NationStates Jolt Archive

Ten Best Jet Fighters (http://www.strategypage.com/hotstuff/articles/dls20055151025.asp)


by Harold C. Hutchison
May 11, 2005

What are the ten best fighter aircraft out there, and which of these planes are better than the others at the top of the heap? Fighters have one primary mission: seize control of the air, and enable their side’s attack planes to get through while also preventing the opposing side from attacking friendly forces and bases. Many of these fighters have also proven themselves to be adept at other roles (ground attack, anti-ship) as well, but their primary purpose is to control the air.

10. The JAS.39 Gripen. This is a small single-seat fighter using the American F404 turbofan engine. This aircraft is capable of numerous missions (point-defense interceptor, ground attack fighter, and even anti-shipping). It is highly maneuverable, and is a worthy successor to the Draken and Viggen interceptors that Sweden has built. This is what the 1980s F-20 Tigershark (an early competitor of the F-16 and F-18) could have been, had it not been stillborn.

9. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This is the ultimate Hornet, without the range limitations of the F/A-18A/B/C/D, and with two extra weapons pylons. This fighter is based on a proven design, and has even been used as a tanker with the premature retirement of the S-3 Viking. Sheer versatility – and improvement from the original make the Super Hornet’s place on this list a secure one.

8. F-15C Eagle. This is perhaps one of the last of the single-purpose aircraft. This plane has done one thing for 30 years (air-to-air combat), and done it well (over 100 kills to no losses). However, what is remarkable is the almost-untapped potential the airframe has as a ground-attack platform. The F-15E Strike Eagle has become a superb multi-role fighter. However, the F-15 has gotten long in the tooth for air superiority.

7. F-16C Fighting Falcon. This is a bird that has become a classic. Widely exported, and it has amassed a solid record. Still being built to special order for export customers, it not only has scored air-to-air kills in service with the United States, Israel, and Pakistan, but it is also one of the most numerous modern fighters in service today.

6. Su-27 Flanker. This was built to counter the F-15, and it has become one of the more feared aircraft out of Russia. Highly maneuverable, it is equipped and designed for a dogfight, it has been exported. The wide export market for this plane and its variants (the Su-30 in particular) is the primary reason for the F-22.

5. F-14D Tomcat. This is a plane that had aged like fine wine. Originally designed to face the Tu-22M3 Backfire bomber in protection of American carriers, it has become a carrier-launched version of the F-15E. Capable of long-range attacks using the AIM-54 Phoenix, the F-14 proved it was capable of dogfighting in two incidents with Libya (the U.S. Navy fighters scored four kills for no losses). This is a plane retiring before its time.

4. Eurofighter Typhoon. A low-observable multi-role fighter. It is fast, maneuverable, and carries a lot of air-to-air missiles. It also can be used for attack missions as well. This is a fighter that will be the backbone of at least four air forces (the UK, Spain, Germany, and Italy).

3. Dassault Rafale. Another European multi-role fighter with some stealth built in, this aircraft not only carries out the air-to-air and attack missions, it also comes in a naval version. Its first export order was recently signed – to Saudi Arabia. Equipped with French air-to-air missiles, it edges out the Eurofighter since its naval version could interest other countries who have carriers (Brazil and India come to mind).

2. F-35. This plane will be the new F-16 in ten years. Not only is this replacing the F-16, the A-10, the AV-8B, and some F/A-18s in U.S. service, but it will replace aircraft in other countries as well. Like the F-16, it will be produced in numbers. When it enters service, it will outclass many aircraft.

1. F/A-22 Raptor. This is the F-15C’s replacement. Entering service this year, it renders every other air-superiority aircraft obsolete. This is a plane that can not only outfly any other plane in the world, outrun any other plane in the world, and it can do so while remaining virtually unseen. The F-22 is a true heir to the F-15, and could do so in another fashion if Lockheed’s FB-22 proposal takes off.

Do you have data on how much does each of those aircraft cost?

The Eurofighter of F22 can take out lets say, 3 Su27, but if the Su27 is five times cheaper, that means that each of our fighters will likely face five of the enemies fighters (This happened for example, in the eastern front, were german tanks were better, but they were swarmed by T34's)

Su-37 should be on the list. That thing can pull manuvers that would make your head spin.

4. Eurofighter Typhoon. A low-observable multi-role fighter. It is fast, maneuverable, and carries a lot of air-to-air missiles. It also can be used for attack missions as well. This is a fighter that will be the backbone of at least four air forces (the UK, Spain, Germany, and Italy). (Emphasis added.)

