Smallest Capable Multi-Role Fighter

[Sikkiyn]

Early production Superhornets had the APG-73, & IIRC there are still a few to be delivered with it, although the APG-79 is now entering service. Block 1 Superhornets will not be upgraded, as they have a different forward fuselage which can't accept the APG-79.

 

Hornets (not Super - F-18A & C) were built with the APG-65, as he said, except for some late model F-18C/D, e.g. those bought by Finland. Some users have since replaced the APG-65 with APG-73. IIRC Australia has, & the USN replaced the APG-65 on a large number of Hornets.

 

All E/F models are delivered with the An/APG-79.

A/B models are no longer on carrier decks. The C is the current workhorse with more E/F's arriving.

In time even the C will rotate out, since it is nearing its life expedency much quicker than anticipated: Wars happen.

The D's of course will hang around for much longer than the C's, for obvious reasons.

[swerve]

All E/F models are delivered with the An/APG-79.

 

I'm finding it hard to believe you wrote that.

 

Here's a handy timeline up to the beginning of 2005, from Boeing. Do you believe them? Note that the last entry records the delivery to Boeing of the first production APG-79, over 6 years after the delivery by Boeing to the USN of the first production F-18E

 

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/milita...fmilestones.htm

 

Here's the USN confirming the first flight of an APG-79 in an F-18E, in 2003.

 

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=9076

 

Note it says there they expect to deliver it to the fleet in 2006. They did - for OPEVAL, 7 1/2 years after delivery of the first production F-18E to the USN.

 

A/B models are no longer on carrier decks. The C is the current workhorse with more E/F's arriving.

In time even the C will rotate out, since it is nearing its life expedency much quicker than anticipated: Wars happen.

The D's of course will hang around for much longer than the C's, for obvious reasons.

 

The USA is not the only user of the F-18. F-18A/B is still in service, & will be for some time, e.g. with the RAAF..

[Sikkiyn]

I'm finding it hard to believe you wrote that.

 

Here's a handy timeline up to the beginning of 2005, from Boeing. Do you believe them? Note that the last entry records the delivery to Boeing of the first production APG-79, over 6 years after the delivery by Boeing to the USN of the first production F-18E

 

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/milita...fmilestones.htm

 

Here's the USN confirming the first flight of an APG-79 in an F-18E, in 2003.

 

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=9076

 

Note it says there they expect to deliver it to the fleet in 2006. They did - for OPEVAL, 7 1/2 years after delivery of the first production F-18E to the USN.

The USA is not the only user of the F-18. F-18A/B is still in service, & will be for some time, e.g. with the RAAF..

 

 

It's called being 1/2 asleep, and mis-typing.

Re-type, all E/F on the floor have the AESA now with 400 more units slated for purchase.

 

And of course I believe the aircraft makers, too a point.

AESA

"Long-term designed in versatility ensures the Super Hornet's investment value. Current upgrades delivered in the Block Two configuration include:

Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar "

Not the 73 which is MSA but the 79, which is the AESA.

 

The Navy story is four-years out-of-date...Release Date: 8/20/2003 5:01:00 AM

[Gunguy]

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.

 

I'm not talking UScentrics. In use against a foe, a short legged Multi-role aircraft can't do a ground and pound very far from home. If you are waiting for the enemy to come to you ,and pound you near your country and or bases, then you might get away with it. As you state, if they are adding fuel to the Gripen, it is for a very good reason. I think/believe that a lot of theories on buying equipment that turn out to be a real problem when it hits the fan. But, in the end, you have to buy what you can afford no matter what.

[swerve]

It's called being 1/2 asleep, and mis-typing.

Re-type, all E/F on the floor have the AESA now with 400 more units slated for purchase.

 

Ah well. We can all make slips like that. BTW, that 400 includes retrofits. According to Boeing, 135 earlier F-18E/Fs will be retrofitted with APG-79.

 

And of course I believe the aircraft makers, too a point.

