and too poor a targeting suite to be a capable A2G system throughout it's A/B and most of it's C/D lifetime. The Bug is a jet ruled by it's 'agility' as a slow speed nose hose machine and the cockpit ergonomics which allow one man to do a job nominally better done by two. i.e. Fighter Pilots Delight rather than a truly capable multimission platform. Indeed, I would say that perhaps the building definition of a 'medium fighter' in my minds eye view of it is as a jet which requires a wingman's payload and separate mission function/management to do ONE thing well. HARM to a PGM shooter or AMRAAM slingler. In all other areas, the Bugs limited carriage mode and critically short fuel fraction just adds up to a non-compis-mentis platform that has to be drug to the target area and hand-held within it by more specialist capable mission platforms.

Mitsubishi F-1
Is an example of selling the Japanese on junk due to residual 'evil empireism' and a desire to keep one side of the Cold War hemispheric axis relatively uncompeted. Effectively a blown up Jaguar with some elements of a Mirage F-1 equivalent mission suite, it is not as effective as either parent jet while having even less goose and some serious stability problems. Given it was procured at a time when the LWF contestant features were well known there is no real justification for this aircrafts configuration (razor back, limited AShM Only payload, very high wing loading, very poor tail position) even as it's weight remains shy of what I would call 'medium' being some 3-5,000lbs less than even the Jaguars respective empty and gross weight loadings.

F-35 Lightning
While nominally 'multirole capable' the cost:risk value fraction of this machine (107 million and climbing) when operated as anything but a single configuration VLO interdictor will have a large part determining whether History sees it as an F-16 or an F-117 replacement. I myself have nothing but contempt for the platform as a mission system and multi basing-mode 'three planes, one name' engineering nightmare. Yet if only by fuel weight, it does meet the most basic of what I consider to be 'medium weight' (45-55K) fighter design requirements. It remains to be seen whether burning up 20,000lbs of gas on a 7-10hr hop to a 700nm radius where you _find no air threat_ to oppose you is itself a worthwhile endeavor compared to coming in with a much LOer signature threshold and 2-4 times the endurance on 14,000lbs of gas with a UCAV.

MiG-29
By design, this is more of a MiG-21 replacement than a MiG-23 one and as such it cannot really be rated a 'medium fighter' despite a relatively high gross weight and all the nominal trappings of a radar weapons system and multishot missile complex. Of course the Fulcrum-C and the subsequent SMT have gone a long ways to improve multirole A2G pylon capabilities. And the deletion of the auxilliary overwing inlets no doubt helps the fuel fraction in some variants. Yet the overall continuing lack of flexibility in station allocation of fuel vs. primary and self-escort munitions makes this aircraft in many ways even more restrictive than the Hornet relative to it's achieved vs. by-weight multirole fighter capabilities and in this case (wing tanks displace MRM without outboard pylon secondary uptake) not even a wingman can help you. Gross weights in the 38-41Klb region are also a little shy, though given the lack of navalization feature penalties, not all that unaccountable in comparison with the F/A-18.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Panavia Tornado
Not a fighter by my conception of the term but rather a specialized interdictor and interceptor, neither of which can do the others mission with any real capability. Neither of which can effectively engage threat fighters. Specifically: No MRM 'self defense' options in it's principle variant and operating/gross weights pressing 32,000lbs and 62,000lbs respectively (more akin to a landbased F-4), this is one of those 'wonders of variable geometry' whose real achievement will always be questionable, IMO. The Tornado lacks the gas to be an F-111. It lacks the pylons to be a PGM slinger. It lacks the multimode radar to even /try/ to be an F-15E. And yet, relative to it's installed thrust and monstrous wingloading, it has absolute performance thresholds similar to both as a _heavy weight_ interdictor. Sorry but this one just should not be in this class.

SAAB Viggen
Well lord knows it's heavy enough. But since the Swedes also took the route of separate ground attack and interception roled variant mission definitions, this amalgam of civil engine and configurationally compromised (STOL and non-RSS canard-delta planform) airframe design probably also doesn't deserve to be labelled a 'fighter' by either the intention of being able to directly engage threat air. Or the ability to swing roles between air to air and air to ground specialist roles. What saves the Thunderbolt is a decent range of ordnance and very comprehensive (for the time) avionics suite. Which, together with it's specific operational scenario (shortranged coastal defense and Bothnia/Baltic ADIZ maintenance) plus it's secondary/harsh weather threater location, make it relatively capable in dealing with the threats of the 60's and 70's. This MUST happen as a function of it's employment within the STRIL network, roadbasing and very conservative ROE (which compensate for it's minimal onboard fuel and incredibly thirsty profile intercept characteristics) however. Overall Viggen performance is actually slightly less than the Phantoms in a lot envelope areas and it's lack of equivalent missile shots and A2A EW capabilities in particular make this a jet which is generally given more credit than it deserves. People who think of it as a Hornet (slow speed dogfighter) will find themselves disappointed as the jet can be beaten, quite handily, by any teen-or-later threat which has more shots or an EM optimized performance point design. Which itself raises questions given that the JA-37 Viggen started service trials in 1978 and was nearing full service capability by 1982. Better than the Tornado but not by much and still not a 'fighter' perse, IMO.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Like the Jaguars, Shame they never went further with the 'M' variant, The Japanese Mitsubishi F-1 was basically a beefed up Jaguar with a Vulcan gun installed so it was really a Fighter/Interceptor version of the Jaguar.

The Jaguar/Mitsubishi F-1 reminds me of an F-4 Phantom or maybe the F/A-18 Hornet

You can actually buy Jaguars, '98 Harriers', Jet Provosts here
www.everettaero.com...



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join