Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st January 2018 at 07:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Modern combat aircraft are expected to be multirole, carry sufficient counter measures, have improved range, all of which necessitate the need for more space.
light fighters were useful in the days of of the Cold War when air forces can afford specialized types and there were more man power committed to flying and maintaining aircraft, but the current era demands aircraft to do more, while having less personnel. this results in a need for larger and heavier planes that can do it.
Consider how many smaller countries ended up going for some very large and heavy fighters.
Russia and the US has totally not committed to that form factor for some time.
By: - 21st January 2018 at 11:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One reason why new-build light fighters haven't sold so well is the post-Cold war drawdown which left lots of surplus fighters like F-16 and MiG-29 available for export markets at reasonable prices. We'll see how things develope now when that supply has dried down.
By: - 21st January 2018 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is a lot confusion in the market place. Basically there is demand for cheap lite weight fighters. But it's very hard to get countries to admit that is what they want. There is capability creep that can make lite fighters costs equal much larger aircraft. Example of this would be proposed Gripen sale to India. They have proposed an aircraft that goes beyond the E version. When the plane India needs is a low cost aircraft that it can deploy in large numbers. But getting India to admit what it actually needs is difficult. There is a struggle between generals and bureaucrats with the generals coming up with deals that bureaucrats oppose on cost grounds. Bureaucrats would need to be put in drivers seat on purchase of lite weight fighters because the generals will always push the cost through the roof on features.
So while bureaucrats would purchase lite fighters they have the problem that generals always sabotage that effort by their selection process.
By: - 21st January 2018 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Light fighters today were heavyweights compared to fighters in the 1950s.
What they need perhaps is a useful light fighter that is considerable smaller, like in the F-5 class at most.
With virtual sensors being fielded in trainers, the same concept could be extended to GCI. Only the fighter could actually augment the data with his own FLIR and tiny radar combination. A couple of EODAS sensors to enhance spotting.. 90% of the work of light fighters is air policing. Keep the design requirements practical.
By: - 23rd January 2018 at 09:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That market has been shrinking for literally decades. And it was much accelerated by the end of the Cold war. Today we're left with a situation where small fighters market (i would say not just under 7 tons, but even under 8 tons) is very small.
There are countries that financed such planes in recent decade or two out of sheer need - for their own air forces. Taiwan was first, then Korea, which glued together its strategic need to advance its aerospace industry and to replace both the F5 fighters and its trainer fleet. So they made a plane themselves. Pakistan is a recent example, somewhat similar to Korea in the sense there was also the political need and financing available to advance the country's know how. Couple with, in pakistani example, the need to replace a lot of small planes they had operated. For Pakistan, switch from mirage III and J7 to JF17 is still a considerable jump in capabilities.
And... that's basically it.
Surplus old F16s are preventing any new western country player to enter the market. They're plentiful and with all the life extension programmes US has been working on, they're sure to be around for a few more decades. The only possible usurper to that might be potential Boeing's win in TX contest, if Boeing's design is similar in capabilities to Korean/Lockheed's offer. If Lockheed wins, they will still be preventing sales of FA-50 whenever they can, as they can earn more from supporting used F16 sales.
In non-us aligned market, JF17/FC1 is still very much struggling as there simply aren't that many countries that have enough money to afford 12 planes (or more) but are still poor enough not to be able to afford much more than that.
South America is pretty much western aligned. They will be buying F16s. Or maybe Korean planes. Asia is a mix and most of Africa is still too poor to upkeep 12 brand new planes. But most of all - there aren't that many planes sought upon to make a new fighter profitable. Most countries are shrinking the number of planes in their fleets. At the same time, lifespan of planes is getting longer.
If one was to make a list of countries needing to buy new planes in the next 20 years, substracing the number of countries going for f16 or larger planes, the remaining number of countries would be in single digits probably. And those would likely buy only 6-24 airframes each. And with some light figters already out there, FA50 and FC1, there simply isn't room in the market for another one. Even if the prospective new kid on the block can get half of all those sales - something like 150 airframes (at very best), that still isn't enough to cover the expenses involved in development, production and support within a 20 year timeframe. Only possibility remains that a larger country decides to develop a new plane on their own, again for political reasons and advancing its knownhow base, and then tries to offset some expenses by selling their product. So far best chances of that seems to be the new prospective Turkish trainer, which seems it will be in T-50 size, which means it may one day be turned into some sort of combat aircraft.
By: - 23rd January 2018 at 10:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
good insight Totoro.
first off my apologies for calling you a fat furry cat that follows young girls.
in any case I follow most of your sentiment.
I wonder if there is also a market for Mirage 2000s as well, now that more are beginning to enter the market as M2K customers are switching to Rafale.
in Chinas case, maybe they were better off going for L-15s and J-10s instead of adding the FC-1 in the middle.
Those poor countries that cant afford a squadron of FC-1s, could probably afford with more L-15s which probably would provide most of the same functions.
Those with money would have gone for the J-10 if available (Ive a feeling had it been made available for export and given license production, Pakistan would have chosen it over the FC-1). A perfect alternative to the F-16 during the times the US isn't playing nice with Pakistan, like currently.
By: - 23rd January 2018 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only possibility remains that a larger country decides to develop a new plane on their own, again for political reasons and advancing its knownhow base, and then tries to offset some expenses by selling their product. So far best chances of that seems to be the new prospective Turkish trainer, which seems it will be in T-50 size, which means it may one day be turned into some sort of combat aircraft.
Or the new Ukrainian fighter. To be powered by two АI-322F engines for a total thrust of 8400 kg. If it ever sees the light of day, I wouldn't be surprised if it looked a lot like the L-15 aka Yak-130M.
By: - 24th January 2018 at 04:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Since the end of the cold war, and with the huge amount of F-16s still available, the market for cheap lightweight fighters has dried up. Even more so now LM has devised a SLEP for F-16 that would increase its life to an amazing 13,856 flying hours. A used F-16 with SLEP and upgrade to F-16V standards can be had for less than a brand new Gripen C for example.
Still there would be countries that would prefer a lower operating costs than a F-16, or something that could also double as LIFT platform too.
Markets? Countries that currently have no fighters or having small old fleets would be a good candidate for new lightweight fighters as their main fighter platform. Or countries with only air policing and CAS taskings. I can say Croatia, Slovak, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Botswana, Kenya, Argentina, Mexico, Sri Lanka. Or countries that has a mix of hi-lo performance fighters. This would be Vietnam, Malaysia, Egypt, Iran, Peru, Colombia, Switzerland, Ukraine. Still the market is small, something like only 500 aircrafts. Could be more if the same aircraft can be used as LIFT too.
Aircrafts available now are the L-15B, JF-17, FA-50, M-346FA, Gripen C (it will still be marketed even when the E model is mass produced), Tejas. All are supersonic capable except the M-346FA.
If you are very2 low on cash but still need a brand new lightweight fighter, there is the Guizhou FTC-2000 still available at less than 10 mil usd per aircraft.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 21st January 2018 at 05:54
given the discussion trending in this forum, is the market for light fighters shrinking now and in the future?
for the sake of this discussion, a light fighter has an empty weight of 7,000kg or less.
This means: Tejas, JF-17, Golden Eagle, Chingkuo, Gripen is at the higher end, but the Gripen E is significantly heavier.
aircraft that falls outside of this range are the M2K, F-16, Gripen E
according to our formerly banned friend, Munir, he claimed in the past
in reality there are only 2, maybe 3, with a fraction of that 1,000 produced.
while a very overly optimistic, and laughable, statement, still it is unfortunate that the jf-17 hasn't been that successful export wise..
elsewhere
KAI golden eagle is Luke warm, 3 exports in low numbers
India is reluctant to adopt the Tejas and wants more heavier aircraft
Gripen has seen better, with 5 exports of the A-C models, but again in small numbers
have people over estimated the light fighter market?
has changes to technology and strategy demand heavier?