Time for a modern multi-national F5 equivalent?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

SplitRz

Senior Airman
377
598
Feb 6, 2021
2nd gin of the evening and its musing time. Much is being made in the media here in Blightly about Zelensky's visit and his request from the UK government for combat aicraft. My first thought was 'What F****** aircraft have we oing spare?! We can barely muster a mere 6 frontline squadrons at the moment. Hat tip to Admiral Beez for the folliwng taken from the Vlad thread

"I recall reading that Stalin was shocked at the tiny size of the British army. I wonder if Zelenskyy feels the same, asking how can a country with the 6th largest economy in the world, with over 67 million people, have only 227 operational MBTs and 130 fighter aircraft (Typhoon+Lightning). That's of course a superficial observation of a hugely complex arm forces, but Zelenskyy must have shown some surprise when he learned that the entire British Army has less than 80k active personnel, and that more than twice the size of the RN."

This issue got me thinking viz a viz the situation in Ukraine and my long growing sense of disquiet that modern NATO military equipment may be amongst the best money can buy - but it is ridiculously expensive, difficult to produce - and produced slowly when it is. Its also the case that much front line equipment *isn't even in current production*. For the British, new Challenger hulls haven't been made for decades, neither have new SA80s or probably even a majority of their front line weapons. Surely Typhoons are already far too few, too expensive and too irreplacable to the RAF to be handed out in any meaningful numbers?

130 modern combat aircraft is a ludicrously small amount of airframes when is comes to the risk of attrition in anything beyond a skirmish and when nothing is in production to even contemplate replacements. It also exposes the near impossibility of being able to offer any friendly ally any practical supply, short of a signed trade deal with a decades worth of notice (even presuming that the production lines could be re-started if tools and jigs have been disposed of).

Has Ukraine has shown that there's an urgent need for combat capable aircraft that needn't be on the bleeding edge of technology, but to be capable of of rapid, affordable manufacture and supply in emergency scenarios like the one we're witnessing? In the cold war, the F5 was supposedly in that kind of frame. The Mirage would also be a good example. Could a modern equivalent be developed by through NATO - an airframe that could be competitive with majority of the Russian aircraft it would most likely encounter across the globe but still be affordable, simple and rugged enough to be operated in low tech or front line scenarios...? (which to my mind are sadly likely to become more common.)

[I sip my gin and retire to my armchair airmarshals desk]
 
Last edited:
Probably much better to invest in drones and cruise missiles.


The above wargames found allied losses in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to be 650-900+ aircraft. Most of them lost on the ground.
 
Could a modern equivalent be developed by through NATO - an airframe that could be competitive with majority of the Russian aircraft it would most likely encounter across the globe but still be affordable, simple and rugged enough to be operated in low tech or front line scenarios...? (which to my mind are sadly likely to become more common.)
How about the Grippen as a starting point?
Polish are buying the Korean F/A-50.
 
Probably much better to invest in drones and cruise missiles.


The above wargames found allied losses in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to be 650-900+ aircraft. Most of them lost on the ground.
Drones and cruise missiles would have had little tactical application against any full scale invasion though, surely, useful though they may be? A cruise missile is a one shot deal and requires targeting information. That's useful to take out a bridge - or maybe a factory if you're a nation with strategic capabilities or intentions - but of little use to the smaller ones I would have thought.

Considering Russia's massive expenditure in guided munitions, their impact upon the Ukrainians, despite the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, has been remarkably indecisive. Once again, it seems to me that the idea that drones and cruise missiles have become the most important weapons seems premature. The fact that both sides are husbanding what they see as their most important battlefield assets - their pilots and aircraft - simply underlines that, doesn't it? Zelensky pointedly didn't ask the UK government for drones or cruise missiles - he wants combat aircraft. I would imagine he has good reason based on whats happening an whats needed.

Drones (beyond the tiny battlefield versions) have so far only been mostly employed in war scenarios where one side has complete air supremacy - or (as in the case of Ukraine), neither side is attempting to impose it. They've added a new and sinister aspect to the war in Ukraine - but they're clearly not in any way as decisive as established air superiority or an airstrike capability, are they (?)
 
Last edited:
I was going to suggest that the F-16 might becoming a lower cost airframe. It's going back into production, right? Many older airframes have been updated and there are a lot of them. Some are being phased out by F-35s.
I like Tomo's idea. I forgot about the Korean entry. Would the new Turkish fighter be a consideration?
 
