Need Seen For Light Jet Fighter In R.A.F.

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27500, 6 November 1954, Page 7

Need Seen For Light Jet Fighter In R.A.F.

(Rec. 7 p.m.) LONDON, November 5. Although the pace of development of the jet fighter has accelerated sharply and aircraft such as the Hunter, the Swift and the Javelin have speeds more than double those used during the Battle of Britain and much greater hitting power, yet a (heavy price has to be paid for these new aircraft, says the air correspondent of the “Financial Times.”

In an article headed "New Thoughts on Jet Fighters,” he says that the steep upward curves of performance and armament have been accompanied by an even steeper climb in costs. The jet fighters of today are becoming progressively heavier and more complex in design, and more expensive to build and maintain. The result is that to provide them in adequate numbers throws a considerable burden on the technical and production resources, and on the economies of the Western nations.

In recent years therefore there has arisen what is known as the “light fighter philosophy”—a school of thought which maintains' that It is time to call a halt to these upward trends of weight and cost, with their attendant engineering and production problems.

It maintains also that there is a lack of sufficient numbers of fighters of a type able to give generous air cover and support to the land forces which might be involved in any future "hot” war, whether local or global—in faet, that there exists a,

gap in the defence of the West, which can best be filled by the light fighter. The case for the light fighter is certainly attractive, the correspondent continues. Basically, it can be summarised by rapidity, simplicity and cheapness of manufacture, cheapness and ease of operation and maintenance, yet at the same time scariftcing nothing In hitting power and operational efficiency. The light fighter is not intended to supersede, but rather to supplement, the standard jet fighters make up the bulk of the fighter forces of the Western nations.

The light fighter at present has no place in the front line squadrons of the Royal Air Force, where one of the major responsibilities is Home defence. In this the standard fighters must play the biggest role. But in the larger sphere of defending Western Europe, the problem is different, and the air commanders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have long given serious thought to the question of the light fighter. Some time ago, N-A.T.O. sponsored a light fighter design competition, and a team is now at work 'evaluating the designs that have been entered by various countries, including Britain, Italy and France. Most of them specified British engines. One of the principal contestants from Britain has been the Gnat, a private venture. This fighter will be powered by the Orpheus light jet engine, now under development, which will enabla the Gnat to reach, ijr

supersonic speed in level flight. Another British design is based on the Avro 707 delta-wing research aircraft, which resulted in the massive Avro Vulcan jet bomber. From Italy ’there is the GA-91. while the French contributions include various designs. So far, no official indication has been given of the progress of the N.A.T.O. evaluation. It is not expected that the final choice will be reached much before the end of the year. The correspondent says a strong case for the light fighter has been presented by the Midge, a prototype of the Gnat, which is expected to fly

Claims for the Gnat light • fighter are that tooling time for production is halved, that five of them can be built in the same number of airframe manhours required for one standard fighter, and that 20 of them can be built for the same cost as six standard fighters. Furthermore, five light fighters of the Gnat class would bring to bear 10 30 mm. cannons, compared with the four 30 mm. cannons of the one standard fighter.