Cassidy had been taken, kidnapped, taken from her twin and forced to endure the most horrendous torture while her brother, Torr, fought for his life before embarking on a desperate struggle across the moon, hoping to get her back. But his journey is not just one for his sister, it is one of discovery. A new gift has awakened. The Star Children are coming into their power and must confront the…
It’s time for another episode of /k/ Planes! This time, we’ll be looking at the wonderful world of light fighters.
Since the dawn of flight, average weights of aircraft have done nothing but increase. Over the years, this has meant increased size, complexity, and cost for fighters, presenting a challenge to air forces with limited resources and budgets. The first efforts to build a light fighter came in the interwar period, with the characteristic small sizes being a side-effect of the design focus of having a cheap, easy-to-produce fighter. Unfortunately, nearly every attempt to create a light fighter in the first half of the 20th Century ended in failure. A competitive fighter could only be so light, and attempts to make use of more readily available low-powered engines often resulted in an underpowered platform. The dawn of the jet age would bring new life to the light fighter concept. As loaded weights, unit cost, and operating costs skyrocketed, new light fighters began to take shape. These aircraft were not without their faults - they often lacked in payload and range, and they underperformed compared to “full-sized” aircraft - but they became a popular product for nations on a budget. This economic appeal has survived to this day, keeping the light fighter a viable concept in today’s skies.
The “Jockey” Light Fighter Program
In the mid-20s, the Armee de l’Air fighter command announced a modernization program. Alarmed by the rapidly increasing weights of fighters and hoping to make use of newly developed engines which had a high power-to-weight ratio but low power output, the new program, called “Jockey.” requested a lightweight all-metal fighter. Two companies, Nieuport Delage and Amiot, would respond with designs by the end of the decade. Unfortunately, the light fighter program proved to be flawed - neither design could compete with the “full-size” fighters being developed in parallel.
Nieuport-Delage NiD 48
Nieuport-Delage’s light fighter was a compact parasol monoplane very similar in appearance to the earlier NiD 42. Powered by the 400hp Hispano-Suiza 12Jb engine, the NiD 48 would weigh in at under 2,300lb empty weight. Fully loaded, it would be over 1,000lb lighter than the full-sized NiD 62 being developed in parallel. Static tests began in the latter half of 1926, and in May of the next year the first example took flight. Preliminary tests led to the creation of a second prototype featuring several improvements, which was then submitted for trials in March of 1928. Trials found that the NiD 48’s only advantage was its high rate of climb. While this came at the cost of endurance being little over an hour, this didn’t seem to be the decisive factor in the type’s rejection. Rather, it was that the NiD 62 performed just as well (aside from its climb rate) and was already in production.
Amiot 110
The only competitor to the NiD 48 was Amiot’s model 110. The Amiot 110 was another parasol monoplane design, similar in appearance to the NiD 48 but heavier - 2,500lb empty and 3,300lb gross weight. To make up for the higher weight, Amiot opted for a slightly more powerful Hispano-Suiza 12Mb engine that produced 500hp. Flight tests would begin in early 1928, and it was soon submitted for trials. The Amiot 110 would prove more promising than the competing NiD 48, but it was determined that it still didn’t offer enough performance improvement to warrant production.
Curtiss-Wright CW-21
The CW-21 was borne out of the decision to develop a fighter out of the CW-19 utility aircraft. Aimed to be marketed abroad, the aircraft was to have a very high climb rate for engaging bombers. The resulting design was an all-metal monoplane, featuring retractable landing gear and either .30 or .50 machineguns. Due to the stress on climb rate, the aircraft lacked any armor. First flying in September 1938, it was delivered to China for evaluation. The Chinese were impressed by the design, and began negotiations. Meanwhile, the prototype entered service, claiming its first victory in April 1939. The next month, a contract was signed, with three aircraft to be delivered by flying in, and a further 27 assembled in China. However, the three aircarft flying in crashed, and the 27 unassembled aircraft were abandoned when the factory was overrun by the Japanese.
The Dutch also placed an order for 24 aircraft in April 1940. Originally intended for domestic use, the fall of the Netherlands the next month saw the deliveries diverted to the East Indies. Arriving in February 1941, they were soon grounded due to structural issues thanks in part to the lightweight construction. When the Japanese invaded, most aircraft were still awaiting repair. Once repaired, pilots found the aircraft performed remarkably similar to the Ki-43s and A6Ms that formed the backbone of the IJN and IJA air forces. It shared the incredible maneuverability of the Japanese planes, while having superior climb performance. CW-21 pilots claimed at least four aerial victories before being overwhelmed. Unfortunately, this marked the end of the CW-21’s short career.
Second Generation French Light Fighters
As war in Europe loomed, the Armee de l’Air was in desperate need of modernization. Although several designs were already slated for production, French industry couldn’t meet the demands fast enough. Thus, the Armee de l’Air produced specifications for a new light fighter, prioritizing minimal use of strategic materials and the use of lower-powered engines not currently in high demand so as to not disturb ongoing production lines. Two companies - ANF and Caudron - would respond at first, but Bloch and Arsenal would also join in the effort in the last years of the decade. In the end, all aircraft produced were failures. The only aircraft to truly meet requirements for minimal use of strategic materials and the use of a low-powered engine, the C.714, was too underpowered to be competitive. Two other contenders, the ANF 190 and Arsenal VG-33, diverged from requirements by using metal construction and a high-powered engine, respectively. The only proposal to show real potential, the Bloch MB.700, would come too late to see production.
Caudron C.710 Series
Building off of their experience with air racing, Caudron developed a fixed-undercarriage monoplane with a wooden semimonocoque construction. Designated the C.710, the fighter was powered by a Renault 12R engine producing 500hp. The unarmed prototype made its first flight in July 1936, and soon enough it was fitted with a 20mm cannon slung under either wing. Despite its small size (loaded weight of just over 4,000lb), Testing continued for several years, resulting in several new prototypes. The C.711 and C.712 would mount more powerful engines, but would be a dead end. Rather, development focused on using retractable landing gear (C.713), finally culminating in the C.714 that would enter full production. The C.714 used a new airfoil section, strengthened the fuselage, and replaced the two cannons with four 7.5mm machineguns. By the end of 1938, a small order for C.714s had been placed.
Deliveries of the C.714 didn’t start until January 1940. Initial examples were rushed into service trials, only to quickly reveal themselves as terribly flawed. The 500hp engine severely limited performance, and the otherwise excellent airframe was too weak to mount a more powerful engine. A month after the first deliveries began, the C.714 was withdrawn from active service. In mid-May, they were reintroduced, this time flying with the Polish-exile Warsaw Squadron. However, they flew just 23 sorties with the type before declaring that it was far too underpowered and incapable of competing with enemy fighters. A week later, the French War Minister ordered the type withdrawn. However, the Poles continued to fly the type, claiming 15 victories between 8th and 11th June for the loss of nine of their own. Plans were in place to divert 80 examples to Finland to fight the Winter War in 1939, but only six would ever be delivered. As a testament to the failure of the design, even the near-superhuman Finns were unable to salvage a good combat record out of the fighter. It was deemed too unreliable and underpowered to operate near the front, and thus it was never committed to combat.
ANF Mureaux 190
ANF decided not to use wood in their light fighter design, instead opting for an all-metal aircraft to reduce weight. The resulting aircraft thus came out to under 2,000lb empty weight, meaning that even with a 450hp engine, it was still faster than the competing Caudron C.710. First flying in July 1936, the ANF 190 was never fitted with any armament, but plans were in place for the fighter to mount a single 20mm cannon in the engine and a 7.7mm machinegun in either wing. The ANF 190 was arguably even more promising than its competitor, and it even made an appearance at the 1936 Paris Air Show. However, the powerplant the aircraft was designed around proved to be too unreliable, and thus the project was abandoned.
Arsenal VG-33
Arsenal first presented their light fighter, the VG-30, as a mockup to the Armee de l’Air in 1936. The VG-30 was another all-wooden semimonocoque design, intended to mount a 20mm cannon and four 7.5mm machineguns. The VG-30 would take flight in 1938, proving to be faster than the Morane-Saulnier MS.405. Arsenal would modify the design three times, focusing on new engines and revised wings, finally settling on the Hispano-Suiza 12Y-powered VG-33. The VG-33 would take flight in April of 1939, and tests soon found that the fighter was even faster than the VG-30. A contract for 220 ws placed, and the order soon expanded to 1,000. Unfortunately, production difficulties plagued the project, meaning that only about 40 examples would be completed, and only 19 would actually be delivered to the Armee de l’Air. Of these, only two would make their way into squadron service (just four days before France capitulated). 12 made their way into the hands of the Germans, who found that the type was about equal in terms of performance and maneuverability with the Bf 109E, but armament was lacking and the poor quality supercharger limited performance about 5,000m.
Bloch MB.700
Bloch’s light fighter proposal vaguely resembled the MB.150 series fighters then under development. The MB.700 was an all-wooden semimonocoque design powered by a closely-cowled Gnome-Rhone radial engine that produced 700hp. Armament was to be two 20mm cannon and two 7.5mm machineguns. While the development contract was issued in 1936, a heavy commitment to other projects meant that a prototype wouldn’t roll out until 1940. Only in April 1940 did testing begin, and by the time the airfield fell to the Germans, the first prototype had flown just 10 hours. The Germans burned the first prototype, and, although work began on a second prototype, it would not be completed before France fell.
Miles M.20
In the wake of the 1938 Munich Crisis, Miles Aircraft began to work on a simple easy-to-produce fighter to supplement the Hurricanes and Spitfires then entering service. Designated the M.20, it was based off of the Miles Master advanced trainer. The M.20 was designed with an emphasis on ease of production and little use of strategic materials - the aircraft was all-wood, and had much parts commonality with the trainer from which it was derived. When a mockup was presented in early 1939, however, the Air Ministry had little interest, and thus the project was abandoned. Only after France fell in 1940 and Britain was faced with a critical shortage of fighters did the Air Ministry finally decide they wanted an emergency fighter. Specifications were issued for a new fighter, and Miles responded with an updated version of the M.20.
The new aircraft, which shared the M.20 name, was markedly different from the original, although it shared the trainer ancestry. All hydraulics were eliminated, and the wing and landing gear was simplified through the use of a thicker wing and fixed gear. The nose was designed around the engine nacelle of the Avro Lancaster’s Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engine, further simplifying production. Meanwhile, the spacious wings and fuselage allowed space for eight guns, 5000 rounds, and 154 gallons of fuel (compared to 96 gallons on the Hurricane and 85 on the Spitfire). For all its archaic design features, the M.20 did have one notable advanced element - its bubble canopy. Just nine weeks after the specifications were issued, the M.20 prototype took flight. Tests found that it was faster than the Hurricane and it carried more ammunition and had a longer range than both the Hurricane and Spitfire. For all the design’s promise, it came too late. The Battle of Britain had ended by the time testing concluded, and with it the need for an emergency fighter had evaporated. Miles hoped to salvage the design by adapting it for use as a catapult fighter aboard merchant aircraft carriers, but it was decided to instead adapt Hurricanes for the role instead.
