NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you feel is the best strike Aircraft of today?

What do you feel is the best strike Aircraft of today?

Depends....are you referring to air-to-air...air-to-ground...strictly fighters, or those that have dual purpose....tank-busters....bomber capability?..Naval vs Air Force aviation craft (there are differences)...try to be a little more specific.

Sorry! Dual capibility.

The Eurofighter Typhoon. (Cause thats the only one I know.)

Well..I've always been a fan of the Harrier the fighter/bomber the British came up with and the US Marines adopted...today's aircraft must be versatile and to me a VTOL craft is essential in some of the inhospitable terrain our troops may fight in...there may not be a large expanse of land we can clear for a combat airstrip...and a Harrier can hold it's own.

Well..I've always been a fan of the Harrier the fighter/bomber the British came up with and the US Marines adopted...today's aircraft must be versatile and to me a VTOL craft is essential in some of the inhospitable terrain our troops may fight in...there may not be a large expanse of land we can clear for a combat airstrip...and a Harrier can hold it's own.
Whats a VTOL?

Whats a VTOL?

Vertical Take Off & Landing.....the engines rotate downward to give upward thrust to a point that you can go forward.

Vertical Take Off & Landing.....the engines rotate downward to give upward thrust to a point that you can go forward.
Oh. You were talking bout the harrier. Are they even still beeing produced?

What in blazing hell is a strike aircraft and why should I care about them?

Depends what you mean by "best". Ignoring the F-22, the F-15E packs a mean punch. Can't say anything about the newer Russian and European models, they've never been tested in actual combat. (Well, perhaps Russians in Chechnya, but who knows.)

What in blazing hell is a strike aircraft and why should I care about them?

Type "Strike Aircraft" into a search engine! You may learn something!
I dont expect you to care, why bother replying with an attitude like that.

Moving on!

As far as i am aware harriers are not in production anymore and have not been for a while, great idea though!

F 15 E is a nice aircraft!!

I just wonder why they don't use the harrier technology, the VTOL thing, on other fighters as well.

JSF has a variant coming STOVL, Short take off and Vertical landing.
The JSF looks like a fiine all rounder!

VTOL is too inefficient. It takes an immense amount of fuel to take off vertically, and with so much weight in engine and fuel, the harriers can't carry as much ordnance, nor as far, as, say, an F-15 (which I would consider the best, but of course, the F22 isn't in production yet).

VTOL is too inefficient. It takes an immense amount of fuel to take off vertically, and with so much weight in engine and fuel, the harriers can't carry as much ordnance, nor as far, as, say, an F-15 (which I would consider the best, but of course, the F22 isn't in production yet).

It may indeed have a fuel efficieny problem...but if that can be worked out..it is a novel concept..no longer hampered by not enough landstrip to land, it could land in a clearing to refuel..etc..

My favorite all time aircraft was the F-105G Wild Weasel. Simply put this plane we called the thud was sturdy, fast, and well balanced. It saved my skin several times. As an EWO I was able to fly the F-4 as well, but I loved the Thud.

My favorite new one is the F15E simply because of its power to weight ratio, and the fact that it is our only aircraft that can climb vertical up to 50,000 ft. The harrier is good for close air to ground support, but it lacks the speed necessary in case of trouble. Speed, and handling help out many times in the air. But the EW equipment on the Eagle is simply phenominal, I wish we had these in the Thuds back in Vietnam. I wouldn't have be injured by the NVA if I had that equipment.

They are all bad. They are good only for killing. Why is that impressive?

F-15E or I (the Israeli variant, slightly updated and able to carry the better Python 4/5 AAMs). Powerful, fast, and capable as almost no other current fighter can match. The F-35 and F-22 really don't compare due to the fact that they both cost as much or more but have a lower payload and range (and they're both overweight...and over cost...and behind schedule...underperforming requirements...).

The F-16Is and Block 60 F-16s (latest version) are also nice in terms of the fact that they have some of the latest fighter technology, are cheap to buy, operate, and maintain (relative to the field) and are from a trusted line of aircraft.

