FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1974
1974 - 2021.PDF
• American light fighter fly-off I N THE UNITED STATES the fly-off competition between the General Dynamics YF-16 and Northrop YF-17 proto types is all but complete. The USAF is at this moment evaluating the results of more than 500hr of total testing time on the four aircraft and in January will announce a decision which a little over a year ago it ithought it was not going to have to take. For ithis was to be the competi tion which was not really a competition, more a technology exercise to provide the ground rules for possible future USAF fighter development. As has been recorded in Flight, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since flying started with the Light Weight Fighters, not least that the Air Combat Fighter (ACF) has been born (for reasons 'amplified in the following pages) and the US Navy has been directed to use the same basic technology to fulfil its VFAX air-superiority and attack aircraft requirement. Sitting-in to an ill-defined extent with the USAF on the ACF deliberations are representatives of the four Euro pean countries who are considering the winning aircraft as a Starfighter replacement. We examine overleaf the credentials of these and the other contenders in the Nato contest, both from a performance and a mission stand point. Bill Gunston, following this, looks particularly at tactical aircraft missions in Europe and asks whether a "fighter" is the right answer. Whatever the results of the USAF evaluation, there is no doubt that either American aircraft will need substan tial, and costly, development before it can be truthfully called an operational weapon system. The Americans indeed have made a selling point of this, promoting the fact that European countries would be heavily involved in four years of development effort on what is undoubtedly even now a very advanced-technology aeroplane. Proposals from the two companies on how to "productionise" their aircraft and manage the programme were given to USAF on November 1; cost proposals were handed over a week later. Proposals on a US Navy version of the aircraft, prepared by Northrop/McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics/LTV, were due in on December 1. Few details of any of these submissions are yet known, though some requirements are. Two of the basics for both USAF and USN, as well as the four European countries, are inertial navigation and radar. Because the Navy plans to use a large number of its VFAX aircraft at least initially for fleet air defence and air superiority, with Sparrow as well as Sidewinder, its radar will have to be about 28in in diameter which would need some reproofing of both YF-16 and YF-17 noses'. In the case of the GD aeroplane it would be extended about 7in forward and bulged slightly underneath. USAF requirements, geared to Sidewinder only, would probably allow use of the present nose profile, capable of accommodating a 23in antenna, but it is possible that if the Navy has difficulty funding separate radar development the larger equipment may be adopted for both Services in the interests of commonality. Both systems must be capable of ranging and ground-mapping, with the Navy wanting at least terrain avoidance as well. One area where there are likely to be substantial dif ferences between USAF and USN fighters is in fuel. Both prototypes carry approximately the same amount internally at the moment, about 6,5001b. Because of the Navy missions and limited number of its tankers, greater range on internal fuel than in the USAF is wanted. This is likely to translate into 2,0001b or more. Methods adopted by the two companies may be different since Northrop reckons it could increase internal capacity by this amount without "growing" the aeroplane, while General Dynamics may wish to use its planned 3112in-longer two-seat airframe with the rear-seat area given over to fuel and extra avionics. In developing a Navy aeroplane, however, Northrop feels it may have to increase at least wing area of the YF-17 by a small amount for other reasons. One parameter almost certain to change in the USAF as much as the Navy production aircraft is gross weight. Northrop estimates that it may have to increase this by about 2,0001b just on "beefing up" the structure (e^g. undercarriage) for carrier operations and there is no reason to believe that the General Dynamics figure will be any less. Take-off weights not far short of 40,0001b came into Northrop's Cobra proposals nearly two years ago although it seems that a more normal figure would be about 32,0001b-34,0001b. GD believes it may limit the in crease to 15 per cent of the prototype maximum take-off weight of 27,0001b. Whichever way the decision goes for the USAF (and it may turn out differently for the USN), it cannot be looked at outside the context of Europe, since even if the Nato consortium were to choose Vdggen or F.1E, a large pro portion of the American aircraft are still planned to be deployed east of the Atlantic. If Nato opts for the Air Combat Fighter, it will establish US military aircraft tech nology in Europe for at least another 15 years. A lightweight fighter goes ground-attack, the GD YF-16 (heading photo graph) with two 2,0001b bombs as well as Sidewinders.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