The American Light Fighters
Even with the unparalleled industrial capacity of the United States, the USAAC would not completely ignore the concept of a light fighter in the early years of the Second World War. Initially, the USAAC considered the French Caudron light fighter concepts, but after these proposals were promptly dismissed, specifications were issued to domestic manufacturers. The first proposal actually came in 1939 as an unsolicited proposal from Douglas, and, after full specifications were issued, Bell and Tucker would join in. The designs were notable for several reasons - in spite of their focus on simplicity and minimal use of strategic materials, they incorporated advanced features like bubble canopies, tricycle landing gear, and even remotely driven propellers. All designs avoided using high-demand engines, instead opting for lower-powered air-cooled designs like the Ranger V-770.
Douglas XP-48
In early 1939, Douglas produced a proposal under the internal designation Model 312 for a lightweight fighter. The Model 312 was a tiny single-seat aircraft with a thin low-mounted high aspect-ratio wing and tricycle landing gear. Armament was light (one .30 and one .50), and the very thin wing required the main landing gear to retract into the fuselage rather than the wings. Of course, the unusual features were supposed to have their benefits - Douglas projected that the fighter would have a top speed of 525 mph, as well as excellent high-altitude performance. The initial proposal was enough to attract an order for a prototype under the designation XP-48, but the incredible performance projections soon fell under scrutiny. The Army thoroughly investigated the design, and unsurprisingly found that Douglas’s projections - even their more conservative early estimate of a top speed of 350mph - were grossly overestimating performance. Furthermore, continuing problems with the Ranger SGV-770 engine the aircraft was to use hurt the program’s chances. Thus, by February 1940, the Army cancelled the XP-48 contract, and, without any funding, Douglas abandoned the design.
Tucker XP-57
In May 1940, Tucker Aviation issued a proposal to meet USAAC requirements for a lightweight fighter. Contracted as the XP-57, the fighter would be strikingly similar to Bell’s P-39 Airacobra. It was powered by a 720hp eight-cylinder inline engine mounted behind the pilot which was geared to a propeller in the nose via an extension shaft. A steel tube fuselage would be covered with aluminum skin, but the wings were all-wood. Like the P-39, it would have tricycle landing gear and armament of either three .50s or a .50 and two 20mm cannon concentrated in the nose. Like Douglas’ XP-48, the XP-57 performance projections were ambitious (though a bit more realistic) with top speed projected at 308mph. Unfortunately, the project stalled as Tucker fell into financial difficulties, and the USAAC decided to let the contract lapse as aviation around the world trended towards heavier and more complex fighters.
Bell XP-77
Bell was the last manufacturer to propose a light fighter, submitting their design in October 1941. Their design was similar to the failed XP-48 - a low-winged monoplane with retractable tricycle landing gear. The pilot sat very far back under a bubble canopy, balancing out the 520hp Ranger V-770 engine in the nose. Armament was to be a hub-mounted 20mm cannon and two .50s. In May of 1942, the USAAF recommended the production of 25 examples for testing, but when a mockup was presented for inspection in September of that year, inspection teams discovered that the aircraft’s weight was ballooning. Meanwhile, Bell seemed to care little for the program - they had subcontracted out construction of the prototypes, and requested that the order be cut to just two aircraft rather than 25 to allow them to focus their efforts elsewhere.
Even with work subcontracted out, the program continued to hit delays. A change in subcontractors briefly stalled the program, and concerns over the glues being used in construction further hindered development and ate up precious funds. Meanwhile, the supercharged V-770 engine the aircraft was to use still was not ready. By the time the XP-77 took flight in April 1944, the USAAF was now looking at it more as a testbed for wooden construction than a potential fighter. Tests revealed that even if the USAAF wanted a light fighter, the XP-77 would not be it. The engine was hastily mounted directly to the airframe without and vibration isolation, leading to major vibrational issues. Meanwhile, the placement of the cockpit made visibility poor, and, even without any armament or armor, it was terribly underpowered and incapable of meeting design projections. By the end of the year, the program was terminated.
Ambrosini SAI.207
Owing to the excellent performance of the companies’ SAI.7 two-seat tourer aircraft, Ambrosini began looking into turning the design into a light fighter. As a prototype, Ambrosini made minimal changes to the design to turn it into a single-seat aircraft, now designated the SAI.107. With a loaded weight of just 1,000kg, the SAI.107 took flight in early 1942, proving to have excellent performance and maneuverability. With the fighter proposal now proven feasible, two more prototypes were built with several modifications under the designation SAI.207. The SAI.207 mounted two 20mm cannon and two 12.7mm machineguns, along with a more powerful 750hp engine (compared to the original 520hp) and a three bladed (rather than two-bladed) propeller. Even though loaded weight was more than doubled, flight testing revealed even better performance, including a top speed of 357mph at sea level.
The SAI.207 wasn’t without its issues, however. The low-powered engine and high wing loading hampered climb performance, and the light structure made recovery from dives dangerous. Inadequate engine cooling also led to the engine overheating while recovering from dives, and the wooden structure reacted poorly to any moisture. While 2,000 were ordered, only a small pre-production batch of 12 aircraft would ever be delivered. They served briefly with three squadrons in July 1943, flying several missions against Allied bombers. Their inadequate climb performance made them poor interceptors, and pilots were overall unimpressed by the type. The 12 aircraft were sent back to the factory to be refurbished at the end of the summer, but the Armistice and subsequent occupation of southern Italy by the Allies meant that the type would never return to service.
Ambrosini SAI.403 Dardo
As testing of the SAI.207 was ongoing, Ambrosini refined the design to address shortcomings that were revealed. Designated SAI.403, the new aircraft added a retractable tailwheel, revised tail, an upgraded engine, larger wings, and a greater ammunition capacity. Taking flight in late 1942, the SAI.403 was found to have a top speed of over 400mph. The new design caught the interest of the Italian Air Ministry, which promptly cancelled its order for 2,000 SAI.207s and replaced it with an order for 3,000 SAI.403s. Unfortunately, Italian industry was incapable of completing even a single production example before the Armistice, despite the design’s emphasis on ease of production. The sole prototype was seized by the Germans for evaluation by German and Japanese pilots. The design performed well enough that Heinkel and Mitsubishi made plans to put the type into production. However, none of these foreign-built SAI.403s would be completed before the end of the war.
The Volksjager
As Allied bombing began to take its toll on Germany, the Luftwaffe was in desperate need of a solution. Allied fighter escorts were becoming all too successful at fending off conventional Luftwaffe fighters, and the jet-powered Me 262 was far too scarce to truly make an impact. Thus, to counter the Allied bombing offensive, the RLM hoped to procure a lightweight jet fighter. Specifications called for loaded weight of no more than 2,000kg, endurance of half an hour, takeoff roll of 500m, and the use of the BMW 003 engine. Most critically, the design would have to be simple and made of non-strategic materials to allow for large numbers to be built quickly by unskilled laborers. Requirements were issued in September 1944, and preliminary proposals were due in just ten days, as production was scheduled to start on January 1, 1945. Arado, Blohm & Voss, Fieseler, Focke-Wulf, Junkers, Heinkel, Messerschmitt, and Siebel were asked to develop designs, and only Messerschmitt would decline.
Arado E.580
Arado’s Volksjager proposal built off of design studies from the previous year, although the new design, the E.580, would be considerably more compact. . The E.580 was very similar to Heinkel’s winning design, sharing its tricycle undercarriage, top-mounted engine, and twin tails. However, The E.580 featured a low-mounted wing and a lower-set engine whose intake sat directly behind the cockpit rather than above it. Armament options were to be either two 20mm MG 151 or two 30mm Mk 108. Surprisingly, the E.580 was actually the most promising design, and was considered technically superior to Heinkel’s proposal. However, due to Heinkel’s more extensive wind tunnel testing and design work, the RLM selected the Heinkel Volksjager for production instead.
Blohm & Voss P.210
Blohm & Voss’s first Volksjager design study built off of their earlier tailless-aircraft design work. The P.210 featured B&V’s characteristic tubular wing spar and a 30 degree swept wing. The BMW 003 engine, pilot and armament of two Mk 108 cannon was to be placed in a central nacelle, and provisions were made for the installation of rocket boosters to improve takeoff performance. The unusual fighter lacked any rudders, although the anhedraled outer wing sections may have been intended to provide some yaw control. The ambitious P.210 would never leave the drawing board. As the most complicated design study from the company, it failed to be the preferred design even amongst its sister designs.
Blohm & Voss P.211.01
Blohm & Voss’s next Volksjager design study drew heavily on the design work of the P.210 to create a more conventional design. The first P.211 proposal incorporated the wings and fuselage of the P.210, but it modified the design to use a conventional tail mounted on a boom that extended from the rear of the fuselage. In addition, the outer wing sections of the BV.210 were eliminated. The end result was a strikingly modern design that was met with positive reactions from both the RLM and internal management. However, this was not the last Blohm & Voss Volksjager study. Hoping to simplify the design, newer studies took the P.211 further.
Blohm & Voss P.211.02
The final incarnation of the Blohm & Voss Volksjager, the P.211.02, worked to simplify its predecessors. The pod-and-boom design was preserved, but the wings and tail were heavily revised to simplify them. The low-mounted swept wing gave way to a straight untapered shoulder-mounted wing and a similarly simplistic tail assembly. Steel and wood were to be used extensively in the design. While the P.211.02 was actually deemed to be the best design submitted, it was not selected for production as the RLM considered the Heinkel design to be easier to produce.
Focke Wulf Volksjager 1
Focke Wulf’s proposal was a conventional pod-and boom design vaguely similar in design to the more famous Ta 183. Two wing configurations were looked at. Both involved shoulder-mounted wings, but one configuration used a straight wing and another proposed swept wings. While the design clearly had its roots in Kurt Tank’s jet fighter designs, Tank himself was hardly enthusiastic about the Volksjager program. He felt the BMW 003 provided little room for development, and that by the time the Volksjager entered service, it would be outclassed by Allied fighter jets. In the end, it wouldn’t matter for Focke Wulf - their Volksjager was never selected for full development.