As far as the VTOL or more appropriately STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing...as the JSF Marine variant and Harrier are more properly known) planes go...the JSF variant can't really meet its operational needs and the Harriers have a bad accident record in the US Marine Corps (possibly due to deferred maintenance and the lack of a proper upgrade program as the UK has taken part in. They are useful for the role of limited-range air defense and on-call CAS, but they cannot perform the 1000+mile strike missions that the newer F-16s (with CFT and/or underwing fuel tanks) and F-15 strike eagles can. In terms of CAS, the best fixed-wing unit available today remains the A-10, although a modernization program that includes the use of modern control systems, materials, and upgraded engines could greatly increase its combat effectiveness and longevity...for probably $20million/new unit manufactured (assuming an appropriately-sized production line and a properly executed development scheme).

PS to those that do not know about modern aircraft...check these links:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/links-aircraft.htm
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/index.html

http://www.f22fighter.com/ ........actually this is the best dual role aircraft to date...just look at the link and be awed........

http://www.f22fighter.com/ ........actually this is the best dual role aircraft to date...just look at the link and be awed........
I think you might need to do a biiiit more research...actually, no...you need to do a helluva lot more research. The F-22, like the F-35, cannot carry anywhere near the weapons payload that their predecessors (the F/A-18E/F, the F-15E, the F-16C/D) carry without hanging the weapons as external stores...which completely abandons the stealth benefits of those aircraft.

The F-22 is not a viable long-range bomber without external fuel tanks...and then it will not be simultaneously able to perform a long-range stealth mission and a strike mission with a decent self-defense equipment set...and at almost twice the price of predecessor aircraft, the F-22 is no benefit in monetary terms as it not only requires that the size of the air force be reduced to accomodate its expensive features, but to even cary a significant load the Air Force needs to modify it's AAMs to even fit in the F-22's internal weapons bays!

To start, I would suggest that you go to the above globalsecurity link and do some side-by-side comparisons of the F-22, the F-35 and the latest versions of the older aircraft lines (although the latest versions can often hardly be said to be closely related to the A-variants of each line).

I'd say the F/A 22 Raptor, soon to replace the F-16s , which has never lost in air-to-air combat. It can cruise at supersonic speeds, and when at sub-sonic speed, it can be stealthy. It has four computer bays intergrating ordanance systems, avionics, and navigation. The fourth is empty for a yet-unfathomed system. In addition, it also looks cool.

I can't wait to see the Joint Strike Fighter in development come into production, the USAF, USN, RAF, and RN are going to be even more fearsome with those handy things. British are also building two new carriers, its to widen the technology gap even more I believe.

It is really amazing to me what new aircraft technology is appearing. Compared to what I flew in, it would be the difference between a VW Bug and a new Corvette. I'm glad to see our new military pilots are given every possible advantage when going out into the modern battlefield.

The overall best is the F-22 raptor its better than the eurofighter.

I'd say the F/A 22 Raptor, soon to replace the F-16s , which has never lost in air-to-air combat. It can cruise at supersonic speeds, and when at sub-sonic speed, it can be stealthy. It has four computer bays intergrating ordanance systems, avionics, and navigation. The fourth is empty for a yet-unfathomed system. In addition, it also looks cool.

The only problem here is that the F-22 is replacing the F-15C/Ds while the F-16, A-10, and F-18C/D (not the E/F) are all set to be replaced by the less-capable (except in the case of the old F-18s, perhaps) and more expensive JSFs.

I'm not arguing that the F-22s and F-35s aren't good aircraft...but that they're just not as good as is claimed...and I don't want that to mean the loss of many of our good, albeit based-on-the-old "legacy" aircraft systems.

The overall best is the F-22 raptor its better than the eurofighter.

Slap Python 5s and Derbys on the F-16 Block 60 or the F-15C/D or E and they're better than the eurofighter...because their sturdiness and capacity (and no lack of speed) combined with the supreme agility and auto-function of those advanced missiles (with the P5's LOAL and the P4's Hemispheric/See-it-shoot-it attack capabilities) will cut the edge down to nothing.

The only way to judge a fighters' abilities is to use it in combat. Test flights are good but until you actually spend 6 hours plus on a combat sortie, and fire missiles, cannons, or bombs in anger against people who want to kill you, can you really test an aircraft. Thankfully, lately we haven't to go head to head with another airpower.

What do you feel is the best strike Aircraft of today?

The one that isn't bombing you.

The only way to judge a fighters' abilities is to use it in combat. Test flights are good but until you actually spend 6 hours plus on a combat sortie, and fire missiles, cannons, or bombs in anger against people who want to kill you, can you really test an aircraft. Thankfully, lately we haven't to go head to head with another airpower.

Very true...indeed, much of the US and (ex) Soviet weapons systems were tested in hard combat by ally nations rather than the Powers themselves. Exceptions have come recently as Russia has moved into afghanistan and then has fought the chechens...and as the US has engaged Saddam (twice), Afghanistan, and the Balkans. Until then, it was mostly up to client states to test, and revise, military doctrine (evid. Arab-Israeli wars that proved missile-based naval engagements, the superiority of Western armored systems, the superior Western style command and control structure). The Israelis tested (although it was never announced) at least one of their long-range strike fighters when they struck at a terrorist camp in Syria. Although it was never announced what system was used, it seems most likely that either the F-15I (an F-15E variant) or the F-16I (an F-16C/D variant) was used. This attack (like the attack more than a decade and a half ago against the Iraqi nuclear reactors by a group if Israeli jets) proved that such advanced fighters could enter enemy territory, strike at their target, and return without being detected or engaged.

It is certainly the battle that tests the gear...but the question is really who does the testing in these times? The Arab Israeli wars allowed the Cold War powers to test their combat systems and make adjustments...but these new wars hardly test the modern systems. The Iraqi air force was mostly buried to save itself and the Iraqi armored units were mostly engaged by air strikes. A success of combined arms doctrine, but hardly something that points out the major flaws that lead to innovation (the US army has even had troubles in Iraq in terms of the lack of mine-protected and armored HMMWVs and the bureaucratic unwillingness to let the american soldier improvise field fixes).

me 262 first and the best by far in its day. the soviets didn't do more than refine its stolen design until the 60s, and damn it was cool lookin.


http://home.t-online.de/home/rene.homuth/me262.jpg

me 262 first and the best by far in its day. the soviets didn't do more than refine its stolen design until the 60s, and damn it was cool lookin.


http://home.t-online.de/home/rene.homuth/me262.jpg

It's range and fuel problems were serious issues, but still a great plane.The Russians learned the values of internal engines which made the migs some really competent fighters. But our 105 thunderchiefs were more then a match for them. They had 1 M61 20mm vulcan, up 14,000 lbs of bombs, rocket packs, missiles, and special weapons, with a ceiling of 50,000. Top speed 1,386miles per hour, range of 1500 miles.

Going back a few steps here; I had a question about the Harrier for the more knowledgable people about such things.

From what I understand the Harrier has a comparitively low top speed and less agility than a modern strike fighter; is that a product of its age?

Or was it never designed with air-to-air combat in mind, thus not requiring it to have competitive mission profiles with strike aircraft?
And...If that was the case...just what the heck was the Harrier for? What was its mission profile?

Going back a few steps here; I had a question about the Harrier for the more knowledgable people about such things.

From what I understand the Harrier has a comparitively low top speed and less agility than a modern strike fighter; is that a product of its age?

Or was it never designed with air-to-air combat in mind, thus not requiring it to have competitive mission profiles with strike aircraft?
And...If that was the case...just what the heck was the Harrier for? What was its mission profile?

It's slow because it doesn't have afterburners. From what I understand, it's fairly agile though, but pales in comparison to more modern aircraft with thrust-vectoring technology.

It was designed to be easily deployable and operate in tandem with Marine forces, etc. For example, you can land a Harrier without a runway as you would a helicopter so it can operate closer to the front line. It does have an air to air capability though, especially since the more modern versions can carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Going back a few steps here; I had a question about the Harrier for the more knowledgable people about such things.

From what I understand the Harrier has a comparitively low top speed and less agility than a modern strike fighter; is that a product of its age?

Or was it never designed with air-to-air combat in mind, thus not requiring it to have competitive mission profiles with strike aircraft?
And...If that was the case...just what the heck was the Harrier for? What was its mission profile?

The Harrier was never designed for full air to air combat. However it does have the ability to defend itself. It can be equipped with AA missiles. The major reason it lacks speed is because of its role as a ground support aircraft. It can pound a target with it's cannons longer then say a fighter jet could because of its speed.

The VT ability caused several issues with its designers: namely fuel efficency, which is very important for this plane as the longer it can stay above the battlefield the more support it can give. Therefore in combat, ground troops clear launch pads for harriers so that they can take off and soon give vital support.

Ah, so a mobile, ground support aircraft With air-combat capabilities, if not an intended mission profile of air-to-air. Interesting, how durable is it though?

Considering VTOL capability would suggest it can go just about anywhere a helicopter can go; a durable machine would allow the Harrier to be something of a "guerilla fighter" jet, suitable for missions in a large theater otherwise unfriendly to airstrips. However the "vectored thrust" tech I am unfamiliar with, do you know if it is susceptible to breakdown or if its maintenance burden is abnormally high?

I am reminded of the Island hopping campaigns of WW2, VTOL capability would mean that a large number of bases could have air power without large airstrips.

The first Sea Harriers (FA1, I think) proved to be capable against the Argentinian Air Force and their Mirages, that was a long time ago and the Mirages were operating at the limits of their range, however. Mostly Sea Harriers take off normally with the ski jump on RN carriers and Harrier2's (I forget the propper name) normally take off in the traditional fashion as well.

According to the Royal Navy the Sea Harrier FA2 has a range of 100nm, but seeing as we usually operating in conjunction with the US Navy and/or against areas without the assets to seriously threaten a carrier group from the air, that's no major handicap (so far as I can see, feel free to correct me).

It's range and fuel problems were serious issues, but still a great plane.The Russians learned the values of internal engines which made the migs some really competent fighters. But our 105 thunderchiefs were more then a match for them. They had 1 M61 20mm vulcan, up 14,000 lbs of bombs, rocket packs, missiles, and special weapons, with a ceiling of 50,000. Top speed 1,386miles per hour, range of 1500 miles.

The 262 was not the first jet combat aircraft, that honour goes to the meteor. Although the two never met in combat as the British did not want their superior jet technologies to fall into the hands of the Germans. The 262 engine were very unreliable, needing rebuilds after very few flying hours and often suffering from burn outs etc.
The meteor was developed into a very competent aircraft post WWII.
The funny thing is the UK gave both the Russian and US the Nene jet on which both nations based their future jet technologies. This was done for free, no lend lease no hold the countries to ransom, just the act of a generous (stupid) ally.
Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine never received a penny in royalties from his invention (bet his descendants were cheesed off!)

The harrier cannot vertically take off or land when it is full with fuel and armement, that is why it takes of "normally".
The RAF Harrier is mainly used for support/ground attack.
The RN Harrier FA2, is there variant, Fighter attack. Its more capable at air defence, but also is used for surface attack.

Its agile but defenetly slow like you huys say, speed is something like 661MPH / 1065 KM/ph.

What do you think of the Tornado, either variant?

In its heyday, the Tornado was a very nice aircraft. Did it see combat? (I'm guessing Iraq '91 if anything)

Ah, so a mobile, ground support aircraft With air-combat capabilities, if not an intended mission profile of air-to-air. Interesting, how durable is it though?

The durability drops with age...the USMC has lost 1 or 2 every year for the last few years due to accidents and malfunctions.

Considering VTOL capability would suggest it can go just about anywhere a helicopter can go; a durable machine would allow the Harrier to be something of a "guerilla fighter" jet, suitable for missions in a large theater otherwise unfriendly to airstrips. However the "vectored thrust" tech I am unfamiliar with, do you know if it is susceptible to breakdown or if its maintenance burden is abnormally high?

