NationStates Jolt Archive

How about another thread about planes?

Which do you think were the best Fighter Plane ever made?

Consider the time they were made in, and the competition, their success in service as well as design and neat features.

A few ideas here:

The Fokker Eindecker...the first fighter that could properly fire through the propeller. Cleaned up the Allies for quite a while from the skies over France.

The Spitfire obviously has a lot going for it.

The Mig 21 also comes to mind as the jet produced in the greatest numbers, and it's even still in service in some places (the Indians wanna use it until 2015...).

The F-15 Eagle would have to be my favourite.

Messerschmitt Bf 109

I would argue in favor of the MiG-15. Until the F-86 showed up, it pretty much cleaned house. It also had superior firepower to the F-86.

Service life was a bit short, though. Seeing as it was a tranisitional fighter, that's not horribly surprising.

Next up would be the MiG-21. If I recall properly, F-4 pilots would bug out once they saw this iteration of the MiG coming at them. It obviously has a longer life ahead of it.

In the end, I'd have to settle with the MiG-21, though. Even though it's horribly out-dated, now.

Failing that, I would go for the F-35B... it's like a VTOL baby Raptor.

Modern planes are pretty amazing, but I'm more impressed by planes that have changed history in wartime, like the p-51 Mustang, FW 190 and Spitfire.. all great. Occasionally, a couple hundred vintage WWII fighters and bombers fly over my house, and they're still an inspiring sight.

I do rather think the Fokker was a cool plane. I have a Lego version of it in my room. However, it did have a habit of falling apart mid-flight.

Tie between the Spitfire and the P-51.

But the best fighter aircraft ever, that never was, is the Avro Arrow.

When I run for Prime Minister, a vote for me will be a vote for a new Avro Arrow.

P-38 lightning
Fokker triplane
Su-27 Flanker

Tie between the Spitfire and the P-51.

I'd put the Zero before either of those.

The Hawker Hurricane. If it wasn't for this little workhorse the Luftwaffe would have surely won the Battle of Britain. It counted for more kills than every other aircraft/anti-aircarft combined last time I checked (yes, more than the beloved Spit). Plus it could out turn the Me-109. Not only that its 12 .303 machine guns could turn anything the Germans threw at it into scrap metal. It was probably the first effective all-purpose fighter as well. It was launched from carriers, it attacked tanks, it was a bomber and it was one of the best fighters of its time.

The F-15 Eagle would have to be my favourite.


Definetly one of the greatest fighters ever invented.


Classic american response to a problem, if someone has something better than yours(or at least you think they do) throw money at it until your better.

I'd put the Zero before either of those.

Sure it was manoeuvrable, but one hit to the wing and down she goes.....

One hit anywhere and down it went....if you could hit it.;)

Sure it was manoeuvrable, but one hit to the wing and down she goes.....

She was also around in 1935. I believe the Spitfire didn't show up until 1938 or '39 (hence the low numbers of them through out the Battles of France and Britain).

The Hawker Hurricane. If it wasn't for this little workhorse the Luftwaffe would have surely won the Battle of Britain. It counted for more kills than every other aircraft/anti-aircarft combined last time I checked (yes, more than the beloved Spit). Plus it could out turn the Me-109. Not only that its 12 .303 machine guns could turn anything the Germans threw at it into scrap metal. It was probably the first effective all-purpose fighter as well. It was launched from carriers, it attacked tanks, it was a bomber and it was one of the best fighters of its time.

Yes, but the Germans feared the Spitfire more.

I love the Hurricane, but the Spitfire is just so purty...

Oh, the choices!

I'd have to say the P-51 of the F-15.

She was also around in 1935. I believe the Spitfire didn't show up until 1938 or '39 (hence the low numbers of them through out the Battles of France and Britain).

It was a great fighter early in the war, when the Allies had nothing to match it. But later in the war, nothing but a flying coffin. Need we look at the Marianas Turkey Shoot?

I do rather think the Fokker was a cool plane. I have a Lego version of it in my room. However, it did have a habit of falling apart mid-flight.

so do i. why try and fly it? it almost fell apart in transition upstairs.

fokker=german wwi=cool
shooting through propeller? hell yeah!

It was a great fighter early in the war, when the Allies had nothing to match it. But later in the war, nothing but a flying coffin. Need we look at the Marianas Turkey Shoot?

I never said that wasn't true, but for it's time it shone. If they had made the Tony in time (and in quantity!), there mightn't have been a Marianas Turkey Shoot.

My vote goes to the F6F Hellcat. Built specifically to counteract the A6M series of Japanese aircraft...it turned the tide in naval air combat in the Pacific.

SI believe the Spitfire didn't show up until 1938 or '39 (hence the low numbers of them through out the Battles of France and Britain).

Thats true I guess.

Yes, but the Germans feared the Spitfire more.

The 109 pilots feared it more because it was downright faster and more dangerous. It was the German bomber crews that were afraid of the Hurricane and its 12 guns. Generally during the B of B the Spits would take on the fighter cover (or lack of, the 109s didn't have time to really offer protection to the bombers) while the Hurricanes went to town Heinkels.

so do i. why try and fly it? it almost fell apart in transition upstairs.

fokker=german wwi=cool
shooting through propeller? hell yeah!

No, not the Lego plane, the real one. Most early planes weren't that reliable.

Does anyone know which plane actually has the most confirmed kills?

And why does everyone remember Richthofen, but no one remembers Erich Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann)?

Does anyone know which plane actually has the most confirmed kills?

And why does everyone remember Richthofen, but no one remembers Erich Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann)?

I'm thinking the Me-109. Made kills in Spanish Civil War, World War II, and the Israeli War of Independence (or whatever it's called).

Because Richthofen scored the most kills. Nobody remembers Billy Bishop who scored 72 I think. Or Roy Brown who chased Richthofen across the front in the Australian ground fire.

The Lightning, 0-70,000ft in 2 minutes, 35,000fpm at a 80 degree pitch up and still accelerating! Amazing aircraft!

SR-71, Mach 3, no use in the aircraft at all, but it looks cool!

Vulcan Bomber...the delta wing and 4 Rolls engines under the wing get me every time

Spit, Hurricane and Tempest/Lancaster, obviously

F16? The mostly used fighter in the world...got to be a sign!

But, in my opinion the best best fighter in the world is the...Harrier, the first aircraft ever to have full VTOL capabilities, a masterpiece of engineering, a masterpiece in design and the harrier has more maneuvability than any other aircraft (except the Apache Helicopter) in existance today, those movable thrust ducts come in useful through a tight turn! Its also the hardest plane in the world to fly, so takes a special kind of pilot to fly it, this is why it is the best fighter in the world. It is unique, has not been repeated (yet, X35 soon...) and is the best plane for fulfilling the job of a fighter, manuvability to get out of the sites, and then be able to get the enemy in your sites before the enemy knows where you are...the Harrier with its movable thrust can do this easily and quickly.

Harrier!!

Graham

Because Richthofen scored the most kills. Nobody remembers Billy Bishop who scored 72 I think. Or Roy Brown who chased Richthofen across the front in the Australian ground fire.

Er... Erich Hartmann made over 300.

SR-71, Mach 3, no use in the aircraft at all, but it looks cool!

Not a fighter....

Vulcan Bomber...the delta wing and 4 Rolls engines under the wing get me every time

Not a fighter....

F16? The mostly used fighter in the world...got to be a sign!

Yeah. That it's cheap.

My bad on the Erich Hartmann.

Not a fighter....



Not a fighter....



Yeah. That it's cheap.

Wow...someone is in a patronising mood tonight! I know they are not fighters (Hence why i put vulcan bomber...), but equally they have the speed and maneuvability to be argued as such, i mean the Vulcan and SR-71 hardly your bog standard bomber and recon plane are they! They are marvels of engineering and were worth a mention, nothing more. I was just mentioning them in passing until the best fighter IMO, which you convienently left out of your post. The Harrier.

F16 maybe cheap, but its still the most used fighter in the world, which shows that it is obviously fulfils the needs of most countries in what they view as a good fighter...however as i said above, it was just a mention nothing else! Harrier.

My bad on the Erich Hartmann.

He's probably forgotten because his kills were all Soviets. And as we all know, Russians aren't people: they're objects placed on this earth by our Lord Jesus Christ for our derision. ;)

Wow...someone is in a patronising mood tonight! I know they are not fighters, but equally they have the speed and maneuvability to be argued as such, i mean the Vulcan and SR-71 hardly your bog standard bomber and recon plane are they! They are marvels of engineering and were worth a mention, nothing more. I was just mentioning them in passing until the best fighter IMO, which you convienently left out of your post. The Harrier.

I was pointing out that many of your candidates for "Best Fighter" were not fighters.

And I stand by what I said about the Falcon.

I could suggest what was/is bad about the Harrier, but I don't know which version you're referring to, so :p

Yeah, I looked him up. 352 kills and he spent 10 years in a Soviet POW camp. But the Soviets to a huge beating in WWII. They'd send pilots up expecting them not to come back.

But to add the Richthofen thing, he was the first real "ultimate-ace". The one guy everyone else feared yet wished to be.

Meh fair dos!

Harrier, the original RAF one and also the new upgraded RAF version, the GR9 (better engines and electronics than the GR7).

Even if you don't agree with me, can't deny it is a very cool aircraft and definately a masterpiece of engineering!

Graham

Yeah, I looked him up. 352 kills and he spent 10 years in a Soviet POW camp. But the Soviets to a huge beating in WWII. They'd send pilots up expecting them not to come back.

But to add the Richthofen thing, he was the first real "ultimate-ace". The one guy everyone else feared yet wished to be.

Actually, Hartmann had the opposite problem. He used to have the nose of his plane painted dstinctly (rather not unlike the Red Baron... only it was just the nose) and he soon found that the Soviet fighter pilots would bug out as soon as he showed up!

Meh fair dos!

Harrier, the original RAF one and also the new upgraded RAF version, the GR9 (better engines and electronics than the GR7).

Even if you don't agree with me, can't deny it is a very cool aircraft and definately a masterpiece of engineering!

Graham

It is cool. Having spent the first half of my life on Marine Corps bases, I can definately say that it's a very enthralling aircraft.

The (main) problem with it is that it's not particularly well-intended for the role of a fighter.

Just went to the Googled "The Greatest Fighter Plane Ever" and the Discovery Channel came up with this list:

F117 (Stealth)
DR1 (Fokker Tri)
A6M2 (Zero)
AV-8B Harrier II
F-86 Sabre
Me 109
F-18 Super Hornet
Mig 21 (F-13/Fishbed C)
Spitfire
P-51

Lets here some thoughts on this (especially about the aircraft that really isn't a fighter at all, just a bomber).

Lets here some thoughts on this (especially about the aircraft that really isn't a fighter at all, just a bomber).

F117 (Stealth) - Meh, not a fighter. And besides, the first stealth plane was a German one, the Horten 229 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229).

DR1 (Fokker Tri) - Fancy in memory yes, but they didn't actually play that great a role in the grand scheme of things. And engineering-wise, it wasn't very good.

A6M2 (Zero) - Don't know much about it.

AV-8B Harrier II - Not really a fighter either, is it? The thing about it is the VTOL, and that was first done by others.

F-86 Sabre - Or the Mig 15. Same thing, and much of what is claimed by either side is bullshit.

Me 109 - I suppose, but by the time it really started to matter (ie the Battle of Britain), they were outclassed by Allied Planes.

F-18 Super Hornet - I wonder why they'd put this one specifically in there. The Su-33 is probably the better jet overall.

Mig 21 (F-13/Fishbed C) - Yep.

Spitfire - Yep.

P-51 - Yep.

F117 (Stealth) - Meh, not a fighter. And besides, the first stealth plane was a German one, the Horten 229 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229).

DR1 (Fokker Tri) - Fancy in memory yes, but they didn't actually play that great a role in the grand scheme of things. And engineering-wise, it wasn't very good.

A6M2 (Zero) - Don't know much about it.

AV-8B Harrier II - Not really a fighter either, is it? The thing about it is the VTOL, and that was first done by others.

F-86 Sabre - Or the Mig 15. Same thing, and much of what is claimed by either side is bullshit.

Me 109 - I suppose, but by the time it really started to matter (ie the Battle of Britain), they were outclassed by Allied Planes.

F-18 Super Hornet - I wonder why they'd put this one specifically in there. The Su-33 is probably the better jet overall.

Mig 21 (F-13/Fishbed C) - Yep.

Spitfire - Yep.

P-51 - Yep.

The Super Hornet wouldn't stand a chance against the Super Tomcat's superior radar and air combat equipment. maybe because the Hornet is shinnier and got more flashy cockpits might make it more favored by the brass... but the Tomcat's big airframe let it carry bigger payloads and let it wield the mighty Pheonix.

Until the age of Fly-By-Wire aircraft or the MiG-29 and Su-27 series the Tomcat was one of the most agile aircraft in the world despite its mass. It'll probably be brought back into favor when the Chinese Navy starts getting powerful and Carrier defense will become important again since the Hornet's can't do the standoff ability of the Tomcat.

F117 (Stealth)

Not a fighter. And not all that great. Only reason it's an "F-" instead of an "A-" is because some idiot thought that no one would want to fly an A-117. Which explains why no one wants to fly the A-10....

DR1 (Fokker Tri)

Certainly an aircraft with high symbolic value. It gave the Germans something that could match the Camel, but didn't have any great effect on the evolution of combat aircraft.

A6M2 (Zero)

I'd agree with that.

AV-8B Harrier II

In the US Military vernacular, A=Attack. V=VTOL. I don't see an "F" there....

F-86 Sabre

The MiG-15 had better armament and showed up in the Korean conflict sooner.

Me 109

I'm on the fence about this one... the Spitfire was introduced at around the same time and the two were roughly equal in capabilities.

F-18 Super Hornet

A piece of junk. The F-14 is a superior aircraft. Full stop.

Mig 21 (F-13/Fishbed C)

I'd agree with this one, too.

Spitfire

I'm on the fence about this one... on the one hand there weren't enough around to do the RAF much good until after the Battle of Britain and it lacked the range to be an effective escort. But it was the equal of the Me-109, something that the Hurricane couldn't claim.

P-51

By the time this showed up on the scene, it really wasn't nesesary. The P-47 did the same job (and more), it just looked uglier and wasn't as pilot-friendly as the P-51 (the P-51 being a synergy of British and American design).

The Hawker Hurricane. If it wasn't for this little workhorse the Luftwaffe would have surely won the Battle of Britain. It counted for more kills than every other aircraft/anti-aircarft combined last time I checked (yes, more than the beloved Spit). Plus it could out turn the Me-109. Not only that its 12 .303 machine guns could turn anything the Germans threw at it into scrap metal. It was probably the first effective all-purpose fighter as well. It was launched from carriers, it attacked tanks, it was a bomber and it was one of the best fighters of its time.

I agree. :)

I've always had a soft spot for the EE/BAC lighting. In the eighties (twenty years after it entered service), it managed to intercept a U-2 at height thought 'uninterceptable'. It also managed to catch the concord in a stern chase. Something the F-16 and F-15 failed to do.

It also had supercruise.

Not bad considering its design date.

Which explains why no one wants to fly the A-10....

That thing is a beast. Probably one of the few modern jets I'd like to fly. Apprantly can fly even with big chunks missing. And then the damage it can cause itself....30mm cannon....

That thing is a beast. Probably one of the few modern jets I'd like to fly. Apprantly can fly even with big chunks missing. And then the damage it can cause itself....30mm cannon....

I'd fly just about any modern aircraft. They're all fly by wire, so if you can play an Xbox, you can fly an F-16! Granted, you can't start it up with out a truck-load of luck, but still.

Aahhh...but they don't have the character the older aircraft do.

Aahhh...but they don't have the character the older aircraft do.

I know. That's why, if I were flying military aircraft for a living, I'd rather fly something with moving wings... ideally moving wings that move in a circular motion.

Hehe...Why do helicopters fly?

I'd fly just about any modern aircraft. They're all fly by wire, so if you can play an Xbox, you can fly an F-16! Granted, you can't start it up with out a truck-load of luck, but still.

Well, computer flight-sims have reached the point where real pilots are involved in development and vouch for their accuracy...A case point that springs to mind is Falcon 4.0.

Hehe...Why do helicopters fly?

Because if they didn't, we'd call them "Heavily Armed Jeeps"?

No, they're so ugly the ground repels them.:D

No, they're so ugly the ground repels them.:D

Ha ha. Hold still for a moment so I can tag you with the rotors of a Hind....

Helos aren't that bad. I wouldn't mind flying one. I've considered joining the Edmonton Police Service to fly their Air 1. http://www.police.edmonton.ab.ca/Pages/Helicopter/helicoptermain.htm

Best fighter ever? HAS to be the F-22.

Best fighter considering what it's fighting against? The F-15E Strike Eagle. Making all other planes Americas little bitch since they first shot a missile.

HOWEVER, hardiest, coolest, meanest, toughest? The A-10. Wings? It only needs one!


Am I biased towards American planes? Yes!

Am I wrong? I don't think so! :D

The F-15E Strike Eagle. Making all other planes Americas little bitch since they first shot a missile.
Of all the versions you choose the ground attack one?

You're aware that that one gets owned by the Eurofighter, right?

And just for the record...this idea of "never lost in combat" is actually sorta biased because it never fought a proper enemy. If it had fought Mig-29s and the like more often, it's record wouldn't have been so perfect, not the least because the Russians have better missiles at pretty much any range.
As it was, most of the kills were Mig-21s and the like, flown by less skilled pilots.

You're aware that that one gets owned by the Eurofighter, right?


Oh come on, that's like comparing a lighting to an F-15. There is like thirty years difference.

On its debut the F-15 was the air-superiorty fighter against which all other were measured.

Best fighter considering what it's fighting against? The F-15E Strike Eagle. Making all other planes Americas little bitch since they first shot a missile.

Where's the fun in that? Letting the computer do all the work doesn't seem like much of a fighter if the pilot can sleep through the whole fight.

Of all the versions you choose the ground attack one?

You're aware that that one gets owned by the Eurofighter, right?

And just for the record...this idea of "never lost in combat" is actually sorta biased because it never fought a proper enemy. If it had fought Mig-29s and the like more often, it's record wouldn't have been so perfect, not the least because the Russians have better missiles at pretty much any range.
As it was, most of the kills were Mig-21s and the like, flown by less skilled pilots.
Like playing the "What if" game, huh? :D "Never lost in combat" means it's NEVER LOST IN COMBAT!

If you wanna play "what if" games, then I'll bet my dad could kick your dads ass! :rolleyes:

Oh come on, that's like comparing a lighting to an F-15. There is like thirty years difference.

On its debut the F-15 was the air-superiorty fighter against which all other were measured.
Not the "E" version though. That one is still fairly new, and it has a lot of new electric gimmicks.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-29.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

How about another thread about planes?

Which do you think were the best Fighter Plane ever made?.

My opinion, the Focke Wulf FW190 shouldn't be forgotten in this list.

Like playing the "What if" game, huh? :D "Never lost in combat" means it's NEVER LOST IN COMBAT!

If you wanna play "what if" games, then I'll bet my dad could kick your dads ass! :rolleyes:

My invisible friend can kick your invisible friend's ass!

The P-51 Mustang outflew the ME 109, but I've noticed that no one has mentioned the ME 262... first production jet fighter in the world. If it hadn't come so late in the war....

Its funny with the 190. Most people seem to think the 109 was the greatest thing to come out of Germany at the time. But the 190 was a newer aircraft with much better performance in almost every respect. While the Hurricanes could actually prove to be a formidable opponent to the 109, nothing could really touch the 190 until the Spitfire came out in numbers. My guess this is probably because there weree 15000 more 109s than 190s built during the war.

The P-51 Mustang outflew the ME 109, but I've noticed that no one has mentioned the ME 262... first production jet fighter in the world. If it hadn't come so late in the war....

If it spent more time in the air than on the ground...

Its funny with the 190. Most people seem to think the 109 was the greatest thing to come out of Germany at the time. But the 190 was a newer aircraft with much better performance in almost every respect. While the Hurricanes could actually prove to be a formidable opponent to the 109, nothing could really touch the 190 until the Spitfire came out in numbers. My guess this is probably because there weree 15000 more 109s than 190s built during the war.

You're forgetting that the He-108 was a better airplane than the Me-109. It's just that after Spain, no one flew it!

You're forgetting that the He-108 was a better airplane than the Me-109. It's just that after Spain, no one flew it!
There was a Heinkel 108?

Never actually heard of it. You sure you don't mean the He-100 which was designed as the successor for the 109. Never went into production but was used in propoganda. Or the Me-108. Not a fighter but a sport plane.

Not the "E" version though. That one is still fairly new, and it has a lot of new electric gimmicks.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-29.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm

The first squadron became operational in 1989. Considering it was based on an already aging frame, I hardly think you can count it state of the art. It's really not a fair comparison. It's the same as comparing a Me 262 to a century fighter or something.

Never actually heard of it. You sure you don't mean the He-100 which was designed as the successor for the 109. Never went into production but was used in propoganda. Or the Me-108. Not a fighter but a sport plane.

The He-108 was Heinkel's design which competed with the Me-109. Both aircraft were extensively field tested in Spain and, depsite the fact that pilots like the He-108 more, Messerschmidt's political pull with Hitler and Goering made sure that the Me-109 was the aircraft that was adopted.

The first squadron became operational in 1989. Considering it was based on an already aging frame, I hardly think you can count it state of the art. It's really not a fair comparison. It's the same as comparing a Me 262 to a century fighter or something.
You're right.
Nonetheless, as I understand it, at least the Strike Eagle will stay in service for many years yet, because they won't get either the F-22 or the F-35 in that large numbers. Which might make for interesting results eventually, when modern Migs and Sukhois become more commonplace.

Ok, I have to agree with the ONE other person on this board that has mentioned the F-22. Considering what it is up against, including the MiG 29, it has to be the most relatively advanced and superior of any of the airplane age. Not only does it have the most technologically advanced weapons systems of any aircraft out there, but it is the first true stealth fighter aircraft. I know that some of you will say that there is the F-117, but no, it is strictly a bomber aircraft, it has no external guns or any means of defense... If it gets detected and chased, it is basically screwed...

You're right.
Nonetheless, as I understand it, at least the Strike Eagle will stay in service for many years yet, because they won't get either the F-22 or the F-35 in that large numbers. Which might make for interesting results eventually, when modern Migs and Sukhois become more commonplace.

Su-37s, -47s, and MiG-1.44s versus the F-15E? One word: ouuuuuuch....

Actually I just found something about the He-112 in my Encylcopedia of Aircraft. It says it was first flown in 1935 and was the unsuccessful rival of the 109. It also says that a small number saw service in the Spanish Civil War and on the Eastern Front.

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/he112.html

The He-108 was Heinkel's design which competed with the Me-109.
You mean the He 112 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_112).

Yes, I win!! And I'm out. Hawker Tempest V was pretty damn good. If the war lasted my grandfather would have ended up chasing the V2s with it.

You mean the He 112 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_112).

DAMMIT! Well, I was thinking that it was only one off from the -111 and not one off from -109. Ah, well. Most people don't even know the thing existed, so mislabelling it isn't that bad, is it?

You're right.
Nonetheless, as I understand it, at least the Strike Eagle will stay in service for many years yet, because they won't get either the F-22 or the F-35 in that large numbers. Which might make for interesting results eventually, when modern Migs and Sukhois become more commonplace.

True that. They delivered the last only last year I think. I imagine though that its ground attack role will be emphasized in the future - i.e. after air superiorty is established - so its shortcomings in the air superiorty role won't be such a big issue.

I've heard that India intends to start devolping its own aircraft. I imagine, if sucessful, they'll be able to flood the skies quite sucessfully. I have no doubt that their unit costs will be lower than Mig or Su.

I've heard that India intends to start devolping its own aircraft. I imagine, if sucessful, they'll be able to flood the skies quite sucessfully. I have no doubt that their unit costs will be lower than Mig or Su.
Maybe, although right now the Indians are using modifications of Russian designs, the best of which is probably the top Sukhoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI) around right now.
But they are also developing the LCA (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/lca.htm) and MCA (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/mca.htm). But they are quite ugly, and their heavy arcraft for the future is probably a Russian one, as they are working together with the Russians on a few projects, like the Su-47 and the Mig 1.44.

But but, the F22 like eurofighter has 20 year old design plans, because it was conceived and designed in the Cold War, just it took this long to get funding to put it into production!

The Harrier GR9 is used as a fighter in the RAF, therefore it is fighter. If the second largest air force in the world (i think...) uses the GR9 (NOT the AV-8, completly different aircraft) uses it as a fighter, NATO classes it as a fighter then it is a fighter. IMHO, also the best fighter in the world, because it is unique, it was the first VTOL aircraft to be used in the word for a military purpose, it has seen action in many places and has proven its worth against nearly every modern fighter in the world today and has come up trumps nearly every time! They are a formiddable fighter and should not be underestimated, they can easily out turn any fighter on the planet, because of the massive amount of thrust vectoring...ok F22 has this, but can its thrust nozzles go around 110 degrees? No, the Harrier can stop on the spot, let the enemy go past who is persuing who cannot slow down and launch a missile/guns all within 3 seconds, now thats a fighter. The enemy would literally never see it coming! How many dogfights happen at supersonic? Answer atm none, because the stresses on the pilot and airframe would be too much and one or both would break, so the fact that the Harrier is not supersonic is not really that much of an issue because it does not matter when its doing its purpose...fighter.

Graham

More information and research from http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/harrier.html

IMHO, also the best fighter in the world, because it is unique, it was the first VTOL aircraft to be used in the word for a military purpose, it has seen action in many places and has proven its worth against nearly every modern fighter in the world today and has come up trumps nearly every time!

Being a unique aircraft doesn't make one good. Nor does being a VTOL.

And I find it hard to imagine the number of times a Harrier has gone nose to nose with MiG-29s, Su-27s, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, or even F-20s.

The Harrier GR9 is used as a fighter in the RAF, therefore it is fighter.
I just keep reading "close air support".

But for all the maneuverability, I have to say that if I had to fly a jet into combat, I wouldn't choose a Harrier, just because I'd be afraid that I'd get sniped by some AA-12 carrying Sukhoi from a hundred km away.

I just keep reading "close air support".

But for all the maneuverability, I have to say that if I had to fly a jet into combat, I wouldn't choose a Harrier, just because I'd be afraid that I'd get sniped by some AA-12 carrying Sukhoi from a hundred km away.

I think he's talking about the RN FAA Harrier FA2, which is an air defence fighter. It performed quite well in the Falklands (which means exactly nothing these days), but that could just have been a cover story for the laser-blinding weapon the RN had.

P-51 Mustang with Rolls Royce Merlin Engine

Apparently the correct answer is the P-51 but it can suck my dick for all i care the spitfire is the best.
*Steals Neo Leonstien's soul*

Apparently the correct answer is the P-51 but it can suck my dick for all i care the spitfire is the best.
*Steals Neo Leonstien's soul* Please do not swear so you watched Discovery Wings too then

ME-109E (not those horrible later models)

The silly Nazis left the plane with really narrow landing gear which made thing hard to land though.

Please do not swear so you watched Discovery Wings too then
Yes and that whole series socked cock.
I was going to start a whole series of threads about each episode but was too lazy.
Maybe later when this has died down.

I suck.

Yes and that whole series socked cock.
I was going to start a whole series of threads about each episode but was too lazy.
Maybe later when this has died down.

I suck. Stop swearing / cursing please :mad:

The Goa'uld Death Glider (http://www.gateworld.net/omnipedia/ships/links/deathglider.shtml), this craft is both capable of space flight and flying in a planets atmosphere. It's plasma staff guns are capable of unlimited duraility i firing and it's inertial dampeners make sure it can outmaneouver any craft challenging it.

Stop swearing / cursing please :mad:

What's offensive about saying something sucks on a cockerel? It'd look stupid, and it probably tastes fowl, but in all honesty, I can't quite understand the problem here.

The F-14 has to be near if not at the top. Its now how old and its still one of the best fighter planes ever to fly. If you look at it, almost every top fighter in the last 25 years was designed similarly. It revolutionized the way you make Fighter Jets. Even the F-22 is designed around parts of the F-14!

Everyone looks for different qualities in a Fighter to form their opinion. I look at record. I think that if you put the F-15 on the 'Best List', the F-14 must be put ahead of it because the F-15 is a chearper model of the F-14.

http://www.airshowreport.com/f14.jpg

The F-4 Phantom.

38 years of service: 1958 to 1996

Flew every type of mission: air superiority, close air support, interception, air defense suppression, long-range strike, fleet defense, attack and reconnaissance.

Flew concurrently with the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. (And is the first and only aircraft ever to be flown concurrently by both the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds.)

It has been flown by the defense forces of 11 other nations: Australia, Egypt, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Iran, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Spain and Turkey.

The Bf-109, of course. It could turn well, had exceptional rudder response, unrivaled climb and acceleration, and it had a lethal weapons package throughout its service lifetime.

http://www.flightsim.com/review/hurr/me-109.jpg

You can't deny that it's a good-looking plane.

http://www.sitesled.com/members/fruda/DB605%20Startup.wav

And you can't deny that it had one of the best sounding engines ever. This is an actual recording of a DB605's startup sequence.

This looks more like "My Favorite Fighter", than what is best. First, one has to define what the term 'fighter' means. To an USAF jock, it means anything with a jet engine, A-10s included. That's a little to broad to suit me. I'd stick to anything designed for air-to-air combat.

But then, what is 'best'? Certainly the Spitfire and ME-109s were great in their days, but they couldn't hold a candle to an F-16 or even an F-18. If we consider 'best' to be the epitome of engineering achievement, then we're certainly considering something present-day. If we start consider 'best' to be a ground-breaking design, then maybe it's the first monoplane, or the first supercritical airfoil. Maybe it's the first supersonic fighter, or even the first to use flush rivets.

My vote goes to the F-16 as the best engineered and best marketed fighter of recent years. It might just be a good fighter, but with enough squadrons of good fighters, good pilots are going to triumph over a fewer number of 'best' fighters.

One other thing -- The sound of a radial engine beats the sound of any other internal combustion engine, hands down.

What's offensive about saying something sucks on a cockerel? It'd look stupid, and it probably tastes fowl, but in all honesty, I can't quite understand the problem here.
I actually said Socked Cock......
What is the problem with that?

*Spelling mistake for the save*:D

The sound of a radial engine beats the sound of any other internal combustion engine, hands down.

Oh, definitely. I have a recording of an F4U Corsair's startup sequence on my site.

http://www.sitesled.com/members/fruda/Corsair%20Startup.wav

Very meaty stuff.

Just regarding the F-14...was that actually ever meant to be a fighter as such?
I was always under the impression that it was an interceptor, meant to protect the fleet from supersonic bombers and cruise missiles - that's why it had the Phoenix, with that super-long range and fighting multiple targets at once.

The Lightning, 0-70,000ft in 2 minutes, 35,000fpm at a 80 degree pitch up and still accelerating! Amazing aircraft!

SR-71, Mach 3, no use in the aircraft at all, but it looks cool!

Vulcan Bomber...the delta wing and 4 Rolls engines under the wing get me every time

Spit, Hurricane and Tempest/Lancaster, obviously

F16? The mostly used fighter in the world...got to be a sign!

But, in my opinion the best best fighter in the world is the...Harrier, the first aircraft ever to have full VTOL capabilities, a masterpiece of engineering, a masterpiece in design and the harrier has more maneuvability than any other aircraft (except the Apache Helicopter) in existance today, those movable thrust ducts come in useful through a tight turn! Its also the hardest plane in the world to fly, so takes a special kind of pilot to fly it, this is why it is the best fighter in the world. It is unique, has not been repeated (yet, X35 soon...) and is the best plane for fulfilling the job of a fighter, manuvability to get out of the sites, and then be able to get the enemy in your sites before the enemy knows where you are...the Harrier with its movable thrust can do this easily and quickly.

Harrier!!

Graham


Ya, but it looks so dumb. Its getting old too...

Just regarding the F-14...was that actually ever meant to be a fighter as such?
I was always under the impression that it was an interceptor, meant to protect the fleet from supersonic bombers and cruise missiles - that's why it had the Phoenix, with that super-long range and fighting multiple targets at once.

That depends on how you define "fighter". I define it to be any aircraft intended to destroy other aircraft in an air-to-air engagement. Therefore, Interceptors, Multi-Roles, and Air Superiority aircraft are all "fighters" in my book.

Focker Wolfe 186.
Was alright
*May have made the number up*
You know the one, big mother.

Focker Wolfe 186.
Was alright
*May have made the number up*
You know the one, big mother.

The Fw-190A's were great gun platforms with a hell of an engine, but the Fw-190D's were better. Sure, they had the problems of any in-line engined aircraft (bullets hitting the radiator = disaster), but they had better overall performance.

The Focke-Wulf Ta-152 was the best high-altitude fighter in the world during its service life, from 1944 to 1945. 472mp/h top speed with a 44,100ft. service ceiling.

The Fw-190A's were great gun platforms with a hell of an engine, but the Fw-190D's were better. Sure, they had the problems of any in-line engined aircraft (bullets hitting the radiator = disaster), but they had better overall performance.

The Focke-Wulf Ta-152 was the best high-altitude fighter in the world during its service life, from 1944 to 1945. 472mp/h top speed with a 44,100ft. service ceiling.
I must be thinking of the 190.

That depends on how you define "fighter". I define it to be any aircraft intended to destroy other aircraft in an air-to-air engagement. Therefore, Interceptors, Multi-Roles, and Air Superiority aircraft are all "fighters" in my book.
Of course...but it seems to me like people just assume the F-14 would own air superiority fighters, when that is not really what it's made for.
Same as with the debate on the Phoenix missile ín another thread...no one seemed to consider what that thing was supposed to shoot down, and just assumed it was super-great because of its range.

Of course...but it seems to me like people just assume the F-14 would own air superiority fighters, when that is not really what it's made for.
Same as with the debate on the Phoenix missile ín another thread...no one seemed to consider what that thing was supposed to shoot down, and just assumed it was super-great because of its range.

It was designed to shoot down Soviet bombers carrying ASMs. The Phoenix was, anyway. Generally speaking, the Navy wasn't assumed to need an Air Superiority fighter, just a fighter to protect their carrier groups and a range of attack aircraft.

However, interception duties evolved to include protection of carrier-borne attack aircraft, anti-sub helos, AWACS aircraft and so forth. Which is why it's usually referred to as a "Fleet Defense Fighter" instead of an "Interceptor".

The Iranians, notably, used the F-14 in an Air Superiority Role.

It was designed to shoot down Soviet bombers carrying ASMs. The Phoenix was, anyway. Generally speaking, the Navy wasn't assumed to need an Air Superiority fighter, just a fighter to protect their carrier groups and a range of attack aircraft.

However, interception duties evolved to include protection of carrier-borne attack aircraft, anti-sub helos, AWACS aircraft and so forth. Which is why it's usually referred to as a "Fleet Defense Fighter" instead of an "Interceptor".

The Iranians, notably, used the F-14 in an Air Superiority Role.


It's too bad that most Iranian F-14's can't fly anymore due to maitence and what such, they got what? 80 F-14's from the US and now they probably have less than a dozen left in flyable condition.

I'd really like to see what happens when F-14's meet F-15C's and F-22's

It's too bad that most Iranian F-14's can't fly anymore due to maitence and what such, they got what? 80 F-14's from the US and now they probably have less than a dozen left in flyable condition.

I'd really like to see what happens when F-14's meet F-15C's and F-22's

F-22s pwn both before they can even find each other.

Ok, how about F-14A(export model) vs. F-15C

Ok, how about F-14A(export model) vs. F-15C
Does the F-15 get the "ESA" upgrade?

Just regarding the F-14...was that actually ever meant to be a fighter as such?
I was always under the impression that it was an interceptor, meant to protect the fleet from supersonic bombers and cruise missiles - that's why it had the Phoenix, with that super-long range and fighting multiple targets at once.
Once the gun was installed, it became a dogfighter. Even the sidewinders would have given it a pretty good close-in capability. Of course, it would not have fared well against other fighters until the engine upgrade hit.

Of course...but it seems to me like people just assume the F-14 would own air superiority fighters, when that is not really what it's made for.
Same as with the debate on the Phoenix missile ín another thread...no one seemed to consider what that thing was supposed to shoot down, and just assumed it was super-great because of its range.
The Phoenix existed to shoot down Bear bombers. Or anything else that might threaten the fleet. That's the whole purpose of the fighter wing when it's deployed.

Oh...I read something really interesting just then:

The European Cruise Missiles, for Britain and France the "Storm Shadow", for Germany and Sweden the "Taurus" have a really interesting feature: When they approach the target, they do infrared and visual identification of the target, and if the risk of collateral damage is too great, they abort and fly crashing somewhere else.
Neat.

And the more research I do, the more I think the Americans really have a problem with their missiles. Seems to me like the Russians are better in any category...sorta important in modern days I think.

For example, when Germany got the Soviet stuff at reunification, and they had a look at the dogfight missiles, they pretty immediately dropped their cooperation with the ASRAAM project, and instead started building their own (IRIS-T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS-T)) with the knowledge they gained about the AA-11.
And the AA-12 has a greater range than the AMRAAM (the newest version has like 175 km)...

Oh...I read something really interesting just then:

The European Cruise Missiles, for Britain and France the "Storm Shadow", for Germany and Sweden the "Taurus" have a really interesting feature: When they approach the target, they do infrared and visual identification of the target, and if the risk of collateral damage is too great, they abort and fly crashing somewhere else.
Neat.

This must be the 'sensitive' war that Mr. Kerry imagines fighting. Seriously, if I planned a target and launched a missile within the proper parameters, I'd be very disappointed it it decided to go stupid on me.

I was involved in testing the first round of Laser guided Maverick missiles for the Marine Corps. They had similar features, but I can't remember what's classified or not anymore, so I shouldn't say too much more than to say we found flaws with the initial batch.

Bottom line is that hostilities cause damage and even hitting the proper target will cause collateral damage. It's nice to minimize the collateral damage, but it's critical to hit the target. A weapon that prevents that is just another obstacle to completing a mission successfully.

Seriously, if I planned a target and launched a missile within the proper parameters, I'd be very disappointed it it decided to go stupid on me.
I think they program that bit in before the mission, alongside with the target parameters.
I'm pretty sure that they could make sure it hits if they wanted.

I just heard about the problems they had with the Tomahawks, which kept missing that one bridge in Baghdad and kept hitting the civilian housing on both sides of the river. It would be nice if you could somehow avoid that.

It's too bad that most Iranian F-14's can't fly anymore due to maitence and what such, they got what? 80 F-14's from the US and now they probably have less than a dozen left in flyable condition.

I'd really like to see what happens when F-14's meet F-15C's and F-22's
Wholesale destruction of the F-14s. If they were US crews, they might have a chance, but with poorly trained crews, they wouldn't last a minute. Not BVR, or in a dogfight.

Don't forget, it's not the airplane that wins the battles, it's the way the crew uses it.

I think they program that bit in before the mission, alongside with the target parameters.
I'm pretty sure that they could make sure it hits if they wanted.

I just heard about the problems they had with the Tomahawks, which kept missing that one bridge in Baghdad and kept hitting the civilian housing on both sides of the river. It would be nice if you could somehow avoid that.
I hadn't read about the Tomahawks and the bridges. If you could point me to a story, I'd appreciate it.

I've never launched a ALCM, nor have I even planned a mission for one. I do have quite a bit of experience planning strikes on bridges, though. There are some very specific parameters one wants to follow when one attacks a bridge. It doesn't matter if you are a cruise missile, LGB, or iron bomb, you must honor some of these guidelines or the attack will fail. If the planners launched the Tomahawk outside of these parameters, it is just about guaranteed to fail.

I just hate the idea of one more voting member in the attack. It's too bad if civilians get killed, but that just happens from time to time. It would also be too bad if the weapon decided that a 'good' attack was unsafe and went stupid. That would require re-attacks and those almost always cost friendly lives.

http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/photos/b.72.5.jpg

The Su-47. It's the fighter for the discerning villain. Have you EVER seen a more evil looking aircraft? Whether or not its any good doesn't even matter. it's cool.

(besides, I dislike most modern aircraft precisely because they're so good.)


Aside from that, The Hawker Hurricane, the Harrier, the Sopwith Camel, the Spitfire, and the Gloster Meteor all deserve a mention.

http://images.art.com/images/-/Pat-Lee/Transformers---Starscream--C10095638.jpeg

http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/photos/b.72.5.jpg

It's the fighter for the discerning villain. Have you EVER seen a more evil looking aircraft? Whether or not its any good doesn't even matter. it's cool.

(besides, I dislike most modern aircraft precisely because they're so good.)


Aside from that, The Hawker Hurricane, the Harrier, the Sopwith Camel, the Spitfire, and the Gloster Meteor all deserve a mention.

Su-47, I choose you!

Does the F-15 get the "ESA" upgrade?


to make things more even, lets say no.

I hadn't read about the Tomahawks and the bridges. If you could point me to a story, I'd appreciate it.
Sorry, I watched it a while ago on a documentary about war in the future...

to make things more even, lets say no.
Depends on the missiles they carry, I suppose. But I'm not an expert.

Sorry, I watched it a while ago on a documentary about war in the future...
Bridges seem like decent targets for a cruise missile. Probably better targets for a LGB, though. That's the sort of thing F-117s do so well. I did find some mention on a human rights website, but nothing very specific.

Thanks, though.

Personal Favorites:
P-51/Hawker Hurricane

F-14D, Almost singlehandedly crushed the USSR, Think I'm exagerating, cast a gander at Soviet Military spending before and after the introduction of this fighter as deadly as she is beautiful. The Tomcat could deal more damage than recieved, and at ranges that would make any enemy recoil in terror. plop a modern IFF in that nosecone and she could still be flying today instead of those abortions they call 'Super Hornet'.

Personal Favorites:
P-51/Hawker Hurricane

F-14D, Almost singlehandedly crushed the USSR, Think I'm exagerating, cast a gander at Soviet Military spending before and after the introduction of this fighter as deadly as she is beautiful. The Tomcat could deal more damage than recieved, and at ranges that would make any enemy recoil in terror. plop a modern IFF in that nosecone and she could still be flying today instead of those abortions they call 'Super Hornet'.

My cousin is a mechanic on a Super Hornet (2 seater F model) his squadron just transitioned from F-14D's to the F/A-18F's

You should hear him bitch about how much he hates the Super Hornets.


He was telling me that you could walk onto the flightline and hop in one and fly off with it, because it doesn't need a seperate battery pack like the F-14 to jumpstart it.

My cousin is a mechanic on a Super Hornet (2 seater F model) his squadron just transitioned from F-14D's to the F/A-18F's

You should hear him bitch about how much he hates the Super Hornets.


He was telling me that you could walk onto the flightline and hop in one and fly off with it, because it doesn't need a seperate battery pack like the F-14 to jumpstart it.

Jeez, don't give me ideas...

Oceania Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach, Virginia


Happy Hunting.

Oceania Naval Air Station. Virginia Beach, Virginia


Happy Hunting.

Thank god I'm too lazy to go to virginia, much less steal a gun, sneak onto a super hornet, and pray it has weapons loaded, plus the time needed to train on cpu simulators, etc...

My cousin is a mechanic on a Super Hornet (2 seater F model) his squadron just transitioned from F-14D's to the F/A-18F's

You should hear him bitch about how much he hates the Super Hornets.


He was telling me that you could walk onto the flightline and hop in one and fly off with it, because it doesn't need a seperate battery pack like the F-14 to jumpstart it.
He's probably just going through the throes of transition from something familiar to something new. But no tactical aircraft should _require_ support equipment to start the engines. I'm glad to see we've gotten over that.

Once the gun was installed, it became a dogfighter. Even the sidewinders would have given it a pretty good close-in capability. Of course, it would not have fared well against other fighters until the engine upgrade hit.

Despite what Top Gun has you think, guns on a modern jet such as the F-14 are pretty much useless. The M61 Vulcan cannon can fire at 6000 rounds per minute. The f-14 has a 676 round capacity. If we do the math, holding down the trigger will empty the drum in less than 7 seconds (at 100 rounds per second). Now if those bullets find the target it is dead for sure. But if the target is something like another jet of equal or greater capability and both jets are flying somewhere just under mach, the pilot must be reallly damn good. If the target was something low and slow or on the ground it be a particulary effective then. But when your at 10000' fighting a Sukhoi I'd stick with the AMRAAM.

But when your at 10000' fighting a Sukhoi I'd stick with the AMRAAM.
...desperately hoping that he doesn't get into closer range and wastes you with his superior Russian dogfighting missiles, or spots you before you do and wastes you with his superior "AMRAAMski" missiles. ;)

Despite what Top Gun has you think, guns on a modern jet such as the F-14 are pretty much useless. The M61 Vulcan cannon can fire at 6000 rounds per minute. The f-14 has a 676 round capacity. If we do the math, holding down the trigger will empty the drum in less than 7 seconds (at 100 rounds per second). Now if those bullets find the target it is dead for sure. But if the target is something like another jet of equal or greater capability and both jets are flying somewhere just under mach, the pilot must be reallly damn good. If the target was something low and slow or on the ground it be a particulary effective then. But when your at 10000' fighting a Sukhoi I'd stick with the AMRAAM.
Hey, pal, I've had a little more experience with Naval Aviation than that awful movie. Guns are far from useless because no one fires a 7 second burst. Everyone I've ever flown with fires in half second or less bursts. Still, you're right, it doesn't have the biggest magazine capacity. Guns aren't what fighters shoot down other fighters with. Sidewinders are. AIM-9s are the bread and butter of close in fighting. Guns are a backup, just a tool to use when out of sidewinders or when you get that raking shot in a scissors.

There are a lot of ways to fight, and I've probably done most of them in an A-6. It's the pilot that wins the fight, not the airplane. And it's usually the pilot that sees his adversary first that wins the fight, on top of all that.

Now, how many hours in military jets do you have logged?

Guns are far from useless because no one fires a 7 second burst.

Indeed. One only needs to look at how many "high-tech" missile fighters (see: F-4) we lost to MiG-17s, whose primary armament was a pair of 30mm cannon to figure that out.

My shortlist.

Fokker DVIII. The best fighter of WW1, if it wasn't faster it turned better or just out flew at altitude. Plus they all got snazzy paint schemes.

Ki-100 That aircraft scares me, it took an obsolete load of crap (the Ki-63) and turned it into a serious threat, thank god all the factories got blown up...

Hawker Hurricane - The do-it-all of the RAF in WW2, I particularly like it because Hawker made loads before the war on their own expense, now that's patriotism.

English Electric Lightning- Fast like nothing else on earth, plus it just looks like one sweet flyer.

Sukhoi 27 - Ownage, Soviet-stye. If nothing else it had one of the most varied armament ranges of any aircraft before or since.

Su-47 - FSW wings are something I've always liked.

F-15E purely because my Year 1 teacher's husband was a test-pilot on the project.

TSR2- Damn you Labour! One of the most promising aircraft ever cancelled because you thought the Bloodhound could do it all. Idiots.

I would be surprised nobody mentioned it before, but then again, I had even forgotten.

I put the Mirage F1 on the table. Cheap, powerful, and really good record(Not counting the gulf war, which is a pretty unfair comparison).

I would be surprised nobody mentioned it before, but then again, I had even forgotten.

I put the Mirage F1 on the table. Cheap, powerful, and really good record(Not counting the gulf war, which is a pretty unfair comparison).
I agree. They're in the same category as the F-16, pretty good fighter and very capable in good hands. They were also well marketed and priced so you could have quite a few.

We were at a Cope Thunder one time and the Australian Air Force was there, too. They used the Mirages as aggressors against us, the bombers, one day. We had made it to our Crow Valley target and were heading outbound to the coast, when I noticed a shadow against the mountains on our right. I told the pilot to break, (left of course) and there was this, almost imperceptible spec right behind us.

Since he hadn't called a shot, we did what little we could to evade him. He never did call a shot, so when we got to the debrief, we had plenty to argue about.

The point is, though, that they are darned small planes and very hard to see.

We were at a Cope Thunder one time and the Australian Air Force was there, too.

You mean Royal Australian Air Force? :p

I didn't check over all the pages, but I'd be willing to bet that few people mentioned the Hellcat. It had the versatility and ubiquitousness of the Hawker Hurricane, the finesse of a Spitfire, and it could radically outperform the Zekes it went up against in virtually any category. As far as pure dominance in the air in any given theater is concerned, I'm not sure that any aircraft has ever dominated a combat zone like the Hellcat did over the Pacific.

Hmm, just checked a pic of the Mirage. (I'm a fickle beast, and know very little of modern aircraft, so a pic is about as much as I need) It's pretty nice. Seems to be a very elegant design. I like it.

Oh, Myrmidonisia, I have a question for you. the Su-37. Given a standard load-out, is it actually any good as a fighter? (If I'm right, the one I aesthetically prefer, the Su-47 is a stealth variant, but I'm unsure here)

You mean Royal Australian Air Force? :p
Don't tell me I've offended someone. Of course, it was the RAAF. Is there another Australian air force?

They had some F-111 bombers, too. One other day, we launched late because of some maintenance problems. We were supposed to meet the rest of the strike at a particular point on the ingress route. At the appropriate time, we saw a couple of indistinct planes in the haze and decided those were the A-6s we were supposed to rendezvous with.

My pilot and I tried to join on those for almost ten miles before we gave up. We could just barely close on them at nearly 500 kts. Finally, we got close enough to tell that they weren't A-6s after all, but F-111s. I think they must have been just loafing around Luzon at about 480 kts.

Don't tell me I've offended someone. Of course, it was the RAAF. Is there another Australian air force?

You had just capitalized "Air Force" following Australia. And I wouldn't be me if I weren't an Anal Nazi. ;)

Hmm, just checked a pic of the Mirage. (I'm a fickle beast, and know very little of modern aircraft, so a pic is about as much as I need) It's pretty nice. Seems to be a very elegant design. I like it.

Oh, Myrmidonisia, I have a question for you. the Su-37. Given a standard load-out, is it actually any good as a fighter? (If I'm right, the one I aesthetically prefer, the Su-47 is a stealth variant, but I'm unsure here)
Su-37... It's a little after my time. Last time I flew in the Marine Corps was right after Desert Storm. On the way home, as a matter of fact. Then I got orders to the Naval Postgraduate School and retired after that.

But the idea of using vectored thrust in a dogfight is a good one. We used to fight Harriers from time to time. They could stop on a dime, and turn really well. That big Rolls-Royce engine gave them all kinds of acceleration, too. Endurance was their shortcoming.

With a lot of these fighters, you can run them out of gas. Stick with them for a couple turns and they are bingo. Of course, from the perspective of an Intruder B/N, gas isn't something to worry about in a 1v1. Getting shot out of the sky will happen way before we run out of gas.

Back to your question. I remember thinking that the Su-27 Flanker would have been a hell of an advesary. No doubt the Su-37 is an improvement on that aircraft.

A good way to look at aircraft performance is to figure the thrust to weight and the wing loading. Higher wing loading gives you better turn rates. and a better T/W ratio means that you can sustain those turn rates. The other place to look is the V-n diagram for the aircraft. You really want to see that the max g's are available at a fairly low speed. That's the corner airspeed. It's crucial in low speed fight, like any scissors-type fight.

Typically the Russians provide plenty of power for their aircraft. If you combine that with good wing loading, you'll have an aircraft that can turn with the best of them. The vectored thrust can only help.

But, I'd still take the crew that trains 20 or 30 hours a month over the Russian pilots. Historically, the Russians just haven't gotten the kind of training that we give our pilots. And a wonderful machine isn't going to perform well when you have an undertrained pilot flying it.

That's a pretty long answer that amounts to just "Beats me", but there you go.

Su-37... It's a little after my time. Last time I flew in the Marine Corps was right after Desert Storm. On the way home, as a matter of fact. Then I got orders to the Naval Postgraduate School and retired after that.
Back to your question. I remember thinking that the Su-27 Flanker would have been a hell of an advesary. No doubt the Su-37 is an improvement on that aircraft.
<With much snippings>

Not that I mean to prod, but the Su-35 is the one which incorporates vectored thrust. The Su-37 incorporates vectored thrust and canards.

And it's still a bit past us young'uns time, too, since they have yet to be purchased and put into service with any nations armed forces. :)

Not that I mean to prod, but the Su-35 is the one which incorporates vectored thrust. The Su-37 incorporates vectored thrust and canards.

And it's still a bit past us young'uns time, too, since they have yet to be purchased and put into service with any nations armed forces. :)

Yip. The Su-35 is like a super-enhanced Su-27 (at least from what I've read about it). I'd like to get my hands on one (disarmed, of course), but I don't think I'll ever have that much money. :p

ker-snip!

Thanks for the response - I obviously don't mind that it wasn't conclusive, it was certainly a lot more comprehensive than I expected :D To be honest, I didn't expect that a "how good is *insert model here*" question had a clear cut answer anyway. Thankee.

Yip. The Su-35 is like a super-enhanced Su-27 (at least from what I've read about it). I'd like to get my hands on one (disarmed, of course), but I don't think I'll ever have that much money. :p

It wouldn't cost you that much money, either. Probably a unit cost of around five million dollars or so. ;) Biggest hurdle wouldn't be the Russian government (even if it were fully armed) but US Customs and the FAA (even if it isn't).

It wouldn't cost you that much money, either. Probably a unit cost of around five million dollars or so. ;) Biggest hurdle wouldn't be the Russian government (even if it were fully armed) but US Customs and the FAA (even if it isn't).

Hm, yeah, but I'd rather have a P-51D or a Sptifire Mk. VIII, anyway. :D

Yes, but the Germans feared the Spitfire more.

I love the Hurricane, but the Spitfire is just so purty...

just finished a spitfire for my diarama..absolutely sexy aircraft.

i also love the p-51 mustang

fast forward to now...always loved the swept wing tomcat(f-14)something just sexy and chilling when it is on deck with the wings swept back.(kinda like i like my women...sexy yet dangerous)

but all around..all time...tough call....the f-15 has to be in there..but i also love the mirage fighters with the delta wing and forward canards.

and the lavi(sp) from israel is pretty bad ass also.

if i could i would morph into a fighter...signed up for the airforce just to fly..but shitty vision did me in..boo

last but not least...the mig fulcram is also pretty neat.

Hm, yeah, but I'd rather have a P-51D or a Sptifire Mk. VIII, anyway. :D

Good luck finding one. And the parts for one. Those have to be custom made... not cheap. Unlike the Russian stuff, which is still being mass-produced.

Yip. The Su-35 is like a super-enhanced Su-27 (at least from what I've read about it). I'd like to get my hands on one (disarmed, of course), but I don't think I'll ever have that much money. :p
The amount of fuel that one of these jets use in an hour would break me. There's a fellow at an airport near me with an SNJ or AT-6, depending on whether you like Navy or Army Air Force trainers. He says it burns 55 gal per hour at cruise. Imagine what a jet will need. I think a T-2 used 1400 gallons in a 90 minute instrument flight, so that's mostly cruise, too. An A-6 would fly at 2000 pounds per hour per side at cruise, plus another 2000 for start, taxi, and takeoff.

Lockhead P-38, fast and loked cool as shit. winner!

The p-51 mustang was the best fighter plane of its time. The US was having a hard time with the Zero and the p-51 came out and cleaned closet.

The p-51 mustang was the best fighter plane of its time. The US was having a hard time with the Zero and the p-51 came out and cleaned closet.


P-38, F-4U-1 and F6F were cleaning the Zero's clock long before the P-51.

Avro Arrow CF105 was an awesome prototype though the Canadian government killed it despite it being far superior to anything made during that time

for those of u who play CFS 3 u would noe tat the spitfire IXE is the best ....either im a bad combat pilot on simulation or to me the P 51s sucess was based on pure luck...as it doesnt really perform well at high altitudes.....mabee its juz my piloting skill in CFS 3.....

How come was P-51 Mustang "best fighter of its time"? It was pretty damn good, yes, but haven't you ever heard about something called Me262? It killed those Mustangs like Finns kill Russians. It was the first actually service fit jet fighter, and would Hitler allowed mass productioning it in '43 already would be bombing campaign been a complete failure.

I've always had a soft spot for the EE/BAC lighting. In the eighties (twenty years after it entered service), it managed to intercept a U-2 at height thought 'uninterceptable'. It also managed to catch the concord in a stern chase. Something the F-16 and F-15 failed to do.

It also had supercruise.

Not bad considering its design date.

Yeah the lightning was (and still would be) Pretty shit-hot as an interceptor. Unfortunately it was phased out because interceptors are largely unneccesary nowadays.

It was just too specialised to carry on :( Looked good though. Nice and pointy.


Also an honourable mention for the Harrier, It can fly backwards. How many other fighters can say that? (rhetorical question)


The Hurricane, the Spitfire, the Sopwith Camel (BIGGLES!!!)


To many to choose from, but if I had to choose I would go with the spit. Changed the course of history, and you cant say that about many planes.

(fighters that is, the superfortress, or at least its payload, would have a good claim on changing history too :P)

(fighters that is, the superfortress, or at least its payload, would have a good claim on changing history too :P)
How? Killing a million or so Germans?

Good luck finding one. And the parts for one. Those have to be custom made... not cheap. Unlike the Russian stuff, which is still being mass-produced.
I'm sure you could find one and maybe even talk the owner into selling it. But it would certainly command a pretty high price.

Remember the expedition to retrieve the P-38 from Iceland or Greenland? That must have cost a bundle and a half. I don't even think the primary owner has ever been able to ride in the plane, either.

But what another great plane. Didn't Lindbergh get a kill in one during WWII?

F-22

How? Killing a million or so Germans?

I was thinking about the japanese.

B-29? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? THAT plane. But its not a fighter, I only mentioned it on a history changing way.



Although I havnt seen anyone go for the Eurofighter yet, so it gets my vote on principle :P Who likes huge cost overruns?


Hell, if "Fighter" can cover fighter-bombers how about the Panavia Tornado?

sopwith camel?

Gloster gladiator (nice aircraft just too late)

huricane (can't spell)

mustang (you've got to consider it at least)

tempest and typhoons (simular aircraft just different optimisations)

most of the german night fighters (they were scary)

the harrier (because it is a very good plane in general)

The viggan (swedish and I mainly like it due to the name and also the description of it in a book which talked about a period in the 80s where we came close to having a hot cold war (nato conventional military tech meant that if the russians had attacked we'd have been smooshed))

Ironically accross the hall from me is the grandson of the man who designed the harrier while i'm the grandson of the man who did a lot of the practicle design of britains early jet aircraft (tool design and practicle alterations to the planes (basicly because they hadn't worked out as much about aerodynamics they did it by building a test plane and then altering it, it was my grandfathers job to alter the planes, he had to do this by the next morning and because these were new planes sometimes had to invent new tools to do it with))

Ironically accross the hall from me is the grandson of the man who designed the harrier while i'm the grandson of the man who did a lot of the practicle design of britains early jet aircraft (tool design and practicle alterations to the planes (basicly because they hadn't worked out as much about aerodynamics they did it by building a test plane and then altering it, it was my grandfathers job to alter the planes, he had to do this by the next morning and because these were new planes sometimes had to invent new tools to do it with))
Are you both still involved in aircraft design?

P-38, F-4U-1 and F6F were cleaning the Zero's clock long before the P-51.

And P-40 (in the hands of America's most famous black ops personnel) were doing the same long before the P-38, F4U-1 or F6F were.

Supermarine Spitfire

And P-40 (in the hands of America's most famous black ops personnel) were doing the same long before the P-38, F4U-1 or F6F were.



Well actually on that note, Chennault was flying P-36's against the Japanese for china before the P-40 and the US navy and Marine Corps was flying F-4F wildcats.


With the right tactics a P-40 or F-4F was a match for the A6M, but the P-38 had the speed and firepower while the Hellcats and Corsairs just flat out OWNED zero's when they ran into them.

Well actually on that note, Chennault was flying P-36's against the Japanese for china before the P-40 and the US navy and Marine Corps was flying F-4F wildcats.


With the right tactics a P-40 or F-4F was a match for the A6M, but the P-38 had the speed and firepower while the Hellcats and Corsairs just flat out OWNED zero's when they ran into them.

As I recall, the Soviets found out that the P-36 wasn't as bad as Americans made it out to be....

As I recall, the Soviets found out that the P-36 wasn't as bad as Americans made it out to be....


I think your thinking of the P-39 Aircobra and P-63 King Cobra


The P-36 Hawk was more than outmoded at the begining of the war.

F-22s pwn both before they can even find each other.


Im not to sure about that... The F-14 and F-15 are both still extremely capable with a decent pilot. It also depends on what it's payload is. Any plane can shoot a missle at another and all three of those planes have the right countermeasures. When you match up planes like those, it doesnt matter what weapons it has or how fast it can go; Its the pilots that count.

The F-22 Raptor is King of the sky.

not until it has proven itself worthy...

Pilots matter, but honestly, The F-22 is simply the most capable fighter aircraft in the world today. The F-14 is simply old. Iraqi Mirage F1's were taking out Iranian F-14's pretty well, when they developed a way to avoid the F-14 radar. The F-14, while a decent aircraft, is simply to old to compare to the F-22, with its stealth technology, among other things.

As for the F-15, same thing, but slightly closer. With its stealth, the F-22 would still take out as many F-15's as it could with its missiles, with little or no threat from the F-15 itself.

Pilots matter, but honestly, The F-22 is simply the most capable fighter aircraft in the world today. The F-14 is simply old. Iraqi Mirage F1's were taking out Iranian F-14's pretty well, when they developed a way to avoid the F-14 radar. The F-14, while a decent aircraft, is simply to old to compare to the F-22, with its stealth technology, among other things.

As for the F-15, same thing, but slightly closer. With its stealth, the F-22 would still take out as many F-15's as it could with its missiles, with little or no threat from the F-15 itself.


Iraq/Iran war goes back to pilots. Put Top Gun pilots in 'em and guess how it would have turned out. The F-22 isnt Stealth, its Radar Resistant. Radar may not beable to pick up the plane, but it can detect the missles long before they hit. Once you get within range to use the guns, which would most likely happen with good pilots, it would really be up to who slips up first.

Im not to sure about that... The F-14 and F-15 are both still extremely capable with a decent pilot. It also depends on what it's payload is. Any plane can shoot a missle at another and all three of those planes have the right countermeasures. When you match up planes like those, it doesnt matter what weapons it has or how fast it can go; Its the pilots that count.
I think I'm the biggest proponent of the idea that good pilots will beat poor pilots, even in unequal equipment, but here is an exception. The Raptor gives the pilot such an advantage in situational awareness that even an average pilot is going to perform well. If you can get in close on a Raptor, then I think that good pilots are going to prevail, but the Raptor makes it hard to get there.

Iraq/Iran war goes back to pilots. Put Top Gun pilots in 'em and guess how it would have turned out. The F-22 isnt Stealth, its Radar Resistant. Radar may not beable to pick up the plane, but it can detect the missles long before they hit. Once you get within range to use the guns, which would most likely happen with good pilots, it would really be up to who slips up first.
Don't forget that the F-22 is also sensor fusion. It simplifies the pilot's decisions tremendously.

I'll have to say the F-14 'Tomcat'. It kicked arse in its hey-day, firing extreme-range missiles (AIM-54 'Pheonix') and flying supersonic. The ultimate air superiority fighter of its day along with the F-15 'Eagle'.

If we can take movie aircraft into consideration, I'm going to have to go with the F/A-38 'Talon' as seen in the film "Stealth" though...

I think I'm the biggest proponent of the idea that good pilots will beat poor pilots, even in unequal equipment, but here is an exception. The Raptor gives the pilot such an advantage in situational awareness that even an average pilot is going to perform well. If you can get in close on a Raptor, then I think that good pilots are going to prevail, but the Raptor makes it hard to get there.
The military tends to be a big proponent of that thinking to.
Look at the Korean war.
The Mig-15 was a superior plane to the F-86 in most regards, but the F-86 came out on top at the end, due to the superior training and tactics of the F-86 pilots.

All in all, I'd say it's a tough choice. The F-14, while getting on in age, is still a very capable bird, while the F-15 has some serious cahones. Dos Gringos insists the F-16 is the best (though some may call it a lawn-dart). Personally I'm in love with the A-10.
My roomie would argue the F-4 Phantom II, but then again, his dad did work on them way back when.

We'll see in a few months if I end up with a pilot or nav slot.

Going to WWII era, I'd say either the P-51D or P-38. Both incredible planes.

I think the award for best airplane should go to the one that won WWll for the Allies. And I'd argue that it is in fact a fighter by the fact that each plane had a machine gun arsenal more stacked than the Japanese at Iwo Jima. In case you haven't guessed, I'd give it to the B-17 Flying Fortress.

Seeing as it was never designated as a fighter, much less intended for the sole purpose of shooting down other aircraft I wouldn't call it a fighter. As a bomber it wasn't that spectacular either. Bomb load was tiny for an aircraft that size. Stick with a Lancaster.

I'm going to have to propose a plane that I haven't heard anyone nominate yet. I pick the Canadian (really, Canadian, honest) Avro Arrow Mark II. The Arrow project was commisioned in the late 1950's with the purpose of creating a supersonic all weather interceptor for Canada. In 1959, roughly four years after the start of the project, the Avro Arrow reached a speed of Mach 1.98 during one of the final test flights.

The project was soon after cancelled. The Canadian government sited the project was too expensive to maintain any longer, despite the fact that the final prototype was already built. The reasoning behind the decision is still shrouded in mystery, as the already completed Arrows (plural) were capable of service and would have been the best in the world.

You cant count out the Sukhoi SU-27 "Flanker"Family,Including the Long range Su-35 "SUper Flanker",Su-27k "Sea Flanker",Su-32 "Strike Flanker",and the Hyper manuverable Su-37 "Terminator".

I'm going to have to propose a plane that I haven't heard anyone nominate yet. I pick the Canadian (really, Canadian, honest) Avro Arrow Mark II. The Arrow project was commisioned in the late 1950's with the purpose of creating a supersonic all weather interceptor for Canada. In 1959, roughly four years after the start of the project, the Avro Arrow reached a speed of Mach 1.98 during one of the final test flights.

The project was soon after cancelled. The Canadian government sited the project was too expensive to maintain any longer, despite the fact that the final prototype was already built. The reasoning behind the decision is still shrouded in mystery, as the already completed Arrows (plural) were capable of service and would have been the best in the world.

The cancellation of the Avro Arrow as a nuclear bomber interception platform coinsided with the licensing of American-built SAMs designed to shoot down the same type of nuclear bomber as the Arrow.

There's a lot of theories as to why the Avro project got killed. Much as I usually don't care for 'conspiracy theories', I find that the accepted explanation doesn't make much sense here. Cancelling the project? Sure, I'll buy it, but the rest.

Why dismantle all of the existing planes? Why gut Avro industries? Why destroy all blueprints of the Arrow? That seems a little much to me.

There's a lot of theories as to why the Avro project got killed. Much as I usually don't care for 'conspiracy theories', I find that the accepted explanation doesn't make much sense here. Cancelling the project? Sure, I'll buy it, but the rest.

Why dismantle all of the existing planes? Why gut Avro industries? Why destroy all blueprints of the Arrow? That seems a little much to me.

I'm not saying that's why it happened. Just that it coincidentally happened to get shut down at the same time as the Canadian government decided to buy American-made missiles.

And it doesn't make any sense to me, either, why they'd gut Avro and destroy the blueprints. I can understand dismantling all the planes (although you'd think they'd want at least one to wind up in the Smithonian for all their efforts) for parts, especially given that they would never fly.

Iraq/Iran war goes back to pilots. Put Top Gun pilots in 'em and guess how it would have turned out. The F-22 isnt Stealth, its Radar Resistant. Radar may not beable to pick up the plane, but it can detect the missles long before they hit. Once you get within range to use the guns, which would most likely happen with good pilots, it would really be up to who slips up first.

This was, however, a fairly even match. The Iranians arguable had the better pilots in the war, especially in the F-14's, as it was their premier fighter aircraft. Yet the Iraqi airforce, at par or worse than the Iranian pilots(after say 1982), were able to do a good amount of damage to Irani F-14's with their Mirage F1's.