AESA

"Long-term designed in versatility ensures the Super Hornet's investment value. Current upgrades delivered in the Block Two configuration include:

Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar "

Not the 73 which is MSA but the 79, which is the AESA.

 

Yes, they're saying that the latest version has APG-79, which has not been disputed.

 

The Navy story is four-years out-of-date...Release Date: 8/20/2003 5:01:00 AM

 

It was reporting something which had just happened, & accurately dates it. That isn't out of date. A contemporary report becomes out of date if information is later received which shows it was inaccurate, or incomplete, & that isn't true in this case.

 

If you want a current report, try this one -

 

http://pao.navair.navy.mil/press_releases/...&site_id=15

 

APG-79 was approved for full-rate production on June 25th - 3 weeks ago. I don't have any difficulty believing that the last APG-73-equipped F-18E has left the factory (enough LRIP APG-79 to fill the line), but it must have been quite recently.

[swerve]

I'm not talking UScentrics. In use against a foe, a short legged Multi-role aircraft can't do a ground and pound very far from home. If you are waiting for the enemy to come to you ,and pound you near your country and or bases, then you might get away with it. As you state, if they are adding fuel to the Gripen, it is for a very good reason. I think/believe that a lot of theories on buying equipment that turn out to be a real problem when it hits the fan. But, in the end, you have to buy what you can afford no matter what.

 

You may not see it, but you're still being US-centric.

 

If you live in Switzerland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, & many other countries, you don't have any choice: any enemy starts off on your doorstep. No point in flying 1000 km to get to the battle, when that means you've left it 800 km behind you. Quick turn round is far more valuable than long range for them.

 

Gripen was built for Swedish Air Force requirements, with exports very low on the list of priorities. They expected a target-rich environment, on their doorstep. No point in long loiter time, because you'd use all your ordnance quickly. Turnround, dispersion, quick reaction, maintainability, low cost of ownership (for peacetime, so you could afford to keep a lot ready for wartime use) - these were all high priorities. Deep strike was likely to be suicidal, since it would mean flying deep into territory full of numerically superior enemy aircraft, through a dense air defence system - then back out through it all. No chance of assembling large enough strike groups to fight through there & back.

 

You see? You're thinking in terms of rules which did not apply to the specific circumstances of Sweden when Gripen was designed. Nor do they apply to, e.g. Switzerland now.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Sikkiyn]

Now you have me curious.

 

Considering any decent sized army would be all over the place within 24 hours, and pre-positioned stocks only go so far, how do you plan on meeting the logistical requirements of any aircraft which wasn't either blasted out of the sky or caught on the tarmac?

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[swerve]

Now you have me curious.

 

Considering any decent sized army would be all over the place within 24 hours, and pre-positioned stocks only go so far, how do you plan on meeting the logistical requirements of any aircraft which wasn't either blasted out of the sky or caught on the tarmac?

 

You're thinking in the wrong terms. Still US-centric! You're not putting yourself into their position.

 

The purpose of the armed forces of Sweden, Switzerland etc. was not to fight & win a sustained war (impractical: the enemy was too powerful), but to deter aggression by making it expensive. They had far more pre-positioned stocks in relation to their strength than NATO had, & they expected them to be overrun rather than used up, unless things went much better than expected. You're thinking about how to win a war. They didn't expect to win! The odds were too great.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Sikkiyn]

The question I had, (which wasn't about nukes,) was already answered a few post back.

 

If I understand it correctly, the goal is to force attrition until the larger NATO armies show up.

[swerve]

The question I had, (which wasn't about nukes,) was already answered a few post back.

 

If I understand it correctly, the goal is to force attrition until the larger NATO armies show up.

 

Not officially. Their plans did not foresee rescue by NATO. As I said, the intention was to make the game not worth the candle, & so deter attack. If that failed, at least they'd have fought, so nobody could say they'd welcomed the invaders, as the USSR said about Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania. If the worst came to the worst, maybe they could be Finlands, having shown themselves hard to assimilate, rather than Estonias.

 

But this is all rather off-topic.

