What is a heavy fighter after all?

T

Titus

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
2 June 2019
Messages
39
Reaction score
86
I will try to be brief.
Over on the Sino Defense Forum in the Air Force thread, someone made the statement that China now operates the world's largest force of heavy fighters. The PLAAF and PLANAF combined apparently operate a fleet of about 1,263 J-11/15/16/20 and SU-27/30 and 33. The total also includes about 200 JH-7s but excludes J-8s (due to their 18MT MTOW).
This compares to 580 USAF F-22s and various F-15s. Now...
For some reason, F-35s and F-18E/F/G Super Hornets are being excluded from US heavy fighter status even though their MTOW approximates to about 29 or 30 tons. If included, the US fleet of heavy fighters would be 1600 to 1700 aircraft.

My question: Which of the following are (or were) considered heavy fighters?
1. Tornado ADV (28 tons MTOW)
2. F-4E Phantom (28 tons)
3. Mirage 4000 (25 tons)
4. Lightning F.6 (20 tons)
(I am excluding such obvious monsters as F-14, Mig-25, Mig-31, etc... because there is no doubt over these beasts.)

FWIW, J-15/J-16 MTOW is @35 metric tons and F-16C/D are @20 tons. I propose that 30 ton Super Hornet or F-35 Lightning 2 are heavy fighters by historic standards.

Am I wrong?
 
You're asking if an arbitrary line in the sand some schmuck on the internet (literally who?) drew for the purposes of nationalism chestbeating could be drawn elsewhere so that you can win a forum argument.

That is a game, not a discussion.
 
No it's not. It is a question. Are Super Hornets heavy fighters by historic standards. The unnamed person, (I have no idea if they are schmuckish or not. Probably a very nice guy. We throw around insults on the web too freely I think), is judging these two American fighter-bombers by the very limited standard of the SU-27 family of very heavies and I disagree.

But thanks for your opinion anyway.
 
Titus said:
I will try to be brief.
Over on the Sino Defense Forum in the Air Force thread, someone made the statement that China now operates the world's largest force of heavy fighters. The PLAAF and PLANAF combined apparently operate a fleet of about 1,263 J-11/15/16/20 and SU-27/30 and 33. The total also includes about 200 JH-7s but excludes J-8s (due to their 18MT MTOW).
This compares to 580 USAF F-22s and various F-15s. Now...
For some reason, F-35s and F-18E/F/G Super Hornets are being excluded from US heavy fighter status even though their MTOW approximates to about 29 or 30 tons. If included, the US fleet of heavy fighters would be 1600 to 1700 aircraft.

My question: Which of the following are (or were) considered heavy fighters?
1. Tornado ADV (28 tons MTOW)
2. F-4E Phantom (28 tons)
3. Mirage 4000 (25 tons)
4. Lightning F.6 (20 tons)
(I am excluding such obvious monsters as F-14, Mig-25, Mig-31, etc... because there is no doubt over these beasts.)

FWIW, J-15/J-16 MTOW is @35 metric tons and F-16C/D are @20 tons. I propose that 30 ton Super Hornet or F-35 Lightning 2 are heavy fighters by historic standards.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Here's what I interpret. Newer planes are heavier.

Naturally 5th gen aircraft are going to heavier than their 4th gen contemporaries as everything needs to be moved internally and larger electronics and systems are incorporated into the system.

The F-35 would be considered a heavy weight fighter when comparing it's weights to all fighters, but when compared to the few 5th generation aircraft it get's more foggy.
Take a look at this graphic I made below:
1746825057209.png

When grouped like this, the F-35 is definitely the heaviest of the so called 'medium' class fighters of the 5th generation, far heavier than 4th generation aircraft, and it's starting to reach the weight of the lightest heavy fighters the F-15. But when compared to fighters of it's generation it is much lighter in comparison. That's why some commentators would group the F-35 in with aircraft like the upcoming 5th gens the AMCA, J-35, and KF-21 Blk 3.

Note the KF-21 Seems to be the lightest of the '5th gen' med. fighters, that's because I used the 4.5gen blk1 weight. But I'm sure the blk 3 will be heavier than the blk 1. And it fits near perfect, the halfway between 5th and 4th is halfway between the weights of 5th and 4th gen mediums.

By historic standards you mean how historic? Because compared to early jet's all modern fighters would be akin to fighter-bombers, while compared to ww2 standard fighters nowadays would be just bombers.

I think the stealth generation needs to have a their weight classes separate from legacy jets, as the whole airframe must be designed differently to meet the modern standards, all planes will get heavier by default.
 
Last edited:
Titus said:
No it's not. It is a question. Are Super Hornets heavy fighters by historic standards. The unnamed person, (I have no idea if they are schmuckish or not. Probably a very nice guy. We throw around insults on the web too freely I think), is judging these two American fighter-bombers by the very limited standard of the SU-27 family of very heavies and I disagree.

But thanks for your opinion anyway.
Click to expand...
The Super Hornet is almost as heavy, and more powerful, than the F-14A Tomcat. I doubt there is anybody who wouldn't consider the Tomcat a "heavy" fighter.
 
Last edited:
Titus said:
I will try to be brief.
Over on the Sino Defense Forum in the Air Force thread, someone made the statement that China now operates the world's largest force of heavy fighters. The PLAAF and PLANAF combined apparently operate a fleet of about 1,263 J-11/15/16/20 and SU-27/30 and 33. The total also includes about 200 JH-7s but excludes J-8s (due to their 18MT MTOW).
This compares to 580 USAF F-22s and various F-15s. Now...
For some reason, F-35s and F-18E/F/G Super Hornets are being excluded from US heavy fighter status even though their MTOW approximates to about 29 or 30 tons. If included, the US fleet of heavy fighters would be 1600 to 1700 aircraft.

My question: Which of the following are (or were) considered heavy fighters?
1. Tornado ADV (28 tons MTOW)
2. F-4E Phantom (28 tons)
3. Mirage 4000 (25 tons)
4. Lightning F.6 (20 tons)
(I am excluding such obvious monsters as F-14, Mig-25, Mig-31, etc... because there is no doubt over these beasts.)

FWIW, J-15/J-16 MTOW is @35 metric tons and F-16C/D are @20 tons. I propose that 30 ton Super Hornet or F-35 Lightning 2 are heavy fighters by historic standards.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Sounds like something to help someone's insecurity.
 
Taking a step back from the pie-fight, is it down to the square/cube factor ?

Bigger plane can carry more ordnance internally, reducing its radar profile, plus more fuel, plus bigger engines etc etc...

Tangential, IIRC, the 'EE Lightning' was considered 'big' for its day. But, as I understand it, the base design was an 'experimental sub-scale prototype', and the 'Real Deal' was expected to be about 20% or more 'bigger'. Sorta B-58 'Hustler' proportions. With ample room for stuff that ended up hung / clung to the EE L's wings and tum. And, yes, the B-58 was too small for the stuff it was soon expected to carry, hence the belly-pod etc...
 
Nik said:
Taking a step back from the pie-fight, is it down to the square/cube factor ?

Bigger plane can carry more ordnance internally, reducing its radar profile, plus more fuel, plus bigger engines etc etc...

Tangential, IIRC, the 'EE Lightning' was considered 'big' for its day. But, as I understand it, the base design was an 'experimental sub-scale prototype', and the 'Real Deal' was expected to be about 20% or more 'bigger'. Sorta B-58 'Hustler' proportions. With ample room for stuff that ended up hung / clung to the EE L's wings and tum. And, yes, the B-58 was too small for the stuff it was soon expected to carry, hence the belly-pod etc...
Click to expand...
Then you have the other kind. F-106 was 70 feet long but topped out at 42,000 lbs. So was it a "heavy" fighter or a light fighter?
 
Hmm. Thanks to all. I would agree about advancing generations getting heavier. However, almost all the Chinese birds I listed are gen 4 or 4.5 gen (though the Chi-coms don't use that nomenclature) - only the J-20 is a 5th generation fighter. I would say Super Hornet and J-16 are both 4.5 Gen and - to me - are equivalent except in range.

Weight categories must necessarily be arbitrary and it is rare for designers to announce they are introducing any other weight category than 'light fighters' (like the Folland Gnat or Northrup F-5). What builder has ever announced a new model as a 'heavy fighter'.

And the EE Lightning. What a badass old bird. Anyone remember the cartoon in Air International from the 70s or 80s showing a couple English chaps at Farnborough Air Show studying a pair of close formation contrails at high altitude? One of them finally says, "It's an F4, an F-14, F-15, a Tornado, a pair of very well flown Starfighters or a Lightning flying sideways." (Or something like that.)
 
Titus said:
F-18E/F/G Super Hornets are being excluded from US heavy fighter status even though their MTOW approximates to about 29 or 30 tons.
Click to expand...

The Super Hornets are definitely to be considered "heavy fighters". They're very large, twin engine, long range, top of the line fighters, like the F-14, F-15 or Su-27/30/33/35 are.

The Legacy Hornets however are probably more so "medium" weight.
 
I think a big part of "heavy fighter" is a hangover from WW2 with the twins like the Me110 or Mosquito being significantly heavier armed than the single-engined fighters. (Note that a P-38 isn't all that heavily armed compared to P-51 or P-47, it's just all parked in one place and firing directly forwards instead of converging at an angle.)

There's also a big of hangover between using single-engine or twin-engine jets as the definition, but that got mangled by the T-38/F-5, which is basically a motorcycle with a pair of J85s strapped to it.

We could make a decent argument based on weapons load, I guess, but we gotta count AAMs only, not total payload. Because AAMs are a lot lighter than bombs.

So, I'd say that a heavy fighter can carry at least 6-8x BVRAAMs and 2x WVRAAMs. (Possible exception for 4x BVRAAMs and 4x WVRAAMs also being heavy fighters, so F-4s would definitely count.)
  • F-35 with sidekicks can carry 6x BVRAAMs, but no WVRAAMs, so it's a medium despite having a 70klb MTOW.
  • "Murder Hornet" config Super Bugs with 4x AIM-174s, 2x(4x?) AMRAAMs, and 2x AIM-9s is definitely a heavy fighter by AAM load, even if I'm not totally happy about the radar installed (dish is too small, IMO).
My quibble with the "Murder Hornet" as a heavy fighter means I guess I also want to include having a radar big enough to track targets at ranges outside the BVRAAM's engagement range in the definition of Heavy Fighter.

What say the rest of you for my definition?
 
Scott Kenny said:
So, I'd say that a heavy fighter can carry at least 6-8x BVRAAMs and 2x WVRAAMs. (Possible exception for 4x BVRAAMs and 4x WVRAAMs also being heavy fighters, so F-4s would definitely count.)
  • F-35 with sidekicks can carry 6x BVRAAMs, but no WVRAAMs, so it's a medium despite having a 70klb MTOW.

What say the rest of you for my definition?
Click to expand...
To be fair, if you use external pylon then F-35 can carry something like 12-14 AAM
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think a big part of "heavy fighter" is a hangover from WW2 with the twins like the Me110 or Mosquito being significantly heavier armed than the single-engined fighters. (Note that a P-38 isn't all that heavily armed compared to P-51 or P-47, it's just all parked in one place and firing directly forwards instead of converging at an angle.)

There's also a big of hangover between using single-engine or twin-engine jets as the definition, but that got mangled by the T-38/F-5, which is basically a motorcycle with a pair of J85s strapped to it.

We could make a decent argument based on weapons load, I guess, but we gotta count AAMs only, not total payload. Because AAMs are a lot lighter than bombs.

So, I'd say that a heavy fighter can carry at least 6-8x BVRAAMs and 2x WVRAAMs. (Possible exception for 4x BVRAAMs and 4x WVRAAMs also being heavy fighters, so F-4s would definitely count.)
  • F-35 with sidekicks can carry 6x BVRAAMs, but no WVRAAMs, so it's a medium despite having a 70klb MTOW.
  • "Murder Hornet" config Super Bugs with 4x AIM-174s, 2x(4x?) AMRAAMs, and 2x AIM-9s is definitely a heavy fighter by AAM load, even if I'm not totally happy about the radar installed (dish is too small, IMO).
My quibble with the "Murder Hornet" as a heavy fighter means I guess I also want to include having a radar big enough to track targets at ranges outside the BVRAAM's engagement range in the definition of Heavy Fighter.

What say the rest of you for my definition?
Click to expand...
the matter is always upon the engine.


A heavy fighter always will use 2 engines and a light fighter just one.

As engines become more powerful a twin engined aircraft becomes a light fighter because now a single engine can do the thrust of two engines thus the single engined fighter can be as heavy as an older generation fighter.


F-5 would had been a heavy fighter for WWI or compared to Me-110 or even Me-262, but by 1969 the F-111 was the truly heavy fighter..

If you compare now a Mirage III versus a F-35 you can see the F-35 is a heavy fighter for 1960, but a Mirage III was a heavy fighter for 1941.


Is the F/A-18E a heavy fighter? yes it is but for 2010.

is a Mirage III a heavy fighter? for a WWII aircraft it is but for a 2025 aircraft it is not.

average weight for a light fighter in WWII 3000kg, for a 1960 aircraft 11000kg, for a 1980 aircraft 18000kg
 
Last edited:
A meaningless discussion really.

"Lightweight" and "heavy" are defined according to the standards of the time and place. Lightweight being smaller than average and heavy larger than average.

F-18 and F-35 I would characterise as "medium". F-15A/C borderline medium/heavy.

I don't understand the purpose of the topic. Labels are arbitrary and of little value.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
A meaningless discussion really.

"Lightweight" and "heavy" are defined according to the standards of the time and place.

F-18 and F-35 I would characterise "medium".

I don't understand the purpose of the topic. Labels are arbitrary and of little value.
Click to expand...
well there is a point important as aircraft become heavier, their structure becomes exposed to heavier torsional forces, they need for higher speeds for take off and longer take off distance,

Where I worked the airstrip was ok in winter for ATR-42s, but not for E-170s.

The embraer jet was only a spring to autumn airliner.

the take off style of the ATR-42 was even different and the landing gear much shorter, than the E-170.


Fighters are not different a WWI fighter by being lighter has less torsional force strength applied to the fuselage so technically lower speeds and higher turn rate at lower speeds, newer aircraft little by little are becoming less agile.

So Drones are replacing the manned fighter, because a heavier aircraft is much more fragile and needs stronger materials for its structure and higher speeds for take off.

A modern light sport aircraft at low speeds will be far much more agile than a F-35 at low speeds
 
In historical times a heavy fighter was an escort fighter like the Messerschmitt Bf 110 or a long-range interceptor like the Tupolev Tu-28 or the Lavotchin La-250, a lot of propulsion, a lot of fuel, a lot of armament and mediocre performances in dogfight.

https://soha.vn/anh-suc-manh-tiem-kich-danh-chan-lon-nhat-the-gioi-cua-lien-xo-20160613112314287.htm

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=217056153423784&set=pcb.217056420090424



In my opinion, the best definition of a heavy fighter today is a combat aircraft with excessive structural weight that penalizes payload and range. The future belongs to the light, the smaller the better.
 

Attachments

  • 3097aa02afdcc7830323c78bd4ee60f9.jpg
    3097aa02afdcc7830323c78bd4ee60f9.jpg
    98.4 KB · Views: 29
  • 134372673_217056156757117_6340743008342140130_n.jpg
    134372673_217056156757117_6340743008342140130_n.jpg
    40.1 KB · Views: 29
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    116.4 KB · Views: 32
Last edited:
As much as I hate to type it, this might be a good test question for any and all of the currently openly accessible online AI engines to compare and contrast the answers and associated logical(?) reasoning and argumentation.
 
Not even sure if "heavy", "light" and "medium" fighter have real common definition that everyone agrees. In fact it's kinda like ships where people doing their own thing, calling Helicopter carrier a "Destroyer" or an "Aviation cruiser" It's more political and for propaganda purpose at best.
 
In the opening years of WW2, the distinction was between twins with cannon and singles without, later shifting to twins with more cannon and singles with, and then the armament distinction gets lost as soon as the Typhoon 1b comes into service with four Hispanos. Beyond that point it becomes more of a distinction of twin engines and multiple crew (with or without radar) vs. single. Even then, there are freak cases like the F-82, but by the time she's in service she compares to the P-61, a three-crew, twin-engined night fighter with cannon AND a powerfully armed turret (at least at first), definitely in the heavy category.

Jet fighters lose the twin/single distinction from the very start, since BOTH sides' first jet fighters were twins (Meteor, Me262). In fact, I think one could argue that the light/heavy distinction becomes meaningless after World War 2, aircraft like the Gnat and the F-5 notwithstanding. Eventually the temptation to add capability becomes too great, which is why we have pictures of the F-20 flying around with Sparrows underneath and why the F-104 actually carried them in Italian service.
 
I don't really think weight is a meaningful label. The light/medium/heavy fighter classification seems more like wishful simplification by people who don't deeply understand military affairs - just to make it easier for casual understanding and cockfighting comparisons - what useful deduction can we actually get from such categorization? As for whether China has the so-called largest heavy fighter fleet today or prefers heavy fighters, I think it's merely a superficial outcome of specific operational requirements and objectives, nothing more than a characteristic without real significance.

This kind of nationalist-driven military rhetoric appears to have proliferated in recent times. The world hasn't been engulfed in flames (yet?), but the smell of smoke is already palpable.
 
Like the nth generation bollocks, this is nonsense in this day and age.
CJGibson said:
This...
View attachment 769401
...is a heavy fighter.

Chris
Click to expand...
Call that a heavy fighter?

Tu-160PP.png

Tu-160PP — project of the director-interceptor. The Tu-160PP was supposed to be produced in the version of the aircraft, intended for the organization of a collective system of electronic counteraction of groups of strategic carriers, as well as for long-range interception of attack and transport aircraft of a potential enemy.
Click to expand...
STRATEGIC MISSILE CARRIER-BOMBER TU-160 / Zatuchny A. M., Rigmant V. G., Sineokiy P. M. - Polygon, 2016
 
The duck is an animal that can run, fly, and swim, but it doesn't do any of the three things well.
 

Attachments

  • 808.jpg
    808.jpg
    971 KB · Views: 12
EmoBirb said:
The Super Hornets are definitely to be considered "heavy fighters". They're very large, twin engine, long range, top of the line fighters, like the F-14, F-15 or Su-27/30/33/35 are.

The Legacy Hornets however are probably more so "medium" weight.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
CJGibson said:
Like the nth generation bollocks, this is nonsense in this day and age.

This...
View attachment 769401
...is a heavy fighter.

Chris
Click to expand...
Did the Mighty Hunter mount Sidewinders? I never knew that.

Let me rephrase my question please: everyone being in agreement that the original question was asked on the Sino Defense Forum by a nationalistic probably high schooler, under those circumstances (that is the world of the internet Warrior), why would we exclude the fa-18E/F/Gs and the f-35s from the list of heavy Fighters?

BTW, thanks for the responses. I am constantly humbled by the quantity of little gray cells on the SPF Forum.
 
I think the Chinese & Russian tilt towards heavy fighters is also largely an artifact of the Su-27's success and Mig-29's failure to compete with other contemporary designs (in relative terms). Everything flows from there - engine size, upgraded platforms etc. That's how you get such a large fleet of J-11/J-15/J-16 etc.

Whereas Western medium designs starting with the F/A-18, and now Rafale, Typhoon and F-35 have all provided essentially the same (or better) capability in somewhat smaller, more weight optimized airframes that leverage the West's technological lead in engine technology, composites and avionics. (Though China appears to be catching up and possibly even on par in some respects with its newest designs)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom