Light Fighters

[Clark Griswold]

Yep, better platform than a light fighter is required for things like this + power + real estate on the aircraft for apertures/radio connectivity. I agree 100%.

Cool
To expand further it would be one of several new / repurposed platforms that could perform the UCAV Tactical Coordinator Mission
Manned Light Fighter
Manned C2 - Sensor High Flyer
KC-46 / E-7 additional capability
Manned Rotary Wing platform with this capability

If this is a capability to be performed by different platforms at different times and different conditions then a common pod based cape with a common software for platforms like light fighter and tanker with the C2 platforms having it organic and likely in a more robust form as I see it as part of their primary mission sets, the former platforms it would be a alternate mission set but that is just a thought with no testing / real analysis. If implemented it could be the optimal solution is very different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

On 2/12/2022 at 8:47 AM, 12xu2a3x3 said:

assume he's referring to the capability to interfere with links with respect to the platforms being unmanned and i agree

Yeah I figured...there's more to it than that, and there's very good reasoning for unmanned/manned teaming in certain aspects of future war. Don't think in today's tech, think tomorrow's tech...which clearly is a rhetorical process in this forum.

[Clark Griswold]

Trainer / Light fighters in the news...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/t-7-arrives-at-edwards-usaf-eyeing-light-fighter-version#:~:text=T-7 Arrives At Edwards%2C USAF Eyeing Light Fighter Version

and from SK...

KAI Charts Out Single-Seat FA-50 Road Map | Aviation Week Network

F-7 concept art...

New FA-50 concept...

 

From The WZ article:  "What is clear is that we can't afford to police the Super Bowl with an F-22," the same individual told Jennings in Madrid.

Price and allies needing cheaper iron that will integrate well with all their other systems... this should be driving this idea higher on the AF to do list.

[Danger41]

This type of thing absolutely needs to happen so we don’t fly the wings off of the F-35’s, B-21’s, and NGAD’s when we get involved in Afghanistan 2.0 in ten years. Won’t happen, but should.

[Clark Griswold]

This type of thing absolutely needs to happen so we don’t fly the wings off of the F-35’s, B-21’s, and NGAD’s when we get involved in Afghanistan 2.0 in ten years. Won’t happen, but should.

Concur but one can still argue on BO for it and other lost causes…

Light capabilities in general are needed for MOOTW (dating myself with that term but it captures a lot of what we do now and likely in the future)

Light air mobility, light fighter, low footprint high endurance RPA, ACE light logistics, etc… just my retired guard bubba cents but this could doctrinally fit into the Guard or AFSOC (sts) with the right leadership seeing that we will be deterring and occasionally fighting in places other than the SCS against the forces of chaos with capes that require not a sledgehammer but a small hammer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Concur but one can still argue on BO for it and other lost causes…

Light capabilities in general are needed for MOOTW (dating myself with that term but it captures a lot of what we do now and likely in the future)

Light air mobility, light fighter, low footprint high endurance RPA, ACE light logistics, etc… just my retired guard bubba cents but this could doctrinally fit into the Guard or AFSOC (sts) with the right leadership seeing that we will be deterring and occasionally fighting in places other than the SCS against the forces of chaos with capes that require not a sledgehammer but a small hammer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking the exact same thing for AFSOC. 

[Clark Griswold]

I was thinking the exact same thing for AFSOC. 

Yup, one could argue this is what the USMC is supposed to do (small wars as historically these things were called) but as they are pivoting to a different force structure and as most operations are joint this is where the USAF could take the lead and build a light AF to integrate with the other components light forces
As the unnamed official in the quote expressed, we can’t afford to fly exquisite iron on routine missions
It’s the requirements using history and a sober assessment of likely missions as a guide to build out this collection of platforms & systems
X amount of pallets per day between FOBs, X amount of CAPs when supporting a stabilization force of X size, etc… these missions would overlap with other NG and ANG missions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

More on light fighters, Indian industry concept:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2023-02-20/hindustan-aeronautics-unveils-lead-fighter-trainer-project
 

Sounds kinda like the F-20 or the Textron Scorpion as there’s no IAF requirement or RFP but Hindustan Aeronautics sees a market opportunity 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Clark Griswold

[NoFlyZone]

Thread revival! Saw this article and figured that if this concept is still being talked about by the CSAF there may be something to it… let me know what you think

https://theaviationist.com/2024/08/19/light-fighter-concept-ngad/

[brabus]

That’s what NGAD started as (open architecture, rapid adaptability, etc.) and then the mil industrial complex kicked it into 6th gear and fucked it all up. I don’t blame the AF for taking a pause after seeing some of the more recent costs and demands from industry.

Acquisitions and industry - For the love of God, just fucking produce something that is relevant, adaptable, at least realistically affordable (even if still a rip off), and doesn’t take 20 years. Why is this so hard?

[Clark Griswold]

My only two not requested cents would be that light fighter also means light on the pocket book, the 5th gen light fighter concept looks cool but if it gets pricey (say above 65 million a tail) then it’s too expensive to buy, maintain and fly in quantity but too pricey for the amount of capes it brings per million versus an F-35.

It needs to be cheap enough (but still relevant) to buy, fly and man at a significant multiplier to the heavy fighter (3 x sounds right) to bring a massed and concentrated capability to meet heavier and more capable platforms when need to fight in WW3 but as it was procured in quantity it can be dispersed to meet our diverse and world wide requirements (Europe, Asia, CENTCOM, etc…)

Tejas Mk 1 comes in at around 37.5 and 4k an hour to fly, not sure about Mk 2 but just say 20% more to buy and 10% more to fly so that’s 45 mil a tail and 4.4 to fly, that’s affordable in the ARC to buy in quantity (500+) and fly and crew sustainably.  Couple that with reciprocal buys of US equipment and further develop ties with India.  
 

[brabus]

I think the Blk3 Rhinos basically fit that description. Let’s just concentrate on those and speed up F-35 fixes/new shit 10x. Take NGAD tech and work what you can into F-35/Rhino. Start over for 6th gen with an IOC of 2035 - you’ve got 10+ fucking years acquisitions and industry, make it happen. 

[Clark Griswold]

17 hours ago, brabus said:

I think the Blk3 Rhinos basically fit that description. Let’s just concentrate on those and speed up F-35 fixes/new shit 10x. Take NGAD tech and work what you can into F-35/Rhino. Start over for 6th gen with an IOC of 2035 - you’ve got 10+ fucking years acquisitions and industry, make it happen. 

You might be right, looks like the Navy got rhinos at just under 65 million a piece (bar napkin math 1.1 billion / 17 jets) but still under my 65 million threshold 

https://news.usni.org/2024/03/22/navy-makes-last-planned-super-hornet-buy-secures-technical-data-packages

Still a bit much IMO but there you go.  Mixed buy would be fine too with the right mix of 4.5 gen, light fighters, CCAs, UCAVs and 5th+ (6th gen might be a bridge too far).

I would argue still for a light fighter and specifically as both an independent platform and one strategically designed for as part of net centric family of info sharing fires supporting platforms, bought in numbers.  

Really the manned light fighter (if acquired) would / should be the centerpiece of a scalable integrated family of systems to meet and complement ongoing, emergent and major contingency requirements.  
Manned light fighter, light C2, light tanker/air lifter, UCAV, SHORAD and localized small UAS defensive systems. 
Basically a mini Air Force with an organic GBAD system.

This would be the reinforcement or augment to the AD big hammer. 

[Clark Griswold]

Had a thought, is there a bias against a USAF light fighter because it’s seen (institutionally) as a defensive oriented fighter mainly and we as an institution think air power should really be mainly offensively focused?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Had a thought, is there a bias against a USAF light fighter because it’s seen (institutionally) as a defensive oriented fighter mainly and we as an institution think air power should really be mainly offensively focused?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll go one deeper there…

Is our military industry overly aligned with a cross oceanic theory underlying every system we buy left over from two world wars fought abroad.

We’ve never really produced a modern domestically tuned weapon system. Our military is entirely away game oriented, sometimes to a negative when that away game is too focused on a particular theatre (ie look at INDOPACOMs grip on everything right now).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Yeah, I think for the AF the last system(s) you could say were homeland first away game second in design priorities were the F-89/101/102/106 integrated with SAGE & BOMARC

That’s a few but back when the homeland bomber threat was real and we OT&E’d to meet it, the long range cruise missile/drone attack I would say is real and a light fighter capability could be one of the systems used to meet it here and OCONUS, to my knowledge though no one in the staff or at MAJCOMs has suggested it for NORTHCOM 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited August 25 by Clark Griswold

[MT near]

Just buy new vipers and hornets. Upgrade hogs and strikes. Work on a new F22 "replacement"...easy cheesy

[Clark Griswold]

Repost of the original article from WOR arguing for a light fighter / unmanned aircraft team 

https://warontherocks.com/2022/02/the-light-fighter-is-the-air-forces-manned-unmanned-team-solution/

From the article:

What Is a Light-Fighter Aircraft?

It’s easy to confuse this term with others, such as light attack and light combat aircraft. Indeed, all refer to aircraft that benefit from being smaller, more cost-efficient, and easier to produce than current fourth- and fifth-generation fighter fleets. For our purposes, the main distinction is that a light fighter is turbine powered, whereas light attack is propeller driven.

The intent has to be affordable capable mass, we can’t afford the legions of new 4 & 4.5 gen fighters but 4.something light fighters / CCAs we probably can.  It’s not a panacea for all that vexes us right now (cost, availability, sustainment, etc…) but it could solve a lot of it.  
Built with the capes to carry all the latest weapons to make them legit threats to Su-30/35s, J-10/15s and GBADs and in the network with the other players, you have what the AF and I would argue what the Navy needs to be able to cover the range of commitments.  
The Tejas having a CTOL and CATOBAR flying right now from not yet but close to being an ally is worth the effort IMO.