Actually, this bit isn't true -- at least, not yet anyway. The Typhoon won't be getting ground-attack capabilities until Block 5, when they will get GBU-10 and -16 Paveway II guided bombs. Since deliveries of Block 5 Typhoons won't start until 2007, as currently scheduled, ranking the Typhoon this high is either disingenuous or shows a lack of knowledge of the aircraft on the part of the author of this article.

(Emphasis added.)

Actually, this bit isn't true -- at least, not yet anyway. The Typhoon won't be getting ground-attack capabilities until Block 5, when they will get GBU-10 and -16 Paveway II guided bombs. Since deliveries of Block 5 Typhoons won't start until 2007, as currently scheduled, ranking the Typhoon this high is either disingenuous or shows a lack of knowledge of the aircraft on the part of the author of this article.

Bah, the Tornado will work fine for the next decade for attack missions anyway.

Do you have data on how much does each of those aircraft cost?

The Eurofighter of F22 can take out lets say, 3 Su27, but if the Su27 is five times cheaper, that means that each of our fighters will likely face five of the enemies fighters (This happened for example, in the eastern front, were german tanks were better, but they were swarmed by T34's)
Good point. I don't have that data, but it would be interesting.

Su-37 should be on the list. That thing can pull manuvers that would make your head spin.
Vectored thrust??

Do you have data on how much does each of those aircraft cost?

The Eurofighter of F22 can take out lets say, 3 Su27, but if the Su27 is five times cheaper, that means that each of our fighters will likely face five of the enemies fighters (This happened for example, in the eastern front, were german tanks were better, but they were swarmed by T34's)

First, cost always depends on the number of aircraft ordered (the whole "economy of scale" thing). Also, to counter your numbers argument, I offer you the air battles of the Arab-Israeli wars. Arab aircraft far outnumbered the Israelis', yet the Israelis tanned the Arabs' hides.

Vectored thrust??

It's got a whole bunch o' shit.

Those ex-sovies designed good fighters. Too bad they couldn't build them worth crap.

Pah, how do you think anyone who hasn't flown all or some of these would be able to refute or support this guys claims? I'm just glad the Eurofighter is on there :D

First, cost always depends on the number of aircraft ordered (the whole "economy of scale" thing). Also, to counter your numbers argument, I offer you the air battles of the Arab-Israeli wars. Arab aircraft far outnumbered the Israelis', yet the Israelis tanned the Arabs' hides.

That is not the point; As i've stated, the Eurofighter can take out 3 Su27's (assumption). That means it can win, outnumbered. But if severely outnumbered, it loses. This can occurr if the diferential between the quality and price of the Su27 is enought to breach the 1/3 ratio.

Note that you can't really account things as pilot quality (the israelis are the best) and support (awacs).

In the case of the israeli-arab conflicts, simply the Israeli weren't unsustainably outnumbered.

Anyway, I have found an interesting link:
http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/Cost/

Click on the "affordable air dominance" thingy, quite interesting.

*snip*
Note that you can't really account things as pilot quality (the israelis are the best) and support (awacs).
*snip*

Not to pick nits, but they didn't have AWACS back then. And that link is just company marketing.

I think the SU-37 also belongs into this list. The maneuverabilty of this plane is awesome.
But I'm not sure about the 2 new US-Planes. The F-22 has a fair chance to become a good airplane, but the F-35 is likely to cause some problems during service (I mean it's a Lockhed airplane), with all the features that are built in.

I hope we will never find out how good these airplanes really are.

*snip*
But I'm not sure about the 2 new US-Planes. The F-22 has a fair chance to become a good airplane, but the F-35 is likely to cause some problems during service (I mean it's a Lockhed airplane), with all the features that are built in.

I hope we will never find out how good these airplanes really are.

They're both Lockheed Martin planes.

Not to pick nits, but they didn't have AWACS back then. And that link is just company marketing.

Yea, Israeli pilots just kick ass :P

And you can't have good marketing without solid performance of your product :)

Yea, Israeli pilots just kick ass :P

And you can't have good marketing without solid performance of your product :)

I'm not saying the Typhoon's not a good air-to-air fighter. I merrely pointed out that it doesn't have ground-attack capabilities, like the author claims.

They're both Lockheed Martin planes.

The F22 is boeing

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22_back.html

The F22 is boeing

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22_back.html

No, Lockheed Martin's the prime contractor (click here) (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11174&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400). Boeing just builds part of the plane.

No, Lockheed Martin's the prime contractor. Boeing just builds part of the plane.

ok, ill take your word for it

o.o

No, Lockheed Martin's the prime contractor. Boeing just builds part of the plane.





Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems: F-22 program management, the integrated forebody (nose section) and forward fuselage (including the cockpit and inlets), leading edges of the wings, the fins and stabilators, flaps, ailerons, landing gear and final assembly of the aircraft.
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems: Center fuselage, stores management, integrated navigation and electronic warfare systems (INEWS), the communications, navigation, and identification (CNI) system, and the weapon support system.
Boeing: wings, aft fuselage (including the structures necessary for engine and nozzle installation), radar system development and testing, avionics integration, the training system, and flight-test development and management.
Pratt & Whitney: F119-PW-100 engines that power the Raptor.




Kinda confusing.

I think the MIG 31...

I think the MIG 31...

The MiG-31 was a piece of crap compared to the Su-27/37, and would get pwned if it was sent up against the Eurofighter or the Raptor.

ok, ill take your word for it

o.o

You should. I cover this stuff for a living. ;)

Ten Best Jet Fighters (http://www.strategypage.com/hotstuff/articles/dls20055151025.asp)
Of course, they left off the F-20 Tigershark (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-20.htm). :headbang:

It was too efficient and easy to maintain to be a REAL jet fighter. :rolleyes:

The MiG-31 was a piece of crap compared to the Su-27/37, and would get pwned if it was sent up against the Eurofighter or the Raptor.

The only problems of all Migs was, that the sowiets hasn´t enough fuel to cross europe...
;)

The only problems of all Migs was, that the sowiets hasn´t enough fuel to cross europe...
;)

And they're hard as hell to maintain.

It's obviously going by technical capability rather than the "best" design. In that regard the list is more or less correct, although the MiG-29 deserves to make it.

In regard to the "best" aircraft, the F-16 should be number one, as the C variant was the first truly effective low-cost fighter-bomber, making air superiority and ground attack able to be achieved on the same mission without escort. The F-15E could do it too, but it was a lot more expensive, less maneuverable, and required a second crew member. The F-18 and MiG-29 (not the export version) are of similar capability too.

And they're hard as hell to maintain.

Not like the Sovies had any problems with finding manpower to mainain them.:p

Not like the Sovies had any problems with finding manpower to mainain them.:p

Yeah, but the MTBFs on a lot of their systems, including the engines, are very high.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few of these jets haven't even seen active service yet. How are we really going to know if they're the best until they've actually done something besides test flight?

Sure they look good on paper, but so did most of the USA's fighters prior to the start of WWII...and, it turned out those were far behind the competition.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a few of these jets haven't even seen active service yet. How are we really going to know if they're the best until they've actually done something besides test flight?



An excellent point.

And they're hard as hell to maintain.

Some are, some aren't. Certain MiG aircraft are prized by third world nations for their ease of use and maintenance in bad conditions.

Same with US aircraft, really. There are ones that are extremely expensive to operate (F-14, F-111, etc.) and relatively cheap ones (F-16, F-5)....

Yeah, but the MTBFs on a lot of their systems, including the engines, are very high.

Again, the poor workmanship of the Soviet Union comes into play.

IMHO, Mikoyan-Gurevich and Sukhoi made superior aircraft, for their time, than their western counterparts. The production was problematic. They were using technology, especially computer technology, several generations behind their western counterparts.

9. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. This is the ultimate Hornet, without the range limitations of the F/A-18A/B/C/D, and with two extra weapons pylons. This fighter is based on a proven design, and has even been used as a tanker with the premature retirement of the S-3 Viking. Sheer versatility – and improvement from the original make the Super Hornet’s place on this list a secure one.

The S-3 Viking is a carrier-board ASW aircraft... The KA-6 [derivation of the A-6 Intruder, much like the EA-6B Prowler) is a carrier-board tanker. Are long-range ASW operations being limited to the P-3 Orion now? 'helo' dipping sonars may be usefull, but you can hide from them, the MAD used on the P-3 and S-3 you can't...

The Navy's going to helo-based ASW and AMCM (Airborne Mine Countermeasures).

However, you can drop sonobuoys from helos such as the most recently upgraded SH-60R (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/sh-60.htm) (formerly called LAMPS Mk III Block II).

The disadvantage you get with helos is the decreased range of patrol.

