Challenge: design a hypothetical light fighter to rival Sukhoi's LTS Checkmate?

[riggerrob]

Can any non-Russian or non-Chinese country design and build a super-sonic, light fighter to rival Sukhoi's recently revealed LTS?
To simplify debate, let's eliminate any airplane that has made it past mock-up stage.
The design must be bought - in significant numbers - by the producing country - but also cheap enough to be purchased by dozens of Second and Third World Nations.

From the far end of the runway it must resemble a 5th Generation, stealthy fighter/bomber. It must look "stealthy" but does not have to incorporate the latest in radar-absorbent materials or paints. The latest fashion in "stealthy" materials are optional.
A single engine that is currently in production. Optional, bolt-on, 2D vectoring thrust. Optional, bolt-on, reverse thrust for landing on short runways.
A single pilot sitting in a current-production ejection seat.

Rails and bomb racks capable of launching most current-production NATO, Chinese and Russian missiles, torpedoes and bombs. Most of those weapons carried internally to maintain that "stealthy" appearance. It may or may not include wiring and software to launch the most sophisticated weapons.
Optional, bolt-in, 20 mm gun.

Avionics limited to current production, but adapted from current-production consumer electronics preferred. Avionics do not need to be capable of AI, automatic flight, loyal wingman or complex networking. You may specify multiple different levels of avionics, but ensure that the cheapest level is still affordable for Third World Air Forces. Avionics with a variety of "price points{ to match Third World budgets.

Moderate range on internal fuel with optional, bolt-on, air-to-air refueling probe. It must be able to perform its primary role (interceptor?) using only internal fuel.

Capable of operating from 3,300 foot (i kilometer) asphalt runways. Commensurate with operating from semi-prepared runways, engine inlets must automatically divert the worst foreign object debris. Optional, bolt-on, spring-extended, arrestor-hook for "stupid-short" runways.
No need for carrier capability as hardly any Third World nations can afford aircraft carriers.
No need for VTOL.

Easy to maintain with quick-change modules. emphasis on rugged, low maintenance over the highest performance.
Mach 1.8 top speed.
Wing span narrow enough to fit inside existing hardened shelters without folding.

 

[isayyo2]

The “Stealth Gripen” FS2020 comes to mind https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fs2020-stealth-fighter-concept.9798/

I wouldn’t be surprised if HAL has a Tejas mk.3 or another wild abbreviated named project on paper

 

[Grey Havoc]

As I mentioned over in the other thread, one way to get a very compact 'manned' (in a manner of speaking) aircraft is to go for the 'brain in a jar', or alternatively, the 'cerebral motherboard', approaches. Of course there would be considerable ethical (not to mention reliability) concerns. And that would be far from all the potential downsides.

So-called 'uploading' (attempting to transfer a human personality into a onboard central computer) would be yet another possible approach, but probably not a viable one at the present moment in time. Especially given the limitation of using as much off the shelf avionics as possible.

 

[isayyo2]

As I mentioned over in the other thread, one way to get a very compact 'manned' (in a manner of speaking) aircraft is to go for the 'brain in a jar', or alternatively, the 'cerebral motherboard', approaches. Of course there would be considerable ethical (not to mention reliability) concerns. And that would be far from all the potential downsides.

So-called 'uploading' (attempting to transfer a human personality into a onboard central computer) would be yet another possible approach, but probably not a viable one at the present moment in time. Especially given the limitation of using as much off the shelf avionics as possible.

Maybe getting a bit ahead of ourselves Grey? A+ for out of the box thinking though

 

[Archibald]

Dassault should be able to pull it out but it would need a beefed up M88 with more than 20 000 pounds thrust.
1/3rd Neuron
1/3rd Rafale
1/3rd 2000

I would say - something Mirage 2000 sized with a M88, and the Neuron intake on the bottom of course rather than on the back. And twin tails. The J-20 in passing is proof that canards can be married to stealth, so that part inherited from Rafale and 4000 could be allowed to survive.

 

[zen]

Can any country?
Well in no particular order...
UK
France
Sweden
Italy
South Korea
Japan
Taiwan
Possibly Turkey

Honourable mentions go to
Czech Republic
Poland
Spain
Brazil
Iran
Israel if America lets/funds them

Sadly South Africa has dropped off the list....maybe the UAE might take that slot.
Yugoslavia doesn't exist and Serbia alone is unlikely.
Romania?
And Canada could afford it
As could Australia

And speaking of cash, Saudi Arabia

And maybe we should add Ukraine as a wildcard?

 

[helmutkohl]

Not sure if the Sukhoi Checkmate is really a light fighter in practice.. its size and weight makes it more of a medium sized fighter
more like a MiG-29, J-10 and late model F-16 rather than a Gripen, F-20, or Mirage 2000.

among fan art I've always liked this "F-36" which is basically a single engined YF-23
unfortunately from what I've seen from whoever that drew this (not sure who),
the 2 thin bays can only fit 2 AAMs in each

one that has flown is the X-36.
It borrowed a lot from the McDonnel Douglas JAST idea (around this time McDs just merged into Boeing)
IRC, Boeing said the design proved its concepts of a tailless design
and it could be scaled up into a UCAV or a manned light fighter

this kind of planform looks like it could fit two side by side bays
or one main bay, and to smaller side bays (like Checkmate)

It also depends who is making it.. a larger country like Japan can likely stuff it more with indigenous avionics
if its something like Sweden, it may rely more on off the shelf gear

I like what SUkhoi did in trying to reduce time and potentially costs by using existing things..
if I followed that route..

I would take this X-36 design, enlarge it to a manned design.
not sure how large.. but perhaps go with an F414, EJ200.. or even RB88 (but I think the latter 2 provide more thrust).
or if heavier, then a larger F110/F100

Avionics could try to just use existing radar and other systems such as the RBE2 Aesa and Spectra from France, which seem very good
or something similar from Elbit
try to fit it with Meteors, IRIS-T or ASRAAM

 

[cattalonX]

 

[riggerrob]

Let's compare maximum take-off weight of similar airplanes: JF-17 17,000 POUNDS, MiG 21 23,000 pounds, Northrup F-5E Tiger II 15,000 pounds, Israeli Lavi 42,500 pounds, Yugoslav Novi Avion 30,000 pounds, SAAB Grippen 31,000 pounds, Sukhoi Checkmate 20,000 pounds, Swiss ALR Piranha 22,000 pounds, Tejas Mark 1 30,000 pounds, etc.
So we are limited to a maximum take-off weight of 15,000 to 30,000 pounds.

The next question is: what thrust-to-weight ratio do we want?
Thrust-to-weight ratio then defines the engine type ... hopefully at type already in production.

Remember that this fictional light fighter must compete with Sukhoi Checkmate in terms of looks and price.

 

[riggerrob]

When examining Sukhoi Checkmate's main landing gear, I wondered why it retracts forward. This retracts main wheels towards the center-of-gravity. Volume near the C. of G. is valuable landscape for disposable loads like fuel and weapons.
That matches retraction schemes of F-14 Tomcat and CF-104 Starfighter. Both airplanes were designed before relaxed-stability and fly-by-wire were introduced. Which makes me wonder if Checkmate enjoys aerodynamic stability strong enough not to need fly-by-wire, electronically-augmented stability.

Which raises the question of: "Does our hypothetical light fighter need the latest in fly-by-wire?"
That raises another question about the purchase price of fly-by-wire.
Which raises more questions about the long term cost of maintaining fly-by-wire, especially the cost of periodic software up-dates.

 

[zen]

Retraction forward however means lowering goes with the airflow. Can help it even.

Really reading too much into that issue I suspect.

RSS (relaxed static stability) CCV (control configured vehicle) delivers enormous bonuses and frankly is worth the cost. Shorter TO & L runs, higher agility, faster responses, even lowering drag and improving lift = carry more weight.

Two main areas of contention really.
1. Fuel fraction/radius of action figures
2. Internal weapons bay size/weapons type / missions spectrum

A pure Fighter with 2 to 4 MRAAM and 2 SRAAM doesn't need big bays.
But various PGM for Attack missions do raise the question of what is needed when.
After all if Day 1 needs LO delivered SEAD/DEAD then maybe Alarm sized (MRAM sized) weapons might do and hang the heavy ordinance on pylons for Day 2. Because if you're fighting on Day 2 it means you successfully dealt with Air Defence System on Day 1.

However BAI is getting to be a risky LO preferable job. So bays need multiple Brimstone JAGM like load.

And range of Air Defence System missiles may mean even Storm Shadow ranged weapons don't confer safety to launch platform.

Another big question is levels of autonomy / cost.
Sharing picture actually helps cut demands for ever higher sensor performance.

Dark Arts issue. Swedes put a lot of clever kit in Gripen for EW, which has, when they're allowed to use it, proved surprisingly effective in DACT with even US aircraft and pilots.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Let's compare maximum take-off weight of similar airplanes: JF-17 17,000 POUNDS, MiG 21 23,000 pounds, Northrup F-5E Tiger II 15,000 pounds, Israeli Lavi 42,500 pounds, Yugoslav Novi Avion 30,000 pounds, SAAB Grippen 31,000 pounds, Sukhoi Checkmate 20,000 pounds, Swiss ALR Piranha 22,000 pounds, Tejas Mark 1 30,000 pounds, etc.
So we are limited to a maximum take-off weight of 15,000 to 30,000 pounds.

The next question is: what thrust-to-weight ratio do we want?
Thrust-to-weight ratio then defines the engine type ... hopefully at type already in production.

Remember that this fictional light fighter must compete with Sukhoi Checkmate in terms of looks and price.

F414 EPE, 24,000lbs thrust. Allows you to assume up to 12000lbs fuel in a 30klb MTOW aircraft and still be right at a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio at your combat radius.

Especially if you are biasing the design to relatively small weapons like AAMs or SDBs. 6x AMRAAMs is all of 2100lbs of ordnance, after all.

 

[Motocar]

View attachment 661442

Good for speculative curaway drawing...!

 

[Pioneer]

F414 EPE, 24,000lbs thrust. Allows you to assume up to 12000lbs fuel in a 30klb MTOW aircraft and still be right at a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio at your combat radius.

Especially if you are biasing the design to relatively small weapons like AAMs or SDBs. 6x AMRAAMs is all of 2100lbs of ordnance, after all.

I would advise staying away from U.S. engines, as many a good aircraft program has been hoodwinked by U.S. sanctions.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would advise staying away from U.S. engines, as many a good aircraft program has been hoodwinked by U.S. sanctions.....

Regards
Pioneer

Granted, but gives an example of what's possible. M88-4 proposal is about in the same thrust class, for example, and the EJ2x0 stage 1 is as well.