21st century projects in the spirit of the Folland Gnat or Douglas Skyhawk?

cluttonfred

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
323
Website
cluttonfred.info
The Folland Gnat represented attempts to roll back the creep to ever bigger, heavier, faster designs to small, simple aircraft that could still get the job done. The Gnat proved to be quite effective in the air-to-air role. Another such example, though a little larger, would be the Douglas Skyhawk that had an illustrious career as everything from "Scooter" the bomb truck to the the mount of choice for the "agressor" squadrons simulating enemy aircraft in U.S. training.

With modern engines and materials and ever smaller "smart" weapons, some sized to be fired from unmanned vehicles, it ought to be possible to roll back the size, weight, cost and complexity creep again to a lighter, smaller, cheaper but still effective combat aircraft. The new small, light turbofans coming on the market in the 1000-2000 lbs thrust range for personal jets offer interesting possibilities. Is anyone aware of any such projects in the works around the world, or even conceptual designs or student projects that might be floating around?

Cheers,

Matthew
 
There might be, but it would involve a sacrifice of capabilities and therefore survivability. And (at least I believe), current market/tactical thinking seems to be that, if you're going to sacrifice that much capability and go for simplicity, why not dump the pilot altogether then for an even smaller, simpler aircraft. So we'll probably see something akin to a smaller, cheapter X-45/47 fit this role, like I've outlined in the UAV thread.
 
AFAIK, the Scaled Composites ARES, although developed for ground attack,
could be armed with two Sidewinders or four Stingers, for self-defence mainly,
but also for helicopter hunting. And I think, it could be a tough adversary to an
aircraft like a Su 25 Frogfoot, too.
Not a long range, high altitude BVR fighter, of course, but the Gnat wasn't that
either. And by changing the internal gun for a smaller and lighter type, there should
be enough volume and weight saved for a light radar.


And, wasn't the ATG Javelin discussed as a light interceptor for US home defense duties ?
 
it will be a r16 claim that Russians beat the West to a low speed fighter in the Su-25 .
 
I agree that the Ares is a great place to start. Even before the Gnat, the tiny Yak-17 could do almost 500 mph on only 2,000 lbf and the (unarmed) Folland Midge demonstrator could do 600 mph on only 1,640 lbf. Turn a modern designer like Burt Rutan loose with a VLJ engine of around 1,500-2,000 lbf and we ought to be able to see an inexpensive lightweight fighter with great subsonic performance. Even modest armament--a .50 cal machine gun with explosive ammo, a pair of Stingers and some "mini-Hellfire" guided 70mm rockets--could be very effective. Apply some low observability technology (especially IR because of MANPADS) and you have a very useful platform for low-intensity conflict.
 
Jemiba said:
And, wasn't the ATG Javelin discussed as a light interceptor for US home defense duties ?
Click to expand...

The main problem with the Javelin is that it simply isn't around anymore; ATG went belly-up before many could be built, let alone sold.

Though it seems like it would pretty much fit exactly what you're asking for. It was primarily sold as a business jet believe it or not, but it was also sold as a military trainer and home-defense fighter, though those were mostly secondary to its main "business model" (which, with the similar speed performance and more conventional "biz-jet" layout of the competing VLJs, it's no surprise that many didn't take). I think the Israelis were interested, and with a bit of a redesign it could've gone supersonic, maybe.
 
There were a number of Soviet Studies that would be relatively relevant (I'm thinking the S-54/56 and project Integral)
 
Folks, I think, we've forgotten an already existing type, the BAe Hawk 200 ! ;)
 
Folks, I think, we've forgotten an already existing type, the BAe Hawk 200 !
Click to expand...

This is one of those 'read something, somewhere, but can't remember where' posts, anyway, I read in one of Roy Braybrook's AI columns that he considered the Hawk 200 a 'modern-day' Hunter, so, doing a quick check in 'putnam's Hawker', reveals the following:-

Hawk 200 - span 30' 9.5", length 36' 1", height 13' 1", wing area 179.64 sq ft.
weights, empty 8,818 lb, MTO 18,960 lb
power 5,845 lb thrust.
speed, 648mph/M1.2, range 554/2240 miles, [internal/max external fuel], ceiling 44,600 ft, rate of climb,11,510 ft/min.

Hunter span 33' 8", length 45' 10.5", height 13' 2", wing area 340/349 sq ft.
weights, empty 12,128/13,580 lb, MTO 24,000 approx lb
power 5,500/10,000 lb thrust.
speed, 608/621mph/M 0.93/0.95, range not given, ceiling 45,00 ft, rate of climb,not given

comparing this with the data in 'Folland Gnat, sabre slayer and Red Arrow', page 64,

Gnat span 22' 2", length 28' 7", height not given, wing area 136.6 sq ft.
weights, empty 4,604 lb, MTO 8,225lb
power 4,850 lb thrust.
speed, mph not given/M 0.96, range 920 miles, ceiling 50,000+ft, rate of climb,20,000+ ft/min.

thus i would say, that the Hawk 200 is rather too large to be considered a modern-day Gnat, but rather is a modern-day Hunter, as Roy Braybrook asserts.

cheers,
Robin.
 