As I said above, it's more like STOVL. It could launch vertically, but it's not usually done (for fuel and weight limits, as has been mentioned). At very least the Harrier's vectored thrust technology is most often used for 'viffing', which means using the vectored thrusters in addition to the forward (wing-lift mode) flight. This allows for ESTOL (Extreme(ly) Short Take Off and Landing) as well as rapid slowing and turns, giving it an extra edge in maneuverability at lower speeds. As it is, the FA2 variant has a top speed at altitude of 1.25Mach. THe FA2 Variant is more of a plane designed to launch from the short runways of a helicopter carrier than a "guerilla fighter jet." More Details on the FA2 (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fa2/index.html). As it is, the Harrier is primarily a ground support airplane that can operate from limited length and/or minimally equipped airfields...and they provide some fixed-wing power on amphibious assault/helicopter carriers that would otherwise be impossible for Marines to call in. The same goes for the USMC's [url=http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/harrier/index.html]AV-8B Harrier[/i]. It's mostly a ground-support fighter that can do combat with enemy aircraft, provide anti-tank fire, drop airstrikes on emerging targets, and generally let the marines know that they have friends in high places...and also to defend the ARG while it's underway at sea from enemy ships. The AV-8B, however, is a bit slower than the FA2 and is less oriented towards air dominance since the USMC can always call in a real Nimitz-class carrier if they face any serious opponents. It's range is listed as "greater than 142nm" under combat conditions in low altitude with a max range of 900nm. GlobalSecurity give some more in-depth stats:

"Operational radius with external loads shown:
Short takeoff (366 m, 12 Mk 82 Snakeye Bombs, internal fuel, 1 hour loiter*):
90 nautical miles

"Hi-lo-hi, short take off (366 m, seven Mk 82 Snakeye Bombs, two 300 US gallon external fuel tanks no loiter*:
594 nautical miles

"Deck launch intercept mission,
two AIM-9 missiles and two external fuel tanks:
627 nautical miles"

*-loiter being time flying over the combat zone. A 1hour loiter is quite long while "no loiter" means it's a strike mission on a known target.

"Combat air patrol endurance at 100 nautical miles from base: 3 hr."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/av-8.htm

Although it is far from perfect, the Harrier does what it's made to do quite well. The JSF Marine Corps variant is supposed to replace the Harrier, but has not reportedly eliminated the Harrier's fuel problems and has been deemed by some "too heavy" to fly its mission.

I am reminded of the Island hopping campaigns of WW2, VTOL capability would mean that a large number of bases could have air power without large airstrips.

With a few hours' work by Seabees, it is true that a rudimentary air strip might be established (even by clearing the trees alongside a road and providing the area with fuel, armaments, and some maintenance facilities) that could operate the Harrier...and that's why the Marines love it. It's not that it rises like a helicopter, but it can in an emergency and it can also land vertically when that's an issue...the main feature is it's (E)STOL ability that comes from the combination of the vectored thrust and the conventional, wing-lift take off. The STOVL operations are mostly to save space and time on a small heli-carrier, where the lighter aircraft (having burnt off much of its fuel and perhaps liberated of some of its weapons) can land next to or in its 'parking space' to be refueled and reloaded...while conventional aircraft need to have cable-arrestors and often limit other shipboard activities during landing.

Posters here seem pretty knowledgable about aircraft. Anyone heard anything about the Commanche helicopter? (I think thats what it is called)

Posters here seem pretty knowledgable about aircraft. Anyone heard anything about the Commanche helicopter? (I think thats what it is called)

Sucks...overpriced...outdated...development program cancelled. It was designed for a cold war scenario where a stealthy helicopter might be needed for long-range scouting missions. Eventually planners morphed it into a replacement for the Apache and Cobra lines of attack helicopters in addition to a replacement for the lighter scout-type helicopters. In the end it was cancelled for a number of reasons after a few prototypes had been built and tested.

It had a very low internal weapons capacity but could mount external weapons storage wings (although that sorta ruined the stealth features). Some parts of the design (like a rotor system that allowed it to travel as fast as 40-60mph sideways) are great systems that will probably see their way into next generation helicopters, but the per-unit price within the program had grown far beyond what is considered 'normal' or 'decent' for a helicopter in its class. Advanced systems were okay but the development time meant that the helicopter would've been obsolete the moment it entered the field...while the Apache and Cobra lines are flexible enough to continue upgrades and modifications for new threats and scenarios.

The main thing people realized was that it simply wasn't worth it to have every attack helicopter be a stealthy helicopter at the expense of weapons payload, availability of units, and maintenance. It could be good for a larger NS nation that has the requirement for stealthy helicopters to provide support for special operations or LRRP units, or for deep scout/infiltration missions...but I would recommend a look at the published faults (you won't find these on the official Comanche site, but look to GlobalSecurity.org or g2mil.com (go one or two issues back in the magazine) or just do a google search for "Comanche" "Faults" "cost" and other descriptive terms.

One thing that it did do was provide a very low RCS, which meant that it matched the (outdated) mission criteria.

The best part about the Commanche was that it looked cool :)

For my money the best strike aircraft is a Hawker Typhoon, I saw a repro of it once and fell in love with it. It was the main ground strike aircraft of the RAF in Europe, right on par with the USAAF's P-47 Thunderbolts. I always loved the name as well, but this is obviously not modern day, but still, it just looked meaner then the P-51 and P-47 and a lot tougher then the Spitfire, though I have a soft spot for the Hurricane right on par with the Typhoon.

I've always been fond of the F-22s. Rather sleek, stealthy... I think I need to be alone now...

Hey, thanks for the info. I think that covered everything I needed. I'll keep ya in mind if I have any future questions.

For my money the best strike aircraft is a Hawker Typhoon, I saw a repro of it once and fell in love with it. It was the main ground strike aircraft of the RAF in Europe, right on par with the USAAF's P-47 Thunderbolts. I always loved the name as well, but this is obviously not modern day, but still, it just looked meaner then the P-51 and P-47 and a lot tougher then the Spitfire, though I have a soft spot for the Hurricane right on par with the Typhoon.

Love the Typhoon and Hurricane, two vastly underadknowledged aircraft.

But don't forget the Mosquito :)

Love the Typhoon and Hurricane, two vastly underadknowledged aircraft.

But don't forget the Mosquito :)

How could I, such a distinctive shape in the RAF. The first time I saw one I thought it was a JU-88, becuase it didn't resemble any RAF fighter or bomber. As for the Hurricane, the Spitfire gets all the glory but the Hurricane did the work in the BoB. The Hurricane was more durable under fire, and I think it just looks better than the Spitfire. Another RAF (Well, actually RN) aircraft that is underrated is the Swordfish, though its' legend belongs more to the pilots who did so much with it than the aircraft itself.

The Focke Wulf 190.

How could I, such a distinctive shape in the RAF. The first time I saw one I thought it was a JU-88, becuase it didn't resemble any RAF fighter or bomber. As for the Hurricane, the Spitfire gets all the glory but the Hurricane did the work in the BoB. The Hurricane was more durable under fire, and I think it just looks better than the Spitfire. Another RAF (Well, actually RN) aircraft that is underrated is the Swordfish, though its' legend belongs more to the pilots who did so much with it than the aircraft itself.

Well if we're going back to WW2 aircraft, I'd say the grand slam variant of the Lancaster.

What do you feel is the best strike Aircraft of today?

A-10. Unwanted. Unloved. Still best Strike Aircraft for the money.

Posters here seem pretty knowledgable about aircraft. Anyone heard anything about the Commanche helicopter? (I think thats what it is called)


Been cancelled by Bush & Company.

A-10. Unwanted. Unloved. Still best Strike Aircraft for the money.
If he said "best CAS" aircraft...then the A-10 would be my pick too, but it's hard to eliminate the F-15E group, which can literally go vertical (its thrust is more than its weight, so it can operate without wing-lift for some time)...and which has a more diverse capability.

The A-10, however, is the best fixed-wing CAS aircraft and, with a few hundred million invested in updating the fleet or to updating the engines (including modern materials for better survivability), we could have the best fixed-wing CAS (even a carrier-capable fixed-wing CAS) in the world for thirty more years.

Been cancelled by Bush & Company.


I really liked the RAH-66 too.... :(

Like I care.

If he said "best CAS" aircraft...then the A-10 would be my pick too, but it's hard to eliminate the F-15E group, which can literally go vertical (its thrust is more than its weight, so it can operate without wing-lift for some time)...and which has a more diverse capability.

The A-10, however, is the best fixed-wing CAS aircraft and, with a few hundred million invested in updating the fleet or to updating the engines (including modern materials for better survivability), we could have the best fixed-wing CAS (even a carrier-capable fixed-wing CAS) in the world for thirty more years.

I guess it depends on what your definition of STRIKE is. To me attack aircraft are strike aircraft. I too like the F-15E family, but for rooting out the bad guy who is hunkered down; give me the A-10 any day.