NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you NSGers think is the best real world jet fighter?


Poll coming once there are enough suggestions.

Since this keeps coming up I'll add my comment to the OP

Ok, I'm going to repeat this, the planes that are on the list are there because they were nominated...

I realize that three of the planes really shouldn't be on a list of best fighters, since they are in fact not fighters.

For those of you wondering, the 3 are the A-10, the F/A-18, and the F-35...
All 3 are attack bombers, not fighters.

Some suggestions:

F-22 Raptor
the Eurofighter
The new mig....the mig...31?

Personally I'd go with the F-22 Raptor.

According to what I've heard the F-22 Raptor will be. Stealth, speed, and the rest of the American Air Force to back it up. Should be a match for anything else out there, or that'll be built in the next ten years at least.

based mostly on cosmetics, but also founded in the performance the prototypes have shown, I'd have to say the Russian Su-47

Depends on the role.

F22 Raptor is the single most advanced fighter in existence today. But they're expensive as hell. The next best air superiority fighter is the F15, which is the plane that the phrase "air superiority fighter" was made for. But those are both air superiority. The F18 Super Hornet is set to catch up to the F22 (as the US navy was disappointed that they didn't have anything to match the USAF's F22). The up-and-coming F35 is the best joint-strike fighter in existence, with the F16 a close second. The MiG29 isn't bad at all, but not a match for the F22.

F-14s - Tomcats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat), mostly because they kinda rocked.

The SR71 Blackbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_71_Blackbird). Because it rocked like Elvis and looked hot. And there's decommissioned one at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, and it's just gorgeous.

An my sentimental favorite (grandpa trained guys to fly this one) - P51 Mustangs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang). Pretty and deadly.

Here are the best Jet Fighters:

1. F-22 Raptor
http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/military/f22raptor/f_22_raptor_1.jpg

2. Eurofighter Typhoon
http://www.eurofighter.at/images/assets/front_filler.jpg

3. Harrier GR9
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/DSC_0331GR9.jpg

4. F-16 Fighting Falcon
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-16c-19990601-f-0073c-005.jpg

A-10 WARTHOG PWNS ALL!

http://www.mofizixgr4fix.com/images/a-10warthog.jpg

Su-47. Just -look- at the thing. There's no cooler looking plane flying.

Edit: yeah, the warthog is awesome too, and I have a soft spot for the V-22 osprey but it's not a jet fighter :(

The SR71 Blackbird. Because it rocked like Elvis and looked hot. And there's decommissioned one at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, and it's just gorgeous.
Not a fighter...
An my sentimental favorite (grandpa trained guys to fly this one) - P52 Mustangs. Pretty and deadly.
Not a jet...

Of all time I am going to have to go with the F-14 Tomcat; it lasted in service with the US Navy for the better part of 30 years, but I know that by using that argument only the F-5 is the best jet fighter ever... F-14 for its speed (still hard to match today) and its extreme attack ranges, not to mention that different variants have managed to fill almost every battlefield role.

Modern day.. I like the F-35. Cheap, reliable and stealthy.

F-14s - Tomcats, mostly because they kinda rocked.

The SR71 Blackbird. Because it rocked like Elvis and looked hot. And there's decommissioned one at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, and it's just gorgeous.

An my sentimental favorite (grandpa trained guys to fly this one) - P52 Mustangs. Pretty and deadly.

Actually, the F14s kind of weren't wonderful. Not awful, not wonderful.

And the SR71 isn't a fighter. Reconnoissance only.

Not a fighter...


There was an Interceptor variant produced.

A-10 WARTHOG PWNS ALL!

http://www.mofizixgr4fix.com/images/a-10warthog.jpg

Fugliest planes in the 'verse, but damn can they knock some shit over!

Fugliest planes in the 'verse, but damn can they knock some shit over!

Not fighters, though. Strictly ground-support only.

Which is awesome, because no other plane can provide support the way the A-10 can. But not a fighter.

And god yes, they are frigging ugly. Awesome plane, though.

There was an Interceptor variant produced.

Really?

Just looked it up, yes there was an interceptor variant developed, however it never advanced beyond the prototype stage...

Really?

It was developed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12), but never reached operational status.

Best fighter around now is the F-22 by a mile. It's madly expensive, but very good at making other airplanes go boom.

There was an Interceptor variant produced.

Say huh? Linkage, cuz I've never heard of that. Not that I don't believe you, I just haven't seen it before.

[Edit: Linkage provided. Ah-so...well then. Interesting.]

Su-47. Just -look- at the thing. There's no cooler looking plane flying.

Not really a fighter, simply a proof of concept plane. A very bad-ass proof of concept plane.

There was an Interceptor variant produced.

You mean the A-12? Actually just an SR-71 with an air-to-air missile in an extra bay un the bottom, still a recon plane.

Fugliest planes in the 'verse, but damn can they knock some shit over!

I dare you to tell that to anyone that's every called in air support.

It was developed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12), but never reached operational status.

Pretty, pretty plane. An considering we got the Blackbird out of that family, I wouldn't say it was a waste of time or effort.

Okay, I must have some weird variant gene from my fighter pilot grandfather, because pictures of jets make me squeak with joy almost as much as LOLkittehs.

You mean the A-12? Actually just an SR-71 with an air-to-air missile pod, still a recon plane.


...no. I'm referring to the YF-12.

You mean the A-12? Actually just an SR-71 with an air-to-air missile pod, still a recon plane.

Nope, YF-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12).

I dare you to tell that to anyone that's every called in air support.

I actually talked to a couple of guys at an Air Fair about piloting the Warthog, and every damn one of them just lit up. "It's ugly, ma'am, but it does the job."

F-35 Lightning II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35)
F-22 Raptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22)

Nope, YF-12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_YF-12).

Produced, Yes, but only in prootype. The A-12 went into production and went operational for 29 missions before being retired.

I actually talked to a couple of guys at an Air Fair about piloting the Warthog, and every damn one of them just lit up. "It's ugly, ma'am, but it does the job."

Not air support, though. It's ground support. Warthogs don't shoot down planes, they kill tanks.

I actually talked to a couple of guys at an Air Fair about piloting the Warthog, and every damn one of them just lit up. "It's ugly, ma'am, but it does the job."

I meant infantry, not pilots.

Not air support, though. It's ground support. Warthogs don't shoot down planes, they kill tanks.

Actually when your on the ground calling it in its air support... when your in the air its called ground support... and if your a general its called Interdiction.

Not air support, though. It's ground support. Warthogs don't shoot down planes, they kill tanks.

The proper term is actually CAS - Close Air Support...


Poll is up.

Actually when your on the ground calling it in its air support... when your in the air its called ground support... and if your a general its called Interdiction.

Ah. Pardon. Should've known that...

It amazes me that the F-16 Falcon isn't an option

It amazes me that the F-16 Falcon isn't an option

I was about to say that it wasn't one of the first 10 suggestions, then I went back over the thread to be sure and realized that it was one of the planes suggested by Rhyno...

Basically, what I'm saying is it isn't an option because I missed it being suggested.

What do you NSGers think is the best real world jet fighter?


Poll coming once there are enough suggestions.

The Mikoyan. And that´s final.

Point of interest:

The F/A-18 Hornet and the F-18 Super Hornet have nothing in common except for the air-frame. When the USAF came out with the F22, the USN wanted to develop their own plane to keep up. Instead of trying to completely invent a new plane, they took the airframe of the F-18 and completely rebuilt it from the inside out.

Why is the A-10 on the list? It's not a fighter; it's a ground pounder. If it went up against an F-5 it would be in trouble.

No love for the SAAB Gripen?

The super hornet shouldn't be on the list, it has minmal range (like, really minimal), minimal maneuverability among other problems. You kow why the navy is the only service really enthusiastic about the F-35?
Because they can't wait to get rid of the superhornet.

No love for the SAAB Gripen?

The super hornet shouldn't be on the list, it has minmal range (like, really minimal), minimal maneuverability among other problems. You kow why the navy is the only service really enthusiastic about the F-35?
Because they can't wait to get rid of the superhornet.

Super Hornet: jack of all trades, master of none. Multi-roles may save money, but compared to a dedicated bomber/interceptor/recon plane/ect.

