A cat amongst the pigeons – an Indian concept of an universal light fighter.

The techniques of Market Research results in products which meet the customers’ needs to a greater degree. When it comes to combat aircraft the application of MR is conspicuous by its absence. The West prefers to sell their complicated specifications as the universal standard. The other reason is sophisticated specifications act as an entry barrier to Asian competition.

Sufficient statistical data exists to have a scientific approach to combat aircraft specifications. With changes in the Government policy the Indian Private sector will now have an opportunity to move into combat aircraft development and they start with handicaps. Therefore the importance of Market Research and a statistical approach to design appropriate fighters rather than “just like” fighters is imperative.

The air arms of India and Pakistan flew around 11,000 fighter sorties in the wars of 1965 and 1971. This involved mainly 2^nd and 3^rd generation Fighters and is extremely valuable a resource base because we own every bit of it. The Israeli Air Force flew about 14,000 fighter sorties in the 1967 and 1973 wars. The Arab Air Forces flew at least as many. If we now add the Sinai Clashes of 1967-1973, the Iran Iraq wars, the Vietnam wars and the various Gulf Wars we are looking at a data base of around 100,000 sorties. Much of the above, except the Syrian AF’s very interesting experience is known and much  can be gleaned.

These were sorties flown by 2^nd and 3^rd generation fighters operated by Air Forces with wide variety of training, operational doctrines and traditions. The combatants thus varied from well matched to so mismatched as to be almost asymmetric warfare. Operating conditions varied from clear infinite visibility over Sinai to sub continental haze to Vietnam monsoon and clouds. There is obviously a good comprehensive statistical data base on which to formulate what should be an ideal requirement. The West is not interested in such a study. They are at a disadvantage in producing to low cost. An Indian initiative in the direction of a “zero base” fighter may set the proverbial (lightweight) cat amongst the pigeons.

What are the real requirements?

The actual requirements that emerge will go against brochure wisdom.

The dogfight is not dead. Fighter aircraft will be designed to win the air to air. However these constitute  only perhaps ten per cent of all sorties (and combat losses) flown.

The main task of combat aircraft is close support and strike duties in VFR conditions. This task also sees the biggest losses- about 60-70% to low cost defences - but scant provisions are paid at the design stage to surviving this task or minimize losses.

There were perhaps a total of 10 cases, if that, in 100,000 sorties when a single seat radar equipped fighter located engaged and destroyed a hostile aircraft at night using its own radar. Work out the implications.

Even when opposing aircraft were capable of all-weather/Mach2/20,000mts altitude performance thousands of clashes occurred where the starting parameters were 450kts/3000mts/ VFR conditions which then wound down to WW2 parameters until one had to break out and run. Tongue in cheek, one would say that internal fuel capacity is more of an “outcome decider” than the max. AOA and other such performance consuming abilities.

BVRs/CCMs/Cannon

BVRs are not new. In Vietnam they showed a strict impartiality in what they knocked down so much so that soon the SOP was one flight went ahead to “visually identify so that the other flight could launch. This compromised the “surprise” element which is a BVR feature. The impartiality of BVRs about the “enemy” continues till this day.

BVR advantages are accepted but it is also important to know also the following.

1.      What were the numbers of BVRs that were launched and missed and under what parameters?

2.      Numbers that did a “blue on blue”?

3.      BVRs are heavy and “draggy”. How many had to be jettisoned at the beginning of a combat to “clean up” the aircraft?

Though CCMs are combat proven and definitely useful nobody is making the ‘sixties mistake of deleting the gun.

Sauce for the Gander?

If we transpose the above findings to a map of the performance envelope of the various generations we get Fig 1 which plots design speed and altitude capabilities of the various generations of fighters and matches it with what has been used in combat. The BVR effective ranges with altitudes is also marked. It will immediately be noted that some of the 2^nd generation Fighters were in every way nearer and better placed in terms of performance, size and handling for where the fight will take place rather than the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th generation fighters. Combat experience vouches for this. More comprehensive equipment adds ‘global” versatility which is irrelevant to the Afro Asian Latin customer we are focussing on.  Starting from this we then have the conjecture what would happen if some of the 4^th and 5^th generation technologies were selectively read across to redesigned 2^nd generation airframes.It will be seen that a redesigned 2^nd gen airframe with later systems both has a Market exciting products can be developed at low cost. Having handled several system upgrades programmes a n approach of airframe plus systems upgraded is the logical next step.

