Talk:Light fighter

Summary of Efficient WWII Fighters as Lightweights

It is unfortunate that the term “Lightweight fighter” became the industry norm for “low cost, efficient, and effective fighters”. This term arose because of political struggle over money. Fighter manufacturers are like any other company—their primary goal is to make profit. When fighter manufacturers are told to propose a fighter design for a certain number of planes, then because fighters are sold by the pound (like all mechanical equipment), they often propose heavier fighters allowing more profit per plane. The more politically connected a company is, the more likely it is to try selling that kind of high profit fighter. Competitors then may try to win business with fighters that can perform the same mission for lower cost, which then must be lighter. Hence the term “lightweight fighter” was used to contrast these efficient fighters with heavier, more expensive, and generally less effective fighters. Better terms sometimes used in an engineering and military sense are “efficient” fighters or “effective” fighters, but those is not as marketable (though “effective” is used quite a bit), and are not the dominant terms in the literature. So, we are stuck with “lightweight” to describe highly efficient and effective fighters that are generally better war winners than heavy fighters. They win better because of the fighter effectiveness criteria that statistically, smaller fighters with superior surprise (harder to see), numbers (lower cost), and maneuverability (smaller size allows higher agility) will more often come out on top.

The common theme running through the literature, both of the WWII time frame and through later analysis of WWII fighters, is that the more efficient single engine fighters of WWII are ALL lightweight fighters (the only exceptions being the heaviest singles that should logically be called middleweights, but which the literature neglects to do). The designers of the efficient single engine WWII fighters, and the senior officers ordering them, considered them lightweights, and understood the key issue of getting maximum resource efficiency. The literature does not report that only “very light” fighters like the XP-77 experiment are light fighters, and instead reports that practical and efficient singles like the Zero, Spitfire, Bf 109, Yak 3, P-40, and P-51 are all lightweights. As the literature survey given above shows, that is by FAR the dominant majority view of the literature that addresses the issue. There is effectively zero literature that says otherwise. PhaseAcer (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You still seem confused between "lightweight fighter" and "light fighter". One is objective; it exists of itself. The other, our article here, is only ever a comparison. To have a light fighter, one must also have a heavy fighter. That doesn't yet apply at the outbreak of WWII. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy, the literature uses the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" interchangeably. If you can find any valid reference that defines them differently, please bring it. I have spent hundreds of hours studying this issue, having brought over 50 references on the subject that I have actually read, and I find no such references. The only confusion is in the minds of a few of the editors, who seem to believe that "light fighter" means a very light almost toy fighter. I assume that mistaken belief is based that on the existence of a few very light failed experimental fighter programs. But, the military services, the industry, and the literature do not take that view that only fighters at the very low end of the weight range are light fighters. And, no editor has ever been able to bring a SINGLE references to support that opinion. I am bringing references by the dozens that take the view that light and lightweight fighters are the same thing, and that it means efficient almost always single engine fighters that are just heavy enough to carry the armament to successfully perform the mission, and to do so at minimum cost and resource usage.

The Nakajima J1N, de Havilland Mosquito, P-38, and Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy twin engined fighters were all designed in the 1935 to 1941 time frame. They are the true heavyweight fighters of WWII. They existed at the beginning of the war, and all through. The Bf 110 was handily defeated by the English single engine light fighters in the Battle of Brittain, a lesson the USAAC failed to appreciate with regards to the P-38, which similarly had to be pulled out of air to air combat in the ETO (references are given above). They were all outclassed by lightweight single engine fighters that performed better and achieved better air to air combat results for half the cost. To not be confused, that is the key strategic point that has to be understood. That is the most basic point about the light vs heavy issue, and is essential to winning wars. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• the literature uses the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter" interchangeably.

No, it doesn't. What it does is that it uses both terms to apply to one of those concepts: the lightweight fighter. That's not the same thing as using them "interchangeably", i.e. that only one concept is being referred to. There is also a separate concept (not merely a term) which is the light fighter as should be described in this article. That stems from the NATO competition and some contemporary requirements, but it's not found at the start of WWII.

The "true heavyweight fighters" are of course different again, but they're not the fighters which the light fighter is contrasted to. They're a third, and separate, group. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy, you seem to want to engage in a purely semantic argument, which is a strawman distraction from the key issues. We have to go by the references and the terms they use, not what might be more logical semantics that we invent ourselves. I am presenting references on the CLASS of efficient and effective fighters for which the military, industry, and literature have settled on the terms "light fighter" and "lightweight fighter". Both terms are used in the references, though the term "lightweight fighter" is actually more common.

By NATO competition, I assume you mean the one won by the Fiat G.91. That is a lightweight ground attack aircraft with no air to air history or ability. The G.91 is not recognized to have any special claim on the term "light fighter", and we would only confuse the editors and readers if we tried to claim that one data point establishes a separate class. The American Lightweight Fighter program would be a more applicable government program to use as a reference and term setting standard, since it led to the F-16, now the most common fighter in the world. It of course uses the term "lightweight fighter", which is the more commonly used term in the WWII time frame also. I don't invent the terms--as an editor I just have to use them. The fact is that both terms are used, and we won't get anywhere trying to insist they are different. If you don't believe it, I can point you to some examples that use both for the same aircraft, often very authoritative references. But if you believe it and are just unhappy that the references are in your opinion using poor semantics, there is nothing we can do about that. I wish the literature used the term "middleweight" for the heavier singles, but the fact is that it does not. It groups as lightweight and heavyweight, primarily based on single and twin, with those usually differing in cost by about a factor of two. I can live with that, and in fact it is an enormously important distinction both for combat performance and budget.

Where we can do something meaningful is summarizing the literature on the very critical national security issue of light/lightweight vs. heavy. It applies from WWII to now, and is critically important both historically and currently. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The "light" vs "lightweight" issue can only be settled by citing suitable reliable sources. The term "light fighter" has definitely had specific technical meanings in various eras. Sometimes these meanings may be applied retrospectively by historians and other commentators, but by no means all. It is a shame the Flight archive is offline at the moment, but here is just one example from Jane's in which the term is used in an objective way [1]. Here too is a source which uses all of "light fighter", "lightweight fighter" and "light weight fighter" pretty much indiscriminately [2]. Neither makes the slightest suggestion that "To have a light fighter, one must also have a heavy fighter". Rather, to have a light fighter all we need is sufficient RS calling it a light fighter.

Since one finds both light fighter programmes and lightweight fighter programmes in the historical literature and commentators frequently mixing the terms, then for Wikipedia to claim some semantic distinction requires RS explicitly setting out that distinction, and I am not aware of ever having seen any do so.

However, I would caution that just because a fighter is physically light, or lighter than others, does not necessarily put it in the light/lightweight fighter class; you would need sufficient RS saying it does. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Steel: Looked at scientifically, the light fighter concept can be expressed as taking the same resources and spreading them over twice as many shooters, which then get 4X the kill opportunities (Lanchester's Law) over the statistical playout of long-term combat. It's similar to the bilogical idea of a pack of wolves being a better and more efficient predator than one Grizzly bear weighing the same amount. Small, cheap fighter drones will soon be taking this idea further. But, there are definite limits to trying to get the facts into Wikipedia with technical presentations. Instead, as you say above, we just have show and explain the references. That is exactly what I am doing on the heavy fighter issue in the modern age, and on efficient single engine WWII fighters being lightweight fighters, for which I have stacked up two dozen references each with basically zero counter-references being found. I am now waiting to see if these large stacks of references with no countering literature can break through the non-neutrality and resulting reference suppression. This probably comes from the involved editors having done plenty of reading, but not this particular reading, so that they do not appreciate the validity of these references. If they will review these references, they would come to appreciate them and understand that their previous study had been lacking some key information.

Andy, the term "lightweight fighter" has historically been more common than "light fighter". That might suggest changing the title of this article to "Lightweight Fighter Aircraft". But, in the past 10 years or so the term "light fighter" has really caught on in the literature. I now regularly see it in military aviation articles describing efficient single engine fighters, almost all multi-role, up through the size of the F-16. It has also being recently applied to lightweight ground attack aircraft, often converted trainers (since you are a stickler for language, I'm sure you understand that usage makes language). So, if the title were changed, it might need to be something like "Light and Lightweight Fighter Aircraft", which I think would be an improvement. The article could also be improved by adding coverage of those light attack aircraft, which really seem to be a coming trend. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions on the factuality of accounts by the Fighter mafia and John Boyd

Allegations have been made by Lazerpig and other Online Military Youtubers, that John Boyd and the Fighter mafia are in the habit of Significantly inflating their own importance and making and publishing untrue statements. They are alleged to have abused the fact that anyone who could correct them at the time of publishing were unable to, as the projects were classified.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDfdCj61dY

Many of the ideas in the article seem to be rehashes of the Fighter Mafia's narratives and reference their books. Perhaps something more ideologically neutral could be possible? Or perhaps something could be added pointing out that much of this historical narrative has been distorted by a small group? I am not personally invested into the topic enough to have high quality sources to draw from. Scoaldr (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)