No love for the SAAB Gripen?

The super hornet shouldn't be on the list, it has minmal range (like, really minimal), minimal maneuverability among other problems. You kow why the navy is the only service really enthusiastic about the F-35?
Because they can't wait to get rid of the superhornet.

What are you talking about? Minimal maneuverability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHs1K79ZF20

Oh don't get me wrong, your regular garden variety hornet is an alright aircraft, it's maneuverable alright and nothing in particular bad about it, at worst it's an average multi-role fighter, and at all other times it pretty damn good.

Now, the super hornet ont he other hand... well, there's nothing super about it for starters. They took the Hornet, which we've already established didn't really have anything wrong with it, and they bolted on about 5,000 extra kilos so it could carry more, smarter bombs shorter distances in more time.
The Super Hornet takes everything that made the hornet good, and adds a nice greasy layer of fat to it so the appropriations committee could go in front of congress and say 'look how poor we are, we really needed a new fighter, but instead we upgraded an older one because we were out of money, boohoohoo give us money so we can go to our constituents and show them how many new jobs we've given them by reopening the Hornet production lines'

and really, any plane looks good when you put it on youtube to a country music soundtrack, and really, the Hornets (not super-hornets) weren't really shown doing anything that particularly requires 'maneuverability'

The
Super
Hornet
Is
Not
A
Good
Plane

Oh don't get me wrong, your regular garden variety hornet is an alright aircraft, it's maneuverable alright and nothing in particular bad about it, at worst it's an average multi-role fighter, and at all other times it pretty damn good.

Now, the super hornet ont he other hand... well, there's nothing super about it for starters. They took the Hornet, which we've already established didn't really have anything wrong with it, and they bolted on about 5,000 extra kilos so it could carry more, smarter bombs shorter distances in more time.
The Super Hornet takes everything that made the hornet good, and adds a nice greasy layer of fat to it so the appropriations committee could go in front of congress and say 'look how poor we are, we really needed a new fighter, but instead we upgraded an older one because we were out of money, boohoohoo give us money so we can go to our constituents and show them how many new jobs we've given them by reopening the Hornet production lines'

and really, any plane looks good when you put it on youtube to a country music soundtrack

The
Super
Hornet
Is
Not
A
Good
Plane

They were trying to keep up with the F22. Honestly, the F18 may be a good plane, but it can't stand up to the next generation of aircraft at all. The F18 needed an overhaul for the electronics, especially.

Mind, I'm not saying the Superhornet is good, just that I understand what they were going for...

The Hornet is slated to be operational for a good 20+ years. If it was so bad, they wouldn't have such projections. Plus, having met/spoken with pilots (some of which transferred from the venerable F-14) I know that this is not the sentiment of most of the ppl who fly them.

Honestly, though, it really does depend on the role. The F22 can take out anything in the air, but it doesn't have the joint-strike capabilities of the F-35. On the other hand, the F-35, while being a fantastic fighter, would not be able to stand up to a dedicated air-superiority jet of the same caliber.

Similarly, the F-16 is a great plane, but probably wouldn't be able to stand up to the F-15. The F-15, though, isn't joint-strike (except for the F-15E, but those are pretty limited, to my knowledge).

That said, my vote is the F-22, as I'm thinking you're thinking jet on jet fights. Nothing in existence yet can take on an F-22 one-on-one...or even several-on-one.

The downfall of the F-22, and all air-superiority fighters, will be unmanned fighters. The F-22 may be able to take down 10 other jets, but that's just fine when you have 20 and don't care about losing them because they're unmanned and cost less.

Please get the names right, the Hornet is fine,t here's nothing bad I can say about it, it does exactly what it was designed to do and does it well and pilots that have flown it are always complimentary.

The Super Hornet on the other hand is not. it takes a winning design and adds five thousand kilos it didn't need. Sure you can say, the Hornet needed an upgrade to keep up with fourth generation fighters! And while it's true that the Hornet couldn't compete, it needed an 'upgrade' about as much as I need liposuction (I.E. not at all). But they did it anyway, and what did they get? An aircraft quantifiably worse in just about every way an aircraft can be worse, the only upside was they gave it modern electronics, at the cost of driving up prices, and even that wasn't really necessary. The Super-Hornet will only serve any appreciable amount of time if the Navy can't wrangle enough money to get every one replaced with the F-35 which is better in every conceivable way (you might point out cost, but unlike the so called super-hornet it's actually worth the money) no pilot has ever complimented the super-hornet like they did the original.

And another thing (damn kids, get off my lawn :P)
the F-15E Strike Eagle? Really? Now don't take this the wrong way, The Strike Eagle is an excellent aircraft, but as a fighter, the crown would have to go to its older brother the F-15C Eagle which was always the air-superiority fighter of the two. Putting the Strike Eagle into the running as a fighter is like putting a Mustang into the running as a drifter, the Mustang is an excellent car, but you're looking for an Evo if you want to drift

You mean the A-12? Actually just an SR-71 with an air-to-air missile in an extra bay un the bottom, still a recon plane.

Actually, no. The SR-71 was an A-12 with an extra seat and increased sensor payload. Considering that the A-12 was built first, the SR-71 is a variant of it and not the other way around.

And seeing as how the A-12 was not fitted with any sort of target acquisiton radar set or fire control system, no, it didn't carry an air-to-air missile as part of it's payload.

Please get the names right, the Hornet is fine,t here's nothing bad I can say about it, it does exactly what it was designed to do and does it well and pilots that have flown it are always complimentary.

The Super Hornet on the other hand is not. it takes a winning design and adds five thousand kilos it didn't need. Sure you can say, the Hornet needed an upgrade to keep up with fourth generation fighters! And while it's true that the Hornet couldn't compete, it needed an 'upgrade' about as much as I need liposuction (I.E. not at all). But they did it anyway, and what did they get? An aircraft quantifiably worse in just about every way an aircraft can be worse, the only upside was they gave it modern electronics, at the cost of driving up prices, and even that wasn't really necessary. The Super-Hornet will only serve any appreciable amount of time if the Navy can't wrangle enough money to get every one replaced with the F-35 which is better in every conceivable way (you might point out cost, but unlike the so called super-hornet it's actually worth the money) no pilot has ever complimented the super-hornet like they did the original.

And another thing (damn kids, get off my lawn :P)
the F-15E Strike Eagle? Really? Now don't take this the wrong way, The Strike Eagle is an excellent aircraft, but as a fighter, the crown would have to go to its older brother the F-15C Eagle which was always the air-superiority fighter of the two. Putting the Strike Eagle into the running as a fighter is like putting a Mustang into the running as a drifter, the Mustang is an excellent car, but you're looking for an Evo if you want to drift

May I ask what ship or NAS you're currently at? And I do know pilots who've complimented the Super Hornet, so you're statement is inaccurate.

May I ask why I would have to be at sea or an NAS to realize that the Super Hornet is less of a fighter in every way than the original Hornet? I could've been on the committee that designed it for all you know, or simply be a military analyst with Jane's among roughly a million other profession that would give me a qualified opinion without taking me anywhere near the navy.

And since you ask, what ship or NAS base are you at where they compliment the Super Hornet? And how? And what was this pilots name and rank again and just how drunk or imaginary was he? And anyway, if you had actually read what I said, you would know why having heard a pilot compliment a super-hornet doesn't contradict it at all.

and next time, think before you type please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_jet_fighter#DERA_study.7FUNIQ6744d68129b3254b-nowiki-00000087-QINU.7F38.7FUNIQ6744d68129b3254b-nowiki-00000088-QINU.7F


that list sums it up nicely. seems right to.

my understanding is the F-22 is the only production fifth generation fighter.

the biggest draw backs i see with the Mig 31 and the euro fighter is that they are both spread over several states which means the secrets of these aircraft are likely already know.

Why is the A-10 on the list? It's not a fighter; it's a ground pounder. If it went up against an F-5 it would be in trouble.

Because it was nominated...

And because of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXg6J9upaCg&feature=related).

No love for the SAAB Gripen?