Heinkel He 162
Heinkel’s Volksjager built on the company’s previous extensive design studies into jet powered aircraft. The compact fighter was powered by a single BMW 003 turbojet sitting above and behind the cockpit, and a double tail and straight shoulder-mounted wing were used. Owing to the emphasis on ease of construction, the design was very simple - it reused landing gear already in production, and was to be built entirely of wood. Although an ejection seat was to be used, the cockpit itself was to be incredibly rudimentary. Even hydraulics were minimized, with Heinkel choosing to use a system of pulleys to actuate landing gear. When submitted to the RLM, the Heinkel Volksjager did not have the most promising performance of the competitors, but it won out for logistical reasons. By the end of September, the RLM declared Heinkel the winner.
The He 162 would first fly in December 1944, and after preliminary tests would be rushed into production. Bombings of the glue factory would lead to the use of a dangerously corrosive substitute glue, meaning that when the first deliveries to I./JG 1 occurred in February 1945, the He 162 would have dangerously poor quality. Bureaucratic issues and constant relocations of units would mean that no He 162 unit would ever become operational, and it would take until April for the first combat mission to occur. The He 162 would suffer its first loss on April 19, when a Tempest caught one of the fighters while landing. As the war came to an end, the He 162 would claim a number of kills, but largely proved to be a failure. By mid-April, 13 He 162s were lost, but only two of those losses were due to enemy action. Poor quality construction and a cripplingly-short 30-minute endurance ensured that even with 120 aircraft delivered by the end of the war, the He 162 would have a negligible impact.
The Miniuaturjagerprogramm
By November 1944, Germany’s situation had worsened further, so the RLM issued requirements for an even more ambitious program. As Germany’s production capacity continued to decline, the new RLM requirements aimed for the development of the most simple fighter possible. Rather than use a labor-intensive turbojet, the Miniaturjager would use a far simpler pulsejet. Due to the inability of the pulsejet to start the aircraft on its own, aircraft would have to be light enough to be towed for takeoff or use catapults and rocket boosters to achieve takeoff. The project would lead to responses from Heinkel, Blohm & Voss, and Junkers. However, just a month after the Miniaturjagerprogramm started, the RLM abandoned it.
Heinkel P.1077 Romeo
Heinkel’s Miniaturjager built on previous rocket-powered interceptor design studies that began in the summer of 1944. Originating as a crude monoplane with surfaces vaguely similar to the He 162, the final iteration had a pulsejet mounted above and behind the fuselage (similar to the V-1). It lacked any undercarriage, as Heinkel intended the aircraft to takeoff via a zero-length rocket launch system and land on a ventral skid. Armament of two 30mm Mk 108 was mounted in blisters on the sides of the cockpit. A full mockup was made by the end of 1944, but it was destroyed by Allied bombing raids. Even with the cancellation of the program, Heinkel continued work on prototypes for both the rocket-powered and pulsejet variants, only to have their factory overrun with prototypes 90% complete.
Blohm & Voss P.213
Blohm & Voss opted for a simple pod-and-boom layout for their Miniaturjager. A steel fuselage would serve as the main load bearing structure of the design. Wooden shoulder-mounted wings and an inverted V-tail on a long boom were to be mounted to it, and underneath the boom an Argus As 014 pulsejet would extend past the tail. A flexible rubber mounting was devised to damp the excessive vibrations caused by the engine. The aircraft was devoid of any hydraulics or electronics, meaning that the retractable landing gear would be operated with a hand crank. Armament was to consist of a single Mk 108 with 135 rounds in the nose. Even before the Miniaturjagerprogramm was cancelled, the P.213 was abandoned. It was projected to have worse performance than designs already in service, and it was to be outperformed by Junkers’ competing design.
Junkers EF 126 Elli
The Junkers Miniaturjager proposal ended up looking very much like a manned V-1. A cockpit was placed in the nose, and mounting points for rocket boosters were added to allow for takeoff. Plans for retractable landing gear were dropped in favor of a jettisonable takeoff dolly and landing skid. Armament was projected to be a 20mm MG 151 on either side of the fuselage and 24 R4M rockets under the wings. While the RLM cancelled the Miniaturjager at the end of 1944, Junkers continued the project until the end of the war. The Soviets got their hands on the project postwar, and they saw enough potential in the design to continue development. Flight tests began in 1946 by towing the prototypes into the air with a Ju 88. In March of 1947, flight tests of the EF 126 taking off under its own power began. Unfortunately, the German engineers were taken off the project in October 1947 and the prototypes were left out in the open until the project resumed the next year. Extensive work had to be done to bring the prototypes back into flying conditions, but no further tests would occur due to the lack of booster rockets and tow aircraft. As Soviet jet programs had now become far more promising, official interest in the EF 126 waned until the program was terminated in the middle of 1948.
Weapon System 303A - The Lightweight Supersonic Fighter
Unlike most USAF procurement programs, America’s first postwar light fighter program would actually be the result of a private venture proposal from Lockheed. In November of 1952, after working on a light fighter design for over a year, Lockheed proposed the design to the Air Force. While there was no outstanding requirement for such an aircraft at the time, it gained sufficient interest that a new competition was issued practically written around Lockheed’s proposal. Nevertheless, Republic, North American, and Northrop would submit competitors to Lockheed’s proposal. With over a year’s head start, however, the competitors had little chance. Lockheed’s design was declared the winner by March of 1953 and awarded a contract for prototyping.
North American NA-212
North American hoped to adapt their fighter-bomber variant of the F-100 (what would become the XF-107) to meet the requirements. Under the designation NA-212, the F-100 was extensively redesigned to mount a J57 engine and a new chin intake. In addition, the cockpit and landing gear were modified. A full-scale mockup took shape in 1953, but after the NA-212 lost out ot the F-104, the project was stopped. The NA-212 would live on in the F-100B/XF-107. The newly designed intake was relocated to the type’s unique dorsal arrangement, and the aircraft was further revised to mount the more powerful J75.
Northrop N-102 Fang
Northrop’s proposal was the compact J79-powered N-102 Fang. The N-102 had a shoulder-mounted delta wing and fixed geometry chin intake, leaving the nose open for a radar. A powerful J79 turbojet promised a top speed of at least Mach 2. Alternatively, the weaker J65 could be substituted, lowering projected top speed to Mach 1.5. Northrop paid special attention to keeping the design not only compact, but simple as well, meaning that advanced avionics were not part of the design. While the N-102 was passed over by the USAF in favor of the Lockheed design, Northrop continued development for several years. Only three years after the contract was decided did Northrop finally abandon the N-102. Unlike North American’s failed proposal, the design would not be carried on to other projects. Rather, its only influence was that it kicked off the Northrop trend of designing simple light fighters.
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
In late 1951, Lockheed’s Kelly Johnson went to South Korea to get input from fighter pilots on what they wanted in a next-generation fighter. Taking home with him reports that they wanted a simple lightweight platform prioritizing speed, ceiling, and agility, Johnson ordered the development of such a machine as a private venture. By October of the next year, Lockheed had settled on the dartlike CL-246. The CL-246 was a slender aircraft with small trapezoidal wings and a T-tail intended to be powered by the J79 engine. When submitted to the USAF, they were forced to take part in a competition, but to nobody’s surprise, Lockheed’s design won out. By the end of 1953, Lockheed had been contracted to create a prototype for what was now known as the F-104. Testing began in early 1954, but a series of minor engineering issues stalled the program. Once the problems were solved by the summer, however, the XF-104 was performing spectacularly. Even with a lower-powered J65 substituting the intended powerplant, the XF-104 easily broke the sound barrier in level flight. Further tests revealed the XF-104 could almost reach Mach 2.
In 1956, the USAF contracted Lockheed to develop four variants - the A and C interceptor and fighter-bomber, respectively, and the B and D two-seat trainers. When the F-104A began to enter service in 1958, it was armed only with wingtip-mounted AIM-9s, as the planned internal M61 Vulcan cannon was not yet ready. Very early in service, the F-104 started shattering records. In May of 1958, it set a world speed record of over 1,400mph, and in December, several climb records were set. As F-104A production tapered off, F-104Cs took up the production line. The F-104C was fairly underwhelming - apart from the ability to mount an inflight refueling probe, its only significant change was the addition of a centerline hardpoint for a B28 tactical nuke and better avionics.
The F-104’s early years were inauspicious - it suffered from a high accident rate, and by 1961 almost 50 had been lost. The F-104A proved underwhelming, lacking the avionics and armament to truly fill the interceptor role it was assigned. In fact, all F-104As and Bs were relegated to ANG units by the end of the decade they had all been retired. F-104Cs saw more use, although unusually they were never slated to perform fighter-bomber duties. Despite the odd decision, the F-104C was far more satisfactory than the A. The Starfighter would make its combat debut in Vietnam in 1965 when two squadrons were deployed. Their service amounted to over 2,000 sorties flying CAP in support of EC-121s. However, they never claimed any victories. The second deployment came to Thailand in 1966, where F-104s saw brief use as escorts for Wild Weasels (that went about as well as one would expect). By the next year, they had been withdrawn from the region, and by the end of the decade, the F-104 had left USAF service entirely.
Of course we can’t discuss the Starfighter without diving into the wonderful clusterfuck that was its export service. At the end of the 50’s, several nations were looking for a replacement for their aging first-generation fighters. Among the prospective customers was West Germany, who wanted a high performance multirole fighter-bomber. To meet foreign requirements, Lockheed created the F-104G, which featured improved avionics and a revised airframe to carry conventional air-to-ground stores. While various competing designs were arguably better suited to the role, Lockheed would end up winning contracts across the world. The F-104 would end up flying with Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Pakistan, Japan, and most infamous of all, Germany. German Starfighters were arguably the most capable of the lot, maintaining the nuclear strike capabilities of the F-104C while boasting improved payloads and avionics. They were also compatible with early guided munitions, although the requirement that such weapons needed to be actively guided by the pilot lowered their effectiveness.
If the high accident rate of the F-104 in USAF service seemed bad, foreign service would be even worse. The difficult-to-fly fighter would fare poorly in the hands of pilots used to flying more forgiving first-generation jets, and the lightweight interceptor was poorly suited to the fighter-bomber role it was pressed into. In German service, it gained the reputation of being a widowmaker, and it was hardly a popular aircraft with pilots and crews alike. The type’s reputation only worsened in the mid-70s when it was revealed that Lockheed had been involved in bribing at least three nations (West Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands) to select the F-104 over its competitors. In all, foreign service went poorly. The Luftwaffe lost 30% of their Starfighters over its career, while Canada lost 46%. Even so, the Starfighter remained in service with many operators for over a decade until the F-16 came along to replace it.
Unusually, the only combat service of the Starfighter would come with two relatively minor foreign operators - Pakistan and Taiwan. Pakistan’s F-104s made their combat debut in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. They claimed a single victory over an IAF Mystere and forced a Gnat to land at a friendly airfield, but according to Indian and Soviet reports the type fared poorly against the MiG-21. Although nearly all claims are disputed, Indian claims of victories over the Starfighter greatly outnumber Pakistani claims of F-104 victories. The only confirmed shootdown by an F-104 would come in Taiwanese service in 1967. During an engagement with eight MiG-19s, a flight of F-104s downed two enemy fighters. These marked the first and only uncontested Starfighter victories during its inauspicious career.