They also are taking out the Magnetic Anomoly Detection (MAD) equipment. It's just my guess, but it's not as useful finding smaller subs compared with behemoth ballistic missile boats. Considering most of the ones we used to have to hunt at sea are beached like whales near Murmansk, they're instead beefing up improved sonar systems instead to find smaller and quieter attack subs.

A stealthy attack sub with a battery of VLS-launched cruise missiles (potentially nuclear-tipped) is the new target.

...

Back to fighter aircraft...

F/A-22 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm) is a real aircraft. It costs $200 million each.

FB-22 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm) is not going to happen. Not yet.

If you're going to dink the Typhoon for "not here today" capabilities, better hold off on FB-22.

____________

However, Typhoon's ground attack role actually exists, and further stages are committed programmes, whereas FB-22 is still a concept.

The Eurofighter "Tranche 1" (http://www.vectorsite.net/aveuro.html) programme actually got approval (based on lobbying from UK and Italy) to add support for various laser-guided bombs for ground strike.

The Tranche 2 additions will be GPS-guided bombs, to be introduced this coming year, 2006. (Subject to possible change).

Tranche 3, in 2010, will see even more robust ground attack capability.

But you shouldn't make it seem like they cannot deliver ordnance today.
________

Su-30MKK2 (http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/su30.asp), the special up-engined design for China, deserves a nod. And there's an Su-20MKK3, which is not committed, but has some radar that should give some OTH capabilities (190 km air detection range) that even an F-15 might envy, and certainly give surface ship commanders pause (300 km).

Meanwhile, the existing radar model has a 110 km range forward and a 40 km range in the rear hemisphere. Not too shabby.

http://www.defesabr.com/FAB/Su-30%20MKK%20com%20Legenda.jpg

A stealthy attack sub with a battery of VLS-launched cruise missiles (potentially nuclear-tipped) is the new target.
hmm...

are you saying these can detect stealth nuclear subs?

I've heard from many that the F-14D is still the prime example of what an air-superiority fighter should be. Also, let's put into account that all the newer USN and USAF fighters have the F/A designation. The engagement system on the Super Tomcat can track more targets than either the Super Hornet or the Raptor (in Spanish, :mp5: raptor is an abductor or killer of children. Just saying). Don't even get me started on the Eurofighters...

Plus, the arguments moot when the VF-1 is unveiled.;)

Skyhawks are the way to go, man. They would have saved us from the invading hordes if we'd kept them.

It's never the plane, it's the pilot. And it's never 1v1, either it's 2v2, 2v4, or some other weird combination. I'd put my money on a two seat plane with guns and an American crew. Probably Navy, because those guys train a lot and always train as a crew.

Sure they look good on paper, but so did most of the USA's fighters prior to the start of WWII...and, it turned out those were far behind the competition.

As did their 37mm anti-tank guns...until it went against Panzer IIIs, IVs and Tigers.

Only combat testing against rival high spec fighters will prove whether they are really good in their roles or not. Given the way the US likes to fight, that might not be a possibility short of an outbreak of total war.

I've heard from many that the F-14D is still the prime example of what an air-superiority fighter should be. Also, let's put into account that all the newer USN and USAF fighters have the F/A designation. The engagement system on the Super Tomcat can track more targets than either the Super Hornet or the Raptor (in Spanish, :mp5: raptor is an abductor or killer of children. Just saying). Don't even get me started on the Eurofighters...

Plus, the arguments moot when the VF-1 is unveiled.;)

It's a shame, really. The F-14D actually has capability to detect, profile, and engage up to five targets before they even realize it's there, yet they're decom-ing the missile that makes this possible (the Phoenix) in the near future and the Tomcat itself shortly after.

Of course, I never trusted the aircraft acquistition departments in the West, I mean, they turned down the god damned Arrow.

I've heard from many that the F-14D is still the prime example of what an air-superiority fighter should be. Also, let's put into account that all the newer USN and USAF fighters have the F/A designation. The engagement system on the Super Tomcat can track more targets than either the Super Hornet or the Raptor (in Spanish, :mp5: raptor is an abductor or killer of children. Just saying). Don't even get me started on the Eurofighters...

Plus, the arguments moot when the VF-1 is unveiled.;)
i thought they completely removed the F-14 from the aircraft inventory from the Navy this year!

What about the Saab Viggen?

F-35 should be 4th, bumping up the rafale and eurofighter. The Gripen should go past the Super hornet. The list is pretty much fine, though I would rate Israeli versions of the F-15 and 16 better than the american ones.