Why “copy”

There are sound economic reasons for doing so. It certainly makes sense to any Engineer. Wise copying provides the “shoulders of a Giant” on which to stand and see further. Like the Chinese the Indian Industry will in the beginning base its designs on “copy”. Tales of “Makkhi ( squashed fly on drawing) to Makkhi” copy exists in every language in which engineers talk but actually it is rarely possible or indeed useful to do so. Copying has pejorative connotations but actually it can be an art form. The T 34 tank so shocked the Germans (surely, after the Russians, the “Herrenvolk” of Tank design) that they actually proposed to copy the T 34 “makkhi to makkhi” until it was realized that the German Industry would find it difficult w.r.t . supplies of aluminium required for the B2-34 Diesel Engine’s crankcase. The other nicer story, though probably apocryphal, was that it was pointed out that the “finish” of the T34 was so poor it would not pass the QC standards of the Technische-Amt-Heer! Ha! What the Germans did was actually the highest form of copying. They studied the T34 absorbed its philosophy and concepts and adopted it for their industry’s ecology. The resulting superb KPzW V “Panther” had the sloping armour and the “overhung” gun of the T 34 (something the “West” was long hesitant to introduce) but retained the peculiar interleaved road wheels the Germans were so fond of- doubtless for track metallurgy constraints. Between “makkhi to makkhi” and “philosophy” the possibilities of low cost product development are endless and exciting.

For the Project Engineer/Director the reasons for “copying” in Aeronautics are many and pressing.

Calculations and wind tunnel data are always optimistic. Having an actual aircraft as a near basis e.g. Folland Midge/Gnat or BAC 221/Concorde is reassuring and is wiser than going off the deep end and end up red faced and spluttering.

Aerodynamics is literally skin deep. Even a tiny aircraft like the Gnat had 10,000 parts. Each has to be conceived, located, stressed, detailed and specified in terms of metallurgy and production. All this takes time which is saved even by copying broadly.

The production details-manufacturing, jigs tools and fixtures, QC, heat treatment all can be that much more rapidly decided.

Every design has its faults. It is easier to correct a known fault in the “basis” aircraft than identify a potential fault which will cunningly wait till flight testing before it reveals its horns. I have in mind the fin and tail plane layout vis a vis the HJT 36 which is now requires more time and “fiddle” to correct.

Finally certification authorities are conservative to the point of being superstitious! It helps if they have can see something that has worked well before.

You will have noticed that copying is not about “lacking in knowledge” Copying is all about saving time. One can’t /won’t copy if one does not know or have the knowledge or the wisdom. It is certainly not “brainless”! The Designer has to have the brains- indeed wisdom- at every step to decide if the Muse is relevant to his ecology.

Does one need the drawings of the original to copy? No. Modern e –engineering tools and old fashioned engineering “horse” sense can obviate much of such need. What will be needed is one or two of the muse airframe.

Why the Gnat?

My ideal Light Fighter would be a twin engine having the F 86 Sabre’s pilot’s visibility with the MiG 17 wing (AR 4!) modified to have the MiG 19’s wing structural stiffness, may be the Su 7s wing section with its rounded L.E. which gave it superb low level manoeuvrability, the Gnat’s forward fuselage married to a twin engine rear fuselage from the MiG 19 and a “flak vierling” gun layout a la HF 24 all somehow blended with something of the Hunter’s grace and immense strength. Of such stuff as dreams are made on and it won’t cost the  earth! Sponsor for studies anyone? Of course the HF 24 can be the basis of an entire Air Force (AJT, LIFT, Strike and interceptor) all in that one basic air frame!

It has to be emphasised that any of the best of 2nd and 3^rd generation airframes suitably modified will respond to “re-systeming”  with current systems to create a “best” or “most useful” fighter at low cost. The Gnat is being used only as a convenient example of the nature of the effort required and  the metrics of the improvements that can be expected.