Folland Gnat
In the early 1950’s Folland began work on a private venture light fighter designated the Gnat. Intended to be powered by a single Bristol Saturn engine, the Gnat would be a fairly conventional aircraft making use of advanced features like hydraulically actuated flaperons and a one-piece canopy. An unarmed demonstrator, called the Midge, would take flight in mid 1954 to validate the design. While it was underpowered due its use of a lower-powered engine than it was designed for (the Saturn engine was cancelled), it was incredibly agile. It was evaluated by pilots from across the world, receiving praise from all who flew it. Thus, the go-ahead for full development was given. Less than a year after the Midge took flight, the first Gnat flew.
The Gnat would mount a Bristol Orpheus engine to replace the cancelled Saturn, and it would be armed with two 30mm ADEN cannon and two stores pylons. The British Ministry of Supply ordered six prototypes for evaluation, but despite good reports, the type was deemed surplus to requirements and it would never come to serve with the RAF. However, the good reports allowed the Gnat to gain a considerable amount of export. Finland ordered 13 Gnats, which would serve them well until their retirement in 1972. India would be the most enthusiastic operator of the Gnat - they not only ordered examples from Folland, but they secured rights to produce the aircraft domestically. Over 200 Gnats would come to fly in Indian service, and HAL would even go as far as creating a special upgraded variant - the Ajeet - to better suit their needs (though it would never reach production).
In Indian service, the Gnat performed reasonably well. In the 1965 War, Gnats proved more than a match for Pakistani F-86s, claiming seven Sabres in air combat for no loss. In fact, the only loss of a Gnat during the war happened when one was forced to land at an enemy airfield by F-104s. In the 1971 War, the Gnat continued to show its superiority over the Sabre, while it also took on ground-attack missions. After the war, the HAL began work on the upgraded Ajeet to address maintenance and reliability issues with the type, but such an upgrade never materialized. Even with all the issues, the Gnat had a long career with the IAF. Only in 1991 were the last Gnats retired.
Douglas A-4 Skyhawk
Though originally conceived as an attack platform, Douglas’s compact A-4 Skyhawk would see itself pressed into service as a light fighter over the years. From 1956, the Skyhawk would hold the distinction of being the first American aircraft to serve overseas with the AIM-9 Sidewinder, although the weapons were only intended for defensive use on strike missions. In the early 60’s, however, the Navy found that they needed a fighter to fly from the Essex-class ASW carriers. Dedicated fighters like the F-8 and F-4 were too large to fly from the WW2-vintage ships, but the compact Skyhawk could still fly from the carriers with relative ease. As the Skyhawk was agile enough to compete with dedicated fighters in a dogfight, the Navy decided to press the aircraft into service as fighters aboard the Essex class. Standard procedure involved deploying a detachment of four A-4Bs or Cs without any modification aboard the carriers. Lacking any radars of their own, they were reliant on other aircraft or ships to vector them to the target. It was hardly a perfect solution, but it was satisfactory for the low-intensity operations of the ASW carriers.
While the majority of foreign A-4 operators used the Skyhawk as a light attacker, those to fly them from carriers would press them into service as multirole fighters just as the Navy had done aboard the Essex-class. Australia and Argentina would both acquire Skyhawks in the late 60’s, and, owing to the small size of their respective carriers, the A-4s would be assigned fleet defense duties as well as attacker duties. Like the American fighter-skyhawks, however, they weren’t ideal for the role, as they lacked onboard air-to-air radars. Argentina and Brazil both operate more refined A-4 variants optimized for the fighter role. In the 90’s, Argentina worked with Lockheed to modernize their Skyhawks to the A-4R standard, turning what was a repurposed attacker into a more dedicated light fighter. Brazilian Skyhawks have received similar upgrades to both expand their air-to-air armament and improve fighter capabilities.
NATO Basic Military Requirement 1 - The Light Strike Fighter
As part of the massive military buildup NATO began in the 1950s, over half a billion dollars was earmarked for a new aircraft program. Under the designation NBMR-1, the program called for a light tactical strike fighter capable of operating from rough airfields, reaching a top speed of .92 Mach, deliver conventional and nuclear payloads, and be easy to operate and maintain. Such a lucrative contract attracted attention from manufacturers in nearly every nation involved. Northrop, Dassault, Breguet, Fiat, Aerfer, and SNCASE all proposed designs. The end result was surprisingly productive, even if the program itself didn’t achieve its goals. Several partners broke off to pursue designs that better met their requirements, while others refused to accept the winning design - the Fiat G.91 - into service. In the end, the G.91 would be a success, but it would hardly see the widespread use that NBMR-1 projected.
Aerfer Sagittario 2/Ariete
The first Italian NBMR-1 proposal had its origins in a domestic jet fighter project from the early 50’s. The Sagittario could trace its lineage back to the Ambrosini S.7 trainer that served as a basis for the design. To test the efficacy of the swept flight surfaces proposed for the fighter, Ambrosini modified an S.7 with the newly designed surfaces in 1952. After this demonstrator proved the design to be sound, Ambrosini performed a quick modification of the trainer to turn it into a jet fighter. The rear seat in the crew compartment was eliminated, and the piston engine was replaced with a Turbomeca Marbore turbojet in the nose that exhausted under the fuselage. Dubbed the Sagittario, the aircraft took flight in early 1953. It proved successful, but had much room for improvement. Particularly, the wooden construction, framed canopy, and conventional undercarriage were archaic and unsatisfactory.
To address the shortcomings of the Sagittario and make it acceptable for the NBMR-1 requirements, Aerfer (the successor to Ambrosini) embarked on a major redesign. A Rolls-Royce Derwent engine was mounted, and the structure was entirely redesigned from all-wood to all-metal. A new bubble canopy improved visibility, and tricycle undercarriage improved heating issues caused by the engine exhaust on the runway. Testing began in May of 1956, but the Sagittario 2 would not be the end of the line. In 1958, the final iteration, now called the Ariete, took flight. The Ariete was largely identical to the Sagittario, but it added an auxiliary Rolls-Royce Soar engine in the tail for better dash performance. Unfortunately, the Ariete failed to be satisfactory - it lost out to the competing design from Fiat, and the Italian Air Force was unimpressed with the type. Aerfer hoped to continue development to a fully supersonic design under the designation Leone, but the program would never materialize.
SNCASE SE.5000 Baroudeur
Sud-Est’s NBMR-1 contender actually had its origins well before the start of the program. As France’s license-built British fighters reached obsolescence, domestic manufacturers began to produce various modern designs for the Armee de l’Air. As a private venture, Sud-Est proposed a unique single-engined light fighter making use of jettisonable undercarriage similar to that of the Me 163 of Nazi Germany. Dubbed the Baroudeur, the aircraft was surprisingly modern - it had a 38 degree swept wing andwas powered by a SNECMA Atar 101D turbojet giving it impressive performance. Takeoff would occur with the aid of two to four rocket boosters, and retractable skids were built in the design for landing. The first prototype took flight several months before the NBMR-1 requirements were issued. When the contest was announced, Sud-Est entered the Baroudeur with minimal modifications, meeting every requirement except the engine requirements. In the end, however, the Baroudeur would not win the competition, and by the time the decision was made, the Armee de l’Air cared little for the design as well. Thus, the failure to secure the NBMR-1 contract would spell the end of the Baroudeur.
Fiat G.91
Fiat’s proposal, the G.91, was a low-winged monoplane strikingly similar to the bulbous-nosed F-86D Sabre. The G.91 was among the two proposals originally selected for full development in 1955 (along with the Breguet Br.1001), leading to an order for three prototypes. The first prototype took flight in August 1956, beating out the competitors by almost a year. However, the program hit setbacks when vibrational issues caused the loss of the first prototype early in 1957. Three more prototypes were built, two of which were submitted for evaluations. The G.91 performed spectacularly, and, in January 1958, it was selected as the winner of the NBMR-1 competition. In April of 1958, a NATO meeting decided that the United States would help fund the procurement of 50 aircraft for each partner nation - France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Britain had withdrawn from the program early on, so they were not involved in the procurement decision.
Unfortunately for Fiat, the agreement fell apart almost immediately. In an act that would be typical of French involvement in multinational projects for decades to come, France threw a shitfit when Dassault’s design wasn’t chosen and refused to accept the winner, instead withdrawing entirely to have Dassault create a new design to meet their requirements. Even the United States dropped plans to procure the G.91 after evaluating two examples, instead opting for domestic solutions. In the end, Italy and Germany were the only two nations of the original group to purchase the G.91. In Italian service, the G.91 lasted from 1958 until the mid-80s, when it began to shift to training units. It was gradually replaced by the AMX, and by 1995 the last trainers were retired. West German G.91s saw even less service - they began to be phased out by the mid-60s, and by 1982 almost the entire fleet had been retired.
The only other operator of the G.91, and arguably the only nation to get their money’s worth out of the aircraft was Portugal. In 1965, Portugal purchased 40 G.91s left over from the cancelled Greek and Turkish orders to replenish their aging F-86s serving in their colonial wars. The aircraft arrived in Guinea in 1966, and two years later they made their debut in Mozambique. During the conflict, two G.91s would be downed by MANPADS in Guinea and another would be lost when a bomb detonated prematurely in Mozambique. Unfortunately, arms embargoes took their toll on the fleet, lowering serviceability of the aircraft as the years went on. After the Carnation Revolution in 1974, G.91s were withdrawn from the colonies and sent home. A notable exception was one squadron deployed to Angola in late 1974 to help with peacekeeping efforts, but by 1975 they had returned home. With the embargo lifted, Portugal began to purchase retired German aircraft to replenish their fleet. This influx of replacements and spares allowed Portugal to keep their G.91s in service until 1993.
Breguet Br.1001 Taon
Breguet would develop a conventional mid-winged monoplane incorporating swept wings and area ruling. Overall unremarkable in appearance, the Br.1001 would take flight in July 1957. After initial tests, the second prototype was modified with a longer fuselage to improve transonic performance. The two prototypes were submitted for evaluation alongside the various competitors, but in the end the Br.1001 would not be selected. That didn’t mean the fighter was underperforming, however - it managed to set several international speed records during testing. The Br.1001 was selected alongside Fiat’s G.91 for full development and evaluation, but in the end it lost out to its Italian competitor. Although it had gained more favor with NATO than Dassault’s contender, it still failed to gain traction domestically - France chose to pursue Dassault’s continuing efforts with their Etendard design.
