Light fighter

[21] The modern view of light/lightweight fighters is as a capable weapon intended to satisfy the main criteria of air-to-air combat effectiveness,[12][13][14][15][16] which in order of importance, are: 1.

[17][22] As the former editor of 'The Topgun Journal', the author asked hundreds of pilots over a six-year period what single advantage they would like to have, that is, longer-range missiles, more guns, better maneuverability, etc.

For example, from the front the F-15 actually presents about 20 square metres (220 sq ft) radar cross sectional area,[30] and has been typically defeated by opposing F-16 forces not only in close dogfighting combat, but also in extensive Beyond Visual Range (BVR) trials.

[45][46] Light fighters have no inherent aerodynamic advantage for speed and range, but when designed to be as simple as possible they do tend to have lower wing loading and higher thrust to weight ratio.

Additionally, combat experience shows that weapons systems "effectiveness" has not been dominated by the amount of weaponry or "load out", but by the ability to achieve split second kills when in position to do so.

Quoting a prominent reference, "Throughout the history of air combat, a few outstanding fighter pilots, typically less than five percent of the whole, have run up large scores at the expense of their less gifted brethren.

As an example where well referenced data is available, though numerous trial and combat references consider the lightweight F-16 to be as good or better on a per plane as the excellent but expensive F-15,[61][62] fielding and maintaining a light fighter force based on the F-16 is approximately half the cost of the same number of F-15's.

The de Havilland DH.77 and Vickers Jockey monoplanes were among seven designs tendered to meet the specification but neither went into production, the heavier but faster biplane Hawker Fury being preferred.

Despite the failure of their Jockey program, the French returned to lightweight fighters during the 1930s as a means to expand France's fleet of aircraft and counter the buildup of the German air force.

Properly designed with competitive power to weight and thrust to drag ratios, these aircraft out-performed heavy fighters in combat due to greater surprise and maneuverability.

The design philosophy of the Bf 109 was to wrap a small airframe around a powerful engine using Messerschmitt's "lightweight construction" principle, which aimed to minimize the weight and number of separate parts in the aircraft.

[77] With Japanese engine technology lagging behind that of the west, but required to out-perform western fighters, the designers minimised weight to maximize range and maneuverability.

Combined with the US Navy's superior training standards, units equipped with the type achieved a large victory-to-loss ratio against the Zero and other Japanese aircraft.

The Hawker Hurricane played an important role in the Battle of Britain, but its performance was inferior to the Spitfire and during the war was removed from frontline duty as a fighter and used for ground attack.

[85][86][87] The United States Navy, also made aware of lightweight advantages by combat results,[88] ordered a lighter version of the Grumman F6F Hellcat, which at 9,238 lb (4,190 kg) empty weight had limited maneuverability and rate of climb.

The Luftwaffe's Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger of 1945 was a very deliberate attempt at producing a low cost jet fighter without materials that were in short supply at the end of the war.

[97] The Gnat was successful against the capable F-86 flown by well-trained Pakistani pilots[98][97] because its smaller size allowed a superior level of surprise and greater agility in dogfighting.

In the early 1950s, the NATO NBMR-1 competition for a cheap "light weight tactical strike fighter" able to carry conventional or tactical nuclear weapons and operate from dispersed airfields with minimum ground support led to designs including the French SNCASE Baroudeur, Breguet Taon[99] and Dassault Étendard VI, the Italian Aeritalia G.91 and Aerfer Ariete.

[103] Though the United States never procured the F-5 for main line service, it did adopt it as an opposing forces (OPFOR) "aggressor" for dissimilar training role because of its small size and similarity in performance to the Soviet MiG-21.

As of 2016 the F-5 remains in service with many nations, some of which have undertaken extensive upgrade programs to modernize its abilities with digital avionics and radar guided missiles.

In World War II fighter design was strongly influenced by the seeking of higher speeds that were valuable in combat in order to close with the enemy or to escape.

[114] As supersonic performance, with afterburning engines and modern missile armament, became the norm the Soviet Mikoyan MiG-21, the French Mirage III, and the Swedish Saab Draken entered service.

The next generation of lightweight fighters included the American F-16 Fighting Falcon, Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, Indian HAL Tejas, Korean FA-50, Japanese Mitsubishi F-2, Chinese Chengdu J-10 and Pakistani CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder.

The Soviet counterpart to the F-16 and F/A-18, the Mikoyan MiG-29, was originally part of the Perspektivnyy Lyogkiy Frontovoy Istrebitel (LPFI, or "Advanced Lightweight Tactical Fighter") program.

[121] In the 1980s the privately developed F-5G, later renamed the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, aimed to correct weaknesses in the aging F-5 while maintaining small size and low cost.

Its General Electric F404 engine produced 60 percent more power than the F-5, and it had a higher climb rate and acceleration, better cockpit visibility, and more modern radar.

[122] Despite its high performance and cost effectiveness,[citation needed] the F-20 lost out for foreign sales against the similarly capable, more expensive F-16, which was being procured in large numbers by the US Air Force and was viewed as having greater support.

[124][125] The design is similar to the Mirage III and JAS 39 Gripen, being a light tailless delta-wing single-engine fighter with ground attack capability.

[137][138][139] Stealth technology (airframe and engine design that strongly reduce radar and heat signatures) seeks to emphasize the most important feature of fighter effectiveness, the element of surprise.

These fighters are not only stealthy, but also have information or combat awareness advantages due to active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars, and data linking for external cuing of enemy position and friendly force status.