Smallest Capable Multi-Role Fighter

[DesertFox]

How small is the smallest that a multi-role fighter could be built today (assuming Western technology)

 

The smallest I know is the JAS 39 Gripen

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen

 

edit: Noted that the F-20 is actually lighter than the Gripen and it uses the same engine.

That asks a question of why the Gripen can supercruise while I have never read that the F-20 could

Edited July 8, 2007 by DesertFox

[gewing]

How small is the smallest that a multi-role fighter could be built today (assuming Western technology)

 

The smallest I know is the JAS 39 Gripen

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen

 

edit: Noted that the F-20 is actually lighter than the Gripen and it uses the same engine.

That asks a question of why the Gripen can supercruise while I have never read that the F-20 could

What was the weight of the A-4 skyhawk?

 

Aerodynamic shaping, probably.

[DesertFox]

What was the weight of the A-4 skyhawk?

 

Aerodynamic shaping, probably.

 

Just a little less than the F-20 and more than the F-5.....

 

The F-20 has extremely clean lines.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[DesertFox]

Apparently the definition of "Supercruise" varies quite a bit.

 

Explain?

[DesertFox]

According to Wiki, these fighters ca supercruise and several I question:

 

Aircraft with supercruise include:

 

* BAC TSR-2

* Concorde

* Dassault-Breguet Rafale

* English Electric Lightning

* Eurofighter Typhoon

* F-4 Phantom II (Israeli "Super Phantom" variant)

* F-14B/D

* F-15C (in an unweaponised state)

* F-15E/K

* General Dynamics F-16C Block 50/52

* General Dynamics F-16XL

* F-22 Raptor

* HAL HF-24 Marut[2]

* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-31

* Sukhoi Su-27

* Sukhoi Su-30

* Sukhoi Su-35

* Sukhoi Su-37

* Sukhoi Su-47

* HAL Tejas (Prototype flew at Mach 1.4 in an unweaponised state)

* Tupolev Tu-144

* Tupolev Tu-128

* XB-70 Valkyrie

* YF-23 Black Widow II

[p620346]

As I understand it, supercruise indicate the ability to fly supersonic WITHOUT having to use the afterburner(s).

[Sven Arvidsson]

As I understand it, supercruise indicate the ability to fly supersonic WITHOUT having to use the afterburner(s).

Yes, but add "with a useful payload" to that sentence and the list shrinks a bit, I'd imagine. Gripen has notoriuosly short legs in "loaded for bear"-mode as well. Of course, when it was designed it didn't need very much range.

 

As for the original question, I'd say that doing away with the pilot would save a lot of space and weight. UCAV, provided the technology is ready of course.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Archie Pellagio]

Dear God I see where this thread is going already...

 

Lets just be done with it.

 

F/A-18E is better than Su-27 unless the flanker is armed with 8" guns in triple turrets, then only an F-22 can defeat it...

 

Nothing to see here folks...

[shep854]

Well, it depends on how many roles and how well you want them performed. The more, the bigger.

[Gunguy]

A very small multi-role jet is worthless in real use. The severe lack of range (flying time) means that it can't really do anything without running out of fuel. It is VERY easy to run out of fuel on real missions. This is why the F15E, Super Hornet, F-22 and F-35 all have more range than the earlier aircraft. Without fuel nothing gets done. Well, I gues the pilots could grab a quick cold one at the O'club..

Edited July 8, 2007 by Gunguy

[Sikkiyn]

How small is the smallest that a multi-role fighter could be built today (assuming Western technology)

 

The smallest I know is the JAS 39 Gripen

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen

 

edit: Noted that the F-20 is actually lighter than the Gripen and it uses the same engine.

That asks a question of why the Gripen can supercruise while I have never read that the F-20 could

 

The smallest jet fighter I know of was the XF-85 Goblin, a parasite fighter.

Currently they are toying around with the X-43A hypersonic aircraft, which has already achieved Mach 9.8.

 

The tech for a UAV fighter is already here, unfortunately AI isn't up to speed in providing an uber-ego personality to go with it.

NWS (not work safe due to language.)

[DesertFox]

Yes, but add "with a useful payload" to that sentence and the list shrinks a bit, I'd imagine. Gripen has notoriuosly short legs in "loaded for bear"-mode as well. Of course, when it was designed it didn't need very much range.

 

Ok, the Gripen should be classified as a strictly short range fighter?

 

 

A very small multi-role jet is worthless in real use. The severe lack of range (flying time) means that it can't really do anything without running out of fuel. It is VERY easy to run out of fuel on real missions. This is why the F15E, Super Hornet, F-22 and F-35 all have more range than the earlier aircraft. Without fuel nothing gets done. Well, I gues the pilots could grab a quick cold one at the O'club..

 

Touche

[Nandai]

The LCA Tejas is a small fighter, somewhat smaller even than the Gripen if I remember correctly.

[DesertFox]

The LCA Tejas is a small fighter, somewhat smaller even than the Gripen if I remember correctly.

 

Only slightly from what I have seen and the F-20 was even smaller.

 

Would people of the board consider the F-5 to be a modern fighter?

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[seahawk]

In an upgraded form - why not ?

 

But even if you look at the F-5 and the use in Nam it shows that a small multirole fighter is only of limited use, or only useful to small nations which have to cover only a limited terrain.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Corinthian]

F/A-18E is better than Su-27 unless the flanker is armed with 8" guns in triple turrets, then only an F-22 can defeat it...

 

Nothing to see here folks...

 

You forgot that gun camera footage of the superbug and the F-22. Damning evidence of the inferiority of the F-22 for sure. Make more F6Fs!

[Scythe]

How small is the smallest that a multi-role fighter could be built today (assuming Western technology)

 

The smallest I know is the JAS 39 Gripen

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAS_39_Gripen

 

edit: Noted that the F-20 is actually lighter than the Gripen and it uses the same engine.

That asks a question of why the Gripen can supercruise while I have never read that the F-20 could

 

Since when can the Gripen supercruise?

[Sven Arvidsson]

A very small multi-role jet is worthless in real use. The severe lack of range (flying time) means that it can't really do anything without running out of fuel. It is VERY easy to run out of fuel on real missions. This is why the F15E, Super Hornet, F-22 and F-35 all have more range than the earlier aircraft. Without fuel nothing gets done. Well, I gues the pilots could grab a quick cold one at the O'club..

Ah, so "real use" is now defined as "use according to USian post-2001 needs and doctrines"? God spare us from US-centrics...

 

Even shortlegged multirole fighters were and are perfectly adequate for some - taking the Gripen as an example, it's designated role was defending Swedish airspace against Soviet aircraft and blowing anything with red star markings off the surface of the Baltic Sea by means of sea skimmers. Nah, obviously not a "real mission" but one does ones best. These unreal missions did not require much range or an enormous payload, but emphasized other aspects such as ease of maintenance, remarkable STOL performance, capacity to operate from primitive and dispersed road bases and very short turnaround times even with a conscript ground crew. If this makes it worthless for todays needs for the USAF, so be it. For smaller countries with different needs and doctrines a smaller and less expensive fighter might very well be a good investment.

 

In other news: the projected Gripen demonstrator will, among other things, have the main landing gear moved from the hull to the wings in order to free up space for more fuel, possibly making it slightly less useless for real use.

[DesertFox]

Since when can the Gripen supercruise?

 

I had read it somewhere. It does have a high thrust to weight ratio so I though it was not completely unreasonable.

[EvanDP]

In an upgraded form - why not ?

 

But even if you look at the F-5 and the use in Nam it shows that a small multirole fighter is only of limited use, or only useful to small nations which have to cover only a limited terrain.

The X-29 forward swept wing conversion of the F-20 was really nice. To bad it was only a demo.

[wallaby bob]

The X-29 forward swept wing conversion of the F-20 was really nice. To bad it was only a demo.

EVAN DP. MY thought well not entirely mine alone obviously. Manouverable fighters, or at least their prototypes or is that merely projections tried and untried seem to come and go. Somewhat like the weather. I guess timing is EVERTHING. When the aquisition authorities of various services US and other want a big all-purpose fighter with everything and cost is not an immediate issue one get's f15,F14 types and similar if money and technology are available. When Stealth becomes the flavour of the month, and nobody can dispute it's advantages in many many situations roles, out come the F22s and arguably the F117s. The latter reportedly mainly deployed in a light bomber role .Aircraft numbers are reduced to almost miniscule proportions. The advantages of having a larger number of capable fighters available seems to disappear as a consideration for Staffs and naturally is never above the horizon for "beancounters" .

The composite tecnology needed for the aeroelastic wing of the X29 did however appear to be pretty well cutting edge, no pun intended, and may well have been difficult to translate into mass production.

Does anyone have Internet sources which give details of the Indian Folland Gnats against Pakistani F86 Sabres? By no means an exact, or maybe even a comparable, analogy to the situation facing today's Staffs but none the less interesting at least to me. WB