[Junior FO]

 

...

 

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[Scythe]

No it doesn't. Has frequently demonstrated, including to potential buyers, that it can get there without using A/B.

 

Since when? I'd like to see these "frequent" demonstrations that Eurofighter can supercruise.

[cybermax]

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

...

The ALR Piranha I think was smaller then the Gripen. Only a large scale model flew though.

 

http://www.alr-aerospace.ch/Piranha.php

 

Origin: Arbeitsgruppe fur Luft- und Raumfahrt, Switzerland.

Type: Light fighter.

Engine: See text; data for RB199 Mk 104 augmented turbofan of 16,000lb

(7257kg) thrust.

Dimensions: Span about 24ft (7.3m); length 37ft 9in (11 5m); height 14ft

(4.25m); wing area (main surface) 240 sq ft (22m2).

Weights: Loaded (air superiority mission) 15,190lb (6890kg).

Performance: Max speed (clean or AAMs only, hi) 1,320mph (2124km/h,

Mach 2); takeoff run (air superiority mission, SL) 1,150ft (350m); landing run

(with drag chute) 1,250ft (380m); initial climb 59,000ft (18000m/s); typical

combat radius (attack weapons, lo-lo-lo) 280 miles (450km).

Armament: One internal gun (30mm Oerlikon KCA preferred); seven external

stations for 4,410lb (2000kg) of weapons, including AAMs and all normal attack

weapons.

History: Study in progress since 1975.

User: Not yet funded.

A competent and largely professional group in Switzerland has devoted much time and private money to promoting an attractive lightweight fighter in the belief that there is a large (3,000-4,000 units) global market for such aircraft. Many of the advantages of a small fighter are obvious: lower costs of acquisition and ownership, lower training costs, higher serviceability, reduced vulnerability in combat and probably enhanced agility, and many others.

At first the Piranha was as small and simple as possible, and an early propulsion choice was two Larzac M74-07 augmented turbofans. This gave way to the RT.172-58 Adour, and pressure of increased mission demands and higher performance has now forced concentration on the R B199 with the GE F404 as a second choice. Inevitably this puts the Piranha squarely into the same class as the superficially similar JAS39. How, then, can this private proposal hope to succeed?

ALR would reply that their project is even smaller and simpler than the Swedish aircraft, and also offers significant advantages over the F-20A Tigershark and other existing aircraft. It has a flapped canard and wing trailing-edge "flaperons" all controlled by a digital FBW system, though the dogtooth wing leading edge is fixed. By 1984 the wing had grown in size from the 16m2 of all previous studies to the figure given above, to achieve higher sustained and instantaneous turn rates. If ever an unofficial fighter project deserved to succeed, this does, if only for the decade of effort behind it.

[Sven Arvidsson]

The question I had, (which wasn't about nukes,) was already answered a few post back.

 

If I understand it correctly, the goal is to force attrition until the larger NATO armies show up.

Sorry for the OT, but here goes:

 

As Junior FO said dissuasion was the name of the game. But unlike Switzerland, Swedish military planning did indeed make room for some assistance from NATO forces in the case of a WP/Soviet attack. Not perhaps that it strictly counted on it, Article 5 and all that, but it definitedly figured extenstively in both strategic and operational planning. One has to remember that a NATO-friendly and Soviet-hostile Sweden would cover a large area of NATO's northern flank and perhaps provide convenient bases for more short ranged strike aircraft sorties across the Baltic Sea, so it was not just Sweden that was interested in a bit of mutually benificient cooperation. In the 60's and 70's and up through the 80's there was low-key bilateral cooperation primarily with USA, UK, Norway and Denmark. Officially it was all strict non alliance and neutrality doctrine bleating from our dear leadership, regardless of their political flavour, but in reality quite a lot of preparations were made for interacting with NATO. Or perhaps I'd better say NATO countries, since there was no interaction with NATO as such, but rather with individual countries which were percieved to be interested in and interesting for military cooperation. Assistance with ground forces were not anticipated in any larger scale since it was assumed that in case of war they'd occupied elsewhere.

