Post cold war air sovereignty fighter

[RandomChance]

Put yourself in the shoes of El Presidente running your third world ‘democracy’.

The Hawk 200 is probably slightly more than half the cost of the F16 per unit. However, it’s cheaper to maintain and will last longer - that supersonic capability comes at a price. The Hawk has sufficient capability for many a third world despot (“Multi-mode radar, AIM-120, AGM-65s - yes sir, please sign here...”). For the same outlay, you can buy more of them too - and quantity has a value of it’s own when you’re trying to keep a fleet in the air and absorb downtime, oh - and dropping iron bombs on numerous ‘terrorist’ targets around the country at once.

Let’s be honest, a reasonable number of Hawks makes a great Revolution Day fly by to keep the peasants in line and you aren’t going to hold a power at bay with half a dozen second hand MiG-23/29/F16, so 9-12 Hawks makes more sense.

However, this does ignore the fact that many dictators do suffer from a bit of an ego and would probably go F16 simply because of ‘cool factor’. Though Indonesia, Malaysia and Oman were happy customers - with Indonesia only now replacing them with F16s as they’re more cash-flush these days.

 

[Riain]

That's a pretty specific scenario, which is exactly my point. Any country with a real security threat is going to need what a proper supersonic fighter provides, even if they have only 1 squadron backed by a bunch of other stuff.

 

[Veiovis]

"Cheap Planes" just tend to be a fairly bad idea overall, at least in the time since the invention of airfoces and today. You pay like 50% of the material cost (the basineline on planes is just damned high) + 100% of the personel cost (pilots be expensive!) for significantly less then 50% of the capability of a proper fighter. For the same money, proper fighters just tend to be much better.

 

[Pelranius]

One of the Chinese MiG-21/J-7 derivatives with a solid nose would probably do the trick, like the J-7F/FS/FM.

List of Chengdu J-7 variants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Blue cat]

That's a pretty specific scenario, which is exactly my point. Any country with a real security threat is going to need what a proper supersonic fighter provides, even if they have only 1 squadron backed by a bunch of other stuff.

IMHO a country with a real security threat from other nation states to their home air space is probably going to want something other than an ``Air sovereignty fighter.`` On the other hand a nation that does not expect to be fighting off waves of inbound fighter bombers from a regional power or heavy bombers from a major power might still want the ability to be able to launch armed air craft to intercept un expected air craft that show up on their radar systems. A plausible use case might be having the ability to intercept a hi jacked (or perhaps stolen) civilian air liner, or maybe shadow long range MPA`s from a regional power, or deter regional powers from carrying out un authorized overflights with long range MPA or Transport aircraft.

For some nations being able to launch armed interceptors to intercept air craft suspected of smuggling may also be a viable use case for an air sovereignty fighter. If the nation in question has allies who could be expected to do the heavy lifting in a real conflict then having experience controlling their own air sovereignty air craft will likely help the local GCI staff control real fighters provided by allies if a real conflict occurs.

 

[Blue cat]

"Cheap Planes" just tend to be a fairly bad idea overall, at least in the time since the invention of airfoces and today. You pay like 50% of the material cost (the basineline on planes is just damned high) + 100% of the personel cost (pilots be expensive!) for significantly less then 50% of the capability of a proper fighter. For the same money, proper fighters just tend to be much better.

Well part of my concept was for a small fighter with the lowest possible running costs (hence maybe using HMG`s to fire warning shots with tracer ammo vs Cannon,..) Basically make it as small and light as possible so it can use a smaller engine, burn less fuel, use smaller tires, smaller brakes etc.. Over many decades these small saving in fuel, replacement parts such as brakes, tires being able to buy .50 cal ammo for gunnery practice vs 20 or 30 mm cannon shells etc may add up to a tidy sum that will likely appeal to a smaller nation that is struggling to afford any form of fast jet capability.

Also some countries may want to purchase new aircraft and plan on running them for decades vs taking a chance on used higher performance air craft that may have less certainty vis a vis their likely life span.

 

[ShySusan]

Well part of my concept was for a small fighter with the lowest possible running costs (hence maybe using HMG`s to fire warning shots with tracer ammo vs Cannon,..) Basically make it as small and light as possible so it can use a smaller engine, burn less fuel, use smaller tires, smaller brakes etc.. Over many decades these small saving in fuel, replacement parts such as breaks, tires being able to by .50 cal ammo for gunnery practice vs 20 or 30 mm cannon shells etc may add up to a tidy sum that will likely appeal to a smaller nation that is struggling to afford any form of fast jet capability.

Also some countries may want to purchase new aircraft and plan on running them for decades vs taking a chance on used higher performance air craft that may have less certainty vis a vis their likely life span.

Those items though are, by far, the cheapest costs for operating a jet fighter. Much more costly is training the pilots, by several orders of magnitude, buying and maintaining the missiles and EW systems, and fuel. And if your decision to buy comes down to the cost difference between .50 cal and 20mm gun ammo, which you might fire twice a year, you probably shouldn't be in the market for fast jet aircraft to begin with

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

You also need military radar stations to guide interceptions. Most civilian air traffic control radars only track transponders not reflected signals. Funnily enough hostile aircraft won't have their transponders turned on.

 

[Blue cat]

Those items though are, by far, the cheapest costs for operating a jet fighter. Much more costly is training the pilots, by several orders of magnitude, buying and maintaining the missiles and EW systems, and fuel. And if your decision to buy comes down to the cost difference between .50 cal and 20mm gun ammo, which you might fire twice a year, you probably shouldn't be in the market for fast jet aircraft to begin with

Well some nations may have different perceptions as to the need to train their own pilots, vs perhaps hiring pilots trained by another air force who for what ever reason may be looking for a change of scenery.. (although they would likely need a certain amount of conversion training..) Some nations may decide they don`t need EW systems (if you meant Electronic Warfare ?), a smaller fighter will likely burn less fuel than a larger one etc.. Some nations may already have a large stockpile of .50 cal ammo for their army that would likely suffice for at least training use (although they might want to buy a small stockpile of more exotic ammo (ie. Rafous multi purpose ?) for operational use etc..

As far as weapons are concerned some nations might be ok with simpler weapons (and presumably cheaper to acquire and maintain (if necessary ?) than a major power might want.

For smaller nations looking at sustaining a force over a period of decades these items may be a big deal.

 

[Blue cat]

You also need military radar stations to guide interceptions. Most civilian air traffic control radars only track transponders not reflected signals. Funnily enough hostile aircraft won't have their transponders turned on.

Yep having a basic GCI system is probably the most important part of the puzzle.

 

[Veiovis]

For smaller nations looking at sustaining a force over a period of decades these items may be a big deal.

Ok, I will repeat the point more bluntly : If you are so poor that the things you list, even added up over decades, in any way even interest (let alone majorly influence you), you are too poor for any kind of heavier than air flight at all. If the difference in fuel costs or gun ammo is more then a rounding error, you straight up can't afford even the lowest of low capability air force ( which, to add insult to injury, would be useless. You might spend half of a proper jets costs to get an aircraft that can't even intercept a commercial airliner, aka has 0 capability and is literary without any value whatsoever).

 

[Blue cat]

Ok, I will repeat the point more bluntly : If you are so poor that the things you list, even added up over decades, in any way even interest (let alone majorly influence you), you are too poor for any kind of heavier than air flight at all. If the difference in fuel costs or gun ammo is more then a rounding error, you straight up can't afford even the lowest of low capability air force ( which, to add insult to injury, would be useless. You might spend half of a proper jets costs to get an aircraft that can't even intercept a commercial airliner, aka has 0 capability and is literary without any value whatsoever).

Having read accounts of the decision making process of some nations where apparently items such as the cost of .50 cal vs cannon ammo for air to ground applications was a big deal I think I will agree to disagree with you and move on..

Edit to add, the .50 cal ammo will weigh less and take less space, so the aircraft can be slightly smaller and lighter, which in turn may cost less to build, and cost less to run etc..

 

[Dilvish]

The Mitsubishi F-1 might fit the bill. I don't know how much would have to change for the F-1 to be available for export.

The Chinese jets are certainly a possibility. How would their price compare to Western and Russian aircraft?

 

[Georgepatton]

Having read accounts of the decision making process of some nations where apparently items such as the cost of .50 cal vs cannon ammo for air to ground applications was a big deal I think I will agree to disagree with you and move on..

The air to ground role is somewhat different from the air to air one when considering a modern jet fighter that can reasonably intercept and destroy enemy aircraft. Aircraft are tougher to actually destroy than you might expect, and a 20mm or 30mm aerial cannon offers nothing but advantages in range and damage over a conventional machine gun, and have basically since WW2.

 

[Blue cat]

The air to ground role is somewhat different from the air to air one when considering a modern jet fighter that can reasonably intercept and destroy enemy aircraft. Aircraft are tougher to actually destroy than you might expect, and a 20mm or 30mm aerial cannon offers nothing but advantages in range and damage over a conventional machine gun, and have basically since WW2.

True, hence earlier in this thread I indicated that cannon were an option. I suspect some nations would likely want cannon for a notional air sovereignty fighter despite potential weight and cost issues. The HMG options might appeal to those nations who for what ever reason wanted to save every last nickle on such a project (or maybe use the cannon vs HMG issue to show to the bean counters that they were truly making the project as inexpensive as possible.)

All that being said if the decision makers have a valid operational need for cannon vs HMG's perhaps they should be looking at buying used F16's or similar air craft vs new air sovereignty fighters. If the gun armament is expected to be likely to be used in an air to air role for anything more than firing warning shots then the nation in question may need something more than an air sovereignty fighter.

If warning shots (or potentially shots intended to be lethal) from an HMG don't suffice, and air to air missiles don't provide an effective lethal option than perhaps equipping the notional air sovereignty fighter with cannon won't really help much ?

Maybe if there is a desire to be able to shoot down targets such as large jet transport aircraft if necessary and there is a concern that the warheads on small air to air missiles may not be effective enough against such targets then cannon might be useful vs HMG's, but I am thinking that a better option might be to acquire AAM's with larger warheads.

 

[ShySusan]

Well some nations may have different perceptions as to the need to train their own pilots, vs perhaps hiring pilots trained by another air force who for what ever reason may be looking for a change of scenery.. (although they would likely need a certain amount of conversion training..) Some nations may decide they don`t need EW systems (if you meant Electronic Warfare ?), a smaller fighter will likely burn less fuel than a larger one etc.. Some nations may already have a large stockpile of .50 cal ammo for their army that would likely suffice for at least training use (although they might want to buy a small stockpile of more exotic ammo (ie. Rafous multi purpose ?) for operational use etc..

For smaller nations looking at sustaining a force over a period of decades these items may be a big deal.

Except fighter pilot skills are a perishable commodity. So you still need regular, recurring training to maintain combat proficiency. And hiring foreign pilots is probably the worst of both worlds for this speculative Air Force. Unless those pilots are from another third world country, odds are they likely have more loyalty to wherever they came from than to you. So in case you're attacked, their home governments may order them to stand down, even going so far as to recall them to Active Duty, and yes, most countries do maintain the right to recall their officers all the way up until they die. Plus, you'll have to pay them at least a much as a senior airline pilot would make in their home countries in order to make working for you more enticing. That's low to mid six figures a year. It's probably cheaper in the long run to have your own people trained to fly your aircraft. Not to mention you can use it as a reward for loyalty.

Electronic Warfare systems are pretty much required in a modern combat aircraft. Everything from data links for your own side to communicate with you, to radar warning receivers, to radar jammers is pretty much mandatory to be effective in a modern battlespace. Cheaper to put those on a fighter than to buy fighters without them plus dedicated ELINT aircraft.

Yes, smaller fighters and engines will burn less fuel. That was the big attraction of planes like the F-5 and F-20, supersonic performance at or near trainer fuel burn. But when you compare what you gain by buying a bigger, thirstier airplane to say a modified trainer like the BAE Hawk, the calculus comes down firmly on the side of buying something like the F-16, FA-50, MiG-29, Su-27, F/A-18 or Grippen. The performance gains are just so far above a subsonic trainer that it's almost unfair to even consider them in the same league.

And again, if your buying decision comes down to, "We have .50 cal in stock and we really can't afford to buy 20mm for our new multimillion dollar jets," you really shouldn't be buying new combat jets in the first place. Assuming you buy a dozen aircraft, and each aircraft holds 500 rounds, which is the F-16's loadout, and you conduct two live firings a year, that's only 12,000 rounds a year. That's peanuts for a military.

 

[Blue cat]

Except fighter pilot skills are a perishable commodity. So you still need regular, recurring training to maintain combat proficiency. And hiring foreign pilots is probably the worst of both worlds for this speculative Air Force. Unless those pilots are from another third world country, odds are they likely have more loyalty to wherever they came from than to you. So in case you're attacked, their home governments may order them to stand down, even going so far as to recall them to Active Duty, and yes, most countries do maintain the right to recall their officers ask the way up until they die. Plus, you'll have to pay them at least a much as a senior airline pilot would make in their home countries in order to make working for you more enticing. That's low to mid six figures a year. It's probably cheaper in the long run to have your own people trained. Not to mention you can use it as a reward for loyalty.

Electronic Warfare systems are pretty much required in a modern combat aircraft. Everything from data links for your own side to communicate with you, to radar warning receivers, to radar jammers is pretty much mandatory to be effective in a modern battlespace. Cheaper to put those on a fighter than to buy fighters without them plus dedicated ELINT aircraft.

Yes, smaller fighters and engines will burn less fuel. That was the big attraction of planes like the F-5 and F-20, supersonic performance at or near trainer fuel burn. But when you compare what you gain by buying a bigger, thirstier airplane to say a modified trainer like the BAE Hawk, the calculus comes down firmly on the side of buying something like the F-16, FA-50, MiG-29, Su-27, F/A-18 or Grippen. The performance gains are just so far above a subsonic trainer that it's almost unfair to even consider them in the same league.

And again, if your buying decision comes down to, "We have .50 cal in stock and we really can't afford to buy 20mm for our new multimillion dollar jets," you really shouldn't be buying new combat jets in the first place. Assuming you buy a dozen aircraft, and each aircraft holds 500 rounds, which is the F-16's loadout, and you conduct two live firings a year, that's only 12,000 rounds a year. That's peanuts for a military.

Thanks for your comments..

In my view..
If issues such as foreign pilots sticking around in the event of a conflict and the need for modern EW systems are a concern to the nation in question then this type of notional air sovereignty fighter is probably not a good choice. In particular if the nation in question is envisioning their interceptor air craft intercepting air craft that have their own air to air radar systems and potentially radar guided air to air missiles then they should likely be looking at other choices. That being said some (perhaps most ?) customers might at least want radar warning receivers and maybe frequency hopping radios and similar systems. Maybe ECM pods and external Chaff and Flare dispensers could be used by nations that felt they were necessary although again I suspect at that point the nations in question probably need to be looking at a choice other than a notional air sovereignty fighter.

I seem to recall reading that nations such as Australia have been happy to hire former pilots from the Canadian Air force (and the article I read essentially commented on Australia benefiting from the training that the Canadian tax payers had already paid for..) so I don't see why at least some smaller countries can't do something similar although I expect every situation would likely be different.

In terms of ongoing training I believe others have mentioned the use of simulators, using pilots who also fly for airlines etc.. Maybe the plan would be hire at least some foreign pilots who are already proficient fast jet combat pilots, invest in simulators, and buy air craft that are cheap to operate and easy for student pilots to learn to fly and proficient pilots to transition to in order to keep training costs down. You are correct that a certain amount of ongoing training would be needed. If the nation in question can't afford it then they should not be buying the air craft in question.

As I mentioned at the start supersonic performance may in fact be needed (at least by some customers ?)

I think the .50 cal issue may be a bit of a red herring. As I have all ready mentioned I would envision cannon being an option for customers. .50 Cal is for the real penny pinching nations or nations that for what ever reason don't see a need for cannon. I suppose depending on how tight the design is, the space and weight saved by using HMG's vs Cannon might be able to be used for more avionics or perhaps extra fuel ?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

It would cost more to design a plane with options for gun armament than anyone could possibly save on the tiny amount of ammunition they would be using.

The real question here is whether this plane is supposed to chase down NORDO Cessnas, which any jet trainer could do, or if it's supposed to go out an patrol the ADIZ, which would require speed, range, radar, EW, and real weapons. The Gripen is basically a modern take on the F-20 kind of plane, but it comes with a particularly good EW kit that is good against Flankers.

 

[Blue cat]

It would cost more to design a plane with options for gun armament than anyone could possibly save on the tiny amount of ammunition they would be using.

Yeah that makes sense, yet I seem to recall that there have been combat air craft that for various reasons have been sold with different gun armaments to different customers. Maybe providing for the gun to be simply deleted so the space and weight could be used for other things might be a better option. I seem to recall .50 Cal gun pods have also been marketed in recent years, so if a customer really has their heart set on .50 Cal vs cannon, they can delete the cannon and simply buy .50 Cal gun pods from someone else and run their own trials program to satisfy themselves that they will work properly. Or maybe just have all the gun armament be pod mounted.

 

[Blue cat]

It would cost more to design a plane with options for gun armament than anyone could possibly save on the tiny amount of ammunition they would be using.

The real question here is whether this plane is supposed to chase down NORDO Cessnas, which any jet trainer could do, or if it's supposed to go out an patrol the ADIZ, which would require speed, range, radar, EW, and real weapons. The Gripen is basically a modern take on the F-20 kind of plane, but it comes with a particularly good EW kit that is good against Flankers.

I guess I am essentially envisioning an armed trainer that can fly in more or less all weather conditions day or night and if necessary actually fire warning shots, and shoot down air craft (using modern air to air missiles) in those conditions. That almost certainly requires an air to air radar and other stuff that I suspect many jet trainers don't have. Some nations might also want supersonic performance.

I am not envisioning this type of air craft being able to go head to head with modern fighter bombers or similar air craft although maybe some customers might view them as "emergency interceptors" in the event of an actual shooting war. Maybe with added ECM, flare and chaff dispensers they could perhaps provide some point defence for a key target such as an air base that allied aircraft who were doing the heavy lifting were using.