Dassault Etendard VI
Dassault’s response to the NBMR-1 requirements was the Etendard VI. Keeping in line with the other designs of the Etendard family, the Etendard VI was a conventional swept-wing fighter with intakes mounted on either side of the fuselage. As per requirements, it was fitted with a single Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet, four 12.7mm Browning machineguns, and pylons for up to 540kg of external stores. While it was not initially selected for full development alongside the Br.1001 and G.91 in 1955, an order was soon enough placed for three prototypes to be evaluated alongside the two other contenders. The first prototype took flight in September 1957, quickly followed by a second prototype with larger intakes and a revised armament of two 30mm DEFA cannon. The originally intended engine proved to be underpowered, so Dassault substituted it with a more powerful variant of the Orpheus. A third prototype, intended to incorporate area ruling into the design, was also planned, but it never materialized due to the selection of the Fiat G.91 as the winner of the competition. When it was announced that Dassault’s design would not win the NBMR-1 competition, the Etendard VI was dropped in favor of another Etendard-series design better suited to French requirements. Thus, even though the Fiat G.91 would win the NBMR-1 contract, France would refuse to fly the type.
Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter
Northrop’s proposal for the NBMR-1 program was the N-156 - a compact twin-engined low-winged design. Unlike the other contenders, the N-156 was aimed at meeting a variety of domestic requirements as well, including a request for a new trainer and a light fighter to fly from USN escort carriers. The N-156 was still in its preliminary stages in 1955 when the NBMR-1 team decided to pass over the design, but the pressing need for a new trainer allowed the N-156 to continue on. In 1956, the USAF selected the N-156 to replace the T-33, allowing Northrop to continue work. Meanwhile, the fighter variant continued development on low priority, only getting official funding in 1958 as the Defense Department was looking for a low-cost fighter to supply to less developed nations. The YT-38 trainer prototype took flight in June 1959, and a just over a month later the N-156F fighter prototype took flight.
Unfortunately, official interest N-156F was low, despite its excellent performance. In 1961, the Army tested it alongside the A-4 and Fiat G.91, but they were unable to procure the type due to USAF pressure. Only in 1962 was the program saved when Kennedy revived the low-cost export fighter program. The N-156 was announced the winner in April of that year and awarded the designation F-5A. While the first production contracts came from the USAF in 1962, they did not intend to operate the type in significant numbers. Rather, they were to serve as training aircraft for pilots and groundcrew of export customers. This would change in 1965, however, when the USAF deployed several aircraft to South Vietnam for combat evaluation. Again, this hardly signaled the USAF’s intention to operate the aircraft - rather, it was aimed at improving export prospects. After 6 months and 2,600 sorties, the F-5A proved a success - nine aircraft were lost, but the F-5A was found to be more capable than the F-100 as an attack platform.
Orders for the F-5A came quickly. Norway was the first customer in 1964, and starting in 1965 the F-5A began to proliferate across the world. In 1967, USAF F-5As that had been used for combat evaluations in Southeast Asia were supplied to South Vietnam, serving as a major step up from the A-37s and A-1s that they had been operating up until then. While the Freedom Fighter would see widespread export, it was not without its flaws - in particular it lacked any radar, making it poorly suited for air combat. Rather, it would primarily serve out its career was a cheap bomb truck (a role in which it excelled). These shortcomings would prompt further development by Northrop, resulting in the substantially improved F-5E. Even so, the F-5A was hardly unimpressive - enough so even that the Vietnamese would operate captured examples for several years after the South fell.
Dassault Etendard II
In 1953, the Armee de l’Air released requirements for a new cheap light fighter roughly similar to a parallel NATO light fighter requirement. Owing to the parallel requirements, Dassault opted to use a common airframe designated the Etendard. The Armee de l’Air variant, the Etendard II, would differ from the NATO variant, the Etendard VI, primarily by its use of two engines. The end result was an aircraft slightly larger than the Etendard VI. As the planned Turbomeca Gabizo engines were not ready at the time, the prototype would take flight in 1956 with two lower-power engines. With less thrust and more weight than the Etendard VI, the Etendard II was unsurprisingly horribly underpowered. Dassault planned for the Gabizo engines to address this issue, but when that program foundered, Dassault was left without a solution. Several other engine fits were looked into, but in the end it was judged not promising enough and cancelled by the end of the year.
Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-21 “Fishbed”
Even as the MiG-19 went into service, MiG had its sights on a far more capable aircraft. In 1953, requirements for a high performance lightweight fighter taking into account lessons learned in Korea were issued. As all other OKBs were too occupied with other projects, MiG was given the go ahead to take on the job in 1954. MiG worked closely with TsAGI, developing several designs. All involved a slender barrel-shaped fuselage with an intake in the nose, but wing planforms varied. Eventually, things were narrowed down to two designs - one with a 55 degree swept wing and one with a 57 degree delta. In the end, two testbeds would be made. The Ye-2A, which took flight in early 1955, would have a swept wing, while the delta-winged Ye-5 would come later that year. Although the Ye-5 had some teething issues at the start, it gradually surpassed its cousin, proving to be faster, lighter, and more agile. Soon enough, the Ye-5 was ordered into production as the MiG-21.
The MiG-21 was the epitome of Soviet pragmatism. Like the F-104 before it, the Fishbed was less an airplane and more an engine with wings. As originally designed, a single Tumansky R-11-300 engine dominated the fuselage, allowing the fighter to reach Mach 2. Internal armament was two 30mm cannon mounted ventrally with a total of 60 rounds. Three hardpoints (one ventral and one per wing) allowed for the carriage of drop tanks, unguided bombs, or rocket pods. In practice, bombs were rarely used, as the MiG-21 lacked a bombsight. The compact design was unfortunately limited in range - it had just 90 minutes endurance with the ventral tank. In 1960, the first of a long line of upgrades would come, adding the ability to mount the AA-2 Atoll IR AAM.
In Soviet service, the MiG-21 never really got to prove itself in combat, as it was eclipsed by newer types by the time the Soviet Union actually went to war in Afghanistan. However, the MiG-21 has had no shortage of export customers. The Soviets practically threw the MiG-21 at anyone who even liked the color red, and understandably, the MiG-21 would rise to be the most-produced supersonic fighter in history. The first export customers came in 1961, when India selected the MiG-21 to be their first supersonic fighter, and China secured the rights to produce the type domestically. The MiG-21 would rise to be the mainstay of the IAF, and in their conflicts over the years with Pakistan, the MiG-21 has distinguished itself in air combat.
Perhaps the most famous operators of the MiG-21 were the North Vietnamese. First entering VPAF service in 1966, the MiG-21 was well-suited to the guerilla warfare tactics of the Vietnamese. So effective was the type that the Americans kicked off a special air operation (Operation Bolo) specifically to lure out and destroy the MiG-21s. The MiG-21 remained scarce through the war, and, thanks to its impressive performance, it was a priority target for enemy fighters. Though they would claim 56 enemy aircraft during the conflict, they would lose 86 of their own, including two shot down by B-52 tailguns.
Across the world, the MiG-21 would come to form the backbone of pro-Soviet air forces. Continually arising new variants meant that the cheap light fighter could stay fairly competitive for some time, allowing the type to persist. Many Warsaw Pact states operated the MiG-21 up until the end of the Cold War, and several kept it in service for some time after. Croatia even continues to fly refurbished MiG-21s. In the Middle East, the situation is similar. The Fishbed proliferated across the region in the preceding decades and saw quite a lot of combat use, and, thanks to the worsening fortunes in the region, many continue to fly to this day. And the Fishbed isn’t limited to just air forces constrained by impossibly small budgets - even India continues to fly over 200 MiG-21s.
Chengdu J-7 “Fishbed”
China’s very much deserved reputation for making off-brand copies of anything and everything they can get their hands on would also spread to combat aircraft. In 1961, they managed to secure rights to produce the MiG-21 under license as the J-7. While hardly sophisticated by Western standards, China’s lagging industry prevented the type from flying until 1966. Unfortunately, the J-7 was plagued with reliability issues, and for some time the PLAAF preferred the J-6/MiG-19 over it. Only at the end of 1978, when the upgraded J-7II took flight, did China finally get a satisfactory Fishbed. The J-7II eliminated the issues of the J-7 while also incorporating various improvements to the engine, avionics, and airframe. Just as the Soviets did, the Chinese built the J-7II in absurd numbers and threw them at just about everyone.
Just as the Soviets would, China continued to upgrade the J-7 to keep it competitive. Some efforts, like the J-7III, paralleled Soviet developments and were met with failure. More recent ones, like the J-7E, diverged from the Soviet MiG-21 and allowed the J-7 to emerge as something more than an off-brand copy. Taking flight in 1990, the J-7E boasts modernized avionics and a revamped cockpit, improved engine, and, most notable of all, a distinct redesigned cranked-arrow wet wing. The new wing doubled internal fuel capacity and improved low-speed handling, while the improved avionics arguably put the J-7E beyond the ultimate Soviet Fishbeds.
While many would consider this latest variant hopelessly obsolete, the J-7E would continue to see export success well into the 90’s. Pakistan would rise to be the largest non-China operator of the J-7, and several operators in Africa and Asia have purchased export J-7Es since they were put on the market in 1996. Even as China worked to modernize their air forces, the J-7E would come into service as well, replacing older variants through the mid-90’s. Chengdu kept development going into the new millennium, and in 2003, the ultimate J-7, the J-7G, began to enter PLAAF service. Only in 2013 did production of the J-7 finally cease. By that time, over 2,400 J-7s had been produced.
Hispano Aviacion P.300/Helwan HA-300
In 1951, Willy Messerschmitt began work on a lightweight supersonic fighter for Spain. Work understandably proceeded slowly, but the project would eventually attract the attention of the Egyptians, who were also looking to pursue a domestic fighter program. In 1956, Egypt officially joined the project, although Messerschmitt and his team at Hispano continued to lead the program.By 1959, the design - a compact single-engined tailed-delta - was finalized, and a glider prototype was flown. Soon after, however, Hispano was forced to drop the project as Spain refused to fund it further.
Fortunately, Egypt was willing to take over the project. Messerschmitt and his team moved to Egypt, and further experts were brought in to develop a powerplant. Four years after Egypt took over the program, the HA-300 prototype would fly. However, it would fly with the inadequate Bristol Orpheus turbojet rather than the more powerful E-300 then still under development. The engine itself proved promising enough to get India involved, hoping to apply the E-300 powerplant to their HF-24 Marut. The first two (Orpheus-powered) prototypes would indeed break the sound barrier, validating the design, but they remained underpowered. When the third prototype flew, it would use the planned E-300 engine to successfully reach Mach 2.1. Unfortunately, the 1967 war with Israel would spell the end for the program. financial problems were further compounded by warming ties with the Soviets, who offered large numbers of cheap, capable fighters. The death blow for the program came in 1969, when tensions with the FRG led to the evacuation of Messerschmitt and his team, fatally crippling the project. By the end of the year, the HA-300 and its E-300 engine had both been cancelled.
Nanchang J-12
In the mid 1960s, the North Vietnamese had shown the efficacy of the use of “guerilla interceptors” - small aircraft operating from camouflaged airfields to ambush enemy aircraft. While the PLAAF recognized the practicality of such operations and wished to apply them locally, the aircraft currently available for the role - MiG-17s, -19s, and -21s - were less than ideal. Thus, in 1969, Nanchang was issued requirements for a new lightweight fighter with a loaded weight under 4,500kg. Development proceeded incredibly fast; by August, they were performing wind tunnel testing, and by the next year, the design had started prototyping. The resulting J-12 was incredibly simple. Coming in at an incredible 4,530kg, the J-12 was armed with a single 30mm and 23mm cannon in the wing roots, and was powered by a single WP-6Z turbojet. To simplify the design, it used only a simple optical gunsight, and lacked area ruling. To facilitate rough airfield operations, intake flow could be diverted through auxiliary ports on the fuselage sides.
When the J-12 first flew in December 1970, it was perhaps the lightest jet fighter in the world. Testing revealed a top speed of 1,300km/h, making the J-12 the lightest supersonic fighter ever to fly. This was not without drawbacks, however - range was a cripplingly short 688km, making the design effectively a point-defence interceptor. Payload was little better, limited not only by range but by the aircraft’s simplicity. The only guided munitions that the aircraft could carry were simple IR-guided short range AAMs. In all, nine J-12s were built, with testing continuing until 1977. At this point, the shortcomings of the design were found to greatly outweigh its benefits, and the design was cancelled.
Northrop F-5E Tiger II
When the Defense Department started the International Fighter Aircraft competition to replace the F-5A with a more capable light fighter at the end of the 60’s, Northrop sprung into action to modernize their fighter. Aimed at besting the MiG-21, Northrop extensively modified the F-5A, making use of new engines, lengthening the fuselage to add more fuel capacity, and enlarging leading edge root extensions to improve agility. The rudimentary avionics suite of the F-5A received a complete overhaul, adding a radar along with navigational and ECM equipment. With export remaining the focus of the design, the new aircraft was intended to have several options for avionics suites to better meet specific customer requests. In 1970, Northrop was declared the winner of the IFA competition, and their new aircraft, now called the F-5E, would take flight two years later.
The F-5E would rapidly overtake its predecessor on the export market. Air to ground capabilities carried over from the Freedom Fighter, but the Tiger II was significantly more capable as an actual fighter. Most operators of the F-5A would subsequently order the F-5E, while many other nations would choose the Tiger II as their first F-5s. As with the F-5A, however, the USAF had little interest in flying the Tiger II as a frontline aircraft. However, its extreme agility saw it enter USAF service in 1975 for use in dissimilar air combat training. The USAF would fly the F-5E from 1975 to 1990, while the Navy and Marines would keep it around for longer. Abroad, the Soviets got their hands on a Tiger II after the fall of South Vietnam. Tests of the type found that it outperformed the MiG-21 in a dogfight.
The F-5E would see considerably more combat use than its predecessor. Apart from various low-intensity conflicts in third-world nations, the F-5E would see combat during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80’s. During the war, the F-5 saw extensive use as both a fighter and attack platform. Of course, Iranian claims point to the type being a tremendous success in air combat, but even taking a more conservative look the Tiger II likely performed well in the face of the more advanced and better-supplied aircraft of the Iraqi Air Force. Perhaps next most notable combat use of the Tiger II came with ROCAF F-5Es. In 1979, the ROCAF sent pilots to fly F-5Es in support of North Yemeni forces. During their time there, they claimed several victories, marking the only combat use of the Taiwanese F-5Es.
Despite the Tiger II’s age, the F-5E remains in active service to this day. Numerous upgrade packages have been offered to customers over the years in hopes of keeping the budget fighters airworthy and, more importantly, competitive. Several radar upgrades have been done over the years, and various upgrade packages have expanded the F-5E’s weapons compatibility to allow for the use of Rafael Python and even AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. Upgrades also focus on updating cockpits with multifunction displays. These modernized Tigers are hardly competitive with even more recent light fighter programs (except perhaps in terms of costs), but they nevertheless mark significant improvement of the lightweight fighter first conceived over half a century ago.
Lightweight Fighter Program
As the F-X program was in its infancy, the Air Force determined that a “High/Low” mix of expensive top of the line fighters supplemented by cheaper more numerous fighters would be economical. The so-called “Fighter Mafia” would seize upon this study, pushing for the development of a new light fighter taking advantage of the E-M theory of energy maneuverability. In 1969, funds were secured for General Dynamics and Northrop to perform design studies, and, despite Air Force resistance for fears of cutting into F-15 funding, a request for proposals was issued in January 1972. Requirements called for a 20,000lb fighter with excellent maneuverability, acceleration, and range that was optimized for air combat at speeds between Mach .6 and 1.6 and altitudes between 30-40,000ft (where studies had found the majority of air combat occurred). Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Northrop, and Vought would submit proposals, but only General Dynamics’ and Northrop’s proposals would progress to prototyping.
Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer
Lockheed’s LWF proposal was derived from an earlier program to improve upon the F-104 that was cancelled to prevent competition with the F-5. Starting out with an F-104 mounting a redesigned, shoulder-mounted wing, Lockheed would further modify their design for the LWF, replacing the conical inlets of the F-104 with new square ones. This design would be contracted for a single prototype (under the designation X-27) before the LWF program began, but funds dried up, ending X-27 development before production could begin. Lockheed would resubmit the proposal under the name CL-1200 for the LWF, but to no avail - Lockheed would be the first competitor eliminated in March 1972.
Vought V-1100
Vought would respond to the LWF request for proposals with a highly modified derivative of their successful F-8/A-7 family of designs. An enlarged fuselage provided space for a much larger engine, while wings and tail surfaces were radically redesigned to improve maneuverability. On the leading-edge root extensions, small canards were to be installed to further improve handling. Additionally, the forward fuselage was modified, enlarging the nose for a radar and raising the cockpit to improve visibility. Unfortunately, Vought’s proposal would go the same way as Lockheed’s - the V-1100 would be eliminated from the competition in March 1972.
Boeing Model 908
Boeing’s proposal would be very similar to what would emerge as the winning design. Given the internal designation Model 908, the aircraft was a sleek single-engine low-wing design, featuring a chin intake, highly swept wings, and a single tail. A very small nose would have restricted the installation of any radars, but otherwise the Model 908 was very similar to the final General Dynamics proposal, and was actually favored at first. However, it fell short in one critical region - the Model 908 was projected to be more expensive than the F-16, so it was passed over for further development.
Northrop YF-17
Northrop’s LWF would be unique in that it was the only twin-engined proposal to be submitted. Derived from a proposal for an F-5 successor, Northrop’s design was a larger mid-winged design with twin tails canted slightly outwards to reduce radar cross-section. Side-mounted inlets lay under the leading-edge root extensions, providing better airflow into the engines, while the twin tails would improve control at high angles of attack. Originally unveiled as the P-530 in 1971, Northrop would adapt the proposal for the LWF program after the P-530 failed to gain any customers.
The refined P-530, now designated P-600, incorporated refined landing gear, fly-by-wire controls, and composite structural elements. After being accepted for full-scale testing, Northrop’s design would take flight as the YF-17 in 1974. Two prototypes would be made, flying almost 300 flights between them. It demonstrated a top speed of almost Mach 2, peak loading of 9.4G, ceiling of 50,000ft, and impressive high-alpha performance (34 degrees in level flight, 63 degrees in climb). However, a flyoff with the General Dynamics YF-16 would show the YF-17 to be inferior, so it was not selected for production by the Air Force.
General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon
General Dynamics would look into a variety of configurations before settling on the design that would be the F-16. Across each design study, the nose of the aircraft would remain constant, but the arrangement of the wing and tail surfaces would be varied. The design that would be submitted to the USAF would be largely similar to the competing Boeing design, but using a larger mid-mounted delta wing in place of Boeing’s low-mounted swept wing. Thanks to its cheaper design, it would emerge as one of the two aircraft selected for full-scale testing. Flight testing began in 1974, with over 300 flights flown. The F-16 would prove superior to the YF-17, and it was accepted into production.
Just as the F-15 before it, the F-16 would see its first combat use in foreign hands. Flying with the Israelis, the F-16 would see heavy use in the late 70’s and early 80’s. While the early models would lack radar-guided AAMs, the F-16 would prove more than capable of handling itself in a dogfight - IAF F-16s would claim several Syrian aircraft during their intervention in Lebanon using a combination of AIM-9s and cannon fire. Outside of the air combat role, the F-16 would be a valuable bomb platform as well - F-16s proved vital in the attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, as well as the battle over the Bekaa Valley the next year.
In 1991, USAF F-16s would make their combat debut in Iraq. With F-15s handling the bulk of air defence duties, the 249 F-16s deployed would fly strike missions. Loaded up with AGM-65s, 2,000lb bombs, drop tanks, ECM pods and wingtip-mounted AIM-9s for defense, F-16s would be vital to the air war. Apart from the standard attack sorties, they also began to supplement the aging F-4G Wild Weasels. As they were only recently converted for SEAD duties, F-16s would primarily go after easier targets while the Wild Weasels handled the more dangerous ones. In all, the F-16 would fly over 13,000 sorties in Iraq - the most of any Coalition aircraft. No aerial victories were claimed due to the nature of their sorties, but seven F-16s would be lost to ground fire.
After the end of the Gulf War, the F-16 would continue to serve admirably. Over Iraq and former Yugoslavia, the F-16 would be called to enforce no-fly zones, claiming several victories over violating aircraft (including the first ever victory with an AIM-120 AMRAAM). During the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, F-16s actively participated as strike and SEAD aircraft. They would continue to support operations during the ensuing occupations, dropping guided munitions and even performing the odd strafing run.
Thanks to the NATO Air Combat Fighter competition, the F-16 would see a tremendous amount of export. Aimed at replacing the F-104Gs flying with many NATO nations at the time, the F-16 would beat out the competing Mirage F1M-53, SEPECAT Jaguar, YF-17, and the proposed Saab 37E. While the F-16 would win this program, its export success would not just be limited to NATO customers. Many US-aligned nations became customers, including Pakistan, Turkey, and much of the Middle East. The small national forces of F-16s possessed by minor NATO nations have seen a surprising amount of use, often tagging along with multinational coalitions to support operations in places such as former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
Of the (non-Israel) export customers, the Pakistani and Turkish F-16s have seen perhaps the most use. From 1986 onwards, Pakistani F-16s made regular intercepts of intruding Soviet aircraft, downing at least 10 of them. The fleet remains operational to this day, primarily flying bombing missions against Taliban targets on the Afghan border. Turkish F-16s would make their operational debut in support of NATO operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, but the remainder of the decade would see little action beyond sporadic engagements with Greece over territorial disputes. As the Syrian Civil War has intensified, the Turks have used their F-16s for fairly regular intercepts of Syrian aircraft that stray across the border.
