# The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

I belive the Avro Arrow simply because Im Canadian,
It has no combat record , but it definately would have changed the world we live in today if it wasnt cancelled.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

The Planes that I posted are the ones that I could think off the top of my head Im sure there are better ones out there so feel free to add more input on other Jets


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

I go with F-86 has a proven combat record, even if you discount the Korean war 10 to 1 kill ratio claim, it still walked away with at least a 4 to 1 kill ratio. It served for over 30 years and in combat even shot down Mig-21s.

The F-15 is second with something like a 105 to 0 kill ratio

You should of had the F-4 up there - althought it had it's trouble in Viet Nam (more for political reasons) it still performed well.

Between all 3 aircraft - they are the worlds largest distributor of used Mig parts...... 8) 

I believe if the Arrow was built, in a manueving dogfight, it would of been lunch.....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

The F4 Phantom was left off the list? Yikes!!!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The F4 Phantom was left off the list? Yikes!!!!



yeah thats my fault, chat about it though, this thread isnt depended solely on the Poll


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

English Electric Lightning. It was 'the' interceptor of it's day ...and it's day was one long day!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> English Electric Lightning. It was 'the' interceptor of it's day ...and it's day was one long day!



Sorry D - the Lightning was a great interceptor, but no combat record, and in a dogfight she would of been lunch.....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

The idea of the Lightning was not to get into dogfights. In any case, the Lightning was no slouch and could out-pace anything in it's day. It could even out-run a few of the missiles of it's day. 

Combat record or not, the Lightning intercepted (while not shooting down) Soviet aircraft on a daily basis. And it proved that it was able to get to the opponent before any other aircraft. All those other aircraft would have never been able as a first-line of defence, they just weren't quick enough. 

If we're basing this off combat record alone - then many, many aircraft have to be cast aside because they never had the oppurtunity. That's not basing off the aircraft's design, only it's oppurtunity.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The idea of the Lightning was not to get into dogfights. In any case, the Lightning was no slouch and could out-pace anything in it's day. It could even out-run a few of the missiles of it's day.
> 
> Combat record or not, the Lightning intercepted (while not shooting down) Soviet aircraft on a daily basis. And it proved that it was able to get to the opponent before any other aircraft. All those other aircraft would have never been able as a first-line of defence, they just weren't quick enough.



Agree!



plan_D said:


> If we're basing this off combat record alone - then many, many aircraft have to be cast aside because they never had the oppurtunity. That's not basing off the aircraft's design, only it's oppurtunity.


True - but the only measurements we have is operational performance (as you showed) and combat. I think the glory goes to "killer."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

The F4 has to be the best jet aircraft since 1946.

It saw combat in the Middle East and Vietnam (and Gulf War 1?).

It was used by dozens of nations

It was both a land based and shipbased fighter

It was used in the following roles: fighter, ground attack, interceptor, recon and "wild weasel".

It was in production for quite some time and thousands were built.

It was a front line aircraft for nearly three decades.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Oct 18, 2005)

Good point, syscom3. It had a good amount of operational capability and was used for all of them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The F4 has to be the best jet aircraft since 1946.
> 
> It saw combat in the Middle East and Vietnam (and Gulf War 1?).
> 
> ...



Yep! Gotta agree and yes it was in Gulf War 1 - Wild Weasel 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 18, 2005)

As much as I'd love to say the CF-105, the fact is that although the flight tests were looking good airframe wise, it never performed with its intended power-plant and the bugs with the fire-control and weapons systems were never worked out, before it was cancelled and scrapped. Obviously, it never even saw service much less combat. I'll always love it anyway though. 

So for now I'm going with the Su-37 or Mig-29. Just because they're wickedly cool.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2005)

> The F-15 is second with something like a 105 to 0 kill ratio



not quite, israil's lost atleast one........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > The F-15 is second with something like a 105 to 0 kill ratio
> 
> 
> 
> not quite, israil's lost atleast one........



Nope - I understand it made it back to base but was written off upon return...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 18, 2005)

not to combat I don't think...

I am saying the F-86 Sabre because I think it is cool and it had a proven success rate against enemy fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

I thought almost all of Israels kills in the 80's and 90's were from the F16.

I could be wrong.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

F-15 almost lost - close but no cigar!

"Accordingly, the F-15 was designed with broad-chord wings supplemented with additional lift from the upper surface of the wide fuselage. This feature showed its value several years later in the Middle East, when an Israeli F-15 lost its right wing in combat and was still able to return to its base for a normal landing."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I thought almost all of Israels kills in the 80's and 90's were from the F16.
> 
> I could be wrong.



IAF F-16s only had a small number of kills, check out this site....

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_22.shtml


----------



## Glider (Oct 18, 2005)

Has to be the F15.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

The F-15, followed rather closely by the F-86....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

The F-15 scored my favorite kill story....

*"One F-15E scored an aerial kill by dropping a laser-guided bomb on an airborne Iraqi helicopter."*

Feb. 15, 1991. In one of the most unusual air-to-air victories ever, Capt. Tim Bennett and Capt. Dan Bakke of the 4th Tactical Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., shoot down an Iraqi helicopter (probably an Mi-24 Hind) with a GBU-10 2,000-pound Laser-Guided Bomb dropped from their F-15E.
  

Here's a short article on the F-15's combat history....

F-15 in combat:

Israel :

The first IDF/AF action with Eagles took place on 27 June 1979, since that day the F-15's of the Israeli Air Force scored 17 air to air victories.

Saudi Arabia:

On 5 June 1984, Eagles of No 6 Squadron were involved in an air battle with Iranian piloted F-4 Phantoms witch were threatening Saudi oil fields. Two of the intruders were shot down by AIM-7 Sparrows. This was the first time (and the only) that McDonnell Douglas fighters fought each other. One RSAF F-15 shot down a pair of Iraqi Dassault Mirage F-1's during Desert Storm.

Desert Storm 17 January - 28 February 1991:

The USAF had five F-15C and two F-15E squadrons when the (air) war against Iraq began. Although the F-15E was still not fully combat-ready, 48 F-15Es flew in the Gulf War. F-15Es joined other Coalition aircraft in searching for and attacking Iraqi "Scud" missile launchers. These Scud hunt missions were largely unsuccessful, but the F-15Es attacked many other Iraqi targets of opportunity. The F-15C's scored 32 aerial kills, of a total of 41 victories. Twenty-four of these kills were achieved with the Sparrow missile, eight by AIM-9 sidewinders. One F-15E scored an aerial kill by dropping a laser-guided bomb on an airborne Iraqi helicopter. No F-15C/D Eagle fighters were lost during Desert Shield / Storm, two F-15E Strike Eagles were lost in action.

Provide Comfort 1 March 1991 - 1 January 1997

Northern/Southern watch: 1 January 1997 - 1 May 2003:

F-15C's of the USAF shot down three Iraqi Su-22's with the AIM-9 and one Pilatus PC-9 trainer.

On 14 April 1994 there was a tragic 'Friendly Fire' incident over Northern Iraq, when a pair of F-15C's shot down two UH-60 Black hawks, killing 26 American and United Nations personnel.

Deliberate Force: Aug.- Sept. 1994:

F-15C were in combat air patrols, and never shot down a Serbian aircraft (all F-16 kills) The F-15E was in air to ground actions.

Allied Force: 24 March - 10 June 1999:

On the first day of Allied Force 24 March 1999, F-15C's killed four Serbian MiG-29's with AIM-120 AMRAAM's. One pilot Major J.Kwhang from the 493rd FS shot-down two aircraft.

Enduring Freedom 7 October 2001 - :

F-15E 89-0487 shot-down a Mi-24 Hind helicopter in Afghanistan.

Iraqi Freedom 20 March 2003 - April 2003:

USAF F-15C/D's from Al Jaber AB, Kuwait and F-15C/D from Prince Sultan AB, Saudi Arabia flew together with F-15E Strike Eagles combat-missions in Iraq. One F-15E (88-1694/SJ) of 333rd FS, 4th FW from Seymour Johnson AFB, NC was shot-down near Tikrit in Iraq on 6 April 2003, the pilots were Killed in Action.

This article has been written by Rob Vogelaar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## evangilder (Oct 18, 2005)

Great stuff, Joe!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 18, 2005)

Interesting stuff FBJ.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Actually, as much as I love the Lightning. Off the basis of "greatest" being a literal term it has to be the F-15 'Eagle' nothing else has been able to defeat this marvel of an aircraft in a fight and it's combat record is truely perfect. 

The funny thing is, the first aircraft the F-15 shot down was a F-4!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The funny thing is, the first aircraft the F-15 shot down was a F-4!



That's almost as funny as dropping a 2000 bomb on a helicopter!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 18, 2005)




----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Talk about company rivallry.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Talk about company rivallry.



I say we have an F-16, F-22, F-35 "Free for all."


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 18, 2005)

That would be interesting. I would put my money on the F-22 though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

They should actually put aircraft in mock dogfights when choosing the design to adopt for the military. It might be dangerous but it'd be a good way to choose the best, as well as all the other tests they do. 

I bet McDonald Douglas was happy to hear the F-15 shot down the F-4. "So, we discovered today that our new fighter really is better than the old one."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I bet McDonald Douglas was happy to hear the F-15 shot down the F-4. "So, we discovered today that our new fighter really is better than the old one."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

The database that flyboy listed shows the first IAF kill by an F15 was a Mig21 shotdown on June 27 1979.

I dont recall anyone else using F15's in a combat area at that time, so that must be the very first kill for the F15.

The Saudi kill occured on Jun 5 1984, 4 years after the IAF kill.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The database that flyboy listed shows the first IAF kill by an F15 was a Mig21 shotdown on June 27 1979.
> 
> I dont recall anyone else using F15's in a combat area at that time, so that must be the very first kill for the F15.
> 
> The Saudi kill occured on Jun 5 1984, 4 years after the IAF kill.



Interesting - go to the fourm at that site - it's pretty intense!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Let me find my source ...then I'll get back to you.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

Sorry, that's correct. In July 1979, F-15s of the _Heyl Ha'Avir_ flew in support of F-4s and Kfirs who were on ground attack. They came into contact with Syrian MiG-21s and claimed several kills with no loss. 

Now ...it was in the Arab-Israeli wars - some aircraft's first ever kill was of another aircraft from the same company. This is going to annoy me until I discover it ...or discover it's bull ...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

Perhaps it was in the Suez crises that Israel used Anglo/French jets to shootdown Aran Anglo/French jets?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

Ummm, how does the F-15 only have one (mine) vote????

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> English Electric Lightning. It was 'the' interceptor of it's day ...and it's day was one long day!



I dont beleive Ive heard of this plane, do you have some pictures?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Ummm, how does the F-15 only have one (mine) vote????



Its a great plane but there is better ones out there


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

Lets not forget the Harrier, it basically won the air war in the Falkland Conflict on its own.

It wasnt the fastest or the safest plane to fly, but its agility is unquestionable, along with firepower a nd ruggedness.

And the fact that this aircraft is so handy because of its Vertical Takeoff/Landing capability


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 18, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> As much as I'd love to say the CF-105, the fact is that although the flight tests were looking good airframe wise, it never performed with its intended power-plant and the bugs with the fire-control and weapons systems were never worked out, before it was cancelled and scrapped. Obviously, it never even saw service much less combat. I'll always love it anyway though.
> 
> So for now I'm going with the Su-37 or Mig-29. Just because they're wickedly cool.


But lets not forget the plane was knowhere near being ready for Military service, Avro Canada could have made so many tweaks to the plane before we really knew what she was capable of.

I agree the Mig 29 is Beautiful, and the Su-37 could very well be the best aircraft today, against say an F-22


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

les, I have voted for the F-15 too. 

hussars, I cannot believe you have never heard of the Lightning. It was the interceptor of the RAF throughout the Cold War and was, with some debated, the champion interceptor. A design of 1947, it finally left service of the RAF in 1989. 

A picture of three Lightnings, from three different squadrons, is attached. The lower one is a F.6 from 11 Sqdn. - of whom my father served with during the 70s. 

The Harrier in terms of air-to-air combat victories, did win the air war over the Falklands on it's own. However, the point AA defence systems of the Royal Navy shot down more Argentine aircraft than the Sea Harrier.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

I would say the F106 was the most premier interceptor of the cold war.

I would even say the F4 used in an interceptor role would give the Lighting a run for the money.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 18, 2005)

Oh no... syscom just stirred the hornets nest....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

My father in law flew F-15s, F-16s, F-5s and F-106s. If you look on information about the B1B, the 106 was used as chase planes. Below is a decal sheet of one of the 106s he flew. His fav was the -15, he said the plane could do almost anything. The -106s were acquired after they were long retired and were sitting in the bone yard when they were picked up by his detachment to chase the B1B. (He was the chief Test Pilot) After some maintenance issues were solved (he almost had to punch out of one over Texas) him and the other B1B test pilots got to either fly chase or fly the B1. The 106s were also used for other operations (transport and in a few cases, dissimilar aircraft training). He told me he went up against F-15s and 16s in mock combat with the 106 and won!!!! (Probably more pilot skill than the aircraft). He told me that the 106 wasn't greatly maneuverable, but could dive and climb like a bat out of hell, he equated it's performance like a P-40  In later years I learned that his crew chief was a good friend of mine, "Rick" told me that he hated when they would go out and do mock combat with the -106s, he said my father in law always brought his back with wing screw heads popped off or some access panels missing!!!!

Hope this gives an insight on the -106, by the way the -106B model trainer was referred to as the "Station Wagon."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 18, 2005)

The -106's in the National Guard had some cool paint schemes. It was quite a pretty plane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

Nice photos D - if I had the money I'd try to get a ride in a Lightning - I think there is a guy in either Australia or S. Africa who flies them

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 18, 2005)

Didn't George Dubya fly an F-106 for a while in the Air National Guard? Or was that the F-102?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Didn't George Dubya fly an F-106 for a while in the Air National Guard? Or was that the F-102?



He flew a -102. I went on a site that was trying to discredit his military record. Right there in some of the "questionable" documents they were showing were his time in USAF aircraft. T-41, T-33 and F-102. If I remember he had about 300 hours in -102s....

If you go the the FAA website under airmen search you could look up George W. Bush - it shows he holds a multi engine intrument rating - it doesn't give his address!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

The English Electric Lightning served the RAF in both Great Britain and Germany, interceptions were made at very least once a week by 11 Sqdn. alone - sometimes up to five a night. They were the quicker than the F-106 to get into the air, and they were also quicker than the F-4 Phantom. They were 'the' frontline interceptor for the sole reason that nothing else in the Western World was as quick as the Lightning. 

And it's a well known fact that the Lightning could out-pace the Phantom. The RAF knew it and anyone with a bit of sense knows it. The Phantom was phased out of the RAF at the same time as the Lightning, and the Lightning was prefered by the RAF over the Phantom for interception duties. 

From the bell to air time the Lightning was out in under 2 minutes. That's including time for the crew to run out and prep the plane. With an initial climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute, the Lightning could reach Mach 0.87 and 44,000 feet AND be in the direction of the opponent in little over one minute from brakes off. 

It could hit Mach 2.3, it was a 1947 design. It carried two Red Top missiles with a seven mile range. It could detect the enemy at that range and beyond, it did not need to face it's enemy when releasing it's missiles. It also carried two 30mm Aden. It didn't need to warm up, it used AVPIN for instant engine start. It was one of the first aircraft to remove elevators from the tail plane and just move the whole elevator. It also had mechanical ABS breaks. 

It was a BIG-FAT-UGLY MOTHER F*CKER THAT WAS MEAN, QUICK AND JUST TOO DAMN GOOD! Face it, the Lightning was 'the' interceptor ...the F-106 was a slow retarded little pussy compared to the Lightning. I mean c'mon, F-106 initial climb rate of 29,000 feet ...what a pussy! And it doesn't use AVPIN either - so mister prissy pants F-106 has to warm up. 

And it's S.Africa, FB, I think he's got a T-Bird ...it might be a Lightning T.4


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It was a BIG-FAT-UGLY MOTHER F*CKER THAT WAS MEAN, QUICK AND JUST TOO DAMN GOOD! Face it, the Lightning was 'the' interceptor ...



I agree!



plan_D said:


> the F-106 was a slow retarded little pussy compared to the Lightning.



Now, Now D I think the -106 might of smacked around the Lightning similar to what the F-5 did to it!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2005)

As in interceptor the F-106 wouldn't stand a chance against the Lightning. Simple maths on climb rates alone, 29,000 feet vs. 50,000 feet - we all know the Lightning was superior. And the F-4E (clean) had a max. climb rate of 49,800 feet. That's a little closer but that is max. not initial!

In a dogfight, yes, the F-106 would have a better chance of a victory. But the Lightning was designed to fly up fast, unload it's missiles and fly home fast.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)

Agree now!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> les, I have voted for the F-15 too.
> 
> hussars, I cannot believe you have never heard of the Lightning. It was the interceptor of the RAF throughout the Cold War and was, with some debated, the champion interceptor. A design of 1947, it finally left service of the RAF in 1989.
> 
> ...



Ok Ive seen that Plane before, didnt the RAF replace those with F-4's?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Ok Ive seen that Plane before, didnt the RAF replace those with F-4's?



OUCH! - Now don't have a cow D


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

At, Joe's request I won't have a cow, but I will say; no, the RAF did not replace the Lightning with the Phantom. The Lightning was removed from service with the introduction of the Tornado F.2 in 1989, the Phantom was also replaced by the Tornado. The Phantom was to accompany the Lightning, never replace it because the Lightning was a better interceptor. The Lightning entered service 1960 some years before the Phantom. 

On a funny note, when the Tornado was introduced they used Lightnings as the mock enemy in the dogfights. The Lightnings were pouncing the Tornado's left, right and center. The Tornado pilots and RAF command were puzzled about these ancient aircraft obliterating these new fangled electric pieces. The Tornado's couldn't pick the Lightning up on their radar! And the Lightning pilots were loving it. How did the RAF solve this embarassment? They put over-wing tanks on the Lightning so A) It'd be slower, B) It'd have a bigger radar signature. 

The ultimate shape of a stealth is a diamond ...look at the Lightnings wings - they're the same as a F-117s.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

I find it very hard to believe the Tornado's radar were not picking up the radar returns.

As with all 1950's and 1960's aircraft, the radar cross section of aircraft was quite large. Plus it doesnt matter what shape the wings were. They were made from metal, thus reflected the radar pulses.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

Wait a second...

...I'm quite confused. What I just saw was someone with little to no knowledge of the Lightning, little to no knowledge of the Tornado, little to no knowledge of the Tornado introduction, little to no knowledge of ...well, anything to do with that time period involving the Lightning vs. Tornado and wasn't there at the time try to tell someone who's father was there, fixed the Lightning, saw the introduction of the Tornado, knew people who had to fix the over-wing tanks on so the Tornados could see them ...

I really could not care if you believe it or not, syscom. The fact is the Tornado could not detect the Lightning withouth over-wing tanks on. The Lightning was bouncing the Tornado, time and time again, much to the surprise of the Tornado pilots. My dad was there ... okay?

Most of the things you may, or may not, read in the books are what has been released to the public. A lot what you don't read doesn't bode well for the Tornado and is quite shocking. Why do I know? My dad was there ...okay? 

If you want to come over to my house and tell my father he is lying ...I will love to introduce you to him. But be warned, you call him a liar ...be prepared to be sucking up your meals through a straw for the next decade. 

And the shape of an aircraft makes all the difference. Do you think they made the F-117 like a diamond because it looks good?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

The Lighting had no different a radar cross section as of any other airplane of that era. That big high tail, long tall fuselage, all with plenty of 90 degree angles that would bounce any radar pulse. It reminds me of a F101, Mig 21 or F105. Big!

What makes an aircraft stealthy is the materials. The whole aircraft has to be made of non metallic materials, with no sharp angles. The shape of the wing in itself does not make an aircraft stealthy. The Lightning had neither. Did this distract it from its mission or performance? Nope. Did the wings make it stealthy? Nope.

I would suspect the Tornado's radar problem was more due to a software fault than anything else. Lots of multi-role radars had that problem when first deployed. (I used to work at HUGHES radar group and the engineers would tell us the nightmares in getting newly designed aircraft radars to work right).


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 19, 2005)

Syscom, how can you argue with someone who was there? Maybe it was the fault of the Tornado's radar but unless pD says that that is want the problem was I am inclined not to believe it.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

It was partially the Tornado's radar, but the Lightning is also a very small aircraft. The pictures are misleading, they are small. The Lightning pilot's loved it and actually told the Tornado pilots; "You're supposed to be attacking us!" but they just couldn't because without the over-wing tanks, the Tornado's couldn't pick them up. 

You think the Lightning is big, syscom? Go see one for yourself.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 19, 2005)

Found some pictures for size reference. All links are in properties on right click.






Note the overwing tanks.





In relation to the F-16.





In relation to a Tornado and a Hawk?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> What makes an aircraft stealthy is the materials. The whole aircraft has to be made of non metallic materials, with no sharp angles. The shape of the wing in itself does not make an aircraft stealthy.


WRONG! The YB-49 was almost undectable to radar. Why? It's RCS was low nothing to do with materials. - documented and proven.....

What makes an aircraft stealthy is a COMBINATION of a low RCS and the RAM material you spoke about. Many of the delta wing fighters of the 60s had a low RCS when no stores were carried....

Read "Skunk Works" bt Ben Rich.....


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2005)

The Lightning is quite a large aircraft, from the side. However, as the engines are over/under to use a shotgun expresion, from the front the radar signature is probably little more than a Mig 21.
As you both agree it was almost certainly a problem with the Radar as Navy F4's could pick up the Lightning which was resolved as time went on. The radar in the Tornado is now quite good but getting a little dated, the problem was with the plane it was mounted in.

The Lightning was definately the fighter of choice at the height of the cold war. Other planes claim credit for firsts that the Lightning had been doing for years. Going supersonic without afterburner, head on Infra red missiles, auto tracking of targets with the radar I could go on. I wouldn't be quite so quick to assume the F106 would win in a head to head. The Lightning has a habit of surprising people.

I know that during exercises the Lightning would often heavily outscore anything else because of its ability to fight in the vertiical. F104;s and F4's in partiicular as this was seen as their best tactic. F5's would often win if and only if, the Lightning pilot was tempted into a turning fight. Then again, F5's would do that to almost any other allied plane of the time.

Its worth noting that Saudi Lightning's were staioned in Egypt on the border with Isreal for a time after the 1973 war. Most Arab countries did that to show support and whilst no fighting took place, the IAF often intercepted the planes on patrol. As far as I am aware, they never intercepted a Lightning. 

By the way FJ your Dad sounds like a heck of a pilot. It would have been interesting to see what he could do with a Lightning.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

Glider said:


> By the way FJ your Dad sounds like a heck of a pilot. It would have been interesting to see what he could do with a Lightning.



Thanks Glider - He told me he would love to fly a Lightning, I guess he got to play with them in the 80s with the F-5s (he spent time in the Netherlands assisting them deploy their F-5) and was possibly one of the guys D spoke about. He said he never seen an aircraft climb like a Lightning!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

YB-49 was a flying wing with a low (for its day) radar cross section on the horizontal. Plus dont compare low powered airborne radars of the 50's as compared to the modern airborne radars of the 70's and 80's. Thats like comparing apples and oranges.

The Lighting is still pretty big. Look at the size of its tail and the fuelage. Even if its size is similar to the F16, it still has a big fat RCS. That fuselage is tall, and there are plenty of right angles at the wing attach points, and the tail assembly. Even head-on, it has a large RCS.

Unless the structure is all composite, on a radar, it would stick out like a sore thumb. You just cant argue basic physics on this. Now unless you provide evidence that other airborne radars in use couldnt detect it, then I would agree with you. However, just because one radar type couldnt detect it, doesnt mean its stealthy. It means there was a probable software fault.

Im curious though, where did they put the external tanks before the Tornado pilots complained? Dont look like theres much room under the wing because of the landing gear.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

Thank you, Glider. Someone with some sense. As I said originally, the original Tornado could not detect a Lightning without over-wing tanks. Lightning's used to bounce everything and anything. Many U-2s flying high had the surprise of a Lightning being higher ...


----------



## Glider (Oct 19, 2005)

Syscom. For size see my last post. Re the overwing tanks they had been around for a while but were little used. The Lightning is a very clean aircraft and the additional drag of the overwing tanks wiped out most of the advantage of the extra fuel. I don't have the figures but I am sure if you dig far enough the fact will support my memory.
As for putting them over the wing is something that is a difficulty from a mainanence point of view but has a number of beneifts. The Jaguar has its self defence Sidewinders mounted over the wing to keep the underwing hard points clear for GA work.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> YB-49 was a flying wing with a low (for its day) radar cross section on the horizontal. Plus dont compare low powered airborne radars of the 50's as compared to the modern airborne radars of the 70's and 80's. Thats like comparing apples and oranges.



Who's talking airborne systems? Ground systems had a hard time painting the YB-49....



syscom3 said:


> Unless the structure is all composite, on a radar, it would stick out like a sore thumb. You just cant argue basic physics on this. Now unless you provide evidence that other airborne radars in use couldnt detect it, then I would agree with you.



Again wrong! The RCS models used at radar test ranges to test the F-117 and some "other" stealth aircraft weren't built of RAM material and they were almost undetectable. How do I know this? I was there!!! I worked on the first 2 F-117 and ships 3 to 7 on the B-2. 

The SR-71 had a real low RCS - the only place it had RAM material was on the leading edges of it's wings (There's 2 on outdoor display in Palmdale, if you're ever up there, go see for your self).

The RAM materials is one part of the equation - radar can be defeated by shape as well. That was the point of Pyotr Ufimtsev's paper on Radar avoiding technology which was the basis of the whole "Have Blue" program. Undersecretary of defense Bill Perry stated in 1980 "Stealth Technology does not involve a single technical approach, but rather a complex synthesis of many. Even if I were willing to describe it to you I could not do it in a sentence or paragraph."

I suggest finding Aviation Heritage Magazine July 1992 edition - there is a lenghty article on the history of Stealth Technology. Much of the data for the article was gathered by talking to people like Ben Rich (I used to work with his daughter, Karen) and being there first hand. I wrote this article....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

The Lightning always had it's tanks on the wing, as opposed to under it. It never intercepted with them, it was merely to ferry the aircraft. The maintainers (one being my dad) found it a pain to take them off as they were heavy and very clumsy. In the end the RAF decided to completely do away with them and just use air-to-air refueling on ferry runs. 

No one ever said that other aircraft couldn't detect the Lightning. Did anyone say the Phantom was unable to pick up the Lightning?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

The ground based radars in the 50's could pump out 10's of megawatts of power so there was no way the YB49 was going to remain invisible except in level flight from long ranges. (Not to change the subject, but there is an old Nike missle radar site in the hills above Los Angeles that is now part of a park, and plans have been drafted to restore it to its 1950's configuration, complete with non-working hardware)

The SR71 was "sort of" stealthy. I dont need to remind anyone on how it looks. The shape was smooth with most of the structure angled one way or another. Its fast speed coupled with a reduced observability meant it was illuminated when it was too late to do anything about it.

The F117 and B2 are truely stealthy because of airframe design and use of composites. As you know, the worst thing to do to not be stealthy is to have a all metal tail sticking up at right angles to the airframe, and a none blended design for the wing root. 

The Lightning isnt low observable in any sense, as it was not a design consideration in its era. Remember, that big tall tail is like a flag waving in the breeze saying here I am. 

Like I said, none of this mattered in its performance or mission.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Remember, that big tall tail is like a flag waving in the breeze saying here I am.



It isn't the size, it's how is RCS is being painted by the radar. The B-49 has a 179 foot wing span, but has a low RCS when painted head on - It wasn't undetectable, just harder to "pick up." In a combat environment, throw in the use of ECM and now you have a "Stealth" aircraft.

Even the most "stealthy" aircraft could paint a radar signature, it a matter of finding a radar strong enough to pick it up and a radar operator who knows what he's looking at.....

D's statement is totally believable - between the sweptback shape of the wing and tail being painted at the right angle by the Tornado's radar could of produced what is termed as a "black hole," a point where the aircraft disappears from radar. Not intentionally designed that way, but physics working in it's favor.....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2005)

No, syscom, you said; _"I find it very hard to believe the Tornado's radar were not picking up the radar returns."_ 

Which you really should believe because it did happen. I know, my father was there. Good try at the backing away from the original argument there, syscom. 

So, we're all agreed - the original Tornado could not detect the Lightning. The mention of the wing shape - which, by the way, is almost the same as the F-117s (which is a fact) - was merely a passing statement, nothing serious. 

Lightning was not picked up by the F.2 Tornado - fact.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

Ok, I agree. I was interpreting your statement as any fighter radar would not pick it up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

Who Picked the SU-37? It's a neat aircraft but has a long way to go to be considered the "Greatest Jet Fighter of All Time." My wife and I are having a girl in Feb. She's going to be "Miss Universe" in 2028 -

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 19, 2005)

Flyboy, make your plans to begin her indoctrination on what planes were great.

My baby girl is being told that The B17 was superior to the Lancaster, the P51 was better than a -190, and the F4 was the best postwar jet......)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

Oh yea!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 19, 2005)

> My wife and I are having a girl in Feb.


Whoo Hoo!! Congratulations............. U guys figure out a name yet???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > My wife and I are having a girl in Feb.
> 
> 
> Whoo Hoo!! Congratulations............. U guys figure out a name yet???



Thanks Les - I thought you knew! We're naming her "Autumn."


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 19, 2005)

Maybe I did Joe, but the old melon dont remember things like it used to....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 19, 2005)

Get ready to be tired, Joe! Our girl is due in January.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2005)

Yep! The good thing is my wife normally works nights, and her schedule will change so I'll only have to deal wit the baby on the weekends - the wife has the appartus for feeding (as she says)


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

I know I did this already, but some people were not satisfied with the selection on my last poll so I am starting this over again.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 20, 2005)

Phantom for me is the best overall, all planes after Vietnam (F14,15,16,18) operational statistics can't be taken as proof, basically what they did in combat was target practice with obsolete and outnumbered enemy forces.

PS: why in the 'wanna be' we have F22 and JSF but no Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 20, 2005)

F-15


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 20, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> F-15


I agree Les.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 20, 2005)

F4 all the way. It WAS the definitive fighter of the 60's and 70's. A veteran of several wars, often against top of the line Russian fighters, used in many roles and flown by many countries in the world. 

Id say the F15 would be second place, as it hasnt been as versatile. It is also so expensive, the F16 had to be developed.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> Phantom for me is the best overall, all planes after Vietnam (F14,15,16,18) operational statistics can't be taken as proof, basically what they did in combat was target practice with obsolete and outnumbered enemy forces.
> 
> PS: why in the 'wanna be' we have F22 and JSF but no Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale?



In my last poll I put the EF-2000 on their but nobody voted.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> F4 all the way. It WAS the definitive fighter of the 60's and 70's. A veteran of several wars, often against top of the line Russian fighters, used in many roles and flown by many countries in the world.
> 
> Id say the F15 would be second place, as it hasnt been as versatile. It is also so expensive, the F16 had to be developed.



I disagree the F-15 was designed as a result of the F-4.

The F-4 was a fast, manouvarable and through a few tough learned lessons a well armed aircraft as well.

The F-15 was basically a perfected version of the F-4 and would rule the Skies for the next 20 years.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 20, 2005)

But the F15 has never fought in a conflict like Vietnam or the Oct 1973 Israel/Arab war.


----------



## jrk (Oct 20, 2005)

i voted for the f-15 eagle as it has been my favourate american for some time unofficially.my official vote that you shall see the percentage for is in fact the lightning one of the best jets to come out of the jet evolution in my opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

The F-15 'Eagle' is the greatest fighter out of all of those. It has a combat record and statistics to prove it's the best. It was developed from the lessons learnt while the F-4 'Phantom' was in service, so it is thus a superior aircraft. 

I'm going to put bias aside, the F-15 is the greatest.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

Hey the F-18 and the F-14 also have Combat records too.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

Not as good as the F-15 and the F-15 is also statiscally superior to both the F-14 and F-18.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 20, 2005)

EE Lightening, for sheer speed


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

You'd at least spell the beautiful plane's name properly, it's Lightning! As an interceptor, even with modern aircraft, I'd put it up there as the greatest interceptor. 

From a standing start, with no warm up, there's little if anything that can beat it. But that alone, in my mind, while loving the bird more than any other plane ...ever ...does not make it the greatest, in my opinion. 

But who can argue with 60,000 feet in just over a minute?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 20, 2005)

Not me...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You'd at least spell the beautiful plane's name properly, it's Lightning! As an interceptor, even with modern aircraft, I'd put it up there as the greatest interceptor.
> 
> From a standing start, with no warm up, there's little if anything that can beat it. But that alone, in my mind, while loving the bird more than any other plane ...ever ...does not make it the greatest, in my opinion.
> 
> But who can argue with 60,000 feet in just over a minute?


From a standing start, with no warm up, there's little if anything that can beat it. But that alone, in my mind, while loving the bird more than any other plane ...ever ...does not make it the greatest, in my opinion. 

But who can argue with 60,000 feet in just over a minute?[/quote]

With all do respect your loyalty to the lightning seems to be shadowed by patriotism not facts,

which is not a bad thing I still think that Canadian Beer is the best and strongest.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

Okay, so I'm not presenting facts, what fighter doesn't have to warm up and can reach 60,000 feet in little over one minute? I'll give you one, the F.6 Lightning. 

Give me another...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

Little over one minute? Sorry but I find that hard to beleive


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

Don't believe it then, it doesn't change the fact the F.6 Lightning could do it. There's been many discussions about the Lightning on here, mainly revolving around people who didn't believe the Lightning's capability. And I must admit, they're pretty amazing. Especially from a plane that was first conceived in 1947 albeit no prototype built until 1954. 

The Lightning does not need to warm up. It carries no avionics that need to set-up. It is pure muscle ...as one RAF pilot from World War II described it; "It's a Spitfire with the kick up the arse..." 

The Lightning uses AVPIN to start it's two Rolls-Royce Avon engines almost instantly. It can then remove brakes, push the throttle the gates and on full re-heat can climb vertically off the runway. At an initial climb rate of 50,000 feet per minute. At some point during it's climb it achieves a thrust:weight ratio greater than 1:1, meaning that it's still climbing while gaining speed. Although, in a Lightning this does not last long before it has to begin down to avoid running out of fuel (you can't crash land a Lightning). The F-15 'Eagle' is the first aircraft that has a greater thrust:weight from the start, a remarkable achievement. However, the F-15 has to warm up and it's acceleration isn't as fast as the Lightning's. 

Any foreigner that saw the Lightning fly was amazed and certainly impressed. I believe we have a few U.S servicemen on this site who have seen a Lightning do it's thing ...which is climb ...climb and keep on climbing. I believe Eric (evangilder) is one such member.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 21, 2005)

hey the vulcan could climb vertically off the runway too you know


----------



## evangilder (Oct 21, 2005)

Yep, d, I did see the Lightning climb. Hussars, you can choose to believe what you want. But the fact of the matter is that when I saw the Lightning for the first time in 1986, my first thought was "What the hell is that?". I figured with the climb ability like that, it was "modern" for the time. I was _really_ surprised when I learned how old it was. It is rare for me to call an airplane incredible, but it fits for the Lightning.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 21, 2005)

I have heard some good things about the EF-2000 anything you can add on that D


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 21, 2005)

One thing I give credit to for this list, is if it actually saw combat. If it was involved in a lot of big air battles, then even more weight is given.

While the F15 has had a distinguished career since the mid 70's, it never has been involved in a big dogfight like what occured over Israel or Vietnam. Some pilots say that the huge size of the F15 makes it vulnerable in such a dogfight. I remember in the 80's, some F20 pilots saying that in such dogfights, the smallest most nimble fighter would prevail (and I bet the F16 pilots say the same thing).

In addition, the opportunities of the F15 to go one on one with its "peers" have been limited. No fair to put the F15/F16 up against a Mig23. The F4 on the other hand, did spend a lot of time one on one against Mig19's and 21's.

Untill the F15 is put into that scenario PLUS put into the wild weasel role......I'd with hold judgement that its the best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2005)

My fater in law got to fly the F-20 - he liked it better than the F-16!


----------



## Glider (Oct 21, 2005)

Syscom. An observation. If being small in size is so important in a dogfight, then why weren't F4's slaughtered in the skies by the Mig 21.

Its because size isn't important in a dogfight, its capability that counts. The F4 and the and the F15 had it in spades which is why they in contantion to be the best.
Of the two the F15 has it because it can fight in the vertical and the horizontal against all comers. It has electronics that are at least as good as anything in the air and they have never been shot down in combat.
F4's couldn't fight in the horizontal, F5's flown by well trained pilots could have them. Due to this F4 pilots were trained to fight in the vertical which they could do very well. Even here there were a small number of planes such as the Lightning that could take them on.
So you have the difference. F4 pilots had fewer options tactic wise, The F15 has no such worries.
Therefore the best has to be the F15.

Finally, if small size is everything, why didn't the UK sell thousands of Gnats?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 21, 2005)

I know, lanc, I've seen the Vulcan climb vertically off the runway. It has to wing-over at around 1000 feet before he stalls and goes crashing into the ground though. 

My dad came into contact with a few Vulcan crews and they said, they only used to do it to shock the Lightning crew members who thought they were the only one. 

The F-15 is just superior to the F-4, if it were otherwise the U.S wouldn't be using the F-15 - they'd have stuck with the F-4.


----------



## jrk (Oct 21, 2005)

i think the harrier should get a mention in this debate.be it any british,spanish or american mark.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2005)

Glider said:


> Syscom. An observation. If being small in size is so important in a dogfight, then why weren't F4's slaughtered in the skies by the Mig 21.
> 
> Its because size isn't important in a dogfight, its capability that counts. The F4 and the and the F15 had it in spades which is why they in contantion to be the best.
> Of the two the F15 has it because it can fight in the vertical and the horizontal against all comers. It has electronics that are at least as good as anything in the air and they have never been shot down in combat.
> ...



PERFECT COMMENT GLIDER!!!! Also keep in mind due to political limiatations placed upon fighter pilots during Viet Nam, the F-4 was almost always at a tactical disadvantage and severl were lost because of this stupidity, but that's another story. In the vertical the F-4 is a rocket ship, as D pointed out almost climbing as well as the Lightning (NOTICE D - I SAID ALMOST   ) I could attest my few rides in the F-4 were awesome. In the verticle I coulds swear I could perfectly see the tailplane becuase my eyes were in back of my head!!!!!!

Size is a factor in attempting to get a visual, throw radar in there and you're on a level playing field....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 21, 2005)

Well the IAF, USAF and several European govts were convinced in the 70's that size does matter in a big dogfight. The F16 and F20 (maybe even Eurofighter?) were an outgrowth of that. The F15 while quite capable is still is one big target to shoot at. And the thrust to weight ratio of the smaller single seat aircraft are still similar to the F15. 

As "visibility" wa smentioned, thats where the small fighters have the edge. Turn on the radar and you announce "here I am". Look for the enemy and smallness counts. When youre in a fight with dozens of aircraft in sight, the radar isnt going to help. 

When the first couple of F20's were built and put into simulated dogfights against the F15, it was surprising to the F15 folks that they (F20's) were holding their own quite well. 

Now I'm sure you remember in the Vietnam War, the kill ratio of the Phantoms vs the Mig 19's and -21's was not all that great prior to the introduction of the top gun school. At one point I think the ratio was dropping to almost 1:1. Once the F4 pilots were taught again how to dogfight, the kill ratio went up. The IAF had a far better kill ratio against the arabs simply because they had the best pilots in the world.

The F15 is superior to the F4 performance wise. But its the combat record over three decades that makes the F4 my choice in best jet of all time


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 21, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Well the IAF, USAF and several European govts were convinced in the 70's that size does matter in a big dogfight. The F16 and F20 (maybe even Eurofighter?) were an outgrowth of that. The F15 while quite capable is still is one big target to shoot at. And the thrust to weight ratio of the smaller single seat aircraft are still similar to the F15.
> 
> As "visibility" wa smentioned, thats where the small fighters have the edge. Turn on the radar and you announce "here I am". Look for the enemy and smallness counts. When youre in a fight with dozens of aircraft in sight, the radar isnt going to help.
> 
> ...



Cobat Record? The F-15s record much better than the F-4s
The Kill ratio for most of the Veitnam war was 3-1 Phantom, when as I cant recall an eagle ever being shot down by another plane, and shooting down atleast 50 enemy planes.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 21, 2005)

And your right, after Pilots were retrained in acm the ratio was somewhere around 12-1 Phantom, but by then it couldnt save the USAF enemy kill record.


----------



## Glider (Oct 22, 2005)

The main problem with the F15 was its cost. I am sure given the choice that the USAF would have preffered to be 100% F15 but the cost would hav been far too high. 
This was the reason why the European airforces went for the F16 in what must have been one of the largest export deals ever. It was still more than capable of doing what we needed it to do but I admit that I would have preferred to see the F17 win.
I was lucky enough to see the prototype F16 and YF17 fly (showing my age here) at the height of the sales drive at Farnborough and both were stunning compared to the Viggen and Mirage the main European contenders for the contract. The reason for my preference was the extra engine and slightly larger size. It seemed to have more growth potential.
As we all know the F16 won and the YF17 developed into the F18.
The F20 was also a good performer but never really had a chance once the F16 was in production.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 23, 2005)

I dont see how the F-20 would be expensive in comparison to the F16,
It was designed from the F-5 sereis which meant to be cheap.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

He meant a 100% F15 equiped air force


----------



## trackend (Oct 23, 2005)

F15, I like the lightning but it never had to prove itself, perfomance does not always mean it will be a success in combat so up to the present day I will go with the F15 having said that with so much fire and forget ordenance coming on line stealth, targeting and electronic counter measures will make the biggest impact on a planes combat performance.


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2005)

Syscom your right I meant an all F15 airforce. 

102. Once the F16 is in production with orders that must have been for around 1,500 aircraft, the unit cost would have come down so far that no other aircraft, including the F20 would have stood a chance of being economical. 
In a sales situation the F20 would have always been expensive.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2005)

jrk said:


> i think the harrier should get a mention in this debate.be it any british,spanish or american mark.



if you want to count the harrier in a fighter poll it can only really be the Sea Harrier FRS.1 or F/A.2, the RAF harriers are more for ground attack than dogfighting.........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

I remember something being said in the aviation community back in the 80's that the F20 was a pure dogfighter with minimal ground attack capabilities. Thats the primary reason the USAF wasnt going to use it.

Northrup wanted the State Dept to offer it as the primary fighter jet available for export to 2nd and 3rd world nations. But many potential customers balked at it with the idea that "If it isnt good enough the USAF, why should it be good enough for me?".

For the Harrier: My opinion is that its a piece of junk. The LA Times had a huge expose on it last year that showed it was a maintence nightmare, extremely sensitive to damage and has a really bad accident rate. Sorry if I offended any of our Brit readers, but facts are facts.


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2005)

Imagine. If we could do as well as we did in the Falklands with a pile of junk. What would we have done with a decent plane.

Lets see. Thousands of miles from home, limited support from carriers that were always under threat of attack. Often operating in filthy weather conditions. Always heavily outnumbered from an enemy secure from attack and supported by the whole country. Attacking heavily defended targets protected by the best AA defenses in the world (Roland AA missiles and radar guided 30mm cannon, plus numerous 20mm). Better than anything the UK or USA had at the time. Operating in GA roles and air to air plus of course no AWACS or ground control, from temporary strips on the ground and using Landing Ships as a base on one occasion.

Yep, not bad for a piece of junk. 

Syscom. Would you care to name any other plane from any other country at the time that would have done any better. Being suspicious I tend to feel another NIH attack coming on


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

It did a fine job in the Falklands as it was the only thing you had. You gotta dance with the girl you brought to the prom. But to say it was going up against dense, sophisticated defenses is stretching it a bit.

But look at its performance in GW1 and GW2. Had to be kept at arms length from the important missions cause it was to vulnerable to damage. The Marines made a mistake thinking that this airplane could function in a modern battlefield. Better to have Apaches and F18's than Harriers.

To change an engine requires the removal of the wings? Hah! Plus its sustained sortie rate is low. Plus its payload that it carriers for the ammount of resources needed to maintain it makes it a golden cow. 

Then theres the accident rate in peacetime. More than one crewchief refused to fly in one on a checkride cause they new how unsafe they were.

In a non desert type of battlefield, where it wont be ingesting dust and sand, against a foe with minimal AA defenses then it could be usefull. But if anyone of those are present, then ground the plane and convert the groundcrews to foot soldiers.


----------



## trackend (Oct 23, 2005)

I would'nt say the Harrier is a piece of Junk Sys it is not perfect thats for sure but for an aicraft to have an in service history of 30 odd years must mean that the role it has carried out for that length of time has not been bettered by any other aircraft the Apaches are great helicopters but in terms of speed they are donkeys compared to fixed wing jets and the 
F 18 needs a runway combine the two and bingo it becomes a very formidable aircraft indeed.
The idea of vertical capability in a fixed wing plane is still being pursued in the shape of the Osprey and the Lockheed X35A the Harrier has proven that the concept can be put into a very servicable aircraft . The stories of Harrier pilots VIFFing to get an advantage over the Argentinian Super Etandard's I am not sure of but they where very successful at taking them on and beating them in dog fights, so Junk no, getting old yes.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

The Falklands were nearly 25 years ago, and time has progressed. GW1 and GW2 proved that the Harrier might have been an interesting idea in the 70's, but it has no place on the modern battlefield.

And as much as even current technology allows, all VTOL aircraft are sensitive to battle damage.

I still maintain its a piece of junk. In the US Marines, way to much men and material are wasted on it. For foreign navy's, well........ if you dont have a carrier that can launch traditional aircraft, then Youre stuck with 2nd and 3rd best.


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2005)

Syscom
As you don't challenge the success of the Harrier in the Falklands or propose an alternative plane at the time I assume your view now is 'It was a first class plane when it came out but I feel that its now a pile of junk'.

To me the comment 'it might have been an interesting idea in the 70's' = 'How do I get out of this without admitting I was wrong at least at the start'.

To bring it more up to date, I think you will find that the first time that the RN Harrier FA2 took part in a Red Flag exercise, it was the only fighter (and one of the few ever) to match the aggressor F15's one for one in kills. This is despite the age of the plane and its lack of speed. Pretty good for a old pile of junk.

Obviously a traditional carrier plane has a number of advantages in particular Range and Speed and these are greater than the advantages in a Harrier but don't be to quick write off the old dog. 
When landing as sea its a lot easier to stop and land as opposed to land and stop. There have been exercises when the weather has been so bad that the US Carrier had to stop flying but the Harriers could continue. On one occasion HMS Invincible sent a message to the US carrier ' Don't worry big brother, little brother will look after you'. They even framed it and presented it to them

I would be more impressed if there were examples of the US Marines saying that the aircraft was a dog and the money would have been better spent on something else. I know that politicians have tried to kill it off a number of times in the USA but my belief is that the Marines moved heaven and earth to keep them.

As PD points out the Harrier isn't perfect and does demand more from a pilot than most with the additional risk, but it delivers. It is also an old plane and inevitably this will have an impact on the maintenance involved but that applies to any old aircraft. Technology has moved on and it is time for a replacement but to call it junk is an exaggeration.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 23, 2005)

Well said Glider.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 23, 2005)

Hmmm, from the USMC official site:


> Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes.


http://www.hqmc.usmc.mil/factfile.nsf/0/5306aebae2b024dd8525626e0048ccf7?OpenDocument


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

Glider said:


> Syscom
> As you don't challenge the success of the Harrier in the Falklands or propose an alternative plane at the time I assume your view now is 'It was a first class plane when it came out but I feel that its now a pile of junk'.



It was a first class piece of junk..... just kidding. The Argentine AF was operating at the very max of its range, with the fighter bombers coming in with no escort. Id like to see what the Harrier would have done with an agile fighter going after it.



Glider said:


> To me the comment 'it might have been an interesting idea in the 70's' = 'How do I get out of this without admitting I was wrong at least at the start'.



Time proves whether a concept was valid. Id say the Harrier occupied a niche for awhile, looked good on paper. But as events unfolded in the Middle East, it was obvious to be not the optimum plane to use and it didnt really "wow" anyone.



Glider said:


> To bring it more up to date, I think you will find that the first time that the RN Harrier FA2 took part in a Red Flag exercise, it was the only fighter (and one of the few ever) to match the aggressor F15's one for one in kills. This is despite the age of the plane and its lack of speed. Pretty good for a old pile of junk.



Its quite possible that many years ago, thrust vectoring was a surprise to many people and it could have done in the F15's. But what about a success against F16's? Or F18's? Unless those practice kills accoured withing the past 15 years, I'd say the Harriers wouldnt have the same success.



Glider said:


> Obviously a traditional carrier plane has a number of advantages in particular Range and Speed and these are greater than the advantages in a Harrier but don't be to quick write off the old dog.
> When landing as sea its a lot easier to stop and land as opposed to land and stop. There have been exercises when the weather has been so bad that the US Carrier had to stop flying but the Harriers could continue. On one occasion HMS Invincible sent a message to the US carrier ' Don't worry big brother, little brother will look after you'. They even framed it and presented it to them



The Harrier has its only role as a backup for the big boys when flying weather is bad. And as events showed in the middle east, the harriers had neifhter the loiter time, nor payload to be worth the effort of deploying them. Note to the USAF: When the USN is having operations hampered by bad weather, please send over some F15's to provide cover till the weather improves.



Glider said:


> I would be more impressed if there were examples of the US Marines saying that the aircraft was a dog and the money would have been better spent on something else. I know that politicians have tried to kill it off a number of times in the USA but my belief is that the Marines moved heaven and earth to keep them.



Every country in the world has difficulties killing off weapons programs. The US is no different. The USMC did have the political power in Congress to keep the program alive untill the F35 was deployed. Even though a joint senate/house investigation (in conjunction with a GAO report, as well as a JCS internal report) clearly identified this airplane as substandard, this plane will undoubtably keep flying, even though it clearly cant do what it was designed for. Its a very expensive plane to build and maintain.



Glider said:


> As PD points out the Harrier isn't perfect and does demand more from a pilot than most with the additional risk, but it delivers. It is also an old plane and inevitably this will have an impact on the maintenance involved but that applies to any old aircraft. Technology has moved on and it is time for a replacement but to call it junk is an exaggeration.



It is a piece of junk because its expensive, difficult to maintain, easy to shootdown from damage, loiter time and payload is unimpressive and its an idea whos time has come and gone. Better for the marines to train the Harrier pilots for the F18 than to expend resources for this contraption.

Note to all...... remember we should all know to be leery on what the services say of their respective weapons. Just because the AF or Marines, or navy says this or that..... always take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 23, 2005)

I would also take anything written in the LA Times with a grain of salt. You won't find a more liberal rag than that.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2003/national-reporting/works/national1.html

The LA Times does have a good national reputation for investigative reports. Just cause their politics and editorials suck, it doesnt mean its all bad.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 23, 2005)

Some of their articles are okay, but they are a very liberal slanted newspaper. The number of sorties and hours flown is a known fact though. I think calling the Harrier a piece of junk is not quite right. Now the Osprey...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 23, 2005)

I agree the Harrier is not a peice of junk,


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

> You won't find a more liberal rag than that.


A vision of Martha Stewart suddenly came to my mind....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2005)

The Harrier (like many aircraft) has limitations - it's far from a piece of junk - the LA Times is a Liberal roll of Toilet Paper - I'd rather read the Enquirer......

I met their aviation editior at an airshow once - I told him he was a moron and he should stick to writing about bad airline service because that's about the limit of his aviation knowlege capacity.....

I guess he thought I was going to kick his ass, so he left the airshow!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 23, 2005)

They won the Pulitzer prize for the article. That means unlike the hariett meirs nomination, it was vetted and checked for accuracy.

Most of the complaints about the article had to do with technicalities and minor issues. The main points and thrust of the argument still stands.

Hey, if you want to shoot the messanger, go ahead. But it doesnt change the facts.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 23, 2005)

3,380 sorties during the short Desert Storm I war says alot about an aircraft that you call a "piece of junk". It has been in service for a long time. Sure, it has maintenance headaches, but a lot of other aircraft in service do as well.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2005)

Call the Harrier a piece of junk to the 100's of dead Iraqi military members that are having tea with Allah....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 24, 2005)

When you look at how much money we spent on the planes vs its payload it can carry, its obvious its an inefficent use of money.

Plus so what it had such a big sortie rate. It could only fly over the airspace that was already cleared of SAMS and most AAA. It was the Hornets and A10's that went where it was tough. The marines could have used Apaches to better effect.

And know why they had so many sorties? Cause they didnt have the payload to do the job.


----------



## Glider (Oct 24, 2005)

Obviously I didn't read the article in question but I gather that it implied that it can only operate in almost undefended skies. Well the RAF don't have A10's and Hornets but it didn't stop us using them right in the front line with first class results.
As for the A10, judging from the photo's I have seen on this site its saving grace is that it can take a serious amount of damage and it needed to. Harriers cannot take the same amount of damage as an A10 (nothing in the air can) but RAF Harriers were operating in the same environment and not getting hit.
By the way, you said that I was stretching things when I said that the Falklands were well defended. It is a fact that Argentina had Roland missile launchers on the Island defending the airbase. These were backed up by Tigercat missiles and the troops carried Blowpipes and SA-7's. The guns defending the Airbase were the twin 30mm cannons guided by the Skyguard radar system and these were supported by numerous twin 20mm. The Roland and the Skyguard were absolutely state of the art at the time and are still today, better than anything the USA has in the field as AA defence. 
Put this lot together with the fact that the Argentines knew that we would attack the airstrip, and by default the likely approaches we would use plus the long range Hughes warning radar and you have very formidable defences. Evidence for these facts are spread over museums in the UK because of course we captured them. In fact the Skyguard and 30mm were issued to UK reserve forces because they were better than anything we had as well as the USA.
As for the fact that the Harrier cannot operate in sand, that is laughable. The UK have been using them in exercises in the Gulf since they were first introduced.

As for why the sortie rate. Its reliable, can operate in sand, doesn't get hit (despite being in the front line), can be based close to the front line and is available when called on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> They won the Pulitzer prize for the article. That means unlike the hariett meirs nomination, it was vetted and checked for accuracy.
> 
> Most of the complaints about the article had to do with technicalities and minor issues. The main points and thrust of the argument still stands.
> 
> Hey, if you want to shoot the messanger, go ahead. But it doesnt change the facts.



I think the messenger is a bone head - write anything anti-conservative or anti-military and you'll win a Pulitzer, especially if it seems like the tax payer is being screwed!!!!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> And know why they had so many sorties? Cause they didnt have the payload to do the job.



Let's run a little comparison here. The Harrier flew 3,380 sorties during the 1991 Gulf war. That is just a little over 2x what the B-52 flew. The BUFF flew 1,620 sorties during that time. Flying more sorties does not necessarily indicate a lack of payload.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

LA Times also broke the story aboutthe $800.00 toilet seat - that was BS as well. The seat was actually an enclosure that was made of fire resistant plasitc. Lockheed actually overcharged the government about 4% which was about $35.00 and was allowed to do so by Federal Acqusition Regulations - you don't see the Time writing anything about that?!?!

Les is right - you want the truth, ask the Iraqi Army how effective the Harrier was (is)........


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

Or ask the US troops on the ground who called in the airstrike and were helped by the Harrier.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 24, 2005)

evangilder said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > And know why they had so many sorties? Cause they didnt have the payload to do the job.
> ...



Are you comparing a B52 with a Harrier?.........

Just moments ago, I asked my coworker about what aircraft he perffered to answer the call for airstikes. His qualification is he was a squad leader for a marine recon unit in GW1 (even has a chunk of mortar shrapnel on his desk that was pulled out of his thigh).

His answer......... Helicopter gunship, besides the A10 or Hornet. he chuckled about the harrier.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

The reason I posted that was because the number of sorties flown does not indicate the effectiveness of the aircraft. When the shit hits the fan and you call in for air support, you can't be picky and you will be thankful for what you can get. So if it's a Harrier or nothing, well the choice is obvious.

If it is so bad, why do they still have them?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2005)

Exactly, theyve performed sterling service over the years, I dont know how you can actually call them "pieces of junk"


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 24, 2005)

Stellar service? Well I suppose it was stellar service for the harrier for the Brits, cause there is nothing else to use.

For the US? hah!

Expensive to use, limited survivability and ho-hum payload. 

The only admited role it could be used with effect, is in shipboard defense. But then it has to be totally revamped to take on a 100% air-to-air mission role. And hopefully it wont have engine problems at sea cause the wings would have to removed to fix them! How long would that take........ several hours?..... 1/2 a day?


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

Replacing engines on a lot of modern fighters is no easy task. Again, if they are so bad, why are they still in use? You say that the F-18, helos and the A-10 can do their job, well then, why have the Harriers not been put into mothballs?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

I remember on atleast one occasion, where the Harrier saved my ass in the field.... Calling an aircraft a piece of junk, when it saves Navy and Marine Corps lives, is alittle bit un-educated, even if it aint the best aircraft in the sky....

And for the record, I would rather have helo support from a gunship than a Harrier....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

I never personally got out of a jam with a Harrier, but helos did on many occasions and that would be my preference only from personal experience. I will agree that it is not the best, but I certainly would not call it a piece of junk.


----------



## trackend (Oct 24, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Stellar service? Well I suppose it was stellar service for the harrier for the Brits, cause there is nothing else to use.



Sounded like a little touch of venom in that remark SYS

Only one comment really if its shit why has Lockheed ect taken on the task of developing a replacment when they could just use choppers?.
Perhaps theres a roll that a VTOL super sonic aircraft can do that helos ect can't without the Harrier's proven track record (all beit slower than the new design) it would not have been even considered as a viable project to take on.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 24, 2005)

Well, it was the British Govts decision to retire the big carriers with catapults. Its the only plane you have, so you gotta use it...right?

And the F35 replacement might or might not be a capable plane. Once again, an airplane is being designed to be something of everything for everyone.


----------



## Glider (Oct 24, 2005)

Syscom. 
.Re the removal of the wing to do an engine change. In the RN its preferable to lift things because the hangers have overhead cranes and lifting them is by far the quickest way to do a change. I take it you have never been on the hanger deck of a loaded carrier. I have and I promise you that any suggestion to take it out backwards would have the engineers falling about in laughter. 
Contrary to popular belief the RAF do know what they are doing and the RAF Harrier was designed to be operated away from bases on short strips and they seem to manage quite well.

Your main argument also has one major floor. You admit that the Harrier had a high sortie rate but insist that its unreliable. That doesn't square up in my book, can you explain how it squares up in yours.

You also go on about the payload. On an attack mission a Harrier normally carries about 4,000ib. I know the book weights for the other attack planes are considerably greater, but how many times do you see an A10 or F18 carry much more than that on an actual mission. The A10's that I have seen seem to carry four AT missiles and a couple of bombs which weigh about the same. Do you have any details about actual war loads which at the end of the day are what counts to back up your claims.

You are right that its the only plane the RN have and we use it. That isn't the point, the questions is is it a pile of junk? Can you explain why the Marines purchased it because it isn't the only plane that they have? 
It isn't the only attack aircraft that the RAF have either. The Jaguar is a very good GA aircraft with an excellent if overlooked track record. If the Harrier was so bad, why didn't we buy more Jaguars? 
I should point out that a carrier version of the Jaguar was built but not continued with as we were moving away from the traditional carrier.

You are at liberty to say that you believe that the Harrier is over the hill and not all its cracked up to be. I may disagree with the last but I have said as have others that technology has moved on and its time for a replacement. Just dont be so aggressive, you only set yourself up for a fall.

Your comments are getting more aggressive and less factual. The points that I and the others have rasied are factually correct and address your points. A number of questions have been asked and you tend not to awnser them. Try to awnser the questions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> And the F35 replacement might or might not be a capable plane. Once again, an airplane is being designed to be something of everything for everyone.



It's VSTOL methodology is entirely different from the Harrier - During the JSF flyoff it won hands down - there is no indicated reason at this time why that aircraft won't be successful unless it's funding is cut.

A side note - my best friend designed the electrical System for the X-35. I got to see the first flights as well as the hover flight out of Palmdale - he said the surface was barely scratched with what you saw during the JSF competition.........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 24, 2005)

The Jag is a great airplane. No complaints about it. Harrier sortie rates... impressive but was it mission after mission over defended airspace the A10, F18 and Tornado had to do? Nope. It was kept nice and cozy away from the nasty stuff. It couldnt handle the battle damage. Real Impressive for an attack airplane.

Lets compare the two......
Harrier 2 has a combat radius of 100 miles with a single barrel 25mm gun with a 9000 pound payload. This figure is for STOL takeoff. The VTOL would be even worse.
Cost = $23.7 Million

A10 has a combat range of 800 miles with a 6 barrel 30mm gun with a payload of 16,000 lbs.
Cost is about $10 million in 1998 dollars.

A10 carries more for less. But its actually comparing apples and oranges.

Reason for the Marines using it still? Because of politics. The Marines are the last organization in the US military that seems to be having trouble "playing ball" with the other services. It still justifies the rationale for the Harrier due to its lack of dedicated air support in GUADALCANAL IN 1942!!!!!!!! Thats right. What happened 63 years ago still drives doctrine.
Every attempt to get marine aviation folded under the USN or even parts of it handled by the USAF or USA is met with resistance. I think Don Rumsfeld has lost his hair the past few years due to the Maines having their own agenda and not following his doctrine.

I still stand by my analysis that for ground support, its expensive junk. For fleet defense, it does occupy a niche role that is increasingly irrelevant.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 24, 2005)

The A-10 is outstanding, I will give you that, but it doesn't have an arresting hook, making it useless for fleet Marines. Helos works well in most situations, but they are also very vulnerable to ground fire, especially in the rotors. It still has a purpose.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

I will definatly agree with u that it is WAAAYYY too highly priced for the role it plays.....

However.............


> impressive but was it mission after mission over defended airspace the A10, F18 and Tornado had to do? Nope.


Why are u comparing a Marine Close Air Support aircraft with the F-18 and the Tornado?? 2 completely different roles....

As a side note, watching a Harrier hover 10 feet over a sand dune and destroy 2 APC's, an AAA piece and a Command Bunker before ur very own eyes would probably change ur mind, or atleast appreciate it more, like it did mine...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Every attempt to get marine aviation folded under the USN or even parts of it handled by the USAF or USA is met with resistance. I think Don Rumsfeld has lost his hair the past few years due to the Maines having their own agenda and not following his doctrine.



More hair will be lost now that the Chairman of the JCS is a Marine.....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 24, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Every attempt to get marine aviation folded under the USN or even parts of it handled by the USAF or USA is met with resistance. I think Don Rumsfeld has lost his hair the past few years due to the Maines having their own agenda and not following his doctrine.
> ...



hahahaha, that one gave a smile to my face......


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

FINALLY!!! AFTER ALLLLL THIS TIME.... WE FINALLY GOT SYSCOM TO SMILE..................

HOOYA!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 25, 2005)




----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

sometimes, you guys crack me up )


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2005)

Your only complaint seems to derive from the expense, and to some extent (although disproven from the turnaround time in the Gulf War) maintenance. Yet you consider the Tornado a good aircraft, or at least superior to the Harrier ...yet, you forget that the Tornado is one of the most expensive fighter/ground attack aircraft in the world, and Apaches aren't cheap - and the AH-64D is about as reliable as British made consumer electronics. 

The only reason the Harrier can truly be called less than adequete is because of the difficulty of flight in one. How do you solve the problem? Get decent pilots. The Royal Navy and RAF handle their Harriers perfectly because they train their pilots to the best to do so. 

The Harrier has a top notch combat record. It can operate from spaces other fixed wing can't, it can carry payload to do it's job ...in fact, it's proved to the world it can do it's job. Price doesn't matter in combat if it saves lives of your own troops ...the Harrier does it, has done and will continue to do it. And certainly ...the price is high but it's still in service with one of the most tight fisted world powers on the planet, Britain ...trust me, if the Harrier was that expensive - Britain would just scrap the Carriers.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Your only complaint seems to derive from the expense, and to some extent (although disproven from the turnaround time in the Gulf War) maintenance. Yet you consider the Tornado a good aircraft, or at least superior to the Harrier ...yet, you forget that the Tornado is one of the most expensive fighter/ground attack aircraft in the world, and Apaches aren't cheap - and the AH-64D is about as reliable as British made consumer electronics.



The Tornado can carry a higher payload, fly faster, fly farther than the Harrier. Plus it can go places where the Harrier cant go.... namely over defended airspace. The AH64 is helicopter, so we would be comparing apples and oranges. But if you insist, the AH64 needs far fewer troops to maintain it, does not need a super sophisticated logistics base to keep it flying, air crew training far simpler (and cheaper), can land anywhere safely if its damaged (unlike a Harrier which would probably crash). Plus its impressive variety of guided and unguided rockets makes it tops for really close in support.



plan_D said:


> The only reason the Harrier can truly be called less than adequete is because of the difficulty of flight in one. How do you solve the problem? Get decent pilots. The Royal Navy and RAF handle their Harriers perfectly because they train their pilots to the best to do so.



Good point. But then the cost to train and keep proficient those pilots add's to its overall cost.



plan_D said:


> The Harrier has a top notch combat record. It can operate from spaces other fixed wing can't, it can carry payload to do it's job ...in fact, it's proved to the world it can do it's job. Price doesn't matter in combat if it saves lives of your own troops ...the Harrier does it, has done and will continue to do it. And certainly ...the price is high but it's still in service with one of the most tight fisted world powers on the planet, Britain ...trust me, if the Harrier was that expensive - Britain would just scrap the Carriers.



Top notch against the Argentinians, "ho-hum" against Iraq. Price does matter in combat. If its too expensive, then you dont get enough of what you need. Its obvious the Brits need the Harrier because of the lack of an alternative. But the reality is you have a 2nd (or even 3rd rate) attack plane. For fleet defense, it does the job well enough as long as its going up against non-maneuvering aircraft.

The harrier is a usefull fleet defense aircraft if a carrier or land based fighters is not available. For ground support, if nothing else is available, then I suppose you have to make do with an inferior fragile contraption. But when the big boys are there to provide the support, the Harriers should scoot right back to their bases (with their tails between their legs) in case they might get damaged.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

D has a great point - TRAINING. And that always seems to emerge as a factor with an aircraft with a high accident rate.

The AH-64D has an extremely high flight hour to maintenance ratio (I don't remember exactly was it is) making it one of the most labor intensive combat aircraft in the world today - it won't surprise me if it's higher than the Harrier....

It's been obvious over the years that Marines have a bit more rambunctious with regards to "Operational Risk Management" or ORM. Each branch of the US Military embraces this process, but the Marines, based their mission and their operational physique seem to sometimes brushes this aside, take the risks, and ultimately experience the higher losses. As an old Marine once told me, "Spare me the details, make it happen."

Bottom line, the Harrier's performance during the Falklands cannot be disputed, severely outnumbered, it put up one of the greatest performances of combat aircraft next to the Spitfire or Hurricane during the BoB......


----------



## jrk (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3 wrote

Top notch against the Argentinians, "ho-hum" against Iraq. Price does matter in combat. If its too expensive, then you dont get enough of what you need. Its obvious the Brits need the Harrier because of the lack of an alternative. But the reality is you have a 2nd (or even 3rd rate) attack plane. For fleet defense, it does the job well enough as long as its going up against non-maneuvering aircraft. 



if the harrier is only supposed to hold the aces over non manouverable aircraft then why is it several harriers ACTUALLY destroyed several MIRAGE,DAGGERS(which were israeli lisense built mirages) A4 SKYHAWKS.i wouldnt describe them as being non manouverable aircraft.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

They were flying at the maximum extent of their range, loaded with ordinance. Quite simply, they (the ones that were intercepted by the harriers) were too few in numbers, commited in piecemeal fashion. 

They also didnt have a clue that the Harriers were going to do some thrust vectoring while in flight. Excellent surprise for them, but once it was known, unlikely to repeat that experience.

Now, if the harriers were closer in, where the fighters had enough fuel to dogfight them, the result might have been far different. All you need is some IR countermeasures and use your superior speed to advantage, and then the Harriers would be EXPENSIVE junk on the ocean floor.


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2005)

Syscom I have mentioned before that you don't anwser questions. 
Can you explain how the Sea Harrier does so well against the US Aggressors in the Red Flag exercises. I doubt that you would call F15's and F16's flown by the worlds experts in air combat, non manouvering?

PS Please don't mention using the vector thrust. Its a manoever of absolute last resort as you lose speed, energy, position and become a sitting duck if there is another plane around.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

The harrier is quite maneuverable. I think its the wing shape and dihedral that makes it very quick for a snap roll. And the harriers did do thrust vectoring against the Argentinians.

And they dont always dominate the F15's and F16's, cause if it were true, then the AF would be buying the Harriers left and right.

As Ive said.... as a fleet defense fighter, it has its role and place. As ground attack, its second rate. maybe even third rate.

They probably did quite well before the AF had it figured out.


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2005)

Syscom. The only example of using Thrust vectoring that I have found was to slow down enough to shoot down a damaged Pucara. I know that other people found one more example but it certainly isn't the norm for the reasons I posted before.
I have also never claimed that they dominated the F15 and F16. Just matching them with those pilots is a significant achievement in any aircraft by any airforce.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Now, if the harriers were closer in, where the fighters had enough fuel to dogfight them, the result might have been far different. All you need is some IR countermeasures and use your superior speed to advantage, and then the Harriers would be EXPENSIVE junk on the ocean floor.



That's called exploiting your enemy's weaknesses!!!! The FAA suckered the FAS into their tactics, kicked their butt with "a piece of junk" and then walked away with destroying 35% of the Argentine AF!!! Your argument is like crying foul becuase you got kicked in the nuts during a street fight!!

Here's some more info....

"Argentina lost 22 Skyhawks—19 from Grupos 4 and 5 and three more from a naval Skyhawk squadron. Grupo 8 lost two Mirages, and Grupo 6 lost 11 of its 30 Daggers. The 2d Bomber Squadron lost two Canberras. In all, the FAS lost 41 percent of its aircraft to combat and operational accidents."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

Flyboy, my point is the harriers engaged the argentine fighters when they didnt have the fuel to dogfight.

A kill is a kill, and sure doesnt deminish the achievement.

But, in a hypothetical engagment, put those Harriers 200 miles farther to the west, and let them go two on twowith a Mirage. Things would be different.

And again, I will repeat........ I repeat........ I repeat........... Its a capable fleet defense fighter. Its junk for close support or attack.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> But, in a hypothetical engagment, put those Harriers 200 miles farther to the west, and let them go two on twowith a Mirage. Things would be different.



I doubt that - Air-to-air the Harrier was superior with the exception of speed, which didn't factor in the dogfight.

Got this from a report about the Falklands....

"The FAS launched almost all of its strike forces into action on 1 May 1982. The first two flights of fighters ingressed at medium altitude, failed to find the British force, reached their “bingo” fuel limits, and had to turn back. In midafternoon, the third flight of four Mirages sent to engage the Harriers found their prey. *The flight of two Harriers flying CAP outmaneuvered the Mirages and quickly downed two of the Argentine fighters with Sidewinder missiles.* A third Mirage pilot used up too much fuel to return to his Argentine base and tried to make an emergency landing at the Port Stanley airfield. The Argentinian air defenders mis-identified their Mirage for an attacking British aircraft, successfully engaged, and shot it down, killing the pilot."


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

Ok, so if a sidewinder was shot at the Harrier, it would miss? Sounds like Argentine pilots were not skilled enough to engage the Harriers. Or they didnt know the correct tactics. If one thing the Harrier ISNT is.... is a fast aircraft. Use the correct tactics against a small nimble aircraft that is slow relative to you, and you will blast it from the skies. Just like the F4 pilots did against the Mig 17's in Vietnam, after they relearned the tactics.

The Harriers moment of glory was a quarter century ago. Its time has come and gone. Its now just an overpriced airplane with a one act show.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

> Its time has come and gone. Its now just an overpriced airplane with a one act show.


Now thats alot better than saying its a piece of junk sys.... I agree with u 100% on ur above post...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

Wow..... you finally agree with me?.............. I need to have a beer! Best beer in the world of course........ Budweiser!


----------



## evangilder (Oct 25, 2005)

I think I will stay out of the best beer debate.  But I will agree that the Harrier is past it's prime.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

What about being over priced??


----------



## evangilder (Oct 25, 2005)

I haven't seen the price lately, but what military hardware is cheap? It probably is pricey, but are they still buying them, or just "upgrading" them?


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom go throw your bud down the toilet man...........warm piss.

back on topic. none of the above selection is the best fighter jet. We haven't seen it yet


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2005)

Even I have said I think three times, that technology has moved on and its time for a replacement.
As for the overpriced, I believe that the RAF and the RN have had value for money over the last 25 years.
As for the effectiveness as a GA plane we will have to agree to differ.

As for the Harrer vs a Mirage at any range from base, we still would have wiped the floor with them. 
A Mirage is only faster with the afterburner. Use the afterburner to run, you present the Harrier with a perfect contact and collect a Sidewinder where it hurts as your prize. The Harrier can out turn, out accelerate, bleeds less energy in a manoever, uses less fuel, has a better role rate and (on dry power) outclimbs a Mirage. This has been proven in many exercises with the French and Belgian Airforces. 

However the point of the thread was Which is the best Jet Fighter and it has to be the F15. Dare I say we all agree on that.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I haven't seen the price lately, but what military hardware is cheap? It probably is pricey, but are they still buying them, or just "upgrading" them?



I saw a recent price of 24 million. An A10 in 1998 dollars was 10 million.


----------



## jrk (Oct 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> If one thing the Harrier ISNT is.... is a fast aircraft.





no ones denying that fact.the amount of times it has been stated that the harrier isnt one of the fastest jets.i have it imprinted on my forehead from the amount of times i,ve heard it.why are you deciding to repeat it?


some guy on this site has already stated theyre sick of hearing everyone put the p-40 down.now i,m gonna take his attitude,i,m sick of hearing british aircraft being slagged off.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

Glider said:


> However the point of the thread was Which is the best Jet Fighter and it has to be the F15. Dare I say we all agree on that.



Still arguing over the F4 vs F15.

I still say the F4.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

jrk said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > If one thing the Harrier ISNT is.... is a fast aircraft.
> ...



I had to repeat it to emphasize my statement. Sorry if my point of reasoning pissed you off.

And Im not slagging any other Brit aircraft, just this one..... in its ground attack role.


----------



## jrk (Oct 25, 2005)

right i,m stating here and now i,m not having any more part of this discussion.syscom3 i accept your point that you dont like the harrier, i do.i feel this conversation is going round in never ending circles.so i,m stepping out of the circle.yes i did get pissed off and i,m mad at myself for getting that way in the first place.but come on were supposed to be to post what we know and we are allowed to enjoy ourselves although looking at all this it looks like were in the middle of a battlefield.come on lets call a truce and stamp this out now.if anyone wants to take a pop at me for doing what i,m doing go ahead.i,m trying to take the heat out of the situation and calm everything down.

i,ll even let you call me the u.n. if you want.some one crack a joke or something like.................................who cut the cheese man?
or blazing saddles where theyre all farting around the fire due to the beans.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 25, 2005)

IMO the greatest fighter jets are the He178 and the Gloster E.28/29 simply for leading the way


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

jrk said:


> ......blazing saddles where theyre all farting around the fire due to the beans.



 

Just dont punch out the horse


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 25, 2005)

Mongo like candy....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 25, 2005)

Holy crap last time I was on this thread it was on Page 3.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

jrk - just call the baldies, they'll take care of it!!!!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2005)

Just face it, syscom, the only thing that could be considered bad for the Harrier is it's price. It doesn't make it a "piece of junk" - the Me-262 was expensive compared to the Spitfire XIV, was it a "piece of junk"? 

Think of the global situation; the Harrier is not past it's prime when the majority of global conflicts are against nations that have only just realised a spear is inferior to a rifle.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 25, 2005)

The Me-262 was a generational leap above the Spitfire. No comparison could be made.

The Harrier is expensive to build, maintain, and is prone to damage. For ground support, its junk. It does not carry that impressive of a payload, nor flys very far. Its only marginally better than a modern helicopter gunship.

The only reason other nations have the Harrier is because they dont have the carrier capable of operating traditional aircraft.

Like I said. Its second rate, perhaps third rate for ground attack in a defended area.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The Me-262 was a generational leap above the Spitfire. No comparison could be made.
> 
> The Harrier is expensive to build, maintain, and is prone to damage. For ground support, its junk. It does not carry that impressive of a payload, nor flys very far. Its only marginally better than a modern helicopter gunship.
> 
> ...


How many Mirage 2000's,Super Entards did the Harrier shoot down in the Falklands and how many Harriers were shot down by the Argentine Air Force? None,
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > The Me-262 was a generational leap above the Spitfire. No comparison could be made.
> ...



"Argentina lost 22 Skyhawks—19 from Grupos 4 and 5 and three more from a naval Skyhawk squadron. Grupo 8 lost two Mirages, and Grupo 6 lost 11 of its 30 Daggers. The 2d Bomber Squadron lost two Canberras. In all, the FAS lost 41 percent of its aircraft to combat and operational accidents."

Argentina didn't have Mirage 2000s.....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Whatever I was thinking off the top of my head, but they did have Entards and they did lose some, My point is Sys said they were crap I was simply pointing out that that from its record it wasnt.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

Obviously you didnt read my other posts, so here it is one more time.....

For fleet defense, its usefull in a niche role.

For ground attack, its junk.

Its only highlight occured 25 years ago. Now its a one act dog show.......


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 26, 2005)

In ur opinion...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

THank you


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

And what about Desert Storm it did inland sorties on ground attack roles, and i dont recall it losing a whole lot of planes not like the Tornado did which is a much faster and more advanced plane than the Harrier is.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

If the Harrier is a "pile of junk" in a GA role, how many were lost during the Gulf War? It couldn't have been that bad for the mechanics - they were turning them around in an average of 20 minutes in the Gulf. 

You'll find for fleet defence it's first rate - among the best. It's small and extremely agile - those in the RAF have the same radar equipment as the F-18 plus superior NV equipment. Being the most advanced Harrier's in the world. 

And your whole point on the maintenance bit ..."...you have to remove it's wings to lift the engines up ..." - as was said, taking it out backwards would be impossible in the stowage spaces ...and are you going to call the Lightning "junk" ...because, newsflash, the number one engine had to be lifted, you guessed it, up ...although the wings didn't have to come off. And number two engine went down ...the Lightning really was a maintainers nightmare. Pile of junk? And before you answer, only f*cktards who have no clue about everything would call a Lightning a piece of junk.


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2005)

Calm it PD. Syscom like to cause a fuss, I think it makes him feel the centre of attention. He has no argument and ignores the facts. In addition he never answers a question that is put to him or produce any facts to support his case. All he does is make statements that he knows are going to cause a ripple.

Given have a chance he would probably agree, no insist, that the Fairy Battle was the Bomber of the war and Blenhiem fighters should have replaced Spits in the BOB. 

I don't know Sysoms background but I would be suprised if he has any background in Military aviation, or any other arm of the millitary. If he has Heaven help the other members of his unit.

Everybody learns on this site and when our understanding has proven to be wrong then you, me and the others have always modified our views or agreed to differ. If Syscom won't then thats his loss, not yours or mine.


----------



## jrk (Oct 26, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> jrk - just call the baldies, they'll take care of it!!!!



yeah flyboy i hear theyre real smooth in the situation.  

sorry mate i couldnt resist that one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

jrk said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > jrk - just call the baldies, they'll take care of it!!!!
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2005)

just one last thing about the harrier, if it's that bad why did NATO, with the power to call on aircraft from britain and america (amoung others), place harriers on their eastern most airfeailds in germany?? aircraft on those airfeilds would be the most important and the first to be called into action against the USSR, they were placed there on the ground attack role so they can't be that bad, but they weren't just placed on the airfeilds, they were all over the place, they could take off in streets, small roads and even car parks, a huge advantage as they could easily be hidden from russian attack..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> just one last thing about the harrier, if it's that bad why did NATO, with the power to call on aircraft from britain and america (amoung others), place harriers on their eastern most airfeailds in germany?? aircraft on those airfeilds would be the most important and the first to be called into action against the USSR, they were placed there on the ground attack role so they can't be that bad, but they weren't just placed on the airfeilds, they were all over the place, they could take off in streets, small roads and even car parks, a huge advantage as they could easily be hidden from russian attack..........



Great point Lanc! - The Soviets during the good ole Cold War didn't have anything close!


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2005)

A final note for those who believed that the Harrier in US service only operated over skies cleared of the enemy. This may be of interest.

Operation Desert Storm in 1991 was highlighted by expeditionary air operations performed by the AV-8B. The Harrier II was the first Marine Corps tactical strike platform to arrive in theater, and subsequently operated from various basing postures. Three squadrons, totaling 60 aircraft, and one six-aircraft detachment operated ashore from an expeditionary airfield, while one squadron of 20 aircraft operated from a sea platform. During the ground war, AV-8Bs were based as close as 35 nautical miles (40.22 miles) from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theater. The AV-8B flew 3,380 sorties for a total of 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%. Average turnaround time during the ground war surge rate flight operations was 23 minutes.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

Glider said:


> Calm it PD. Syscom like to cause a fuss, I think it makes him feel the centre of attention. He has no argument and ignores the facts. In addition he never answers a question that is put to him or produce any facts to support his case. All he does is make statements that he knows are going to cause a ripple.
> 
> Given have a chance he would probably agree, no insist, that the Fairy Battle was the Bomber of the war and Blenhiem fighters should have replaced Spits in the BOB.
> 
> ...



Glider, keep your personal attacks for another forum. All it shows is youre arguing from emotion and cant backup any of your facts for what I am arguing for. Now if you have bothered to read what I posted, its the following.

1: The Harrier in the fleet defense has a usefull role to play.

2: The harrier for ground attack is way outclassed and hardly worth the time and effort spent on it for that role

3: At 24 million per copy, to carry 9000 pounds of munitons for only 100 miles is an enormous sum for any airforce.

4: Replacing an engine requires the removal of the wings which is not a simple or quick job to do. I dont see the F18, A10 OR ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT needing the wings removed to swap an engine.

6: The harrier didnt do much in the way for support over the battlefield that was still defended by SAMS or medium/heavy AAA. It is sensitive to battle damage and had to stay away from those areas.

7: I never said the Lightning was ugly. On the contrary, its a good interceptor.

8: So what if NATO deployed the Harrier up close to the border. The soviet air defenses would have swatted them down like fly's just like most NATO ground attack aircraft. Even the A10 would have had troubles.

9: If its a wonder weapoon, why arent the Marines screaming left and right for it?

Since your country HAS to operate the Harrier because of lack of an alternative, it doesnt mean the USMC has to. In fact, the whole rationale for the USMC to use it is for dedicated ground support. And there is plenty of evidence that has yet to be refuted that its not the optimum aircraft to use for that role. Fleet defense should always be handled by the USN, not the ground pounders. And if the USN decides that this will be a dedicated air defense aircraft, then configure it for that role, and stiop pretending for it to be a ground attack aircraft. This weapon was designed with the cold war in mind...... and in case you havent noticed, it was over 15 years ago.

There are cheaper and more effective alternatives to this plane, and if politics had not been a concern, the Harrier would have been retired at the end of GW1.


----------



## jrk (Oct 26, 2005)

i feel a tommy cooper moment coming on.the one where he puts elbow up to his shoulder.

tc."doctor every time i do this it hurts."

doc."well dont do it."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> There are cheaper and more effective alternatives to this plane.



Yes, the F-35....

And although it will cost more per unit, it will be cheaper in the long run when the airframes last 25 or 30 years!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

F35 is not a deployed aircraft. Before we pass judgement on it, lets see how it works for a few years in the real world.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> F35 is not a deployed aircraft. Before we pass judgement on it, lets see how it works for a few years in the real world.



Yep - I already bought lockheed-martin stock 8)


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2005)

Syscom. You keep repeating the same statements but you have not submitted any evidence to back up any statement that you have made.

Taking them one at a time from your last post.

1 The Harrier in the fleet defense has a usefull role to play
You started saying that is was OK against non manoevering targets

2: The harrier for ground attack is way outclassed and hardly worth the time and effort spent on it for that role.

A valid point of view. I don't agree with it but a valid point of view. I did observe that the actual payload carried in combat which is what really counts is similar to any other GA plane. I asked what evidence you had to back up that it was vastly superior. You quoted brochure figures which isn;t the point. 

3. At 24 million per copy, to carry 9000 pounds of munitons for only 100 miles is an enormous sum for any airforce

True but one that the Marines, British, Spanish, Indian forces seem happy to pay However its a valid point of view.

4 Replacing an engine requires the removal of the wings which is not a simple or quick job to do. I dont see the F18, A10 OR ANY OTHER AIRCRAFT needing the wings removed to swap an engine. 

You have a real fixation on this point, have you ever done it? Many componebts can be removed and replaced in situ. The actual removal of the whole engine is unusual and not an every day occurance. The forces who use the Harrier have been able to manage very well. I haven't done an engine change on a Harrier but I have on F4's and Buccaneer's and it isn't something that I enjoyed.
Availability is well above average, reliability is way above average. To the people who use the plane these are the figures that count. 

6: The harrier didnt do much in the way for support over the battlefield that was still defended by SAMS or medium/heavy AAA. It is sensitive to battle damage and had to stay away from those areas.

Total rubbish, SUPPLY YOUR EVIDENCE. Loads of evidence has been put forward to show that the Harrier was in the front line from 1982 to the Second Gulf War. Where is your evidence. This is the most damming error you make and I believe that YOU OWE IT to those who fly and maintain these planes to put up or apologise. This has gone beyond put up or shut up.

7: I never said the Lightning was ugly. On the contrary, its a good interceptor

I think its ugly, but I also consider it to be a simply superb interceptor, totally unmatched in its day by anything. I think you will find it was plan D point

8: So what if NATO deployed the Harrier up close to the border. The soviet air defenses would have swatted them down like fly's just like most NATO ground attack aircraft. Even the A10 would have had troubles.

EVIDENCE PLEASE. 1982 is cold war and I have provided clear evidence that the Harrier operated at the worst possible position against the most sophisticated AA guns/missiles/Radars in the world and they did very well indeed. Put up or withdraw this statement.
By the way you seem to have ignored the info that it was the first plane deployed against the Iraq forces and was based closer to the front than any other plane.

9: If its a wonder weapoon, why arent the Marines screaming left and right for it? 

You address your own point. They have been screaming to keep it.

I repeat that the time has come to replace the Harrier. This is now underway but as a plane it has done everything that it has been asked to do. You cannot expect more from any aircraft. If its replacement does as well we will be more than satisfied.

Subject now closed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

8 hour engine change.....

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/engine_change.htm


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

The Harrier in a fleet defense fighter would be good because its opponents would be aircraft carrying heavy anti-ship missles which would be unmaneuverable. It wouldn't be very hard for them to intercept and shoot them down. If its opponants are just plain old fighters with no bombs or AGM, then it wouldnt harm the ships.

I checked with several reputable websites that had the same figures. 9000 pounds at 120 miles or 4000 pounds for a slightly longer range.

Dont compare the small defenses at Ft Stanley as compared to what NATO would face against the Soviets. The shear volume of fire from them would ensure all attack planes would have a good chance at taking damage, and the Harrier is not capable at handling it. Since it takes 8 hours to change an engine, and youre only 50 miles or less from the front, its a good chance that your Harrier would be nailed from opposing forces while sitting on the ground being fixed.

My source comes from my colleague at work. A Marine veteran of GW1. He didnt have a very high opinion of the jet. He preferred helo's and F18's. He wished the marines would have spent their money on A10's!

And the marines are always screaming for one thing or another. What branch of the service doesnt? But give them the choice of an F18 or an AV8. guess which one they preffer to have.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 26, 2005)

reluctantly i discuss this you guys all seem fixated on maximum speed most modern fighters endurance at full power and this is a generous estimate would be less then 30 minutes which would give them a range including taxi take off and approach of less then 200 miles not including setting up for the attack the harrier was designed to be a ac close to the battlefield so range should not be a major factor although it would be nice . personally i.ve been in position to watch mock attacks on airfields f4s f18s f 5s f16s vulcans jaguars bucaneers at diiferent times and harrier was most fun to watch


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Good Point


----------



## plan_D (Oct 27, 2005)

Port Stanley ...not Fort Stanley ...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2005)

Youre right. Stanley is in Hong Kong. Great place to have a cold beer while watching the sampams go by on the Pearl River estuary.

I worked at the nearby Fort Stanley for awhile. It was weird as HK was turned over to the PRC then, and the fort was occupied by chicoms.


----------



## trackend (Oct 27, 2005)

I thought Stanley was Ollies side kick


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2005)

Dont rest on your Laurels, im Hardy to fool than that


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2005)

Lol


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

> The Harrier in a fleet defense fighter would be good because its opponents would be aircraft carrying heavy anti-ship missles which would be unmaneuverable. It wouldn't be very hard for them to intercept and shoot them down. If its opponants are just plain old fighters with no bombs or AGM, then it wouldnt harm the ships



well perhaps you should have told the argies that, we shot down 24 of their aircraft, not all of them were carrying anti-ship missiles...........



> I checked with several reputable websites that had the same figures. 9000 pounds at 120 miles or 4000 pounds for a slightly longer range



i belive that is for a vertical take off whice operationally is baisically unheard of, the ski jump launch system hugely increses the range and payload of the aircraft..........



> Since it takes 8 hours to change an engine, and youre only 50 miles or less from the front, its a good chance that your Harrier would be nailed from opposing forces while sitting on the ground being fixed.



somebody here has already posted the figures for how reliable and how often the harrier was mission ready, you seem oddly fixated on the engine changes required by the harrier, may i ask why? do you actually have unrefuatable figures, and not just from your marine friend, about how often the harrier requires an engine change??

and i don't think you're giving the harrier enough credit for being used by NATO on their german airfeilds, would you not agree that that is a right reserved for only NATO's finest??



> My source comes from my colleague at work. A Marine veteran of GW1. He didnt have a very high opinion of the jet.



and that is an opinion he is entitled to, however with all due respect, he is just one marine, in any debate where you're using a person as a source there will be annother person countering the other, what i'm trying to say is that whilst your marine friend doesn't like the harrier, others will........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > Since it takes 8 hours to change an engine, and youre only 50 miles or less from the front, its a good chance that your Harrier would be nailed from opposing forces while sitting on the ground being fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> somebody here has already posted the figures for how reliable and how often the harrier was mission ready, you seem oddly fixated on the engine changes required by the harrier, may i ask why? do you actually have unrefuatable figures, and not just from your marine friend, about how often the harrier requires an engine change??



Lanc makes excellent points - and Syscom - there is a thing called "FMC" Fully Mission Capable - it's a rate that each squadron, regardless if Navy or AF must meet to be considered fully operational. During the heat of battle you're acting like everything to going to stop so an engine change can be accomplished. I know for a fact that if a unit falls short of asset availability they may "borrow" one from another unit to achieve their FMC rate, especially true if an aircraft is heavily damaged or requires extensive repair. If it's really bad the unit may scrap it where it sits and concentrate maintenance manpower on keeping more serviceable birds flying.

Removing the Harrier's upper wing is no more or less complicated than pulling the tail off another comparable fighter and when the aircraft was designed, ease of maintenance is always considered. It may be more time consuming, but that's the nature of that beast. Sure, the Harrier is unique and does require special attention, so did the SR-71 - the F-16 uses Hydrazine in it's APU - that stuff could kill you in a heart beat! There's at least one igniter plug on the MiG-21 that requires the removal of the tail to change. I could point at just about any aircraft and bring up something unique. To the untrained it may seem like an aircraft wing removal is a big issue, it's not if it was designed for removal to facilitate maintenance.....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

Changing an engine on a F15, F16, etc is far faster and easier than having to remove the wing from a Harrier then having to put it back on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Changing an engine on a F15, F16, etc is far faster and easier than having to remove the wing from a Harrier then having to put it back on.



On a 16, yes, on a 15, if both engines have to go, it may be just as time consuming. After a 15 engine change, the engines have to be trimmed, individually and to each other - more time than a single engie aircraft, again another maintenance peculiarity inherent in the aircraft...


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2005)

I was trying to find the TBO of a Pegasus to get a feel for how often this happens and of course how often you have to take the engine out. 
Still looking for that but I did find the following. 
I am sure we all agree that one of the more common reasons for having to remove an engine for repair is due to turbine blade damage.

The following is a press release re the awarding of a maintanence contract to Pratt and Whitney in 2002. Its interesting for two reasons. 
a) They dont have to take the engine out any more and
b) It only happened 30 times a year across the fleet in the first place.

Pratt Whitney wins maintenance contract for Rolls-Royce engines on Harrier fighters

FARNBOROUGH AIR SHOW 2002 - The U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has awarded a contract to Pratt Whitney to provide maintenance support for Rolls-Royce Pegasus F402 engines that power AV-8B Harrier fighter aircraft flown by the U.S. Marines.

The follow-on contract is for high-pressure compressor blade repairs using blendable boroscope technology that can be applied without removing the engine from the aircraft. With an average of 30 engine removals per year, NAVAIR estimates that the process could allow 83 more weeks of aircraft usage per year, potentially saving more than $10 million U.S. dollars in maintenance costs.

Syscom. I should point out that the F15 and F16 are nearly a Generation later than the Harrier in design so I would expect them to be more maintainer friendly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

When the F-16 and F-15 were being developed there were "Maintainability Engineers" who actually assisted engineers in making the aircraft maintenance friendly.

Boeing pick up on this when they developed the 767 - I believe this is now common practice...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

Why im seemingly obsessed about this harrier wing/engine change time, is in the attack role, it will be peppered by flak, bullets, cannons, maybe even frightened ducks. Engine damage is not a possibility, it is an inevitablity.

The true mark of a great attack aircraft is its ability to take battle damage and fly home or how easy it is to repair something on the plane. The A10 can handle that. The Harrier is vulnerable to damage and if the engine is hit, well there goes your air support for 8 hours.

The other aircraft, while in the fighter bomber role, fly fast and high enough to minimize their exposure time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Why im seemingly obsessed about this harrier wing/engine change time, is in the attack role, it will be peppered by flak, bullets, cannons, maybe even frightened ducks. Engine damage is not a possibility, it is an inevitablity.
> 
> The true mark of a great attack aircraft is its ability to take battle damage and fly home or how easy it is to repair something on the plane. The A10 can handle that. The Harrier is vulnerable to damage and if the engine is hit, well there goes your air support for 8 hours.



No - you bring up another aircraft - A-10 loiters at 250 knots, Harriers Attack at 400 knots. An A-10 is designed to be shot at....



syscom3 said:


> The other aircraft, while in the fighter bomber role, fly fast and high enough to minimize their exposure time.



400 kts (which the Harrier could fly) on the deck is pretty fast. The whole point there is "one pass then haul ass - you may think these aircraft will take a lot of ground fire, because of these speeds they actually don't.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

if the A10 gets hit by something, it probably will keep on flying. If the harrier is hit by something, so long harrier. 

We can call it an attack plane, cause anything that can carry bombs is an attack plane. But is it a good attack plane? Nope. Id even put the Skyhawk above it.

Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2005)

Syscom. The RAF whose Harriers operated in the front line obviously without much A10 of F18 support didn't lose a single plane. As FJ says one pass then bug out as an option works. 
Traditionally the RAF have used different tactic to the USAF. We have always stuck close to the ground whereas the USAF tend to rely on operating at higher altitudes. There are plus's and minus's to both.

Engine damage in not an inievitability. Some hits in GA are inevitable its a very dangerous task but we tend to have more problems with AA gun fire rather than Missile as the normal operating height is no more than 100ft.

Attack speeds vary but I have taken part in exercises where we have come in at 50ft and 550kts using Hunters. Missiles tend to have problems locking on to you at that speed and height.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> if the A10 gets hit by something, it probably will keep on flying. If the harrier is hit by something, so long harrier.
> 
> We can call it an attack plane, cause anything that can carry bombs is an attack plane. But is it a good attack plane? Nope. Id even put the Skyhawk above it.
> 
> Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.


But it could take from a 20 x 20 pad...

An A-10 can't attack at 400 knots. The chances of hitting a Harrier are the same as any other aircraft - yes, it's somewhat vurnable, but so is a helicopter...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

The RAF partially tested its doctrine during the Falkland Islands war in 1982. It sent sixteen aircraft, the majority on container ships, that operated from forward bases on the islands after the land forces had secured the area. They were dedicated close support for those forces as they moved across the island. Even operating at the end of extremely long supply lines, the Harriers proved very effective in the close air support role. They also proved to be survivable. Port Stanley was defended by Roland and Tigercat radar guided surface to air missiles (SAM) as well as SA-7 and Blowpipe shoulder fired SAMs. *SAMs claimed only one victim, a Sea Harrier downed by a Roland. There was also significant anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) which was more effective and scored numerous hits. Repeatedly, RAF Harriers repaired battle damage and returned to the fight. In all, only three RAF Harriers were lost to AAA or ground fire during the conflict. *

The USMC doctrine at the end of the Vietnam War was designed to make the Marines the nation’s rapid expeditionary response force. The Marine Corps was designed to react quickly anywhere in the world, either as an independent force, or to provide and forced entry, followed by a hand-off to the US Army. Since the Marines had to be light and mobile, they could not use heavy armor and artillery, and depended instead on very responsive close air support to fill that gap. Much like the British, the Harrier fit well into this mold. It could operate from ship or from austere areas ashore. Its short range was not a critical problem, because it would always be in close proximity to the fighting ground units. The Marine ground forces also required fuel and ammunition so most of the logistic infrastructure needed to support Harriers at the front already existed. The unique requirements of aviation fuel and armament do neccesitate some grond personnel dedicated to Harrier operations.

The Royal Navy doctrine in the 1970s acknowledged the importance of force projection in the Cold War, and the value that American super carriers had in this role. However, cost was prohibitive. The Royal Navy recognized potential for the Harrier that no one else had. It could be operated from the Navy’s existing helicopter carriers, and even the Kestral had been tested in deck landing operations off the HMS Ark Royal in 1963. The vision on their part was in seeing the Harrier performing other than its intended roles. *That vision resulted in a helicopter carrier with Harriers that could provide, on a smaller scale, the same force projection capability as an American super carrier. The Sea Harrier could perform air defense, anti-shipping, air interdiction, close air support, and reconnaissance functions, and would execute all these missions in the Falkland Island War in 1982. *

The Royal Navy eventually deployed twenty-eight Sea Harriers for operations in the conflict, its air-to-air missiles being delivered only as the two Royal Navy carriers left for the fight. The crews trained themselves during the transit, and later shot down twenty-three Argentine aircraft, to include two Mirage, nine Israeli built Daggers, and seven US built A-4 Skyhawks, with no air-to-air losses. In several engagements, the Argentines fired the first missiles, before being shot down themselves, and on three different occasions, a flight of two Sea Harriers attacked larger formations and came away with multiple kills. Only two of the Sea Harriers that participated were lost to hostile fire, one to a Roland radar guided SAM, and one to automatic weapons fire. 

The Argentine Air Force actually flew 82 jet aircraft in combat from mainland bases, plus 40 turboprop Pucaras off the island, and the Argentine Navy added thirteen more Skyhawks and Super Etendards. On two separate days, they managed to mass up to 56 combat sorties in an attempt to overwhelm the Sea Harrier defensive combat air patrols. In all the British had 28 Sea Harriers, and 14 RAF GR-3s. The fact remains that the Harrier was significantly outnumbered, yet performed well above most expectations. Without them, the British would have had little hope of forcing the Argentines from the islands. The development of ships designed to operate fixed-wing V/STOL aircraft has since given many nations the ability to project airpower, and has been called a "major revolution in maritime airpower."

The lessons to be learned have to do with how to adapt doctrine to best use a technological improvement such as the Harrier. The limitations of the new weapon system must also be considered. For the Harrier, the limitations were range and payload, both of which were significantly less that conventional fighters. The Royal Navy provided the best example of how to recognize capabilities that were not designed into a system, then adjust their doctrine to get the most return on their investment, at the same time, weighing the limitations that are incurred. This massive adjustment allowed the Royal Navy to project force in the Falklands campaign in a manner impossible only a decade before. The Harrier is certainly not a premier air superiority platform against first rate air forces, but the fact remains that without the vision and foresight of the Royal Navy that led to the development of the Sea Harrier, the threat to the British surface fleet during the Falklands War would have been far greater and may have prevented them from projecting military force in the Falklands.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

Great info Les!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

In modern combat, we'll focus for a moment on the VMA-311 "Tomcats." The squadron arrived in Iraq on November 13, several days into the battle, and started flying combat missions within eight hours of arrival. As an aside, the squadron made Al Asad its base of operations, former home of an Iraqi MiG-21 squadron. Arab lettering and unit insignia still covered the walls.

One of the AV-8B Harrier’s most valuable assets is a camera pod that was designed to guide bombs and can spot men and cars in almost any weather, at distances where subjects don’t know they’re being watched. The Harrier’s outstanding slow flight and hovering performance made it uniquely suited to employ its camera, then accurately deliver ordnance in minutes within 150 meters of friendly troops in Fallujah and other cities.


The Harrier also was heavily used during the assault. Major Andrew Hesterman, serving at the time as air officer for RCT-7, has said that of the over 170 airstrikes called in by RCT-7, half were delivered by Harriers. And, the RCT was calling ordnance drops within 150 meters of friendly forces.

This was a Marine-led assault with heavy Army participation on the ground, and mostly Marine, Navy and Army aircraft were employed. 

While USAF assets were used, the USAF had the job of patrolling other cities while this fight in Fallujah went on. There was concern that the enemy would start trouble in other cities to draw resources away from the Fallujah operation. The USAF taking responsibility for responding to problems in the other cities assured that air resources committed to the Fallujah attack stayed committed there.

Sure sounds like a worthless POS to me.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

Yep - just worthless!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

Oh, and BTW,


> Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.


Has anyone ever heard of in-flight refueling, or am I the only one that knows a plane can stay up for days. Harriers were routinely refueled in mid-air during close air support evolutions...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

Heres a couple of pics of a Harrier that was damaged *AND* returned back to base...

A Harrier flying at 350 mph drops it ordinance, while a Navy SeaCobra flying at 80 mph fires his gatling gun...

Who do u think is more vulnerable???


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 28, 2005)

Nice information Les and good pics, it took a fair bit of damage to the wings. What about the fusalage and engine though any hits there?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

SLAM DUNK! 8)


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

Still it only carries 9000 pounds of ordinance for 100 miles at 24 million dollars a copy. Not cost effective. Way too much money.

In the fleet defense role, its far more effective. No arguments about that.

Only thing those pictures proved is the wings were sure built solid!

And the Marine Corps doctrine is obsolete. Its still cold war thinking. The harriers need to be sold off or scrapped, Apache's and F18's brought in to replace them. Far more effective.

The A10 can also be refueled in the air, plus it has far longer loiter time/range so a tanker isnt wasted.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

> Still it only carries 9000 pounds of ordinance for 100 miles at 24 million dollars a copy. Not cost effective. Way too much money.



As lanc made very clear, that is the figure for a vertical take-off, which is seldom used in combat...

Apaches in place of Harriers? I think not. Alongside maybe but not in place of, theyre too unreliable.


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2005)

Would someone like to tell Syscom about the problems that the Apaches are having in Afganistan due to the height and the heat?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

Glider, what about it? Are you going to tell me the AAA in Afghanistan is so weak, the harrier is safe?

And if the Harrier isnt going to be used in a VTOL mode, then what is its rationale?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

Glider said:


> Would someone like to tell Syscom about the problems that the Apaches are having in Afganistan due to the height and the heat?



Right now I believe the Apache has the highest maintenance man hour to flight hour ratio out of all the aircraft within the US Armed services.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

One was recently shot down after taking a hit from ONE .bullet from an AK. Ok it was a lucky shot, but still.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

helicopters are maintenece intensive. But Helo's are always easier in the sum total of cost to procure, fly, maintain and pilot training than compared to a Harrier.

Its another one of those comparing apples with oranges (am tempted to say lemons for the harrier, heheheheheh).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> helicopters are maintenece intensive. But Helo's are always easier in the sum total of cost to procure, fly, maintain and pilot training than compared to a Harrier.



I maintained helicopters - As far as maintenance, I'll take 5 harriers over one Apache anyday!!!!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> if the A10 gets hit by something, it probably will keep on flying. If the harrier is hit by something, so long harrier.
> 
> We can call it an attack plane, cause anything that can carry bombs is an attack plane. But is it a good attack plane? Nope. Id even put the Skyhawk above it.
> 
> Cant handle damage, cant carry much ordinance, and cant carry it very far for that matter.



Your telling us that the A-10 is basically imperveous to any AA weaponary?What if an SA-2 Surface to Air Missile flies up right behind an A-10 and hits it Directly on the Engines, youre saying chances are it will keep flying, is that along the lines of what your saying?

Because if it is, that means the A-10 is hands down the most Durable aircraf around, and for a jet that is hard to beleive.

And another thing Syscom Your statistics on the Harrier is not exact true because I just Learned Something, the Harrier was actually able to take off on the catapualt with a payload of 12000 pounds (not 9000) including external fuel, Oh an Sys The Harriers Range was more like 230 miles, but thats only after a vertical takeoff with a payload of 3tons. The Harrier doesnt use up as much fuel when it launches from the catapault.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

The A-10 is bloody tough - It was designed to be able to fly lacking an engine, thats why theyre placed where they are.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The A-10 is bloody tough - It was designed to be able to fly lacking an engine, thats why theyre placed where they are.



Agree with that!


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2005)

No Syscom it was the assertion that the Marines would be better off replacing Harriers with Apaches.
The maintanence load for an Apache is very significant and in Afganistan they have trouble operating because like a lot of helicopters they cannot operate well or sometimes at all, at altitude.
You are the one that made that statement not I.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Your telling us that the A-10 is basically imperveous to any AA weaponary?What if an SA-2 Surface to Air Missile flies up right behind an A-10 and hits it Directly on the Engines, youre saying chances are it will keep flying, is that along the lines of what your saying?



Come on, dont go to extremes. I suppose an atomic weapon would bring down anything too.




102first_hussars said:


> And another thing Syscom Your statistics on the Harrier is not exact true because I just Learned Something, the Harrier was actually able to take off on the catapualt with a payload of 12000 pounds (not 9000) including external fuel, Oh an Sys The Harriers Range was more like 230 miles, but thats only after a vertical takeoff with a payload of 3tons. The Harrier doesnt use up as much fuel when it launches from the catapault.



Well, if its flying from carriers with catapults, then we dont need it. Might as well use F18's. My figures are correct and cross referenced. 9000 pounds for 120 miles on a non cat launch.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Well, if its flying from carriers with catapults, then we dont need it. Might as well use F18's.


Not if it was launched with it's full load, performs a strike, and completes it's sortie at a 200' forward air strip - an F-18 ain't doing that!!!!

The aircraft has attributes that kept it around for 30 years and it's proponents still out weigh it opponents, dispite it's limitations. As we speak the Marines (NAVAIR) is still getting funding for numerous mods and improvements that will keep this aircraft around for several more years, probably until the F-35 comes on line. Say and believe what you might think of the Harrier, if it was the dog you claim it to be it would of been gone many years ago....

Here: http://www.navair.navy.mil/clo/GetDocFile.CFM?DID=1427


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2005)

> The A10 can also be refueled in the air, plus it has far longer loiter time/range so a tanker isnt wasted.


A-10's dont fly off aircraft carriers..........


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 28, 2005)

The politics of weapons sytems in the US is amazing. Just because its funded, doesnt mean its good. And if its one thing the marines are good at, its getting funded.

A10 cant be flown off a carrier? Well the harrier dont carry the variety and payload an A10 has either.

And the F18 is both a good fighter and bomber. Far more versatile than the Harrier.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

Either way, until the new JSF comes out it is easy to say that all around the Harrier is the best naval aircraft at least, simply because it can get off the carrier deck quick enough to intercept enemy planes.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The politics of weapons sytems in the US is amazing. Just because its funded, doesnt mean its good. And if its one thing the marines are good at, its getting funded.
> 
> A10 cant be flown off a carrier? Well the harrier dont carry the variety and payload an A10 has either.
> 
> And the F18 is both a good fighter and bomber. Far more versatile than the Harrier.



the f-18 has be know to break into a flat spin trying to do certain manouvers the Harrier does very well, and the durability of the F-18's Tail Wing is another question that makes me question why the canadian airforce bought 1200 of those planes.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

1200 or 120?

And I think that even though the Harrier might be quick off the deck in some circumstances, once an F18 or F14D hits the afterburner, the Harrier is fast left behind.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> 1200 or 120?
> 
> And I think that even though the Harrier might be quick off the deck in some circumstances, once an F18 or F14D hits the afterburner, the Harrier is fast left behind.



we had 1200 but we scrapped abunch of them cuz apparently we dont have enough pilots to fly them, so we are left with 120 but we are scrapping more pisses me off.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

Well lets see take this from a Helicopter Maintainer and Crew Chief in the US Army right now. The Apache is a major maintenanance problem all the time. I have seen them in action when they supported my Blackhawks on missions. The Apache is great when it is in the air but it is a piece of shit. That is one reason why our 160th SOAR does not use the Apache but rather the MH-60's with Hellfires and Miniguns because it is a much better aircraft than the damn Apache. 

Sorry for all you people up there that think the Apache is a great sollution and better than a Harrier. You are wrong and dont know what you are talking about. Trust me I know. FlyboyJ is also correct when he says it has a high maintenance to flight hour ratio. It is almost 8 hours of maintenance for every flight hour. Compared to the Blackhawks 1 Hour for every 1 Hour of flight time.

Also if the Harrier was so bad then why dont the Marines replace theres with the Apache. I know the Marine Harriers I saw in Iraq were doing a mighty fine job.

CC the Apache you are talking about was when I was in Iraq and they were supporting an Air Assault mission that I was flying. The AK's round penetrated the Oil Cooler and it went down. Fortunatly the crew was safe and not injured. Later a Chinook slung load it out. My friend has video footage of it all.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

> And if the Harrier isnt going to be used in a VTOL mode, then what is its rationale



STOL, how many fixed wing combat aircraft can take off in less than 100ft from a standing start?

and everyone here has already told you how maintenance hungry the apache is, not to mention its cost........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and everyone here has already told you how maintenance hungry the apache is, not to mention its cost........



Helicopters are typically expensive to fly anyhow. The Apache is just worse because of it maintenance record and besides the fact that they crash a lot.

Someone here quoted something about Apaches having problems in Afganistan. Even though I do not like the Apache it is not just the Apache that is having problems there but every aircraft. The Higher Altitudes there mean that the aircraft has less power because of the denser air in the mountains. Less power means you can not do the maneuvers that you can make at lower alltitudes or lower temperatures and for that reason helicopters are crashing in Afganistan. It has nothing to do with the Apache but all helicopters in general.


----------



## Glider (Oct 29, 2005)

DerAlder. The observation about operating at altitude was mine and I do agree that its a general problem. 
In the observation I did say 'that like a lot of helicopters the Apache' I didn't try to imply that it was only a problem with the Apache.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

I am sorry if I came across that way I was not trying to imply that is what you were saying. I was just making a general statement.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> the durability of the F-18's Tail Wing is another question that makes me question why the canadian airforce bought 1200 of those planes.



That's been long corrected



syscom3 said:


> And if its one thing the marines are good at, its getting funded.



And there I will say you're flat out wrong. The Marines traditionally got Navy leftovers and until changes were made at NAVAIR, this was the status quo. The results of those changes are the AV-8, the V-22 and now a Marine as the JCS Chairman....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 29, 2005)

Huss, we never had 1200 F-18's. We started out with something like 138 of them. Most of them are the A model, but there are a few B's in there as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

Yep!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2005)

The marines always seem to end up with what they want. They have powerfull friends in Capitol Hill.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

so now you're saying that they want harriers??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The marines always seem to end up with what they want. They have powerfull friends in Capitol Hill.



Depends what era and under what Presidential Administration you're talking about - right now they have mega clout!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so now you're saying that they want harriers??



They already have Harriers, have had them for quite some time and really like them.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

The Apache was a great Advancement from the Cobra, but the USN still uses the updated SuperCobra instead of the Apache.

I think the Comanche is going to be something sweet.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> Huss, we never had 1200 F-18's. We started out with something like 138 of them. Most of them are the A model, but there are a few B's in there as well.



K my bad your right, I got the statistics mixed up with a squadron number.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> The Apache was a great Advancement from the Cobra, but the USN still uses the updated SuperCobra instead of the Apache.
> 
> I think the Comanche is going to be something sweet.



Because the Cobra is just as good and can do everything that the Apache can and is not as maintenance intensive and does not break as much.

Dont keep up with the news much do you? The Comanche was already canceled. Quite a while ago.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > The Apache was a great Advancement from the Cobra, but the USN still uses the updated SuperCobra instead of the Apache.
> ...



Are you serious what the hell happend there was nothing wrong with the dam thing


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

First of all it was too expensive, and the AH-64D Longbow could do everything that the Comanche could do.



> The Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche was cancelled on 23 February 2004. The Army said it would use the $14.6 billion earmarked for 121 Comanches between 2004 and 2011 to buy 796 additional Black Hawk and other helicopters and to upgrade and modernize 1,400 helicopters already in the fleet. The Army wants new proposals to develop and build a new armed reconnaissance aircraft. The Army plans to initiate programs for a total of 303 light utility helicopters and 368 armed reconnaissance planes.
> www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/rah-66.htm


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > so now you're saying that they want harriers??
> ...



sorry adler you miss-understand me, syscom argued at one point that the marines didn't want the harriers but they got them through political means, but him saying the marines always get what they want is contradicting that and it means the marines wanted the harriers!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

From what I have gathered from talking with Marine Harrier pilots is that they love them. It is perfect for what the Marines do.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

I said the Marines like the Harriers and find ways to get them funded even though many in the Pentagon, GAO and Congress want to kill off the program due to its expense for a plane of limited capabilities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2005)

If the pilot' like them, and their command feels they are gettig the job done, there's little room for argument...

Many folks in the Pentagon, GAO and especially Congress don't fly..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> If the pilot' like them, and their command feels they are gettig the job done, there's little room for argument...
> 
> Many folks in the Pentagon, GAO and especially Congress don't fly..



Said very well.

And as for the aircraft having limited abilities. It does everything the Marines want it to do. It is not there fighter but there ground attack/support aircraft. For everything else they use the F-18.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> Syscom, how can you argue with someone who was there? Maybe it was the fault of the Tornado's radar but unless pD says that that is want the problem was I am inclined not to believe it.



Easy it didn't happen on his flight sim that way, thats why!


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

What does a simulator have to do with it? Modeling radars is still an arcane science. Modeling aircraft in flight is nothing complicated. 

Note - obviously you didnt read any of the posts I put up because I told him I misinterpreted what he said in the first place and ended up agreeing with him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Your right I did not, I saw that one and had to make that comment, if the humor flew over your head, I cant do anything about that.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 30, 2005)

Ouch...

Not sure which one that deserves, so u get both... Good work Adler....


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 30, 2005)

Dohhhhhhh!!

I feel like a *******

)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Thankyou Les, I feel the love!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Dohhhhhhh!!
> 
> I feel like a *******
> 
> )



No not really if it is coming from you.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 30, 2005)

That second pic look very painful Les! Ouch!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2005)

Yes It looks like it would be!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 5, 2005)

Holy Sh*t my Thread just made 200 posts, that a new record for me


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2005)

Only because we spam a lot


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 5, 2005)

a lot is probably an understatement... 
A lot of us (no names mentioned ^) are it seems compulsive spammers...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2005)

Oh I know im a compulsive spammer and damn proud of the fact


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2005)

ah that takes me back to the good old days when spam was real spam and newbies bowed to our knowledge, my the times have changed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

You see they are spamming right now and making it look like they are not. CC and Lanc are proffesionals.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah that takes me back to the good old days when spam was real spam and newbies bowed to our knowledge, my the times have changed



Those were the days...ah I miss the days when it was just us two online for hours at a time spamming pages and pages of every topic...

(Sorry guys, this form of compulsive spamming by us is a legal requirement of the site  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

That should be yalls positions in this forum rather than an admin or forum. Site Spammers


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 7, 2005)

you guys are purely part time spammers, if you were fulltime spammers you would have thought of this


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 7, 2005)

Dude, are u REALLY that ignorant that u think no one has ever done that before????

What a freakin newb....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)




----------



## Archangel (Nov 7, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Dude, are u REALLY that ignorant that u think no one has ever done that before????
> 
> What a freakin newb....



you mean something like this?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2005)

dude, that really is pathetic, you're not impressing anyone, me and CC have been spamming on these boards for nearly 2 years now, we used to spend hours on the site spamming, then we got broadband and it got worse, we're anything but part time, and you've just proved yourself as being the lowest of the low, you're the spam that me and CC had too high standards to post...........


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2005)

Theres a museum of spam. Did you know that?

http://media.hormel.com/templates/knowledge/knowledge.asp?id=9&catitemid=16


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> you guys are purely part time spammers, if you were fulltime spammers you would have thought of this



Oh brother there you go again!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 7, 2005)

Syscom thats cool


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

I still say the F4 is the best jet aircraft designed, built and used between 1955 and 1975.

The combat record of it in Vietnam and the Arab/Israeli wars proves it is the best.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

Yeah but The F105 was designed around the same era and served the attack roles quite well.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

But the "Thud" was not a dogfighter.

A great plane for the early part of the Vietnam war, but was outclassed by the F4.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

For the 50's I go with the Sabre and then the F-4. As an interceptor I go with the Lightning for the 50's. Yes Plan_D I said the Lightening. The Tomcat was not built in the 50's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

grrrr, if i'd have realised the poll had a time limit on it i would've voted lightening.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

Ooops!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> But the "Thud" was not a dogfighter.



True but it has accounted for a few Migs In Vietnam though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > But the "Thud" was not a dogfighter.
> ...



25 Mig kills to be exact. The NVAF would try to ambush Thuds before they dropped their load, sometimes they overshot and that's when the Thud would nail them. The NVAF would use Mig-21s to chase them into a trap where Mig-17s would wait for them, usually coming in at the 4 or 8 o'clock position.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

Great, that reinforces my opinion on the Thud, thanks Flyboy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

No sweat - Max Brestel shot down 2 on March 10, 1967 as did David Waldrop Aug 23, 1967. Both were flying "D" models and both hosed them with cannon fire.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2005)

My point about the F105 was it wasnt a maneuvering type of fighter. The F4 had a better power to weight ratio and generally did better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> My point about the F105 was it wasnt a maneuvering type of fighter. The F4 had a better power to weight ratio and generally did better.



You're right although based on the fact the the -105 was a high speed Nuke Bomber, it possessed good acceleration. A dogfighter? no, but how the NVAF tried to ambush it made it deadly if the Mig-17 didn't score the first time. I was talking to one of out tow pilots today who flew -105s, he said the plane, when clean would just keep building up speed until it fell apart....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2005)

I can believe that. Plus anything that came from Republic Aircraft was built solid!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 9, 2005)

> Both were flying "D" models and both hosed them with cannon fire.


And what happened to those morons who decided that modern day jets didnt need cannons for dogfighting??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > Both were flying "D" models and both hosed them with cannon fire.
> 
> 
> And what happened to those morons who decided that modern day jets didnt need cannons for dogfighting??



Yep - that's where the -105 had a BIG advantage over the F-4. That centerline cannon installed later on the F-4 was a band-aid....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 9, 2005)

> That centerline cannon installed later on the F-4 was a band-aid....


I agree, although several pilots did claim Migs with that cannon...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> > That centerline cannon installed later on the F-4 was a band-aid....
> 
> 
> I agree, although several pilots did claim Migs with that cannon...


I guess that cannon was a b*tch to get a good fireing solution. Yep - the most skilled SOBs you'll ever see!


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 9, 2005)

i recall reading the f105 cannon was pointed down a slight angel for ground attack


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 9, 2005)

I dont recall that at all....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> i recall reading the f105 cannon was pointed down a slight angel for ground attack



Nope - it's in the nose

http://www.uen.org/utahlink/tours/admin/tour/21/21f105Dgun.jpg


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 9, 2005)

In 1972, when the F4 was finally flown by pilots who had relearned the dogfighting skills, they did a far better job than the F105's.

I would say the F105's were the end of the 1950's era designs and philosophy and the F4 the bridge between them and the fighters deployed in the 70's.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 10, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No sweat - Max Brestel shot down 2 on March 10, 1967 as did David Waldrop Aug 23, 1967. Both were flying "D" models and both hosed them with cannon fire.



Your sig, is actually footage from an Thuds point of veiw, I knew I recognized that picture, it was from a book of mine.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > No sweat - Max Brestel shot down 2 on March 10, 1967 as did David Waldrop Aug 23, 1967. Both were flying "D" models and both hosed them with cannon fire.
> ...



Yep - I think it was gun camera footage from Maj. Ralph Kuster who shot down this Mig during the same time period.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 10, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> i recall reading the f105 cannon was pointed down a slight angel for ground attack



Well in WW2 ground crew would slightly adjust the guns downward so the plane could strafe the target and not fly directly into their target.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 10, 2005)

Which airplanes?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

ref the gun on the 105 being pointed at slight angle for ground attack i got the info from a trilogy of fiction novels by Tom wilson these fictional books cover 105 ops from Takhli the author had 500 combat hours in 105s one of the best reads i've had on fighter ops so the info might be incorrect but i can't confirm either way . Any way they are one of the best I've read


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

There are guys who flew the -105 where I work at. I'll ask them....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 10, 2005)

Basically any plane that had a barrell stickin out of the wing, because all the mechanics had to do was adjust the "stablizers" that held the barrels still, doing that they could slightly tilt the cannons or mg's downwards.

I would imagine this was done quite frequently with the P-47's winged 50.cal and the P-38's nosed cannons. 

I do know that for low altitude runs the guns would be tilted the same angle as the bomb load underneath, so that the pilot could confirm where a bomb will hit just by firing a few rounds to see where they strike and then release, 

If you have seen the movie 'We Were Soldiers' you may remeber the A1 skyraider doing the exact same thing before he dropped the Napalm.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 10, 2005)

I know of no P38 that had its MG and connon adjusted for downward elevation.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 10, 2005)

I know a former P-47 mech too. He never mentioned guns being pointed downward either. Shooting ahead of a bomb run shows the angle that you have. Having guns pointed downward to do that would give you the wrong trajectory. I don't believe that the mounts for the guns could have been adjusted enough to make that big of a difference anyway. 

Where did you get the info about adjusting guns downward?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

The manufacturer specifies boresighting requirements in their maintenance manuals that puts a "harmonized" concentration (kill box) at about 1000' in front of the aircraft. Here's a site on it...

http://www.cfgse.calebflerk.com/boresighting.htm

It would be impossible to boresight the guns "down" and have the gun sight accurate. I've never heard of such thing!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

OK GUYS! I asked a few F-16 guys before I left work. It's guns are bore sighted for a kill zone STRAIGHT in front of the aircraft. I was told by this one Tech Sargent (who was an F-16 crew chief) that the aircraft actually flies a bit "nose high" so the guns are angled slightly down, but as he put it "a gnats hair." For the most part the "Kill Zone" is right in front of the aircraft.

Tomorrow I'm hoping to meet with a couple of guys who flew F-105s and AD-1s, will post the information accordingly.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2005)

Ive met my share of fighter mechs, and I have never heard anything, or read anything, that says that the guns were adjusted downward...

And as for the whole "shoot the guns for AOA" and "confirm where a bomb will hit just by firing rounds" wouldnt u guys think that maybe theyre shooting at the enemy prior to the bombs exploding.... 

Its called strafing...


----------



## evangilder (Nov 11, 2005)

Good point, Les. Much less likely for the enemy to shoot back when they have to keep their heads down.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me. If you put your guns downward slightly anyhow (which they did not do) you would not get a straight shot at a target in front of you. Would make killing harder.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2005)

Our pilots are off today (Veterans Day) I did find this on the Corsair....

_"F4U-2 was a night fighter version of the dash one. For reasons known only to the US Navy, instead of calling it the "F4U-1N" (a method it used on all succeeding models), they gave it the dash two designation. The dash one was transformed into the dash two by modifying the starboard wing and the radio bay in the fuselage to accept the "XAIA" ("Experimental Airborne Intercept [model] A") radar which was hand-built. 

The starboard wing was modified by removing the outboard .50 cal. (12.7 mm) Colt-Browning and altering the wing to support the radar scanner. The radio was removed and placed beneath the pilot’s seat and the radar set was placed in the radio bay. There were other slight modifications such as bore sighting the guns to converge fire at 250 yards (228.6 m) and were angled slightly upward so the pilot could fire without bouncing around in the target’s slip-stream. There were no tracers loaded so as not to blind the pilot when firing. The engine was fitted with exhaust flame dampers. After radar installation, the aircraft weighed 235 pounds less than the standard dash one."_


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

Do you know if the radar had an SCR or AN number?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Upward not downward. Downward just seems not right to me.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 11, 2005)

I think I have the number at home, syscom. I will check and see.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 11, 2005)

Well its not talking about ground attack
So lets all agree to disagree.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 11, 2005)

I want to know where the info came from. There are several of us here that know WWII era mechanics and the guns pointing downward has never been brought up. So the question is, what is the source of that info?


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 11, 2005)

Didnt the Germans toy with an attack plane that fired a cannon downward so as to easily penetrate the top armour of a tank?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Well its not talking about ground attack
> So lets all agree to disagree.



No I just dont believe it.



sycom3 said:


> Didnt the Germans toy with an attack plane that fired a cannon downward so as to easily penetrate the top armour of a tank?



Yes but it was different than what Hussars up there is talking about. The guns were mounted in the back of the fuselage and mounted downwards and shot out the bottom of the aircraft. But actually now that I think about it there was one that also was made to fire upward and attack bomber formations. I may be wrong that there was one pointing down. Erich might be able to help with this one.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2005)

OK Guys - got the scoop!!

Today I spoke with one of our pilots. Lee Mazzarella (Col, USAF RET) flew F-105s, F-4s and A-1s in Viet Nam. As being a maintenance officer in the A-1H squadron, he assured me that the 4 20mm cannons WERE NOT bored downward, the same with F-105. Lee did close to 100 missions and 2000 hours in Skyraiders



syscom3 said:


> Didnt the Germans toy with an attack plane that fired a cannon downward so as to easily penetrate the top armour of a tank?



Junkers J-1 of WW1 had a downward firing gun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

And there you have it. What we all thought has been confirmed.

Thanks FBJ and also thanks for the info on the WW1 German plane. I also think there was a WW2 project also.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2005)

Adler -


----------



## evangilder (Nov 15, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Do you know if the radar had an SCR or AN number?



I am not able to find an AN number for the radar in the F4U-2, but had read that it was developed at MIT and hand built. So they may have "prototypes". 

The F4U-4N carried the AN/APS-6 radar set.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

the F-4 was excellent for its time but is now totally outdated. in my opinion the SU-37 is definitly the best.. though it never went into production unfortunately.  
as of now the F-22 is stastically the best overall (though also the most expensive) it is soon going to be surpassed though by the MiG 142
I'm also a fan of the F-14, but it'll be out of date by 2010 f'sure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

The F-14 is already being retired from front line service. Replaced by the F-18E Super Hornet.

As for your Mig 1.42 I do not think the Russians will develop it beyond prototype. They can not afford it.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

yeah its a real shame they dont have the funding, same as what i read. the F-18E is definitly better than the F-14, but I read somewheres that the F-14D won't be officially retired until 2008-10


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

It wont be officially retired until 2008 but it will not be in front line service.

The F-18E is a great plane but does not have the capabilities of the F-14.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It wont be officially retired until 2008 but it will not be in front line service.
> 
> The F-18E is a great plane but does not have the capabilities of the F-14.


I agree with that Alder.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I think there are a lot of political reasons behind it replacement with the F-18E.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 29, 2005)

Crap, i forgot the one i voted for. And in my opinion, i hope they dont retire the F-18E. Its a great Carrier Aircraft!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 30, 2005)

SUperflanker37 


I like your siggy, its really cool but its a bit big, you might want to scale it down a bit.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 30, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

I'd still say the greatest fighter jet would be the F4 Phantom. Proven in two big air wars (and two smaller ones), used in multiple roles, used by the USN/USAF and many other countries, and served abley for nearly 4 decades.

In nod to the Lightning, I'd say it was "best in show" for the point defense role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2005)

what's this? giving your approval to a non-american aircraft?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> Crap, i forgot the one i voted for. And in my opinion, i hope they dont retire the F-18E. Its a great Carrier Aircraft!



Why would they replace the F-18E? It just came out. The F-18E is replacing the F-14.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> what's this? giving your approval to a non-american aircraft?



Yes. It was proven to be superior to the F106 as an interceptor, so I give credit due where credit is due.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 30, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> P38 Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Crap, i forgot the one i voted for. And in my opinion, i hope they dont retire the F-18E. Its a great Carrier Aircraft!
> ...



Dont confuse him


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 30, 2005)

I dont think I have to do that, he does that himself.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2005)

I'd like to think the mammoth discussion about the Lightning we all had in the Cold War Intercept thread swayed you to, finally, give credit where credit is due. The Lightning was more than just superior to the F-106 ...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

The greatest interceptor I will admit.

Greatest jet fighter? No. It was too highly specialized for its role.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2005)

> Greatest jet fighter? No. It was too highly specialized for its role.


I agree.... But I disagree with the F-4 being better than the F-15...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2005)

Agreed there also the F-15 beats out the F-4 in just about every catagory.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

Some of the reasons I rated the F4 higher was it was also a naval fighter, and it served in two high intensity airwars.

Of course it was inferior in performance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2005)

I appreciate the reasons u listed sys, as well as my own reasoning behind the Phantom... Both are at the top of MY list, both are proven, and both have excellent combat records....

But the Eagle stands on top...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 31, 2005)

The F-15 is unsurpassed in it's kill ratio..

The F-4's record is impressive, but there have been many lost in air-to-air combat, although its versatility is apparent.

The F-86 has to be in there - a second generation Jet fighter that was still being used as late as 1995 (I think Honduras was the last nation to use the F-86 in combat) that not only performed well in Korea (I'm talking a 4 to 1 kill ratio that was probably more realistic) served with dozens of other countries and even took on and bested Mig-21s!

Between the 3 of them they are definitely the largest distributor of used Mig parts...


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 31, 2005)

The F15 never flew in a combat enviornment like NVN or the Yom Kipur war.

I think it would be more realistic to say best jet from 1945 through 1955, 1956 through 1975 and 1975 to the present.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 1, 2006)

I agree on how this should be broken down

On the F-4 and the F-15 though you can not say the F-4 is better than the F-15 because of its combat record. The F-15 is better than the F-4 handsdown, that is like saying the Spitfire is better than the F-86.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The F15 never flew in a combat enviornment like NVN or the Yom Kipur war.



Beka Valley, 1984 - that was a full out slugfest and ended early because of Syrian capitulation


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 26, 2006)

For me there is no way to compare planes from different era's. The military channel did a top fighter all-time based on different aspects of each plane like power plant, armorment, manuverabity, amount produced and the impact they on history and I am proud to say the "Mighty Mustang" took top honors mainly for impact it had on the war. The F-15 was a close 2nd followed by I believe the F-4. Hell they even had a WWI bi-plane forgot the name but I"m sure it was a Fokker but don't quote me on that. For me it was the Tomcat, she was sleak had nice curves great radar and the nick-name" Fleet Defender " just sounds cool, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

I agree with you on the F-14, thats my pick and always has been.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2006)

My vote is for the F-15. In my opinion, no aircraft has controlled the wartime airspace as effortlessly as the F-15 has for the last 30 years. It has made its reputation with missiles and bullets flying. Most of the aircaft listed have not been tested in the realm for which they were designed.

Second is the F-86. While the Mig-15 was its equal in dogfighting, the F-86 was the better designed warfighter and like the P-51, could fly to the enemy and engage on equal terms over the enemys home base. And it is a great looking aircraft.

Sorry, but I don't think the F-4 belongs here. It was lacking in dogfighting capability. I think there were several contemporary aircraft that was better dogfighters. First is the F-8, then Mig-21, maybe F-5, probably others. The F-4 will stand as one of the all time great aircraft due to its versatility and overall competence. I think that correcting its shortcomings was the inspiration for aircaft such as the F-14, 15, 16, and 18.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 13, 2006)

The F14 was more a fleet defense fighter than a dogfighter.

It was woefully heavy and except for the -D model, underpowered with crappy engines.

The great thing about it was the avioncs and missle systems.

Other than that, It was mediocre.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 20, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> In 1972, when the F4 was finally flown by pilots who had relearned the dogfighting skills, they did a far better job than the F105's.
> 
> I would say the F105's were the end of the 1950's era designs and philosophy and the F4 the bridge between them and the fighters deployed in the 70's.



Question. Did the F-105 jocks get the same dogfighting skill upgrades as the F-4 pilots?

This should raise some hackles. 

Gotta disagree on the second paragraph. The F-4 was also part of the 50s design era, designed basically replacing the woefully underperforming the Demon. All of these planes were built for the wrong war (the F-4 for a missile toting intercepter). The F-4 was the best at being adapted for the real world (the F-105 was a close second and honored itself greatly) and was good in many roles. It was not great in any particular role. There were several aircraft that were superior to it in dogfighting (I am sure there are a line of F-8 pilots that could discuss happy experiences dogfighting against the F-4, also a few F-5 guys). It could also bomb but there were better (e.g. A-7, an F-8 offspring). The F-4 was in my era and I knew many guys who flew in them. I am sure most would say they were great. Some have said they were dogs. The F-4 was without a doubt one of the greatest overall fighter planes in history. Its fame was primarily for adaptablity and adequacy. It was never an overpowering fighter. As for as the Israelis are concerned, they have a history of outstanding flying no matter what the plane. It would be interesting to hear an Israel discuss the merits of the F-4 vs the Mirage or the Israeli version of the Mirage (Kfir?). Lastly, the F-15 was specifically designed to overcome the inadequacies of the F-4 against its contempory foes, designs that made it an outstanding dogfighter against its contemporaries, oh, and by the way, it also turned into a great air-to-ground weapon (of course great weapons helped).

Another comment about the F-105. When cleaned up and the fire was lit, nothing could touch it at low level. Escort fighters wouldn't worry when they saw a 105 in this mode it would just simply pull away. If you look at head on and cleaned up, it is hard to find a cleaner airframe. I never thought of it as a great dogfighter, which it wasn't designed).


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

I take the J29 Tunnan just to piss everyone off hehe and when it was in Kongo the f86 was grounded for most of the time because of the klimat, and if that not count i take the P51 as the greatest ever.


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

bah just saw fighter Jet so no P51. So i pick HAWKER HUNTER.


----------



## syscom3 (May 8, 2006)

davparlr said:


> My vote is for the F-15. In my opinion, no aircraft has controlled the wartime airspace as effortlessly as the F-15 has for the last 30 years. It has made its reputation with missiles and bullets flying. Most of the aircaft listed have not been tested in the realm for which they were designed.
> 
> Second is the F-86. While the Mig-15 was its equal in dogfighting, the F-86 was the better designed warfighter and like the P-51, could fly to the enemy and engage on equal terms over the enemys home base. And it is a great looking aircraft.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't think the F-4 belongs here. It was lacking in dogfighting capability. I think there were several contemporary aircraft that was better dogfighters. First is the F-8, then Mig-21, maybe F-5, probably others. The F-4 will stand as one of the all time great aircraft due to its versatility and overall competence. I think that correcting its shortcomings was the inspiration for aircaft such as the F-14, 15, 16, and 18.



I've seen some recent evidence that a MiG-15 flown by a pilot who knew what they were doing was more than a handfull for the F86's. Plus the Mig-15 flight performace was better than the F86.

For the F4..... it may not have been superior in any one thing, but the era it was flown in, it was good in enough of them. The F8 might have been a great dogfighter, but it could never have handled the wild weasel support.

The F15 and 16, while excellent aircraft have one facet missing in the their resume's.... theyre not carrier capable. The F4 is.

Conversely, the F14 isnt a close air support aircraft, and its crappy engines limit its roll as a potential long range air defense fighter. The F18..... well its something for everyone, master of none.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I've seen some recent evidence that a MiG-15 flown by a pilot who knew what they were doing was more than a handfull for the F86's. Plus the Mig-15 flight performace was better than the F86.


 Not really...

Although it accelerated quicker and flew highher it was very unstable and its cannons had a poor trajectory. At high speeds the Mig-15 "Shakes and snakes."


The F-86 was faster and at certain altitudes actually more maneuverable and of course more stable...


----------



## davparlr (May 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I've seen some recent evidence that a MiG-15 flown by a pilot who knew what they were doing was more than a handfull for the F86's. Plus the Mig-15 flight performace was better than the F86.
> 
> For the F4..... it may not have been superior in any one thing, but the era it was flown in, it was good in enough of them. The F8 might have been a great dogfighter, but it could never have handled the wild weasel support.
> 
> ...



American F-86 aces would tell you that a Mig flown by an expert, ususally Russian, pilot was a handfull. To hear the Russians tell it, Russian pilots had a greater than even kill ratio over the F-86, but then, you gotta believe what they say. Overall the F-86 was the better fighter. The Mig had some quirks and manual flight controls.

Your comments on the F-4 was about what I said. F-8 pilots thought they were invincible. The F-4 pilots, when taught how to fly the F-4 against the F-8, were more successful. But the F-8 pilots never had to learn how to attack the F-4 to beat it. That debate will go on ad infinitum.

I don't think carrier qual is an important criteria for the worlds best fighter.

F-18 is a much better F-4. Its important for a Navy plane to handle multiple roles well and the F-18 does this job just fine. I am not sure how the F-35 will stack up against all the F-18 capability but it will certainly be superior in most.


----------



## syscom3 (May 11, 2006)

davparlr said:


> ......
> I don't think carrier qual is an important criteria for the worlds best fighter.
> .........



I think it is important as carrier aircraft are solidly built. The USAF got a solid airframe and both branches of the services saved loads of money on a common airframe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2006)

davparlr said:


> American F-86 aces would tell you that a Mig flown by an expert, ususally Russian, pilot was a handfull. To hear the Russians tell it, Russian pilots had a greater than even kill ratio over the F-86, but then, you gotta believe what they say.


 If you count their participation in the Korean War that magical 10 to 1 kill ratio probably goes down to 3 or 4 to one. Many Russians who flew in Korea "really" over-exaggerated their kills in as much I remember reading that they claimed something like 250 F-80s destroyed, well I don't think there were that many in the whole theater at any given time!!!


----------



## davparlr (May 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I think it is important as carrier aircraft are solidly built. The USAF got a solid airframe and both branches of the services saved loads of money on a common airframe.



All this is true for the F-4. Especially considering the state of Air Force design. Also, It is easier to convert a Navy design into an Air Force aircraft rather than vice versa. However, I don't think the F-18 would be considered a better fighter than the F-16, more flexible yes.


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2006)

For air-to-air, I'd take the F16.

For ground support, Id take the F18.


----------



## davparlr (May 12, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> For air-to-air, I'd take the F16.
> 
> For ground support, Id take the F18.



I agree. The F-18 also has more avionics space for growth.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

I picked the F-15, just because it can accelerate vertically and the 16 can't. If I knew more about the Su-37, I may have picked it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

Okay but what kind of advantage is that really when it comes to fighting other aircraft. Sure you can take off and get to alltitude quicker but there is no advantage in that when it comes to dogfighting or ground attack or anything like that.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2006)

The MIG-15 was only handful for the F-86 Sabre in the beginning, later on with the introduction of the F-86F which had a better and more powerful engine and was equipped with automatic-slats, the MIG-15 wasn't nearly the headache it used to be. The increased engine power coupled with the automatic-slats meant that the Sabre could now out-maneuver and out-climb the MIG-15.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

And when the F-86 Es and Fs came into the theater, the A models weren't quickly rotated out. I show some As remaining in the theater until late 1952.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2006)

Yeah, but at the time F reached service the bulk of the Sabre's were E models(Which unlike the A had hydraulic controls, a BIG advantage), although as you pointed out there were still some A's left. 

The hydraulic controls and the automatic-slats introduced in the E made the Sabre more maneuverable than the MIG, and the introduction of a new and more powerful engine in the F gave the Sabre complete superiority over the MIG.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

Adler, I picked the F-15 without using any logic other than accelerating vertically is bada*s. I believe that the 15 is superior to the 16 due to the performance advantages, and the safety with the other engine.

The first five aircraft in this poll seem to be outclassed by the rest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

I agree that the F-15 is better than the F-16. Dont take me wrong. I just think that the ability to accelerate vertically does not stand it over the others. Just my opinion though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yeah, but at the time F reached service the bulk of the Sabre's were E models(Which unlike the A had hydraulic controls, a BIG advantage), although as you pointed out there were still some A's left.
> 
> The hydraulic controls and the automatic-slats introduced in the E made the Sabre more maneuverable than the MIG, and the introduction of a new and more powerful engine in the F gave the Sabre complete superiority over the MIG.


The only thing the Mig always had over the Sabre was acceleration - it could accelerate faster until the F-86 reached peak speed - this existed across all models - the key was not to put the Mig in an advantage where this slight edge could be exploited...


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The only thing the Mig always had over the Sabre was acceleration - it could accelerate faster until the F-86 reached peak speed - this existed across all models - the key was not to put the Mig in an advantage where this slight edge could be exploited...



Yep, exactly.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

Yeah, but accelerating vertically gives me a chub, lol.....


----------



## pbfoot (May 20, 2006)

I'll disagree the Canadian powered mk6 doubled the climb rate of other sabres Chuck Yeager stated the North American sabres were totally outclassed by the Mk6 




This lists data about the Canadair Sabre and its F-86F cousin.

A Comparison - Sabre VI - F-86F 
Wing Span 37 ft. 1 in - 39 ft. 1.5 in 
Length 37 ft. 5 in - 37 ft. 6.5 in 
Height 14 ft. 7 in - 14 ft. 9 in 
Gross Weight - clean 14,400 lb - 15,198 lb 
Engine Type Orenda 14 - GE J47-GE-27 
Engine Thrust 7275 lb. - 5910 lb. 
Range, small tanks 1480 miles - 926 miles 
Initial Climb Rate, clean 11,800 ft/min - 8,100 ft/min 
Max Speed 710 mph 678 mph 
Climb to 40,000 - clean 6 minutes - unknown 
Climb to 50,000 - clean 12 minutes - unknown


----------



## Bullockracing (May 20, 2006)

Okay, maybe I'm lost again, but how do you compare the Mig 15/F-86 with the F-16 and Mig 29? Isn't this a little lopsided?


----------



## pbfoot (May 20, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Okay, maybe I'm lost again, but how do you compare the Mig 15/F-86 with the F-16 and Mig 29? Isn't this a little lopsided?


 no doubt about it you can't compare them i chose the 104 because of its longevity of service and it was a great sky heater


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Okay, maybe I'm lost again, but how do you compare the Mig 15/F-86 with the F-16 and Mig 29? Isn't this a little lopsided?


Not at all - in their day both were supposed to be the premiere dogfighters derived from opposing superpowers. In the end the F-16 has at least a 70 to 0 kill ratio with several MIG-29s now being used as spare roof parts in various parts of the world...

I think most of this is due to pilot training and operational ideology...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

You can compare there achievements but obviously a F-15/F-16/Mig-29 is better than a Sabre or Mig-15.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

I agree....


----------



## Haztoys (May 21, 2006)

Do not know alot about jets ... And at one time I knew alot about ww2 planes ...Untill I got here ... And now I see what I do not know much ,,LOL 

But ....Should the Mig 21 be on the list too .... just wondering ..?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

> Should the Mig 21 be on the list too?


Nope....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2006)

Possibly but it was more of a point defense fighter I believe.


----------



## Haztoys (May 21, 2006)

From what I'm reading here ..The Russian Jets "never" or ever were in the same class as the West... ??????????

Is there any point in History were the Russian Jets were on par with the west ??..

Just at the Korean War start? ..And after that they've been behind ever sents..? No ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

Ofcourse they were, if you read up on the history of the Cold War aircraft you will find that at the beginning of the Korean Conflict the Mig-15 had the edge which in turn gave the Soviets the edge. The Sabre eventually was upgraded and modified giving it the edge over the Mig and the pendulum swung back in favor of the West. Throughout the Could War the West did build the better aircraft right up until the F-16 and the F-15. When these 2 aircraft came out there was nothing to compare them to in the world. The closest that the Soviets had was the Mig-25 Foxbat and that aircraft prooved to be really nothing but fast. She was not very maneuverable. When the Soviets learned of the F-16 and the F-15 they looked at there outdated Airforce and realized they really had been left behind and designed the Mig-29 and the Su-27 which in turn swung the pendulum back in there favor. Since then they have kept par with the west but It will be interesting if they come up with something to counter the F-22. I doubt it because they are so cash strapped.

The main thing that kept the Soviets behind was not there designs but what they put into there aircraft. Most Soviet aircraft relied heavelly on ground guidance to there targets. You took out the ground radar and they were shooting in the dark. Traditionally the avionix packages in the Soviet Aircraft was lacking compared to the west.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 27, 2006)

I am saying the F-86 Sabre because I think it is cool and it had a proven success rate against enemy fighters.




Thats what I voted for. For pretty much the same reasons.

And anyway now that I think about it, it makes sense, since George Welch
broke the Sound Barrier in it while testing it. In fact, he wasn't supposed to break it before Yeager, but he did anyway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2006)

Nice siggy there, I love the P-51s over Neuschwanstein Castle. It really is a beautiful castle to visit.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 27, 2006)

> I am saying the F-86 Sabre because I think it is cool


Probably not the best reason to vote for an aircraft as Greatest of All Time.... And for the record, all the aircraft on this poll have had proven success against enemy aircraft, mock combat or otherwise....


----------



## Henk (May 27, 2006)

The Sabre were not one of the best aircraft and not a great fighter aircraft, but it's pilots used it excellently and had some great success against the MIGs in Korea.

I would not vote for a aircraft only because it looks cool, rather vote then in one where it says which jet aircraft looked the coollest.

Henk


----------



## davparlr (May 27, 2006)

Henk said:


> The Sabre were not one of the best aircraft and not a great fighter aircraft, but it's pilots used it excellently and had some great success against the MIGs in Korea.
> 
> Henk



I don't think you will get a lot of people to agree with you on this. The F-86 and Mig 15 were outstanding fighters. These two were in a class by themselves for that era.

And, the F-86 is one of the great looking aircrafts.


----------



## Henk (May 27, 2006)

Yes, but it did lack compared to the MIG 15, but like I said it's pilots made it what it is.

Henk


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 27, 2006)

Nice siggy there, I love the P-51s over Neuschwanstein Castle. It really is a beautiful castle to visit.



Thanks. I haven't been there, but I am a fan of medieval weapons and stuff as well.

Yeah, I suppose the Sabre wasn't the greatest, but maybe I am a bit biased! But in it's day it wasn't too bad.


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

True, I also like your siggy, that is really nicely done.

Henk


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2006)

I dont, the pic is too large and the quality sucks....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

Henk the Sabre was a marvelous aircraft actually. The Mig-15 was only better at first and later on at worst they were equals. The Sabre flew well and it was a great design for its time. So was the Mig-15 but the Mig-15 was not way better than the Sabre.


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

Oh yes it was a lovely aircraft and it did have its strong points, but like you said it later on could get the MIG 15, but if you know that the MIG 15 were not a great fighter aircraft if you take that the MIG 15 were really a bomber destroyer/interceptor while the Sabre was a fighter. SA also had some, we had quite a lot of US aircraft. 

Anyway I just tried to say that the Sabre did have its problems and were not so great as many people thought, but it did kick a*s later in its career.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (May 28, 2006)

The F86D sort of looks like a beagle.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

Henk said:


> but if you know that the MIG 15 were not a great fighter aircraft if you take that the MIG 15 were really a bomber destroyer/interceptor while the Sabre was a fighter.



They actually had the same abitlities and the Sabre in the end could outperform the Mig-15 not because of its pilots but because of its superior qualities.


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

Performance wise but the Sabre guns were weaker than the guns of the MIG 15. What I meant with the pilots is that they learned the tactics of the enemy and later started to counter the MIG 15 tactics and also learned their own tactics to deal with the MIG 15.

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

And what does that actually have to do with the aircraft themselves?


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

That made them also great aircraft in the sense that the tactics used brought out the real potential out of the aircraft and only the pilot knows what the aircraft can do and not do not the guy on the ground. 

Now for instance I can only work on what the pilot told me how a aircraft handled and what it could do or I would not know how it works.

You see like I have said in the past, The pilot makes the aircraft and the tactics they use to fight the enemy makes the airforce and the aircraft great, but if a pilot does not have great training they would also not be able think of those tactics.

So you see how I see it mate.  

Henk


----------



## Dac (May 28, 2006)

Henk said:


> Performance wise but the Sabre guns were weaker than the guns of the MIG 15. What I meant with the pilots is that they learned the tactics of the enemy and later started to counter the MIG 15 tactics and also learned their own tactics to deal with the MIG 15.
> 
> Henk



The individual rounds were weaker but the actual configuration was more effective in combat where pilots often only had opponents in their gunsights for a second or two. The Mig-15 had heavy cannon armament, but they were slower firing and the green pilots of North Korea probably would have done better with a larger numbers of rapid firing weapons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

Henk said:


> That made them also great aircraft in the sense that the tactics used brought out the real potential out of the aircraft and only the pilot knows what the aircraft can do and not do not the guy on the ground.
> 
> Now for instance I can only work on what the pilot told me how a aircraft handled and what it could do or I would not know how it works.
> 
> ...



No I dont really. The Pilot has a say so in the aircraft but no the pilot does not make the aircraft. 2 Aircraft that are equal in that case yes. The better pilot has the advantage and will get the most out of his plane, but in the case of the Mig-15 and the Sabre that is not case. 

I will use rotary wing terms because I am a rotary wing guy. That is like me saying that a pilot with 5000 hours of flight time and UH-1 Huey is going to outfly a pilot with 100 hours of flight time in a UH-60 Blackhawk. Not going to happen.


----------



## Henk (May 28, 2006)

Na, you can not understand what I am saying lets just drop it 

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

No I fully understand what you are saying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2006)

Here's some info on the MiG-15 vs. F-86 during the Korean War.

ACIG which has always been a pretty reliable data base has made it's living on attempting to put together accurate information regarding air-to-air victories in the post WW2 years. Here's some numbers I got from Soviet pilots vs. USAF, Chinese vs. USAF and in the end the total USAF MiG-15 kill Talley (if you follow ACIG's numbers)

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/index.shtml

From Nov 1, 1950 through August 29, 1951 the Soviet pilots operating over North Korea claimed 141 US aircraft destroyed of which 44 were F-86s. The USAF claimed 112 of which 44 were MiG-15s! How many of these were flown by Soviet pilots, we will never know. From Sept 1, 1951 through December 31, 1951 the Soviets claimed another 59 F-86s while the USAF claimed another 134 Mig-15s, this is also a period where the F-86E was coming on scene. After that that record of Soviet pilots fall off, probably because most of the Soviets were rotated home as it seem the war was going to drag on. 

From January 1, 1952 through May 31 1952 the USAF claimed another 163 and then from June 1952 through December 1952 another 210. During the same period the Chinese claimed 19 F-86s.

Now in the ACIG lists, there are confirmed kills noted by each side, probables and damaged aircraft are not included. In a total tally of these numbers the US bested the MiG-15 1.6 to 1 (178 to 103) during the period Soviet pilots were operating with the PNKAF. In the latter time (Sept 1, 1951 through December 31, 1951 the USAF had a kill ratio of better than 2 to 1, again we will never know how many of the USAF victories were Soviet. Bottom line, as they were part of an opposing air arm, they, along with their North Korean comrades seemed to be getting their @sses kicked.

From Jan 1952, through May 31, 1952 I show an additional 163 MiG-15s claimed by the USAF. From June 1952 to December 1952 the number rises to 210. During this whole time I show USAF F-86 air-to-air combat losses for the F-86 as 122.

Factor all those together and this is what you have - 122 F-86s lost in air to air fighting with 551 MiG-15s destroyed about a 5 to 1 kill ratio. I believe these numbers are pretty accurate as they seem more in tune with admitted communist losses. It has always been said that the USAF greatly inflated its kill numbers, the Soviets who flew in Korea are no different as for example, they claimed 186 F-80s, while it seems only 60 were lost. 

So there you have it, you could believe these numbers for further try to split them but I think it still shows that even in the early days of the Korean War, the MiG-15 and their pilots (be they Soviet, Chinese or North Korean) didn't have a dominant grasp over early F-86s and their pilots...

Bounce this data aginst the data from this site....

http://www.acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html


----------



## lesofprimus (May 28, 2006)

Excellent post Joe...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

Yes excellent post, thankyou.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2006)

Thanks!!!


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Yeah, I suppose the Sabre wasn't the greatest, but maybe I am a bit biased! But in it's day it wasn't too bad.



I think you have to judge planes against its contemporaries, or rate them by era, and in its day, it was recognized a pretty doggone good. It was successful in nulifying the Mig (which was also pretty doggone good) threat in Korea and was always outnumbered and tended to fight over the enemys base. Unlike WWII, Korea was show time for the Sabre and Mig. All the other aircraft were a side show (not that they didn't contribute mightily, but because the Sabres kept the Migs away).



FLYBOYJ Here's some info on the MiG-15 vs. F-86 during the Korean War.
ACIG which has always been a pretty reliable data base has made it's living on attempting to put together accurate information regarding air-to-air victories in the post WW2 years. Here's some numbers I got from Soviet pilots vs. USAF said:


> I am a bit confused or naive but weren't there criteria for claiming US aircraft kills? I would have thought this criteria would have alleviated some uncertainty in claims? The Russian, North Korean, and Chinese claims, I would think, would be more suspect.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Here's some info on the MiG-15 vs. F-86 during the Korean War.
> 
> ACIG which has always been a pretty reliable data base has made it's living on attempting to put together accurate information regarding air-to-air victories in the post WW2 years. Here's some numbers I got from Soviet pilots vs. USAF, Chinese vs. USAF and in the end the total USAF MiG-15 kill Talley (if you follow ACIG's numbers).





davparlr said:


> I am a bit confused or naive but weren't there criteria for claiming US aircraft kills? I would have thought this criteria would have alleviated some uncertainty in claims? The Russian, North Korean, and Chinese claims, I would think, would be more suspect.



There was criteria for confirming kills on both sides - many times a smoking Mig-15 made it across the Yalu and was not counted as a kill but was destroyed out of harms way of the F-86s. The Russians also claim that many US kills were over-exaggerated, with 2 or 3 pilots claiming the same aircraft. US pilots were professional pilots, diven by their career and duty, but unlike their Soviet counterparts did not have to shield their existence over North Korea. The Soviet pilots on the other hand were in North Korea covertly - they were paid bonuses based on performance and would of probably been severely punished for failure (remember Stalin was still in power). With the Soviet pilots getting "cash of kills" I would think they would exaggerate a bit (see the lower site I posted on my last post.) Here's a site put together by a Russian that paints a different story. This guy shows claims of aircraft that would of wiped out a whole typed of aircraft in the USAF inventory!!! (He shows 832 F-86s lost - I don't think there weren't that many built by 1953!!!!

http://wio.ru/korea/korea-a.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2006)

Here's more from Winkipedia....

_U.S. pilots claimed to achieve impressive success (although probably exaggerated) with the F-86, stating to shoot down 792 MiG-15s and 108 additional aircraft for the loss of 78 Sabres, a ratio in excess of 10:1. Some post-war research has only able to confirm 379 victories, although the USAF continues to maintain its official credits. Direct comparison of Sabre and MiG losses seem irrelevant, as primary targets for MiGs were heavy B-29 bombers, and primary targets for Sabres were MiG-15s. Recently exposed Soviet documentation claims that 345 Soviet MiG-15s were lost during the Korean war.

Soviet sources claimed at that time, however, about 1300 victories and 335 MiG losses. China's official losses were 231 planes shot down in air-to-air combat (mostly MiG-15) and 168 other losses. The number of losses of the North Korean Air Force was not revealed. It is estimated that it lost about 200 aircraft in the first stage of the war, and another 70 aircraft since Chinese intervention. Soviet's claims of 650 victories over F-86s and China's claims of another 211 F-86s in air combats are regarded as exaggerated by the USAF. *A recent publication showed that the total number of USAF F-86s ever present in the Korean peninsula during the war was only 674 and the total F-86s losses due to all causes were about 230.* With each side making their own claims it is difficult to conclude on the actual losses and kills of the air war._


----------



## davparlr (May 28, 2006)

Sounds like this is an argument that will never be solved. I'm bias, I think I trust the AF numbers.


----------



## Dac (May 28, 2006)

You also have to take into account the conditions under which most of the combat took place over the Yalu. The F-86s were almost always outnumbered and battle usually started with a height advantage for the Mig-15 pilots. They would wait north of the border where they were safe until they started hearing "bingo" calls from the USAF pilots at which point they "came shooting south like water from a firehose" to quote one American pilot. Often there were 4 Migs for each Sabre, and it had to have been a pretty damn good plane for it's time or a lot more U.S. pilots never would have come home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Sounds like this is an argument that will never be solved. I'm bias, I think I trust the AF numbers.


I'm not biased, but I think the USAF claims are more crediable



Dac said:


> You also have to take into account the conditions under which most of the combat took place over the Yalu. The F-86s were almost always outnumbered and battle usually started with a height advantage for the Mig-15 pilots. They would wait north of the border where they were safe until they started hearing "bingo" calls from the USAF pilots at which point they "came shooting south like water from a firehose" to quote one American pilot. Often there were 4 Migs for each Sabre, and it had to have been a pretty damn good plane for it's time or a lot more U.S. pilots never would have come home.


Yep - under these conditions a 2 to 1 kill ratio would of been excellent...


----------



## davparlr (May 29, 2006)

I think the F-86 was a great fighter and I doubt that there were any pilots that felt they were going to war with a substandard plane. Pilots tend not to be aggressive when they lack confidence in their steed. And Korean Sabre pilots were known for their aggressiveness.


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I think the F-86 was a great fighter and I doubt that there were any pilots that felt they were going to war with a substandard plane. Pilots tend not to be aggressive when they lack confidence in their steed. And Korean Sabre pilots were known for their aggressiveness.



That's true, the Sabre was overdesigned by 50% so it could handle 12G maneouvers in an emergency and had few handling flaws. The Mig-15 on the other hand could be temperamental. Soviet pilots were instructed in a spin to punch out on the third rotation because it was nearly impossible to recover after that. That wouldn't inspire much confidence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2006)

I've been in love with both of these aircraft since I was a kid and a dream came true for me when I started doing work in Mojave California in the mid 90s. I got to work on both aircraft and flown in a Mig-15UTI. These aircrat were owned and operated by private individuals. Both aircraft are brilliant in their own ways but the F-86 is way more advanced and a harder aircraft to maintain becuase of that. The MIG isn't as stable and I noticed how it tended to "snake" at landing. The guy who owns the F-86 that I worked on stated if you get the aircraft too slow it will drop a wing at landing but was far more stable than the MiG-15.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

12G's are you sure? That is quite a bit I would think for such an early jet fighter.


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've been in love with both of these aircraft since I was a kid and a dream came true for me when I started doing work in Mojave California in the mid 90s. I got to work on both aircraft and flown in a Mig-15UTI. These aircrat were owned and operated by private individuals. Both aircraft are brilliant in their own ways but the F-86 is way more advanced and a harder aircraft to maintain becuase of that. The MIG isn't as stable and I noticed how it tended to "snake" at landing. The guy who owns the F-86 that I worked on stated if you get the aircraft too slow it will drop a wing at landing but was far more stable than the MiG-15.



It's the same for me, the first book I every read was called "Mig Alley Ace" at age six and I've been fascinated by planes ever since. I envy you FLYBOYJ, the closest I've ever come to Sabres is at airshows and museums and I've never seen a Mig-15.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 12G's are you sure? That is quite a bit I would think for such an early jet fighter.



Yup, they could pull that much in an emergency and not come apart. There would be some popped rivets that would need to be repaired though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

Hmm cool, did not think they could pull that back then.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 29, 2006)

They couldnt, well the pilot that is....


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2006)

Dac said:


> It's the same for me, the first book I every read was called "Mig Alley Ace" at age six and I've been fascinated by planes ever since. I envy you FLYBOYJ, the closest I've ever come to Sabres is at airshows and museums and I've never seen a Mig-15.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, they could pull that much in an emergency and not come apart. There would be some popped rivets that would need to be repaired though.


 that plane would possibly land but never fly again it would bend or crack somewhere


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> that plane would possibly land but never fly again it would bend or crack somewhere



As I posted earlier the Sabre was overenginered. It was designed for a sustained 9g load with a 50% margin. I wasn't good on the airframe to load it with 12g but for short periods it was possible. This is all second hand, but the accounts I've read say the damage was popped rivets which could be repaired.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2006)

The F-86s wings were riveted with explosive bolts, a process that North American came up with toward the end of the war. These bolts were very strong but if I remember they were steel intalled in an aluminum structure setting up a major corrosion trap.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2006)

Dac said:


> It's the same for me, the first book I every read was called "Mig Alley Ace" at age six and I've been fascinated by planes ever since. I envy you FLYBOYJ, the closest I've ever come to Sabres is at airshows and museums and I've never seen a Mig-15.


I've got to work on 2 Mig-15s. One was a UTI, the other was a Chinese built one. The guy who owned the F-86 also owned the Chinese Mig, but he eventually sold it. He still has (and flies) the F-86.


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

There's a flight museum in Edmonton with some Canadair made Sabres that are still in good shape but not flyable. I bet it costs a small fortune to maintain one in flying condition.

My mistake on the g-loads for the Sabre: it was built for 7g with a 50% overdesign of 10.5g. The pilots who pulled 12g were pushing the envelope.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 29, 2006)

I worked for a company named Flight Systems several years ago. We made drones out of F-86s (as well as F-100s and F-4s) We retained several Sabres and used them for flight testing. Here's a link of the company, this taking place way before I got there. If you scroll down the page there are two Sabers I worked on, both owned by Al Hansen.
http://f-86.tripod.com/fsi.html


----------



## davparlr (May 29, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> that plane would possibly land but never fly again it would bend or crack somewhere



From a pilots standpoint. The cost of replacing the plane, not relevant. The fact it stayed together to get you home, priceless.


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I worked for a company named Flight Systems several years ago. We made drones out of F-86s (as well as F-100s and F-4s) We retained several Sabres and used them for flight testing. Here's a link of the company, this taking place way before I got there. If you scroll down the page there are two Sabers I worked on, both owned by Al Hansen.
> http://f-86.tripod.com/fsi.html



It's such a beautiful plane that's it's a shame to destroy them, too bad live fire tests are so important. I liked the Roland test pictures where the drone survived the missile hit but the self destruct was set off by the shock wave. They're very tough birds.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2006)

I seen a QF-86 at St. Nicholas Island, a Navy facility off the coast of California used for all types of testing. The aircraft was hit during target practice but most of the major components still stayed in tact - I think the self-destruct system did more damage than the actual skin shot.


----------



## Soren (May 30, 2006)

The 109's wing can take 12g's before coming apart as-well. Makes one wonder how people came up with the idea that its wings were "flimsy"


----------



## Dac (May 30, 2006)

Here's an excerpt from a narrative by Major W.W. Marshall about combat against MiGs. He was leading a six plane element that included a senior officier doing his initial combat flights.

"We entered MiG Alley and, as advertized, dead ahead of us was a formation of forty enemy fighters. We dropped tanks and charged full throttle into the middle of the MiGs, as they broke formation in panic. One of our pilots was able to destroy or damage a MiG, but the majority fled accross the Yalu into China. Intelligence later reported that the MiG pilots told their ground commander they were under attack by a large force of F-86s and had been force to withdraw from the area.

During our attack I had suddenly become aware that our senior pilot wasn't with us. I had called him at once and he replied he was okay, so we continued to pursue the enemy fighters. I was feeling fine about the results of the mission when I returned to base. However, once on the ground I was called to wing headquarters, and instead of being congratulated was told that I was relieved of command of my beloved 335th Fighter Squadron for displaying reckless leadership in attacking a force of forty MiGs with only six Sabrejets, thereby endangering the safety of our pilots and aircraft. I was shattered.

I spent three miserable days sitting around, wondering what was coming next. Fortunately the matter was quickly resolved when it was determined that I had been following correct 4th Fighter Wing combat directives to always attack. It was with great relief that I again assumed command of the 335th Fighter Squadron."

HE also decribes engaging twelve to fourteen MiGs with just one section.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2006)

Great info! You might be interested in this..

HEADQUARTERS
FAR EAST AIR FORCES
APO 925 

GENERAL ORDERS
NUMBER 40 24 January 1953 



OFFICIAL CREDIT FOR DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY AIRCRAFT

Colonel Royal N. Baker, 335th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1512I on 7 December 1952 near Sinuiju, Korea. Leading a flight of four F-86 aircraft, Colonel Baker sighted a flight of six MIGs. Colonel Baker initiated a diving attack on the MIGs and as the enemy formation executed a hard left turn to avoid the attack, the number two MIG suddenly went into an uncontrollable spin. The MIG continued earthward in the spin and crashed near Sinuiju. 

Colonel Royal N. Baker, 335th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one-half MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1514I on 7 December 1952 near Charyon-gwan, Korea. Flying as leader in an element of two F-86 aircraft, Colonel Baker followed his wingman in the attack on two MIGs. After his wingman had expended his ammunition, Colonel Baker took up the attack and scored further hits in the tailpipe section of the already heavily smoking enemy aircraft. The MIG went into a shallow dive and disintegrated in a ball of flame over Charyon-gwan. 

Colonel Royal N. Baker, 335th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one-half MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1406I on 16 December 1952 near Ta-plu-Shik-na-Kou, Korea. Flying as leader in a flight of four F-86 aircraft, Colonel Baker sighted approximately eight MIGs and led his flight into the attack. Singling out one of the MIGs, Colonel Baker fired, scoring hits in the left wing, fuselage and tailpipe sections. The MIG began to burn and smoke profusely. The wingman then took over the attack and shortly thereafter the enemy aircraft was observed to crash and explode near Ta-plu-Shik-na-Kou. 

Lieutenant Colonel Louis A. Green, 336th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1535I on 7 December 1952 near Puckchin, Korea. Flying as leader of four F-86 aircraft, Lieutenant Colonel Green sighted a lone MIG. Closing on the enemy aircraft, Lieutenant Colonel Green fired, scoring hits in the engine section causing an explosion which was followed by heavy smoke and flame. The MIG started a left turn and Lieutenant Colonel Green scored further hits in the nose and canopy section. The MIG pilot ejected himself and the aircraft crashed into the ground near Puckchin. 

Major James P. Hagerstrom, 335th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1330I on 25 December 1952 near Sinsi-dong, Korea. While flying number three position in a flight of four F-86 aircraft, Major Hagerstrom sighted six MIGs and initiated an attack on the two trailing MIGs in the formation. In an attempt to ward off the attack, the MIGs pulled up sharply and went into a hard left turn. In this break, one of the MIGs suddenly snapped into a violent spin and crashed into the ground near Sinsi-dong. 

Major Robinson Risner, 336th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1425I on 4 December 1952 near Yongsansi, Korea. While flying as leader of an element of two F-86 aircraft, Major Risner sighted a lone MIG making a firing attack on two other F-86 aircraft. After giving the alarm for the two F-86 aircraft to break, Major Risner positioned his aircraft for the attack. The enemy aircraft trying to evade, went into a spin. Following through the maneuver, Major Risner again closed on the enemy aircraft and observed strikes in the tail section of the MIG knocking off huge chunks of metal. The MIG was observed to crash near Yongsansi. 

Captain Clyde A. Curtin, 335th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1049I on 16 December 1952 near the Sui Ho Reservoir, Korea. Flying as leader of a flight of four F-86 aircraft, Captain Curtin observed two MIG aircraft and initiated an attack. Following through a series of evasive maneuvers, Captain Curtin closed to within range and fired, scoring hits in the rear fuselage section and both wings. Shortly thereafter, the enemy pilot ejected himself and the enemy aircraft was last observed in a diving position, trailing smoke and burning, near the Sui Ho Reservoir. 

Captain Manuel J. Fernandez, 334th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1410I on 16 December 1952 near Wonsong-dong, Korea. While flying as number three in a flight of four F-86 aircraft, Captain Fernandez sighted a lone MIG making a firing pass on his wingman. As the MIG passed through the formation, Captain Fernandez closed and fired a prolonged burst, observing hits all over the enemy aircraft. The MIG began to smoke profusely and parts began to fly off the fuselage and tail sections. The canopy was then jettisoned and the aircraft struck the water and exploded near Wonsong-dong. 

Captain Leonard W. Lilley, 334th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 4th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, is officially credited with the destruction of one MIG-15 type aircraft in aerial combat at 1412I on 16 December 1952 near Ubong-dong, Korea. Flying as leader of a flight of four F-86 aircraft, Captain Lilley sighted two MIGs and initiated an attack. Closing on one of the enemy aircraft, Captain Lilley fired, scoring hits in the fuselage and engine section. The MIG began to burn and emit smoke. The MIG was observed to crash and explode near Ubong-dong. 

BY COMMAND OF GENERAL WEYLAND:



OFFICIAL: 
//SIGNED//
D. R. LeMASTER 
Colonel, USAF
Adjutant General 
S. R. BRENTNALL
Major General, USAF
Vice Commander


----------



## Dac (May 30, 2006)

The 4th Fighter Wing was a good unit, one of it's commanders Colonel Meyers went on to command SAC.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 3, 2006)

I am going the MiG-29 Fulcrum as the best fighter. The ultimate combination I feel would be a Soviet Airframe with US electronics and systems. Failing that the MiG-29 has been in service for ages and has been the Soviet Front-Line fighter for a long time. It is highly manevourable and its only disadvantage is its electronics. At the height of the Cold War it proved its worth even against planes such as the F-15 Strike Eagle which were supposed to totally outclass it in electronics capability.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I am going the MiG-29 Fulcrum as the best fighter. The ultimate combination I feel would be a Soviet Airframe with US electronics and systems. Failing that the MiG-29 has been in service for ages and has been the Soviet Front-Line fighter for a long time. It is highly manevourable and its only disadvantage is its electronics. At the height of the Cold War it proved its worth even against planes such as the F-15 Strike Eagle which were supposed to totally outclass it in electronics capability.


In the few times they came across each other the F-15 mauled the Mig-29.

Israel - 4 Mig-29s destroyed
USAF Desert Storm - 5 Mig-29s destroyed
USAF over Kosovo - 4 Mig-29s destroyed.

USAF F-16s also got 2 Mig-29s, one during Desert Storm, one over Kosovo. All without one confirmed Mig-29 victory. 

One could cite pilot training, I think the Mig-29's real world combat record is pretty poor....


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 4, 2006)

Wasnt there another Mig-29 loss where the F15 pilot forced the -29 into crashing into the ground without even firing a missle or cannon?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Wasnt there another Mig-29 loss where the F15 pilot forced the -29 into crashing into the ground without even firing a missle or cannon?


Yep, Ceaser Rodreguez - he also shot down one over Kosovo a few years later...


----------



## Dac (Jun 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> One could cite pilot training, I think the Mig-29's real world combat record is pretty poor....


 
Pilot training and support is a big part of the story. The USAF training and operational pratices are superior. AWACS provide early warning and targeting and AAMs like the AIM-120 make it hard for opponents to escape.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 25, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> In the few times they came across each other the F-15 mauled the Mig-29.
> One could cite pilot training, I think the Mig-29's real world combat record is pretty poor....



It has to be pilot training because the Mig-29 is an excellent plane, its a match for the f-15, the pilots had shotty training is all


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 25, 2006)

The 29 is a good aircraft but was still about a half a generation behind the F-15, especilaly when encountered over Iraq.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 26, 2006)

Well a canadian pilot flying a Hawker Hurricane once shot down an Me-262, so anything is possible


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Well a canadian pilot flying a Hawker Hurricane once shot down an Me-262, so anything is possible


possible but not always probable. Pilot training and tactics always has a lot to do with it but when you sport a 1.5 to 6 kill record (I think that's the Mig-29 has) you gotta ask yourself "is it only the training?"


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 26, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> possible but not always probable. Pilot training and tactics always has a lot to do with it but when you sport a 1.5 to 6 kill record (I think that's the Mig-29 has) you gotta ask yourself "is it only the training?"



True but most of the Middle Eastern countries have shotty training, However the Iraqi airforce during GW1 as far as I know had pretty decent training, but their pilots were well known for not handling themselves well when coming across enemy planes, they usually f**ked off during a mission if they didnt get shot down first, but think of it this way if you put an experienced Israeli Pilot whos has been familiarized with a Mig 29 into that plane, and put him up against say a Saudi F-15 pilot ( I say Saudi because they did pretty good against the Iraqi Airforce) what do you think would happen?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2006)

Depends on the situation. The Iraqis had no radar control for its fighters, their "eyes" were poked out during the opening stages of the war, but to answer your question, I'd give it to the F-15 (nothing biased here) better radar, better weapons systems and a better performing aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2006)

1.5 to 6, why not say 1 to 4


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> 1.5 to 6, why not say 1 to 4


That's what I got from my source, it actually comes out 1 to 6.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 26, 2006)

what? how the hell does 1.5 to 6 come out as 1 to 6  

if you're sharp you'll notice 1.5 is 1/4 of 6 anyway, if not 

1.5 to 6

x2

3 to 12

divide by 3

1 to 4

and that's all for today's lesson!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 26, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> what? how the hell does 1.5 to 6 come out as 1 to 6
> 
> if you're sharp you'll notice 1.5 is 1/4 of 6 anyway, if not
> 
> ...


Whatever 

Bottom line it got it's *** kicked


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2006)

The Mig-29 over all I think would be a better aircraft than the F-15 if it had the type of avionics and radar and instruments as the western fighters had. You put the avionix package from the F-15 into the Mig-29 and I think you have a better fighter.

In the end though the Mig-29 compared to the F-15 is stupid. The Mig-29 was designed to counter the F-16 and is more suited to. Both are light small fighters. 

The Su-27 was designed to counter the F-15, and the Su-27 is a damn good fighter! I love watching that thing fly at airshows!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 26, 2006)

Yeah that SU-27 dropped some jaws, I read this book called Stingers, it was a book about the F-18 the designing stages and in the end the customers, the book interveiwed this Canadian test pilot, I cant remember the exact details, but he said that he loved the plane and its handling but when there was a international air demonstration get together in Germany I beleive, he saw the SU-27 in action he basically was awe inspired by its performance, he described his meeting with the Soviet pilot like a schoolgirl meeting John Lennon for the first time, when he talked to the guy the pilot basically said " yeah its a great plane but its old" I mean to think we had a brand new plane that was revolutionary in its own way could be easily taken out by an old design.


----------



## JeffK (Jul 28, 2006)

Mirage IIIE

F4 should get a run.

I'd like to see some of the US Jets stripped from their EWAC support and see how they'd compete.

Plus Pilot training adds so much to the equation.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jul 28, 2006)

the Russian pilots don't get payed often, nor are they respected, nor do they have good flight training these days


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2006)

_"Well a canadian pilot flying a Hawker Hurricane once shot down an Me-262, so anything is possible"_

When did this happen?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

I did a search for that and could find nothing of it, and find it hard to believe as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 29, 2006)

JeffK said:


> Mirage IIIE
> 
> F4 should get a run.
> 
> I'd like to see some of the US Jets stripped from their EWAC support and see how they'd compete.


For your information, that is done during training scenarios at major exercises like Red Flag. Fortunately (and unfortunately for the enemy) that has never happened, but if it did happen be rest assured US fighter pilots would know what to do in a heart beat.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I did a search for that and could find nothing of it, and find it hard to believe as well.




It was something I read out of one of my old history books that i ripped off of school a while back, Ill see if I can find it, I seem to remember it saying something about a Hurricane, but by that time the RCAF had traded them in for Typhoons so it had to be a Spitfire, but Ill see what i can dig out of that cluster f^ck of a basement I have.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 29, 2006)

Yes please do so.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2006)

So, you said a Hurricane shot down a Me-262. Now you change your mind and say Spitfire, which is probably true. That or a Typhoon ... why did you even bother mentioning the Hurricane, you ***. By the time the Me-262 was in service, the Hurricane was out of FRONT LINE service. Dip ****.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Except for Finnland and some other small players. But they never shot down a Me-262 so it does not matter.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Aug 2, 2006)

Ive made many good plane polls before and nothing ever happens for the Mig so I just didnt put it up there


----------



## Meteor (Sep 28, 2006)

Regardless of kills etc, for me it has to be the Lightning.

RAF Lightning XS922 BJ 11 Sqn RAF Binbrook flown by Flt Lt Mark Imms.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2006)

Good choice and understandable. Deffinatly up there with the best. For me it is the Tomcat and then the F-15.


----------



## davparlr (Sep 30, 2006)

Well, I still gotta go with the "world heavyweight boxing champ" concept. You can't just out box them but you have to be demonstratable better to unthrone the champ. The F-15 has fought in many wars and ko'ed many a pretender without ever being bloodied. As a weapons system, I do not think that it has met a threat or friend that has shown to be demonstratably better when the missiles are flying. And that is the true test of a fighter. Its era is starting to pass, however. The next generation of fighters will have big boots to fill.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 4, 2006)

I think there are alot of "what ifs" but i love the Avro Arrow, and i think it would have proved itself as an amazing interceptor.


----------



## uhhuh35 (Oct 6, 2006)

I can't believe this wasn't on the list:
Aero Car PAGE
Yeah, I know, it isn't a jet. But it COULD be converted.


----------



## Raptor (Jan 26, 2007)

Ok. I realise i'm new here. Btw, it's a pretty good forum.

F-15. Specifically, F-15E. Best fighter track record.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

she's certainly one of the front runners.........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 27, 2007)

The F-15E 'Strike Eagle' and is the attack version of the 'Eagle'. For the pure air superiority F-15 it will be the C-model, especially with the AESA radar they are soon to be getting.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

F-16 Fighting Falcon, great manevourability, payload and range for its size. All round good package that could take out Iranian Nuclear Power Plants and could take out North Korean Nuclear Power Plants as well if given the chance...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The F-15E 'Strike Eagle' and is the attack version of the 'Eagle'. For the pure air superiority F-15 it will be the C-model, especially with the AESA radar they are soon to be getting.



Soon. Got 'em. Not all C models, but some. Others are scrambling for AESA for not only commo, long range detection, but also cruise missile detection and non-kinetic weapon capability.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

Non-kinetic weapons capability? Does that mean it could be armed with something like a laser?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

No. The ability to focus significant amounts of energy through a small aperature window allows for potential disruption of non-hardened electronics. AESA provides this potential and the DoD is looking into ability to disrupt aircraft/UAS/ground system electronics. This is similar to what you might have read about non-kinetic weapons such as microwave emitters.

Can you imagine the STOVL version of the F-35 coupling the forward fan transmission to a non-kinetic weapon to allow for cruise missile defense, destruction of UAS flight controls/command signals or as a stealthy "wild weasel"?


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

Wow, okay, I had the wrong idea of a non-kinetic weapon thinking of lasers. Must be watching too much Star Trek...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

C'mon HealzD, you guys need the F-35!


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

Okay, ah yes, it has that thing akin to a giant search-light on top. Something about using heatray to warm the surface of skin without actually cooking it in the way that a microwave oven does. There was an article in the Sunday Mail discussing it being trialled in Iraq for future deployment...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 29, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Okay, ah yes, it has that thing akin to a giant search-light on top. Something about using heatray to warm the surface of skin without actually cooking it in the way that a microwave oven does. There was an article in the Sunday Mail discussing it being trialled in Iraq for future deployment...



That would be a different animal.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2007)

Yes, sorry, they have them. But I have read more F-15Cs are in the line for the AESA improvement.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

Okay. Be interesting to see how long it takes to develop cutting lasers...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 30, 2007)

okay


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

I know that they are depicted in a lot of the futuristic ideas of warfare. Lasers are seen as a natural progression. Better yet those phaser type guns and rifles out of Star Trek (right the way through) that can be set from Low to Kill settings...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 30, 2007)

I'm listening...


----------



## HealzDevo (Feb 6, 2007)

Okay, but no, I think the F-35 will be great. Just might need work on its range. We don't have the advantages the Americans do of being able to have a large number of airforce bases as well as civilian airports dotted around the place...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 14, 2007)

In an Emergency im sure the USA would let one of its allies use atleast some of those bases, the ones in Europe atleast


----------



## ACE Spades (Jul 14, 2007)

what do you guy's think about the f-14 tomcat


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 14, 2007)

If u took the time to read the entire thread, u'd know... Or how about doin a search of the entire website for the F-14, then u'd know as well....


----------



## The Basket (Jul 14, 2007)

A few points about the Sea Harrier in the Falklands.

The Shar never shot down an Etendard. The Argentines didn't lose one in combat.

The Shars flew at low altitude when faced with Mirages. The speed difference was far less.

The Shar had the Lima Sidewinder whereas the Mirages had the less capable Magic. The lima had an excellent kill ratio in combat.

The USMC bought the Harrier because it could do things that no other aircraft could. Not because it was the fastest or the best.

The Gnat would have been an excellent fighter. Shame it carried no fuel or weapons. Other than that it was first class!

The EE Lightning was simply stunning performance. 

Loved watching the Su-27 at airshows...amazing stuff.


----------



## VF103 Jolly Roger (Aug 2, 2007)

ACE Spades,

Since we're both new and no one so far has kindly answered your question, I'll tell you what I think about the F14 Tomcat. Forgive me if i seem long winded. 

One of the top three "overall" fighter jets the US ever had. Number one is now the F-22. It displaced the F-15 which was number 1. It's now number 2. F-14 was number 3. "Was" because it's no longer in service.

The number one interceptor/fleet defense the US ever had. The F-22 and F-15 easily have the capability to be the best in this category, but they weren't used in that role and don't carry the Phoenix which was designed specifically for interception/fleet defense.

Although the Tomcat wasn't the touted air superiority aircraft the Eagle is, the Tomcat can hold its own against the best. Ever read the stories about the mock battles between Eagles, Falcons, and Tomcats back in the 80's? Records showed that Tomcats had the winning record against the Falcon and Eagle. Yep, `tis true. Some say the Tomcats were operated by better pilots in those mock battles. Maybe so. And if so, that doesn't diminish or downplay the abilities of the jet either. Put the very best pilot in the world in an old F-86 up against an average pilot in an F-15 and see who would win.

all the stats and boring facts aside, there was never a better looking aircraft to grace the skies than the Tomcat. Comparing the F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-14 is like comparing favorite sports cars. The F-15 equates to the Porsche 911, the F-16 to the Corvette, the F-18 to the Nissan 350Z or some other Japanese sports car, and the F-14 to the Ferrari.

The Porsche and the Corvette are truly the best sports car one can buy for their money in terms of pure acceleration, practicality, roominess, reliability, servicability, handling ability, and price. Great bangs for the buck. Porsche is more expensive, and so is the F-15. The Japanese sports car is a lesser performance car than the Porsche and Corvette but also costs less but has famed Japanese reliability and low maintenance going for it. The Ferrari is sometimes the fastest, sometimes second fastest, handles like a dream, but costs way too much and is always need maintenance. But damn, there's no car that gets more attention than a Ferrari. Just like the F-14. They both look fast standing still and have sexy curves.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2007)

VF103 Jolly Roger said:


> ACE Spades,
> 
> Since we're both new and *no one so far has kindly answered your question,* I'll tell you what I think about the F14 Tomcat. Forgive me if i seem long winded.



That is because the F-14 was discussed for about 10 to 15 pages of the thread. Go back and read all the pages first....


----------



## VF103 Jolly Roger (Aug 3, 2007)

I read all the pages. Lots of them including the ones on the F-14. 
However, ACE of Spades is new and may not have read all of them. But that doesn't give someone excuse to respond to his question in such a hauty manner.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2007)

VF103 Jolly Roger said:


> I read all the pages. Lots of them including the ones on the F-14.
> However, ACE of Spades is new and may not have read all of them. But that doesn't give someone excuse to respond to his question in such a hauty manner.



*Oh really?!?! - well who died and made you king?!?!? Let me tell you something numbnuts, we don't tolerate new-bees coming on here spouting off, especially to a moderator. I suggest you READ some of the other threads just for new members. With that said, if you don't like the way we do things here, the Internet is a very big place - move on. One more spout like that and you won't have to worry about any more "hauty mannerisms." I hope I make myself perfectly clear....*


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2007)

I see things haven't changed while I was away.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I see things haven't changed while I was away.



Welcome back "D" - hope you're going to stick around for a while!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2007)

VF103 Jolly Roger said:


> I read all the pages. Lots of them including the ones on the F-14.
> However, ACE of Spades is new and may not have read all of them. But that doesn't give someone excuse to respond to his question in such a hauty manner.



I did not spout off to anyone in a hauty manner, including yourself. If you take offense to a innocent post like that, then you need to grow some thicker skin man.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 3, 2007)

I almost voted for the F-4, but the F-15 has an unmatched combat record; no other aircraft in history has a 105-to-0 combat record. It is unlikely that any other aircraft (with the possible exception of the F-22) will ever acheive a similar record.

The F-15 is also versatile, possibly more versatile than the F-4; the F-15E Strike Eagle is proof of that. There have also been satellite-killer versions of the F-15, and experimental versions of a two-seat SEAD version of the -15.


----------



## Udet (Sep 3, 2007)

Flyboy:

Do you know how many F-22s are in operational squadrons today?

Would you agree with some comments suggesting the advent of the F-22 -and the unbelievablly high cost of each Raptor- has come to ruin some combat capabilities of the US air force?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2007)

Udet said:


> Flyboy:
> 
> Do you know how many F-22s are in operational squadrons today?
> 
> Would you agree with some comments the advent of the F-22 -and the unbelievablly high cost of each Raptor- has come to ruin some combat capabilities of the US air force?


I believe 2 Squadrons (both in Alaska) are flying the F-22, I also think there are some at Luke and Nellis totaling about 65 or 70 aircraft scattered around and yes, there is speculation that between the F-22 and the F-35 some other capabilities may suffer. As I read one AF flyer's comment, "we're selling out soul on two unproven aircraft." If they both work as advertised, I think things will work out - if not heads are going to roll.


----------



## Udet (Sep 3, 2007)

Flyboy, thanks.

Is it true the approximate cost of each toy (F-22) is USD $ 340 million?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe 2 Squadrons (both in Alaska) are flying the F-22, I also think there are some at Luke and Nellis totaling about 65 or 70 aircraft scattered around and yes, there is speculation that between the F-22 and the F-35 some other capabilities may suffer. As I read one AF flyer's comment, "we're selling out soul on two unproven aircraft." If they both work as advertised, I think things will work out - if not heads are going to roll.



I believe the Alaska Squadrons are just forming and are not fully mission capable yet.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Sep 3, 2007)

Voted for the F-15 as the best.

But my favorite is the F-14 Tomcat. One mean looking Navy fighter! Sad day for me when she was retired.

TO


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe 2 Squadrons (both in Alaska) are flying the F-22, I also think there are some at Luke and Nellis totaling about 65 or 70 aircraft scattered around and yes, there is speculation that between the F-22 and the F-35 some other capabilities may suffer. As I read one AF flyer's comment, "we're selling out soul on two unproven aircraft." If they both work as advertised, I think things will work out - if not heads are going to roll.



Actually, the first two operational squadrons were both based at Langley with the 1st FW (Fighter Wing), the 27th FS (Fighter Squadron) the 94th FS; each squadron has approximately 40 Raptors each. 

The pilots for the new wings in Alaska are going through operational training at Langley with the "experienced" pilots, and then transferring to Elmendorf AFB in Alaska. 

There are also plans to base a squadron of -22's at Hickam AFB in Hawaii.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, the first two operational squadrons were both based at Langley with the 1st FW (Fighter Wing), the 27th FS (Fighter Squadron) the 94th FS; each squadron has approximately 40 Raptors each.
> 
> The pilots for the new wings in Alaska are going through operational training at Langley with the "experienced" pilots, and then transferring to Elmendorf AFB in Alaska.
> 
> There are also plans to base a squadron of -22's at Hickam AFB in Hawaii.



40 F-22s!? Isn't their TOE 24 birds? 40 A/C for a squadron is ridiculous.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 3, 2007)

mkloby said:


> 40 F-22s!? Isn't their TOE 24 birds? 40 A/C for a squadron is ridiculous.



Okay, I misquoted; the wing (the 1st) has received 40 Raptors, not the squadron:

"The 1st FW's 94th FS took delivery of it's last F-22A when serial number 05-4085 arrived at Langley AFB, VA, on January 19 (2007). The wing has received 40 Raptors since the first arrived on December 15, 2005, and two of it's three squadrons now operate this type." From _Combat Aircraft: The World's Top Military Aviation Magazine_, Volume 8, No. 2

That means the 27th should receive another 8 birds eventually.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 3, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, I misquoted; the wing (the 1st) has received 40 Raptors, not the squadron:
> 
> "The 1st FW's 94th FS took delivery of it's last F-22A when serial number 05-4085 arrived at Langley AFB, VA, on January 19 (2007). The wing has received 40 Raptors since the first arrived on December 15, 2005, and two of it's three squadrons now operate this type." From _Combat Aircraft: The World's Top Military Aviation Magazine_, Volume 8, No. 2
> 
> That means the 27th should receive another 8 birds eventually.



Hell you never know with the Air Force. They always got some scheme, program, or initiative up their sleeve! Budget whores!


----------



## The Basket (Sep 3, 2007)

I go for the F-86 Sabre.

A superb aircraft, good looking with a top kill ratio.

Eric Brown said it was the best handling jet he ever flew and I can't argue with that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2007)

Udet said:


> Flyboy, thanks.
> 
> Is it true the approximate cost of each toy (F-22) is USD $ 340 million?



Sounds about right...



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I believe the Alaska Squadrons are just forming and are not fully mission capable yet.


 I think they have 3 aircraft delivered



SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, I misquoted; the wing (the 1st) has received 40 Raptors, not the squadron:
> 
> "The 1st FW's 94th FS took delivery of it's last F-22A when serial number 05-4085 arrived at Langley AFB, VA, on January 19 (2007). The wing has received 40 Raptors since the first arrived on December 15, 2005, and two of it's three squadrons now operate this type." From _Combat Aircraft: The World's Top Military Aviation Magazine_, Volume 8, No. 2
> 
> That means the 27th should receive another 8 birds eventually.


I think that's happening as we speak...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2007)

The Basket said:


> I go for the F-86 Sabre.
> 
> A superb aircraft, good looking with a top kill ratio.
> 
> Eric Brown said it was the best handling jet he ever flew and I can't argue with that.


Will always be my fave jet fighter....


----------



## Aussie1001 (Sep 3, 2007)

i like the lightning for sheer speed..... Thats the speed freak side of me...
Like the harrier 'cause it is differn't and it has such versitility....
Like the Su 27 because it looks freakin good.....
Overall Harrier..... though...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2007)

The Harrier is not a fighter though you do realize that?

I dont understand why it is in the poll.


----------



## planeman45 (Sep 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Harrier is not a fighter though you do realize that?
> 
> I dont understand why it is in the poll.




Actually I tend to disagree with you....at least in todays modern versions...

Here is a great pic I've found of 2 harriers.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/harrier/images/harrier2.jpg
Its of Two AV-8B Harriers in service with the US Marine Corps.

Out of the list, I do have a strong feeling about the Harrier being the top of the list. Especially the modern versions. Harrier II Plus (AV-8B) VSTOL Fighter and Attack Aircraft, as it is called Is a FIGHTER. It is a VSTOL fighter and attack aircraft operational with the US Marine Corps, the Spanish Navy and the Italian Navy.

The Harrier II Plus extends the capabilities of the Harrier with the introduction of a multi-mode radar and beyond-visual-range missile capability.

It seems to me a multi purpose aircraft is what they are all struggling towards.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 10, 2007)

Negative the Harrier that is in service with the USMC is for strike, ground attack, and ground support missions. As with any modern Attack aircraft (minus the A-10) it can be used as a fighter if needed but it is first and formost a Ground Attack aircraft.

The Harrier is terrible for maintenance but I am impressed with its air to ground capability. We had Harriers supporting us when were were flying missions in Iraq.


----------



## cougar32d (Sep 15, 2007)

no other aircraft to my knowledge has the kill ratio that the sabre has, but i'll probably be corrected soon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2007)

Nope the F-15 has the best kill ratio. It has never been defeated.


----------



## magnocain (Nov 9, 2007)

1. the f-18
2. the f-4
3. the f-14

i am a navy person.


----------



## AVRoe (Dec 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Harrier is not a fighter though you do realize that?
> 
> The FALKLANDS. The Harrier WAS a fighter !!!!!!


----------



## Lonewulf (Dec 14, 2007)

I would say the title for the greatest aircraft ever has be a one among 3 aircrafts:
a) F-86 Sabre - its combat record in the korean war and other local conflicts (Indo-Pak war being a good example) speaks volume about its versatility and combat prowess.

b) MiG 15 Fagot - Same legacy as the F-86. In hands of experienced soviets was always an equal adversary of the Sabre. Gave birth to a whole line of magnificient fighters.

c) F-4 Phantom - No words can better exemplify this brute of a plane with the ultimate compliment as 'The world's largest distributor of MiG parts'. Helped many countries to aquire air superiority and is a strong contendor for the post of the greatest aircraft ever built.

Criticism/Feedback would be welcome.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 14, 2007)

The technically superior fighter on the list is the F-22.

The fighter with the best record on the is the F-15.

The fighter that has had the largest impact on air warfare is probably the F-4.

The fighter that is just kick ass though is the English Electric Lightning for just being so f*cking ace, so its the greatest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2007)

AVRoe said:


> The FALKLANDS. The Harrier WAS a fighter !!!!!!




It was used as a fighter. It is not a fighter. Its main role is ground support!!!!!! (see I can use exclamations too!!!!! )


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Dec 23, 2007)

for me
1) F/A-18 Hronet
2)SU-37 Terminator
3)Y/F-23


----------



## Aussie1001 (Dec 23, 2007)

Exclimation marks get us nowhere Adler......


----------



## Heinz (Dec 23, 2007)

top 4 choices for me from that list would be the F 4 Phantom, F/18, E.E Lightening and Sabre.

I'm coming to like jets more, I'm still a prop kinda guy though


----------



## Aussie1001 (Dec 23, 2007)

I'm with Heinz except my top 4 would be the Harrier, E.E lightning, Su 27 and the Foxbat.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Dec 23, 2007)

Given the wide variety of aircraft listed and the number of accumulated years between all of them, I personally don't understand how the *Mirage III *has been left out. I've read only one other post supporting it, though I may have missed another. Use of the Mirage IIIs by the Israelis pretty much cleaned the slate against the Arabs and gave it a higher kill ratio than many of the aircraft listed. 

Otherwise I guess I would have gone with the F-86 Sabre.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Given the wide variety of aircraft listed and the number of accumulated years between all of them, I personally don't understand how the *Mirage III *has been left out. I've read only one other post supporting it, though I may have missed another. Use of the Mirage IIIs by the Israelis pretty much cleaned the slate against the Arabs and gave it a higher kill ratio than many of the aircraft listed.
> 
> Otherwise I guess I would have gone with the F-86 Sabre.



The Mirage III was not a great dog fighter and it was through the tactics of the IDF that they were able to exploit the strengths of the aircraft. One of the "classics" but I'd put the F-86 and the F-15 above her.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 30, 2007)

I think we should compare only the aircrafts which belong to the same generation. I dont see much sense to compare any planes to F-22 since its the first REAL 5th generation aircraft around and has a clear advantage over all contemporary adversaries. Moreover, we can't compare aircrafts which were assigned to different roles. 
Then, imho the time scale is just too wide - 
For example ,in the mid 80s , I would go with the Su-27 in a air superiority/intercept mission anyday, but in 79/82 I would take F-15 etc. etc.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2007)

We were considering here combat operations and the amount of metal left in the respective aircraft's wake - there is no doubt the F-15 holds this record firmly in place.


----------



## Soren (Dec 30, 2007)

Has the F-15 shot down more enemy fighters than the F-86 ?


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2007)

The greatest jet fighter has to be the F15, 30+ years in the front line, no losses and many victories to its credit. It would be almost impossible for any aircraft to match that, even the F22.

Re the Sea Harrier, it was primarily a fighter and secondly a GA aircraft. It was unique, effective and in its FRS2 version very dangerous, but greatest, no, not in a million years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> Has the F-15 shot down more enemy fighters than the F-86 ?


No, but theres never been one lost in combat either.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2007)

Where's the F-8 Crusader, F-104 Starfighter, MiG-21??

1: F-8 Crusader
2: F-4 Phantom
3: ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2007)

I altered the poll - got rid of the CF-100, added the MiG-21, F-104 and F-8.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I altered the poll - got rid of the CF-100, added the MiG-21, F-104 and F-8.


Got rid of the Clunk thats shameful


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Got rid of the Clunk thats shameful


Sorry Pb - I know she was a good ole bird but she got no votes....


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 30, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Pb - I know she was a good ole bird but she got no votes....


She was a learning experiment ...had an issue with stray voltage that used to salvo the rockets.... made for excitement at some bases


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> She was a learning experiment ...had an issue with stray voltage that used to salvo the rockets.... made for excitement at some bases



Thank god that never happened when she was trailing a Soviet bomber!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 30, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Where's the F-8 Crusader, F-104 Starfighter, MiG-21??
> 
> 1: F-8 Crusader
> 2: F-4 Phantom
> 3: ?



Gotta say I love the -104, probably more than the F-15. It was truly a fighter pilot's fighter but, unfortunately, I wouldn't call it a great fighter. It was extremely fast in a straight line (it set the world low-level speed record back in '77), but it had next to no range, wasn't very manueverable, and was unable (except in very late and very upgraded versions) to carry medium-range AA missles, which made for a potentially great dogfighter. The bad news is it never had a chance to prove itself in combat (except with the Pakistanis), as it was too late for Korea, and too early for Vietnam (though a few were stationed at Da Nang in '65-'66). It ended up being a great low-level tactical strike bomber for the Bundesluftwaffe in the '70's '80's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 30, 2007)

I got to work on 2 104s very briefly. A bit complicated, its and aircraft that could get you in trouble with real quick. The guy I worked for in Mojave had 2 of them that we were combing into one airframe. Al decided to sell what he had - I don't know who purchased them.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 30, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Gotta say I love the -104, probably more than the F-15. It was truly a fighter pilot's fighter but, unfortunately, I wouldn't call it a great fighter. It was extremely fast in a straight line (it set the world low-level speed record back in '77), but it had next to no range, wasn't very manueverable, and was unable (except in very late and very upgraded versions) to carry medium-range AA missles, which made for a potentially great dogfighter. The bad news is it never had a chance to prove itself in combat (except with the Pakistanis), as it was too late for Korea, and too early for Vietnam (though a few were stationed at Da Nang in '65-'66). It ended up being a great low-level tactical strike bomber for the Bundesluftwaffe in the '70's '80's.


heres a liitle story about 104's and Red Flag 
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/mo...chnology-mismanagement-8620-3.html#post260523


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 2, 2008)

I voted for the F-8. Even though it might not have had the same impact on the air war over Vietnam as the F-86 had over Korea. For what I've read, I understand why pilots were reluctant to switch from the F-8 to the F-4 back in the day...but at the same time a weapon officer is probably needed today with all the modern highspeed technology a' la F-15...

1: F-86
2: F-8
3: F-4
4: F-15
5: F-104


----------



## F-14 (Jan 27, 2008)

For me The F-14 is the Best in my regard due to may resons the main being its Radar and the AIM-45 Phiniox AAM and above all its looks


----------



## h.whiteman (Apr 2, 2008)

having grown up in the us air force as an air force dependant and having been the son of a fighter pilot(then bomber pilot) who saw to it i saw a lot of aircraft(us and foreign),i think this is a question that can not be answered without some ground rules. first, it would probably be best to decide on a best fighter for an era (1950's,etc.) then, to decide on best fighter for combat role "air superiority" ,"ground attack" etc. there are a lot of variables! otherwise you're putting gloster gladiators up against messerschmitts over malta--so to speak, i think you get the point. good luck,h.whiteman.


----------



## JP Vieira (Apr 5, 2008)

Hello
The Mighty Phantom is, for me, the best jet fighter ever.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 5, 2008)

If you're going to pick the Phantom II, then it has to be the RAF F-4M with the Vixen radome. Better lines in my opinion.

[Bob McLeod Collection]


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 5, 2008)

It was good in its era, but till this day, the F-15 eagle is formidable


----------



## smg (Apr 5, 2008)

i tin=nk the su 37 becouse its porformens in simulater games


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 5, 2008)

Where ya been hussars?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 5, 2008)

smg said:


> i tin=nk the su 37 becouse its porformens in simulater games



Yeah, me too. I like the F-19 because nobody can detect it and it can kill everybody real good.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 5, 2008)

smg said:


> i tin=nk the su 37 becouse its porformens in simulater games



You are going to use a video game to help you make your choice? I hope you are ready to take some FLAK!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 5, 2008)

Mine was too subtle...

Hey SMG, your post was indicative or either your age, your IQ, or your shoe size.

Was that better Adler?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 5, 2008)

Hmmm, let me get with my programming buddies, we'll make the Cessna A-37 Dragonfly the best ever.  

Come on, SMG, you can't base it on a flight sim. You have no way of knowing the accuracy of the sim. Plus flying a sim versus the real thing is incomparable. Until you have felt the heat, the Gs, the buffeting when getting out of the performance envelope, felt the stick forces and responses, you don't have anything to base your judgment on.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2008)

smg said:


> i tin=nk the su 37 becouse its porformens in simulater games


Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 5, 2008)

I am the Easter Bunny, Flyboy. So what's your point?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 5, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> I am the Easter Bunny, Flyboy. So what's your point?


That was my point!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 6, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Mine was too subtle...
> 
> Hey SMG, your post was indicative or either your age, your IQ, or your shoe size.
> 
> Was that better Adler?



Thank you...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 6, 2008)

Someone needs to take their nap, before they get all grumpy...


----------



## Elvis (Apr 6, 2008)

*F4F WILDCAT!*

...oh, it says best _JET_ fighter... (sorry).

Oh man, this is tough. I don't even see a couple of planes I'd personally consider among the best, if nothing else.
FJ-4 and F-5/20.
Granted, neither made much impact during wartime (Did the FJ-4 even enter a battle?), but I think they would've made an excellent showing of themselves.
Small targets are hard to hit. Small FAST targets are dam near impossible to hit!

Man, I like the F-4, but I equally like the F's 8-18, too.
The 104 was the "super duper" plane of its day, but so was the 106 (which is also not on the list).
Then the Mirage, the Migs..it boggles the mind.

...so...

I'm just going to close my eyes and pick one.


....and the winner is...


































































...me....oops, sorry. Wrong award.  















I'll take the F-22.

Its the most advanced and the vectored thrust _should_ make it the most manuverable.
Its probably the most versatile, too, althogh I'm sure there's a ton of F-4 jockey's out there that would beg to differ.

So for no other reason than, "that's my choice", The F-22.






Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Apr 6, 2008)

102first_hussars said:


> I belive the Avro Arrow simply because Im Canadian,
> It has no combat record , but it definately would have changed the world we live in today if it wasnt cancelled.



You know, there's talk out there that the Arrow was the basis for the F-111.
Of course, I think it was developed as a bomber.
I wonder how successful the F-111 would've been as a fighter.

...its kinda big for one, isn't it?




Elvis


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 14, 2008)

A total miss use of military equipment...ps, can i book this for the next BBQ with the in-laws...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o11IlVxS744_

cheers bf109 Emil


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2008)

Elvis said:


> You know, there's talk out there that the Arrow was the basis for the F-111.


Talk? From who? Not even close!!!



Elvis said:


> Of course, I think it was developed as a bomber.
> I wonder how successful the F-111 would've been as a fighter.


The F-111 did have a very capable air-to-air capability and many F-111 squadrons also trained for air-to-air. I work with an O-6 who once told me he locked on several MiGs who been trailing him on a NATO exercise over the Norwegian Sea in the 1980s.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 15, 2008)

Really. I've always heard of the 111 in terms of being a bomber (maybe _bomber-type_ would be more accurate), like in the same class as an F-101 (although newer).
The "F" classification would give creedence to having _some_ kind of air-to-air capability, but whenever I've asked servicemen in the past all I get is a smarmy "hmph!" accompanied by a $h!t eatin' grin and "right".

I forget where I heard that about the Arrow and the F-111. I must've read it or maybe saw it on TV, because I remember a picture showing the general outline of the two planes and how similar they were.


I don't know. If you say no, then fine, its not.



Elvis


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Really. I've always heard of the 111 in terms of being a bomber (maybe _bomber-type_ would be more accurate), like in the same class as an F-101 (although newer).
> The "F" classification would give creedence to having _some_ kind of air-to-air capability, but whenever I've asked servicemen in the past all I get is a smarmy "hmph!" accompanied by a $h!t eatin' grin and "right".
> 
> I forget where I heard that about the Arrow and the F-111. I must've read it or maybe saw it on TV, because I remember a picture showing the general outline of the two planes and how similar they were.
> ...


I saw the same thing but it wasn't the 111 it was the 14 I believe the they showed both aircraft from the from the front and the resemblence was uncanny


----------



## drgondog (Apr 15, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Really. I've always heard of the 111 in terms of being a bomber (maybe _bomber-type_ would be more accurate), like in the same class as an F-101 (although newer).
> The "F" classification would give creedence to having _some_ kind of air-to-air capability, but whenever I've asked servicemen in the past all I get is a smarmy "hmph!" accompanied by a $h!t eatin' grin and "right".
> 
> I forget where I heard that about the Arrow and the F-111. I must've read it or maybe saw it on TV, because I remember a picture showing the general outline of the two planes and how similar they were.
> ...



The F-111 was Mcnamara's Edsel for the USAF and USN - the first joint service 'must buy'. It was first operational swing wing 'tactical' aircraft designed for TAC in AF and to replace A6 and other tactical strike a/c for Navy. The USN played the game for awhile bbut carrier requirements took the weight way up and Navy bailed out.

In it's way it was a useful weapon, fast, terrain following, all weather fighter bomber - but the use of 'fighter' in same breath is not useful. Although its first deployment to SE asia was not a success, its ability to perform all weather strikes under radar was continuously improved and it was effective in both that role as well as Electronic Counter Measure a/c and replaced the F-105 and EB-66 and B-57 altogether.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I saw the same thing but it wasn't the 111 it was the 14 I believe the they showed both aircraft from the from the front and the resemblence was uncanny




Another reason to never trust television...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2008)

My father in law flew the F-111, said it was one of the fastest aircraft he ever flown once it started building up speed....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## smg (Apr 15, 2008)

dident the f 14 replaisd the f 111 as an intersepter


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2008)

smg said:


> dident the f 14 replaisd the f 111 as an intersepter



*NO*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I saw the same thing but it wasn't the 111 it was the 14 I believe the they showed both aircraft from the from the front and the resemblence was uncanny



They dont look anything alike from the front, or from any angle as a matter of fact.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2008)




----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2008)

Whatever .... I am aware of the differences in technology and how it's so very unlikely but many of the inovations/features are very similar if you stare at them . This magazine dated back about to 78 but the guy who wrote the article made a good case to to my untrained eye 
Compare any other aircraft from 1958 to the 14 or the 15 and which one has more common DNA .


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Whatever .... I am aware of the differences in technology and how it's so very unlikely but many of the inovations/features are very similar if you stare at them . This magazine dated back about to 78 but the guy who wrote the article made a good case to to my untrained eye
> Compare any other aircraft from 1958 to the 14 or the 15 and which one has more common DNA .



Look at them pB. They dont look anything alike from the nose to the engine cowlings to the wings to the tail.

There is nothing similar, and they are not derived from one another.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 16, 2008)

From front on. I never realised how *long *the Arrow's undercarriage legs were.


----------



## airboiy (Apr 16, 2008)

8) hey,hey,hey-what are you all talking about? the Super Hornets where its at.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2008)

airboiy said:


> 8) hey,hey,hey-what are you all talking about? the Super Hornets where its at.


Just brilliant! I bet you can explain nuclear fission in 10 words or less.....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 16, 2008)

airboiy said:


> 8) hey,hey,hey-what are you all talking about? the Super Hornets where its at.



Hey, Adler, got another one for you . . . .


----------



## Elvis (Apr 16, 2008)

Well, after reading some of the comments in regards to my CF-105 / F-111 comment, I took a look-see and I have to agree.
Other than a swept wing twin jet powered aircraft, I don't see a whole lot of similarity between the two.
If I ever do run across that picture again, I'll post it, and if I can't do that, I'll let you guys know where I saw it so you can check it out for yourselves.




Elvis


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 16, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Whatever .... I am aware of the differences in technology and how it's so very unlikely but many of the inovations/features are very similar if you stare at them . This magazine dated back about to 78 but the guy who wrote the article made a good case to to my untrained eye
> Compare any other aircraft from 1958 to the 14 or the 15 and which one has more common DNA .



To this untrained eye? Mmmmm

B-58
Avro Vulcan (especially including planform)
F-102
F-106
Tu-22M
Mig-23
Mig-27

Just off the top of my head...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Well, after reading some of the comments in regards to my CF-105 / F-111 comment, I took a look-see and I have to agree.
> Other than a swept wing twin jet powered aircraft, I don't see a whole lot of similarity between the two.
> If I ever do run across that picture again, I'll post it, and if I can't do that, I'll let you guys know where I saw it so you can check it out for yourselves.
> 
> ...


One of the things that I recall in the article was the intakes if you look to 57-58 very few if any aircraft had the square type intakes underwing they were annular there were several other comments which I can't recall. Before some of us have kittens I already stated the fact I don't believe the article was written in stone but it was out there and the writer made some points which he backed up . whether his logic was correct I don't know. But the DNA question remains which aircraft from that period shows more traits that carries through to todays modern fighters .


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 16, 2008)

Admittedly some of those are not late 50's vintage, but the similarities did exist.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 16, 2008)

Oh crap I forgot the Vigi! A-5 Vigilante. Maiden flight 1958.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2008)

I saw the A5 also but ain't gonna arm the opposition, next take a look at the shape of the wing and the "droop" it isn't a straight wing its full of curves (yes every wing is ) but it has the form of more modern aircraft then most if not all in 58. Once again I am aware this is more fantasy then fact but then again don't shoot the messenger I didn't write the article that takes brains and fancy initials after your name which I've been told I sorely lack


----------



## Elvis (Apr 17, 2008)

PB,

Quite correct. The rectangular intakes were not as apparent at that time.
I'd forgotten about the A-5...maybe that was it.
Do you recall if the comparison pictures looked like the line drawings that have been posted in this thread?
That's how I remember them. In fact, I think it was white lines against a blue background - almost like a blueprint, but not as detailed.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Apr 17, 2008)

..hmmm, maybe...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 18, 2008)

Elvis said:


> PB,
> 
> Quite correct. The rectangular intakes were not as apparent at that time.
> I'd forgotten about the A-5...maybe that was it.
> ...


colours I can t recall but yes almost like a blueprint


----------



## Juha (Apr 18, 2008)

Hello
I feel a little cheated, there read choice(s) and I tried to vote both F-86 and F-4 but succeeded to give only a vote to F-4. Now I'm not a Phantom fan, I only accept that it was maybe the greatest jet fighter, partly because it was produced in so vast numbers. Lightning Mks 2A and 6, F-106 and F-8 are more in my liking, even F-105 is! But F-4 with all of its faults fought well over many battlefields and IMHO the results are the thing that counted. So that's the reason I tried to share my vote between F-86 and F-4. But if I have to chose between them I would have voted F-86, truly great plane and more to my liking.

Juha


----------



## road_apple1861 (Apr 22, 2008)

I would love to have chosen the F-22 but it is still and untested (in combat) aircraft, So i went with the F-15 a good strong aircraft that has been tested in combat.


----------



## F-14 (Apr 24, 2008)

ya it also showed its ability to take grate damage " the one wing landing inciednt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 25, 2008)

Elvis said:


> You know, there's talk out there that the Arrow was the basis for the F-111.
> Of course, I think it was developed as a bomber.
> I wonder how successful the F-111 would've been as a fighter.
> 
> ...



The F-4 Phantom was kinda big, Kinda fast too, Same with the arrow

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2008)

road_apple1861 said:


> I would love to have chosen the F-22 but it is still and untested (in combat) aircraft, So i went with the F-15 a good strong aircraft that has been tested in combat.



Great siggy my friend! I have over 1500 flight hours in the Hawk!


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 26, 2008)

I knew you would go there, Adler. Caught my eye too.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

To me it would be the F-4, there was simply no aircraft on the East-Block side that could seriously challenge this weapon-system for 20 years. In the Korea war a Mig15 was still competitive to any Western aircraft even its best the F-86. (Ignoring pilot and tactical standards).

Besides ABC weapons probably the F-4 was one of the main factors / contributors to ensure an ongoing cold war instead of a hot war. It ensured Israel’s survival in 1973.

Even a 1st and 2nd Golf war could have been conducted and won by this formidable aircraft without any F-15 around. Why the RAF never used it during the Falkland Conflict is a mystery to me. Maybe the RAF types had no in-flight refueling system?

View attachment 62530


Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Even a 1st and 2nd Golf war could have been conducted and won by this formidable aircraft without any F-15 around.



So was the 1st and 2nd Golf War fought at the Filton Golf Course or the famous Pebble Beach Course.

Just kidding my friend, I know what you mean. I just thought I would have some fun.

I do however disagree with you that the F-4 could have won the air war of the 1st Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom if the Iraqi Airforce had actually launched.

The Iraqi Airforce did have some formidable aircraft including Mig-29s. They just never launched.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> ```
> 
> ```
> 
> ...



Sorry the F-4 is a great aircraft but she is out of date and there are plenty of aircraft in the world that are much better because she is so old and outdated.

I am surprised the Luftwaffe even still has any at all. I know they are getting rid of them and the remaining ones are only used for Recon purposes.

I was flying a mission back in 2006 down here in Bavaria and we had two Germany F-4s fly right over the top of our helicopter.

She is a fine choice though for best of all time. I would not vote for her to be the best of all time. Not when there are aircraft such as the F-14 and F-15 which clearly are better in all aspects, but it is your opinion and you are allowed to have it. I would not never judge anyone who picked the F-4.


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet;Sorry the F-4 is a great aircraft but she is out of date and there are plenty of aircraft in the world that are much better because she is so old and outdated.



Hello D.A.I.G.

I did not understand this poll as referring to a present “most” modern a/c, why should a Sabre or F-104 be then included?

Why surprised? As I forwarded the F-4F could still do the job, and due to budget restrains it is still more economical to maintain a F-4F JG then to purchase a Eurofighter or F-15 JG.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2008)

Kruska said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet;Sorry the F-4 is a great aircraft but she is out of date and there are plenty of aircraft in the world that are much better because she is so old and outdated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No please dont take me wrong. This is about all time and therefore your vote is just fine. I was just explaining why I would not vote for it.

You views of the F-4 are just fine...


----------



## Kruska (May 5, 2008)

Hello D.A.I.G.

Okay I got your meaning don't worry.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Long time since I voted but I'm sure I voted for the F-15.

The F-86 is my favorite jet though, awesome fighter a/c, the best of its day.


----------



## totenkopf (May 7, 2008)

the arrow was a toilet thats why they scrapped it.


----------



## Matt308 (May 9, 2008)

And coming from a Canuck...


----------



## pbfoot (May 9, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> And coming from a Canuck...


Hes not really a Canuck we are much more eloquent or is that elegant


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2008)

totenkopf said:


> the arrow was a toilet thats why they scrapped it.


----------



## Brad Nichols (May 10, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nope - I understand it made it back to base but was written off upon return...



I herad about that, aparently it got back with half a wing missing.


----------



## Kruska (May 10, 2008)

Hello totenkopf,

I think the “Toilet” was still far more promising that this:







The Vigilante, the Arrow and the BAC TSR.2 where somhow all kinda alike. And the main contender somehow was always the F-111

Is there any thread around like; most useless or ugliest jet?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Elvis (May 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Hes not really a Canuck we are much more eloquent or is that elegant


I believe the phrase is "Elgantly Eloquent"...._eh?_



Elvis


----------



## buzzard (May 11, 2008)

For best fighter, I'll go with the F-15. I know it doesn't have as lengthy a service record as the F-4, but it has enough to demonstrate that its success is no fluke. And the fighter-bomber derivative (F-15E) has been a smashing success also. None of the others even come close. It has been the dominant fighter for over 3 decades.

The inclusion of the MiG-29 seems a bit odd. If memory serves me (riiight...), doesn't it have a combat record of 0-12, or something like that? While I know that it's probably been poorly served by its pilots, one still expects that 'The Greatest Fighter' title should go to one with a successful combat record...

The discussion regarding the AVRO Arrow's possible influence on US combat AC reflects the common apocryphal myths that have surrounded that plane since its cancellation. It is Canada's equivalent to the BAC TSR.2 (not its combat role per se, but as an expression of national technological pride), and like the TSR.2, its marvelous abilities only increases with time. Both AC were overly ambitious, over-specialized, and too expensive to be supported by their respective nations. All moot, really, as neither would have seen action during their expected service life.

I'm sure that some use was probably made of the technical data garnered during the development of the Arrow, and that the US aircraft companies benefited from the experience of the AVRO engineers that joined them after the cancellation, but I don't think any US combat AC is a direct descendent of the Arrow. The F-106 is the nearest equivalent, albeit much less ambitious in scope.

The nearest equivalents to the Arrow are Russian...MiG-25/31, Tu-128, and the Su-15, although none of these combine all the promised capabilities of the Arrow.

JL


----------



## Matt308 (May 11, 2008)

Don't forget that the MiG-29 did shoot down an unarmed Chechan drone.


----------



## Graeme (May 11, 2008)

Kruska said:


> I think the “Toilet” was still far more promising that this:
> Is there any thread around like; most useless or ugliest jet?



My hat goes off to those *brave* Leduc drivers...


----------



## Matt308 (May 11, 2008)

What's that he's saying? Oh yeah, "If I suffer a birdstrike, I want a closed casket burial."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2008)

buzzard said:


> For best fighter, I'll go with the F-15. I know it doesn't have as lengthy a service record as the F-4, but it has enough to demonstrate that its success is no fluke. And the fighter-bomber derivative (F-15E) has been a smashing success also. None of the others even come close. It has been the dominant fighter for over 3 decades.
> 
> The inclusion of the MiG-29 seems a bit odd. If memory serves me (riiight...), doesn't it have a combat record of 0-12, or something like that? While I know that it's probably been poorly served by its pilots, one still expects that 'The Greatest Fighter' title should go to one with a successful combat record...
> 
> ...



Great perspective on the whole Arrow discussion - also remember as the Arrow was being scrapped North American was mocking up the F-108 which "would of" been very similar in performance. At the same time look at the Vigilante which was being developed at the same time - although it was a bomber it seemed like a carbon copy of the arrow's performance.


----------



## Kruska (May 12, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

But before the F-108 they still had to “hide” the previous idea. BTW was the pilot supposed to jettison/eject downwards?

View attachment 62957


Regards
Kruska


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2008)

Regarding the Lightning, the idea that it was a straight line interceptor that couldn't dogfight is a bit of a misnomer. In Roland Beaumonts book 'Testing Early Jets' there is a flight test report on the Lightning by a USAF test pilot (name escapes me) who (rather excitedly) declares it to be the finest fighter aircraft he has flown, describing a speed and acceleration that took his breath away and easily beat the F-104 and F-106 and being amazed that it also handled like an F-86 (his words) adding that a jet like this shouldn't be able to turn like it does.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2008)

Beau Beaumont was an excellent pilot and could probably fly a barn door and out fly 95% of the pilots he'd come up against.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 3, 2008)

So does my beloved F-4 still stand a chance? How many haven’t voted yet?

*Come on guys there is still a chance*

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 5, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Regarding the Lightning, the idea that it was a straight line interceptor that couldn't dogfight is a bit of a misnomer. In Roland Beaumonts book 'Testing Early Jets' there is a flight test report on the Lightning by a USAF test pilot (name escapes me) who (rather excitedly) declares it to be the finest fighter aircraft he has flown, describing a speed and acceleration that took his breath away and easily beat the F-104 and F-106 and being amazed that it also handled like an F-86 (his words) adding that a jet like this shouldn't be able to turn like it does.


It just had 0 range


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2008)

Maybe it needed two conformal ventral tanks, like a budding virgin.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2008)

It had perfectly adequate range for its purpose. I heard a story quite some time ago about English Electrics possible improvements on the Lightning which would have increased its range, mostly. Unfortunately the details elude my tiny little mind at the moment. I know, however, that the improved Lightning was to be longer.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 5, 2008)

It was a point interceptor lacking the range needed if it was to be exported , it would be useless in North America and Australia


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 5, 2008)

I vote her most brutally handsome. The Lightning just looks [email protected] Besides I like side and chin mounted AA missiles.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes, but as said the Lightning is really short-ranged even for the time when it came into service as a front-line interceptor...


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 10, 2008)

Okay, but we are already mixing apples and oranges here. If we are talking about fighter aircraft that were best at performing their design specifications, that is different than a fighter aircraft that is most capable of performing multiple roles. It all boils down to a popularity contest with a smattering of technical support logic in the end. But that's the fun in debating the silliness of the question to begin with.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 11, 2008)

But in reality all fighter aircraft are expected to have some capacity to perform multiple roles and I really don't see the lightning having the long distance legs to perform useful combat operations as a fighter. It is more restricted to a radius around its airfield than a lot of other fighter aircraft. In reality, fighters even in the 1950s and 1960s when the Lightning was purchased were expected in a conflict to do more than just fight enemy aircraft...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

HealzDevo said:


> In reality, fighters even in the 1950s and 1960s when the Lightning was purchased were expected in a conflict to do more than just fight enemy aircraft...


100% W-R-O-N-G! Look at the spec the Lightning was develped to - it's primary purpose that that of an interceptor.

Where do you come up with this stuff????

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2008)

THANK YOU...


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 11, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 100% W-R-O-N-G! Look at the spec the Lightning was develped to - it's primary purpose that that of an interceptor.
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff????


if it was designed with no range which might be a possibilty considering the small area it would be responsible for I'll accept it was a good aircraft but ....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> if it was designed with no range which might be a possibilty considering the small area it would be responsible for I'll accept it was a good aircraft but ....


But nothing - it met it's design intent. It gave the UK a first class interceptor in it's day.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 12, 2008)

I am not denying it was good for airfield defence and point defence. Yes it is an interceptor aircraft. What I am saying is that it really has no real use once you have destroyed the enemy aircraft. I really think the best fighter aircraft was the F-15 as this is an all-round combat aircraft that can mix it with enemy aircraft, attack ground targets and have good range while doing so.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2008)

HealzDevo said:


> I am not denying it was good for airfield defence and point defence. Yes it is an interceptor aircraft. What I am saying is that it really has no real use once you have destroyed the enemy aircraft.


That was the reason it was designed to begin with!!!! 


HealzDevo said:


> I really think the best fighter aircraft was the F-15 as this is an all-round combat aircraft that can mix it with enemy aircraft, attack ground targets and have good range while doing so.


The multi-role philosophy came almost a decade later when by that time technology allowed modern combat aircraft to perform multi roles effectively.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was the reason it was designed to begin with!!!!
> The multi-role philosophy came almost a decade later when by that time technology allowed modern combat aircraft to perform multi roles effectively.


The 104 was better used by the Italians until 2003? as an interceptor could climb as fast and higher plus it was also a multi role fighter . Would also opt for the F4 in the same time frame as did the RAF later . The EE Lightning was a maintainence heavy aircraft and I don't believe that was in the design specs


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The EE Lightning was a maintainence heavy aircraft and I don't believe that was in the design specs


Ease of maintenance was one of the least thought about items in aircraft design until the 1980s...


----------



## Graeme (Jun 12, 2008)

The history of the Lightning makes good reading.





Gething points out in his book 'Sky Guardians', that the design originates as far back as 1949, in response for a high speed research aircraft, but this crystallised into a "quick reaction' interceptor, as by 1953 the threat from high altitude bombers was very real for the UK.

It's short range/endurance was of little importance then as the aircraft was only considered a "stop-gap" (under the direction of Duncan Sandy's White Paper) until *replaced* by Surface to Air Missiles.

You know the rest. 'Thinking' changed and that "stop-gap" lasted 31 years. The endurance problem became an issue during this long period, culminating in the F3/F6 designs.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 13, 2008)

Good post Graeme

Regards
Kruska


----------



## JugBR (Jul 4, 2008)

i dont know if f-104 was a great dogfighter, but in mine opinion its the most beautifull jet aircraft made since the me 262.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6qMTrqGMNI_

i also likes the mirages by its beauty

what i know about modern aviation thats is all about computer systems, very diferent from 40´s wheres the guys should be real ninjas to stay alive. i just figure when microsoft will launch a windows vista fighter edition, then the guys would be a real headcase...


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 4, 2008)

Your hangin' in there JugBR. Not quite sure what is a language barrier and what is bullsh!t, but I find your posts amusing.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 4, 2008)

you like ? great ! you disagree ? i respect you. you dont like ?


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 4, 2008)

me casa su casa pija

A little respect goes along way, chica.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i dont know if f-104 was a great dogfighter, but in mine opinion its the most beautifull jet aircraft made since the me 262.



nice clip - a lot of those scenes were from Edwards and Palmdale in the late 1950s.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jul 5, 2008)

Yeah nice clip, however it must be an unwritten rule that every aircraft video now has massive attack's teardrop as background track.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 9, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> nice clip - a lot of those scenes were from Edwards and Palmdale in the late 1950s.




i saw those scenes in "wings" from discovery channel, back in the 90´s

f-104 is a piece of art


----------



## eddie_brunette (Jul 10, 2008)

I choose F15, only because of combat record, my favourite on the list is the F86 by FAR. IMO the most beautifull US jet ever

edd


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

its not really a fighter but ive always had a quaint feeling for the U-2. but fighterwise i would have a tie between the F-82 Twin Mustang, the F-104 Starfighter, the F-4 Phantom II, or the F-117 Nighthawk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> its not really a fighter but ive always had a quaint feeling for the U-2. but fighterwise i would have a tie between the F-82 Twin Mustang, the F-104 Starfighter, the F-4 Phantom II, or the F-117 Nighthawk



The F-117 is not a fighter either. It is a ground attack aircraft. The "F" designation is misleading.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

but it has been used in the fighter role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2008)

ratdog said:


> but it has been used in the fighter role.


The F-117 HAS NEVER been used in a fighter role - it carried bombs and bombs only.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 27, 2008)

I really admire the F-18 Superhornet. But the Tomcat has been my favorite for years.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

sorry you are right i was thinking ground attack might have something to do with bombing grounded aircraft but not in the air


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2008)

Just curious...

Has anyone mentioned the F-5 Freedom Fighter?

I believe it is (or was?) the "_aggressor fighter_" of choice, by both the Navy and the Air Force, in their respective Air Combat Training Programs.

If you think about how many lives were saved, due to the training those pilots received in those programs, I would think it would rate, at least, in the top 10 of "The Greatest Fighter Jets of all-time".




Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2008)

ratdog said:


> sorry you are right i was thinking ground attack might have something to do with bombing grounded aircraft but not in the air




As Joe already pointed out, it has never been used in a fighter role, but even if it had that does not make it a fighter.

The Harrier has been used in air to air, but it is not a fighter either...


----------



## Elvis (Sep 28, 2008)

DerAdler,

So your position is from the point of view of the aircraft's original intended role?



Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2008)

Elvis said:


> DerAdler,
> 
> So your position is from the point of view of the aircraft's original intended role?
> 
> ...



Yes, a fighter is a fighter, a ground attack is a groung attack.

An AH-64D Longbow Apache has air to air capability, are you going to call it a fighter?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 29, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Just curious...
> 
> Has anyone mentioned the F-5 Freedom Fighter?
> 
> ...



Actually, IIRC, most of the Aggressor pilots preferred the A-4 "Scooter", due to it's higher role rate and smaller silhouette (though I believe it had a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-5). However, lately, both the Navy and AF have been using F-14D's, F-15's, and F-16's in the Aggressor role; you don't see too many F-5's anymore.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, IIRC, most of the Aggressor pilots preferred the A-4 "Scooter", due to it's higher role rate and smaller silhouette (though I believe it had a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-5). However, lately, both the Navy and AF have been using F-14D's, F-15's, and F-16's in the Aggressor role; you don't see too many F-5's anymore.


There's still a few at Fallon. One was brought into Reno as a static during the races.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 29, 2008)

the f-5 is only used in the trainer role now in the US and has equipped the US NAVY, the Brazilian Air Force, the Phillipine Air Force, and the South Korean Air Force


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2008)

ratdog said:


> the f-5 is only used in the trainer role now in the US and has equipped the US NAVY, the Brazilian Air Force, the Phillipine Air Force, and the South Korean Air Force


You left out Botswana and Iran...


----------



## ratdog (Sep 29, 2008)

didnt want to name all 27 countries


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You left out Botswana *and Iran*...


Would that be the new "F-18 like" Iranian Fighter?









So apparently, it _was_ used as an aggressor, but not so much anymore.
Oh well, nothing in this world is constant except change.

I still like it. To me, it looks like a slick little sports car with wings and a couple of jet engines. 





Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes, a fighter is a fighter, a ground attack is a groung attack.
> 
> An AH-64D Longbow Apache as air to air capability, are you going to call it a figher?


Good point.
Thanks for your input.



Elvis


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 29, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Would that be the new "F-18 like" Iranian Fighter?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I worked on F-5s and they are easy to work on and fly - perfect fighter for the 3rd world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 29, 2008)

Forgot about the Swiss...


----------



## Elvis (Sep 29, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I worked on F-5s and they are easy to work on and fly - perfect fighter for the 3rd world.


I understand that was the point.
Created solely to sell to allied nations who didn't have "competitive" aircraft in their inventory.
Didn't we sell a boat load of those to the S.Vietnamese back in the late 60's and/or early 70's?
I think that's where the whole "Skoshi Tiger" thing came from.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Matt,

Cool pic. Are those machine guns firing?




Elvis


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 29, 2008)

Actually? If you ask me its fake. I would say its propane, but the smoke is too dark. Who knows. Cool shot nontheless.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 30, 2008)

...duped by Photoshop, AGAIN.  ( )


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 30, 2008)

Elvis said:


> I understand that was the point.
> Created solely to sell to allied nations who didn't have "competitive" aircraft in their inventory.
> Didn't we sell a boat load of those to the S.Vietnamese back in the late 60's and/or early 70's?
> I think that's where the whole "Skoshi Tiger" thing came from.
> Elvis



We did; and the majority of them ended up in North Vietnamese hands in '75 after we pulled out and Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City got overrun. IIRC, a few enterprising South Vietnamese pilots managed to make it out of the country with their F-5's, some of them landing on US carriers offshore of Saigon. Most of the a/c that made it to offshore US carriers ended up getting pushed over the sides of the carriers to make more room for other a/c.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 1, 2008)

F-5s landing on a carrier? Is there any video of that?? I personally find that a little hard to believe. Certainly can be done with the barrier erected, but I'm dubious that the airboss would allow it since the landing speed of the F-5 and resultant fouling of the deck would destroy the carrier's bring back efficiency.

I would love to read about that if you have any information.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 1, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> F-5s landing on a carrier? Is there any video of that?? I personally find that a little hard to believe. Certainly can be done with the barrier erected, but I'm dubious that the airboss would allow it since the landing speed of the F-5 and resultant fouling of the deck would destroy the carrier's bring back efficiency.
> 
> I would love to read about that if you have any information.


I can see it being done the F5's have an arrester hook , but being an approach end engagement might cause a little havoc, as i believe the arrestor hook and aircraft was set up for a departure end engagement like most AF aircraft, naval aircraft use the approach end


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2008)

I doubt this ever occurred. The F-5 was a robust aircraft and could have gotten away with one carrier landing in a pinch BUT no SVNAF pilots were ever trained to do carrier landings. *Ya just don't go out untrained in an aircraft with a 130 mph landing speed and land it on an aircraft carrier - sorry, I don't buy this.*
A few F-5s were flown to Thailand or wound up with the North Vietnamese.

Hueys? Another story - dozens of helicopters were flown out of South Vietnam to US ships.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I doubt this ever occurred. The F-5 was a robust aircraft and could have gotten away with one carrier landing in a pinch BUT no SVNAF pilots were ever trained to do carrier landings. *Ya just don't go out untrained in an aircraft with a 130 mph landing speed and land it on an aircraft carrier - sorry, I don't buy this.*
> A few F-5s were flown to Thailand or wound up with the North Vietnamese.
> 
> Hueys? Another story - dozens of helicopters were flown out of South Vietnam to US ships.


Thats where the havoc part in my statement comes in I think it would bend the aircraft with an approach end engagement


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 1, 2008)

Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 1, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.


Hey B25's , Hercs and other sundry aircraft not designed for naval ops have performed on decks i just don't think there would be much usable afterwords . Stretched F5's maybe Joe would be able to answer that better then me he worked on them I just watched them. 
. Personally don't think the F5 is much good unless your defending Delaware .


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 1, 2008)

And let's not forget the context.. they were flying them off the coast of Siagon landing them on an active carrier during regular ops. It's not "whether its technically possible", it about whether operationally it would have ever occurred.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.


----------



## Bluehawk (Oct 2, 2008)

Even though I've got sentimental attachment to the Phantoms... I voted for the Lightning, in this poll.

Awesome a/c, even from what little I know of it.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 3, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.



Okay, you're probably right; to be honest, my source never actually said any F-5's landed on carriers, just that "South Vietnamese fighters and other small planes also landed on American carriers", so it could have been A-37's or O-2's or who knows what. The source for these claims is a book called "_Cruel April: The Fall of Saigon_", by Olivier Todd.

Also, if someone is fairly intent on landing their a/c on a carrier, there's not much you can do to stop them short of shooting them down; and I don't think the Americans ever seriously considered shooting down their South Vietnamese allies, whether they were violating operational procedures or not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Okay, you're probably right; to be honest, my source never actually said any F-5's landed on carriers, just that "South Vietnamese fighters and other small planes also landed on American carriers", so it could have been A-37's or O-2's or who knows what. The source for these claims is a book called "_Cruel April: The Fall of Saigon_", by Olivier Todd.
> 
> Also, if someone is fairly intent on landing their a/c on a carrier, there's not much you can do to stop them short of shooting them down; and I don't think the Americans ever seriously considered shooting down their South Vietnamese allies, whether they were violating operational procedures or not.



Even an A-37 would be a hand full to land on a carrier in the hands of an untrained pilot - the key item here is training. O-2s? Possibly if they were able to make it to a carrier. I did know an ex SVAF pilot who did fly to a carrier - he loaded up his family and friends in a UH-1. I think the key would be to get as many people out as possible so I don't see an O-2 being the first choice of aircraft unless you were desperate.

Had this been done I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts the first attempt would of ended in disaster and I would also bet that the COs of any carrier would of prevented any further attempt. As far as I know the main source of evacuation from South Vietnam where helicopters.






*"The ceasefire of 1973 under which American forces withdrew from Vietnam led to an increased amount of military aid supplied to the South Vietnamese government, in the hope that they could go it alone without direct American support. As part of this effort, a total of 126 F-5As were delivered to the South Vietnamese Air Force, most of the planes being supplied from stocks previously owned by South Korea, Iran, and Taiwan. 

By 1974, the VNAF was operating four squadrons with F-5As and RF-5As (82 aircraft, with 36 more in storage), plus three squadrons of F-5Es. 

During the final North Vietnamese assault on Saigon in 1975, numerous South Vietnamese aircraft escaped with their pilots to Thailand. Among these were four F-5As plus 22 F-5Es. These planes were returned to the USA where they were placed in storage pending sale to other customers. 

Eighty-seven F-5A and B Freedom Fighters were left behind in South Vietnam when the country fell to the North in 1975. The planes that were captured by the conquering North Vietnamese were either pressed into service or offered up for sale on the world market. Some flew in support of the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in 1978. It appears that F-5 squadrons were scattered throughout North Vietnam's air force, with several composite squadrons operating both F-5s and MiG-21s. 

The subsequent fate of these planes is largely unknown. A handful were passed along to the USSR for evaluation, and some ended up in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Their lifetime in Vietnamese service must have been quite short in any case, given the general shortage of parts and the lack of spares." *

Freedom Fighter in Service with Vietnam


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 4, 2008)

Great post, FlyboyJ. Interesting information.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2008)

Thanks


----------



## davparlr (Oct 19, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Actually, IIRC, most of the Aggressor pilots preferred the A-4 "Scooter", due to it's higher role rate and smaller silhouette (though I believe it had a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-5).


In Top Gun, A-4 and F-5s were used to represent Mig-17 and Mig-21s respectively (according to wikipedia). In the AF, F-5s were used until replaced by F-16s and were quite effective. 

IIRC, the T-38/F-5 would roll at greater than 500 degrees a second, far higher than any possible use and I would be surprised if the A-4 could top it. We were warned not to use full deflection on roll unless you wanted to get a head hammered against he canopy. Also, the F-5 is one of the smallest fighter jets. It is smaller than the A-4 except in length. Outside the facility where I worked, they had a T-38 on its belly with no wings or tail. It looked like a Formula 1 race car in form and size. It is incrediblely small. The engines are only about 17 inches in diameter and about 45 inches long without afterburner.

F-5s fought valiantly in the Iraqi-Irani war.

Oh, by the way, the T-38 is one of the most delightful aircraft to fly. You only have to get used to doing things, like raise gear and fly final, really fast.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

To get back on track...A very, very tough choice. But in the end

F-15. 

I asked myself if I had only 3 billion dollars to spend on fighter jets, and I had to choose only one type to spend that money on, which one would I buy? Then the answer became obvious.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 16, 2009)

Tomcat is my bird


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 17, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> To get back on track...A very, very tough choice. But in the end
> 
> F-15.
> 
> I asked myself if I had only 3 billion dollars to spend on fighter jets, and I had to choose only one type to spend that money on, which one would I buy? Then the answer became obvious.



I would have to agree; and, to be more specific, I would choose the F-15E. You can shoot stuff down AND drop bombs!


----------



## Pong (Jul 29, 2009)

Chose the F-86. Beautiful and effective back in the 1950s. Though in modern times, I would go for the F-15 or the F-16.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2009)

The best jet fighter aircraft to exist is the F-22; it's far superior technologically to any aircraft to preceed it. Of course, it has no combat experience but it's become irrelevant now - the F-22 has learnt lessons from the absolutely immense F-15 and other combat experiences; as well as maintanence practices and electrical technology combine together to make the F-22 the best on the ground and in the air.


----------



## Bluehawk (Aug 4, 2009)

I wonder if there will ever again be such a thing as air to air combat.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2009)

I could easily say not to the extent of World War II, not even Vietnam...but pre-Vietnam a lot of military top brass in the U.S and Great Britain thought air combat was a thing of the past (especially with guns). We probably will see air to air combat again; in fact, more likely than not. 

But top brass love their multi-role beasts; hence it's the F/A-22


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2009)

Bluehawk said:


> I wonder if there will ever again be such a thing as air to air combat.


The same question was asked during the late 50s. It will depend where and when. After military planners thought that air to air combat was obsolete there have been hundreds if not thousands of air to air engagements. From Vietnam to the Middle East. Today the potential for two countries to be engaged in air to air combat is just as high as it was in pre WW2, the only difference is you wont have hundreds of aircraft in the air all at once slugging it out.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2009)

And there's a few more crazy air to air combat situations now too, with the higher usage of helicopters like the story you told of the AN-2 (?) vs. UH-1. And A-10s bringing down Mi-8s.


----------



## Vic Balshaw (Aug 4, 2009)

The English Electric Lightning. When the "Firebirds" thundered down the runway in a line of nine aircraft and stood on their tails, the world shook.
It may have only been an interceptor, but it could also turn in a very tight figure of eight, often shattering windows as it sliced the air over the base.
It's also a nostalgic choice.


----------



## Condora (Aug 4, 2009)

Now, generalisations are *always* dangerous 

There are a few left out there, which deserved to be included - Hawker's Hunter, Dassault's Mirage IIIC, F-5, even the A-4 Skyhawk, they all deserved to be there. The "all times" clause messes up the selection... 

For instance, I'm not aware of the kill statistics, but the old and plain F-5 is supposed to once have managed to surprise the all-mighty F-15 when playing the aggressor role. On a bang-per-bucks basis, that leaves the F-15 looking bad.

My vote goes to the F-16, but had any of the names I mentioned been there, it would change.


----------



## Condora (Aug 4, 2009)

Only noticed: the F-16 is out?


----------



## Bluehawk (Aug 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The same question was asked during the late 50s. It will depend where and when. After military planners thought that air to air combat was obsolete there have been hundreds if not thousands of air to air engagements. From Vietnam to the Middle East. Today the potential for two countries to be engaged in air to air combat is just as high as it was in pre WW2, the only difference is you wont have hundreds of aircraft in the air all at once slugging it out.



 Just imagine the gun camera footage from the next wave of air to air...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 4, 2009)

Don't start me on the Lightning; despite my love of it - in my opinion it's the best interceptor of it's day; and it was well ahead of it's time. And for nostalgia it'd be my choice for 1,2,3,4 and 5th places...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2009)

Condora said:


> For instance, I'm not aware of the kill statistics, but the old and plain F-5 is supposed to once have managed to surprise the all-mighty F-15 when playing the aggressor role. On a bang-per-bucks basis, that leaves the F-15 looking bad.


Not really. During those "aggressor games" scenarios were set up to place the F-15 and F-5 in close quarters, something that would not happen in the real world. The f-15 would track and destroy its target miles out without even committing to combat maneuvers.

The F-5 aggressors were used to teach fighter pilots to hone their skills when placed in a disadvantage.

The F-15 has the ultimate kill loss record in combat history.


----------



## Dark Matter (Aug 4, 2009)

Actually I like the F-5 and the F-35. 8)


----------



## Condora (Aug 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really. During those "aggressor games" scenarios were set up to place the F-15 and F-5 in close quarters, something that would not happen in the real world. The f-15 would track and destroy its target miles out without even committing to combat maneuvers.
> 
> The F-5 aggressors were used to teach fighter pilots to hone their skills when placed in a disadvantage.
> 
> The F-15 has the ultimate kill loss record in combat history.



I have to rely on earsay for this one, but what I heard was that on "track and destroy" missions using radar, the f-5 pilots got fed up on being sitting ducks, and smuggled some stuff (some electronic devices, such as radar detection), and managed to surprise the F-15 pilots, who suddenly saw their targets well aware of their presence, and able to get close and personal...

As you have more contacts than I do, perhaps you may get more info on this, I only have some story from a british engeneer, and would loe to know more.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2009)

Condora said:


> I have to rely on earsay for this one, but what I heard was that on "track and destroy" missions using radar, the f-5 pilots got fed up on being sitting ducks, and smuggled some stuff (some electronic devices, such as radar detection), and managed to surprise the F-15 pilots, who suddenly saw their targets well aware of their presence, and able to get close and personal...


That was allegedly done in late 1970s with "Fuzzbuster" radar detectors used in automobiles. I believe that was just a myth.

Even so the F-15 can only be defeated by an F-5 if the F-15 driver allows him or herslef to do so.


----------



## Condora (Aug 4, 2009)

Trouble with "armchair debates", is that very seldom one gets to have actually BEEN there on ALL ocasions, to check all the facts. 

I guess even then, there would be controversy - the CF-104 being mistaken for harriers illustrates this point perfectly.


----------



## Waynos (Aug 5, 2009)

plan_D said:


> But top brass love their multi-role beasts; hence it's the F/A-22



No its not. They did briefly use that designation, but its been the F-22 again for the past couple of years now.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 5, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That was allegedly done in late 1970s with "Fuzzbuster" radar detectors used in automobiles. I believe that was just a myth.
> Even so the F-15 can only be defeated by an F-5 if the F-15 driver allows him or herslef to do so.



It was reported (anecdotally) by Roy Braybrook in one issue of Air International toward the end (maybe mid) 70s. Among other sources, I think one of Mike Spick's books also tells the story.
Apparently it was head-on attack and the F-5s launched their 'winders at the earliest opportunity, the Eagles had to keep coming so as to illuminate the F-5s for the Sparrows to keep lock.
It wasn't so much a "defeat" for the '15s as a one for one killl, the 'winders (simulated) struck home shortly _after_ the F-5s died from Sparrow hits.
But on a cost for cost basis it was a definite win for the smaller fighter.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 5, 2009)

I have to go with the F-15 as well - the one plane I always wanted to drive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2009)

MrCreak said:


> It was reported (anecdotally) by Roy Braybrook in one issue of Air International toward the end (maybe mid) 70s. Among other sources, I think one of Mike Spick's books also tells the story.
> Apparently it was head-on attack and the F-5s launched their 'winders at the earliest opportunity, the Eagles had to keep coming so as to illuminate the F-5s for the Sparrows to keep lock.
> It wasn't so much a "defeat" for the '15s as a one for one killl, the 'winders (simulated) struck home shortly _after_ the F-5s died from Sparrow hits.
> But on a cost for cost basis it was a definite win for the smaller fighter.



I'd like to see the story verified by the pilots who were there rather than aviation writers.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 5, 2009)

I thought the Sparrow was short range and the Sparrow medium or long range?


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 5, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I thought the Sparrow was short range and the Sparrow medium or long range?



You mean Sidewinder short range and Sparrow medium?
Yes.
But the 'winder is IR homing whereas the Sparrow requires that the target be lit up by the launching fighter's own radar, so the 15s had to keep going forwards _towards_ the incoming 'winders.
By the time the Sparrows had impacted, the 'winders were locked on to the F-15s and homed in on the heat autonomously.

Looks like it's possibly a conflation of two separate stories.


> Whatever they called it, the effect was devastating to the side that did not have Limas. One engagement during the test vividly pointed out the differences. Four Eagles fought four Red Air F–5s equipped with Limas. As the battle neared its conclusion, all of the combatants had “died,” except for one Eagle and a single F–5. The Eagle was a few miles behind the F–5 and launched a Sparrow. Simultaneously, the F–5, which knew the Eagle’s position, came around in a very tight turn, saw the Eagle, and launched a Lima at it. A split second later, the ACMI put a coffin around the F–5, signaling that it was killed from the
> Sparrow. However, the Lima, already unleashed, continued to streak head-on at the F–15 and killed it as well. The AIM-ACE pilots saved the ACMI tape to show visitors the impact the Lima had in a fight. They called the mission “The Towering Inferno” because all eight of the players died—the last one the victim of a dead man.


Page 159

and



> The Red Force pilots did not have a real RWR in their cockpits to warn them when the Blue Force radars were tracking them. The only warning they got of a lock on was through an artificial system in the ACMI that was not always accurate, and sometimes the information was slow to be passed to them. Since the Air Force was not interested in modifying the F–5s, one of the pilots went to the local Radio Shack and bought a battery-powered radar detector of the type speeders use to protect themselves from radar speed traps. He found that the F–15 radar would trigger the device if he carried it mounted inside his F–5 cockpit. When the Blue Forces discovered that the Reds were using the devices, they yelled “Foul!” loud and clear. When umpires refused to force Red Air to discontinue using the fuzz-busters, the Blue team worked on their own tactics to find ways to counter the new equipment.”10


Page 161 
SIERRA HOTEL
FLYING AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IN THE DECADE AFTER VIETNAM
C. R. ANDEREGG
Air Force History and Museums Program
United States Air Force
Washington, D.C. 2001

PDF available here.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 5, 2009)

A muli-million dollar aircraft system defeated by Radio Shack ........ 


Sometimes it's the simple solutions........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2009)

MrCreak said:


> Looks like it's possibly a conflation of two separate stories.


Errrr, not until someone identifies the pilots. Martin Caidin wrote a lot of stuff like that as well. Again, show me who the pilots were and I would totally believe this story.

EDIT

I went back and read that report - from the USAF. It talks about a Nellis but names no squadron, pilots or any other information to truly validate this. And that was reading pages 158 - 161.

My guess for the ambiguity of the people and places is because of this totally illegal installation. Even in the USAF of the late 1970s, you just didn't "bolt on" non approved equipment without engineering approval.

Still, great find on that report, it does make this more believable.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I went back and read that report - from the USAF. It talks about a Nellis but names no squadron, pilots or any other information to truly validate this. And that was reading pages 158 - 161.
> My guess for the ambiguity of the people and places is because of this totally illegal installation. Even in the USAF of the late 1970s, you just didn't "bolt on" non approved equipment without engineering approval.
> Still, great find on that report, it does make this more believable.



Digging a bit further (Thornborough also mentions essentially the same story in _Modern Air Combat_) it was during the AIMVAL/ ACEVAL tests and the "Red" side was actually the Aggressors.
Unfortunately I can't find any AIMVAL/ ACEVAL reports (other than documents referencing those reports) on the net.
But I'll keep looking, should make for interesting reading if I ever find them


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2009)

If the U.S. have re-designated it to F-22, again, it's only to please the pilots - who prefer to think they're solely fighter pilots. Probably the same people who wanted it the F-117.


----------



## Condora (Aug 6, 2009)

I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles - don't know if he's still alive, and writing -, he had a refreshing way of describing things, that always reminded me of Asimov.
He had been and aeronautical ingeneer before retiring to write, and much of what he talked about had either been witnessed by him or first-hand info.

On simple "radio shack style" solutions, I remember him talking about the early AAM to give an example:
the british were developing a missile - don't remember the name -, and to keep it stable, included gyros, and a lot of expensive and heavy tech so that control surfaces could correct the problem. It was a nightmare to to put it all to work properly, and they never managed to get rid of some problems.

He said the americans had used a simple solution: small holes and the air pressure differences would actuate on stabilizing surfaces.

The british missile, I forget the name, the american was named Sidewinder.


----------



## MrCreak (Aug 6, 2009)

Condora said:


> I liked reading Roy Braybrook's articles


Seconded, his article was always the first thing I read when I got my copy of Air International.



> don't know if he's still alive, and writing


I think he is (he was listed as a member of The Hawker Association in 2008 ), one of my "regrets" is that I missed meeting him by about fifteen minutes at the last Redhill HeliTech I went to (that was the one I got free tickets and the offer of trade stand space for! )



> On simple "radio shack style" solutions, I remember him talking about the early AAM to give an example:
> the british were developing a missile - don't remember the name -, and to keep it stable, included gyros, and a lot of expensive and heavy tech so that control surfaces could correct the problem. It was a nightmare to to put it all to work properly, and they never managed to get rid of some problems.


I liked his story about the fictional missile missile they cooked up and logged for fun.
And then put noses further out of joint when a visiting American said that the 'winder had closer miss distances than their "project" - the reply was "Oh , we thought _everybody_ measured miss distances in inches..."


----------



## Condora (Aug 6, 2009)

MrCreak said:


> I liked his story about the fictional missile missile they cooked up and logged for fun.
> And then put noses further out of joint when a visiting American said that the 'winder had closer miss distances than their "project" - the reply was "Oh , we thought _everybody_ measured miss distances in inches..."




I seem to have missed that one. Air International didn't send many copies here, so either because some numbers failed or were all sold, I missed quite a few.

Hope someday they decide to publish his articles, even from a... how did he describe himself? "Old-aged drinking womanizer"?


----------



## Condora (Aug 6, 2009)

I like amusing WW II stuff: 

there's the radio-guided bombing the germans had. They had a beacon the bomber would follow, until it reached a point that was intercepted by another radio beacon. They would then be on the spot to bomb, even if they could not see it.
Some brit scientist just made a fake second signal, so that the bombs would be dropped in empty fields.


----------



## Corebare (Oct 30, 2009)

Why is the F-8 Crusader on this list, but the F-16 is not? 
Are they going strickly by war record performances or ability? 
If they are going by design, armament, performance, stealthiness, in my humble opinion, the best jet fighters of the modern era 1 through 10 are:

1. F-22 Raptor
2. F-15 Strike Eagle
3. F-18 Super Hornet
4. Mig 29 Fulcrum
5. EE Lightning
6. EF - 2000
7. Harrier
8. F-14 Tomcat
9. MIG 21
10. F-4 Phantom

(If we're going by war parformance; F-15, Phantom, F-86, Mig 17, the Crusader and the Harrier should top the list.)
Where's the list for WWII aircraft?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 30, 2009)

Corebare said:


> (If we're going by war parformance; F-15, Phantom, F-86, Mig 17, the Crusader and the Harrier should top the list.)
> Where's the list for WWII aircraft?



"War Performance?" Don't you mean Combat Record?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2009)

The list is generally flawed. The Harrier is not a fighter and therefore in my opinion should not be in the list. The Arrow should not be in the list either. What did it do to be considered the best? Nothing...


----------



## Loiner (Jan 8, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The list is generally flawed. The Harrier is not a fighter and therefore in my opinion should not be in the list ...



True, however the Sea Harrier FRS1 was a dedicated fighter with a dedicated fighter search radar, and thanks to it's one sided great success from the couple of little baby carriers in the South Atlantic in 1982, should deserve a place on the list if it was to be updated to include the Sea Harrier instead of Harrier.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 9, 2010)

Quite right. Also, following the lessons learned in that conflict, the Sea Harrier FA.2 complete with AMRAAM's and the radar from which the Typhooons CAPTOR was derived, was one of the most capable (if not very fast) fighters in the world. A read of Sharkey Wards 'Sea Harrier Over the Falklands', now out in updated form, is extremely enlightning and his damnation of of todays 'RN' Harrier GR.9.s, by comparison with their predecessor, quite damning.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 10, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Quite right. Also, following the lessons learned in that conflict, the Sea Harrier FA.2 complete with AMRAAM's and the radar from which the Typhooons CAPTOR was derived, was one of the most capable (if not very fast) fighters in the world. A read of Sharkey Wards 'Sea Harrier Over the Falklands', now out in updated form,_ is extremely enlightning and his damnation of of todays 'RN' Harrier GR.9.s, by comparison with their predecessor, quite damning._



Do tell.....8)


----------



## walle (Jan 10, 2010)

I went with the MiG-15 for its combat record.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 10, 2010)

walle said:


> I went with the MiG-15 for its combat record.



Combat record? For the most part it got creamed!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 11, 2010)

Just look at the F-15, how many kills have they accomplished, with _no_ F-15's shot down yet! _That's_ a combat record in more than one way.... 8)


----------



## CrotalusKid (Jan 11, 2010)

F-4 Phantom!!! Here's a pic of one of my dad's birds! 480th TFS Spangdahlem, Germany circa 1980-83


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 15, 2010)

But then, the question is Lucky13, how many times have F-15s really gone into a high threat environment? 
As far as I know, Iraq really didn't have that many SAMs, neither did a lot of those environments. 
The F-15 first flew in 1976 which is really too Not meaning to denigrate the F-15's achievements but as far as I know, it never really did prove itself in Vietnam or over the Soviet Union.
Therefore it was never in a hiigh threat environment for SAMs. The F-4 did and was very good at its role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2010)

HealzDevo said:


> But then, the question is Lucky13, how many times have F-15s really gone into a high threat environment?
> .



Bekaa Valley 1982

But the point here is if the rest of your air force is doing their job correctly, your primary air-to air fighter will never be faced with a SAM threat.


----------



## CrotalusKid (Jan 16, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bekaa Valley 1982
> 
> But the point here is if the rest of your air force is doing their job correctly, your primary air-to air fighter will never be faced with a SAM threat.



Who took care of the SAM threat? The one and only SEAD king, F-4G baby!!!!! In all honesty, they are both excellent, very versatile fighters. They come from different generations, and dealt with different threats. One cannot say which was better.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 16, 2010)

Don't get me wrong but, I read somewhere that the F-15, have proved their superior combat capability with a confirmed 26:0 kill ratio.
Even though that I like the F-4, F-8 and the F-104 better, I quickly learned that only beacuse you have a favorite aircraft, doesn't always mean that it's the best...
On this list I do think that the best jet fighter, as some still have to prove their combat capability, like the F-22 and the Su-37.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

CrotalusKid said:


> Who took care of the SAM threat? The one and only SEAD king, F-4G baby!!!!! In all honesty, they are both excellent, very versatile fighters. They come from different generations, and dealt with different threats. One cannot say which was better.



Actually A-4s were also used by the IDF for suppress SAMs and anti aircraft batteries...

As far as saying one is better? The F-15 by a long shot. I've flown in F-4s and been around F-15s. They did serve in two eras and when you work around them you could see the jump in technology and thought that went into the F-15. Also look at each one's combat records. The F-4 dished out more than it received but the F-15 is undefeated.


----------



## CrotalusKid (Jan 16, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually A-4s were also used by the IDF for suppress SAMs and anti aircraft batteries...
> 
> As far as saying one is better? The F-15 by a long shot. I've flown in F-4s and been around F-15s. They did serve in two eras and when you work around them you could see the jump in technology and thought that went into the F-15. Also look at each one's combat records. The F-4 dished out more than it received but the F-15 is undefeated.



I was just going by the "best of it's day" rule. I feel that directly comparing an F-4 to an F-15 is a little like comparing an Eagle to something more advanced, say a raptor. I don't feel the combat records are of huge importance as far as the Eagle goes, either. Everywhere it has gone it has been flown by vastly superior pilots in a better equipped armed force.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 16, 2010)

CrotalusKid said:


> I don't feel the combat records are of huge importance as far as the Eagle goes, either. Everywhere it has gone it has been flown by vastly superior pilots in a better equipped armed force.


Over Bekaa 1982, the Syrian AF had the top of the line Soviet equipment and might of had a few Soviet pilots flying with them. The Syrians were planning this encounter for a long time and got their butts royally handed to them. They were no slouches and they did manage to shoot down at least one or two A-4s, but in essence the training won out as well as the equipment. 

The combat record shows the stuff works in real time situations and I firmly believe that Bekka showed the world what was to happen if the Soviet Union attempted to challenge the US in a conflict with their top hardware at the time. This was confirmed over Iraq 10 years later.

I believe the F-15's combat kill ratio is something like 83 to one. That has to count for something besides superior pilot training.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 16, 2010)

In design terms, the F-15 was/is a masterpiece of fabulous design for its role that is virtually unchanged (apart from the stealthy F-15SE prototype) in almost 40 years.

Counter that with the F-4 with its drooping tail and upturned wingtips that, whilst admittedly very cool, are only there because McDonnell made a total hash of the original design. 

Separately, possibly the only other jet fighter, apart from the F-15, with a 100 per cent A2A combar record is none other than.....................................




The BAe Sea Harrier!

TA DA!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 16, 2010)

Waynos said:


> In design terms, the F-15 was/is a masterpiece of fabulous design for its role that is virtually unchanged (apart from the stealthy F-15SE prototype) in almost 40 years.
> 
> Counter that with the F-4 with its drooping tail and upturned wingtips that, whilst admittedly very cool, are only there because McDonnell made a total hash of the original design.
> 
> ...



Dream on.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 16, 2010)

In what way? Did I write something that is factually incorrect?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 22, 2010)

The success/claims rate of Harriers during the Falklands war and F-15/F-16 over Bekaa valey made me to make a more throughout research for reasons of that. So far I've come to some conclusions (some already noted by fellow members, but not all).

Israel AF made a textbook approach to the battle. They either destroyed or jammed Syrian radars, denying the force multipliers for them. So Syrians sent their planes only when their ground forces got bombed by IDF, relying on visual means to get a picture of enemy forces. 
On the other side, Israelis made a good use of E-2 Hawkeyes to guide their planes, so their force multiplier was working as advertised.

Another issue are weapons used. Syrians had AA-2, AA-8 and AA-7 (both IR SARH versions). The 1st two lacked all-aspect capability, while Israel's Python 3 featured it. With IDF planes making a 1st attack, Syrian planes would be seldom in position to launch a tail-chase missile. The AA-7 SARH could do the head on attack, but it was not present in numbers (majority of Syrian fighters were MiG-21 and non-AA-7 capable MiG-23 verions). How well radar of MiG-23MF functioned within hostile jamming is questionable at least, while AA-7's range (in R-23 version) was comparable to AIM-9L/Python 3 and not to AIM-7. Look down-shoot down capability of Syrian radars were close to non-existant for most of Syrian planes. It's questionable if Syrians had some creditable decoys to use vs. missiles, and having them coming from all angles must've been a shock.

Then we have training. Few people would object that Israely pilots belong(ed) to top 3 in world. Syrians lagged behind notably.

Finally, the planes confronted. No one with brain would say that MiG-23 was in league with F-15/F-16 as an airframe, while other systems (radar, missiles, other supporting electronics) were also one generation behind. When we count in the MiG-21 swept away from Lebanese sky, the tech gap becomes even wider.

So Israelis had it all: fighter planes, radars ( both on fighters and on AWACS planes), weapons, jammers, training, initiative, doctrine. Syrians really had nothing to compare with, not even numbers of planes deployed. So if we substitute F-15s with F-4s, and F-16s with Kfirs, results would be hardly different.


----------



## Glider (Feb 22, 2010)

Waynos said:


> In what way? Did I write something that is factually incorrect?



You were spot on.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 22, 2010)

Thanks, though I still don't know what specifically Syscom was disagreeing with


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 22, 2010)

I don't think he was disputing the Sea Harrier record, but rather the operational scenarios. I don't want to put words in Sys' mouth, but I suspect he would say that there are many battle tested fighter planes who have a clean record that can also be disputed as being technologically uncontested.

I think that was Pauk's point too.

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2010)

Sea Harrier's position on Falklands war could be compared with Syrian fighter planes position in Middle east in 1982 - they were defenders. But here the similarity ends. Training (with a smaller margin then Israelis enjoyed), missiles and surface radars are on a plus side here for FAA, while Argentinians were not able to conduct electronic warfare like Israelis did in same year. On the plus side for them were numbers, while raw performance of jets involved was either greater or similar. The comparably lower range speed did not allow Sea Harriers to pursue enemy far beyond it's CAP zone. The Argentinian doctrine seems lacking in my eyes, since they did not try to lure away Harriers into traps, nor didn't mount a large scale attack with intention of crippling them. All despite having both numbers and performance. As for initiative, it changed hands many times.

So I'd say that Sea Harriers fought vs. much greater opposition (when compared with Israely position in same year) , and came with upper hand.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 23, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> I don't think he was disputing the Sea Harrier record, but rather the operational scenarios. I don't want to put words in Sys' mouth, but I suspect he would say that there are many battle tested fighter planes who have a clean record that can also be disputed as being technologically uncontested.
> 
> I think that was Pauk's point too.
> 
> Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.



Not going to shoot at all Matt, but I am interested to learn a bit more about what you mean? My comment was merely to say that, as far as I am aware, there are only two fighters in the world with 100% air combat records (ie none lost in air combat but a significant number of victories ie double figures at least) and these are the F-15 and Sea Harrier. If there are lots more I'd love to know what they are, that was kinda the reason I posted it. What is it you mean by 'technologically uncontested'? Sorry for being dim.

Tomo, a major failing in the RN's operation in the Falklands was the lack of any AEW at all (hence the post war creation of the Sea King AEW, now called the ASaC.7) and also the total disregard shown by the Hermes air group for the low level CAP instructions from HMS Invincible. It is worth noting that every British ship lost in the conflict was lost from within Hermes group that operated its CAP cover from 20,000ft while Invincibles low level CAP strategy had a 100% success rate, with post war analysis revealing that the Argentines ditched their bombs and returned home every single time they encountered Sea Harriers at low level, and only 801Sqn from Invincible was doing this.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2010)

Waynos said:


> ...
> 
> Tomo, a major failing in the RN's operation in the Falklands was the lack of any AEW at all (hence the post war creation of the Sea King AEW, now called the ASaC.7) and also the total disregard shown by the Hermes air group for the low level CAP instructions from HMS Invincible. It is worth noting that every British ship lost in the conflict was lost from within Hermes group that operated its CAP cover from 20,000ft while Invincibles low level CAP strategy had a 100% success rate, with post war analysis revealing that the Argentines ditched their bombs and returned home every single time they encountered Sea Harriers at low level, and only 801Sqn from Invincible was doing this.



Yep, I know about lack of AEW for FAA, sorry for not mentionig that 

The stuff about Hermes air group is news to me - was anyone sanctioned because of that? Why FAA employed two dissimilar approaches for CAP in same time-space?


----------



## Waynos (Feb 23, 2010)

Hi Tomo. It was this way because of one or two related factors. Firstly it was agreed that Invincible would be in mainly in charge of air defence and Hermes would be in charge of attack ops, but these definitions were not mutually exclusive and each group was supposed to cooperate with the other, so, although Hermes would get its cap instructions from Invincible, it would use its own aircraft (and vice versa of course).

In addition to this 801Sqn on Hermes had only just become operational while 800Sqn on Invincible had been using the Sea Harrier operationally for over a year, therefore while 800 knew its aircraft and its capabilities, 801 had not yet fully come to grips with it, and even regarded te Sea Harrier as impractical and its radar unreliable as they had not yet learned to use it properly. According to Sharkey Ward (hopefully in jest) the Argentines knew more about the Sea Harriers abilities than 801Sqn did 

Because of this 801 decided to disregard Invincibles orders to conduct low level caps as they thought it was unworkable, so they patrolled at 20k instead, this meant that even when the incoming threat was detected the enemy had conducted his attack before he could be engaged. An example of 801's lack of faith in the radar was when, on 4th May, a Sea Harrier on CAP was despatched for a visual check on a non existant 'target', despite the aircrafts own radar correctly showing there was nothing there, while it was gone the Etendard that sank HMS Sheffield passed through the gap it had left.

The Argentine order was to ditch bombs and run whenever a SHar was encountered at low level, hence the success of Invincible in protecting its own ships compared to the horrendous losses of Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent et al from Hermes group. 801 was also providing the CAP at Bluff Cove and we all know what happened there.

801's aircraft were also under instruction to return to the ship with no less than 2000lbs fuel remaining, the figure for Invincible's 800 Sqn was 'no more than 800lbs', thisd meant her aircraft were on station 'up threat' for 20 mins longer per sortie.

The shocking thing for me is that, although Invincibles instructions were plain enough, and worked for them, nobody has had any blame attached to them for Hermes wilfully leaving the gaps in the CAP screen through which every single successful Argentine raid passed.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2010)

Thanks for the insight 

Some questions:
Was the SHar's radar capable to detect sea-skimming A-4s, Exocets et al from 20kft? Have the 801's planes managed to catch any retreating plane (using higher altitude to increase speed while diving?) and score hits?

That fuel issue is just illogical, to say at least.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 23, 2010)

Aircraft yes, missiles no. The FA2 was the major upgrade to the SHar that included BVR 'look down-shootdown' capability against aircraqft and missiles approaching the fleet, a capability we have now voluntarily given up.

Almost all of 801's intercepts occurred in the manner you describe, unfortunately it was always too late for the target vessel


----------



## michael82 (Jun 17, 2010)

What's wrong with MiG-21 ? That's my bet !

http://http://cgi.ebay.com/Fighter-Performance-Practice-Phantom-versus-MIG-21-/290443813778?cmd=ViewItem&pt=US_Texbook_Education&hash=item439fcce392


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2010)

michael82 said:


> What's wrong with MiG-21 ? That's my bet !



Despite its superior performance in certain flight envelopes, it didn't fare well in combat, a lot of that was due to pilot training and tactics. 

The MiG-21 is a very neat airplane with some real liabilities. It has C/G problems when you punch off the center line tank (later models) and even with tanks did not have long legs. Visibility to the rear was almost non existent.

Landing at over 180 MPH is not endearing to the survival of newly minted pilots from the third world. I personally like the MiG-21 but consider some of its operational liabilities and its combat record, it comes out to less than mediocre.


----------



## jareds (Jun 21, 2010)

I put the F-15 due to it's versatility. Although I don't know too much about it, from what I've read and seeing them fly, a properly trained pilots could knock any other plane from the sky (that was up there) other than the new generation fighters. It had at least eight variations, included air superiority and ground attack versions. It was first introduced in '74 and is just now starting to get replaced along with the F-16 by the F-35 and F-22.


----------



## michael82 (Jun 28, 2010)

You're quite right, FLYBOYJ especially noting the reason for combat record (if claims are true !)...
Of course, it is smal aircraft of the '50s, '60s era and therefore limited in equipment and useful load...
I'm not sure what do you mean about CG problems, with any internal fuel load and A-A armament CG is withing limits, at least graph says so. I understand that only with small internal fuel load and bombs/rocket launchers/external load it is somewhat unstable. 

It has high landing speed, only because overnose field of view and angle of attack is about 8 deg. That corresponds to land.speed of 168 mph at normal weight..or higher at lower alpha for better visibility.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2010)

michael82 said:


> I'm not sure what do you mean about CG problems.



You can't fly the aircraft clean without having the center of gravity shift to the extreme aft, this starts occurring when about 1/3 of the internal fuel is used. Especially true for the later models.


----------



## michael82 (Jun 30, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You can't fly the aircraft clean without having the center of gravity shift to the extreme aft, this starts occurring when about 1/3 of the internal fuel is used. Especially true for the later models.



It is not easy for me to understand this cg problems in air-to-air configuration. You can see from MiG-21 bis cg graph that with any fuel load cg is within 29-33 % mac limit.
On y-axis is % cg, bottom is allowed range. On x-axis is aircraft weight with ammo 2 AAMs. Scale above is fuel used and scale at top is fuel left, all in kilograms. 
Dotted line is with land.gear extended, full line with retracted,
Ammo out moves cg aft 0.5 % mac and AAMs influence on cg is negligible.


----------



## renrich (Dec 22, 2010)

Just received a book ordered from Amazon entitled, "F-14 Story" by Paul T Gillchrist, Rear Admiral (USN, Ret.) Book was copyrighted in 1994. I have in other threads tried to explain (poorly) the reasoning I have heard why the Super Hornet, (F18-E and F) was a poor choice for the USN (and the USA) over the new manufacture Strike Tomcat. Gillchrist has the same opinion. I have not digested the book yet but early in the book Gillchrist says that the Tomcat " has evolved into the most lethal fighter plane in the world!" I am somewhat familiar with Gillchrist's career in the USN and he has much experience flying fighters. Once I have read the book I will try to explain Gillchrist's reasoning. I, in the nineties had a long conversation with an F14D driver at an air show in, of all places, Gunnison, CO. He stated that the F14D could defeat any other fighter in the world at that time. Maybe he knew of what he spoke.


----------



## Bluehawk (Dec 22, 2010)

I've heard that ^ said many a time, too.


----------



## usafmsgtret (Dec 22, 2010)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II!


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 22, 2010)

Renrich, I think some F15 and F16 pilots would disagree with that assessment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 22, 2010)

usafmsgtret said:


> McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II!



WHY?


----------



## renrich (Dec 23, 2010)

Sys, I have no doubt of that. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and if I can understand his reasoning I will try to post it. He flew the F8 operationally in VN and commanded at Fighter Town. He also became carrier qualified in the F14 at the age of fifty, so he knows a lot about ACM and fighters and fighter bombers and I am sure he is not prejudiced


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 23, 2010)

michael82 said:


> It is not easy for me to understand this cg problems in air-to-air configuration. You can see from MiG-21 bis cg graph that with any fuel load cg is within 29-33 % mac limit.
> On y-axis is % cg, bottom is allowed range. On x-axis is aircraft weight with ammo 2 AAMs. Scale above is fuel used and scale at top is fuel left, all in kilograms.
> Dotted line is with land.gear extended, full line with retracted,
> Ammo out moves cg aft 0.5 % mac and AAMs influence on cg is negligible.



An old one I'm just catching up to...

Sorry but from I'm seeing on this chart, you're still way aft and does not indicate if the centerline tank is attached - maybe it’s indicated in the text, most of us don't read Cyrillic.

The chart is showing that the aircraft can wind up in a configuration that places it close to its max MAC. As stated, the aircraft is tricky to fly as it is, do you think this situation is endearing to low time pilots? 32% of MAC where 33% is the max limit, landing at over 160 mph?!? 

I briefly worked on a civilian MiG-21 and during its first test flight after the aircraft was re-assembeled here in the states, the test pilot (who was Russian) wanted to make sure that his GC was kept as far fwd during the initial test flight.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 11, 2011)

renrich said:


> and I am sure he is not prejudiced



 Growing up in Pensacola, I learned from a very early age that a Navy pilot could out fly any pilot in the world, even without an airplane. Of course the Marine pilots felt the same way, especially over the Navy pilots!


----------



## Tangopilot89 (May 15, 2011)

Tricky one. Mind if I join in please?

I have always thought the English Electric Lightning was a pretty awesome piece of British engineering. First aircraft capable of supercruise.

I do like the Harrier, as I have had the privilege to sit in, work on and act as ground crew for an active RAF GR9.

Finally I will agree that the F-4 is one brilliant piece of kit. I'd say the F-4K is the coolest (the Fleet Air Arm version). I reckon you should include the Blackburn Buccaneer, one of the best low-level strike jets ever!

Andy


----------



## The Basket (May 15, 2011)

The original design of the MiG-21 was excellent and certainly up there with the best.

Not its fault the design was rolled on well past its sell by date and certainly never designed to take on Fighters which didnt exist when it first flew.

If you look at the earlier MiG-15/17/19 then the Fishbed would have been replaced in short order but it never was until the MiG-29 or in some cases never replaced at all.


----------



## Tangopilot89 (May 15, 2011)

Me again. I've gone with the Lightning because of what I've said before, plus I love the idea of an aircraft that is properly fast with two socking great Rolls-Royce Avons behind you. I know it was useless at turning though but hey, nothing is perfect. Running a close second would be the F-4 Phantom II. I guess many of you have seen the TV series 'Dogfights' on the Discovery channel?


----------



## Troy Turpen (May 26, 2011)

What fun! Thank you for allowing me to participate!

I voted for the F-22 Raptor. I love the Phantom II and F-86, and I respect the Eagle and even the Fulcrum...and, I'd love to fly the BAC Lightning (didn't there used to be one in Capetown you get fly?), but when a jet can't even be seen and shot down by F-15s, it's the best, ever.

Of course, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the Thud (my Dad worked on them at Korat), but it wasn't the best fighter out there.

=Troy


----------



## evangilder (May 26, 2011)

There are a great many technological advances in the Raptor, but I think it might be a bit premature to call it the best fighter jet of all time. There are a lot of other fighters that have proven their value over time and under fire.


----------



## Waynos (Sep 21, 2011)

Tangopilot89, You have more reason to like the Lightning than you know  

It was far from useless at turning, it was the most manouverable of all supersonic fighters until the teen series F-15 and F-16 appeared in service due to its unique configuration.

The book 'Testing Early Jets' by Roland Beamont offers an insight into this with a report by a USAF test pilot who declared how he loved the Lightning on account of its being 'as fast as an F-106 but turns like an F-86!'

Having said that Id probably go with the F-15.

(hello again boys )


----------



## Mustang nut (Sep 21, 2011)

I vote 
F22 because of technology
F4 versatility and length of service
F86 for good looks
EE Lightning for mean looks and a helluva show on take off

special mention for the harrier that can make a kill then take a bow before landing, thankfully its main forte was never used, the russians didnt come over the wall and trash our runways.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 24, 2011)

Still with the F-15, simply because of the kill ratio!


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 24, 2011)

Can't figure out how the EE Lightning rates over the 104, only a couple of Air Forces opted for Lightning over the many that chose the 104. The 104 was easier to maintain and more adaptable


----------



## Glider (Sep 24, 2011)

The Lightning had a number of advantages over the 104, performance, fleibility, radar, weapon systems, but I expect the main factors over the purchase for the politico's were:-

1 - Timing, The Lightning wasn't available when the decisions were undertaken 

2 - Cost, I don't know the costs but the 104 must have been a hell of a lot cheaper

3 - Shall we say somewhat dodgy sale practices?


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 24, 2011)

Glider said:


> The Lightning had a number of advantages over the 104, performance, fleibility, radar, weapon systems, but I expect the main factors over the purchase for the politico's were:-
> 
> 1 - Timing, The Lightning wasn't available when the decisions were undertaken
> 
> ...


I disagree with flexibility the 104 was employed as interceptor, recce , interdiction, ground attack and maritime strike. . Yes the Lightning was a little faster but not all that much.


----------



## Terri-Tsu (Sep 24, 2011)

I really miss those dog fight segments they'd show on History Channel..now it's all this IRT and Pawn Shop BS they show that's total rubbish!


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I disagree with flexibility the 104 was employed as interceptor, recce , interdiction, ground attack and maritime strike. . Yes the Lightning was a little faster but not all that much.



Fair points however I would certainly prefer the Lightning as an interceptor. Its rate of climb, radar, acceleration, missiles and speed were better than the F104 and it was also the first fighter to have supersonic cruise. The often quoted example of the interception of a Concorde would confirm that statement, here the Lightning manged to intercept Concorde whereas the F104, Mirages, F16, F14 and F15 all failed. It was known under exceptional circumstances to intercept U2's during exercises whch must have given someone a shock.

At a practical level the F104 when kitted out for combat which is what really counts had all sorts of drop tanks, ECM pods and missiles/bombs hanging underneath it which must have hurt its performance. The Lightning from the F3 onwards normally only used the external tanks for transfers and often relied on internal ECM.

The RAF didn't use the Lightning for GA, sea strike or Recce, after all they have a number of other types for those missions, but the aircraft could be used in these roles and the ones purchased by Saudi Arabia were equipped for these roles( with the exception of sea strike). The GA role had the same issues as the F104 so no advantage there but the recce equipment was internal giving it a performance advantage.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 26, 2011)

The Lightning didn't need "exceptional circumstances" to reach the U2. I once worked with a member of the first Squadron to get the F.I version, and he told how there were always three a/c on QRA, but only two would take off, until one day, when all three went. In the evening, the C.O. appeared with a large photo, and said,"Here you are, lads, this is what you've been waiting for."
Prior to the arrival of the Lightnings, the Squadron's Javelins had taken off, to intercept, but had had to "fire" from below, before they fell away, out of control. The photo was of a U2, with a Lightning on each wingtip, photographed, from above, by the third. He said that he always wanted a copy of that photo, but it vanished from sight, never to be seen again.
Edgar


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 26, 2011)

I wonder which one was more maintainer friendly from what I know the 104 was easy to work on . This leads to me to paraphrase a statement I once read . The 104 pilot challenged the Lightning jock to meet him abywhere at anytime if he could get it airborne without snags. IMHO the lightning has one major flaw and that was its total lack of range


----------



## Glider (Sep 26, 2011)

Well, one has one engine, the other two, one has a simple radar the other a complex radar so logic tells me that the F104 would be the easiest to maintain. Also remembering that the two engines were vertically mounted I would imagine an engine change of the higher one would be more difficult. 
As for range, my understanding was that the Lighting had a decent margin over the F104 from the F3 onwards when they were fitted with a larger ventral tank, which is why on operations during exercises they normally operated without any drop tanks. You would be hard pushed to find a photo of an F104 on ops without a drop tank.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 27, 2011)

If I was forced to choose; reason demands it be the proven and as yet unshootdownable F-15, sentiment demands it be the amazing looking, super-cruising, can get the bad guys at any altitude, and fast flying English Electric Lightning. Since no animals are likely to be hurt or killed in the making of this poll I will cast my vote for the Lightning, otherwise I would vote for the Eagle.


----------



## renrich (Sep 28, 2011)

In "Tomcat" by Paul Gilchrist, "The F14D with half a load of internal fuel (8200 pounds) two Sparrow and Two Sidewinder missiles(1400 pounds) in a fighter escort mission configuration has a wind loading, with wings swept of only about 55 pounds per square foot. This is comparable to the Mig 21 and much better than that of the F15, F16 or F/A18 by a long shot." "That is why the F14s with the new engines(F14Aplus, F14B and F14D) are able to beat up so easily on new generation airplanes like the F16, F15 and F/A18." " It is the unique combination of low wing loading, high thrust to weight ratio and high Ps which yields what I call agility."

When one reads Gilchrist's book and realises how Congress and the Navy screwed up the development of the F14 it is a calamity. The vast majority of the F14s were built with engines which were supposed to be only interim engines and that everyone knew were inadequate. The losses of AC not to mention air crew during the Tomcat's lifetime caused by the bad engines cost many millions and the Tomcat only reached it's full potential with the last production models. Then the mistakes were compounded by choosing the Super Hornet over new manufactured Strike Tomcats.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 30, 2011)

renrich said:


> In "Tomcat" by Paul Gilchrist, "The F14D with half a load of internal fuel (8200 pounds) two Sparrow and Two Sidewinder missiles(1400 pounds) in a fighter escort mission configuration has a wind loading, with wings swept of only about 55 pounds per square foot. This is comparable to the Mig 21 and much better than that of the F15, F16 or F/A18 by a long shot." "That is why the F14s with the new engines(F14Aplus, F14B and F14D) are able to beat up so easily on new generation airplanes like the F16, F15 and F/A18." " It is the unique combination of low wing loading, high thrust to weight ratio and high Ps which yields what I call agility."
> 
> When one reads Gilchrist's book and realises how Congress and the Navy screwed up the development of the F14 it is a calamity. The vast majority of the F14s were built with engines which were supposed to be only interim engines and that everyone knew were inadequate. The losses of AC not to mention air crew during the Tomcat's lifetime caused by the bad engines cost many millions and the Tomcat only reached it's full potential with the last production models. Then the mistakes were compounded by choosing the Super Hornet over new manufactured Strike Tomcats.




I have not read Gilchrist’s book but I did read an article in Flight Journal I believe he wrote about the very issues you mention. You and Gilchrist may very well be correct regarding on paper performance. I wonder if other “Real World” issues combined to outweigh any somewhat superior on paper performance.

With regard to other candidates proposed for the honorific of Greatest Fighter, I think the reputations of the four listed below are not worthy to be awarded this title. 

The EF-2000 does not have sufficient time in-service for a credible evaluation to reach a conclusion.

The Mirage 2000 as a fighter is only comparable to the F/A-18 which is more of an attack aircraft than fighter. 

The F-86 Sabre’s reputation suffers from the eternal humiliation of getting waxed so frequently by what is essentially an armed trainer. The Sabre is a beautiful aircraft with many fine attributes and accomplishments, but sometimes “One ah-shucks, equals a hundred attaboys”.

The SU 37 ended up being more of a entertaining stunt plane for air shows than a fighter as it never accomplished much else.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The F-86 Sabre’s reputation suffers from the eternal humiliation of getting waxed so frequently by what is essentially an armed trainer. The Sabre is a beautiful aircraft with many fine attributes and accomplishments, but sometimes “One ah-shucks, equals a hundred attaboys”.
> 
> .


what trainer would that be


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> IThe F-86 Sabre’s reputation suffers from the eternal humiliation of getting waxed so frequently by what is essentially an armed trainer. The Sabre is a beautiful aircraft with many fine attributes and accomplishments, but sometimes “One ah-shucks, equals a hundred attaboys”


I don't know what you're basing that statement on as the F-86 maintained a very good to excellent kill ratio from Korea thru its post war service. The F-86 was deployed during a time where air to air losses were expected due to the simplistic nature of this second generation fighter and the rules of engagement it was placed in. Depending who's numbers you believe the F-86 maintained anywhere from a 3 to 1 to a 6 to 1 kill ratio and even took on and shot down Hawker Hunters and MiG-21s over India/ Pakistan. Many times during Korea the F-86 was outnumbered upwards to 5 to 1 and despite the poor skill of some of the communist pilots UN forces encountered during Korea, the F-86 was constantly fighting at a disadvantage and winning. 

A very famous American test pilot is said to have knocked down 3 IAF MiG-21s while conducting "training" with the PAF many years ago as a “military advisor.”

I could tell you by both Saber pilots and maintainers (including this one from the warbird community), the F-86 is considered one of the most effective fighter aircraft in history despite taking lumps along the way, and its reputation was never anything but stellar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Coors9 (Sep 30, 2011)

What's the combat record for the Lightning ????????????? F-86 is one awesome bird. Gotta go with the Eagle Drivers for the best of the best. Just the same , it's impossible to put one generation against another.


----------



## renrich (Sep 30, 2011)

I think Gilchrist has more to back up his statements than just paper performance. He flew 167 combat missions over Vietnam. Commanded a fleet fighter squadron on three different deployments. He flew during his 33 year flying career 71 different foreign and domestic tactical aircraft icluding the F15 and F16. At age 51 he became the first flag officer to land a Tomcat on a carrier and had more than 400 hours in the Tomcat. During an air show in Gunnison, CO in around 1994 I talked to the pilot of an F14D who had flown in there. He said they could wax any F15 or F16 and felt sure they could take the Mig29 or SU27. I would not expect him to say anything else but Gilcrist's testimony seems to add weight.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 30, 2011)

renrich said:


> I think Gilchrist has more to back up his statements than just paper performance. He flew 167 combat missions over Vietnam. Commanded a fleet fighter squadron on three different deployments. He flew during his 33 year flying career 71 different foreign and domestic tactical aircraft icluding the F15 and F16. At age 51 he became the first flag officer to land a Tomcat on a carrier and had more than 400 hours in the Tomcat. During an air show in Gunnison, CO in around 1994 I talked to the pilot of an F14D who had flown in there. He said they could wax any F15 or F16 and felt sure they could take the Mig29 or SU27. I would not expect him to say anything else but Gilcrist's testimony seems to add weight.



Hello Richard,

I was not in anyway referring to Gilchrist's lack of credibility. Please note I wrote that you both may be right. "On paper performance" as in quantifiable performance. "Real World Issues" as in not enough on paper performance superiority to overwhelm superior political performance to get dollars spent on the not obviously inferior enough Super Hornet.

How's the weather in Prescott on this last day of the monsoon? Down here its windy and we may get some rain. 

Steve


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Hello Richard,
> 
> I was not in anyway referring to Gilchrist's lack of credibility. Please note I wrote that you both may be right. "On paper performance" as in quantifiable performance. "Real World Issues" as in not enough on paper performance superiority to overwhelm superior political performance to get dollars spent on the not obviously inferior enough Super Hornet.
> 
> ...


There is a marked difference in the various Sabres the US ones were not the equal of the Aussie or Canadian versions


----------



## The Basket (Sep 30, 2011)

The English Electric Lightning absolute performance is still 'secret' but it is rumoured to be as good as the Mig-25 by some quarters.

I cant recall the Lightning in air combat.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 30, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> There is a marked difference in the various Sabres the US ones were not the equal of the Aussie or Canadian versions



I am not sure why you made this reply to my reply to renrich about ADM Gilchrist and the F-14. 

You are right about the U.S. Sabres not being the equal to the Aussie or Canadian versions. By the way it was Canadian versions that got waxed several times by the equivalent of an armed trainer. What unexpected ignominy to be borne by a bird full of pride.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I am not sure why you made this reply to my reply to renrich about ADM Gilchrist and the F-14.
> 
> You are right about the U.S. Sabres not being the equal to the Aussie or Canadian versions. By the way it was Canadian versions that got waxed several times by the equivalent of an armed trainer. What unexpected ignominy to be borne by a bird full of pride.


 Your post indicated it was a reply to two people and that was the 2 previous posts that enquired on your Sabre being waxed by a Trainer 
What trainer was this I might see a T38 getting a bounce but what else


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I am not sure why you made this reply to my reply to renrich about ADM Gilchrist and the F-14.
> 
> You are right about the U.S. Sabres not being the equal to the Aussie or Canadian versions. By the way *it was Canadian versions that got waxed several times by the equivalent of an armed trainer.* What unexpected ignominy to be borne by a bird full of pride.


Provide data!


----------



## Glider (Oct 1, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I am not sure why you made this reply to my reply to renrich about ADM Gilchrist and the F-14.
> 
> You are right about the U.S. Sabres not being the equal to the Aussie or Canadian versions. By the way it was Canadian versions that got waxed several times by the equivalent of an armed trainer. What unexpected ignominy to be borne by a bird full of pride.



I admit that I would like to know more about this. Canadian Sabres were amongst the best and the pilots were well trained so it would have to be some trainer.


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

The Basket said:


> The English Electric Lightning absolute performance is still 'secret' but it is rumoured to be as good as the Mig-25 by some quarters.
> 
> I cant recall the Lightning in air combat.




Neither can I. The EEL is a magnificent jet fighter and a another example of a superb fast interceptor.

I voted for the Harrier. Not the most elegant but, so versatile and deadly.
Its performance in the Falklands Conflict has sealed its place in aviation history.
It was a true British first and one to be proud of...especially as the sun has set on our industry to all intents and purpose.
AND we beat the American aero industry in getting a variable jet thrust system to work and prove itself in battle.

Hawker Siddeley Harrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 1, 2011)

Readie said:


> Neither can I. The EEL is a magnificent jet fighter and a another example of a superb fast interceptor.
> 
> I voted for the Harrier. Not the most elegant but, so versatile and deadly.
> Its performance in the Falklands Conflict has sealed its place in aviation history.
> ...




Magnificent and superb are excellent definitions for the Lightning! The Lightning is truly intimidating in appearance, a attribute enhanced by the fact nothing looks like a Lightning. Your F-86, F-15, F-14, Arrow, etc. all look similar to other aircraft to the point of being generic in appearance. The Lightning is a unique masterpiece. It is not just about looks either, the Lightning has intimidating performance. It has one of the best types of victory to loss records of all the candidates in this poll. Furthermore, it has never been humiliated like the Sabre was by what appeared to be an inferior opponent.

With regard to beating the American aero industry: It was not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. See number 4 below.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 1, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Magnificent and superb are excellent definitions for the Lightning! The Lightning is truly intimidating in appearance, a attribute enhanced by the fact nothing looks like a Lightning. Your F-86, F-15, F-14, Arrow, etc. all look similar to other aircraft to the point of being generic in appearance. The Lightning is a unique masterpiece. It is not just about looks either, the Lightning has intimidating performance. It has one of the best types of victory to loss records of all the candidates in this poll. Furthermore, it has never been humiliated like the Sabre was by what appeared to be an inferior opponent.
> 
> With regard to beating the American aero industry: It was not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. See number 4 below.


 alright you keep talking about the Sabre getting waxed by a trainer the only inference I can possibly see is a Gnat and its origins are as a light fighter. Now your talking about the Lightnings combat record please elaborate, the Lightning was a very short legged interceptor with fantastic numbers but if you had a large area to protect was as useful as a rubber crutch


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> the Lightning was a very short legged interceptor with fantastic numbers but if you had a large area to protect was as useful as a rubber crutch



Hello Neil, Interceptors are supposed to be short range protectors. The Lightning was a faster Spitfire in that respect. It was designed to protect her homeland, not some vast continent like yours. Horses for courses mon brave.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 1, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Your post indicated it was a reply to two people and that was the 2 previous posts that enquired on your Sabre being waxed by a Trainer
> What trainer was this I might see a T38 getting a bounce but what else



A Sabre getting waxed by an armed T38 Talon trainer, essentially/equivalently a F5 fighter, would not be something to feel humiliation about. The Talon's on paper performance is superior. The semantics of the words "essentially" and "equivalent" provide flexibility in description. The Sabre was waxed by a supposedly inferior opponent that is more well known for being a trainer, Charlie Sheen prop, and air show performer than as a famous, ferocious fighter like the F-86. The mere fact that none of the posters to this thread immediately realized what aircraft I was referring too is evidence of the truth of the preceding statement. An insect of an aircraft known as "The Sabre Slayer" has a better kill ratio against Sabres than the Saber has against it. It is also a product of British aeronautical genius. Designed by the same guy who designed the Lightning. By the way, on my list of "favorite" jet fighters, the F-86 Sabre is first among equals. As I rhetorically stated earlier "Why do you make me choose one among the many I love?".



Readie said:


> Hello Neil, Interceptors are supposed to be short range protectors. The Lightning was a faster Spitfire in that respect. It was designed to protect her homeland, not some vast continent like yours. Horses for courses mon brave.
> Cheers
> John



Hi Neil, I think John has got you there. The short-legged Lightning certainly did a better job protecting its homeland than the long-legged Arrow or rapidly obsolete Bomarcs did yours. By the way, I like the Dan Ackroid (?) movie on the Arrow. Much like the F-14/F-18 SH controversy, politics triumphed over on paper performance. What a shame.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 1, 2011)

If the Lightning was short legged then the Gnat was out a fuel taxying to the runway.

The Gnat wasnt a designed trainer....it was a gunfighter from the start. Probably the best gunfighter of the subsonic class.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 1, 2011)

The Basket said:


> The Gnat wasnt a designed trainer....it was a gunfighter from the start. Probably the best gunfighter of the subsonic class.



Absolutely correct; it was not "designed" a trainer. As designed, as used, and as thought of, are frequently blended into various shades of gray depending on individual perception. My perception is that it was essentially/equivalently an armed trainer by the time of its Sabre Slayer days. 

You might want to put on your armor, I can hear the Sabres rattling their sheaths as they are getting ready to be drawn to dispute your second sentence.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 1, 2011)

The Basket said:


> If the Lightning was short legged then the Gnat was out a fuel taxying to the runway.
> 
> The Gnat wasnt a designed trainer....it was a gunfighter from the start. Probably the best gunfighter of the subsonic class.


I wonder how many air to air refuellings if it had that capacity did it need to cross Atlantic, the CF5 needed about 7-8 and would think the Lightning would be about the same


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> A Sabre getting waxed by an armed T38 Talon trainer, essentially/equivalently a F5 fighter, would not be something to feel humiliation about. The Talon's on paper performance is superior. The semantics of the words "essentially" and "equivalent" provide flexibility in description. The Sabre was waxed by a supposedly inferior opponent that is more well known for being a trainer, Charlie Sheen prop, and air show performer than as a famous, ferocious fighter like the F-86. The mere fact that none of the posters to this thread immediately realized what aircraft I was referring too is evidence of the truth of the preceding statement. An insect of an aircraft known as "The Sabre Slayer" has a better kill ratio against Sabres than the Saber has against it. It is also a product of British aeronautical genius. Designed by the same guy who designed the Lightning. By the way, on my list of "favorite" jet fighters, the F-86 Sabre is first among equals. As I rhetorically stated earlier "Why do you make me choose one among the many I love?".



OK, are you referring to the Gnat? Come out and say it instead of dancing in circles.

The Gnat "Claimed" 7 F-86s during the India/ Pakistan wars. In more likelihood they took down 3 or 4. On the other end at least 2 IAF Gnats were destroyed by the PAF (from memory, I could probably find times and dates). Their encounters were few and this really doesn't show true superiority over the Saber. On the other hand the later consistently brought down MiG-21s and SU-7s, so tell me does this really justify your claims?????

And please, don't patronize us with rhetoric, again, just come out and speak your mind....


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

7-Year Old Boy Wins, Then Loses a Harrier Jet on eBay | Geek.com


An opportunity of a lifetime.
I bet his Dad's face was a picture...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 2, 2011)

Readie said:


> 7-Year Old Boy Wins, Then Loses a Harrier Jet on eBay | Geek.com
> 
> 
> An opportunity of a lifetime.
> I bet his Dad's face was a picture...



Haha, let the kid have it


----------



## steve51 (Oct 2, 2011)

Trying to determine what really happened during air combat between Pakistan and India is frustrating. For what its worth, India has admitted that 2 Gnats were lost to F86s and Pakistan has admitted that 3 F86s were lost to Gnats during the 65 war. The Gnat was very hard to see due to its small size and outclimbed the F86, but it is an exaggeration to imply that the Gnat dominated the F86, IMO.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

steve51 said:


> Trying to determine what really happened during air combat between Pakistan and India is frustrating. For what its worth, India has admitted that 2 Gnats were lost to F86s and Pakistan has admitted that 3 F86s were lost to Gnats during the 65 war. The Gnat was very hard to see due to its small size and outclimbed the F86, but it is an exaggeration to imply that the Gnat dominated the F86, IMO.



Temporarily pulling my tongue out of cheek (the norm being the opposite in this thread) I agree “dominated” is not an accurate descriptive term, nor one I used to describe Gnat and Saber interaction in 1965 or 1971. However, I think it is often more illuminating to discuss an issue indirectly by orbiting around the edges than with blunt, say it as you see it, straight talking, linear discussion. A broader, deeper, and lasting understanding of a complex issue and a change of outlook and approach to other unrelated issues often is the valuable end result. With the limited information with have, taking into consideration the disputed claims of victory, and your statistics; the consensus is the Gnat was more of a Sabre Slayer than the Sabre was a Gnat Swatter. 

Repositioning of tongue back into cheek will commence in 5,4,3,...


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Back to the real world ( briefly)
British Aerospace Sea Harrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Our Harrier is one of the most successful jet age warriors.
Tried, tested, proven almost unbeaten
Cheers
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> the consensus is the Gnat was more of a Sabre Slayer than the Sabre was a Gnat Swatter.
> 
> Repositioning of tongue back into cheek will commence in 5,4,3,...


So tell us WHO the consensus is??? I think you're possibly the only one who has come up with this. I mean, didn't you initially say and I quote "The F-86 Sabre’s reputation suffers from the eternal humiliation of getting waxed *so frequently *by what is essentially an armed trainer." I don't see these numbers as either "frequent" or humbling, so I guess this is possibly you're own baseless opinion?!?!? 

Perhaps teeth should clench around tongue immediately!


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 3, 2011)

I'm questioning which cheek.


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

I'm wondering if this thread question could be neatly divided into those jets that actually fought real battles and those that did not.
For example the Lightning never actually saw war but, the Harrier did.
It would be easier to run a list of proven warriors and a list of those that acted as a deterrent.
What do you think?
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 3, 2011)

In my opinion, it is incredible that anyone would dispute what the Gnat did to the Saber was anything other than humiliating and ignominious. There are so many sources in print and on the internet (including some from Pakistan) that support this conclusion it should be self-evident to anyone taking the time to read them. Even the lowest acknowledged victory to loss statistics indicate the Gnat triumphed over the Sabre 2 to 1. The ignominy is not just from the fact that the Gnat was considered technically inferior to the Sabre, the Sabres had American Sidewinder AAMs, and the IAF was considered to be qualitatively inferior to the PAF in almost all areas. It was not just a one time fluke either. Gnats waxed Sabres in multiple engagements in two different conflicts separated by 6 years. Six years that the PAF had to develop countermeasures to combat the Gnat and apparently failed to do so. In my opinion, anyone denying that what the Sabre suffered from the Gnat was not in terms of human emotion humiliating and ignominious is either uneducated about the topic, willfully ignorant about the topic, or emotionally biased toward the Sabre, and therefore has an opinion I consider to be not worth further serious consideration.

By the way Matt, it is the right upper and no I am not standing on my head.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> I'm wondering if this thread question could be neatly divided into those jets that actually fought real battles and those that did not.
> For example the Lightning never actually saw war but, the Harrier did.
> It would be easier to run a list of proven warriors and a list of those that acted as a deterrent.
> What do you think?
> ...




This is an excellent idea for a better poll. The current one is rather poorly designed and silly, and certainly nothing to get worked up about. We should all remember the immortal words "Lighten up, Francis!"


----------



## Readie (Oct 3, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> the immortal words "Lighten up, Francis!"



I had to look that up...I always thought the phrase was something to do with Francis George Cluster and the battle of 'biglittle horn'
Anyway, as its an American turn of phrase I found this to assist the process and my (hopeful) understanding Lighten Up!
The London English are more likely to say 'strike a light' as an expression of astonishment.
Now, if you 'strike a light' do you in actual fact 'lighten up'?
Cheers
John


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> In my opinion, it is incredible that anyone would dispute what the Gnat did to the Saber was anything other than humiliating and ignominious. There are so many sources in print and on the internet (including some from Pakistan) that support this conclusion it should be self-evident to anyone taking the time to read them. Even the lowest acknowledged victory to loss statistics indicate the Gnat triumphed over the Sabre 2 to 1. The ignominy is not just from the fact that the Gnat was considered technically inferior to the Sabre, the Sabres had American Sidewinder AAMs, and the IAF was considered to be qualitatively inferior to the PAF in almost all areas. It was not just a one time fluke either.* Gnats waxed Sabres in multiple engagements in two different conflicts separated by 6 years*. Six years that the PAF had to develop countermeasures to combat the Gnat and apparently failed to do so. In my opinion, anyone denying that what the Sabre suffered from the Gnat was not in terms of human emotion humiliating and ignominious is either uneducated about the topic, willfully ignorant about the topic, or emotionally biased toward the Sabre, and therefore has an opinion I consider to be not worth further serious consideration.
> 
> By the way Matt, it is the right upper and no I am not standing on my head.



Then provide us with the S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C combat data to back up your claims instead of spewing long winded nonsense that is starting to resemble either severe back peddling or large amounts of defecation found in fields occupied by large animals with horns emerging from their heads...

Funny though - it seems some of your "opinions" were taken verbatim from this site, again citing "claims" vs "confirmed kills" something that perhaps you don't have a full grasp of.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Folland_Gnat

The Gnat is a great little aircraft and did lump the F-86 in the "FEW" and I'll repeat "FEW" encounters it had with it, but to serve it up as a "Saber Slayer" is a little far fetched, perhaps even delusional unless you enjoy reading propaganda from the IAF!


----------



## The Basket (Oct 3, 2011)

Not sure why the Gnat beating the Sabre is a humiliation. Strong words.

I would certainly place the MiG-17 above the Sabre though.

My current favourite is the Mirage III. That is a warplane with combat history.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2011)

The Basket said:


> Not sure why the Gnat beating the Sabre is a humiliation. Strong words.
> 
> I would certainly place the MiG-17 above the Sabre though.
> 
> My current favourite is the* Mirage III. That is a warplane with combat history*.



Agree. Mirage III a great aircraft, not my fav but an aircraft with combat history.

I guess Some folks don't have the gumption to consider pilot ability, "who sees who first" be it by visual or radar intercept. The F-86 smoked MiG-21 on several occasions over the same airspace, to say the MiG-21 was "humiliated" or calling the F-86 a MiG-21 dominator in those encounters is stretching it, especially if pilot ability is left out of the equation.

I'd put last model F-86s up against the MiG-17 though.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 3, 2011)

Plagiarism is a serious accusation that when wrong at the very least makes the accuser appear very foolish. This is especially true when analysis of a such a short document shows no verbatim transcription. Many sources of information, internet and book, make use of words I have written to describe the Gnat in this thread. My own analysis of information from multiple sources and media resulted in the phrasing of my opinion regarding the Sabre’s humiliation and ignominy caused by the Gnat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 3, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> *Plagiarism is a serious accusation that when wrong at the very least makes the accuser appear very foolish.* This is especially true when analysis of a such a short document shows no verbatim transcription. Many sources of information, internet and book, make use of words I have written to describe the Gnat in this thread. My own analysis of information from multiple sources and media resulted in the phrasing of my opinion regarding the Sabre’s humiliation and ignominy caused by the Gnat.


Did I say you plagiarized you twit?!?!? It seems you used many of the same phrases shown in that site. If I wanted to accuse you of plagiarism, I'd come out and say it!!!! It seems you're getting rug burns on your elbows from your chairs armrests. Please come up with some substance here or quit while you're marginally ahead (and that's just a play on words)


----------



## Tangopilot89 (Nov 6, 2011)

I know I've already voted on this poll, but I'm going to be biased here as well and put in a mention for the Panavia Tornado. Been around since 1979, still in active service and in my opinion, the backbone of the RAF. Also cleared to carry almost all air-launched weaponry in the NATO inventory. I've personally worked on one of these aircraft and it just looks so sturdy.

Here's a picture of my baby, thanks to Airliners.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 7, 2018)

I think it would be hard to argue against the F-22 being the greatest to date, but if the question was “most important,” my answer would be very different. For that question, the F-4 Phantom would probably be my answer.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 10, 2018)

I would select the F-86 and Mig 17 as the Greatest Fighters of all time.
Given one choice chose the Sabre.

Sabre's fought against an equally trained Russian Air Force with an equally competitive Mig 15.
We got our butts kicked in Vietnam because of similar bone headed decisions and backward concepts we were afflicted with during WW2.
Vietnam Mig 17's were shooting down our 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation US Aircraft.

During dog-fighting exercises late model F-86's were giving grief to the newer generation fighters.
IF some how the Sabre was upgraded with a modern jet engine which are lighter and more efficient. 
It would be a beast of an in close knife fighter.

Interesting how a aircraft developer North American Aviation and engineers from Britain familiar with air combat used real data to build a very robust fighter.
The Bell P-63, collaboration from Russia's experience with the P39 would have made the best fighter bomber of WW2.

In Korea we were lucky that the Sabre was developed with few quirks. 
The F-84 was a overweight pig and the F-80 needed a swept wing to be a better dog fighter.
US Navy had different issues but were damn wise to add 20 mm cannon.
So if they got off a shot off on a Mig it was hurt.

Russia never sent their straight wing Mig 9 and Yak 15's to fight.
Their La 11 and Yak 9U were excellent propeller fighters but not competitive against prop or jet US Pilots
Though think we lost a Panther and Shooting Star to Yak 9's.
Russia did send a few La 15 to complement the Mig 15 with not much success.