".. in one of Roy Braybrook's AI columns "

Well, those columns were my favourite reading in AI, as long, as they were published !
And he is right with regards to performances and roles, I think. My thoughts just were,
that the Hawk T.1 was the successor of the Gnat T.1 in RAF service, a considerably
heavier aircraft, than the Gnat, but quite a light aircraft compared to the then current
first line aircraft. The development was just the other way round, from trainer to fighter,
not from fighter to trainer as with the Gnat.
Not all trainer aircraft can be regarded as "light", of course, one example may be the SEPECAT
Jaguar, but the Hawk was developed as a trainer, just big enough to overcome the limitations
of the Gnat T.1, e.g. with regards to pilots size.
But you're right, I think, as a scale, that accepts the Hawk 200 as a light fighter, alwayswould
have to accept vintage MiG 15 (Empty weight 8,115 lbs) as a light fighter today !
 
robunos said:
Hawk 200 - span 30' 9.5", length 36' 1", height 13' 1", wing area 179.64 sq ft.
weights, empty 8,818 lb, MTO 18,960 lb
power 5,845 lb thrust.
speed, 648mph/M1.2, range 554/2240 miles, [internal/max external fuel], ceiling 44,600 ft, rate of climb,11,510 ft/min.
Click to expand...

...that can't be right....
 
it is maximum speed attained in a dive ; Harrier was also supersonic in this context . It is always marketing that rules aviation publications .
 
just re-checked; M1.2 is quoted as 'never exceed speed at altitude', so r16 is right, i'm assuming it's the limiting speed for a high-altitude dive.

my fault, just regurgitated the data table, the article says nothing about performance with regard to speed, only range, sortie profile and weapons load-outs.

cheers,
Robin.
 
The term "fighter" suggests an aircraft capable and intended not only
for air-to-ground, but also for air-to-air missions. Looking at the latest AI
issue, I found an interesting article about another type, that could be
mentioned in this class, too : The EMB-314 Super Tucano. Mainly a light-
attack/COIN/trainer aircraft, but the role of helicopter hunting and fighting
drug trafficking was envisaged from the start.
 
With the ever-increasing complexity and cost of combat aircraft, the actually numbers of new aircraft produced seem to go down with each generation. Back in the 1950s, Teddy Petter tried to reverse that trend with the Folland Gnat as did Ed Heinemann with the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk at about twice the weight of the Gnat, though still lighter and simpler than its contemporaries.

With modern developments in lightweight systems and weapons for UAVs, it ought to be possible to do that again and it might be very interesting as a low-cost option for certain roles and tight budgets. Does anyone know of any 21st century projects for lightweight fighters in the same spirit? For argument's sake, let's say a MTOW of under 5,000 kg for a "Gnat type" and under 10,000 kg for a "Skyhawk type."

Cheers,

Matthew
 
The ATLAS and Blitzfighter projects would be examples of late 20th Century designs that could be still be used as the basis for present day programs:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,510.msg132988.html#msg132988
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,170.45.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/LTV%20Atlas%20Concept.pdf
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9179.0.html

Also, try the Battlefield Support Fighters thread.
 
Hehe, I started that thread back in 2009, I guess I am repeating myself. Technology for UAV systems and weapons is progressing very rapidly, so the combat capabilty of just a few hundred kilograms of ordnance far more than what it once was. I agree completely that the ATLAS and Blitzfigher would make great jumping-off points, but I was wondering if there have been any new designs for very light fighter/attack aircraft in recent years.

Jemiba said:
Wouldn't the BAe Hawk 200 qualify for this category ?
Or perhaps better the ATG Javelin ?
Have a look here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6987.msg59912.html#msg59912
Click to expand...
 
Wouldn't any of the current crop of armed jet trainers qualify? The T-50 and Yak-130 already seem to be making sales based on their use as attack aircraft more than as trainers.
 
Doesn't this belong in the speculative projects section?
 
Isn't a lot of the huge cost of today's fighters due in part to requiring more or less superlative capability and also that every new project has to develop all associated avionics systems etc from scratch? What if we designed a mission-capable airframe around components and systems that have already been developed and paid for?
 
It would seem to me that the HAL Tejas (sp?) light fighter would fit perfectly in this category.
 
Evil Flower said:
Isn't a lot of the huge cost of today's fighters due in part to requiring more or less superlative capability and also that every new project has to develop all associated avionics systems etc from scratch? What if we designed a mission-capable airframe around components and systems that have already been developed and paid for?
Click to expand...
And developing a stealthy shape, if we're getting into 5gen aircraft.

It would be really tight to make a stealthy very light fighter, due to the need to store weapons internally. That just drives the airframe dimensions up, especially if you're talking about a 25"x50"x165" bay. 25"x50"x165" is big enough for a pair of AMRAAMs and a single 2000lb bomb, a pair of 2000lb bombs with no AtA options, or 4-6 AMRAAMs (depending on packing) and a pair of ASRAAMs.

Calling it a fighter, it implies that the usual load would be the max air-to-air load. Which isn't all that heavy, if you're talking AMRAAMs. 350lbs each, plus a pair of 200lb AIM-9Xs/ASRAAMs/IRIS-Ts, makes 4600lbs with 6x AMRAAMs.

Yak-130/M346 Master, T-50, etc, are probably the minimum capacity for a very light "air policing aircraft," what we'd call an interceptor back in the 1970s. Belly tank plus 6x hardpoints, though it may only be wingtips and 2x underwing depending on just how much time the plane can spend in the air on internal fuel alone.

Honestly, I don't see much purpose in deliberately making a very light fighter that isn't being used somewhere as a LIFT, and that kinda sets your payload capacity in the 6000lb+ range.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom