The Best Fighter

[Eagle99 0]

What`s the best (REAL) fighter???

[SUICIDAL 402]

MIRAGE III the F@@@@ !!!! REAL FIGTHER

 

That was to fly and fight.

None of computers and electrical systems and flight commands.

Man and machine together in a single beast of the air annihilating

MIRAGE FOR EVER !!!!!!!!

Test in combat

Edited April 30, 2010 by SUICIDAL

[+Dave 2,318]

F-15 in that list, never lost in A2A combat. Just my opinion though.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Best at what? - you need to change it to "favourite jet", or at least remove the 5th Gen fighters (F-35 and F-22)

[+Gepard 10,241]

A definition of "best" would be helpfull.

Is "best" the plane with the "best" flight performance?

Or is it the most successfull plane?

How do wou want to compare a F-16 with a P-51? Who is better?

[+malibu43 142]

This thread is destined for success.

[FastCargo 412]

This thread is destined for success.

 

x2

 

I'll be watching this one closely.

 

FC

[+Dave 2,318]

Keep in mind folks, a language barrier could exist with him using the word best. I think he might of meant favorite or what anyone thinks they best fighter is to him or her.

[+Gocad 26]

F-8 Crusader....other types may have more impressive combat records, but they are definitely not as cool as the MiG Master.

[+Crusader 2,050]

Gnat

[+Brain32 265]

Keep in mind folks, a language barrier could exist with him using the word best. I think he might of meant favorite or what anyone thinks they best fighter is to him or her.

 

Ast-la me-ti I ked-chec his file-pro, he was lwe-twe

 

I voted MiG-21

[UnknownPilot 33]

MIRAGE III the F@@@@ !!!! REAL FIGTHER

 

That was to fly and fight.

None of computers and electrical systems and flight commands.

Man and machine together in a single beast of the air annihilating

 

 

Not getting into the debate of which is best overall in history or any specific period, but just to comment on this in particular, I'd say the ultimate incarnation of a fighter plane that is man, machine, and aerodynamics, no glass pit, no FBW, would be the Su-27S (Flanker A). Unless I'm mis-informed about that aircraft (which I might be), but per an episode of Wings that talked about "the last generation" of Soviet fighters, it stated that the Flanker and Fulcrum were responses directly to the Eagle and Falcon (respectively), and that for each, a FBW system was considered, but ultimately eschewed due to the lack of necessary sophistication in that area in Soviet technology at the time. (there was even a direct copy of the F-15 shape that was considered, but dismissed in favor of what was seen as a "better" aero design)

[Slartibartfast 153]

What no Hunter or English Electric Lightning...

 

I love the old Tomcat it brings the big missiles to the fight and shoots you in the face at 100nm and then still has the ability to get down and dirty in a Guns heater fight... (The last one is especially true of the F-14D with it's souped up engines)...

 

But for an early'ish Jet the hunter well she looks wonderful... and the Lightning for her day was awesome...

 

So I had to vote Other...

[+streakeagle 864]

The F-86/MiG-15 are missing if this is going to be a jets only list. Otherwise, all the "best" fighters from WWI to the 1960s are missing. "Best" would have to mean personal favorite given the arbitrary list of 60's to modern jets. Based on looks, I think the Flanker gets my vote. It looks like a wonderful blend of the US teen series yet retains some of the Soviet accents that clearly distinguishes it from any US/NATO aircraft. I very much dislike the F-22 and F-35, they look like overweight caricatures of high performance fighters thanks to the need to have large internal bays. If there is any airframe I like better than the Su-27, it is the F-23. I am very disappointed that the F-23 will never go into production. The F-22 looks like an inflated Eagle bent into a stealthier shape. The Eagle really looks good from some angles (espeically top views), but its main fuselage is essentially a square box. Blended body technology looks much more appealing. There are too many good looking 1950s and 1960s jets to mention, but none of them have the refinement of the Flanker and the F-23 looks like it is some kind of starfighter from Buck Rogers in the 25th Century... Which leads me to my honorable mention, a design that actually inspired a space ship in the Star Wars movies: the SR-71/YF-12. The SR-71 was prettier, but since the post said fighters, I think the YF-12 qualifies. If it were actually a fighter instead of a recon plane, I would make it my number 1 choice for "best fighter".

[Eagle99 0]

The best = the most efficient multirole jet

[+Gocad 26]

To be honest, I find the term multirole pretty confusing, since it's either used to describe an aircraft that could use in several different roles at the same time while this term is also attached to aircraft that could fulfill several roles (i.e. fighter & bomber) more or less satisfactory.

 

Not to mention that most attempts to compare aircraft usually ignore that pretty much all aircraft are built to different specifications, thus making all the "aircraft A is better at whatever than aircraft B" statements pretty pointless since in most cases aircraft A was designed to do just that while aircraft B wasn't.

 

Just saying.

[SUICIDAL 402]

Not getting into the debate of which is best overall in history or any specific period, but just to comment on this in particular, I'd say the ultimate incarnation of a fighter plane that is man, machine, and aerodynamics, no glass pit, no FBW, would be the Su-27S (Flanker A). Unless I'm mis-informed about that aircraft (which I might be), but per an episode of Wings that talked about "the last generation" of Soviet fighters, it stated that the Flanker and Fulcrum were responses directly to the Eagle and Falcon (respectively), and that for each, a FBW system was considered, but ultimately eschewed due to the lack of necessary sophistication in that area in Soviet technology at the time. (there was even a direct copy of the F-15 shape that was considered, but dismissed in favor of what was seen as a "better" aero design)

 

It's more than safe, you can not compare a SU-27 against a MIRAGE III.

To which I refer is that Delta has been tested in Combat on many occasions and in different theaters of battle.

And always responded appropriately.

The SU-27 was tested in the war in Ethiopia vs Eritrea and also gave good results.

It is complicated, a survey is very open and check more than anything personal tastes.

[Caesar 305]

Of course I'm voting F-14 for the poll, but like I wrote in my blog, the majority of comparisons are moot and either side of any comparison can be argued validly.

[Stingray72 6]

I kind of took what I read on here, what I have seen on t.v. or read in books, and what I have experienced on here.....

 

Some of you might have seen my posts, I am a die hard Phantom Phan.

 

The Best - let's just go all encompassing here: I vote for the Rhino. For her time she was the most capable fighter around in most regards, the short coming being turning, but just like in all the other wars it wasn't prudent to fight your enemies fight, you made him fight yours; the government restricted the bejesus out of our boys in Vietnam, so the real capabilities of the F-4 were not used as designed, but when they were deadly. Nothing could bomb better in the daylight better than the F-4, it had the toss bombing function that could put iron on target as well as any pilot could manually, proven over and over again by pilots who thought they could beat the system; most of the ones were hmbled, only the hard heads or idiots really believed they could do better themselves. There was no faster recce bird, no faster or more capable FAC jet, no better all weather capable fighter IN THE WORLD, and only three planes in our inventory that could do better at night. When she first arrived nothing could touch her, and when the Navy figured out how to really fly her the Crusaders were beaten mercilessly over and over again to their surprise.

 

With the F-15 and F-14 coming online she was relagated to strictly reserve duty, recce, or WW missions, but dang, she did those well into the 90's. How many countries flew this plane? How many are still flying it? The military channel top ten gave her #2 behind the Mustand, but the Mustang was not as overall capable as the F-4, and if you want to compare combat records then fine, yes the F-4 is not doing as well as the, I dunno, the F-15 or F-14, but you have to look at the decade they were flown in, the planes they were fighting, and the training involved. After the Navy figured out how to fly her they sat on an 11:1 kill ratio, and with a superb electronincs suite it would have / could have been better. Not everyone who flies or has flown the F-4 is as well trained as the guys who stood up Top Gun, but all of the F-15 pilots are the absolute best that either the US or Israel can field.

 

I want to also argue against the Mirage, and not because I hate her; she's a great plane with a nice combat record. I love the thought of a real stick and rudder plane, and another comes to my mind: A-4. If someone had stuck an afterburner in the Scooter it would have run circles around the Mirage. The fact is that no one did so we are debating about it instead.

 

As far as the future goes, the Bug is looking pretty good. If the US can keep the F-18 around for as long as the F-4 was around then there might be a battle coming up on here again in a few years. the plane has been around for a good while now though, close to 30 years lol, unbelieveable. This, of course, is only my opinion, and I am not near as knowledgeable as some of the others on here. Very fun topic, and thank you for providing it!!

 

~Stingray

Edited May 2, 2010 by Stingray72

[MigBuster 2,861]

I kind of took what I read on here, what I have seen on t.v. or read in books, and what I have experienced on here.....

 

Some of you might have seen my posts, I am a die hard Phantom Phan.

 

Nothing could bomb better in the daylight better than the F-4, it had the toss bombing function that could put iron on target as well as any pilot could manually, proven over and over again by pilots who thought they could beat the system; most of the ones were hmbled, only the hard heads or idiots really believed they could do better themselves. There was no faster recce bird, no faster or more capable FAC jet, no better all weather capable fighter IN THE WORLD, and only three planes in our inventory that could do better at night. When she first arrived nothing could touch her, and when the Navy figured out how to really fly her the Crusaders were beaten mercilessly over and over again to their surprise.

 

Dont use the word "Nothing" yeah because otherwise if you are talking about the 60/70s

 

Faster Recce bird = SR-71

Daylight bomber (not counting PGMs)= A-7C/D/E (had a HUD with CCIP AFAIK)

 

You will know from reading the other thread that the quote about the F-8 was kinda debated so no need to raise it again.

 

I want to also argue against the Mirage, and not because I hate her; she's a great plane with a nice combat record. I love the thought of a real stick and rudder plane, and another comes to my mind: A-4. If someone had stuck an afterburner in the Scooter it would have run circles around the Mirage. The fact is that no one did so we are debating about it instead.

 

You would probably end up with a MiG-17F with that little airframe, and not the super fighter you were hoping for.

 

Israel prefered to use the Mirage 3 and Nesher as their primary fighters over the F-4 (which got a fair amount of kills)- but was used mainly in the attack roll. They admit out of the 50s interceptors the Mirage 3 was seen as inferior to the Lightning/MiG-21/F-104/F-106/Draken. But it was as fast and possibly more agile than the F-4. What it lacked was a better radar and could not carry as many A-A missiles, although it did carry the Matra 530 missile (which doesnt seem to have been that good).

 

With nearly 400 kills (1966-74) I certainly wouldnt write the Mirage3/5 of for that era - obviousy US and IDF training helped a tad

Edited May 15, 2010 by MigBuster

[+Gocad 26]

I kind of took what I read on here, what I have seen on t.v. or read in books, and what I have experienced on here.....

 

Some of you might have seen my posts, I am a die hard Phantom Phan.

 

[...]

When she first arrived nothing could touch her, and when the Navy figured out how to really fly her the Crusaders were beaten mercilessly over and over again to their surprise.

 

[...]

Sorry, I didn't want to repeat all the rose-colored daydreaming...

 

Seriously, that sentence above cracked me up.

 

It's okay to believe in a certain aircraft, no need to explain why....mostly because trying to do so opens the gates of hell.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Gocad

[SUICIDAL 402]

[Stingray72 6]

Dang, flamed by MigBuster lol,

 

Good points Mig, thanks, I had totally forgotten about the SR-71 and when it was designed. The Phantom nor anything else could touch it in speed.

 

As for Gocad, not so much Sir. Read some books about Top Gun. You will find that the Crusaders were enjoying the friendly dogfights for a long time. After the Navy figured out how to make the Phantom do it's thing, they more or less stopped winning.

 

~Stingray

[+Gocad 26]

Everybody should be entitled to drink his kind of kool-aid.

[Stingray72 6]

Well said Gocad. I'll ease up with the Phantom Phandom lol. Sorry, I just really love my plane!!! The F-8 did cause quite a stir when she came out, very capable a/c for certain.

 

My favorite prop is the Corsair, which my dad flew in Korea. There is one at a museum not far from me, a flying one, it's a -7 that used to serve in the French Navy. It's wearing different colors now, but boy is she pretty! Dad flew the -4's, very fast planes as far as props are concerned. Dad also has time in the Bearcat, SNJ, T-34, AD-4, FJ-4 and FJ-4, and the A-4C. He tried to get into F-4's, but the Marines were just packed with capable regular service pilots that wanted to fly the latest and greatest, so he opted to leave the Marines before he had to go to war in the A-4; he left in 1964 and flew for United for the next 29 years, retiring when I was a kiddo. I know he flew DC-4's or DC-6's (not sure which), DC-8's, DC-10's, 707's, 727's737's, and 747's while with United.

 

My dad is 5'11" and fairly wide, this is relevant for this story. One time I called my pops to ask him what unit he flew A-4's with, and he was kind of drunk lol. I asked him what he thought of the little airplane, and it went from one of the greatest to one of the worst in the span of a single sentence.....

 

"Boy, what a good little airplane that was. She was pretty tight in a turn, felt good on the stick, a little cramped, not very fast either. Hmmf. Oh, and she had these little slats that would come out of the fronts of the wings, and sometimes they would only come out one at a time, then you'd fall out of the sky like a little corkscrew.....WHAT A DUMB JET!!!" lol