Is super sonic speed necessary? Wouldn`t some transsonic fighter

>>30522952
>local country's air force destroyed by a single MiG-31

>>30522952
Depends on what "small country" you're referring to, but if it's strictly for defense, SAMs are the best option.

SAMspam™ is best if your country is really small.

>>30522952

Building or buying a fast jet is trivial, so why would you deliberately downgrade to a slow one?

File: cowboy bebop.jpg (51KB, 462x343px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 462x343px

>>30523088
Something like small Balkan sates.

>>30523111
That can be true, but the lack of mobility and ability to do troop support can be a setback.

I am wondering if is it possible to make a relatively cheap but effective fighter. Sure it won`t come anywhere close to a proper super sonic air superiority fighter but it sure is better than nothing or using very old soviet stuff.

>>30522952
Sprey pls go.

Though from the perspective of a smaller African or South American country that only needs to roll on their neighbors or insurgents, that is actually an economically feasible way to do it.

>>30523129
I am just wondering, that`s all.

Also a part of me miss the old designs, they were so sleek...

>>30523152

This is like asking if you could defeat an M1 with a Tiger while you've got Leo 2's.

>>30523150
Yeah, less fuel consumption and perhaps things get worn out slower.

>>30522952
its less about top speed, its about thrust to weight and acceleration. any sort of turn fight will be subsonic, but because the aircraft need to accelerate quickly and climb well they need to be powerful.

An offshoot of having a powerful aircraft is going fast.

File: image.jpg (204KB, 1024x461px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1024x461px

>>30523147
Hi there.

>>30523193
That makes sense, thanks.
I guess it can not be avoided then.

>>30523179
You may be right, I am just worried for my crappy country that`s all.

We have like a dozen jets, that may be fancy. I think it would be reasonable to have like a lot more in less expensive models so they can cover more airspace and actually be there to protect the country instead of just being all killed by a stray su27/f15.

I guess I am just an idiot. Sorry anon.

>>30523210
I guess that will do.
/thread

>>30523147
The Balkans would be best off with top quality Russian jets, at least politically.

Now, South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa, they could use turboprops.

>>30523150
>Sprey pls go.

Having a subsonic, BVR combat based fighter with good avionics is the polar opposite of Sprey's opinion.

File: AIR_FA-50_Labeled_KAI_lg.gif (51KB, 675x584px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 675x584px

>>30523147
Like this (or any "heavy LIFT - super light fighter"?

>Supersonic - Match 1.5
>Elbit 2032 Radar - BVR compatible
>Almost 4000kg of weaponry on 7 hardpoints
>IFR

Sounds like a nice light fighter for a small country
ONly drawback is that with a nose so small, the radar is shortened in range to about 45km (it limits BVR range).

File: F6D Missileer artist concept web.jpg (223KB, 1600x982px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1600x982px

>>30522952
The US Navy already thought that, they realized that the moment you run out of missiles all you have is a slow aircraft that can neither fight or escape the enemy. and so the Navy invested in the F-111 then finally bought the F-14

Depends on doctrine. If you can afford to maintain constant patrols, speed isn't quite as important.

Supersonic speed isn't all about that top speed, its about power and acceleration. If you intend to just have a missile chucker, you might be able to get away with it, but you are going to have sluggish performance all around. Turn rate and overall agility will be poor, along with climb rate.

Again, if you can afford to keep your fleet at high altitude, you can maintain an an energy advantage against lower and faster planes. If you can't, you need that thrust to gain altitude and speed quickly, which means an engine powerful enough to push past Mach 1.

What you're describing has been done, kind of. BAe Hawk and a few others fill the role, but they are mostly used for light ground attack and not air defence/intercept.

>>30523210
What could have been...

I understand why USAF didn't like it, but it would have made an excellent front line fighter for other air forces.

>>30526136
With modern data modems and such, wouldn't it be possible to use an AWACS or ground based radars to direct missiles fired from an aircraft?

>>30527879
>I understand why USAF didn't like it, but it would have made an excellent front line fighter for other air forces.
It's momma, the F-5 did make an excellent front line fighter in many air forces. It's *still* a front line fighter in South Korea, Taiwan, and a bunch of lesser countries, and the USN/USMC uses them for aggressor training.

What could have been indeed.

>>30528704
And for shits and giggles, just looked over at Controller. There's an F-5A for a cool half-mil available right now.

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/1394009/1968-northrop-f-5a