The advantages of the Gnat were:

It was naturally stealthy very difficult to see and even to hear which is very important in conflicts where the Mk1 Eyeball and Ear model A continue to be important sensors.

It is a superb fighter-small size, high T/W. high AR, low power burn per “G”

It was naturally area ruled. Formally area ruled aircraft e.g. Blackburn Buccaneer suffer excessive drag when operating at “off design “speeds- which fighters do all the time. The reports of the HF 24 “coming alive” at high speeds low level was probably partly due to the area ruling “kicking in” as it were.

It was brilliant structurally and very well engineered.

The aircraft was modular. Quite considerable surgery can be done on the airframe without involving a total redesign.

Despite the good points the Gnat had some grievous faults and these are listed below.

Lethal/ Totally unacceptable faults:

Poor ejection seat reliability

Poor ejection seat performance envelope

Unreliable Tail plane actuation

The windscreen to rear pressure bulkhead distance did not permit pilots taller than 5’10” unless they agreed to leave their knees behind in case of ejection. Interestingly several Gnat fanatics nevertheless flew the thing.

Unacceptable to very unacceptable faults

Cluttered Instrument panel made worse by the very cramped cockpit.

Gun stoppages in combat

Cracking of gun mounts in full fire out.

Brake parachute would scrape the ground and collapse causing “uncertainty” about reliable operation.

No antiskid

The very poor air- conditioning. The cockpit temperature was 40^o C with full “cold’ at low level summer 400 kts. In the Ajeet we improved it- to 37⁰ C! The very low bleed pressure (65psia) and the bad location of the CAU - in the engine bay so that the brake fan’s output cooled the engine bay- was to blame.

Idiosyncratic faults:

The severe nose up trim change on retracting undercarriage at take-off.

Generator MFO too high resulting in high taxiing speed or battery going flat.

Operational shortcomings

Inability to catch a 3^rd Gen Fighter or stay in the firing bracket long enough to bring it down

Inability to accommodate a CCM system within the existing Gnat airframe.

Equipment &specifications

The engineering approach would be to avoid a thorough redesign to get a golden standard and instead aim to have a reasonable solution to the problems

Seat and Safety

Introduction of the MBMk 16 or KVD 36 seat. In extremis- if cockpit space is a constraint- the old GF4 modified to have a rocket pack.

MDC

Larger Battery and Hydraulic reservoir with fully duplicated Hydraulics and electrical systems.

Redesigned tail plane actuation system replacing the Hobson system. Good conventional systems are available for “copying”

Windscreen –bulkhead distance increased to suit a larger population percentile but not necessarily to “International standards”. I expect the Aeroplane would sell mainly in plus minus 30 degrees earth latitude and we should design to such a population. I cite the example of Imperial Japanese war equipment was tailored to the Japanese population and was ‘snug” to Western pilots and Tank crews who tried them.

Glass cockpit

Redesigned gun feed as per the the Ajeet mods. which reportedly worked.

Strengthened main forgings to take Aden /Gsh 30 recoil which used to crack on full fire out- which incidentally was discovered after 10 years of service. One can never rest tranquil in this business!

The use of two (smaller) parachutes for braking a la Su 7.

The introduction of a “trimming” airbrake to avoid change of trim on selecting air brakes or “up” u/c.

Redesign of Generator/ECU to tune MFO of the generator with the taxiing speed.

What is the additional/ replacement equipment required?

 Seat & Safety: Martin Baker Mk 16/KVD 36/ GF4 Mod seat.LOX or OBOGS*, GPWS*APU

Engine : RR Adour 811/Honeywell 125 N/ Motor Sich 222-25

Fixed Guns and Weapons:2X Aden 30mm/ 2x Gsh 30 AO 65 for Ground attack /4 x Single NS 23  Flak Vierling layout/ 1x 23 mm GSh, 1x GSh-30-2  CCM.

Should there be ejector pylons? A lighter solution is to have Soviet style ejectible stores or our own Arrow pods- they are a lighter solution.

Should IR decoy flares be fitted? Maybe! This needs customer discussions because given the small size of the aircraft there will be situations when the IR flares may actually help locate the aircraft to the defenders!

Cockpit & Displays: HUD, HOTAS, 5xMFD, GPWS *, Lightweight Radar or Laser ranger*, RWR, RAM, Health and usage monitoring system (HUMS)*Radio altimeter,

Avionics: WAC, ADC, HMS, Mission computers*, Radio Compass,Ring laser Gyro*,Digital Map*,IFF, Auto pilot*,Self Protection Jammer.*

Alert readers will immediately note that these are standard equipment fitted to the Hawk and the Jaguar Darin 3 standards. Items marked*are only for select versions of the aircraft.

The airframe would have to be modified by lengthening and deepening it to accommodate the HMS, the new engine and the ejection seat. The wing has been slightly increased in area whilst keeping the same section plan form and twist etc. The sketch (fig2) shows the Adour Gnat and the Folland Gnat profiles to the same scale as a comparison of the sizes. Table 1.includes a “target volume” i.e Length x span x height which is an approximation of the target the aircraft will present to the enemy. This uses the Folland Gnat as a unit volume. The small target made by the Adour Gnat is noticeable. The dimensions are provisional and the project engineer will have to work like a bespoke tailor with his nips and tucks. The aircraft shown has about 900 litres additional space in the centre fuselage and about 80 litres in the forward avionics bay.

The Adour Gnat (1987)

The Adour Gnat (1987) is built to philosophy of “cheerful pessimism”- things are simple as possible but if they don’t work we will find out and fix them.. The layout is conventional so FBW problems don’t hold up the programme i.e. required it can be flown without FBW until that is debugged.. It also follows the philosophy of “de-optimize locally to optimize globally”; It uses standard supplies and rotables e.g. it uses the Jaguar/ Hawks engines hydraulics, brakes ,wheels, ECS and electrical etc perhaps as Government issue supplies to save time and money. Needless to say because the design would closely follow the Gnat’s  the development cost and time would be low. The prototypes would be built using “knife and fork” methods and standard metal rolled sheet and extruded stock. Forgings could be replaced by “machined from solid “items or open die forgings or even crankshaft quality SG iron where possible. Naturally all tooling and production methods would follow the Gnat /Ajeet’s practice. One nice thing is that like the Gnat the biggest of the sub- assemblies are small in size which would reflect on the tooling costs. This aircraft will be the trials aircraft rather like the Folland Midge and would be similarly used for concept evaluation. The (1987)?  It means that this aircraft could have been on the flight line by 1987 as it uses only technology that was available in India in 1983 but just look at the performance figures! The basic empty weight would be 2850 kgs as compared to the 2160kgs of the Folland Gnat. Today the relatively simple ‘analogue” would be used to check out the “Goods” and reassure the shareholders!It would provide hard test data and a list of mods that would be needed.

The Adour Gnat (1993)

Provided the Adour Gnat (1987) attains 90-95% of its predicted performance and customers are interested the next step would be to design an improved version using optimized made to order accessories where indicated e.g. brakes wheels tyres etc. This would also be the time to see if composites can be brought in. Composite alone can save about 180 kilos on an airframe of this size but the strategic implication of this material has to be understood. About FBW one has to be even more circumspect. In a small fighter like this the weight of the system has to be carefully assessed against the gain in trim drag. For example the pitch inertia would be one seventh of the LCA’s which itself is a small aircraft! A compromise which is interesting is the fitting of a single channel FBW which would take inputs from the Air Data Computer, the G meter, the ASI and select strain gauges embedded in the airframe to let the pilot know where he is on the V-n diagram. This aircraft could have been ready in 1993.

The Honeywell Gnat F125

This is the version that could be built today using the Honeywell F 125 IN engine. The other alternative engines are the latest Adour or that dark horse the Motor Sich AI 222-25 though RU/Ukraine politics are a factor. It may be interesting to develop three proposals each using US. UK and Russian /Ukrainian aggregates so that the customers can get equipment whose “philosophies” they are used to thus easing his logistics. The weight savings due to the Honeywell engine gives rise to the possibility of developing “heavy and light” versions of the Fighter. The terms are relative. The “Heavy series “would be optimized and equipped for Frontline close support and interdiction raids behind enemy lines. This would be equipped with MiG 27 style cockpit armour, fuel tank and lines “inerting” , heavy GSh 30 or GSh 30-2 cannon, armoured control and fuel lines which would give it very relevant protection and slash aircraft losses to  low cost air defence systems..The figure shows the side view which also emphasises the commonality between the variants. The variants will weigh in between 2400 kilos for an AD version with a single underbelly 23mm GSh to about 2850 for a dedicated “Shturmovik with armour protection and using Aden 30mms.The version using the GSh 30-2 would  be in between as that gun is lighter than a pair of Adens by about 90 kilos.

