Has there ever been an F-22 based light fighter?

T

torginus

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
27 October 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
42
Has the US ever proposed and/or seriously considered making a lower-end single-engine fighter based on the F-22 to the style of Su-57/Checkmate?
Since the late of the Cold War, it seems that most major powers have taken to employing a "high-low" mix of platforms, but usually these have been unrelated designs most often built by different companies with low percentage of shared components.
For the fifth generation fighters, the Russians/Soviets have seemingly adopted the outlook that a low-end fighter can be a downscale version of their top-of the line jets, this was proposed with the MiG LFI/MFI and seems to have become a reality.

I think this commonality makes a ton of sense since development time, resources, logistics, and weapons integration can be shared between the two aircraft.

As far as I know, the F-35, despite being built by the same company, has very little commonality with the F-22.
 
CALF is probably as close as we came. It was sized for a single F119, but that was the limit of the commonality. (And of course CALF fed into JSF, so if you squint really hard....)
 
Wasnt that what JSF was supposed to be? Isnt the F135 derivative from the F119?
 
Desertfox said:
Wasnt that what JSF was supposed to be? Isnt the F135 derivative from the F119?
Click to expand...

JSF (and thus F-35) is the result of tri-service requirements for a multi-role fighter, not of someone´s requirement for an 'F-22 light'.
F135 is a derivative of the F119. Same core, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
There's also a relatively high lower size limit for a fighter that carries weapons internally.

For all practical purposes, the F35 is just above that lower size limit!

In terms of payload volume, the practical minimum size is 2x AMRAAMs and 1x 2000lb JDAM (convertible to 4x AMRAAMs for a pure AtA load). Will you usually carry that 2000lb JDAM? No. You'd usually be carrying a bunch of SDBs, exact number depending on bay volume (VTOLicious' design had 4-6x, my strongly suggested modification would have ended up with 8x due to how that bay worked). But some rare missions would require giving someone a BLU-109 bunker enema, or delivering 2000lbs of Official Displeasure to the local Bad Guys.

In practice, the KF21 is about the smallest you will find, and it's roughly the size of a Legacy Hornet.

Something Gripen sized is just too small to have a viable internal payload.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Something Gripen sized is just too small to have a viable internal payload.
Click to expand...
Just to be awkward, there were a couple of the SABA designs that sort of had internal payloads,

P.1234-3 with a twin-tube HVM turret with a magazine of 12 missiles
P.1239 with a conformal overfuselage weapon pod with options including cluster munitions, 72 top-ejecting Merlin guided mortar rounds and 14 Starstreaks.

But they're really pushing the boundaries of viable combat aircraft, they feature physically smaller weapons (though other SABA concepts had ASRAAM) and they're definitely not in Gripen, never mind F-22 territory.
 
JSF is a far better strike fighter than anything a single engine F22 could ever be.
However I do wish the USAF had bought an advanced LIFT jet based on the F-22, and that's where the single engine could really shine. The LO features incorporated into the base design could also helps with low intensity ops and I could see it eventually replacing the A-10 ( STOL, cheaper stealth, SDB slinging capable).
 
DWG said:
Just to be awkward, there were a couple of the SABA designs that sort of had internal payloads,

P.1234-3 with a twin-tube HVM turret with a magazine of 12 missiles
P.1239 with a conformal overfuselage weapon pod with options including cluster munitions, 72 top-ejecting Merlin guided mortar rounds and 14 Starstreaks.

But they're really pushing the boundaries of viable combat aircraft, they feature physically smaller weapons (though other SABA concepts had ASRAAM) and they're definitely not in Gripen, never mind F-22 territory.
Click to expand...
And that's the catch.

If you expect a plane to use your legacy weapons, you need a big freaking airframe, even for a single engine "lightweight fighter"
 
Couldn't one just decrease average density (i.e. make a bigger volume without increasing structural weight or size overall), and compensate for the drag penalty with reduced wing area?

With a light fighter you are losing some kinematic performance anyway and one can compensate with HOBs. I suppose there might still be an issue with deployability (i.e. runway length vs. speed).

I always thought the main barrier to modern light fighters was the fact that the avionics doesn't get cheaper, but you lose payload (so from a cost/benefit analysis it is better to have larger and slightly more capable platforms). But I've never seen it as really having an engineering obstacle.
 
Avimimus said:
Couldn't one just decrease average density (i.e. make a bigger volume without increasing structural weight or size overall), and compensate for the drag penalty with reduced wing area?
Click to expand...
Except that a highly maneuverable fighter needs big wings.


Avimimus said:
I always thought the main barrier to modern light fighters was the fact that the avionics doesn't get cheaper, but you lose payload (so from a cost/benefit analysis it is better to have larger and slightly more capable platforms). But I've never seen it as really having an engineering obstacle.
Click to expand...
If you followed the F15/F16 model, where the two planes use the same engine (and I believe you can pull an F100 out of an F15 and stick it directly into an F16), you get some economies of scale there, and you also get economies in terms of only needing to do one engine's worth of maintenance per flight instead of 2 engines like for the F18.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom