Tango01 | 07 Dec 2013 10:24 p.m. PST |
"What are the five greatest fighter aircraft of all time? Like the same question asked of tanks, cars, or rock and roll guitarists, the answer invariably depends on parameters. For example, there are few sets of consistent parameters that would include both the T-34 and the King Tiger among the greatest of all tanks. I know which one I'd like to be driving in a fight, but I also appreciate that this isn't the most appropriate way to approach the question. Similarly, while I'd love to drive a Porsche 959 to work every morning, I'd be hesitant to list it ahead of the Toyota Corolla on a "best of" compilation. Nations buy fighter aircraft to resolve national strategic problems, and the aircraft should accordingly be evaluated on their ability to solve or ameliorate these problems. Thus, the motivating question is this: how well did this aircraft help solve the strategic problems of the nations that built or bought it? This question leads to the following points of evaluation: Fighting characteristics: How did this plane stack up against the competition, including not just other fighters but also bombers and ground installations?
" Full article here link Do you agree? Amicalement Armand |
GarrisonMiniatures | 08 Dec 2013 5:13 a.m. PST |
Not much on that list I would agree with
but too many candidates and too broad a sweep. |
Oddball | 08 Dec 2013 5:21 a.m. PST |
"The MiG-21 is cheap, fast, maneuverable, has low maintenance requirements. It's relatively easy to learn to fly, although not necessarily easy to learn how to fly well." Perfect Soviet fighter, we'll get thousands of these in the air, maybe one will score a hit. |
Grand Dragon | 08 Dec 2013 6:24 a.m. PST |
Didn't Stalin say that ' quantity has a quality all of it's own ' ? |
Coelacanth | 08 Dec 2013 6:30 a.m. PST |
|
Heisler | 08 Dec 2013 8:42 a.m. PST |
Definitely to broad a sweep. At the very least it should be sub-divided into periods; WWI, WWWII, Korea and then post Korea should probably be divided into at least two periods maybe even three. |
Inari7 | 08 Dec 2013 9:11 a.m. PST |
Bad list, some very poor choices. Plus you should never compare WWI, WWII, and moderns together. |
Lion in the Stars | 08 Dec 2013 10:13 a.m. PST |
Yeah, I'd have to split the categories into eras. And I disagree about almost ALL the choices. No Spitfire, no Mustang, no Corsair? |
Grand Dragon | 08 Dec 2013 11:22 a.m. PST |
I'd probably go for : Camel , Spitfire , Me 262 , Mustang and the F-16. |
Black Bull | 08 Dec 2013 11:40 a.m. PST |
Why the 262 ? unreliable and about as manoeuvrable as a brick certainly fast if the pilot didn't blow his engine with too much throttle too quick. |
Grand Dragon | 08 Dec 2013 12:24 p.m. PST |
Why the 262 ? unreliable and about as manoeuvrable as a brick certainly fast if the pilot didn't blow his engine with too much throttle too quick. Who doesn't love the Me-262 ? YouTube link |
Kaoschallenged | 08 Dec 2013 12:54 p.m. PST |
|
Deadone | 08 Dec 2013 3:33 p.m. PST |
No Spitfire and no Mustang is bizarre. The Me 262 may have been revolutionary but it certainly doesn't seem like a good choice here. F-86 Sabre on the other hand would fit quite well. And the MiG-21? It's early versions were short range Mach 2 day interceptors with missile only armament – fits well for its role of intercepting strategic bombers. By the time it got all the improvements needed to make it a decent fighter (integral gun, extra fuel range and limited all weather capability – MiG-21S/M series), it was already obsolete. The Vietnamese got a lot of mileage out of the subsonic MiG-17 (improved MiG-15) too. But the USAF/USN had mainly the wrong kinds of aircraft (F-8 Crusader being an exception) and relied too much on unreliable tactics designed to kill nuclear bombers. The Indians and Vietnamese did well with the MiG-21 but that was down to pilot skill. Remember Israeli pilots did well with the S199 against Egyptian Spitfires despite it being a death trap with terrible handling (basically a Czech Bf109 with wrong engine in it that killed its performance and screwed it's handling). Only one I would agree with is the F-15. My list would probably be (separated into periods): Spitfire P-51 Mustang Bf109 Fw190 A6M Zero F-86 Sabre F-4 Phantom II Mirage III F-15 Eagle F-16 Fighting Falcon Dunno much about WWI aircraft so didn't include them. |
Ron W DuBray | 08 Dec 2013 6:06 p.m. PST |
ThomasHobbes Very good list sir. |
(Stolen Name) | 08 Dec 2013 7:46 p.m. PST |
No F-111c? Wot about the Harrier VSTOL? |
Toshach | 08 Dec 2013 8:20 p.m. PST |
The P-51 changed the complexion of the air war in Europe. Aside from being heavily armed, fast, and maneuverable, it's ability to escort bombers all the way on long range missions was a game changer. No other fighter that I can think of has had a similar impact. Any best-fighter list that does not include the P-51 cannot be considered seriously, IMHO. |
Deadone | 08 Dec 2013 8:47 p.m. PST |
No F-111c? F-111 was a long range ground attack aircraft – an interdictor as they used to call them. Only A2A version was the cancelled F-111B carrier version whose failure resulted in the developoment of F-14 Tomcat. Wot about the Harrier VSTOL?
Again not technically a fighter – Harrier was a ground attack jet though the more modern versions have got radar. Sea Harrier was A2A optimised though. However it wasn't that great. Whilst they did well in Falklands it was due to a number of factors – i.e. Argie Mirages were at very end of their fuel range, were often flying anti-shipping sorties (low altitude) and as such such Sea Harriers had all the advantages. A year or so after the Falklands the RN sent Sea Harriers to an exercise against Australian Mirage IIIs. The RAAF Mirages had none of the operating restrictions of the Argie ones, so wiped the floor with the Sea Harrier. Unlike the Argies, the Aussies managed to keep the engagement at higher speed and higher altitude where the Mirage had a massive advantage (as to be expected from a Mach 2 fighter versus a subsonic one). The Sea Harrier's main opponents were expected to be Soviet choppers so no emphasis on serious fighter capability. It did sterling service though. The Indians still have a dozen or so in service though with the arrival of the new carrier and the MiG-29K, it will probably be out of service by 2020 at the latest. |
ancientsgamer | 08 Dec 2013 8:55 p.m. PST |
Sopwith Camel (possibly tied with the SE-5a with kudos to the Fokker DVII) Spitfire (superbly maneuverable and was able to hold it's ow against faster planes, later versions were even better) P-51 Mustang (so good that they dominated air races for many years) F-15 – " It is considered among the most successful modern fighters, with over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights." Enough said, I think? F-22 (truly a modern game changer) Having said all this, it must be mentioned that there are airplanes that were the best in their day. But the above were the ones that have been real and quantifiable game changers. |
Deadone | 08 Dec 2013 9:09 p.m. PST |
The F-22 is still untested though. It's BVR capabilities are meant to be superb but it's WVR performance apparently doesn't really outmatch other modern jets ala Eurofighter. And there's plenty of reasons why not to rely on BVR or why BVR might not be possible:
1. Rules of Engagement which may require visual identification. 2. Historically BVR missiles have low Probability of Kill ratio (even as recently as Kosovo which is the last "massed" air combat (something like 4 A2A engagements. 3. Scenario pararemeters – e.g. in the last suppossed A2A engagement, Israeli F-15s had no chance to use BVR or (stealth if they had it) as they were: a. Escorting a non-stealthy B707 ELINT aircraft. b. The engagement happened so quickly that there was no opportunity for BVR missile launches. 4 . The other thing that kills F-22s is very low numbers (only 187 built, a few crashed already + only about 140 combat capable) and poor availability due to it being maintenance intensive.
F-22 fleet servicability rate is a mere 55% according to Government Accounting Office, which is considerably lower than current fighters (80%). And these things matter – part of the reason the Sherman and T-34 were such great tanks was numerical availability and relative ease of maintenance compared to a Tiger or Panther.
|
20thmaine | 09 Dec 2013 11:02 a.m. PST |
F-15 : good in its day, but it seems that it is outgunned by Eurofighter, and F-22 will wipe the floor with it. |
Deadone | 09 Dec 2013 2:32 p.m. PST |
F-15 : good in its day, but it seems that it is outgunned by Eurofighter F-15 is more capable in ground attack role than a Eurofighter whose ground attack capabilities are still relatively primitive.
Latest F-15 versions have AESA radar and other features that the Eurofighter still doesn't have (Eurofighter is working on AESA version of CAPTOR). Eurofighter is an excellent A2A platform but an F-15 will still give it a run for its money.
All of this means the F-15 still sells better as such e.g. Saudi Arabia, Singappore and South Korea have all recently ordered/acquired a total of 169 F-15K/SG/SAs compared to a grand total of 99 Eurofighter export orders (Saudi Arabia (72), Oman (12) and Austria (15 bare bones versions). Though with Americans contemplating opening up F-35 to Middle East earlier, both the F-15 and Eurofighter can expect to be out of production by 2020. |
Inari7 | 09 Dec 2013 8:44 p.m. PST |
I agree with the above poster, the Fokker DVII aircraft is SPECIFICALLY required all aircraft to be surrendered as one of the conditions to end WWI you know the allies were terrified of that aircraft. |
Kaoschallenged | 09 Dec 2013 9:18 p.m. PST |
And they were used Postwar by the Poles,Hungarians,Dutch, Swiss and the Belgians. Robert |
20thmaine | 10 Dec 2013 3:55 a.m. PST |
@ThomasHobbes – ground attack and price probably helps the F-15, but air to air it's just a target for Eurofighter. Meteor is a game changer for beyond visual range combat, and the USA is playing catch up. Or so I've read. Get a better missile on F-15 and it's back in the game (it's all about payload these days). |
John D Salt | 10 Dec 2013 2:18 p.m. PST |
OK, 5 is far too few, but I would say (in chronological order): 1. Fokker Eindecker. Invented the idea of the fighter aircraft with "The Fokker Scourge". 2. Bf 109. Produced in colossal numbers, symbol of the Legion Kondor and the Blitzkrieg, mount of aces such as Galland, Marseille and Hartmann. 3. Spitfire. The most beautiful aircraft ever built, the only type to be at the cutting edge of fighter performance throughout WW2, vanquisher of the 109 in the Manichean struggle in the burning blue that will "outlive Troy's tale when time is told". 4. Mustang. A classic of design, a model of Anglo-American co-operation, and the "little friend" to "The mighty Flying Fortresses, and Liberators too/That wrote the doom of Germany in contrails in the blue". 5. The Sabre. Mount of the first jet aces, mount of future astronauts, whipped all hell out of the MiGs over Korea and later was to score five kills in a single sortie in sixty seconds over Sardogha. It may thought odd that, as a Brit, I have chosen only one British aircraft; but it is the best of the lot, and I will point out that versions of the middle three all flew with Rolls Royce engines. All the best, John. |
Deadone | 10 Dec 2013 2:46 p.m. PST |
Good list John D Salt. Meteor is a game changer for beyond visual range combat, and the USA is playing catch up. Or so I've read. Get a better missile on F-15 and it's back in the game (it's all about payload these days). Meteor missile is not operational. RAF expect it in service by 2017. Typhoons use same AIM-120s the F-15 does. A Eurofighter will dominate an older model F-15 with mechanical radars but the newer model F-15s have upgraded AESA. Indeed in one instance 2 Spanish Eurofighters smashed 8 USAF F-15s in A2A combat in DACT. But these were older model F-15C/Ds without upgrades.
The USAF is retrofitting AESA radars into it's F-15 fleet. F-15 does have advantage of longer range which gives it more legs in a dog fight. |
Whirlwind | 04 Jan 2014 12:36 p.m. PST |
5. The Sabre. Mount of the first jet aces, mount of future astronauts, whipped all hell out of the MiGs over Korea and later was to score five kills in a single sortie in sixty seconds over Sardogha. Not disputing the choice, but there were aces on 262s weren't there? Regards |
Lion in the Stars | 04 Jan 2014 5:05 p.m. PST |
I don't know how many people earned their ace kills in the Me262, though. |
Whirlwind | 04 Jan 2014 9:29 p.m. PST |
Mike Spick lists six in his 'Luftwaffe Fighter Aces' book: Heinz Baer (16) Franz Schall (14) Hermann Buchner (12) George-Peter Eder (12) Erich Rudorffer (12) Karl Schnorrer (11) I'm not sure if there were any pilots who became aces on 262s for the first time though. Regards |
spontoon | 18 Jan 2014 4:30 p.m. PST |
Dumb list. One cant compare fighters from such widely different eras. My list would be: Boulton-Paul Defiant Blackburn Roc Brewster Buffalo Breda BA-88 Lince Bachem Natter for WWII, anyways! |
Deadone | 19 Jan 2014 9:51 p.m. PST |
Lovely list of junk there Spontoon. Given the Breda Ba.88 could barely take off and in many instances couldn't, does it even count as an aircraft? After all it's most useful purpose was a decoy target. By the way my favourite WWII tank is the L3/33 and /35. |
Joe Legan | 20 Jan 2014 3:53 a.m. PST |
Must say not understanding the discussion about the Eurofighter and the F-15. Agree with Mr Hobbs, that has not been our experience with the F-15 C or even the E. Cheers Joe |
Recovered 1AO | 24 Jan 2014 9:00 p.m. PST |
"The MiG-21 is cheap, fast, maneuverable, has low maintenance requirements. It's relatively easy to learn to fly, although not necessarily easy to learn how to fly well." If by low maintenance you mean pull the engine after 500 hours and replace it then yes. |
Rabbit3 | 25 Jan 2014 7:06 a.m. PST |
Who doesn't love the Me-262 ? After trying to fly the b***** thing in IL2 Sturmovik for ages. Me! |
CAPTAIN BEEFHEART | 25 Jan 2014 4:44 p.m. PST |
|
spontoon | 27 Jan 2014 5:23 p.m. PST |
@ThomasHobbes; There's a bit of a theme in my list, as well as all starting with "B". To illustrate my point about such lists
|