Over 40 years into its career, the F-16 hardly resembles the simplistic light fighter the Fighter Mafia so badly wanted. Their technophobia would rapidly give way to reality, and later F-16 blocks would add new radars and avionics. The F-16 would morph from a simple short-ranged dogfighter into a capable BVR platform, Wild Weasel, and multirole bomb-truck. The USAF does plan to replace the F-16 with the F-35A eventually, but service life extensions mean that the F-16 will likely serve with the USAF until about 2025.
McDonnell Douglas/Northrop F/A-18 Hornet
In 1973, the Navy was ordered by Congress and the Secretary of Defense to pursue a cheaper alternative to the F-14 by evaluating the Air Force’s Lightweight Fighter proposals - the YF-16 and YF-17. Partly due to the twin-engined design and partly thanks to Navy unwillingness to fly an Air Force plane, the YF-17 would be favored, and McDonnell Douglas was asked to work with Northrop to develop the YF-17 into the carrier-capable F-18. The F-18 retained the general shape of the YF-17, but drastically changed landing gear for carrier operations, enlarged fuel tanks, and introduced folding wings and fly-by-wire controls. The aircraft would be ordered into production as the F/A-18 without prototyping, with the first example rolling out in September 1978.
After several years of trials, the F/A-18 finally entered service with the Navy and USMC in 1983. Initial operational reports were positive, with crews praising the type’s reliability. The F/A-18 would make its combat debut in 1986 during Operation El Dorado Canyon. Flying alongside A-7s, Hornets from Coral Sea flew SEAD strikes in Tripoli and Benghazi. Almost 200 Hornets would be deployed to the Persian Gulf several years later with the outbreak of war in 1991. During the war, the Hornet performed reasonably well. Primarily used for ground strikes, it was more than capable of holding its own against the sporadic resistance of the IAF. In all, 4,551 sorties were flown by Hornets for two losses and ten damaged.
The F/A-18 would take over the attacker roles of the fleet as the Navy retired its A-6s and A-7s in the 90’s. The Hornet would continue to serve over Iraq during Operation Southern Watch, while they would also make several appearances in support of NATO operations in former Yugoslavia. The new Super Hornet has started to replace the standard F/A-18 in Navy service, but the Legacy Hornet will stick around for a couple years before finally being replaced by the F-35C.
Although the Hornet was intended to be a multirole carrier fighter, the comparatively low cost of the design has attracted considerable export success as well. Canada, Australia, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, and Switzerland all purchased the Hornet. Export Hornets have the automatic landing system removed as no operators have carriers, but, as delivered, they retain the folding wings and other features that make them carrier-capable. At a glance, this export success seems nonsensical - the Hornet is about $10 million more expensive than the F-16 and has similar performance figures. One explanation for this disparity could be politics. Canada, for example, wanted a twin-engined aircraft, meaning that the F-18 was a more attractive option. Whatever the reason, the Hornet will likely live on with foreign users for several years after it leaves US service.
Northrop F-20 Tigershark
In the 70’s, Taiwan was looking for a new fighter to compete with the PRC’s newest designs that was capable of carrying the AIM-7 Sparrow. Export restrictions and concerns over tarnishing recently opened relations with the PRC would lead to more capable designs like the F-4 not being offered to Taiwan. Instead, Northrop was asked to develop an F-5 variant with an AIM-7 capable radar. However, as Northrop developed what would be known as the F-5G specifically to circumvent President Carter’s export restrictions, Carter would personally block sales of the design. In 1979, Carter finally reversed his decision as freely exported Soviet fighters began to outpace those supplied to American allies. After a year of extensive studies, the FX program was launched, aimed at producing an export fighter. For this, Northrop would respond with the F-5G.
The F-5G was effectively a modernized F-5E. The small twin engines of the F-5E were replaced with a single GE F404 producing 60% more thrust and giving the aircraft a thrust/weight ratio over 1. Modified leading edge root extensions and control surfaces would improve handling, and the airframe was redesigned to accommodate new composites. The centerpiece of the new avionics suite would be the AN/APG-67 radar, which worked with a completely revised cockpit to give the aircraft AIM-7 compatibility. The result was an aircraft perfectly suited to the export-minded FX program. It was a massive improvement over the standard F-5E, while still having downgraded systems to avoid being a security risk. While more expensive than the F-5E, the F-5G was still far cheaper than the F-15 and competing F-16.
The F-5G would take flight in August 1982, but very early on in testing, the FX was cancelled. With export restrictions relaxing, Northrop now needed to make their aircraft competitive with the F-16, which was already gaining customers. Hasty avionics upgrades were performed to make the design competitive as testing continued. Hoping to distance the design from the “monkey model” reputation of the FX, Northrop requested a designation change to F-20. The program would get a boost in 1984 when Congressional hearings convinced the USAF to directly promote the project, but increasing USAF interest in the F-16 would mean this resurgence was short lived. In 1985, the FX was finally abandoned, and, in late 1986, after six years and $1.2 billion, Northrop finally cancelled the F-20.
Israeli Aircraft Industries Lavi
As the 70’s came to an end, Israel began looking for a low-cost fighter to replace their A-4s and Kfirs, as well as supplement their F-15s. In 1980, IAI was presented with specifications for a new multirole fighter. Projections called for the procurement of 300 aircraft, necessitating a fairly light, cheap design. Originally, IAI looked into the GE F404 as a powerplant, but they would later settle on a single PW1120 due to greater growth potential. The resulting Lavi that took flight in 1986 would be a canard-delta plane with fly-by-wire controls. Compared to the F-16, it was slightly less capable in terms of performance and payload.
Unfortunately, the Lavi would find itself facing significant opposition both at home and abroad. Domestically, the project was proving far more expensive than expected, making it a major liability when plans called for the procurement of 300 aircraft. Abroad, IAI would find itself opposed by the US. Not only did the Lavi represent a significant competitor to the F-16 and F-18 on the export market, but it presented a security risk, as many nations that had expressed interest in the Lavi were on less-than-friendly terms with the US. With the Lavi heavily dependent on US technologies, the US had a surprising amount of influence over the program. In the end, the Lavi would be cancelled in 1987. Thanks to heavy US lobbying and favorable offers, the Lavi would be cancelled by a narrow vote in favor of purchasing 90 F-16Cs.
British Aerospace Hawk 200
In 1984, BAe decided to develop the Hawk trainer into a full-fledged light fighter. BAe extensively modified the trainer, replacing the forward fuselage to add a new avionics package, single-seat cockpit, and a refueling probe. The wings were also modified to increase their area and add wingtip missile rails. The new avionics package provided support for various guided air-to-ground munitions as well as the AIM-9L, ASRAAM, and AIM-120. In 1986, the Hawk 200 took flight, and, despite losing the prototype in a crash during tests, the aircraft managed to attract small orders from Malaysia (18) Indonesia (36) and Oman (12). The only combat use of the Hawk 200 would come in 2013, when Malaysian Hawks flew 15 sorties during the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff.
Saab JAS 39 Gripen
At the end of the 70’s, Sweden was looking for a cheap multirole to replace the Saab 35 and 37. After a brief search for foreign designs, they decided to contract Saab to develop a domestic solution in 1979. The preferred design was to be a single-engined light fighter making use of a canard-delta design and fly-by-wire controls for enhanced maneuverability. To reduce costs, the aircraft was to use a license-built derivative of the GE F404 engine. Even with all the cost-cutting efforts, however, the program would be controversial. The Saab 37 Viggen the new platform was to replace had been heavily criticised for its high cost, and it was felt that a new advanced fighter would be even more expensive.
Fortunately, the program would survive scrutiny, allowing Saab’s JAS 39 prototype to take flight in late 1988. The Gripen, as it was known, would be just as requested - a light single-engined canard-delta fighter. To fit into Sweden’s unique military doctrine, it had impressive short field performance, However, early testing revealed critical flaws in the fly-by-wire system. Control issues would persist until 1993, by which point Saab finally revised the control software. Despite its late start and domestic resistance, Sweden’s Gripen would be the first of the Yurotriangles to enter service. In late 1997, the first squadron of Gripens became operational. Their first combat use come in 2011, when eight Gripens were deployed to support the Libyan no-fly-zone. During that time, they would fly 650 combat missions, primarily for reconnaissance.
Thanks to its focus on low costs, the Gripen has been Saab’s greatest export success to date. With their entry into NATO, the Czech Republic and Hungary would choose to lease Gripens to replace their aging MiG-21s and bring their air forces up to NATO standards. South Africa also placed a small order, outright purchasing the aircraft rather than leasing it like the former PACT nations had. The largest upcoming operator, Brazil, has selected the Gripen E/F, while they are also looking into development of a navalized variant to replace their A-4KUs. However, several former Saab customers across the Baltic have not taken advantage of the Gripen. Norway and Denmark opted to pursue the F-35, forgoing further operation of Saab designs.
More recently, Saab has developed the Gripen E/F, which builds upon the existing Gripen design to create a more competitive fighter. Compared to the earlier C/D series, the Gripen E will mount a new AESA radar, IRST, and integration with the AIM-120C, AIM-9X, and MBDA Meteor. Additionally, in cooperation with Brazil, Sweden is developing a carrier-capable Sea Gripen out of the E/F. In all, the Gripen E/F will represent a major improvement over the existing Gripen in nearly every respect. However, with the flyaway cost increasing to over $100 million apiece, the Gripen E/F may have issues finding customers. The new upgrades now put it in the same price range as the Eurofighter and F-35, while the Gripen still lags behind either of these competitors in terms of performance.
IAR 95 Spey
Romania’s first domestic supersonic fighter project would begin in the late 70’s. Original design studies called for a light single-engine fighter with a crew of two, but a lack of a suitable engine led to its cancellation in 1981. It would soon be revived, however, leading to an all-new design. Powered by the Tumansky R-29 engine, the aircraft was projected have a top speed approaching Mach 2. The new design would be in the same class as other light fighters such as the early model F-16s. The IAR 95 would make it as far as a full-scale mockup before being cancelled on grounds of cost.
Parallel to the MFI next-generation fighter program, the Soviets also started the LFI program. Intended to complement the MFI, the LFI was supposed to be a cheaper attack-oriented multirole design, replacing the bulk of the fighter-bombers then serving with VVS frontal aviation. Just as with the MFI, MiG, Sukhoi, and Yakovlev would submit designs. Unfortunately, the LFI program would not survive the fall of the Soviet Union. Yakovlev and Sukhoi lacked the funds to pursue the proposals on their own as funding evaporated, and MiG - the winner of the competition - decided to drop the LFI entirely to fund the MFI.
Sukhoi S-37
Sukhoi’s proposal was largely similar to the MFI proposals of its competitors. Using a canard-delta configuration, the S-37 was to be powered by a single R-79 or AL-41F turbofan. Avionics were to be built around the attacker role, with optronic systems taken from the Su-24 supplementing a multimode radar and wingtip ECM pods. The cockpit was to be protected by 800kg of armor, while 17 hardpoints were to carry various guided and unguided weapons. Although not designed for carrier operations, it was to have folding wings. Full-scale development was approved in 1989, but the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the end of funding. Sukhoi looked abroad to garner funding for the project, but such support never materialized, and the S-37 had to be abandoned.
Yakovlev Yak-43
Yakovlev’s LFI proposal would be unique in that it was the only STOVL design submitted. Derived from the still-developing Yak-41, the Yak-43 was to incorporate an NK-32 turbofan to improve performance, as well as various RCS reducing features. Plans called for the use of forward and rear facing radars, while the more powerful engine would provide for better performance, higher payloads, and a larger combat radius than the Yak-41 it was derived from. However, the program would not survive the end of the Cold War - with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Yakovlev found itself struggling to support even the almost-complete Yak-41 project, let alone an ambitious stealthy STOVL design.
Mikoyan Gurevich Izdeliye 33
MiG’s LFI proposal would advance the furthest. Roughly similar in appearance the F-16, it was an entirely new single-engined design with a far more conventional layout than MiG’s 1.42 MFI proposal. An arching nose would provide the pilot with high-mounted seat for good visibility, while a large dorsal spine and single powerful engine would hopefully provide for a better combat radius than the unfortunate MiG-29. Perhaps most notable was its massive leading edge root extensions which would (hopefully) allow for better maneuverability. MiG’s design would be favored over the competitors, but MiG would have to drop the LFI as the Soviet Union collapsed in order to keep the MiG 1.42 funded. Reportedly, data from the project was later sold to China, who applied it to their JF-17/FC-1 fighter.
As Russia struggled to recover from economic ruin in the 90’s, they began a new modernisation effort for the VVS. Hoping to compete with the NATO Joint Strike Fighter, the new aircraft was aimed to be a capable multirole design with moderate stealth characteristics. Preliminary work would begin in 1994, but it would take until 1999 for the program to officially start. The LFS would see entries from the same three companies that had participated in previous stillborn programs - MiG, Sukhoi, and Yakovlev. MiG and Yakovlev would only submit a single proposal, but Sukhoi would submit three full proposals, all with different layouts. Unfortunately, the LFS program would be very brief - in 2001, the program was cancelled to free up funding for the more advanced PAK FA.
Yakovlev LFS
Yakovlev’s LFS would be the final development of their failed Yak-43 development. Further refining the stealth characteristics of the Yak-43, the LFS proposal would end up resembling the stealth projects of the west (particularly the ATF and JSF). STOVL operation was retained in the new design, but the lift jets system was modified. Supplementing the vertically-mounted lift-jets was to be a system bleeding air from the forward compressor stages of the engine. Unfortunately, the project would not progress far before the LFS was cancelled.
Mikoyan Gurevich I-2000
MiG’s proposal was an entirely new design, notable for its massive circular inner wing section. The unusual wing planform was intended to improve control at high angles of attack - a feature that was to be supplemented by thrust-vectoring engine nozzles. Additionally, stealth elements were to be incorporated into the design, most notable being an internal weapons bay. Specially designed undercarriage and airbrakes were intended to improve short-field operations that were considered integral to VVS frontal aviation operations. Perhaps most important was the open architecture of the design, intended to improve export prospects by making the airframe adaptable to a variety of avionics and weapon systems. The I-2000 would never materialize due to the end of the LFS program, but MiG would sell the design to Iran, who was working on their own domestic fighter program.
Sukhoi S-52
The first Sukhoi proposal would build on their experience with the S-32 forward-swept wing fighter. More resembling the American X-29 than the domestic S-32, the S-52 was a small single-engined forward-swept wing aircraft with canards and small control surfaces on tails strakes. Compared to the S-32, it incorporated more stealth features, although weapons were to be carried in semi-recessed positions rather than a fully enclosed bay. While single-engined, the proposed Soyuz R179 powerplant was to allow the aircraft - which was larger than the S-32 - to supercruise at Mach 1.3. The project got as far as wind tunnel tests before Sukhoi decided to pursue more promising alternatives.
Sukhoi S-55
Sukhoi’s second LFS proposal was adapted from a parallel proposal for an advanced trainer for the VVS. Effectively resembling a single-engined Su-27, the proposal was to result in three separate designs - a trainer, land-based fighter, and naval fighter. A large nose would provide for a powerful radar, and control was to be achieved with a combination of canards and elevators. Because of the trainer requirements, the small aircraft was to have a crew of two. Proposed powerplants were the RD-33 (from the MiG-29) and the AL-31F. Unfortunately, Sukhoi’s focus on making a naval fighter that would be adapted to the other requirements was its downfall. The naval fighter would never materialize thanks to lack of funds, and the land-based variant would meet its end with the cancellation of the LFS. Its last hope of survival, the trainer competition, would prove a failure as well, as the S-55 was too complicated and expensive for the trainer role.
Sukhoi S-56
The S-56 was a further refinement of the S-55, dropping the trainer requirement to focus on the dual land/sea fighter design. The crew was reduced to one, and the aircraft was vastly refined, reducing empty weight. The “stingers” characteristic of Sukhoi fighters were added on either side of the tail nozzle, and a complex system of folding surfaces was intended to reduce the aircraft’s footprint on the carrier to just 3 meters wide by 3 meters tall. Power was to come from a single Al-31F engine, and a massive internal fuel capacity of 4500kg of fuel was to give a range of almost 4000km. Overall, performance projections (while likely ambitious) expected the S-56 to outpace the latest model F-16s and possibly compete with the JSF. Sukhoi would market the design not only domestically, but also to India (as part of their carrier fighter competition) and South Africa. Unfortunately, none of these options panned out, and, as money ran out, the S-56 had to be abandoned.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Tejas
The HAL Tejas can trace its roots back to 1983, when the IAF realized it needed a replacement for its MiG-21s. Hoping to kickstart their aviation industry, the IAF started the Light Combat Aircraft program, calling for a domestically designed and built fighter to replace the MiG-21. Such a program would be easier than a full-size fighter to develop, while still providing valuable experience to HAL. The LCA program was ambitious - it was to have fly-by-wire controls, a multi-mode pulse-doppler radar, and an afterburning turbofan, all of domestic design. Thus, while HAL would finalize the tailless delta design as early as 1990, development would drag on.
The Tejas fighter that would finally take flight in 2001 was a compact single-engined delta-winged fighter. Extensive wind tunnel testing and computational methods were used in the design process, and composites were heavily used in construction. The original prototype would fly with a GE F404 engine, and, thanks to problems with domestic engine development, the final product will continue to fly on foreign engines. It boasts a domestically designed ECM suite, radar, IRST, and navigational suite. While not yet finished, plans are also in place to mount a domestic AESA radar on the Tejas.
After initial testing in 2001, the IAF would place a small order for production aircraft. Testing has been lengthy and extensive, so much so that the first limited rate production aircraft wouldn’t roll out until 2007. Meanwhile, testing of a naval variant for the Indian Navy was only just begun. Naval prototypes have done limited testing from land-based carrier deck analogs, but have yet to undergo actual carrier trials. As of now, limited production aircraft have been slowly rolling out and gradually upgraded to meet integration standards with the variety of weapons in the Indian inventory. Thus, actual numbers are low - only 16 Tejas have been built, the majority of which are prototypes.
KAI T-50/FA-50 Golden Eagle
Originally conceived as a high-performance trainer/light attacker much like countless other foreign projects, the FA-50 stands out among its peers by being focused on air combat. As part of a joint project with Lockheed martin, KAI developed a two-seat light fighter derived from the F-16. It retains the small size of the F-16, but it incorporates various aerodynamic and avionics changes to better suit it to its intended role. In addition to supporting a variety of guided and unguided air-to-ground munitions, the FA-50 offers support for the AIM-9 and AIM-120. With a unit price of just $30 million (for the FA-50), the fighter has been an attractive export product to nations on a budget. Indonesia and Iraq have both ordered T-50 trainer/attacker variants, but both Korea and the Philippines have the FA-50 fighter on order. KAI continues to market the T-50 and FA-50 across the world, both aiming to replace aging advanced trainers and provide minor nations with a more competitive budget fighter for their air forces.
Chengdu JF-17 Thunder
The JF-17 had its origins in Project Sabre II, a joint effort between Chengdu and Grumman to upgrade the J-7 for the Pakistani Air Force. Following the sanctions put on China in after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Grumman was ejected from the project, and Chengdu teamed up with Pakistan’s aerospace industry. The resulting design was completely unrecognizable as a MiG-21. While the single-engined layout was retained, the intakes were moved to the cheeks to facilitate the mounting of a modern radar. The delta wings were clipped and given wingtip rails, and leading-edge root extensions were added to improve high-alpha performance. The tail was redesigned as well, and the fuselage was blended into the lifting surfaces.
As is common for indigenous Chinese projects of the time, development moved slowly, part in thanks to sanctions placed on Pakistan after their nuclear tests. Even then, much of the aircraft’s systems were outsourced - the engines came from Russia and, in spite of sanctions, much of the avionics suite came from the west. In 2002, work finally began on developing a prototype, which flew the next year. The finalized aircraft seemed to be aimed at maximizing export potential - onboard software is optimized for upgrades, while the aircraft itself is compatible with not only China’s weapons, but the NATO and French weapon standards as well.
The JF-17 began small-batch deliveries to China in 2006. Pakistan received their first aircraft six months later, reaching operational status in 2010. Pakistan has already put the type to use, flying it against targets in South Waziristan. The Chinese seem to be operating fewer JF-17s than the Pakistanis, but development is already underway for an improved Block 2 variant, intending to incorporate more composites into the structure, as well as newer avionics and an IRST. Many countries, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, have expressed interest in the JF-17. While there have been tentative talks with Zimbabwe, Argentina, and Egypt to procure the aircraft, however, no purchases have materialized. More recently, Nigeria has looked into buying several JF-17s from Pakistan, but an actual order has yet to occur. According to the chief designer of the JF-17, this is due to a combination of political factors and the fact that the JF-17 just can’t compete with contemporary Gen 4 fighters. In other words, while it is a great budget replacement for the MiG-21 (unit price of ~$20 million), it lacks the capabilities that countries are looking for in a fighter.