The super hornet shouldn't be on the list, it has minmal range (like, really minimal), minimal maneuverability among other problems. You kow why the navy is the only service really enthusiastic about the F-35?
Because they can't wait to get rid of the superhornet.

One problem with that staement, the F-35 is not replacing the super hornet.

Probably the Eurofighter, seeing as it's got better maneuverability than most stuff out there at the moment, including the F-22, and Gen. John P. Jumper of the USAF (one of the only people in the world to have flown both) said that it's as good as the F-22, if not better (although he also said that they're quite different aircraft).

The only problem with it at the moment is the lack of all that much air-ground capability, something which is being sorted out in the new block of Eurofighters and, IIRC, being retrofitted at the moment too.



Also - not really sure why the A-10 is on the list. Might as well put up the AC-130s tbqh.

But how many planes can fly with one wing? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs)

What, we have the Flanker-C but no Su-35 or Su-37?

Su-47 is epic. Yes it's a technology demonstrator but it's still epic.

But how many planes can fly with one wing? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs)
Aye, that's spiffing. Not sure that turns it into a jet fighter, though. A couple of stories of that sort of thing going on in the second world war.

Ok, I'm going to repeat this, the planes that are on the list are there because they were nominated...

I realize that three of the planes really shouldn't be on a list of best fighters, since they are in fact not fighters.

For those of you wondering, the 3 are the A-10, the F/A-18, and the F-35...
All 3 are attack bombers, not fighters.

If you look at it from purely the technology point of view then the F-22. If you take into account cost vs performance then the Eurofighter. They give pretty good results in exercises even when put up against the F-22. I would like to have seen the Rafale on the poll. Also any future fighters built from the Su-47 or the MiG 1.44 prototype aircraft.

As people have already said the A-10 is not a fighter.

Not fighters, though. Strictly ground-support only.

Which is awesome, because no other plane can provide support the way the A-10 can. But not a fighter.

And god yes, they are frigging ugly. Awesome plane, though.

There were a few A-10 pilots that got air kills with the A-10. The pilot that got the first recorded air kill was Capt Robert R. (Bob) "Bobo" Swain during Desert Storm (and he was a reservist). He shot down a helicopter with his 30mm Avenger.

Gotta love the Eurofighter,

Fast, Sleek, Sexy, Packs a massive punch

Unlike the Raptor it isn't stealth. However the Eurofighter is more Agile and extremely manouverable and along with the skill of the British and German pilots using it, a force to be reckoned with.

whoever thought the A-10 is a fighter was retarded.

whoever thought the A-10 is a fighter was retarded.

Knock it off with the insults, did you ever consider the possibility that it is simply a matter of how they define 'fighter', if they read 'best jet fighter' as 'best combat jet' then the inclusion is reasonable.

I'm surprised that the F-15 hasn't gotten any votes...Woulda voted for that if it weren't for the F-22.

But how many planes can fly with one wing? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs)

All planes CAN fly with 1 wing^^ until they hit the ground lol.

There are lots of cases of this, one of an Italian pilots who only noticed a wing was missing when he step out the plane and fell because he had no wing stand on.

Several Israeli aircraft have come home half wingless. and a British Tornado aircraft made it home with half a tail. Sheer luck =D

What I can say is the F-22 and Eurofighter Could NOT fly on 1 wing, as both aircraft need to be balanced.

I'm surprised that the F-15 hasn't gotten any votes...Woulda voted for that if it weren't for the F-22.

I'm surprised as well, if for no other reason than the F-15 is a proven plane...

But how many planes can fly with one wing? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs)
Kid stuff. I've watched an A6 come back with an outer wing panel missing. I've ridden one back with a missing left horizontal stabilizer, and I've lost an inboard flap panel while doing touch and goes. Then there were other guys with rudders hard over that still managed to bring the plane back. The Intruder wasn't much of a fighter, but it was almost indestructible.

Instead of landing at 2x normal, the pilot in the mishap with the outer wing panel thought that he just had a hydraulic failure and landed with a normal no flap/no slat approach to a field arrested landing.

Israeli pilots are the reason for the F-15's well deserved reputation. They have scored more Air to Air kills in them than anyone, inc the USAF. :cool:

Kid stuff. I've watched an A6 come back with an outer wing panel missing. I've ridden one back with a missing left horizontal stabilizer, and I've lost an inboard flap panel while doing touch and goes. Then there were other guys with rudders hard over that still managed to bring the plane back. The Intruder wasn't much of a fighter, but it was almost indestructible.

Instead of landing at 2x normal, the pilot in the mishap with the outer wing panel thought that he just had a hydraulic failure and landed with a normal no flap/no slat approach to a field arrested landing.

The Intruder wasn't much of a fighter because it wasn't a fighter Myrm...

The F-4 Phantom II gets my vote. During it's heyday, there was nothing that would beat it

Plus, it's the only fighter I've ever ridden it.

I was about to say that it wasn't one of the first 10 suggestions, then I went back over the thread to be sure and realized that it was one of the planes suggested by Rhyno...

Basically, what I'm saying is it isn't an option because I missed it being suggested.

Well it's not a big deal or anything, I was just surprised because it was the plane I had in mind. :)

Well it's not a big deal or anything, I was just surprised because it was the plane I had in mind. :)

bleah, the only things it had going for it (initially anyways) was that it was cheap (for a U.S. plane) and maneuverable.

The Intruder wasn't much of a fighter because it wasn't a fighter Myrm...
I disagree. We could put four sidewinders on the plane. The pilot could get a tone and aim them and we could keep up with most other fighters for about one turn. We practiced a lot of ACM at WTI and got to apply it in a couple exercises.

After one turn, we didn't have much energy left and if we couldn't beat them in a slow fight, we had one last move -- two really, but one that would usually get us out of Dodge in a hurry.

When the bullets started flying by the cockpit, the pilot was supposed to overbank to almost inverted, then start pulling all the g's he had. We would make a tight spiral down to the ground, where we would fly as low and as fast as we could.

Of course, most IADS will deconflict fighters and SAMs, so you only see one or the other at any one time. Because we spent most of our time close to the ground and near precious targets, we didn't see fighters, we saw AAA and SAMS. Hence we never carried live Sidewinders... We didn't fly great fighters, but they could have been pressed into Air to Air service, if desperately needed for it.

The English Electric Lighting

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Lightning.inflight.arp.750pix.jpg/300px-Lightning.inflight.arp.750pix.jpg

One problem with that staement, the F-35 is not replacing the super hornet.

Only if the Navy doesn't get a say about it (which they don't usually, but that isn't stopping them from trying.)

Actually, no. The SR-71 was an A-12 with an extra seat and increased sensor payload. Considering that the A-12 was built first, the SR-71 is a variant of it and not the other way around.

And seeing as how the A-12 was not fitted with any sort of target acquisiton radar set or fire control system, no, it didn't carry an air-to-air missile as part of it's payload.

I must have them confused then. Its been a while since I read Lockheed's offical history book.

I'm going with Jackie Chan ;)

I disagree. We could put four sidewinders on the plane. The pilot could get a tone and aim them and we could keep up with most other fighters for about one turn. We practiced a lot of ACM at WTI and got to apply it in a couple exercises.

After one turn, we didn't have much energy left and if we couldn't beat them in a slow fight, we had one last move -- two really, but one that would usually get us out of Dodge in a hurry.

When the bullets started flying by the cockpit, the pilot was supposed to overbank to almost inverted, then start pulling all the g's he had. We would make a tight spiral down to the ground, where we would fly as low and as fast as we could.

Of course, most IADS will deconflict fighters and SAMs, so you only see one or the other at any one time. Because we spent most of our time close to the ground and near precious targets, we didn't see fighters, we saw AAA and SAMS. Hence we never carried live Sidewinders... We didn't fly great fighters, but they could have been pressed into Air to Air service, if desperately needed for it.

You can disagree if you want, but I'm still right, the A-6 was an attack bomber, the same job the F/A-18 was built for...
Can the serve the role of a fighter in a pinch? Yes they can, but it is not the role they were designed for.

Only if the Navy doesn't get a say about it (which they don't usually, but that isn't stopping them from trying.)

The F-35 is replacing the Hornet, not the Super Hornet.

The F-35 is replacing the Hornet, not the Super Hornet.

Actually, the Super Hornet is replacing the Hornet, to my knowledge. The F-35 is supposed to replace, among other things, the Harrier. Because Harriers are not wonderful.

And it's the F-18, not the F/A-18. Not that it matters much. They decided the A wasn't really important anymore since all the jets nowadays are either bombers or joint-strike fighters.

Actually, the Super Hornet is replacing the Hornet, to my knowledge. The F-35 is supposed to replace, among other things, the Harrier. Because Harriers are not wonderful.
You're right, I left out a step in the 'upgrade'. As to the Harrier, yes the F-35C is replacing the Harrier.
And it's the F-18, not the F/A-18. Not that it matters much. They decided the A wasn't really important anymore since all the jets nowadays are either bombers or joint-strike fighters.

Actually, the proper designation is F/A, it just isn't used much.

Just passing by, any place for the Mirage 2000 and Rafale from Dassault ?

Just passing by, any place for the Mirage 2000 and Rafale from Dassault ?

Not really, the poll is already full.

Just passing by, any place for the Mirage 2000 and Rafale from Dassault ?

No. The world of jet fighters is one dominated by America and Russia. No frenchies allowed. Notice how 9 out fo ten on the list are either made is USA, or USSR? Its a conspiracy.

No. The world of jet fighters is one dominated by America and Russia. No frenchies allowed. Notice how 9 out fo ten on the list are either made is USA, or USSR? Its a conspiracy.

The US recognized a long time ago that air superiority meant victory in battle. And when America decides they're going to spend money on something, damn if anyone is going to out-do them.

That, and the last 30 years have been US v USSR, so they've both spent that time trying to one-up each other, and it's given opportunities to prove that these jets work. Other jets might be just as good, but they haven't been proven the way US and Russian jets have.

No. The world of jet fighters is one dominated by America and Russia. No frenchies allowed. Notice how 9 out fo ten on the list are either made is USA, or USSR? Its a conspiracy.

Actually 9/10 of them are made in the USA or the Russian Federation.
The USSR hasn't existed in almost 17 years.

eurofighter.

cool as fook.

Harrier also, but not sure on its "fighter" status... but damn, awesome take off/landing ability.

Yeah. And the USA leads between the two of them with all of the stealth and advanced weapons.

Harrier also, but not sure on its "fighter" status... but damn, awesome take off/landing ability.

That's the only thing it has going for it. Crappy payload and maneuverability compared to fighters of the same generation, and it's not all that fast. Granted, the role it served was very much needed, but from all accounts I've heard everyone that uses them can't wait to get rid of them in favor of the VTOL version of the F-35, which is faster, more agile, can carry more, and is more fuel efficient. And also the whole stealth thing.

Yeah. And the USA leads between the two of them with all of the stealth and advanced weapons.

Supposedly the newest Russian MiG is comparable to the F-22, or maybe the F-117, but it is not unlikely that this is just talk.

That's the only thing it has going for it. Crappy payload and maneuverability compared to fighters of the same generation, and it's not all that fast. Granted, the role it served was very much needed, but from all accounts I've heard everyone that uses them can't wait to get rid of them in favor of the VTOL version of the F-35, which is faster, more agile, can carry more, and is more fuel efficient. And also the whole stealth thing.

its cool at air tattoos and that satisfies my inner six-year-old, well, that and the craaaaaazy itallian air display nutjobs.

me-109 and supermarine spitfire pwn all jets on "cool" tho.

WOW
i find it so amusing yet sad that so many people truely belive the 22 Raptor is the best jet in the world. I personaly belive it's one of the worst, 1 it's out rageous price tag i know some of you don't pay salary taxes but I do and let me telll you i don't want my money going to waste, 2 it is a plane that is over enginnered you don't need all that fancy shit if your a true fighter pilot it doesn't matter how good the plane is if you can't take all those g's the plane produces then the plane is just a flyinf peice of metal and explosives, 3 and three it takes so much $ to create it's stupid stealth technology that the counter mesaeres ar a million times cheaper

WOW
i find it so amusing yet sad that so many people truely belive the 22 Raptor is the best jet in the world. I personaly belive it's one of the worst, 1 it's out rageous price tag i know some of you don't pay salary taxes but I do and let me telll you i don't want my money going to waste, 2 it is a plane that is over enginnered you don't need all that fancy shit if your a true fighter pilot it doesn't matter how good the plane is if you can't take all those g's the plane produces then the plane is just a flyinf peice of metal and explosives, 3 and three it takes so much $ to create it's stupid stealth technology that the counter mesaeres ar a million times cheaper

And 4) Grammer iz 4 loozers!

God that post hurts me...even if it's a joke, it still hurts...ow...

WOW
i find it so amusing yet sad that so many people truely belive the 22 Raptor is the best jet in the world. I personaly belive it's one of the worst, 1 it's out rageous price tag i know some of you don't pay salary taxes but I do and let me telll you i don't want my money going to waste, 2 it is a plane that is over enginnered you don't need all that fancy shit if your a true fighter pilot it doesn't matter how good the plane is if you can't take all those g's the plane produces then the plane is just a flyinf peice of metal and explosives, 3 and three it takes so much $ to create it's stupid stealth technology that the counter mesaeres ar a million times cheaper

The question wasn't "What's the most cost effective jet fighter" it was "what's the best real world jet fighter". Does a fighter pilot NEED stealth in his plane? No. Would a fighter pilot want his plane to have a reduced chance of detection and interception? Hell yes. Counter measures are cheaper but hardly fool proof, and counter measures + stealth =win. Same applies to maneuverability, a pilot may never have to push his plane into the 9+ Gee zone, but I'm pretty sure most combat pilots find it comforting to know if they ask they're planes to do something it WILL do it. Currently the F-22 is the ASF that all others are measured against.

Supposedly the newest Russian MiG is comparable to the F-22, or maybe the F-117, but it is not unlikely that this is just talk.

if you mean Mig 1.44 they maybe not be exaggerating at least as far as compared to the F-22. however they only have one prototype and I don't think production is scheduled for production until 2012.
By then I am certain europe will have unleashed its own 5th generation fighter, (euro fighter is 4.5) and the Us should have released 1 or 2 more of its own 5th generation aircraft.


"During Exercise "Northern Edge 2006" (a simulated war game), in Alaska (June 2006), the F-22 reportedly proved its mettle against as many as 40 simulated "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor is claimed to have achieved a 108:0 kill ratio at that exercise.[35]"

Damn it, you FORGOT about this three-role SWEDISH airplane!

Jakt Attack Spaning 39 Gripen
or
Hunt Attack Recon 39 "Gripen"

include it in the poll so i can vote for THAT instead of an american plane :headbang:

Damn it, you FORGOT about this three-role SWEDISH airplane!

Jakt Attack Spaning 39 Gripen
or
Hunt Attack Recon 39 "Gripen"

include it in the poll so i can vote for THAT instead of an american plane :headbang:

already out of room for new planes in the poll.

though it is a nice fighter.

No. The world of jet fighters is one dominated by America and Russia. No frenchies allowed. Notice how 9 out fo ten on the list are either made is USA, or USSR? Its a conspiracy.


eurofighter.

cool as fook.

Harrier also, but not sure on its "fighter" status... but damn, awesome take off/landing ability.

Switch frenchies to brits, and same thing applies. Russian Federation and USSR are the same damn thing, just a different name.

Karsloon, the American aerospace industry is the best in the world, and has been,(with the Soviet one in a very close second) the past 50 years. Take your anti-american bias and blow it out your ass.

Karsloon, the American aerospace industry is the best in the world, and has been,(with the Soviet one in a very close second) the past 50 years. Take your anti-american bias and blow it out your ass.



Oh, and what arguments do you have that prove that for example the F-22 is better than the JAS 39 Gripen? A simple "It is made in the USA!" won't do for an answer.

And cut the crap about me being anti-american, i am not. :upyours:

I am just saying that we in Sweden have a fighter that deserves to be included on the list because it is an equal candidate to ANY of those planes, american or else.

The F-35 is replacing the Hornet, not the Super Hornet.

The navy wants it to do both, but that would cost more than congress is willing to pay and would make congress look bad for having forced the super-hornet on the navy in the first place.

For those of you interested in seeing the JAS in action before you make any judgement, take a look at these videos :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3VnwJcPYE0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tlCx_FTpgI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJQKCUjcslM&feature=related


After you've seen them, say what you think! :D


Edit:

Here is a link to a website with technical data on Gripen. The website is reliable.

http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/TechnicalSummary.htm

Here is a link with some other info, probably less reliable, due to the fact that it seems to be a "fan site". But still an interesting read.

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/

Oh, and what arguments do you have that prove that for example the F-22 is better than the JAS 39 Gripen? A simple "It is made in the USA!" won't do for an answer.

And cut the crap about me being anti-american, i am not. :upyours:

I am just saying that we in Sweden have a fighter that deserves to be included on the list because it is an equal candidate to ANY of those planes, american or else.

Smilies make you look like a noob.

F-22
Performance
Maximum speed:

At altitude: Mach 2+[72][73] (1,325+ mph, 2,132+ km/h)
Supercruise: Mach 1.72 (1,140 mph, 1,825 km/h)[1][70] at altitude
Range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat radius: 410 nmi[70] (471 mi, 759 km)
Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
Service ceiling 65,000 ft (19,812 m)
Wing loading: 66 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.26
Maximum g-load: -3.5/+9.5 g

JAS-39
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,410 km/h, 1,500 mph)
Combat radius: 800+ km (500 mi), 430 NM)
Ferry range: 2,800 km ()
Service ceiling 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 341 kg/m² (70.3 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.94


The F-22 has a clear advantage in performance.

Lets move on to armarment shall we?

F-22
Armament
Guns: 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun in starboard wing root, 480 rounds
Air to air loadout:
6× AIM-120 AMRAAM
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder
Air to ground loadout:
2× AIM-120 AMRAAM and
2× AIM-9 Sidewinder and one of the following:
2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) JDAM or
2× Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers (WCMDs) or
8× 250 lb (110 kg) GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs


JAS-39
1 × 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon
6 × Rb 74(aim-9 sidewinder) or Rb 98
4 × Rb 99(AIM-120 AMRAAM), Rb 71, MICA or Meteor
4 x Rb 75
2 x KEPD 350
4 x laser-guided bomb
4 x rocket pods 13,5 cm rockets
2 x Rbs 15F anti-ship missile
2 x Bk 90 cluster bomb
8 x Mk82 Bombs


The JSA-39 can carry more weapons. This is because the F-22 is designed to carry all weapons internally, while the JAS-39 has

Its tied at one to one.

Avionics

F-22
RWR (Radar warning receiver): 250 nmi (463 km) or more[33]
Radar: 125-150 miles (200-240 km) against 1 m² targets (estimated range)[31]

JAS-39
I can't find any information here.


Radar cross section:

F-22:Classified
JAS-39: can't find it.



Also, bear in mind that the JAS-39 is a 4th generation fighter, while the F-22 is a fifth generation fighter. Its like comparing WW2 fighters to the fighters of the early 60s.

Karsloon, the American aerospace industry is the best in the world, and has been,(with the Soviet one in a very close second) the past 50 years. Take your anti-american bias and blow it out your ass.
The American aerospace industry is very nice and all that, as well as producing lots and lots of aircraft over the years, but it must be said that, outside of the Blackbird, it's not exactly been very... inventive.

As a Brit, I feel it essential to remind you of who actually invented the jet engine. Us. Also who invented STOL and then VTOL with the Harrier Jump-Jet, using principals still used today in your ludicrously expensive F-35 JSF project which will create a fighter worse than the F-22 / Eurofighter / newer Russian kit, as well as a ground-attack aircraft worse than the old A-10 and new Su-34 (as well as being slower than the latter).

Smilies make you look like a noob.
....
Also, bear in mind that the JAS-39 is a 4th generation fighter, while the F-22 is a fifth generation fighter. Its like comparing WW2 fighters to the fighters of the early 60s.



Thank you for providing some arguments for your claim, i respect that a lot :)

I also trust you when you say that you took these data from reliable sources, and not from youtube ^^

The American aerospace industry is very nice and all that, as well as producing lots and lots of aircraft over the years, but it must be said that, outside of the Blackbird, it's not exactly been very... inventive.

As a Brit, I feel it essential to remind you of who actually invented the jet engine. Us. Also who invented STOL and then VTOL with the Harrier Jump-Jet, using principals still used today in your ludicrously expensive F-35 JSF project which will create a fighter worse than the F-22 / Eurofighter / newer Russian kit, as well as a ground-attack aircraft worse than the old A-10 and new Su-34 (as well as being slower than the latter).


Not very inventive? Who invented stealth? The airplane industry itself? Who stole the idea for Air to air missiles from the Germans first? Who perfected the concept of the Heavy bomber? Who broke the sound barrier? Who made the first hypersonic manned aircraft? Who came up with the First UAV?

We did


The F-35 is a waste of money. They started design the replacement before they finished designing the aircraft they were trying to replace.

The A-10 doesn't need to be replaced. Just given upgrades. I can see it flying for atleast 50 years.

The F-22 is a waste of money.


Fixed.

Fixed.

We need to scap one of them and since the F-22 is under production, It should be the F-35.

Fixed.


Wrong.

You are a waste of money.

Not very inventive?
Indeed.
Who invented stealth?
In a kind of way, us, with Window.
The airplane industry itself?
... how in the name of crap can you invent the production of a product?

Aye, you guys invented the powered aircraft. This was really quite spiff. Does producing it really count as an extra invention?
Who stole the idea for Air to air missiles from the Germans first?
The French, with the AA-10.
Who perfected the concept of the Heavy bomber?
Good question. Probably the Germans, although the B-17 was a nice aircraft.
Who broke the sound barrier?
You, by stealing all of our research. Well done right there.
Who made the first hypersonic manned aircraft?
There isn't one yet, hypersonic being Mach 5.
Who came up with the First UAV?
That would be us, with the Aerial Target.

The American aerospace industry is very nice and all that, as well as producing lots and lots of aircraft over the years, but it must be said that, outside of the Blackbird, it's not exactly been very... inventive.

Stealth technology?

Most people have never even SEEN a YF-12, let alone understand its differences between it and its unarmed brother, the SR-71. It's hard enough to find pictures of it, even on the web. wvi.com has an excellent aerial shot of it, but the picture at fas.org mistakenly labels the SR-71 a YF-12. The main immediately visible difference is that the YF 12's fairing stops just forward of the cockpit and it has a more conventional round nosecone...this is to accommodate the targeting radar, with insane ranges.

Considering the airframe is of 1960's design, I find it a bit amusing that it's being put even in the competition against modern airframes with computer controlled stabilization.

However, that being said:

1) The YF-12 flew light a bat out of hell, in a straight line. Its turning radius is measured in MILES.

2) It could carry the AIM-47 missile with a 250kt nuclear warhead.

3) It could cruise at above Mach 3 and could outrun pretty much anything in the sky at the time. The SR-71 STILL holds some world speed records.

4) It was designed as an interceptor becuase its range from the ground to first re-fuel was rather dismal. It had all of the fuel leakage issues the SR-71 has/had (leaks like a seive on the ground, must get up to about Mach 1 before the skin heats up enough to expand in place and seal the leaks)

5) It was a VERY expensive aircraft to keep flying...in the late 1960's, early 1970's, the SR-71's man-hour budget was around 1000 per flight hour. This just isn't cost-effective in an interceptor which must sit on the ground with a pilot in it, ready to go, for 8 hours per shift. Look at comparison costs with the F-16, another interceptor, to understand just how out of whack that is.

Even so...

I voted for it. Just because:
1) I'm fond of the YF-12 and the SR-71...I'm kinda geeky for it (not that you could tell).
2) My parents worked on the SR-71 in Burbank during the 70's
3) A fighter that can just plain OUTRUN anything else in the sky, including missiles, has an insane cool factor.
4) For its time, it was a revolutionary design and had an amazing speed performance envelope. So amazing, in fact, that it was determined that the performance envelope would be better suited for "catch me if you can' reconaissance than mere dogfighting or air superiority.
5) It has a titanium skin, which is also way cool.

GP

There isn't one yet, hypersonic being Mach 5.

Actually that might not be true since there are still portions of the information on the SR-71 that are still classified.

Indeed.

In a kind of way, us, with Window.


That would be Chaff. Very different.


There isn't one yet, hypersonic being Mach 5.


Incorrect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15)

There's also the whole thing with NASA, us walking on the moon and all. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Stealth technology?
Window.

Wrong.

You are a waste of money.

You Sir, are hardcore.

Oh, and what arguments do you have that prove that for example the F-22 is better than the JAS 39 Gripen? A simple "It is made in the USA!" won't do for an answer.

And cut the crap about me being anti-american, i am not. :upyours:

I am just saying that we in Sweden have a fighter that deserves to be included on the list because it is an equal candidate to ANY of those planes, american or else.

There's a number of planes that should be on that list instead of the non-fighters that are there.

By the way, I was just asking about the Rafale ( the Mirage 2000 is a little outdated, like the F 16 and Mig 29, but I'm just in love with the beauty of this fighter )

I vote for F 22 Raptor for being the best, but clearly not the most usefull: he's the best because he's the only full interceptor of fifth generation.
The Rafale, Eurofighter, Grippen and that Russian project are all multirole fighters.
The Raptor is absolutly not good for anything other than intercepting other planes.

USA alone could stand the cost of such an interceptor ( and he's damn costly, isn't it ? )

But I'm wondering, because the price of on F 22 being the price of 4 or 5 other modern planes...

In a kind of way, us, with Window.

I've never heard of Window, and I can't find any reference to it on that all-consuming source of knowledge known as the intertubes.

... how in the name of crap can you invent the production of a product?

Aye, you guys invented the powered aircraft. This was really quite spiff. Does producing it really count as an extra invention?

How we began to produce it, especially during the Second World War, was done totally differently from how everyone else was producing aircraft.

The French, with the AA-10.

Same case as with Window.

Good question. Probably the Germans, although the B-17 was a nice aircraft.

The Germans came close, but on virtually all counts they failed miserably in even beginning the construction of heavy bombers. The Amerika Bomber project was a total failure, and the heaviest bombers they deployed at any point were, at best, medium bombers with extreme range. They put a lot of new stuff on paper, but didn't succeed in the slightest to build virtually any heavy bombers.

The UK was leagues ahead of the Germans in the realm of heavy bombers, and the US was further ahead of the UK, if for no other reason than the Norden Bombsight.

You, by stealing all of our research. Well done right there.

And the Attlee government was willing to do what, exactly, with that research?

Window.

I am still failing to find any reference to said "window."

I am still failing to find any reference to said "window."

Chaff.

Window.

Don't be obtuse Yoot, chaff is not stealth technology, it is a countermeasure.

I am still failing to find any reference to said "window."

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_%28radar_countermeasure%29)

Chaff.

Chaff is not, in any way, stealth.

Chaff does nothing to decrease or alter the radar signature of an aircraft, it merely screws with the ability of radar to function. Properly, and is countered with line-of-sight defenses, such as fighter interceptors.

It is a countermeasure, and the reason why I had problems figuring out what it is happens to be because I was cross-referencing it with the word stealth, something it has nothing to do with.

oh got the Americans and Euros are arguing again over who has the best fighter.

As far as Euro fighter Vs F-22
the Euro fighter is designed for a different mission from the F-22 Vs F-35.
Europe needs a fighter for closer ranged defensive Air cover. Hence the emphasis on maneuverability and less on minimizing radar cross section.

F-22 fits America's need for a Offensive long range engagement fighter. The emphasis was on minimizing the radar cross section and long range engagement capability.

F-35 is designed to be a cheap multi role fighter with a removal of classified technology so they can be sold to other governments. It is more or less comparable to the F16 which is the most largely produced military aircraft in the world.

The swiss aircraft I know little about but what i know places it compareable to the Euro fighter.


if i had my choice I would fly the F-22 because recent history shows the ability to engage the enemy at long distance while avoiding engagement from said enemy is most likely to give a winning edge.

I am going to set all of you straight. The F-22 Raptor is the best fighter around period.

It is the stealthiest fighter in the world
Radars register it as a bumblebee
Has first look, first shot, first kill capability
meaning that it sees the enemy first, shoots at the enemy first, and kills the enemy before the enemy even knows that the F-22 is out there.
Has excellent Air-to-ground support
More manueverable than all other stealth fighters
DAMN FAST
BEST DAMN ordinances in the world

Remember, everything is a big penis contest between Europe and America. Everything

For explaining my fascination for Mirage 2000, let me introduce you to some propaganda :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ROyKLiLOo&feature=related

Remember, everything is a big penis contest between Europe and America. Everything

It's what friends do :) [/sarcasm]

Indeed.

In a kind of way, us, with Window.


You mean chaff?

Good question. Probably the Germans, although the B-17 was a nice aircraft.

They had long bombers with small payloads. We perfected multiple planes with long range and heavy payloads.

You, by stealing all of our research. Well done right there.

There isn't one yet, hypersonic being Mach 5.



That would be us, with the Aerial Target.

You got me there. I was thinking of Operation Aphrodite.

It's what friends do :) [/sarcasm]

So absolutly fucking true.

I am going to set all of you straight. The F-22 Raptor is the best fighter around period.
Depends upon what criteria you use...
It is the stealthiest fighter in the world
But then again it is the only stealth fighter, so that's not hard to accomplish.
Radars register it as a bumblebee
Care to back that up?
Has first look, first shot, first kill capability
Says more about the AWACS and the missiles then it does the plane.
More manueverable than all other stealth fighters
False, it isn't more maneuverable than itself, which it would have to be to make your statement true, see above for explanation.

radar picks it up as a bumble bee

Depends upon what criteria you use...

Care to back that up?



He is likely correct though the exact radar cross section is classified it is extremely small this is done by the shape of the aircraft tending to reflect most radar waves away from where they originated. Just it will be hard to back it up with fact as the information is classified.

that being said part of the reason the F-22 can destroy targets before the F-22 can be seen is the small radar cross section so I would say it says a lot about the fighters design.

The Euro fighter is a good aircraft as well and suits the needs of European countries more because by the time a aggressor has violated many European countries air space they are often close enough to void the advantage of having a small radar cross section. so europe opted for a more close ranged fighter.

The YF-23! Concept plane 2 built, but bought by NASA. It was more stealthier, and faster than the F-22, but lost to it because the YF-23 was more expensive. So I guess the F-22. I also like the F-4 Phantom, the F-16 Falcon, and also the Su-27 Flanker for its Cobra maneuver.
Edit: Don't forget the F-15 Eagle. Didn't get into the MiGs much.

He is likely correct though the exact radar cross section is classified it is extremely small this is done by the shape of the aircraft tending to reflect most radar waves away from where they originated. Just it will be hard to back it up with fact as the information is classified.

Indeed. For a comparison, the missiles that an F-22 fires have a bigger radar cross-section. Which is why they're stored internally.

that being said part of the reason the F-22 can destroy targets before the F-22 can be seen is the small radar cross section so I would say it says a lot about the fighters design.

The jet also has to lock onto the target first, which says a lot about its electronics capability, which has to be packed into the plane and still keep it stealthy.

Incidentally, after reading Wiki, the F-22 is actually not as "stealthy" as the F-117. But the F-22 was designed to also lower other kinds of detection, such as visual and infrared. Over-all, it's harder to detect than the F-117, but the latter has a lower radar signature.

The YF-23! Concept plane 2 built, but bought by NASA. It was more stealthier, and faster than the F-22, but lost to it because the YF-23 was more expensive. So I guess the F-22. I also like the F-4 Phantom, the F-16 Falcon, and also the Su-27 Flanker for its Cobra maneuver.
Edit: Don't forget the F-15 Eagle. Didn't get into the MiGs much.

the raptor is already considered very expensive at 130 mil.
the VF-23 was at 650 mil per.

The YF-23 also stacked AAMs vertically in the internal launcher, so if one failed to leave, that launcher could no longer be used, among other problems of a similar kind.

The YF-23 also stacked AAMs vertically in the internal launcher, so if one failed to leave, that launcher could no longer be used, among other problems of a similar kind.

That's just bad design. Multiple failsafes, people!

For those of you interested in seeing the JAS in action before you make any judgement, take a look at these videos :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3VnwJcPYE0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tlCx_FTpgI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJQKCUjcslM&feature=related


After you've seen them, say what you think! :D


Edit:

Here is a link to a website with technical data on Gripen. The website is reliable.

http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/TechnicalSummary.htm

Here is a link with some other info, probably less reliable, due to the fact that it seems to be a "fan site". But still an interesting read.

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/

Here is my retort.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVTV8uRXtI

:D

The F-15 and F-16 are excellent fighters despite their age, but only the A-10 gives me that funny happy feeling. Maybe it's the BFG in the nose, maybe it's the payload, maybe the fact that it's a $#%$%$# tank with wings that can fly and turn on a dime.

The F-15 and F-16 are excellent fighters despite their age, but only the A-10 gives me that funny happy feeling. Maybe it's the BFG in the nose, maybe it's the payload, maybe the fact that it's a $#%$%$# tank with wings that can fly and turn on a dime.

I can't wait to see them again. Every year, a pair of them fly over the Shelton-Derby Memorial Day parade (and they fly low and fast, making multiple circuits over the route). It is really awesome when they go screaming overhead a couple hundred feet in the air (hopefully this year, I'll get some good pictures of them).

The F-15 and F-16 are excellent fighters despite their age, but only the A-10 gives me that funny happy feeling. Maybe it's the BFG in the nose, maybe it's the payload, maybe the fact that it's a $#%$%$# tank with wings that can fly and turn on a dime.

QFT

I can't wait to see them again. Every year, a pair of them fly over the Shelton-Derby Memorial Day parade (and they fly low and fast, making multiple circuits over the route). It is really awesome when they go screaming overhead a couple hundred feet in the air (hopefully this year, I'll get some good pictures of them).

I was in Spokane, WA a few years back when there was an air show at Fairchild Air Force Base. I got to see a demonstration of the A-10. Words cannot descrobe the awesomeness of that plane.

I was in Spokane, WA a few years back when there was an air show at Fairchild Air Force Base. I got to see a demonstration of the A-10. Words cannot descrobe the awesomeness of that plane.


It makes me happy in the pants. Does it do the same for you?

You can disagree if you want, but I'm still right, the A-6 was an attack bomber, the same job the F/A-18 was built for...
Can the serve the role of a fighter in a pinch? Yes they can, but it is not the role they were designed for.
What's your definition of a 'fighter'?

The USAF seems to think anything with a jet engine is a 'fighter'. For me, it's more a matter of necessity. You're a fighter if you need to handle an Air-to-Air situation. You're a ground attack plane, if that's what the need is. Some planes and pilots are better at some missions than others.

Ok, I'm going to repeat this, the planes that are on the list are there because they were nominated...

I realize that three of the planes really shouldn't be on a list of best fighters, since they are in fact not fighters.

For those of you wondering, the 3 are the A-10, the F/A-18, and the F-35...
All 3 are attack bombers, not fighters.

I beg to differ, of course it is how you define what constitutes a jet fighter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_II


The F-35 is replacing the Hornet, not the Super Hornet.

Not in Australia, the F-35 is replacing both the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet, admittedly the Super Hornet is only being used as a transition plane from the Hornet to F-35.

As for my vote the F-22. It would be nice if the Americans allowed some of its more trusted and long term allies to have access to the F-22, but it seems like the politicians on Capitol Hill are selfish and won't let anyone else play with their toys

Not very inventive? Who invented stealth?


The Germans, with their Ho series of flying wing bombers. They were among the first to note the reduced vastly radar cross sections.


The airplane industry itself?


Germany, Britain, America, and any number of early adopters to the aircraft.


Who stole the idea for Air to air missiles from the Germans first?


So glad to see that you admit that America at least steals some of the tech it uses.


Who perfected the concept of the Heavy bomber?


Define perfected. If you mean long range, heavy payload, heavy armament, the Sikorsky Ilya Muromets from Russia was the world's first strategic bomber, built in 1913.


Who broke the sound barrier?


Wernher von Braun. His V2 rockets were supersonic. Before that was the designer of the Paris gun, which were also supersonic on descent, but that wasn't powered flight, so we won't consider that.


Who made the first hypersonic manned aircraft?


Nobody. Hypersonic is Mach 5. There are no manned aircraft that travel at that speed.


Who came up with the First UAV?


Archibald Low, a British aeronautics engineer. His UAV was built in 1916.


We did


You mean you like to pretend you did. America does that a lot you know, steal tech, and then claim credit for it. Of course their lack of global education and awareness, not to mention propaganda, doesn't help the local populace. I mean you have people who can't even find America on the map.

It must be a fascinating sociological study. A nation of mostly patriotic ignoramuses.

Nobody. Hypersonic is Mach 5. There are no manned aircraft that travel at that speed.


Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15)

Wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-15)

I'll give you that, if you retract the whole space thing. The Russians beat America to it. The only difference is that America went further, but Russia got there, meaning space, first.

In a kind of way, us, with Window.

The Germans had some designs that used carbon impregnated wood, reducing the cross section of the plane.

Good question. Probably the Germans, although the B-17 was a nice aircraft.

Actually it was the Russians during WW1, with their Sikorsky Ilya Muromets, a bomber which could carry hundreds of kilograms of cargo/bombs.

I'll give you that, if you retract the whole space thing. The Russians beat America to it. The only difference is that America went further, but Russia got there, meaning space, first.

You stated that no aircraft had hypersonic capabilities. I countered with the X-15. Your "giving it to me" is irrelevant. You were Wrong.

But, for shiggles, I'll discuss some. TBH, it's not that hard to plop a dude in a pressurized capsule and blast him into orbit. Dangerous, but not that technically challenging. Vostok just built off Sputnik. Bigger rocket gets bigger metal ball, this time with human inside.

Interesting factoid, though. Technically, according to the IAF's rules prior to Vostok 1, Yuri Gagarin was not the first human to complete a space flight. The parameters for such a flight say that the human must go up and come down in the same spacecraft. Gagarin, along with the other Vostok participants, ejected from their craft and landed via parachute. Semantics, yes, but interesting nonetheless.

I should clarify my previous statements. My statement regarding the Space Program was more of an overall analysis, rather then them regarding firsts.

Spaceflight is not a one off record. The first guy there is hardly telling of overall progress regarding manned flight. To that note, NASA has just as many, if not more, firsts compared to the Soviet program. For example, the first orbital rendevouz, the first manned docking, and the first spacewalk where the walker didn't almost kill himself.

But, for shiggles, I'll discuss some. TBH, it's not that hard to plop a dude in a pressurized capsule and blast him into orbit. Dangerous, but not that technically challenging. Vostok just built off Sputnik. Bigger rocket gets bigger metal ball, this time with human inside.

Oh of course, and going to the moon is really a walk in the park. All you need is a bigger rocket, a bigger metal ball, and a smaller rocket in it for the return trip. Please, the controlled energy required to reach orbit wasn't anything short of astronomical by the standards of the time.

But if we want to talk about the moon, the Russians were the first to send artificial satellites and landing probes to the moon. All the Americans did was build a bigger rocket as opposed to the Russian idea of many smaller rockets.


Interesting factoid, though. Technically, according to the IAF's rules prior to Vostok 1, Yuri Gagarin was not the first human to complete a space flight. The parameters for such a flight say that the human must go up and come down in the same spacecraft. Gagarin, along with the other Vostok participants, ejected from their craft and landed via parachute. Semantics, yes, but interesting nonetheless.

Bah, same spacecraft doesn't mean very much. Until the shuttle came around, and not even then, nobody has ever gone up to space and come down in the exact same spacecraft they sat in, with the possible exception of that privately designed one by Burt Rutan. They came back sans boosters, stages and fuel tanks. Gagarin's case is merely an extension on the same principle.

I should clarify my previous statements. My statement regarding the Space Program was more of an overall analysis, rather then them regarding firsts.