Yes, pilots matter. But the machines matter as well, you can't discount either.

As for F-22's, you are being semantic. Its the most radar resistant aircraft in use in the world. Its commonly known as a stealth aircraft.

The F-14 will have no chance of getting close enough to an F-22 to use its guns. The F-22 can detect the F-14 at its leisure, fire its missiles when it wants, then fly away. The pilot disparity would have to be very large to even the odds between the two aircraft, as the F-22 has the ability to not be seen, yet see others and shoot at them. Its like being a great soldier: There still isn't much you can do against an ambush, especially when you don't get to use your gun. The ambusher would have to be really incompetent to lose there.

Which do you think were the best Fighter Plane ever made?

There aren't any. They're supposed to kill people, remember?

There aren't any. They're supposed to kill people, remember?

Show me one even semi-valid definition of best that means "doesn't kill people"

There aren't any. They're supposed to kill people, remember?

A pure fighter is actually an aircraft entirely defensive in nature: it is designed to defend one's homeland against bombers and one's bombers against enemy fighters.

The Delta Flyer

The Delta Flyer

X-Wing > Delta Flyer :D

X-Wing > Delta Flyer :D

TIE Avenger (TIE Advanced x2) pwns X-Wing ;)

TIE Avenger (TIE Advanced x2) pwns X-Wing ;)

My Dad > Your Dad

This was, however, a fairly even match. The Iranians arguable had the better pilots in the war, especially in the F-14's, as it was their premier fighter aircraft. Yet the Iraqi airforce, at par or worse than the Iranian pilots(after say 1982), were able to do a good amount of damage to Irani F-14's with their Mirage F1's.

Yes, pilots matter. But the machines matter as well, you can't discount either.

As for F-22's, you are being semantic. Its the most radar resistant aircraft in use in the world. Its commonly known as a stealth aircraft.

The F-14 will have no chance of getting close enough to an F-22 to use its guns. The F-22 can detect the F-14 at its leisure, fire its missiles when it wants, then fly away. The pilot disparity would have to be very large to even the odds between the two aircraft, as the F-22 has the ability to not be seen, yet see others and shoot at them. Its like being a great soldier: There still isn't much you can do against an ambush, especially when you don't get to use your gun. The ambusher would have to be really incompetent to lose there.
The F-14 has one big advantage. It doesn't need to be close. If the Tomcat can get enough radar bounce off a '22, say, when it's wheels are down, it's dead. the Tomcat can hit a target at OVER 100 miles, by way of the AIM-59 Pheonix Missile, 1000 pounds of pure, unadulterated, Air-To-Air Whoopass. the longest reaching weapon the F-22 carries is the AIM-120, with a range somewhere between 20 and 50 miles. the Tomcat also has better meneuverability throughout the range of speeds than the '22, due to it's variable geometry wings. The '22's Thrust Vector counters that somewhat, but not enough. and, besides, the Tomcat is way more versatile. You can hang more weapons on a Tomcat than you can an F-22. Tomcats can "Self Escort" on strike missions. F-22's don't do strike. And the F-35? Biggest mistake ever. It's supposed to replace the F-16 and F-18, AV-8B, and A-10. It may have the menueverability to beat them all, but it doesn't have the weapons' load to match the Hornet OR the Falcon, nor the Durability or weapons' load of the A-10.

Best fighter ever, though, is probably the F-15. It's Kill to Loss ratio is something on the order of like 300:1. Nothing comes close. NOTHING. and, Most fighters need TWO wings to fly. The F-15 only needs ONE. (Shortly after the Isrealis began using the Eagle, an Eagle was hit by an AAM from a Syrian fighter, lost it's wing, and flew home. His wingman took care of the Syrian.)

The F-14 has one big advantage. It doesn't need to be close. If the Tomcat can get enough radar bounce off a '22, say, when it's wheels are down, it's dead. the Tomcat can hit a target at OVER 100 miles, by way of the AIM-59 Pheonix Missile, 1000 pounds of pure, unadulterated, Air-To-Air Whoopass. the longest reaching weapon the F-22 carries is the AIM-120, with a range somewhere between 20 and 50 miles. the Tomcat also has better meneuverability throughout the range of speeds than the '22, due to it's variable geometry wings. The '22's Thrust Vector counters that somewhat, but not enough. and, besides, the Tomcat is way more versatile. You can hang more weapons on a Tomcat than you can an F-22. Tomcats can "Self Escort" on strike missions. F-22's don't do strike. And the F-35? Biggest mistake ever. It's supposed to replace the F-16 and F-18, AV-8B, and A-10. It may have the menueverability to beat them all, but it doesn't have the weapons' load to match the Hornet OR the Falcon, nor the Durability or weapons' load of the A-10.

Best fighter ever, though, is probably the F-15. It's Kill to Loss ratio is something on the order of like 300:1. Nothing comes close. NOTHING. and, Most fighters need TWO wings to fly. The F-15 only needs ONE. (Shortly after the Isrealis began using the Eagle, an Eagle was hit by an AAM from a Syrian fighter, lost it's wing, and flew home. His wingman took care of the Syrian.)

First off, I'm sure you mean the Aim-54, there is no Aim-59 Pheonix afaik.

You have to realize, that over the distance between the tomcat and the raptor, the pheonix must maintain a radar lock on the raptor. So it has to first gain the lock, which the raptor will know its doing. Then the tomcat has to fire the missile, which then gains speed. Depending on range from the raptor, it will take up to two minutes for the missile to reach the raptor at top speed.

The only time a raptor would have its wheels down for more than a few seconds would be when they are taking off or landing. For this situation, a tomcat would somehow have to be able to loiter near an enemy airbase, and wait for a raptor to try to land, then attempt to somehow lock onto its wheels, despite the radar waves coming at the top of the plane. If it somehow manages this, it can fire a missile, and hope it is able to hit before the raptor gets into shelter, or just decided to not land, and hunt down the tomcat thats miraculously shooting at it.

The Tomcat can fire a longer range missile, but it doesnt matter. The tomcat will not know about the raptor heading at it until the raptor decided to fire a missile, or the tomcat somehow see's it visually. Either way, the tomcat is in a horrible position at this time, being fired at, with little way to defend or counter-attack.

As for manuverability, its not important. F-22's won't be getting into gun fights with F-14's anytime soon. The F-22 would in almost all situations fire off its load, then supercruise back to base.

As for strike capability, the F-22 can drop laser guided bombs. But we are talking about fighters, not bombers.

I havn't talked about the F-35, which I dont personally like, but will defidentally be more capable than the F-16, 18, or harrier, and will take over the role from the A-10 fine(The A-10 is an overglorified bombtruck that can carry a couple sidewinders and some decent armour). It probably won't be quite as good at busting tanks, but it will do the job more efficiently, with F-35's being mass produced.

As for the F-15, it only has that K/L ratio because every fight it is involved in is simply not a fair fight. You don't see F-15's going up against russian or polish mig-29's, greekan mirage-2000's, or indian Su-30's(ohh, wait... :P)

I agree that the F-15 is a good fighter, seeing as there are very few fighter planes being made anymore, being substituted for multi-role aircraft instead. But the K/L ratio is just not an accurate rating. F-15's shooting down Iraqi Mig-23's is about as impressive to me as Bradley's blowing the hell out of Type 59's. Which is to say, not very.

The F-14 has one big advantage. It doesn't need to be close. If the Tomcat can get enough radar bounce off a '22, say, when it's wheels are down, it's dead. the Tomcat can hit a target at OVER 100 miles, by way of the AIM-59 Pheonix Missile, 1000 pounds of pure, unadulterated, Air-To-Air Whoopass. the longest reaching weapon the F-22 carries is the AIM-120, with a range somewhere between 20 and 50 miles. the Tomcat also has better meneuverability throughout the range of speeds than the '22, due to it's variable geometry wings. The '22's Thrust Vector counters that somewhat, but not enough. and, besides, the Tomcat is way more versatile. You can hang more weapons on a Tomcat than you can an F-22. Tomcats can "Self Escort" on strike missions. F-22's don't do strike. And the F-35? Biggest mistake ever. It's supposed to replace the F-16 and F-18, AV-8B, and A-10. It may have the menueverability to beat them all, but it doesn't have the weapons' load to match the Hornet OR the Falcon, nor the Durability or weapons' load of the A-10.

Best fighter ever, though, is probably the F-15. It's Kill to Loss ratio is something on the order of like 300:1. Nothing comes close. NOTHING. and, Most fighters need TWO wings to fly. The F-15 only needs ONE. (Shortly after the Isrealis began using the Eagle, an Eagle was hit by an AAM from a Syrian fighter, lost it's wing, and flew home. His wingman took care of the Syrian.)


same goes the russians, please remember the radar reflection surface triples when the weapon hatch opens in the F22, besides, if F22 flys without AWECS support, then the F22 would need to light it's rader, then it'll be a prey for all fighters with a missle range of more than 60mile, because thats how far the aim120 will go. So... yeah... even the russsians can take it down.

Speaking from a British point of view I'd have to say the Hurricane over the Spitfire as it had more kills. The Harrier jump jet gets the thumbs up too just because of the fact that it does not require a runway. Apart from those, the Stealth has to be the top (known) current fighter, but it would obviously benefit from a British pilot. :p

Guys, just remember that the Phoenix is not an anti-fighter missile, will you? It's meant to take out bombers and maybe AWACS planes.

I'd be pretty confident that a missile of that age could be neutralised before it got any damage by pretty much any modern fighter-jet.

And it is true that the Russian AMRAAMski has a longer range than AMRAAM, that their close range missiles are much better and that the French have been working on a new radar jammer that basically works like stealth in a box. I'd think that'll be standard in a few years, meaning that all the money spent on stealth design was sorta wasted.

Isn't the stealth on the F-22 mostly to the front? Certainly a good IR tracker should be able to see it from the back arc quite nicely.

Isn't the stealth on the F-22 mostly to the front? Certainly a good IR tracker should be able to see it from the back arc quite nicely.
No, google some photos of it. I didn't find any great photos of the aft end, but you can sort of see how the exhaust is baffled.

The problems with IR and optical trackers are that they are usually very narrow field of view devices. It's like looking at the world through a soda straw. That narrow FOV makes it very easy to track a target, but very difficult to acquire one. Those tracking devices typically get a handoff from some sort of acquisition radar. Thus the low-observability achieves its goal of delayed detection.

Plus, if you're tracking the aft end of the aircraft, hasn't it already flown by and dropped whatever ordnance it had on you?

I guess I'm thinking air-to-ground again. I think the second paragraph is still appropriate to A-A, though. You need some sort of GCA or AWACS to give the fighters an initial vector to the bandits. Those services depend on radar.

Plus, if you're tracking the aft end of the aircraft, hasn't it already flown by and dropped whatever ordnance it had on you?

Or you slipped around behind it due to a tip off from an E-3 or something. I'm not too hot on the tech involved but even if the F-22 only has the signature of a pigeon someone's going to notice pigeons in supercruise (OK, not as simple as I may make it sound but you get the principle I'm sure).

It's also a pretty large aircraft by the looks of it so if you somehow got to WVR combat you'd probably stand a better chance.

It's still a hell of an aircraft by anyone's measures though.

A pure fighter is actually an aircraft entirely defensive in nature: it is designed to defend one's homeland against bombers and one's bombers against enemy fighters.

So they're mere paranoia repellants. I see.

F-22A. It goes up against 6 F-15Es and the F-15s lose every time.

Or you slipped around behind it due to a tip off from an E-3 or something. I'm not too hot on the tech involved but even if the F-22 only has the signature of a pigeon someone's going to notice pigeons in supercruise (OK, not as simple as I may make it sound but you get the principle I'm sure).

It's also a pretty large aircraft by the looks of it so if you somehow got to WVR combat you'd probably stand a better chance.

It's still a hell of an aircraft by anyone's measures though.
The key is getting that radar vector to the F-22. That's where low-observables will cause enough delay to make it too late for a good intercept. Or so we hope.

F-22A. It goes up against 6 F-15Es and the F-15s lose every time.
Not seven though...it runs out of missiles by then. :D

Not seven though...it runs out of missiles by then. :D


thats why they travel in groups of 2-4 ;)

thats why they travel in groups of 2-4 ;)
Which makes it even worse that they can't afford a lot of them.
And to be honest, right now I have my doubts whether they'll actually ever leave the States. Seems like they're all stationed in rural areas, and will stay there. Sorta like the B-2, except that the F-22 doesn't have the range.

F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon

Which makes it even worse that they can't afford a lot of them.
And to be honest, right now I have my doubts whether they'll actually ever leave the States. Seems like they're all stationed in rural areas, and will stay there. Sorta like the B-2, except that the F-22 doesn't have the range.


the 1st operational squadron is based at Langley AFB in virginia. Which is right by, Norfolk Naval Base, Little Creek Amphibious Base, Fort Eustis, Fort Story, Fort Monroe, Camp Allen, Dam Neck, Oceania Naval Air Station.

A fairly densely populated area with roughly 1.5-2 million people living there.

they'll go overseas eventually. we've never been shy about sending our jets into the fray. The F-15E wasn't even done testing when we deployed it to Desert Storm

I havn't talked about the F-35, which I dont personally like, but will defidentally be more capable than the F-16, 18, or harrier, and will take over the role from the A-10 fine(The A-10 is an overglorified bombtruck that can carry a couple sidewinders and some decent armour). It probably won't be quite as good at busting tanks, but it will do the job more efficiently, with F-35's being mass produced.

I'd like to see the F-35 make it back to base minus an engine.;)

I wouldn't call the F-22 or any fighter just entering production the best fighter ever, because they have yet to prove themselves in combat. So far all we really have is what it says on paper and on test flights, not actual combat sorties. Don't count your chickens, till the eggs hatch. In this case I guess it is dount count your fighters till they all come home.

