WI: STOL light fighter instead of Harrier?

Jukra

WI: Instead of VTOL fighters just STOL light fighters are developed? From layman's point of view it would seem easier to develop a light STOL fighter than a full-blown VTOL plane with more complex thrust vectoring techology? Of course it would not have full flexibility of a Harrier but then again, say, 500 meters long straight pieces of road would seem to be quite ample even in Central Europe. Going for 80 per cent solution rather than 100 per cent solution, as to say. As for benefits, the aeronautical performance would probably be much better and maintenance requirements much lower.

As for naval use, looking at INS Vikramaditya, the converted ex-Soviet Gorshkov, it seems that MiG-29K, a full blown fighter, requires roughly 200 meters take-off run with ski jump, and 200 meters landing length.

Could one arrange similar sized deck for USN amphibious assault ships? For Iwo Jima, not of course, but Tarawa-class, if designed from the start to support ski-jump operations, would seem roughly suitable from layman's point of view.

Ski-jump, of course, limits the deck space available. On the other hand, it lessens the development costs as specific V/STOL fighters are not required.

As for historical reference, although it might be called a medium fighter in timeframe, one might cite Saab 37 Viggen with it's STOL performance.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
I think in the 60s a fighter would have to sacrifice outright performance to get STOL capability, leaving it vulnerable in the air despite being less vulnerable on the ground.
 

Zen9

Banned
Strictly NATO came to the 500m conclusion during the 70's. After analysis of various conflicts and the study of the effectiveness of runway denial and destruction.

Had something like that been possible in the late 50's, it would shift the requirements.

It doesn't change as much as one might hope. Since safe and 'comfortable' (not having your back done in or your retina detached by the vibrations) low level flight, requires a high wing loading and that in turn makes a normal take off a over a long distance.

So you end up with the same solutions.
Lift jets.
Vectored thrust with a too large engine.
Blow
VG
Tail sitting and a too large engine.
And various ejector schemes that ultimately don't work.

Although. .....even as early as '56 there was a FBW RSS type study by AWA......
 

Jukra

Riain said:
I think in the 60s a fighter would have to sacrifice outright performance to get STOL capability, leaving it vulnerable in the air despite being less vulnerable on the ground.
Click to expand...

Viggen first flew in 1967, I think if more effort was put into it than Swedes were able to do one might be able to reach it sooner, and it was quite capable in air-to-air.

But most importantly, we must compare the hypothetical STOL fighter to Harrier, not to top of the line performers. A STOL bird would be able to outperform Harrier in all respects, except of course the not really useful viffing.
 

Riain

Banned
The harrier was a niche aircraft that didn't sell well to 'regular' air forces. For countries that can only afford 1 or 2 types they can't really afford a plane that sacrifices performance in the air for performance on the ground.
 

Jukra

SealTheRealDeal said:
Short take off you say?
Click to expand...

Yes, though the only way to reach short landing with F-104 is this:

Crash.jpg
 

Jukra

Riain said:
The harrier was a niche aircraft that didn't sell well to 'regular' air forces. For countries that can only afford 1 or 2 types they can't really afford a plane that sacrifices performance in the air for performance on the ground.
Click to expand...

A STOL fighter, being cheaper and most probably with far better performance than Harrier might just find a larger market share than Harrier & Sea Harrier did historically, though. At least it might replace SEPECAT Jaquar, Super Etendard et. al.

Without Harrier, there probably would not be F-35B either. The interesting question is, would UK and Italy construct a STOBAR carrier? How about India and HMS Hermes? Spain and Thailand would be question marks, although it might be much better option for them not to construct a carrier at all...
 
Last edited:

Glyndwr01

Banned
Riain said:
The harrier was a niche aircraft that didn't sell well to 'regular' air forces. For countries that can only afford 1 or 2 types they can't really afford a plane that sacrifices performance in the air for performance on the ground.
Click to expand...
? no Harriers lost in Falklands to enemy aircraft!
 
AlanJWhite

AlanJWhite

AIUI Viggen was introduced in 1971 as an attack plane with some self-defence capability
and 1978 (or later) as a dedicated Interceptor Fighter.

Both were intended to operate from the many dispersed airfields Swede planned & built
but also from the kortbanor (short strips) built as a backup at these sites.

These were only 500mx17m (including using adapted stretches of nearby road)
but even this is much larger than any CV.

Operating such aircraft on a large scale in Germany might obviate the utility of the Harrier
but won't replace the Sea Harrier without CATOBAR

In general, history has shown that aircraft designed for carrier ops can be adapted into capable land aircraft
but NOT the other way around :cryingface:

In any case, modifying the Viggen will make it less capable so it's a "catch -22"
 

Jukra

AlanJWhite said:
In general, history has shown that aircraft designed for carrier ops can be adapted into capable land aircraft but NOT the other way around :cryingface:

In any case, modifying the Viggen will make it less capable so it's a "catch -22"
Click to expand...

Well, Harrier seems to differ ;)

I'm not proposing a Viggen as Harrier replacement, but just as an example that a STOL combat aircraft could have been done with 60's technology. Like I wrote, India operates MiG-29K from ex-Gorshov using roughly 200m's for launch and recovery...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top