Spaceflight is not a one off record. The first guy there is hardly telling of overall progress regarding manned flight. To that note, NASA has just as many, if not more, firsts compared to the Soviet program. For example, the first orbital rendevouz, the first manned docking, and the first spacewalk where the walker didn't almost kill himself.

The first orbital rendezvous and docking belongs to the Soviet program. 1962 and 1967 respectively. First spacewalk goes to the Americans.

Oh of course, and going to the moon is really a walk in the park. All you need is a bigger rocket, a bigger metal ball, and a smaller rocket in it for the return trip. Please, the controlled energy required to reach orbit wasn't anything short of astronomical by the standards of the time.

But if we want to talk about the moon, the Russians were the first to send artificial satellites and landing probes to the moon. All the Americans did was build a bigger rocket as opposed to the Russian idea of many smaller rockets.

Not in the slightest. Many more forces come into play in a interplanetary trip like that. That's why the revolutionary CMC was necessary. Earth Orbit activites and lunar navigation are two completely different things.

Bah, same spacecraft doesn't mean very much. Until the shuttle came around, and not even then, nobody has ever gone up to space and come down in the exact same spacecraft they sat in, with the possible exception of that privately designed one by Burt Rutan. They came back sans boosters, stages and fuel tanks. Gagarin's case is merely an extension on the same principle.

Oh, of course. Just semantics. But I thought it was a neet fact. But I completely agree.


The first orbital rendezvous and docking belongs to the Soviet program. 1962 and 1967 respectively. First spacewalk goes to the Americans.

Incorrect. Alexei Leonov made the first spacewalk during Voskhod 2. Problem was, his suit was so ballooned he had trouble getting back into the airlock. He had to depressurize his suit, risking decompression sickness, a very bad thing to have in space.

First orbital docking was made in Gemini 8, with Dave Scott and Neil Armstrong.

The first orbital rendezvous was made when Gemini 6 and 7 maneuvered within feet of each other. Just having the booster launch capsules in similar orbits does not a rendezvous make.

Can't understand why the Su-30 is in the poll (which is an export variant of the old Su-27) instead of the Su-35. Or the latest MiG-29 variant.

Also, the poll features fighters that are built for very different roles. It is already difficult to compare the EFA and the Raptor. Also, the Foxhound compared to the EFA? They're totally different: the Foxhound is a 4th generation long-range interceptor, while the EFA is a 5th generation air-superiority multirole.

As for my vote the F-22. It would be nice if the Americans allowed some of its more trusted and long term allies to have access to the F-22, but it seems like the politicians on Capitol Hill are selfish and won't let anyone else play with their toys

To be honest I seriously doubt any government other than the US can afford them, the don't come cheap. Plus they don't want to just give away their military technology advantages (I wish Britain would do the same instead of giving or selling all our best stuff to other countries)

BEST DAMN ordinances in the world

Not sure about that. Europe is working on some pretty good stuff as well, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

Here is my retort.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVTV8uRXtI

:D

I'll take 50! :D

Can't understand why the Su-30 is in the poll (which is an export variant of the old Su-27) instead of the Su-35. Or the latest MiG-29 variant.

Also, the poll features fighters that are built for very different roles. It is already difficult to compare the EFA and the Raptor. Also, the Foxhound compared to the EFA? They're totally different: the Foxhound is a 4th generation long-range interceptor, while the EFA is a 5th generation air-superiority multirole.

EFA ? you mean euro fighter ?
My understanding is the euro fighter is a 4.5 gen not a true 5th Gen.

EFA ? you mean euro fighter ?
My understanding is the euro fighter is a 4.5 gen not a true 5th Gen.

True. The Eurofighter Project went so long over projection (and so far over budget) that they created the best possible fourth generation fighter, just as the fifth gen stuff arrived to overtake it.

EFA ? you mean euro fighter ?
My understanding is the euro fighter is a 4.5 gen not a true 5th Gen.

There is no 4.5th gen. You see, ordinal numbers don't get fractions.

Simply, the EFA, the F-22, and the Berkut are all radically different approaches to the fifth generation. Anything that has supercruise, is aerodynamically unstable, can manage 9g turns and attack at BVR (or any reasonable mix of the above) is 5th generation.

To be honest I seriously doubt any government other than the US can afford them, the don't come cheap. Plus they don't want to just give away their military technology advantages (I wish Britain would do the same instead of giving or selling all our best stuff to other countries)

I know Australia could afford it, and if given the chance we would cut our losses on the F-35 and snap up the F-22.

Can't understand why the Su-30 is in the poll (which is an export variant of the old Su-27) instead of the Su-35. Or the latest MiG-29 variant.

That would be my fault, I was going off of memory rather than double-checking to make sure I had the right plane in mind.

I actually think the best fighter is the Su-47 Berkut.

There is no 4.5th gen. You see, ordinal numbers don't get fractions.

Simply, the EFA, the F-22, and the Berkut are all radically different approaches to the fifth generation. Anything that has supercruise, is aerodynamically unstable, can manage 9g turns and attack at BVR (or any reasonable mix of the above) is 5th generation.

I think the euro fighter lacks in the stealth department.
all other fighters(current and planned) considered true 5th generation have internal ordinance.

for instance India's MCA
Russia's PAK FA, and mig 1.44
South Korea's KFX
And of course US F-22 F-35 and FB-22

I think the euro fighter lacks in the stealth department.
all other fighters(current and planned) considered true 5th generation have internal ordinance.

for instance India's MCA
Russia's PAK FA, and mig 1.44
South Korea's KFX
And of course US F-22 F-35 and FB-22
wiki:f-22

While in its air-superiority configuration, the F-22 carries its weapons internally, though it is not limited to this option. The wings are capable of supporting four detachable hardpoints. Each hardpoint is theoretically capable of handling 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) of ordnance. However, use of external stores greatly compromises the F-22's stealth, and has a detrimental effect on maneuverability, speed, and range. As many as two of these hardpoints are "plumbed", allowing the usage of external fuel tanks.

Anyway, passive "stealth" is an iffy concept, as showed to an F-117 by a Jugoslav 40-year-old Goa SAM. Low observability coupled with active stealth (like plasma stealth) is a more serious thing. I wouldn't trust "stealth" claims.

To be honest I seriously doubt any government other than the US can afford them, the don't come cheap. Plus they don't want to just give away their military technology advantages (I wish Britain would do the same instead of giving or selling all our best stuff to other countries)

I don't post here much these days, but I know that there are several governments that were eager to snap up the F-22, not the least of which is my current country of residence, Japan. The JASDF is one of the very few air forces with both the need and the cash for an advanced air superiority fighter, especially given the F-22's nature as an F-15C replacement.

Personally, I think we should just bite the bullet and allow other nations to have access to our new toy, especially given both recent calls from Japanese protesters to get out and nudging from US politicians urging the Japanese to take on more of the burden of maintaining the USFJ, but we're (I assume) wary of a future Japanese shift towards China that would put our technology in the hands of the PRC.

Unlikely? You betcha. This world makes my head hurt. The original question of "best jet fighter" is a little unclear, as there are a whole lot of things that factor into "best", but as far as performance goes I'd say that the F-22 can beat anything flying hands-down...for now. We'll see what the Russian Federation has waiting in the wings, and I wouldn't be surprised to see mature, highly competitive aircraft begin to emerge from the Chinese Aviation Industry in the next few years either...assuming that whole country doesn't go to pieces first.

wiki:f-22

While in its air-superiority configuration, the F-22 carries its weapons internally, though it is not limited to this option. The wings are capable of supporting four detachable hardpoints. Each hardpoint is theoretically capable of handling 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) of ordnance. However, use of external stores greatly compromises the F-22's stealth, and has a detrimental effect on maneuverability, speed, and range. As many as two of these hardpoints are "plumbed", allowing the usage of external fuel tanks.

Anyway, passive "stealth" is an iffy concept, as showed to an F-117 by a Jugoslav 40-year-old Goa SAM. Low observability coupled with active stealth (like plasma stealth) is a more serious thing. I wouldn't trust "stealth" claims.

The shootdown of the F-117 over Serbia was much more due to the incompetence of NATO planners and the intelligence of the Serbian battery commander then any inherent flaw in stealth technology.