Could the X-29 work as a mass produced light fighter?

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 163

seeing as how its more or less a FSW F-20.. if entered service, would it have been a feasible light fighter/point defense aircraft?

[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","height":"279","title":"https:\/\/imodeler.com\/uploads\/2018\/03\/r\/rubentorres_180315_5aa9bde753a0c-1600x1200.jpg","width":"372","data-attachmentid":3869411}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","height":"306","title":"rubentorres_180315_5aa9bde753a0c-1600x1200.jpg","width":"408","data-attachmentid":3869412}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"medium","data-attachmentid":3869413}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"medium","data-attachmentid":3869414}[/ATTACH]

Attachments
Original post
Profile picture for user paralay

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 1,344

Its maximum speed is limited
Damaged wings cannot be repaired

Profile picture for user Dr.Snufflebug

Member for

7 years 4 months

Posts: 478

Why would anyone want an obsolete F-20 but with extra weight/complexity, no particularly elegant way to implement wing hardpoints, and some huge maintenance drawbacks/costs? For some >minor< added unladen (airshow) agility, or just the cool silhouette?

Granted, I like cool silhouettes as much as the next guy, but let's face it - FSW works best in Japanese arcade video games.

Those what-if scale models are still cool though.

Member for

4 years 2 months

Posts: 126

I think if it was actually produced. It would have entered service in the late 80s.
it would mostly appeal to countries that need something light, and its short range means useful for countries that have small areas to cover or just need something for air policing at the border.
so then these aircraft only really need like 4 hard points. maybe 2 aams and 2 drop tanks or 4 aams.

Since it will be close range, then the X-29s close in agility would be useful.

I know the X-29 weighed more than the F-20, but it was still lighter than the F-16.

I think it could have found a market in the 1980s or 90s Switzerland, Kenya, Singapore

that said not sure if that planform is still useful for larger planes that want to fly at higher speeds and longer ranges. so I think it might only be useful for a light fighter at best.. or a trainer like what the Russians are doing

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 619

No. Technology demonstrator is a far cry from an operational aircraft. You have to worry about things like getting useful endurance, carrying sensors and avionics, useful service life, carrying weapons - did X-29 even have any hardpoints? You'd essentially have to redesign the whole aircraft.
When Kestrel became Harrier, they had to redesign 90% of the aircraft, sometimes multiple times.

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 163

No. Technology demonstrator is a far cry from an operational aircraft. You have to worry about things like getting useful endurance, carrying sensors and avionics, useful service life, carrying weapons - did X-29 even have any hardpoints? You'd essentially have to redesign the whole aircraft.
When Kestrel became Harrier, they had to redesign 90% of the aircraft, sometimes multiple times.

well yah, Yama Yama doo!
we were talking about if X-29 became an operational fighter. that means the transition from demonstrator to a fully developed plane. yup. zur Der our!

I believe it had capabilities for 6 hard points. 2 fuselage tandem. and 2 on each wing.

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 619

Well, of course you could design an operational fighter based around the principles demonstrated by X-29, but it would be a substantial effort, similar to designing Eurofighter after EAP had flown. We are talking about service entry date of late '90s, if things go well. By then Gripen is already on the market...

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 163

Well, of course you could design an operational fighter based around the principles demonstrated by X-29, but it would be a substantial effort, similar to designing Eurofighter after EAP had flown. We are talking about service entry date of late '90s, if things go well. By then Gripen is already on the market...

you're right although I think it wouldn't take so long as the Europeans would.. cuz you know.. Americans are faster as long as it is single service... Eurofighter had all the Euro-drama that delayed it.

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 619

Well I dunno. Take F-22, demonstrator first flew in 1990, entry to service in 2005. Using same timetable for "F-29" would give is IOC date ~1999.
Also given that USAF was not going to order this aircraft in any case, how much market there would be for it? F-20 secured like four planes ordered after years of sales effort? Would FWS really much difference? Also it would run into same competition Gripen, Mirage 2000 etc export efforts did in the 90s/early 2000's: cheap surplus F-16's and MiG-29's flooding the market.

Profile picture for user J-20

Member for

1 year 10 months

Posts: 163

yama..I agree with 99% of what you say.. but f-22 is a bit different being the first 5th gen and all.

Lets keep it 4th gen and Cold War era since its an early 80s baby.. and no multination or multi-service shenanigans (so no F-22s or 35s.. and no Eurofighter)

I wanna give it the F-16s time line. YF-16 flew 1974. in service 1978. 4 years

so X-29 prototype flew 1984.. service 1988. maybe that's too optimistic

ok lets do Gripen.. 1988, service 1996 so 8 years. but I think since its the US, they will have the will power to push through.

so lets just say 1988 to 1992! I think they could have stolen a few sales from Gripen and MiG-29s :) but you probably got a point about F-16s.