X-Wing > Delta Flyer :D

Does the X-Wing have a transwarp engine?

My Dad > Your Dad

My Invisible Friend > Your Invisible Friend

:p

Does the X-Wing have a transwarp engine?

It has Hyperdrive.

Anyway, the Starfury Aurora/Thunderbolt kicks the X-wing's tail no problem.

It has Hyperdrive.

Anyway, the Starfury Aurora/Thunderbolt kicks the X-wing's tail no problem.

Hyperdrive sucks

Although its really more of a light bomber, the IL-2 springs to mind, it set some kind of record in WW2, I think.
Other than that, I see good things coming from the F-22, although it is unproven.

Although its really more of a light bomber, the IL-2 springs to mind, it set some kind of record in WW2, I think.
Other than that, I see good things coming from the F-22, although it is unproven.

That was a ground attack aircraft. Never used in a fighter role.

That was a ground attack aircraft. Never used in a fighter role.

It was a ground attack aircraft, but it got its fair share of air-to-air combat. Its armour made it hell for german guns under 20mm to take out, unless they knew the percise weak spots.

I'd like to see the F-35 make it back to base minus an engine.;)

I wouldn't call the F-22 or any fighter just entering production the best fighter ever, because they have yet to prove themselves in combat. So far all we really have is what it says on paper and on test flights, not actual combat sorties. Don't count your chickens, till the eggs hatch. In this case I guess it is dount count your fighters till they all come home.

And I would like to an A-10 do the same, after losing both engines. You can only glide for so long.

I am much more impressed with being able to keep down costs, than being able to fly around with a wing missing. Maybe its not the cool factor, but its the win war factor.

And I would like to an A-10 do the same, after losing both engines. You can only glide for so long.

I am much more impressed with being able to keep down costs, than being able to fly around with a wing missing. Maybe its not the cool factor, but its the win war factor.
I guess you haven't been sitting in that plane with the missing wing! A-6 Intruders were amazing in their ability to absorb damage and still come home. Grumman jets were built that way.

If only the tupper-planes could do the same.

And I would like to an A-10 do the same, after losing both engines. You can only glide for so long.

I am much more impressed with being able to keep down costs, than being able to fly around with a wing missing. Maybe its not the cool factor, but its the win war factor.


So you'd prefer an M-4 Sherman over a Panther?

or a Mig-17 over a F-4 Phantom?

oooo oooo how about a Mig-23 over a F-15 Eagle.


Thats basically what your saying, quantity and price over Quality.


Something also tells me that a F-35 is going to be more expensive than an A-10 anyways.

So you'd prefer an M-4 Sherman over a Panther?

or a Mig-17 over a F-4 Phantom?

oooo oooo how about a Mig-23 over a F-15 Eagle.


Thats basically what your saying, quantity and price over Quality.


Something also tells me that a F-35 is going to be more expensive than an A-10 anyways.

I think you're kinda missing a few factors here.
How many Mig-17's could be bought for the price of a F4?
The 'exchange ratio' of Mig17's vz F4's over Nam was something like 2:1.
Since you could buy and operate more than 2 times the number of Frescos for the budget needed for a given number of Phantoms, it does make picking the Fresco the better option.

I think you're kinda missing a few factors here.
How many Mig-17's could be bought for the price of a F4?
The 'exchange ratio' of Mig17's vz F4's over Nam was something like 2:1.
Since you could buy and operate more than 2 times the number of Frescos for the budget needed for a given number of Phantoms, it does make picking the Fresco the better option.


For the Airforce it was 3:1

after the Navy established Top gun it was a lot higher, i want to say 8:1



And I don't know the exact Unit costs of either though.

For the Airforce it was 3:1

after the Navy established Top gun it was a lot higher, i want to say 8:1



And I don't know the exact Unit costs of either though.

You could get a Fresco for the equivalent of about 250K.
F4's were about 2 mill a pop...

source: Tom Gervasi, Arsenal of Democracy, 1978.

I would have to say the Su 27.

I would like to point out that the bomber version of the hawker hurricane was called the hawker typhoon.

And i would also like mention the strike aircraft that only came about in prototype form, the TSR 2 for its technological ability at the time (1960's)

I think you're kinda missing a few factors here.
How many Mig-17's could be bought for the price of a F4?
The 'exchange ratio' of Mig17's vz F4's over Nam was something like 2:1.
Since you could buy and operate more than 2 times the number of Frescos for the budget needed for a given number of Phantoms, it does make picking the Fresco the better option.
The IAF had a better ratio. Theri F-4 air to air kill to loss ratio was between 25:1 (USAF claims) or 30:1 (IAF claims). So lets just say to round this out that it is 55:2 F-4 over the MiG-17. You can't blame incompetent pilots as most MiG-17 pilots were Soviet.

The US just sucked over Nam because the pilots relied on poor quality AIM-7s and AIM-9s. The IAF put guns on their F-4s and taught dogfighting skills when US pilots were taught to rely on missiles. This proves it isn't always a contest of planes, but more often a contest based on how well your pilots are trained.

So you'd prefer an M-4 Sherman over a Panther?

or a Mig-17 over a F-4 Phantom?

oooo oooo how about a Mig-23 over a F-15 Eagle.


Thats basically what your saying, quantity and price over Quality.


Something also tells me that a F-35 is going to be more expensive than an A-10 anyways.

I would prefer an army of M-4's over Panthers, as the allies did, who won.

I would prefer more mig-17's than less F-4's, assuming I had fairly equal pilots.

No to the Mig-23, because thats a much larger jump. I don't believe in sacrificing all quality, but finding a good balance. I would rather have Mirage-2000's than F-15's. Cheaper, more multi-role capability(in a single package, I know there are strike eagles).

Quite simply, I don't believe there is a signifigant need for the A-10. Planes really only need to worry about AA and other aircraft. The A-10 is pretty much screwed against other aircraft(2 sidewinders is not very comforting), though it can take AA hits better than other aircraft. Seeing as AA is usually the first thing to be hit anyways, I would rather have an aircraft that can bomb tanks fine, that can fight in the air fine, and can hit AA with cruise missiles, etc. Also, the F-35 will have a low RCS, which will let it be less detectable by AA.

So you'd prefer an M-4 Sherman over a Panther?

You mean the T-34, not the Sherman, right? :p

In my opinion, the best fighter planes ever made are the Mig-29 OVT and the Su-29z

In my opinion, the best fighter planes ever made are the Mig-29 OVT and the Su-29z
its MIG-29..
But the is really MiG-25Foxbat it was a groundbreaking aircraft,and shot down lots of newer planes,:sniper: like F-15,F-18....;)

its MIG-29..
But the is really MiG-25Foxbat it was a groundbreaking aircraft,and shot down lots of newer planes,:sniper: like F-15,F-18....;)


Mig 25 was groundbreaking in a straight line.


and when has one actually shot down an F-15? or a F-18 for that matter?

Mig 25 was groundbreaking in a straight line.


and when has one actually shot down an F-15? or a F-18 for that matter?
That brings up an interesting question. What was the last U.S. aircraft shot down in a dogfight? It has to go back to Vietnam.

its MIG-29..
But the is really MiG-25Foxbat it was a groundbreaking aircraft,and shot down lots of newer planes,:sniper: like F-15,F-18....;)
Bullshit. THe MiG25 is not liked by the Russians. It was considered a poor design because it maneuvers worth shit. It has never won an air victory. They were cannon fodder for IAF F-15s and F-16s over the skies of Lebanon in the early 80s. (The IAF killed almost 100 MiG-25s and MiG-23s and took ZERO Air to Air losses.)

Bullshit. THe MiG25 is not liked by the Russians. It was considered a poor design because it maneuvers worth shit. It has never won an air victory. They were cannon fodder for IAF F-15s and F-16s over the skies of Lebanon in the early 80s. (The IAF killed almost 100 MiG-25s and MiG-23s and took ZERO Air to Air losses.)
hahahahahahaa......... :) :cool: :cool:
All the countries around israel combined together had 60 foxbats and 10 trainers.your claim that they didnt shoot nothing is as stupid as your claim of 100,1000,10.000... killed MiGs......Ofcourse there were wery impressive in fight but their pilots were not making best use of them and their tactic was wrong,also russians exported them with downgraded smerch radar[the one belenko gave to americans] it wasnt a pulse-doppler radar,but it was powerfull,yet 1 israeli f-15 fell prey to Syrian MiG-25pd and 1 american F/A-18 to iraqi MiG-25PD in gulf war.

hahahahahahaa......... :) :cool: :cool:
All the countries around israel combined together had 60 foxbats and 10 trainers.your claim that they didnt shoot nothing is as stupid as your claim of 100,1000,10.000... killed MiGs......Ofcourse there were wery impressive in fight but their pilots were not making best use of them and their tactic was wrong,also russians exported them with downgraded smerch radar[the one belenko gave to americans] it wasnt a pulse-doppler radar,but it was powerfull,yet 1 israeli f-15 fell prey to Syrian MiG-25pd and 1 american F/A-18 to iraqi MiG-25PD in gulf war.


No F-15's have ever been downed in by another Aircraft, only groundfire has brought them down.

"During the initial hours of Desert Storm, 89 Navy and 72 Marine Corps F/A-18C’s conducted both defense suppression and strike missions against Iraqi targets. the Navy Hornets flew 4,449 sorties and the Marine Corps’ F/A-18C’s flew 4,936 sorties resulting in a combined total of 4,551 strikes against targets during Operation Desert Storm. A total of 174 American Hornets (90 Navy; 84 Marines) participated in the war; 26 Canadian models, known as the CF-18, also participated in Desert Storm. Only three Hornets were lost during the war, one of them in a noncombat accident. "

ok thats two lost to combat, I'm going to do some digging and find out if it was groundfire or an air to air missile


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2000/n08082000_20008088.html
Coalition Aircraft Losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing, 37 combat, 15 noncombat
U.S. losses, 28 combat, 12 noncombat
No U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements
Helicopters, 23 (all U.S.): 5 combat, 18 noncombat


time for you to come up with some sources of your own.

Now onto the F-15 Eagle that was supposedly shot down.



The Israeli Air Force shot down many Syrian aircraft over Lebanon, (reportedly 80 kills, with no air combat losses) as well as performing ground attacks, notably destroying the majority of Syrian anti-aircraft batteries stationed in Lebanon. AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships were used widely against Syrian armor and fortifications. The IAF Cobras destroyed dozens of Syrian armored fighting vehicles, including some of the modern Soviet T-72 main battle tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War


Kill record
As of 2005, the F-15 in all air forces has a combined kill record of 104 kills to zero (confirmed) losses in air combat (exluding the case of a Japanese F-15J that shot down another F-15J in 1995 due to an AIM-9 Sidewinder safety malfunction during air-to-air combat training with live weapons). To date, the air superiority version of the F-15 (F-15A/B/C/D models) has never been shot down by an enemy aircraft, although some F-15s have been claimed by the Syrian Air Force (however, most sources say that, to date, no F-15s have been shot down in air-to-air combat).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle



Again I want to see your sources.

The Foxbat was an interceptor/recon aircraft IIRC. Put it against an air-superiority fighter like the F-15 or an Su-27 and it's fucked.

Of course, the F-15's 'perfect record' is because it's never fought anyone with a remotely comparable airforce, id be interested to see it take on the British or French equivalents or a full Soviet unit.

I would like to point out that the bomber version of the hawker hurricane was called the hawker typhoon.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't. The Hawker Hurricane and the Typhoon were two completely different aircraft. The bomber varient of the Hurricane was pretty much just a normal variant of the Hurricane except that it carried either two 113kg bombs or two 226kg bombs.

The Typhoon/Tempest was a new design which was conceived to replace the Hurricane. The order (F.18/37) for Sydney Camm to design the Typhoon came 2 months after the first production Hurricanes had been delievered (January 1938) which may be a reason for the mix up.

Hawker Hurricane Mk.IIB "Hurribomber"
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2828.jpg

Hawker Typhoon Mk.IB
http://www.dday-overlord.com/img/avi/hawker_typhoon.jpg

I would prefer an army of M-4's over Panthers, as the allies did, who won.

I would prefer more mig-17's than less F-4's, assuming I had fairly equal pilots.

No to the Mig-23, because thats a much larger jump. I don't believe in sacrificing all quality, but finding a good balance. I would rather have Mirage-2000's than F-15's. Cheaper, more multi-role capability(in a single package, I know there are strike eagles).

Quite simply, I don't believe there is a signifigant need for the A-10. Planes really only need to worry about AA and other aircraft. The A-10 is pretty much screwed against other aircraft(2 sidewinders is not very comforting), though it can take AA hits better than other aircraft. Seeing as AA is usually the first thing to be hit anyways, I would rather have an aircraft that can bomb tanks fine, that can fight in the air fine, and can hit AA with cruise missiles, etc. Also, the F-35 will have a low RCS, which will let it be less detectable by AA.




Simply put, the F-35 will not be able to absorb the damage an A-10 can or anywhere even close.

You don't need a High Speed Aircraft for ground support. A-10's fill in the gap between Helicopters and Fighter Bombers. They have some of if not the best low speed, low altitude maneuverbility, thats why they are straight wing aircraft. An F-35 cannot even compare, it won't be able to carry the payload, absorb the damage and lets face it, it cannot carry a GAU-8 Avenger. A-10's are
A. already bought and Payed for
B. Inexpensive compared to the F-35
C. Have better Battlefield Survivability
D. Will be able to dodge more SAM's and Groundfire than a F-35(F-35 and groundfire won't mix. Low RCS or Not, it's not silent and not invisible and therefore can be shot down with AAA in a Close support role)
E. Just goddamn Intimidating. The two most intimadating aircraft the USAF has according to Iraqi's in both gulf wars was the A-10 and B-52. They were just scared shitless of them.

hahahahahahaa......... :) :cool: :cool:
All the countries around israel combined together had 60 foxbats and 10 trainers.your claim that they didnt shoot nothing is as stupid as your claim of 100,1000,10.000... killed MiGs......Ofcourse there were wery impressive in fight but their pilots were not making best use of them and their tactic was wrong,also russians exported them with downgraded smerch radar[the one belenko gave to americans] it wasnt a pulse-doppler radar,but it was powerfull,yet 1 israeli f-15 fell prey to Syrian MiG-25pd and 1 american F/A-18 to iraqi MiG-25PD in gulf war.
I didn't say they killed 100 MiG25s. I said 100 MiG-25s and MiG-23s. The Russians were piloting many of the planes shot down by Israel. The IAF planes weren't using American RADARs either. They were using Israeli RADARs. It's the Syrian's fault for not developing their own.

The 1 Israeli F-15 that was shot down fell to AA fire, not another aircraft IIRC. (I believe 1 F-15 was heavily damaged though by a MiG-25. It was damage that should've downed the aircraft but the plane returned.) The F-15 has yet been shot down by another aircraft. Boeing will proudly boast is 101-0 kill record in engagements against other planes. The F-18 may have been shot down, but early F-18s weren't great aircraft. Anyone will tell you Hornets are shit. The Super-Hornet on the other hand is good.

I didn't say they killed 100 MiG25s. I said 100 MiG-25s and MiG-23s. The Russians were piloting many of the planes shot down by Israel. The IAF planes weren't using American RADARs either. They were using Israeli RADARs. It's the Syrian's fault for not developing their own.

The 1 Israeli F-15 that was shot down fell to AA fire, not another aircraft IIRC. (I believe 1 F-15 was heavily damaged though by a MiG-25. It was damage that should've downed the aircraft but the plane returned.) The F-15 has yet been shot down by another aircraft. Boeing will proudly boast is 101-0 kill record in engagements against other planes. The F-18 may have been shot down, but early F-18s weren't great aircraft. Anyone will tell you Hornets are shit. The Super-Hornet on the other hand is good.

You're smoking something again, aren't you? The Super-Hornet is a piece of shit. The Hornet does the jobs it was designed to do and does them well: better than the F-16, at any rate. Anyone in Naval Aviation can tell you that.

You're smoking something again, aren't you? The Super-Hornet is a piece of shit. The Hornet does the jobs it was designed to do and does them well: better than the F-16, at any rate. Anyone in Naval Aviation can tell you that.


The problem with the original hornet is that really lacked Range. It's not a piece of shit but its not great either. The F-16 is fantastic. It is light and agile, fast, and can carry a hell of a payload. It's an overall good aircraft.

The problem with the original hornet is that really lacked Range. It's not a piece of shit but its not great either. The F-16 is fantastic. It is light and agile, fast, and can carry a hell of a payload. It's an overall good aircraft.

The Super-Hornet suffers from the same problem.

I personally think that the weakness in range of the Hornet is made up for by the fact that it possesses two engines. And heavy duty landing gear.

And why does everyone remember Richthofen, but no one remembers Erich Hartmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann)?
Because the Germans of WWII are vilified all too often for history’s good.

Simply put, the F-35 will not be able to absorb the damage an A-10 can or anywhere even close.

You don't need a High Speed Aircraft for ground support. A-10's fill in the gap between Helicopters and Fighter Bombers. They have some of if not the best low speed, low altitude maneuverbility, thats why they are straight wing aircraft. An F-35 cannot even compare, it won't be able to carry the payload, absorb the damage and lets face it, it cannot carry a GAU-8 Avenger. A-10's are
A. already bought and Payed for
B. Inexpensive compared to the F-35
C. Have better Battlefield Survivability
D. Will be able to dodge more SAM's and Groundfire than a F-35(F-35 and groundfire won't mix. Low RCS or Not, it's not silent and not invisible and therefore can be shot down with AAA in a Close support role)
E. Just goddamn Intimidating. The two most intimadating aircraft the USAF has according to Iraqi's in both gulf wars was the A-10 and B-52. They were just scared shitless of them.
You have to be careful when you say that high speed isn't important in close air support. It is important to be able to get to the target quickly. Otherwise, we'd be able to have helicopters do all our CAS. It's also important to leave the target area quickly. That promotes better survivability for the CAS aircraft.

The best tactic in any target area is to have a section or two of aircraft in a coordinated attack. Pick an IP, haul ass into the target area, deliver the weapons, and get the hell out. The A-10 can't do that.

It can handle small arms fire like no other airplane, but it has always been deployed in a very permissive environment. No big SAMS like SA-6s and SA-8s, not many small SAMs like SA-7/14, either. It hasn't had to face the amazing AAA of a ZSU-23-4 ever. Plus, the Air Force tactic of 'Circle the wagons' overhead and take turns strafing isn't very survivable. They have a lot to learn about CAS.

I'm convinced the F-35 is going to be a more survivable aircraft because it has the speed. The A-10 is probably as much a pilot's favorite as the A-6 was, but when you face modern integrated air defense systems, speed is life.

The problem with the original hornet is that really lacked Range. It's not a piece of shit but its not great either. The F-16 is fantastic. It is light and agile, fast, and can carry a hell of a payload. It's an overall good aircraft.
The Hornet is a lousy aircraft for Naval Aviation. But it's a great USMC close air support airplane.

I couldn't agree with you more about the Falcon. It's such a good airplane that we could continue flying it into the next decade, easily.

You have to be careful when you say that high speed isn't important in close air support. It is important to be able to get to the target quickly. Otherwise, we'd be able to have helicopters do all our CAS. It's also important to leave the target area quickly. That promotes better survivability for the CAS aircraft.

The best tactic in any target area is to have a section or two of aircraft in a coordinated attack. Pick an IP, haul ass into the target area, deliver the weapons, and get the hell out. The A-10 can't do that.

It can handle small arms fire like no other airplane, but it has always been deployed in a very permissive environment. No big SAMS like SA-6s and SA-8s, not many small SAMs like SA-7/14, either. It hasn't had to face the amazing AAA of a ZSU-23-4 ever. Plus, the Air Force tactic of 'Circle the wagons' overhead and take turns strafing isn't very survivable. They have a lot to learn about CAS.

I'm convinced the F-35 is going to be a more survivable aircraft because it has the speed. The A-10 is probably as much a pilot's favorite as the A-6 was, but when you face modern integrated air defense systems, speed is life.


There's more to it then that.
With the A-10, not only does it have a robust airframe, but its engines are off of the fuelsalage as well as they aren't wrapped in fuel like they will be in the F-35. Also if an IR missile impacts on one of the engines its only going to take out THAT engine. Plus their's something special about the blades of the turbofan I can't remember what, but they are stronger. And the A-10 is capable of over 400mph, thats pretty high subsonic. And at that altitude thats all that you need. You will never, ever be able to conduct close air support missions at Mach 1+ on the deck. Your moving too fast and your angles are too low. A-10's have fought over, Iraq when it DID have an integrated air defense system and a pretty modern one at that, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afganistan(not much to brag about there), and Iraq II. And besides, this integrated defense system your talking about should already have been knocked out by "Wild Weasel" aircraft such as the F-16J (or is it G?) or whatever the F-35 equivalent would be. The air force works as a team and the A-10 is NOT a deep strike aircraft, it is close air support, usually when aerial superiority has been established. The F-35 just isn't an ideal CAS aircraft. It's supposedly great at other things, but it can't be great at everything. And the advantage of the A-10 over Helo's isn't its speed, its got a greater payload and its 30mm cannon is more powerful then the 30mm cannon in the apache. Speed is important in Air to Air combat, yes i don't disagree with you there. But its not AS important in Close Air support.

Simply put, the F-35 will not be able to absorb the damage an A-10 can or anywhere even close.

You don't need a High Speed Aircraft for ground support. A-10's fill in the gap between Helicopters and Fighter Bombers. They have some of if not the best low speed, low altitude maneuverbility, thats why they are straight wing aircraft. An F-35 cannot even compare, it won't be able to carry the payload, absorb the damage and lets face it, it cannot carry a GAU-8 Avenger. A-10's are
A. already bought and Payed for
B. Inexpensive compared to the F-35
C. Have better Battlefield Survivability
D. Will be able to dodge more SAM's and Groundfire than a F-35(F-35 and groundfire won't mix. Low RCS or Not, it's not silent and not invisible and therefore can be shot down with AAA in a Close support role)
E. Just goddamn Intimidating. The two most intimadating aircraft the USAF has according to Iraqi's in both gulf wars was the A-10 and B-52. They were just scared shitless of them.


The F-35 doesn't need to absorb the damage from AA, its job is to avoid it.

Doing strafing runs is really only effective once you gain air superiority, and when that happens, you are pretty much in charge either way.

Can't carry the payload? The regular F-35 carries a slightly smaller payload than the A-10, and the navy version carries more than an A-10, though I think these US aircraft need more payload(Rafale will have 9k kg).

A-10's are getting outdated. They will continue to do their job well, which is be a bomb truck with good direct armour. However, as AA defense grows, the cost in A-10's maintainance, etc, will raise.

The F-35 is better for CAS than the A-10 because it will be common with the rest of our airforce, except the F-22. The cost of maintainance and training will go down for all our aircraft. Our aircraft will be more capable.

You're claim that the A-10 will actually dodge more SAMs is ludicrous. It is a slow moving, high RCS aircraft. I'm not saying the F-35 is impervious, but with low RCS and supersonic speed, as well as upgraded electronics, it will defidentally be better at avoiding these things.

Sure, if the F-35 gets hit, it will take more damage. But it will be hit less often.

And when american planes fly over, they get scared period. I'd rather have a cheaper in the long run, more survivable, more capable multi-role aircraft, than a scary one.

How about another thread about planes?

Which do you think were the best Fighter Plane ever made?

Consider the time they were made in, and the competition, their success in service as well as design and neat features.

A few ideas here:

The Fokker Eindecker...the first fighter that could properly fire through the propeller. Cleaned up the Allies for quite a while from the skies over France.

The Spitfire obviously has a lot going for it.

The Mig 21 also comes to mind as the jet produced in the greatest numbers, and it's even still in service in some places (the Indians wanna use it until 2015...).

For how technologically advanced it was at the time of introduction, the combination of speed and payload, and reliability, I have to go with the F-14 Tomcat.

The F-35 doesn't need to absorb the damage from AA, its job is to avoid it.

Doing strafing runs is really only effective once you gain air superiority, and when that happens, you are pretty much in charge either way.

Can't carry the payload? The regular F-35 carries a slightly smaller payload than the A-10, and the navy version carries more than an A-10, though I think these US aircraft need more payload(Rafale will have 9k kg).

A-10's are getting outdated. They will continue to do their job well, which is be a bomb truck with good direct armour. However, as AA defense grows, the cost in A-10's maintainance, etc, will raise.

The F-35 is better for CAS than the A-10 because it will be common with the rest of our airforce, except the F-22. The cost of maintainance and training will go down for all our aircraft. Our aircraft will be more capable.

You're claim that the A-10 will actually dodge more SAMs is ludicrous. It is a slow moving, high RCS aircraft. I'm not saying the F-35 is impervious, but with low RCS and supersonic speed, as well as upgraded electronics, it will defidentally be better at avoiding these things.

Sure, if the F-35 gets hit, it will take more damage. But it will be hit less often.

And when american planes fly over, they get scared period. I'd rather have a cheaper in the long run, more survivable, more capable multi-role aircraft, than a scary one.


Ok, lets just end this. I'm not seeing your point and/or your not fully understanding mine. And neither of our opinions is going to sway the US Airforce one way or another, they've already made their decision.


oh and Aerial Superiority is decided in Air to Air. and Strafing runs don't take out Sams and SAM radar, HARM's do ;-)


just a few stats for ya ;-)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
F-35 Payload. 13,000lbs. (don't how much its internal payload is, but it'll have a much larger RCS with a full out payload carried on external racks)


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-specs.htm
A-10 Payload: 16,000lbs.

F-35 Variants
US Air Force
The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. The Air Force variant includes an internal gun, infrared sensors, and laser designator. This is the technologically simplest version of the JSF, in that it does not require hover or aircraft carrier capability. Therefore it does not require the vertical thrust or the handling qualities for catapult launches, augmented control authority at landing approach speeds and strengthened structure to handle arrested landings. At the same time, the Air Force F-35 will have to improve upon the high standards created by the F-16. Since replacement of the F-16 by the F-35 will entail a significant payload reduction, the F-35 faces a very demanding one shot one kill requirement.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

its not designed to replace the A-10. But they are going to anyway.



The A-10/OA-10 have excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and are highly accurate weapons-delivery platforms. They can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings (303.3 meters) with 1.5-mile (2.4 kilometers) visibility. Their wide combat radius and short takeoff and landing capability permit operations in and out of locations near front lines. Using night vision goggles, A-10/ OA-10 pilots can conduct their missions during darkness.


The original service life of the A/OA-10 was 8,000 hours, equating to approximately to FY2005. The revised service life was projected out to 12,000 hours, equating to approximately FY2016. The most recent long range plan has the A/OA-10 in the fleet through FY2028, which equates to approximately 18,000-24,000 hours.

It's actually not getting replaced so our argument is kind of mute eh?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-10.htm



My point is the A-10 and F-35 are two very different aircraft designed for two very different types of missions.

Unit Cost
A-10: $13 Million(thats current dollars)
F-35A(Airforce) : $28 Million

For how technologically advanced it was at the time of introduction, the combination of speed and payload, and reliability, I have to go with the F-14 Tomcat.

Reliability, eh? 40hrs in the shop for every hour of flight time. That's reliability. Coupled with tricky handling, of course, and a huge airframe..

Of course, it still ranks high on the vagina magnet scale....