How about the Grippen as a starting point?
Polish are buying the Korean F/A-50.
Yes, thats what I was thinking - a kind of 'austere' Gripen. Whats the cost of a Gripen compared to its current contemporaries?
 
We can all agree I'm no expert but when I hear "austere", I think "dead". That's why I'm liking the F-16. It is loaded with goodies and may be the de facto F-5 of today.
For many countries, the choice might be 12 new F/A-50, or 12 F-16s from 1980s (= no goodies), or no 2020's F-16s.
 
We can all agree I'm no expert but when I hear "austere", I think "dead". That's why I'm liking the F-16. It is loaded with goodies and may be the de facto F-5 of today.
Austere by western standards - still means Ferrari like by Russian military standards, is rather what I meant. ;) . Yeah, F16s are clearly available in profusion and would be a good choice - (though they are hardly the lightweight fighter and F5 replacement they were originally conceived to be?)

A 'rationalised for Ukrainian service' Gripen could be a a good contender from the European perspective

Experience (like the numerous videos showing Russian aircraft equipped with old commercial sat navs and GPS handsets) seems to be clearly demonstrating that the majority of Russian equipment is *not* the bells and whistles state-of-the-art stuff seen on promotional videos and on May Day parades.

What I ponder is needed is a workman like tool that can be far more quickly and easily manufactured and put into service than the sort of thing that might be manufactured to peacetime requirements. Its got to be affordable and its got to be available.

The west seems to be discovering that as much as the Russians have bare cupboards but for low-end unsophisticated weaponry, what we have - especially the European nations - are small caches of incredibly expensive and irreplaceable airframes that are too valuable to actually to give away, and too expensive for the Ukrainians to buy or operate....
 
Considering Russia's massive expenditure in guided munitions, their impact upon the Ukrainians, despite the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, has been remarkably indecisive. Once again, it seems to me that the idea that drones and cruise missiles have become the most important weapons seems premature. The fact that both sides are husbanding what they see as their most important battlefield assets - their pilots and aircraft - simply underlines that, doesn't it? Zelensky pointedly didn't ask the UK government for drones or cruise missiles - he wants combat aircraft. I would imagine he has good reason based on whats happening an whats needed.
It could be indicative of the Ukrainians simply having few aircraft left while they are getting an adequate supply of drones.

There is very little reliable information about fixed wing operations in this war. But what video footage has been shown, both sides appear to be very hesitant to overly enemy territory. Most aircraft use looks to be lobbing munitions towards the front.
 
That's why I liked your mention of F/A-50, which again, I totally forgot about.
With the likes of K2 tanks, K9 SPH and now light fighters, the Euro arms manufacturers and their political backers had better watch out, South Korea is aiming to take a good chunk of the global demand. F/A-50 light fighters lead to KF-21 air superiority fighters. It's Hyundai Pony to Genesis G80.

 
Last edited:
I think the F-16 has filled this niche for quite some time now.
The difference between the F16 and what I'm proposing as a gap-filler is I think is a bit more nuanced. The F16 was designed from the outset as a lightweight air superiority fighter, taking lessons learned in Vietnam and encompassing the theories of Colonel John Boyd and co.. It was admittedly designed to be the low cost part of the low-cost/high cost mix of F16/F15 that was envisaged, but 'low cost' was kinda relative, considering that it was both developed to be a front line aicraft in the worlds biggest and most expensive airforce - and then developed to be expected to take on a multirole spec and replace numerous aircraft - F104, F105, F4s etc.

The F5 on the other hand was designed from the outset as a low purchase cost, low operational cost and low maintenance design - with lots of scope for export.

With so many political, diplomatic, financial and intelligence/technical barriers to F16 export, I'm wondering if there needs to be an alternative: something that can take on the most numerous fighter opposition its likely to encounter (Mig29/35, Sukhoi27) - but not at the purchase, operational or political cost of an F16?
 
Just for giggles I looked up "Embraer trainer jet". The Super Tucano came up. AERALIS is a jet trainer being developed in the UK. I think it's still in the napkin ware stage.
I don't think the L-39 is fast enough.
 
Doesn't the F/A-50 fill that niche? The Boeing T-7? Guess the the Red Hawk might be a bit pricier. Cheaper gets a turbo prop, methinks.
I like the sound of the F/A50, but its already run into export problems because of the inclusion of the F404 engine.... What does it cost, comparitive to the competition? That might be a key aspect too.
 
I doubt it will take long to come up with a replacement for that engine. An equal replacement might take longer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back