4th/5th/6th Gen -what is a 'heavy fighter' after all?

1746825057209.png

Doesn't the F-16 belong in the "Light Fighter Class" remember the LWF Program. The F-15 is a Medium Fighter sitting perfectly between the F-14 and F-16.
 
danwild6 said:
View attachment 786262

Doesn't the F-16 belong in the "Light Fighter Class" remember the LWF Program. The F-15 is a Medium Fighter sitting perfectly between the F-14 and F-16.
Click to expand...
I think it's fair for it to be a light fighter among US aircraft, however when compared globally I think it deserves to be put generally in the lighter medium weight category. Which at least in my interpretation leaves room for aircraft like the Jas 39, Tejas, and JF-17 to be in the truly light fighter category. The earlier F-16A's could fit into the light category, but generally when I think of light Fighter, those 3 come to mind.

My secondary Criteria was total engine thrust/engine class. All the light fighters that come to my mind have engines with <100kN of thrust, while all medium fighters have >120kN. The original F-16A had only 105kN of thrust so it's a again bit more iffy. But yeah current F-16's are definitely either light medium weight, or heavy light weight fighter if you get my jist.
 
danwild6 said:
View attachment 786262

Doesn't the F-16 belong in the "Light Fighter Class" remember the LWF Program.
Click to expand...
I'd say it should be a Light. It's just that the "light" weight keeps creeping up and up with each generation.

Just like how the F-35 is a 5th Generation light, not a medium.


danwild6 said:
The F-15 is a Medium Fighter sitting perfectly between the F-14 and F-16.
Click to expand...
No, the F-15 is a heavy.
 
danwild6 said:
View attachment 786262

Doesn't the F-16 belong in the "Light Fighter Class" remember the LWF Program. The F-15 is a Medium Fighter sitting perfectly between the F-14 and F-16.
Click to expand...

Everyone would agree that the Rafale and F/A-18A Hornet belongs in the medium fighter category.

It is worth noting the F-16 Block 60 actually has more engine thrust (32,500lb) than the original F/A-18C (16,000lb x2). The F-16 Block 60 also has a heavy empty weight (22,000lb) than the Rafale C (21,720lb). The Rafale is less than a foot longer than the F-16. I think the F-16 qualifies as a medium weight 4th gen fighter based on the international competition. The bars in the image are for the old F-16 Block 30.

Also in regards to the F-15 numbers on the graph that is clearly for the lightest F-15 model. If we look at the newer heavier variants with conformals they have a heavier empty weight than the J-20 and the original Su-27.

The Gripen, Tejas, F-20, F-5 and F/A-50 would be in the light fighter category.
 
insidersource said:
The Gripen, Tejas, F-20, F-5 and F/A-50 would be in the light fighter category.
Click to expand...
I would call most two engine designs standard fighters—with China’s 3-engine plane the only heavy fighter..Maybe J-20.

The Pacific theater alone would seem to put on the pounds.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd say it should be a Light. It's just that the "light" weight keeps creeping up and up with each generation.

Just like how the F-35 is a 5th Generation light, not a medium.



No, the F-15 is a heavy.
Click to expand...
Of course everything is relative but...

Empty Weight
F-14A 18,191 kg (40,104 lbs)
F-14D 19,838 kg (43,735 Ibs)

F-15A 12,700 kg (28,000 Ibs)
F-15C 13,154 kg (29,000 lbs)

F-16A 7,386 kg (16,285 lbs)
F-16C 8,936 kg (19,700 Ibs)

None of these Aircraft are in the same weight category IMHO
 
insidersource said:
Everyone would agree that the Rafale and F/A-18A Hornet belongs in the medium fighter category.

It is worth noting the F-16 Block 60 actually has more engine thrust (32,500lb) than the original F/A-18C (16,000lb x2). The F-16 Block 60 also has a heavy empty weight (22,000lb) than the Rafale C (21,720lb). The Rafale is less than a foot longer than the F-16. I think the F-16 qualifies as a medium weight 4th gen fighter based on the international competition. The bars in the image are for the old F-16 Block 30.

Also in regards to the F-15 numbers on the graph that is clearly for the lightest F-15 model. If we look at the newer heavier variants with conformals they have a heavier empty weight than the J-20 and the original Su-27.

The Gripen, Tejas, F-20, F-5 and F/A-50 would be in the light fighter category.
Click to expand...

There is no real logic to the labels besides a carryover from the WW2 standard of heavy fighters being twin engines, laid out like a light bomber, and light fighters being laid out like...fighters. It stopped mattering sometime during the war with aircraft like the Me-262. If Britain were to use the Hawk as a multirole like the Alpha Jet, or buy the F/A-50 or something, then the Eurofighter would go from a light to a heavy fighter the same day. The heavy counterpart to Eurofighter is the Tornado, as evidenced by Germany and previously the RAF, of course.

Equally true it's also possible to describe the Typhoon as the "heavy" counterpart to the JSF, or the RAF as an all-heavy air force since the JSF is actually an attacker like the A-7 Corsair, which in the RAF's case would be closer to true. All of these are true simultaneously. It's like how a Necker cube can be simultaneously viewed from the top and the bottom.

There's no actual weight or whatever where a plane suddenly tips over to being "heavy". This is exactly how the USN got the F/A-18E/F. It's the same question as "what is a cruiser and what is a destroyer". The answer is "it depends on what you need to do with the budget". Which is, incidentally, how the MiG-29 happened when Mikoyan convinced the Soviet government they "needed" a "light fighter" for PFI...

Suffice to say, the distinction is irrelevant. The PLAAF could operate nothing but F7F Tigercats and F-4 Phantoms and it would still be an "all heavy fighter" air force. Just bad heavy fighters. There's a reason the PLANAF and PLAAF are interested in the J-35 and it's not because the J-11 is so good they just need to balance it out. People just like "heavy fighter" I guess because they think airplane classes are like boxing weight classes and there's some hard limit where being 70,000 lbs MTOW vs 50,000 lbs MTOW actually matters.

"Cruiserweight" is a better name for a "medium fighter" because it very deliberately pokes fun at the idea of typologizing fighters by weight instead of...actual capabilities. Even the, now nebulous and poorly defined, "generations" of aircraft that was invented by the Soviet PVO was better for rapidly sorting threats.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
There's no actual weight or whatever where a plane suddenly tips over to being "heavy". This is exactly how the USN got the F/A-18E/F. It's the same question as "what is a cruiser and what is a destroyer". The answer is "it depends on what you need to do with the budget". Which is, incidentally, how the MiG-29 happened when Mikoyan convinced the Soviet government they "needed" a "light fighter" for PFI.
Click to expand...
Point of order!

The MiG-29 happened because the USSR couldn't afford a fleet of only Su-27s. Same reason the USAF bought F-16s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Point of order!

The MiG-29 happened because the USSR couldn't afford a fleet of only Su-27s. Same reason the USAF bought F-16s.
Click to expand...

The real (as opposed to fiscal?) reason is it would probably require MiG to make the Sukhoi plane to find enough floor space, tbf, and the somewhat quixotic happenstance that the USSR maintained the concept of corporate intellectual property. Simply having the UAC was a bridge too far for the Brezhnev era I guess. :v
 
siegecrossbow said:
How about this —

One medium thrust engine or two light thrust engines: light fighter.

One high thrust engine or two medium thrust engines — medium fighter.

Two or more high thrust engines — heavy fighter.
Click to expand...
Great, now we'll have categorize engines into their own light medium and heavy categories. Which parameters are we considering and where are the hard lines for them? This is like a fractal, pandora's conversation. "What is a heavy engine afterall?"
 
I just had a funny thought. If purely based off static thrust, The F414-400 seems like a medium class, surely that means the R-15 is also a medium class. 98kN vs 100kN

2xR-15's on a MiG-25 with a MTOW of 40,000kg is a medium fighter, while the 2xF414-400K's on the KF-21 with a MTOW of 25,600kg.

Both medium fighters here powered by 2x medium class engines, nothing to see here.
 
danwild6 said:
Of course everything is relative but...

Empty Weight
F-14A 18,191 kg (40,104 lbs)
F-14D 19,838 kg (43,735 Ibs)

F-15A 12,700 kg (28,000 Ibs)
F-15C 13,154 kg (29,000 lbs)

F-16A 7,386 kg (16,285 lbs)
F-16C 8,936 kg (19,700 Ibs)

None of these Aircraft are in the same weight category IMHO
Click to expand...
Right. The F-16C went up about as much as the F-14D did, ~3500lbs.

But what I was getting at is that each generation of fighter is bigger and bigger. Especially with the 5th generation where all your primary-mission weapons need to be internal. So now your "light fighter" that only carries 2x BVRAAMs and 2x 2000lb bombs ends up being ~50,000lbs with no external ordnance! And the "heavy fighter" that only carries 2x WVRAAMs and 6x BVRAAMs is about 65k with no external tanks.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right. The F-16C went up about as much as the F-14D did, ~3500lbs.

But what I was getting at is that each generation of fighter is bigger and bigger. Especially with the 5th generation where all your primary-mission weapons need to be internal. So now your "light fighter" that only carries 2x BVRAAMs and 2x 2000lb bombs ends up being ~50,000lbs with no external ordnance! And the "heavy fighter" that only carries 2x WVRAAMs and 6x BVRAAMs is about 65k with no external tanks.
Click to expand...
At this point it's just self-fooling, like Soviet Union which declared that mig-29 is light by limiting it's mtow far below what this aircraft could lift.
F-35 isn't light fighter anymore than Thunderchief. US just doesn't have an actual light fighter, and now everyone FAFOs that not having them opened a wonderful opportunity window for "cheap mass" drones.
 
I fear though that the current various high end drone programs are going to crash and burn for the most part at best. Expensively. Look at what happened to the UAV/UCAV craze back in the 2000s / early 2010s for example. Even before Obama got into the White House and rather prematurely (at the very least) declared the War on Terror to be at an end, various drone programs were already dead-ending for one reason or another, after huge sums of taxpayers money & private investment had already been spent on them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Right. The F-16C went up about as much as the F-14D did, ~3500lbs.

But what I was getting at is that each generation of fighter is bigger and bigger. Especially with the 5th generation where all your primary-mission weapons need to be internal. So now your "light fighter" that only carries 2x BVRAAMs and 2x 2000lb bombs ends up being ~50,000lbs with no external ordnance! And the "heavy fighter" that only carries 2x WVRAAMs and 6x BVRAAMs is about 65k with no external tanks.
Click to expand...
Ok I get yeah each generation would have to be kind of segregated as yes a F-22 Raptor weighs as much as an F-14 but replaced the F-15.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom