What is a heavy fighter after all?

[pagliacci]

I think many definitions are meaningless. For example, "medium-weight fighter jets, heavy-weight fighter jets" or "4.5th-generation fighter jets, 5.5th-generation fighter jets", just like how chip manufacturers call a chip with an actual line width of 7nm a 2nm chip. It's a marketing gimmick.However, I would like to ask whether using medium-thrust turbofan engines and large-thrust turbofan engines can be regarded as a distinguishable standard. That is to say, an aircraft equipped with two F110, AL-31F or WS-10 engines can be considered a heavy fighter jet, while an aircraft equipped with two F414 or RD-93 engines can be called a medium-sized fighter jet.

 

[Archibald]

In theory the limit was somewhere between F-18 and F-15. But Rafale and Typhoon may disagree... a Rafale is two-third the size of a Mirage 4000, yet can carry as many bombs and missiles (13 - 14 hardpoints).

Also depends from the distinction between a fighter and an interceptor. Think of a MiG-21 and a Tu-128...

MiG-29 : LWF fighter

Su-27 : heavy fighter

MiG-31 : large interceptor.

 

[paralay]

up to 20 tons of maximum take-off weight - light fighter
up to 30 tons - medium fighter
up to 40 tons - main fighter
hereinafter referred to as "air ship"

 

[EmoBirb]

Might as well ask here as it's the closest topic to fit my question.

But why did super-large fighter/interceptors like the Tu-160PP, A2A focused B-1 or YF-12 fail repeatedly. After all, space for plenty of missiles and powerful radars was available, and these aircraft could actually fly fast and high, which lends itself to slinging dangerous AAMs at adversaries. I guess a reason could be cost, but is there something else I'm overlooking with these "super heavy fighter" concepts?

 

[EmoBirb]

The MiG-31 pilot holds the title of "ship commander"

Truly a "guided missile cruiser"

 

[paralay]

Due to the high cost, only superpowers could afford such highly specialized "ships". China is likely to be the only operator J-36 in the sixth generation. Russia is trying to master this area by working towards the development of the MiG-31++ and possibly the PAK DP from Sukhoi. The United States is currently in a state of "falling aircraft". In my opinion, the chances of NGAD and F/A-XX entering service are negligible.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Might as well ask here as it's the closest topic to fit my question.

But why did super-large fighter/interceptors like the Tu-160PP, A2A focused B-1 or YF-12 fail repeatedly. After all, space for plenty of missiles and powerful radars was available, and these aircraft could actually fly fast and high, which lends itself to slinging dangerous AAMs at adversaries. I guess a reason could be cost, but is there something else I'm overlooking with these "super heavy fighter" concepts?

Well, the YF-12 Blackbird was not built because McNamara was throwing a temper tantrum and not releasing the funds allocated by Congress. Also, it only had space for 3-4 missiles. Really good missiles, but only 3-4. As a side note, the YF-12 would need some special setup for scramble interceptor work; the prebreathing needed due to the space suits is a challenge.

But Tu160PP/B-1R were very expensive, and took up bomber production space at the factory.

 

[EmoBirb]

Due to the high cost, only superpowers could afford such highly specialized "ships". China is likely to be the only operator J-36 in the sixth generation. Russia is trying to master this area by working towards the development of the MiG-31++ and possibly the PAK DP from Sukhoi. The United States is currently in a state of "falling aircraft". In my opinion, the chances of NGAD and F/A-XX entering service are negligible.

Isn't PAK DP a Mikoyan project within UAC? (PAK FA for Sukhoi, PAK DA for Tupolev, PAK DP for Mikoyan and PAK VTA for Ilyushin).

Also NGAD will definitely enter service, the USAF is the favorite child of all the branches and NGAD is viewed as an essential part of ensuring national security and maintaining US air power. NGAD, like the B-21, or the Columbia SSBN, or the Ford CVNs is seen as a non negotiable investment and asset for the military.

F/A-XX seems to be somewhat murky currently, but that will most likely also come to fruition. Albeit possibly later than the F-47.

 

[EmoBirb]

But Tu160PP/B-1R were very expensive

What would be the ballpark estimate for a single unit of either of these?

 

[NMaude]

because McNamara was throwing a temper tantrum and not releasing the funds allocated by Congress.

The US Congress should've overridden McNamara and then removed him from office.

 

[pathology_doc]

As a side note, the YF-12 would need some special setup for scramble interceptor work; the prebreathing needed due to the space suits is a challenge.

This is one of the reasons the F-12's cancellation may have been a blessing. The Blackbird family on the whole was complex enough to operate on a basis of pre-planned missions executed without special urgency. Trying to keep the force on any form of readiness could have been a nightmare, let alone trying to fit the complex accelerate-seal-refuel cycle into an interception profile.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What would be the ballpark estimate for a single unit of either of these?

Base cost of bomber plus cost of F-14/MiG-31.

The US Congress should've overridden McNamara and then removed him from office.

Yes. Too bad he knew where too many bodies were buried.

This is one of the reasons the F-12's cancellation may have been a blessing. The Blackbird family on the whole was complex enough to operate on a basis of pre-planned missions executed without special urgency. Trying to keep the force on any form of readiness could have been a nightmare, let alone trying to fit the complex accelerate-seal-refuel cycle into an interception profile.

It'd be possible to make a "scramble RV" that had the crews pre-breathing oxygen. Figuring out how to make food while in pure oxygen would be more than a little exciting, but it's a technical problem.

It wouldn't be pleasant to be on oxygen for however long the alert setup lasted. But it'd be doable.

 

[shin_getter]

Personal categorization:

Light fighter: A fighter with all the desirable characteristics except payload/range that is generally marketed for defensive purposes.

Heavy fighter: A fighter that is significant larger, heavier and more expensive than light fighters for the purpose of much longer range and increased payload for offensive operations, either as escort or fighter bomber.

Note technology change the weight and baseline range of the standard light fighter of the era, and heavy fighter is relative to that.

 

[CJGibson]

Anyway...in the modern era is there actually anything that could be called a fighter? Everything is multi-role, even the 'not a pound for air to ground' Eagle went bombing.

Chris

 

[Archibald]

This is one of the reasons the F-12's cancellation may have been a blessing. The Blackbird family on the whole was complex enough to operate on a basis of pre-planned missions executed without special urgency. Trying to keep the force on any form of readiness could have been a nightmare, let alone trying to fit the complex accelerate-seal-refuel cycle into an interception profile.

Also the very specific JP-7 fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7
-triethylborane (TEB) "shots" to start and to go afterburning
-copious amount of JP-7 leaking on the ground because the YF-12 titanium structure only fully sealed at high mach numbers;
-so YF-12 would need a refueling immediately after takeoff;
-but, with the KC-135 running on classic JP-4, the tanker needs to be a specialized variant: KC-135Q

More generally: titanium is a b*tch at many levels, operationally. No surprise the B-70 went for stainless steel. Boeing 2707-300 SST picked titanium but would have paid a heavy prize to it.

Both A-12 and SR-71 were not "miracle planes" - whatever the internet says LMAO. They had stupendous performances but compromises had to be made along the way.
These compromises were tolerable for "silver bullet" strategic reconnaissance planes, operated by the CIA. But going into the fighter or bomber business created different requirements that ran headon into the A-12 / SR-71 particularities.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Also the very specific JP-7 fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-7
-triethylborane (TEB) "shots" to start and to go afterburning
-copious amount of JP-7 leaking on the ground because the YF-12 titanium structure only fully sealed at high mach numbers;
-so YF-12 would need a refueling immediately after takeoff;
-but, with the KC-135 running on classic JP-4, the tanker needs to be a specialized variant: KC-135Q

There were specific Blackbird missions that did not feature a refueling. Forget what the crews called them. IIRC the usual reason to take off without a full fuel load was runway length. There's a big difference in how much runway you need to take off at 150klbs versus 100klbs.

But yes, it'd be a complete pain in the ass to keep a Blackbird fully fueled on the apron.

I suspect that if the USAF got their 100x F-12 interceptors many more of the KC135s would have been modified to -Q models.

 

[Low IQ Techie]

The definition of Light/Medium/Heavy fighter might change from era to era, gen to gen. It may not be right to comapre jets of 2 different gens like F-18 SH Vs F-35.



Since WW era, technology evolved & type of FIGHT & FIGHTER changed.
Gunfight -> WVR fight with IR-CCM -> BVR fight.
6gen tech aims to have DEW-CIWS, so we'll see DEW fight, rendering gun-fight obsolete.

Materials & Mechanical Engineering improved & hence component type & weight changed, so overall weight/capcity also chaged.

1 or 2 engines decided on cost Vs performance & redundancy. F135 engine is equivalent of 2x F414 engines.

5gen F-22 has STOW (Stealth Take OFF Weight) = 19.7(empty) + 8.2 (fuel) + 1.1 (AAMs) = 29 tons.
If 6gen aims to have more fuel, weapons + DEW internally then STOW might reach 35tons.

MTOW is roughly 2x +/- empty weight. F-22 has 38 tons MTOW. It also depends on lift > wing config > wing area, velocity, air density.
So 6gen MTOW might reach 45-50 tons.

Some people imagine 7gen SR-72 Darkstar kind of high altitude fighter, which would need huge fuel + bigger hypersonic AAMs/AGMs + DEW. So it would be something comparable in size with SR-71 derived A-12.

 

[6footboy]

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)

Wouldn't those designs be successful because they hit the performance targets and were free of current-day politics: MiG-31 covering vast areas of Russian Siberia and arctic, Su-27 needing big fuel load to loiter for long, and SR-71 needing to go fast and far? West also does not lack successful heavy aircraft. If Avro Arrow was allowed to take off, perhaps we would have had a similar case there too (Canada being similarly geographically configured like Russia? Chinese 6th gen seem to be designed to deny force multipliers close to their coast - so again, fit for use, fit for purpose rather than just being successful because they were heavy?

 

[6footboy]

Might as well ask here as it's the closest topic to fit my question.

But why did super-large fighter/interceptors like the Tu-160PP, A2A focused B-1 or YF-12 fail repeatedly. After all, space for plenty of missiles and powerful radars was available, and these aircraft could actually fly fast and high, which lends itself to slinging dangerous AAMs at adversaries. I guess a reason could be cost, but is there something else I'm overlooking with these "super heavy fighter" concepts?

1) Politics; 2) Change of military doctrine; 3) New weapons or technologies entering the scene; 4) Change of needs.... Many reasons in every particular case....
I forgot 5) Costs and budget....

 

[Sferrin]

Might as well ask here as it's the closest topic to fit my question.

But why did super-large fighter/interceptors like the Tu-160PP, A2A focused B-1 or YF-12 fail repeatedly. After all, space for plenty of missiles and powerful radars was available, and these aircraft could actually fly fast and high, which lends itself to slinging dangerous AAMs at adversaries. I guess a reason could be cost, but is there something else I'm overlooking with these "super heavy fighter" concepts?

Not enough targets to justify the expense. XF-108 and YF-12 were meant to counter supersonic strategic bombers. When they didn't materialize the F-106 was good enough for Bears.

 

[CJGibson]

That would be this:View attachment 769404

Errr...no, Nimrod is longer. And had 4 x AAMs. And entered operational service.



Chris

 

[Sferrin]

Errr...no, Nimrod is longer. And had 4 x AAMs.

View attachment 769542

Chris

Is that a fighter? Certainly nobody would say this was one of the largest fighters.

 

[CJGibson]

That is a perfect example of what I said earlier; no such thing as a fighter any more.

Chris

 

[uk 75]

Dassault knew what a heavy fighter was. Sadly never reached service..

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mirage-4000.34/

 

[shin_getter]

Anyway...in the modern era is there actually anything that could be called a fighter? Everything is multi-role, even the 'not a pound for air to ground' Eagle went bombing.

Think of the pursuit role. Only a fast airplane with good kinematics can do it.

This is why YB-40 was not a "fighter" while every fast airplane with AA weapon probably falls under it.