Light Fighter

>>32367864

Light fighters will have their role replaced by large drones with passive AI's controlled by 5th/6th gen fighter bomber setups like a scaled up shmup option.

>>32367864
Stealth technology greatly instead the effectiveness of ECM by greatly reducing the wattage of the true return signal.

Light fighters don't have the space or spare power to carry good ECM or effective detection equipment unless they accept truly pathetic range.

I suppose a transsonic stealth fighter that concentrates on efficient aerodynamics and good ECM could excel against 4th gen or 4.5 gen fighters with just an EOTAS style detection system and WVR missiles like AIM9X, etc, but the trouble is that it's the features like combining stealth with aerodynamic efficiency, Eotas, data links and management, and good ECM that make 5th gen airframes so expensive to develop, so if you've got the money to develop a half assed 5th gen light fighter, you've got the money to get a real 5th gen instead of a half assed light fighter, and actually get BVR utility and decent range.

>>32368872
>greatly instead the effectiveness of ECM
Greatly increases, rather.

>>32368676
WOAH THERE BUDDY

File: spaghetti mess.jpg (20KB, 375x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 375x360px

>>32367864
Or you could just have them remotely piloted like drones just like the planes that flew into the towers.
> bet you didnt know that

File: VNAF_F5A.jpg (72KB, 1438x1152px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1438x1152px

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like light fighters are going to be viable into the future (at least for major powers).

The general idea of light fighters is to trade performance aspects like range and payload for cost, but with the way technology is pushing, the cost reductions really don't appear to be worth it. The most important elements of fighters nowadays - and even moreso going into the future - are the avionics, which aren't something you can really scale down like you can many other elements of the design. As stealth comes into play and BVR missiles get increasingly effective, powerful radars and a sophisticated avionics suite are becoming a necessity, and the performance of those systems tends to suffer too much when the focus is on low costs.

The Gripen NG and newest F-16 variants up on the market are a good example of this. Both suffer heavily compared to "full-sized" fighters like the Rafale, Typhoon, and even the F-35. They both are outclassed in terms of combat radius and payload by the larger fighters - the F-16 has a big problem with this, with drop tanks being pretty much a standard loadout - and yet they offer only marginally better prices than the competitors, if any savings at all compared to the "full-sized" alternatives. The F-16 Block 60, for example, was quoted to the UAE at something like $100 million apiece, making it already more expensive than the F-35. Sure you could argue that economies of scale are part of the reason for the price disparity here, but the point still stands - there really isn't a way to make a viable light fighter anymore.

File: a01203c19c152e9fbf7fb8287946569a[1].jpg (64KB, 637x800px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 637x800px

>>32371167
In theory light fighters could prove acceptable in defensive situations, in combo with SAMs. You cannot provide ground support without flying close to or over enemy airspace, much less interdict grout targets. That provides an opportunity for a light fighter to get close enough to negate some of the advantages of stealth and BVR missiles.

I say in theory because that tactic has been tried before in the past, and the greater numbers of the light fighters have never managed to outweigh their heavy losses. There is potential for this to change with UCAVs however.

File: Northrop F-5AB Freedom Fighter and the F-5EF Tiger II Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) (4).jpg (43KB, 1024x679px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1024x679px

>>32371408
the problem isn't that their range is short or their payload is poor, however - it's that the disparity in avionics makes them not worth the effort. The fighter with the better avionics is going to see the other and get their shot off first, and with the way that air engagements tend to go, the first shot will be the last - either the target is downed or it flees. The light fighter would never have the opportunity to engage in a way that would give it any real advantage.

The way to go seems to be more of the Hi-Lo strategy that the USAF has. A full-on light fighter like the F-5 just isn't viable anymore.

File: ucav-lm[1].jpg (22KB, 444x535px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 444x535px

>>32371552
An aircraft can only engage a certain number of targets at once. Multiple light fighters coming in from multiple directions would strain even the most advanced of modern fighters.

But that does still necessitate that the light fighters take greater casualties than the advanced ones. Historically, motivating pilots to keep advancing on an aircraft that has shot down several of their fellows has been a huge barrier to the light fighter concept. UCAVs could solve this.

The Hi-Lo strategy is great, for the USAF. But the increasing costs of modern fighters ensures most countries will only have a handful of "Lo" fighters and no "Hi" fighters at all.

>>32371700
>Multiple light fighters coming in from multiple directions would strain even the most advanced of modern fighters.
That's what AWACS is for. There's no sneaking up on an AWACS controlled airspace with 5th gen cap up. It just doesn't happen. Also, all these fighters would have to come from somewhere and unless someone makes a fuckhuge booboo in the intel shack, there would be a standing minimum CAP up in the air to meet a mass strike which can collapse down on the point of their attack.

There is simply no real way for a light fighter to be relevant in a high end 4th gen fight, much less a 5th gen fight. Not to mention completely giving up on air superiority, CAS, strike, interdiction, airborne ISR, EVERYTHING every time the sun goes down or there's poor weather. That's just fucking bonkers.

>aluminum steel alloys
mfw

>>32371408
The plane in your pic looks pretty aesthetic. Is it at all viable?

File: lockheed_martin_sabre_warrior_ucav_by_bagera3005-d4fvjzh.png[1].jpg (98KB, 733x1091px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 733x1091px

>>32372437
>That's what AWACS is for.

Hence why I said "in defensive situations". You can't fly AWACS in hostile territory, they're SAM magnets. That leaves a capability gap a light fighter could exploit.

Let's have a real world example. Say there's a front line position the USAF would dearly like blown to hell. The bad guys know this, so they've taken the precaution of stationing an S-400 Triumf 30 miles away. The S-400 has a range of about 250 miles, so there is no way in hell an AWACS is getting any closer than that. An E-3 Sentry only has a radar range of about 200 miles. AWACS can't even be able to tell if an aircraft is circling directly over the target site, to say nothing of aircraft positioned farther into hostile territory. So it falls down to the attacking aircraft using passive sensors because again, massive SAM site, to detect incoming aircraft.

This is one of the missions the USAF trains for, and one the F-35 and its advanced sensors was built for. But that doesn't remove the fact that this is still a risky task for the USAF.

(and because I know you'll bring this up, yes I know about anti-radiation missiles. There are ways of dealing with them, although none ideal. The USAF holds an undeniable advantage in this, or really any, scenario).

>>32372651
It's a concept by Lockheed Martin for an optionally manned carrier aircraft from the 90s. The whole thing was more a PR exercise on Lockheed's part than anything. The technology isn't here today to build this aircraft, much less then.

>>32372792
Can you tell me any more about what technology would've made that Sabre Warrior special, and what its capabilties would have been?

inb4 lmgtfy, I like being told stories.

>>32372612
Surprisingly enough, those are actually in development. Current manufacturing results in the alloy being too brittle, but there are developmemts to modulate the grain structure, which would greatly increase ductility.
While I wouldn't buy the tagline of "titanium performance at 1/10th the cost", even 80% of titanium's advantage at 70% the cost would be impressive.

File: SABRE-WARRIOR-lm_03-1[1].jpg (26KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 550x413px

>>32372917
Here's nice a promo vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDenDFKhWN8

The Sabre is an artifact of a fairly stressful time for Lockheed. The Soviet Union had just fallen. Military budgets were falling worldwide. The contracts for the F-22 and F-35 had just be awarded, but the future seemed very unclear.

Lockheed was worried. Although they had won competitions to build both the F-22 and the F-35, they were in no way feeling safe. With the failure of the Tristar, they had been forced to pull out of the commercial aircraft sector. The military was all they had. Frontline fighter aircraft are usually replaced after 20 years, so in the 2015-2020 era a new fighter competition would be held to replace the F-22 and F-35. If Lockheed were shut out of that competition, it would be the end of them.

And so to gain a leg up on that competition, Lockheed created the Saber Warrior. A new aircraft for the 21st century, the Sabre would feature every technology envisioned for a future fighter. With UCAV capabilities, advanced stealth features, modular components, and an integrated networked control system, the Sabre was more advanced than any aircraft system ever before proposed.

There was only one problem: there was no way in hell Lockheed could build it. The concept was a sham, nothing more than pixels on a screen. Lockheed didn't even bother to plan out the interior, which would have to be filled with technology that wouldn't be invented for 15+ years. The point was never to present a workable concept fighter aircraft, but present an image of Lockheed as a forward thinking company. A company on the leading edge of technology, now and forever, and should definitely get first dibs on any future fighter contracts...

File: f8dbe6067b63[1].jpg (182KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1920x1080px

>>32373116
Of course, we all know what really happened. There was no competition for the replacement of the F-22 and F-35 in 2015. Costs of new military aircraft ballooned, timetables slipped, and now it looked like we'll be using those 90's era aircraft until at least the 2050s. And so the Sabre Warrior quietly slipped away, leaving nothing more than a few interesting pictures.

>>32372792
>Let's have a real world example. Say there's a front line position the USAF would dearly like blown to hell. The bad guys know this, so they've taken the precaution of stationing an S-400 Triumf 30 miles away. The S-400 has a range of about 250 miles, so there is no way in hell an AWACS is getting any closer than that
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING, we have someone who actually knows the real threat of these long ranged SAMs! They push back your supporting assets: AEW-C, tankers, and suitably large jammers. The missiles really don't have the best chances of hitting fighters at those ranges. Large aircraft, not so much.

Although I would note that the E-3 does have more range than you give it credit for. 250+ miles optimized against low altitude targets, circa 400 miles for medium to high altitude targets. Even so, it's not the sort of range you'd like.

I'd also like to emphasize your statement that ARMs aren't the be all end all. You want to physically kill the system, not just the search radars, which can be turned off or have decoys. DEAD, not SEAD.

>>32371700
Here's a talk you might find interesting. Towards the end (IIRC, but I haven't watched the thing in a year so cut me some slack there), he makes a prognostication of what a 6th generation aircraft might look like. I have to agree with his assessment, and based on what you've said I think you'll agree with the braod strokes as well. That part in particular is what I want you to see, but the talk as a whole is definitely worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmGRn7GirS0

File: hiigaran_interceptor_by_universaali-d9zgg9i.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>32373116
>those designs
Great, we are the origin story for the Hiigarans.

>>32373173
>DEAD, not SEAD.
I've been saying exactly this for years.
It also happens to be one of the main advantages of stealth aircraft- not the ability to evade air defenses to strike behind them, but rather the ability to get close enough to kill them without getting shot down- a F-22/35 with 8 SDBs can clear a nice wide path in the enemy's IADS to allow nonstealthy aircraft to operate.

File: i-am-a-mushroom-woven-patch-11443-p[1].jpg (76KB, 497x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 497x600px

>>32373173
The USAF officially says the E-3's radar range is "greater than 200 miles", which is of course bullshit. Russia says the S-400's operation range is "greater than 250 miles", which is of course also bullshit. I like to think the dual bullshit cancels itself out, but until we see the real deal we'll never know.

But imo, in the end this strategy would hardly slow down the US military. I have met a wide variety of US military aviators from all branches, and they are some of the most intelligent people I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. A shifty tactic like this, which relies heavily on your opponent not expecting it, won't work on them twice. Hell, I doubt it would work once.

>>32373187
>hour long air combat analysis video I somehow managed to have not seen
But Anon, Christmas isn't for another week

File: AK_inter19.jpg (373KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 800x564px

>>32373215
Taiidan > Vaygr > Hiigaran > Kushan

At least for fighters.

>>32373116
>>32373120

Thanks for the tale.
Pretty pictures they certainly are.

File: 1477778485028.jpg (1MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1200px

>>32367864
>Spreyfags are back

your arguments were dismantled by technological advances in the 1970s and they're being dismantled again as we speak. The light fighter is a meme unless your GDP is less than $5.00. Give it up already you hacks.

Oh yeah also this is a Gen 4+ thread now. Post 4.5th and 5th Generation fighters.

File: 1481061195526.jpg (2MB, 3000x2100px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2100px

>>32368872
I suppose a transsonic stealth fighter that concentrates on efficient aerodynamics and good ECM could excel against 4th gen or 4.5 gen fighters with just an EOTAS style detection system and WVR missiles like AIM9X

Yeah good luck actually finding your targets without the IADS/AEW&C capability that your country can't afford because it's been forced to depend on a transonic fighter without a radar for 5th gen capability in the first place ya hacks

File: 1479637690635.jpg (2MB, 3000x2357px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2357px

>>32373116
The Sabre Warrior looks like a combination of the F-35 and the X-32 and it's pretty nice. Shame it will never be real

>>32371408
>Mosquito II
GO AHEAD

File: MantaWIG01res[1].jpg (115KB, 800x406px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x406px

>>32373262
You can also admire pics of the X-44 Manta (basically a tailless F-22) and the Cormorant (a submarine launched UCAV that somehow managed to survive until 2008). Their stories are basically the same. There's also the Northrop Switchblade, which is Northrop's version (not to be confused with the Northrop Grumman Switchblade, which is again the same basic concept but came out in 2010 because NG didn't have any military contracts coming up at the time and they were getting desperate)

>>32373329
The 90s are my absolute favorite time for military concept art. Personal highlights are the Stealth Trimaran Aircraft Carrier (the orgial plan for what became the Ford class), the Mobile Offshore Base (a seaborne FOB), the Bell Quadrotor (two ospreys stuck together), and the Avpro Manta/Marauder (Ground effect vehicles for every occasion!)

Avpro is just perfect. Never got a single contract, but they produced more high quality concept art in the 90s than everyone else combined.

>>32373256
>tfw the Taiidan were the original player 1 race but marketing thought the space banana was better looking for a hero ship than a space VCR.

>>32367864

You realize the whole reason why the Shinshin is so small is because it is not a complete aircraft? It is purely a demonstrator and test plane. It is missing several key features that the real production model would need to have. The real production model (in the unlikely event that there actually is a production model) would be much bigger. Larger than the F-22.

>>32367864
>Shinshin
ORE WA

File: AK_beegee6.jpg (187KB, 800x454px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x454px

>>32373397
Ah well, it makes sense in-universe too. Taiidan spacecraft just look a lot more sophisticated than the Kushan bricks; so they really suit the theme of thousand-year-old-empire and peaceful-migrants-what-we-have-fight-now.

That said, it does not make sense that they perform identically.

Have some concept art. No more though, since we're being a bit OT here.

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

51KB, 675x584px

Its a shame, I'd love to see the T/FA-50 come into wider use as a replacement for the F-5.

File: 0115141430c.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32372792

>>32371167
>The most important elements of fighters nowadays - and even moreso going into the future - are the avionics, which aren't something you can really scale down like you can many other elements of the design
I always wondered.

I know the big drawback of my idea but how much of problem it is.

Let's say that you'll make a fighter wing composed of 3 actual light fighters and 1 avionic carrier with only basic armament. All wired together into network of sorts. Obviously as soon as the enemy finds a way of detecting the avionics carrier they will start focusing it and every accident this one specific plane will have(let's say engine failure so it has to do emergency landing) will take out entire wing from combat, but are those problems actual big thing or just a nuances?

>>32374149
Cormorant mock up?

File: i came here to laugh at you.jpg (32KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x480px

>>32367864
>aluminum steel alloys

File: 1676762762.png (1MB, 1600x816px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x816px

>>32368676
Why don't they just replace fighters with remotely piloted kamikaze missiles launched from a B-52 mothership?

Like an AIM-120 drone with a nose camera that can fly around at mach 1-2 looking for a target then switch to active and mach 4 speed when the controller locks on.

>>32372792
>An E-3 Sentry only has a radar range of about 200 miles. AWACS can't even be able to tell if an aircraft is circling directly over the target site, to say nothing of aircraft positioned farther into hostile territory

You fucked your numbers up. First of all, it depends on the RCS of the object being sensed. Second of all, the E-3 (and this is just publicly) has a 250mi+ range against low-flying targets and 400mi+ against high altitude targets (that's against aircraft with MiG-29/F-16 ballpark RCS). Third, while the E-3 detection thresholds would certainly decrease against VLO targets, the RSIP upgrades last decade were specifically geared toward optimization against VLO targets. Finally, you further forget how much of 5th gen revolves around sensor fusion and LPI data transmission, which means anything CAP sees, AWACS sees in a 5th gen fight.

How are your hypothetical 5th gen swarms even vectoring in on the 5th gen fighters? GCI? Ground radars get regular SEAD/DEAD treatment, making full time coverage extremely difficult. Their own AWACS? Again, huge detection threshold advantage to the VLO 5th gen fighters over the day fighters. Radiating their own rudimentary radars if they even have them? That's just a massive "SHOOT ME" sign against an all-up 5th gen.

While you get points for trying to consider the whole picture and point out real and serious challenges to these types of missions, you missed a few details and tactical evolutions. The USAF, USN and even USMC now have been thinking about this and running exercises on this very problem for decades now. That's the entire purpose of Green Flag, after all.

http://www.acc.af.mil/Portals/92/Green%20Flag%20-%20Fact%20Sheet%20ao%20June%2015.pdf?ver=2016-08-15-150314-363

>>32373241
>The USAF officially says the E-3's radar range is "greater than 200 miles"
No, they don't.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104504/e-3-sentry-awacs.aspx
>The radar has a range of more than 250 miles (375.5 kilometers).

There are also well documented cases of E-3s tracking opposing aircraft at 350+mi at operating altitude even back in Desert Storm (detailed accounts of certain A2A engagements early in the air war). Of course the USAF or even the USN with the E-2D won't put a concrete number on it.

>>32374201
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/news/a13919/new-steel-alloy-titanium/
Actually is now a thing. It'll be years before it gets off the ground though

File: 142874047.jpg (1MB, 3000x2100px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2100px

>>32373308

>>32374348
>5th gen swarms
that should read "light fighter swarms" I'm guessing?

Also, everything in this post.