Light Fighter Aircraft Future?

[artik]

Once there were many popular lightweight fighter aircraft:

Some samples of 60th - 70th front line aircraft by an empty weight:

MiG-21 ~10,000lb
Mirage III ~15,000lb
F-5E ~10,000lb
F-104 ~14,000lb

Later the weight of even smallest production aircraft increased, the 80th:

Mirage 2000 -16,300lb
F-16A - 16,300lb (the lightest model of all)

Now in 90ths and 2000th we can see some weight reduction in fighter aircraft

Saab Gripen - 12,600lb
AIDC F-CK-1 - 14,300lb
HAL Tejas - 14,300lb
KAI FA-50 - 14,300lb

All the planes with good T/W ratio having good missile and bomb load flying from 1.6 to 2.0M.

Note the reduction of the weight? Also some of them are not considered as frontline fighters like F-16 (apart of Gripen) and rather the replacement of aging lightweight fighters, AIDC F-CK-1 designed to replace F-5 and HAL Tejas is replacement for aging MiG-21 Bison and the FA-50 is rather upgraded trainer (with latest avionics and good engine)

--------------------------

Interesting factors:

- With modern electronic technology the avionics weight become lower
- The carbon fiber reinforced plastic allows to build a lightweight airframes + improvement in engines it is easier to improve T/W ratio even for small fighters.
- They are much cheaper to operate and still carry relatively good load of bombs/missiles...

What do you think? Will we see more lightweight fighters in the main stream (empty weight <=15K) or they would be the "underdogs" in the modern fighter aircraft environments?

[GScholz]

I see it more as an economic matter; today the equipment you put in an airframe costs more in total than the actual airframe and engine. So when you have to pay the big $$$ for the radar, sensors, fancy helmet systems, glass cockpit, expensive smart weapons and every other gadget... Why put all that $$$ in a small plane when a big plane doesn't cost that much more? Case in point: Despite being small (it has one engine of the same as the F-18 has two!) a JAS Gripen still costs upwards of $70 million.

[artik]

today the equipment you put in an airframe costs more in total than the actual airframe and engine. So when you have to pay the big $$$ for the radar, sensors, fancy helmet systems, glass cockpit, expensive smart weapons and every other gadget...

Were did you get this from? The cost of the avionics of F-15E is around 20% of the aircraft cost [1].

If this was the case, than there would be no upgrade programs. Examples: MiG-21 Lancer and MiG-21 Bison with glass cockpit fancy helmet, latest radar and other sensors...

And there are more, now IAI runs Kfir upgrades, before it was the Kurnass 2000 modernization of F-4, Brazilian runs upgraded F-5 with latest generation missiles and fancy helmet and so on.

During the lifetime most of airframes run through major avionics upgrades because avionics become outdated much faster than airframes. If there was the ratio you describe it would be more economic to buy a new aircraft with fresh airframe/engine resources rather than upgrade one. But in reality we see many major upgrades of the avionics all over around, but few replacement of aircraft due to lack of fancy avionics.

I see it more as an economic matter ... Why put in a small plane when a big plane doesn't cost that much more?

Additionally, quoting you from some other thread  

Initial acquisition costs is only a minute part of the overall cost of operating modern combat aircraft...

Now flying a half of F-18 (single engine Gripen) is much cheaper to operate  less engine over-hulls, less fuel costs, less of almost everything.

So maybe it is a good idea to have a small fighter aircraft with latest avionics?


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics

[GScholz]

Yeah, you're right. I was looking at the breakdown of the cost of an F-22 and I somehow got the prices for avionics and airframe mixed up.