 

For the abnormally interested, I'd recommend Robert Dalsjö's book "Life-Line Lost - The Rise and Fall of 'Neutral' Sweden's Secret Reserve Option of Wartime Help from the West". While much of the actual planning is still secret, one can begin to outline an extensive cooperation which went deeper than was commonly thought around here just a few years ago. Here in Sweden I doubt we've heard the last of NATO cooperation preparations during our supposedly non-alliance Cold War years.

 

Back to topic, sorry for the digression.

[Guest pfcem]

Since when? I'd like to see these "frequent" demonstrations that Eurofighter can supercruise.

I'd like to see even one. The only place I have seen it is in unsupported posts on internet forums. I have yet to see or find ANY reliable source to back such claims.

 

Mach 1.3-1.4 CLEAN is believable but with external stores is well...

 

And whatever the Typhoon can do with external stores the F-35 should EASILY do with a full load of internal fuel, two AMRAAM & two JDAM internally.

[DB]

Since when? I'd like to see these "frequent" demonstrations that Eurofighter can supercruise.

Tell me, do you believe that unless you see it, nothing happens?

 

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ap_pd_gi.asp

 

Look at the very bottom of this page, which is on the official Eurofighter consortium website.

 

It should leave you in no doubt.

 

.

.

.

 

To make it easy, this is what it says:

Supercruise capability and Dry Power Acceleration from Sub to >Supersonic

 

.

.

.

 

 

But I expect you to quibble because it doesn't say what mach number can be achieved, and doesn't say what weapons are carried at the time, and besides, the manufacturers would lie wouldn't they? I mean, it's obviously the product of some Yurropeen degenerates, so can't be worth anything. I mean, they're not even proper democracies, are they? Some of them are even subjects.

 

David

[Scythe]

Tell me, do you believe that unless you see it, nothing happens?

 

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ap_pd_gi.asp

 

Look at the very bottom of this page, which is on the official Eurofighter consortium website.

 

It should leave you in no doubt.

 

.

.

.

 

To make it easy, this is what it says:

.

.

.

But I expect you to quibble because it doesn't say what mach number can be achieved, and doesn't say what weapons are carried at the time, and besides, the manufacturers would lie wouldn't they? I mean, it's obviously the product of some Yurropeen degenerates, so can't be worth anything. I mean, they're not even proper democracies, are they? Some of them are even subjects.

 

David

 

Wow, what's with the attitude? Is that supposed to make me sorry for ever doubting the Eurofighter? Or is that just a thing people do here? Cause it happens ALOT. I simply asked for a clarification (after all, it was said that it has been frequently demonstrated, so I don't see this as an unusual request), but hey, if it grinds your gears as much as it obviously does, then sorry for asking I guess.

[TDHM]

Wow, what's with the attitude? Is that supposed to make me sorry for ever doubting the Eurofighter? Or is that just a thing people do here? Cause it happens ALOT. I simply asked for a clarification (after all, it was said that it has been frequently demonstrated, so I don't see this as an unusual request), but hey, if it grinds your gears as much as it obviously does, then sorry for asking I guess.

 

Scythe, if I'm correct, most of the ire in that post wasn't directed at you, but another poster.

[swerve]

Wow, what's with the attitude? Is that supposed to make me sorry for ever doubting the Eurofighter? Or is that just a thing people do here? Cause it happens ALOT. I simply asked for a clarification (after all, it was said that it has been frequently demonstrated, so I don't see this as an unusual request), but hey, if it grinds your gears as much as it obviously does, then sorry for asking I guess.

 

It's routine. You'd have to go through the logs of the manufacturers & 4 air forces to find all the occasions. I wish I could find out why Americans - and AFAIK only Americans - have a problem accepting it, & are constantly asking for confirmation.

 

One occasion I know it was demonstrated publicly was in 2004 in Singapore, for the benefit of the RSAF & the press. Dry thrust all the way from brakes off to >M1.2 (sustained), with AAMs, in high ambient temperatures. It's been reported that Singaporean pilots also supercruised in Typhoon. Current production engines produce more power in dry thrust than back then, & it's supposedly done more than that with AAMs & a drop tank, & reportedly M1.5 with AAMs only. Neither the manufacturers nor the consortium air forces will say on the record exactly what speed, in exactly what configuration. They show potential customers, of course, & some of them (e.g. the Singaporeans) are on record confirming it. It's said to have first supercruised (clean) during tests in 1997, apparently unplanned: it accelerated a bit more than the test pilot expected.

 

The official website of the Luftwaffe says it can supercruise - even uses the English word.

 

"Der Eurofighter kann ohne Nachbrenner in den Überschallbereich beschleunigen und über längere Zeit mit Überschall fliegen. Über diese Möglichkeit, die als Supercruise bezeichnet wird, verfügen zur Zeit nur wenige Kampfflugzeuge."

 

http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/ - click on "Waffen und Technik"

Edited July 13, 2007 by swerve

[Guest pfcem]

Tell me, do you believe that unless you see it, nothing happens?

 

http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ap_pd_gi.asp

 

Look at the very bottom of this page, which is on the official Eurofighter consortium website.

 

It should leave you in no doubt.

 

.

.

.

 

To make it easy, this is what it says:

.

.

.

But I expect you to quibble because it doesn't say what mach number can be achieved, and doesn't say what weapons are carried at the time, and besides, the manufacturers would lie wouldn't they? I mean, it's obviously the product of some Yurropeen degenerates, so can't be worth anything. I mean, they're not even proper democracies, are they? Some of them are even subjects.

 

David

Sorry DB but that does not help.

 

I don't think anybody doubts that the Typhoon can supercruise - PLENTY of 4th generation fighters can (clean & with a light AAM load).

 

What has yet to be supported & is so hard to believe is that the Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.3-1.4 with a combat load (IIRC the claim is with 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 2 drop tanks). The AAMs don't add a whole lot of drag but two wing-mounted drop tanks sure as hell do.

[wallaby bob]

Sorry DB but that does not help

 

PFCEM. You are of course entitled to your beliefs. It's only when the expand to become predjucies that they become questionable. The whole matter of this reminds me of the Wright brothers difficulty of convincing the Europeans that they had achieved powered and Controlled flight. The boot was on the other foot then as the US was considered to be the technologically backward region.

As to those who believe that" if I didn't see" it it didn't happen I can only shake my head in sympathy. We do live in a world which is interconnected by communications and of course LYING media and manufacturers's brochures. The need for some, but not all Defence secrecy"

certainly exists but seriously how many of us can be present at such demonstrarions that do take place AND with all the required instrumentation for their true assessment. Cynicism is a useful tool but can not be universally applied. WB

[Guest pfcem]

PFCEM. You are of course entitled to your beliefs.

As are you. My beliefs in this matter are founded on knowledge.

 

 

 

It's only when the expand to become predjucies that they become questionable.

The predjuce is on the other side. Again I have no problem with the claim tha the Typhoon can supercruise but with the unsubstantiated claim that it can supercruise at Mach 1.3-1.4 with 4 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM + 2 drop tanks (some have even substatuted 1000kg bombs for the drop tanks). It is funny how those that believe the Typhoon can do that but think it impossible for the F-35 to supercruise.

 

 

 

As to those who believe that" if I didn't see" it it didn't happen I can only shake my head in sympathy.

I don't believe it because I happen to know quite a bit about aircraft & flight dynamics. And of coarse I have seen nothing reliable to indicate that it is true.

 

 

 

We do live in a world which is interconnected by communications and of course LYING media and manufacturers's brochures. The need for some, but not all Defence secrecy" certainly exists but seriously how many of us can be present at such demonstrarions that do take place AND with all the required instrumentation for their true assessment. Cynicism is a useful tool but can not be universally applied.

True. But... there IS a difference between what is believeable based on ones own knowledge & what "doesn't pass the smell test".