No More New Fighter Aircraft Types?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:33 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:58:55 -0600, Ed Rasimus wrote:

No thanks. Air dominance and ground attack seem to work best with
dedicated air frames in a hi/lo mix

Wny? Why not standardise on one fighter?

A good question. Start by acknowledging that modern tactical aircraft
are not simply airplanes that fight. They are complex weapon systems
that bring together not only the airframe but the sensors, the
weapons, the defenses, etc. All of these components come with their
own baggage of trade-offs, compromises that must be made to get the
job done. For example stealth has become a desireable asset, but
building a stealthy airframe often means loss of manueverability.

An air superiority system needs high thrust/weight ratio, high
manueverability, reasonable range, short response time etc. It also
needs a sensor suite that can find, sort and allocate weapons to the
enemy. Ideally it should have longer reach than the enemy platform and
possess sufficient stealth to allow first-look/first-shot.

The ground attack system needs a different sensor suite and must be
capable of carrying a meaningful payload. It has to feed data into the
complex ground attack weapons. It needs range, but might do without
some of the agility. It might be larger, heavier and less stealthy
than the A/A airplane.

The naval aircraft needs the durability to operate off the boat. The
weight of landing gear, arresting hooks, launch attachments, etc.
aren't necessary for the conventional ground-based system.

Add a bit of advantage to multiple source procurement as well and you
can begin to build a compelling argument for a mixed force. It's going
to be a compromise. Too diverse a force and you get overly
complicated. Too singularly dependent and you incur too much
performance compromise.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8