An assessment of the aircraft.

The term Gnat F 125 is being used to describe the generic version irrespective of which set of equipment and engines is used as the differences would be marginal. The table is self-explanatory and I will confine myself to the discussion in which the Gnat F 125 is compared with a F 16 as a typical threat.

The table shows that the Gnat F 125 will be a challenge to the F 16 even in on to one. In 4 vs 4 or 2 vs 2 the advantage will be with the smaller aircraft. In straight line performance the F 16 will gain but the price is the A/B to below “bingo” levels.

The  Gnat F 125 ‘s acceleration levels from M 0.6 to M 0.9 whilst retaining CCMs  will show startling improvement over the Gnat enabling the type to prevent a 3^rd or 4^th generation fighter from breaking off at will. The Folland Gnat’s M limits were 0.91 at LL and 0.98 at higher altitudes so it is reasonable to expect M 1 at “all altitudes” though if it is genuinely required (and I be a doubting Thomas!)  the wiser course would be to design a 6% wing. Fortunately such a change is easy thanks to the Gnat’s “modular” structural design.

General flying characteristics will still be very much “hot rod” like original Gnat though the Gnat F 125 will not have the “hair trigger” feeling of the original because of the  increases in damping and the inertias in all axes but  it will still very much remain a Gnat!. 

In the strike role the Gnat F 125 will carry up to 3000 kilos typically 4x 500 kgs plus 125 rounds/barrel for the 30mms and 2 into CCMs over a 180-220n.m. radius lo-lo-lo with the usual reserves.

At high altitudes, 10,000mts head on BVR case at 100 kms apart the F 16 will have a clear advantage in reach. Given the small size and signatures of the Gnat the F 16s detection range and the AMRAAM Kp will, however, be about 10% that of conventional size fighters.

At low altitude head on the firing window of the missile will be reduced .Chances of a BVR kill will be small to the extent the BVR may have to be jettisoned.

In ground attack the F 16 will have twice the range payload but will suffer four times the hits from SA/AAA of the same intensity. The Gnat’s life cycle delivery will thus be more than the F16’s because the Maths apart the pilot’s efficiency and aggression will increase with his improved survival.

Compared the LCA the Gnat 125 would be cheaper and just as good in most tactical situations with better close combat abilities. The LCA will be somewhat better in all weather profiles which is numerical not a high demand.

There is no magic. The Gnat is merely optimised for its most probable role and thus excels. It shows that there is a place for such a “concept warplane” in the inventories of even fairly sophisticated Air forces.

 A short note on the Development effort required.

Aircraft development does not require huge resources ,production may. One of the reasons why the Gnat has been selected for this study was that it required very little resources to develop. The following details of Folland Aircraft will be of interest. It was founded in 1940 and had never built a complete production aircraft before let alone a Jet aircraft.Its resource were:
Total area 53 acres. Covered Area including Office and Factory: 46,000 sq.mts.

Personnel: About 800 of which the design strength at its peak was 150 people yet the Gnat flew within 4 years of go ahead using prototyping technology of about 70 years ago.

With the use of Modern CAE, and CAM and the use of sound engineering and project management methods the manpower and capital requirements could be even further reduced.

The time line for development could be approximately as below

0-15 months – Project studies studying alternatives – Adour Engine with British Accessories, Honeywell 125 engine with US accessories and Motor Sich AI 222-25with Russian Ukrainian accessories and about 7 alternatives combinations of engines, seats and guns and various combinations of dimensions, weights and performances.

Tentative project costing, possible vendor /subcontractor identification and talks with suppliers of rotables for project partnership.

16-50 months Prototype in metal as “Company demonstrator”.

51-54 months: Flight trails and reviews of data and analysis

55- 70 months: Definitive pre- production machines with progressive introduction of most relating to “Heavy” and “Light” series fighters.

Price of the Cat

The price of weaponry, as with prices of drugs, has no relation with the actual cost of producing it. In India the true cost of production have been masked by the PSUs operating inefficiencies and weird taxations and customs duties not to mention the  earlier Government R&D policies.

The customer and the market

The market for this type of aircraft is said to be around 12,000 airframes. Currently this sector is served by watered down versions of 4^th generation aircraft and Advanced Trainers. It is tempting to think of the IAF as a launch customer but it may actually be fatal for any Private venture (PV) to even think of it because the “decision cycle” time of the IAF is financially unsustainable for any PV. It would be much better to keep the IAF in the loop, give it the full ego massage befitting a prospective customer but the main customer will be the Asian, American and African air Arms making do with over sophisticated equipment or with combat equipment whose spare parts have to be sourced from museums. The concept will be laughed to scorn but astute companies like Textron are investing. Cap in hand and shuffling my feet I would say that Textron got the balance wrong by being too much Cessna based. The Scorpion is a 1^st Generation airframe with fourth gen systems but the idea is right and it is awaiting the winners! It is inevitable that even the bigger air arms may see the sense of the Gnat F 125 but to be gulled into tailoring the aircraft too much to the point of exclusivity may result in the Bailiffs coming in before the Bank notes.

 A well strategized aircraft development programme is very predictable and within costs manageable as a PV. India has the resources both Human and legacy not to speak of the enterprise of our people to develop a remarkable range of combat aircraft of great potency. The then Government’s decision to anoint an yet to exist organization with no production facilities to develop a state of the art warplane defies logic even “Saturday night at the bar” type of logic. The psychological impact of such ill decisions must not be allowed to cloud our vision of the potential of the Indian Industry in supplying original combat equipment to the world

In sum

Modern airframes are unsuited for the most likely combat condition. This reduces their effectiveness and battle outcome.

Reprise of 2nd generation airframes matched with later gen systems will produce marketable combat equipment. This is the way to go for Indian private companies. India has considerable upgrade equipment and access to many excellent 2^nd generation airframes. This is an exciting potential.

The style of handling the project would like an “armed reccee”. Success at each low cost sub stage alone will guarantee farther exploration.

Past experience notwithstanding such aircraft couldbe in service within 6-7 years.

Table 1

Type	AR	W/L	T/W	ID/T	Target Volume
Folland Gnat	3.6	237	0.71	0.20	1	How good it was as a basis!
MiG 21 Bison	2.2	354	0.64/0.87/1.14	0.39/0.32	2.8
LCA Mk.1	1.8	242	0.52/0.84	0.35	3.1
Adour Gnat  (1987)	3.6	303	0.6/0.9	0.24	1.2	Low cost Demonstrator
Adour Gnat (1993)	3.6	286	0.63/0.94	0.23	1.2	Introduces Composites, made to order accessories
Gnat F125 2008	3.6	267	0.75/1.2	0.18	1.2	Current engines e.g. Honeywell F125
F 16 A	3.2	408	0.64/1.15	0.244	4.4	Target vol. shows the price paid for versatility.
JF 17	3.7	372	0.48/0.95	0.23	4.4

Notes:

AR      Aspect ratio

W/L    is wing loading in clean combat weight with full internal fuel kg/M²

T/W    Thrust to weight in kg/kg at above weight. Two ratios give full military and A/b thrust/weight ratios.

ID/T    Gives the percentage of power consumed at S/L ,3.5 G turn at clean combat weight.

Target Volume indicates the target the aircraft presents to AA defences. Span x length x height .Folland Gnat is taken as unit volume.

The simple table above accurately reflects why that the Folland Gnat gave the MiG 21 Bis a hard time in DACT sorties. The MiG 21 had to use its A/B to disengage. Such a move would be ill advised against the F 125  whose figures above are with two CCMs. These would find the large IR signatures of the F 16/ MiG 21/JF 17 very attractive.