The Israelis were highly successful again Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian forces.
Because most Israeli pilots had combat experience from WW2, Korea and Vietnam.
They faced competitive aircraft with pilots not well trained.
Egypt IMHO had better pilots and when they got up to fight had a some success in air to air kills.
Israel was wise to knock out their planes on the ground.

Same happened in Iraq with well trained US forces. Iraq flew their planes to Iran.
If the US fought against an equally ready force like Russia again.
There would be a far different outcome more like Korea against the Mig.

The only Jet war we had that we fought against a competitive air-force was Russia in Korea.
The Chinese and Koreans were late developing skilled pilots.
Our 50 Calibers worked well enough to shoot down a good number of Migs.

During WW2 the P40 Warhawk was not as good as the ME-109.
Still the P40 was good enough to make a good accounting of itself .
Both sides had skilled pilots.
Plus the P40 was used for ground attack which the Me109 was rarely used.

In Korea late in the war the Sabre later was used for ground attack.
Though losses increased they gave out far more than they received.
Mig's were not used in that role.

It would be an expensive war if the US fought against a foe with equal capability.
Million dollar rockets shooting down $10 million AC.

D


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 10, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> We got our butts kicked in Vietnam because of similar bone headed decisions and backward concepts we were afflicted with during WW2.


Hmmmm... There was a point during the Vietnam war were the kill ratio was about 1:1 mainly due to dumb ROEs implmented by the politicians of the day. Once airmen worked around the ROEs (like Robin Olds) the kill ratios went up drastically. After the first class of Top Gun arrived in country I think the navy had a spell of about 10:1 so please tell us where you could back up the statement about "getting our butts kicked! BTW, I suggest reading the book "And Kill MiGs" by Lou Drendel.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2018)

*US Losses By Date*
Date Victim Crew Service Victor Weapon Country Pilot(s) Source Comments
16-Feb-64 C-123 USA T-28 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Ba Toperczer One survivor
15-Nov-64 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China Kaitong Xu Yao/Wagner
02-Jan-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF PR China Huailian Zhang
24-Mar-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China Xiangyi Wang Yao
31-Mar-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China Jicheng Su Yao/Wagner
03-Apr-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG PR China Xiaohai Dong Yao/Wagner
03-Apr-65 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Phan Van Tuc Toperczer Not confirmed
04-Apr-65 F-105D Bennett USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tran Hanh WoF
04-Apr-65 F-105D Magnusson USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Le Min Huan WoF
09-Apr-65 F-4B Murphy/Fegan USN F-4B AIM-7 USA Lost while in combat with PRoC MiG-17s
18-Apr-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF PR China Huailian Zhang


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2018)

17-Jun-65 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Le Trong Long Toperczer Not confirmed
17-Jun-65 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
20-Jun-65 A-1H USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
20-Jun-65 A-1H USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
20-Jun-65 F-4C Kari/Briggs USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer
20-Jul-65 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
03-Aug-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China 
21-Aug-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China Jicheng Su Yao
20-Sep-65 F-104C Smith USAF MiG-19 Cannon PR China Gao Xiang Smith/Yao
20-Sep-65 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Nhat Chieu Toperczer Not confirmed
05-Oct-65 F-104C or RA-3 USAF MiG PR China Yunbao Zhang Isby/Yao Not confirmed
14-Oct-65 F-105D Schuler USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Roll Call
06-Nov-65 CH-3C Lilly/Singleton/Naugle/Cormier USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Hanh/Hung/Lan/Phuong Toperczer Attributed to ground fire
24-Dec-65 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China Yilong Zhu Yao/Wagner
03-Jan-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 PR China Xiangxiao Lu Yao/Wagner
03-Feb-66 A-1H USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Lam Van Lich Toperczer Not confirmed
03-Feb-66 A-1H USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Lam Van Lich Toperczer Not confirmed
07-Feb-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Quanmin Feng Yao/Wagner
04-Mar-66 F-4 USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ngo Duc Mai Toperczer Not confirmed
04-Mar-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Toperczer
05-Mar-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Xiaoqing Sun Yao/Wagner
14-Mar-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Toperczer/Wagner
23-Mar-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Yilong Zhu Yao/Wagner
12-Apr-66 KA-3B Gleason/Jordan/Harris/Pugh USN MiG Cannon PR China Laixi Li Yao


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2018)

25-Apr-66 RF-4C Anderson/Tucker USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ho Van Quy Toperczer
26-Apr-66 F-4C USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ho Van Quy Toperczer Not confirmed
26-Apr-66 F-4C USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ho Van Quy Toperczer Not confirmed
29-Apr-66 A-1E Boston USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Drendel
29-Apr-66 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China
05-Jun-66 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 923 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
05-Jun-66 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 923 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
07-Jun-66 F-105D Bayles USAF MiG-21 Rocket N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to AAA 
09-Jun-66 F-4 MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
09-Jun-66 F-4 MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
21-Jun-66 F-8E Black USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Trung/Duong/Tan/Bay/Tuc Attributed to AAA
21-Jun-66 RF-8A Eastman USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Trung/Duong/Tan/Bay/Tuc WoF Attributed to AAA
29-Jun-66 F-105D Jones USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Huyen/Man/Bay/Tuc WoF Attributed to AAA
29-Jun-66 F-105 USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Huyen/Man/Bay/Tuc Toperczer Not confirmed
07-Jul-66 F-105D Tomes USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Tran Ngoc Xiu Toperczer Attributed to AAA
11-Jul-66 F-105D McLelland USAF MiG-21 Fuel N. Vietnam Dinh/Song Drendel/Toperczer
13-Jul-66 Unknown MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Phan Than Trung Toperczer Not confirmed
14-Jul-66 F-8E Bellinger USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ngo Duc Mai WoF
19-Jul-66 F-105D Diamond USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Vo Van Man RollCall
19-Jul-66 F-105D Steere USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Bien Toperczer Attributed to AAA
19-Jul-66 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Ba Dich Toperczer Not confirmed
29-Jul-66 RC-47 Conklin/Hoskinson+6 USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Luu Huy Chao Isby
05-Sep-66 F-8E Abbott (USAF) USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 923 Regiment Toperczer
05-Sep-66 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 923 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
16-Sep-66 F-4C Robertson/Buchana USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam PoW-MIA
21-Sep-66 F-4C Kellems/Thomas USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Dorr
21-Sep-66 F-105D Ammon USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to AAA
05-Oct-66 F-4C Garland/Andrews USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
09-Oct-66 F-4B Tanner/Terry USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Minh Michel Attributed to AAA
09-Oct-66 F-4 USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Minh Toperczer Not confirmed
02-Dec-66 F-4C Burns/Ducat USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to SAM
02-Dec-66 F-4C Flesher/Berger USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to SAM
02-Dec-66 F-105D Moorberg USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to AAA
05-Dec-66 F-105D Begley USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam PoW-MIA Toperczer: MiG-21
05-Dec-66 F-105 or F-4 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
08-Dec-66 F-105D Asire USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Hobson Toperczer: MiG-21
08-Dec-66 F-105D USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
14-Dec-66 F-105D Cooley USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Dong Van De Michel
14-Dec-66 F-105D USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
14-Dec-66 F-105D USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
05-Feb-67 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
26-Mar-67 F-4C Crow/Fowler USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to SAM
14-Apr-67 F-4B USN MiG PR China Yimin Song Yao Not confirmed
19-Apr-67 F-105F Madison/Sterling USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
19-Apr-67 F-105 USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
19-Apr-67 A-1E Hamilton USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tan/Tho/Trung Michel
19-Apr-67 A-1H MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tan/Tho/Trung Toperczer Not confirmed
24-Apr-67 F-4C Knapp/Austin USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Man/Dich/Bay/Hon Toperczer Attributed to AAA
24-Apr-67 F-4B Southwick/Laing USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Toai/Hai/Chao/Ky Toperczer 
24-Apr-67 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Man/Dich/Bay/Hon Toperczer Not confirmed
25-Apr-67 A-4C Stackhouse USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Bay/Hon/Bon/Dich Dorr/WoF
25-Apr-67 A-4E Crebo USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Bay/Hon/Bon/Dich Toperczer Attributed to SAM
25-Apr-67 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Bay/Hon/Bon/Dich Toperczer Not confirmed
25-Apr-67 F-105 Weskamp USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Toai/Hai/Chao/Ky Toperczer Attributed to SAM or AAA
28-Apr-67 F-105D Caras USAF MiG-21 Cannon N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
29-Apr-67 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG PR China Jintang Zhang Yao
30-Apr-67 F-105D Abbott,J USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Toperczer 
30-Apr-67 F-105F Thorsness/Johnson USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Le Trong Huyen Toperczer 
30-Apr-67 F-105D Abbott,R USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Ngoc Do Toperczer 
30-Apr-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Vu Ngoc Dinh Toperczer Not confirmed
12-May-67 F-4C Gaddis/Jefferson USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ngo Duc Mai Michel
12-May-67 F-105F Pitman/Stewart USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Huyen/Song Toperczer 
12-May-67 F-105 Grenzebach USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tan/Tho Toperczer Attributed to AAA


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2018)

12-May-67 F-4C USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tinh/Hai/Mai/Ky Toperczer Not confirmed
12-May-67 F-4C USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tinh/Hai/Mai/Ky Toperczer Not confirmed
19-May-67 F-4B Plumb/Anderson USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Phan Thanh Tai Toperczer Attributed to SAM
19-May-67 F-4B Rich/Stark USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Ngyuen Huu Diet Toperczer Attributed to SAM
20-May-67 F-4C Van Loan/Milligan USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tai/Diet Michel
22-May-67 F-4C Perrine/Backus USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Dang Ngoc Ngu Toperczer Attributed to AAA
12-Jun-67 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Guangcai Liu Yao
26-Jun-67 F-4C Blandord/Jarvis USAF MiG-17 Cannon PR China Jiliang Lu/Zhushu Wang Isby/Yao
11-Jul-67 A-4 USN MiG-21 N. Vietnam Huyen/Song Toperczer Not confirmed
17-Jul-67 F-8 USN MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Nhat Chieu Toperczer Not confirmed
20-Jul-67 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam Do/Ngan Toperczer Not confirmed
26-Jul-67 RF-4C Corbitt/Bare USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer  
09-Aug-67 RF-4C Lengyel/Myers USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer
21-Aug-67 A-6A Scott/Trembley USN MiG-19 Cannon PR China Ruijie Han PoW-MIA/Yao
21-Aug-67 A-6A Buckley/Flynn USN MiG-19 Cannon PR China Fengxia Chen PoW-MIA/Yao
23-Aug-67 F-4C Tyler/Sittner USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Michel 
23-Aug-67 F-4C Carrigan/Lane USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tho/Diep Toperczer
23-Aug-67 F-105 Baker USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Nhat Chieu Toperczer Attributed to AAA
23-Aug-67 F-105 USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Cao Thanh Tinh Toperczer Not confirmed
23-Aug-67 F-105 USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Cao Thanh Tinh Toperczer Not confirmed
23-Aug-67 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Tinh/Phong/Diep Toperczer Not confirmed
16-Sep-67 RF-101C Bagley USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Ngoc Do Michel
16-Sep-67 RF-101C Patterson USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Pam Thanh Ngan Toperczer Attributed to AAA
17-Sep-67 RF-4C Stavast/Venanzi USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to SAM
03-Oct-67 F-4D Moore/Gulbrandson USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
07-Oct-67 F-105F Howard/Shamblee USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Michel
09-Oct-67 F-105D Clements USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Roll Call
25-Oct-67 F-105 Horinek USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Huu Tao Toperczer Attributed to AAA
08-Nov-67 F-4D Gordon/Brenneman USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Michel
08-Nov-67 F-4 MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Dang Kinh Toperczer Not confirmed
18-Nov-67 F-105F Dardeau/Lenhoff USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Michel
18-Nov-67 F-105D Reed USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
19-Nov-67 F-4B Clower/Estes USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Le Hai Michel Attributed to Atoll
19-Nov-67 F-4B Teague/Stier USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Din Phuc Michel
19-Nov-67 F-4B USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Phi Hung Toperczer Not confirmed
19-Nov-67 EB-66 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Dinh/Kinh Toperczer Not confirmed
20-Nov-67 F-105D Butler USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc? Michel
12-Dec-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
14-Dec-67 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Toperczer Not confirmed
16-Dec-67 F-4D Low/Hill USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
17-Dec-67 F-105D Ellis USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Ngoc Dnh Michel
17-Dec-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Ngoc Dinh Toperczer Not confirmed
 17-Dec-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Toperczer Not confirmed
17-Dec-67 F-4D Fleenor/Boyer USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Michel
17-Dec-67 F-4C Brett/Smith USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Toperczer Attributed to AAA
19-Dec-67 F-105 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Toperczer Not confirmed
19-Dec-67 Unknown MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
19-Dec-67 Unknown MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
19-Dec-67 Unknown MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
03-Jan-68 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Bui Duc Nhu Toperczer Not confirmed
03-Jan-68 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Bui Van Suu Toperczer Not confirmed
03-Jan-68 F-105 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ha Van Chuc Toperczer Not confirmed
03-Jan-68 F-105D Bean USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Dang Kinh Michel
05-Jan-68 F-105F Hartney/Fantle USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Michel
14-Jan-68 EB-66C Mercer/Terrel +5 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Kinh/Song Michel Isby: MiG-17/Alkali
14-Jan-68 F-105D Horne USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
18-Jan-68 F-4D Simonet/Smith USAF N. Vietnam Drendel
18-Jan-68 F-4D Hinckley/Jones USAF N. Vietnam Drendel
20-Jan-68 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Yongwu Han/Yongcheng Zhou Yao/Wagner


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 11, 2018)

03-Feb-68 F-102A Wiggins USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Michel
04-Feb-68 F-105D Lasiter USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Michel
14-Feb-68 A-1H Dunn USN MiG-17 PR China Wulu Chen/Shunyi Wang Isby/Yao
23-Feb-68 F-4D Gutterson/Donald USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Ngoc Dinh Michel
03-Mar-68 EB-66 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Kinh/Thuan Toperczer Not confirmed
07-Mar-68 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Wenxing Jiang/Zhiyao Wang Yao/Wagner
15-Mar-68 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Zhixin Wang/Enhua Zhang Yao/Wagner
18-Apr-68 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-19 PR China Huailan Zhang Yao/Wagner
07-May-68 F-4B Christensen/Kramer USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Michel
14-Jun-68 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Le Hai Toperczer Not confirmed
14-Jun-68 F-4 MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Luu Huy Chao Toperczer Not confirmed
16-Jun-68 F-4J Wilber/Rupinski USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Dinh Ton Michel
19-Jul-68 F-8 USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Le Hai Toperczer Not confirmed
01-Aug-68 F-8 USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Toperczer Not confirmed
17-Aug-68 F-4B Gartley/Mayhew USN F-4B AIM-9 USA Michel
19-Sep-68 F-8C USN MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
21-Sep-68 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Dang Kinh Toperczer
26-Oct-68 F-4 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
20-Dec-69 OV-1 Long USA MiG N. Vietnam
??-Dec-69 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Toperczer
??-Dec-69 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Coc Toperczer
18-Jan-70 F-4 USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Phan Dinh Tuan Toperczer Not confirmed
28-Jan-70 HH-53B Bell/Leeser +4 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Ngoc Dinh Michel
10-Feb-70 AQM-34 Unmanned USN MiG-19 PR China Deqi Qi/Xincheng Zhou Yao/Wagner
??-???-71 UH-1 USA MiG-17 N. Vietnam
09-Mar-71 AQM-34 Unmanned USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Luong Duc Truong Toperczer
18-Dec-71 F-4D Johnson/Vaughn USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Le Thanh Dao Drendel
18-Dec-71 F-4D Stanley/O'Brien USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vo Si Giap Drendel
18-Dec-71 F-4D Hildebrand/Wells USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Michel
27-Apr-72 F-4B Molinare/Souder USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Hoang Quoc Dung Michel
08-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Nguyen Ngoc Tiep Toperczer Not confirmed
08-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Son Toperczer Not confirmed
10-May-72 F-4D Harris/Wilkinson USAF MiG-19 Cannon N. Vietnam Pham Hung Son Ethell/Price
10-May-72 F-4D Lodge/Locher USAF MiG-19 Cannon N. Vietnam Nguyen Manh Tung Ethell/Price
10-May-72 F-4E USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Dang Ngoc Ngu Toperczer Not confirmed
10-May-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
10-May-72 F-4J Blackburn/Rudloff USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Le Thanh Dao Toperczer Attributed to AAA
10-May-72 F-4J Cunningham/Driscoll USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Duc Hop Toperczer Attributed to SAM
11-May-72 F-105G Talley/Padgett USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ngo Duy Thu Michel
11-May-72 F-4D Kittinger/Reich USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ngo Van Phu Michel
18-May-72 F-4D Ratzel/Bednarek USAF MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam 923 Regiment Toperczer
18-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam 925 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
18-May-72 F-4 MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Nhi Toperczer Not confirmed
20-May-72 F-4D Markle/Williams USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Do Van Linh Michel Attributed to stall/spin
23-May-72 A-7 Barnett USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat O'Connor Attributed to SAM
23-May-72 F-4D Byrns/Bean USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Attributed to AAA
23-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Pham Hong Son Toperczer Not confirmed
23-May-72 F-4 MiG-19 N. Vietnam Nguyen Hong Son Toperczer Not confirmed
24-May-72 F-8J Beeler USN N. Vietnam Drendel Attributed to SAM
01-Jun-72 F-4E Hawks/Dingee USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Pham Phu Thai Toperczer Attributed to SAM
13-Jun-72 F-4D Hanson/Fulton USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Pham Phu Thai Michel
13-Jun-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam Do Van Lanh Toperczer Not confirmed
21-Jun-72 F-4D Rose/Callaghan USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Do Van Lanh Michel
23-Jun-72 F-4D USAF MiG-21 other N. Vietnam Michel Stall/spin - Not confirmed
24-Jun-72 F-4C Grant/Beekman USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat Michel
24-Jun-72 F-4C McCarty/Jackson USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Nghia Toperczer
24-Jun-72 F-4 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ngo Duy Thu Toperczer Not confirmed
26-Jun-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
27-Jun-72 F-4E Cerak/Dingee USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat Michel
27-Jun-72 F-4E Miller/McDow USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Bui Thanh Liem Michel 
27-Jun-72 F-4E Aikman/Hanton USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Pham Phu Thai Michel 
27-Jun-72 F-4E Sullivan/Francis USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Nhu Toperczer Attributed to SAM
27-Jun-72 F-4 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ngo Duy Thu Toperczer Not confirmed
05-Jul-72 F-4E Elander/Logan USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Ha Vinh Thanh Air Int
05-Jul-72 F-4E Spenser/Seek USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Tien Sam Michel
08-Jul-72 F-4E Ross/Imaye USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Dang Ngoc Ngu Michel
10-Jul-72 F-4J Randall/Masterson USN MiG-17 Cannon N. Vietnam Han Vinh Tuong Toperczer Possibly MiG-21
24-Jul-72 F-4E Hodnett/Fallert USAF MiG-21 Atoll  N. Vietnam Nguyen Tien Sam Hobson
24-Jul-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam Ha Vinh Thanh Toperczer Not confirmed
24-Jul-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam Le Thanh Dao Toperczer Not confirmed
24-Jul-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam Trong Ton Toperczer Not confirmed
29-Jul-72 F-4E Kula/Matsui USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Nguyen Tien Sam Michel 
29-Jul-72 F-105G Coady/Murphy USAF F-105G AIM-9 USA Hobson Own missile
30-Jul-72 F-4E Brooks/McAdams USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat Hobson
26-Aug-72 F-4J Cordova/Borders USMC MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat
09-Sep-72 F-4E Dalecky/Murphy USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Do Van Lanh Toperczer Attributed to AAA
11-Sep-72 F-4D Ratzlaff/Heeren USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Le Thanh Dao Michel
12-Sep-72 F-4E Zuberbuhler/McMurray USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Tien Sam Michel
01-Oct-72 F-4D USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Michel Not confirmed
05-Oct-72 F-4D Lewis/Alpers USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Tien Sam Toperczer
06-Oct-72 F-4E Anderson/Latella USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Van Nghia Toperczer Attributed to SAM
12-Oct-72 F-4D Young/Brunson USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Nguyen Duc Soat Michel
23-Dec-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
23-Dec-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
23-Dec-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
23-Dec-72 F-4 MiG-21 N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Toperczer Not confirmed
27-Dec-72 B-52 Morris+6 USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Pham Tuan Toperczer Attributed to SAM
27-Dec-72 F-4E Anderson/Ward USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Tran Viet Michel
27-Dec-72 F-4E Jefcoat/Trimble USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Tran Viet Michel
27-Dec-72 F-4E USAF MiG-21 N. Vietnam Tran Viet Toperczer Not confirmed
28-Dec-72 B-52 Lewis USAF MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam Vu Xuan Thieu Toperczer Attributed to SAM
28-Dec-72 RA-5C Agnew/Haifley USN MiG-21 Atoll N. Vietnam 921 Regiment Dorr


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2018)

AQM-34




From this website Unmanned reconnaissance in the 1960s: the AQM-34 Lightning Bug

that says; "The path was pre-programmed, and modifications during the mission were not possible."

These were reconnaissance drones adapted from target drones and the fact that the North Vietnamese shot down a number of them doesn't quite equate to getting our butts kicked in air to air combat. A little editing of the lists?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2018)

*
MY GOD - DO YOU READ WHAT YOU POST!?!? YOU PUT UNCONFIRMED AND SAM DATA IN THERE - I SEEN AT LEAST ONE F-4 CREW SHOT DOWN TWICE! YOU EVEN HAVE CUNNINGHAM AND DRISCOL IN THERE, THEY WERE HIT WITH A SAM ON THEIR WAY BACK TO THEIR CARRIER!!!

THERE ARE AT LEAST 130 WRONG ENTRIES IN THERE

PLEASE POST ACCURATE INFORMATION!!!!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2018)

http://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate.htm

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Oct 11, 2018)

I voted for the F-15. Its combat record speaks for itself.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 11, 2018)

My heart says F-14, my head says F-4.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 11, 2018)

This is a tough one. I think you have to weigh the merits of each plane against others that first flew about the same time.
I would say its about a tie between the F15 and Tomcat. They were, in my opinion so far ahead of anything else in the early / mid 70s when they first flew.
I went with the Eagle because you can only pick one and for personal reasons its always been one of my favorites.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 11, 2018)

102first_hussars said:


> The Planes that I posted are the ones that I could think off the top of my head Im sure there are better ones out there so feel free to add more input on other Jets


XF8U-3... sure it never entered combat service, but neither did the CF-105 

That said, if I was to pick the best fighter of all time I'd probably go with the F-22 because it's combination of speed, agility, avionics, and stealth.

If I was to pick #2 I'd probably go with the Su-30, and #3 would be either the F-15 or F-14 (when the F-14 was fitted with the right engines it became quite effective -- often able to beat the F-15)

That said, I have positive views of the F-86, F-8, and English Electric Lightning. The F-4 was far more effective than most would give it credit for, however.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 11, 2018)

Pretty sure he's not going to respond, plus he stated in his first post that the CF-105 never saw combat


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2018)

He also hasn't been on the site in 9 years.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 15, 2018)

The Difference between Korea and Vietnam.
Before the Russians pulled out The Us was Lucky to have a 1.5 to 1 Kill Ratio Mig Vs Sabre
The Russians Mig's shot down our bombers, prop fighters, other Jet fighters (Meteor, F80, F84, Navy).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> The Difference between Korea and Vietnam.
> Before the Russians pulled out The Us was Lucky to have a 1.5 to 1 Kill Ratio Mig Vs Sabre
> The Russians Mig's shot down our bombers, prop fighters, other Jet fighters (Meteor, F80, F84, Navy).


*Dan, once again you're talking from your anal orifice - please post some credible evidence to back up your sizable fecal matter.*

So here's a dose of reality:

The US always maintained between a 10:1 to 14:1 kill ratio against the MiG-15 over Korea. When Soviet pilots were factored in we see between a 2:1 to 3:1 depending who you want to believe. The Soviets claimed something like 500 F-80s shot down when in reality there were never more than about 180 F-80s in country at one time. The Soviet pilots had higher motive to over claim - they received money for every confirmed kill and if they didn't perform they faced the wrath of a Stalin regime when they returned home.

*"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.*

*Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories. The Soviets claimed to have shot down more than 650 Sabres, while USAF records show 224 F-86s lost to all causes, including non-combat"*

*Sabre vs MiG - Korean War air combat adversaries*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 16, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Dan, once again you're talking from your anal orifice - please post some credible evidence to back up your sizable fecal matter.*
> 
> So here's a dose of reality:
> 
> ...


This is an oportunity to ask about something I have wondered about. If I recall(don't know to much about Korean war era aircraft so bear with me here) the Mig 15 looks better on paper than the Saber i.e. the Mig was faster, had a higher ceiling, and I think a better rate of climb. At least so I have read. Yet I have always read the Saber held a large kill/ loss advantage over the Mig.
So I have wondered what the factors were that gave the Saber such an advantage in actual combat. I'm guessing better trained pilots and perhaps better handling characteristics but don't really know. Would like your opinion on this. Thanks.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2018)

F-15 bar none. 104 to ZERO kill ratio, has sat alert from the Middle East, to mainland Europe, USA, AK and the Far East. Until the F22 was the only US fighter allowed to sit alert at Keflavik in the winter months. It also sat as king of the hill from early 70’s until the F22 came out over 30 years later. The Raptor has some big shoes to fill for 3+ decades before it completely dethrones the Eagle.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 16, 2018)

Mike,

The Sabre was a very good gun platform, had a radar ranging gunsight and was an all around excellent aircraft. It was said that if you wanted frost inside on a hot day, the environmental system would give you that and add snow for good measure. If it was 20 below outside you could turn the cockpit into a sauna, not so the MiG. She (F-86) was tough, fast and maneuverable with excellent pilots most of the time. Somewhere at the house I have a metric sh!t ton of material on the F-86, not drgondog levels of info but pretty good.

Opinions of pilots sort of varied but remember they took all marques into combat starting with original purchase block F-86A's, then E's and F's. The above was pretty much true for all marques but performance differed greatly, generally it seems the Sabre was more maneuverable and a good climber, I'd have to check but I think it could out climb the MiG but at a shallower angle. Dive goes to the F-86 and top speed is about a wash, depends on which model of Sabre. All in all they were pretty closely matched most of the time, again, depended on the pilot quite a bit and which marque of the F-86 he was flying.

All of that was from my washed up memory so don't take it as Gospel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 16, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> F-15 bar none. 104 to ZERO kill ratio, has sat alert from the Middle East, to mainland Europe, USA, AK and the Far East. Until the F22 was the only US fighter allowed to sit alert at Keflavik in the winter months. It also sat as king of the hill from early 70’s until the F22 came out over 30 years later. The Raptor has some big shoes to fill for 3+ decades before it completely dethrones the Eagle.
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



I dunno, methinks someone is a bit biased...

Next you'll be telling us tales of derring do with contrails...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 16, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> I dunno, methinks someone is a bit biased...
> 
> Next you'll be telling us tales of derring do with contrails...



I am biased sir! But the facts don’t lie either. 😉

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2018)

I've worked on both the MiG-15 and F-86, even got to fly in a MiG-15 UTI. Over Korea the majority of the US pilots were better trained and used better tactics. When the Soviets were on scene they used the strengths of their aircraft combined with the tactical advantage of being able to fly a little higher and break off the engagement and run over the Yalu. The F-86 was built like a tank, the MiG-15 was built well but was way simpler. I do know in the MiG-15 you have no aileron authority when landing, especially about the time when you're over the numbers. The thing that's not spoken about is the ability of both aircraft to accelerate. I believe the MiG-15 could accelerate quicker than the earlier F-86 models, when the F-86E and F came along the MiG-15 bis was outclassed. Another situation that is often missed is the MiG-15 was not about to go super sonic so if a Saber driver forced a MiG-15 into a dive at altitude, it was not going to be able to escape.

Looking at some of these things along with tactics and pilot training is one of the reasons why the F-86 preformed so well over Korea despite what other people delusionally think!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 16, 2018)

A Luftwaffe test pilot, wich I met at Decimomanni AFB, who flew over all post-war NATO planes from the F-86 to the Tornado, from the G-91 to the F-15, to my question_: "What is the most beautiful aircraft you have ever been inside?_” did not even let me finish the question and replied: _"But the F-104, of course.”_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 16, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *"The Sabre's combat record in Korea was, by any standards, impressive. Of the 900 aerial victories claimed by USAF pilots during the war, 792 were MiG-15s shot down by Sabres. The MiGs in their turn managed to knock down only 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor.*
> 
> *Documented postwar research indicates there were actually only about 379 US victories.*


379 aerial victories against MiG-15's, or against all aircraft types? I'm curious if there was any research as to

Aerial Victories by Aircraft
Losses by Aircraft
I'm curious because there were all sorts of aircraft that served in Korea, which involved the US, Australia, not sure about the UK or Canada and these included all sorts of aircraft including the F-51, F-80, F-82, F-84, F-86, F-94, F4U, F6F, F8F, F2H, F9F, Sea Fury, Meteor, AD-1, B-26, and others; there was the USSR--- I mean Korean Yak-9, La-9, MiG-9, and MiG-15


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 16, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> 379 aerial victories against MiG-15's, or against all aircraft types? I'm curious if there was any research as to
> 
> Aerial Victories by Aircraft
> Losses by Aircraft
> I'm curious because there were all sorts of aircraft that served in Korea, which involved the US, Australia, not sure about the UK or Canada and these included all sorts of aircraft including the F-51, F-80, F-82, F-84, F-86, F-94, F4U, F6F, F8F, F2H, F9F, Sea Fury, Meteor, AD-1, B-26, and others; there was the USSR--- I mean Korean Yak-9, La-9, MiG-9, and MiG-15


379 against MiG-15s, and that's a conservative estimate when comparing actual losses, again this depends which sources you use.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 17, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 379 against MiG-15s, and that's a conservative estimate when comparing actual losses, again this depends which sources you use.



Agreed, although I tend to lean more towards ~700 MiGs shot down for 78 Sabres lost.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 17, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> *Dan, once again you're talking from your anal orifice - please post some credible evidence to back up your sizable fecal matter.*
> 
> So here's a dose of reality:
> 
> ...



NOT against the RUSSIANS !
Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!
That was my comment you conveniently ignored !

All through WW2 the Chinese suffered against the Japanese using US Airplanes.
US lead Chinese did fare better.

The reason China and North Korea lost so many planes.
They did not have a very large educated base to chose from.
Just like the Chinese during WW2, they had a poor education system.
Only the wealthy Chinese could send their kids to school.
Plus way too many lost their lies training !
Suspect that the Chinese and North Koreans had the same issue.

One of the most unsung successes in the US was the US Army/Navy Public Education system that was created.
Few could read and we needed trained workers engineer, build, measure and operate things.
The US Military trained many scientist, mechanics and engineers.
I know this well .... my Grandfather selected the Site for the Manhattan Project.
Side note, a key reason why Hot Rodding bloomed after WW2.

Vietnam had enough good pilots to take out out US aircraft.
Some were experienced Russian and Chinese and did a good job training the Vietnamese.
Suspect there were some former Japanese soldier integrated that never went back to Japan in that mix.

Mig 17s were shooting down our F4, F105, F100, and Prop AC and that is a fact.
Our Tactics were from lazy thinking, like no guns on the F4 Phantom.
In Vietnam we lost way too many aircraft from AAA, Rockets and Fighters.
Our tactics were predictable. Constantly, used the same identical paths to targets..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 17, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> NOT against the RUSSIANS !
> Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
> Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!
> That was my comment you conveniently ignored !



No did not ignore at all - go back and *READ* what you read and then was was posted. I fully posted the numbers that pull the SOVIET pilots from the rest of the pool



Dan Fahey said:


> All through WW2 the Chinese suffered against the Japanese using US Airplanes.
> US lead Chinese did fare better.


I don't know what you're trying to say but ok...


Dan Fahey said:


> The reason China and North Korea lost so many planes.
> They did not have a very large educated base to chose from.
> Just like the Chinese during WW2, they had a poor education system.
> Only the wealthy Chinese could send their kids to school.
> ...


If you say so -


Dan Fahey said:


> One of the most unsung successes in the US was the US Army/Navy Public Education system that was created.
> Few could read and we needed trained workers engineer, build, measure and operate things.
> The US Military trained many scientist, mechanics and engineers.
> I know this well .... my Grandfather selected the Site for the Manhattan Project.
> Side note, a key reason why Hot Rodding bloomed after WW2.


OK, again a simplistic point of view, and it doesn't matter if your Grandfather was Robert Oppenheimer.


Dan Fahey said:


> Vietnam had enough good pilots to take out out US aircraft.
> Some were experienced Russian and Chinese and did a good job training the Vietnamese.
> Suspect there were some former Japanese soldier integrated that never went back to Japan in that mix.


Errr, your last comment - PROOF or your own "theory."



Dan Fahey said:


> Mig 17s were shooting down our F4, F105, F100, and Prop AC and that is a fact.
> Our Tactics were from lazy thinking, like no guns on the F4 Phantom.
> In Vietnam we lost way too many aircraft from AAA, Rockets and Fighters.
> Our tactics were predictable. Constantly, used the same identical paths to targets..


You sound like an Osprey book. That was only one very simplistic point of view. There was a thing called "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that caused many US aircraft to be lost. Tactics at the beginning of the war sucked. The gun comments are total bullshit. If the ROEs allowed for BVR combat, there was no need for guns and if you look at the air to air kill numbers less than 30% of all US air to air kills during Vietnam were with a gun. Since Vietnam I think over 90% of US air to air kills were with missiles. There were no ROEs that mandated visual engagement.

Dan again, back up some of your gibberish and read what you post!


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 17, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> NOT against the RUSSIANS !
> Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
> Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!
> That was my comment you conveniently ignored !
> ...



Dan,

The White House dictated the targets, routes, times, etc. that were used. Then they gave those targets to the Swiss so they could pass them along to NVA. A TON of our (US) losses stemmed from those facts. 

When allowed to operate without undue intrusion and control by the WH the results were infinitely better (Operation Bolo) or Linebacker II which took the cuffs off and brought the NVA back to the table.

An awful lot of those guys died for their country while being stabbed in the back by politicians (not leaders).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 18, 2018)

Dan Fahey said:


> NOT against the RUSSIANS !
> Against barely trained Chinese and North Koreans you are correct.
> _*Against a well trained force the US will suffer major losses, PERIOD !!*_
> 
> ...



Bullsh!t

In Korea the Sabre had ~2:1 kill/loss ratio v. the MiG 15 flown by Soviet pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> Bullsh!t
> 
> In Korea the Sabre had ~2:1 kill/loss ratio v. the MiG 15 flown by Soviet pilots.



And IMO that's on a more conservative estimate. I think if you filter out the overclaims, factor in aircraft that were were reported lost due to "other causes" and consider soviet flown MiGs that crashed north of the Yalu, you could be looking between 3.1 to 4.1

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 18, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And IMO that's on a more conservative estimate. I think if you filter out the overclaims, factor in aircraft that were were reported lost due to "other causes" and consider soviet flown MiGs that crashed north of the Yalu, you could be looking between 3.1 to 4.1



Agreed, I was tending to the conservative estimates I've looked over, but personally, yes, I believe about a 3.5:1 ratio in favor of the Sabre.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 18, 2018)

Since we got on the subject of Vietnam a few posts ago there is something that has bothered me for a long time and would like the opinions of.those more knowledgeable than myself on the subject. In short it seems to me that inspite of having one hand tied behind their backs our military had largely beaten the north by about 70. One of the things that evidence this is the failure of the norths Easter offensive in I believe 73. With just some US airsupport the south was able to repell the invasion rather quickly. Seems like with continued material and air support the south could have repelled any additional attacks and we would have a situation there today like we have in Korea i.e.South Vietnam a seperate and free
country.
However,after tying one hand behind the back of the military throughout the war the politicians then threw away all that our men had sacrificed for by first pulling air support and then material assistance to the South.
Really grates on me to this day when I hear some " reporter" on television almost gleefully state that, in his or her words " we lost the Vietnam war"
Such are my impressions anyway.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 18, 2018)

Not exactly one of the aircraft on the list, I like the Canadian Sabre Mk 6. It had the Orenda engine if my memory is right and the 6-3 wing and seem to remember an account from West German sources when the Sabre Mk6 was being replaced by the F-100. The comment from old hands was the hun was a step down and when challenged, a combat took place in which the Mk6 thrashed the 100. It was long ago, so details may be missing.


----------



## eagledad (Oct 18, 2018)

Gentlemen

Some information on the performance and tactics of the F-86 versus the Mig 15.

FYI

Eagledad


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 18, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You sound like an Osprey book. That was only one very simplistic point of view.


I assume they are not known for accuracy?


> There was a thing called "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" that caused many US aircraft to be lost. Tactics at the beginning of the war sucked.


There were a whole bunch of problems such as the fact that, while many of the older pilots were quite skilled in aerial combat, many of the newer pilots weren't as well trained as they should.

If there were any restrictions about BVR combat at the immediate start of the war, they were implemented soon enough (if I recall, there was at least one friendly-fire case).


> If the ROEs allowed for BVR combat, there was no need for guns and if you look at the air to air kill numbers less than 30% of all US air to air kills during Vietnam were with a gun. Since Vietnam I think over 90% of US air to air kills were with missiles. There were no ROEs that mandated visual engagement.


The problem with the BVR engagement was that it wasn't possible to identify a target by radar-return alone (the exception might have been the Tu-95), and at least some IFF's weren't readable (Assuming Soviet IFF could be read, exports couldn't) which meant you either assumed any aircraft without IFF was an enemy: Something not always a good idea as IFF made detection easier under at least some circumstances (I'm not sure if the IFF system only sent out a return when properly signalled/interrogated, or simply spat out a return when lit up by radar) and, in doing so, increased maximum detection range.

From what I remember, some of our pilots would shut them off when entering enemy airspace. The enemy of course kept theirs on as it helped them determine which blips were theirs and which were not, so it was there interest to keep those on.

The general requirement (it wasn't absolute -- there were "missile free" zones) was to go into visual range to identify one's opponent as hostile wasn't a total problem provided the aircraft had sufficient performance, were manned by crews that were skilled in aerial combat. The F-4 ironically had the ability to use the vertical, and below 15,000-20,000 feet, the agility of the aircraft was quite good (sustained agility was one of the best).

The problem had to do with the fact that most aircraft that were employed as day-fighters and fighter-bombers either had guns, or guns and missiles in either the USAF and USN; USAF dedicated all-weather interceptors usually just had missiles, or a combo of missiles and rockets (the USN's dedicated interceptors prior to the F-4 had provision for guns, as well as rockets and/or missiles). Since the former were used in air-to-air combat, this wasn't really a big deal until the F-4 came around as it was used both as an interceptor and a fighter-bomber. 

Had they had a gun and were properly trained, they wouldn't have had much trouble if they ended up inside minimum range; they'd switch to guns and proceed from there. I suppose one could argue further that a combination of tactics (have one pair of planes race in for a sneak-n-peak and then radio the rear pair to fire; switch from finger/fluid-four to loose-deuce/dual-attack), and training (particularly tactics that allow one to gain for separation) would have been just fine as is (that said, it seemed a gun was a nice bonus).




BiffF15 said:


> The White House dictated the targets, routes, times, etc. that were used. Then they gave those targets to the Swiss so they could pass them along to NVA.


Is that the sole reason why they were micromanaging things like that? Or was it also some form of penis-waving move by the President to show he was boss?

Mike Wint had mentioned that there were all sorts of problems ranging from

Fear of producing a scenario like Korea: I'm not sure I get the point
Fear of escalation into WWIII: China didn't have a mutual-defense pact with North Vietnam -- not sure if POTUS knew that or not
Diplomats objecting to training of counter-insurgency forces and jungle-warfare experts
Fear of being honest with intelligence data because of the fear of being labeled as a possible traitor/useful-idiot: Thus people published data they knew in their heart to be inaccurate, but simply hoped would be understood for what it was
Intelligence withholding useful data: Such as the fact that they could read enemy transponders and not relaying that to the fighters, or the fact that they knew the NVA had a guns-hold requirement below 3500 feet.



> When allowed to operate without undue intrusion and control by the WH the results were infinitely better (Operation Bolo)


Who did Robin Olds have to blow to get that done?


> or Linebacker II which took the cuffs off and brought the NVA back to the table.


Different administration.


> An awful lot of those guys died for their country while being stabbed in the back by politicians (not leaders).


Yeah, it's hard to even keep track of the number of ways

The NVN being told where and when we were goig to attack: It makes a lot of sense now how they were able to pick so many of our planes off. Supposedly, they were doing it for the purpose of preventing Russian military advisors from being killed, and to convince the NVN that we would not bomb population centers and would insure they could get their people out (while I'm not for bombing population centers to kill people for it's own sake -- I just acknowledge openly that it was our policy in WWII and Korea), I wouldn't mind my enemy not knowing what I'm going to do -- maybe the fear could do something useful.
President Nixon via Kissinger sabotaged Johnsons efforts for peace, which could have ended Vietnam by 1969 (even as ineptly as it was being fought)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 18, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think if you filter out the overclaims, factor in aircraft that were were reported lost due to "other causes"


I assume that means malfunctions, pilot error? Does that include damaged aircraft?


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 18, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Who did Robin Olds have to blow to get that done?
> 
> *No one. There is a saying in the military that goes, "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission".*
> 
> ...


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 18, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> *No one. There is a saying in the military that goes, "it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission".*


I never served in the military a day, but I know that one... smart move.

Why didn't more people "ask for forgiveness"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I assume that means malfunctions, pilot error? Does that include damaged aircraft?



All the above -


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 19, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All the above -


So I guess an airplane being damaged doesn't count as an aerial victory because it was able to be landed safely?


----------



## special ed (Oct 19, 2018)

Only to who thought he shot it down.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 19, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I never served in the military a day, but I know that one... smart move.
> 
> Why didn't more people "ask for forgiveness"



Because you won’t always be forgiven and along with the baby in the bath water out the door goes your career and possibly retirement/ paycheck.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> So I guess an airplane being damaged doesn't count as an aerial victory because it was able to be landed safely?


That's a subject for debate. If an asset is completely destroyed (to include the pilot) or rendered damaged beyond repair upon returning base, it should be considered a kill, however do think an opposing side during time of conflict is going to report that they had "x" amount of aircraft return to base that were scrapped? It was a fact that many MiG-15s were seen running across the Yalu damaged and their ultimate fate remained unknown. At the same token many F-86 drivers claimed kills (with gun camera footage capturing the fight) as their victim flew towards the safety of the Yalu trailing smoke. The MiG-15 had fuel tanks located behind the pilot and along the side of the fuselage (IIRC) and the oil tank was on top of the engine. Unless an incendiary round exploded and ignited these items, when they punctured they just smoked. When the engine was damaged it would also smoke until it came apart.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Oct 19, 2018)

If a pilot knew his acft well, he flew it as long as he could. If he thought he could make it home he flew it back. If he was sure it would go down, he ejected and that confirmed the kill.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2018)

special ed said:


> If a pilot knew his acft well, he flew it as long as he could. If he thought he could make it home he flew it back. If he was sure it would go down, he ejected and that confirmed the kill.


Providing the opposing aircraft KNEW his victim went down.


----------



## special ed (Oct 19, 2018)

From what I read and have been told if a chute was seen, it was a kill. Of course, if ejection occurred out of sight from the battle, no kill.


----------



## soulezoo (Oct 19, 2018)

Another for the F-15. 

That it is still very much a viable aircraft for combat ~45 years later is a testament. 

While the F-22 may very well be the "best" or most capable currently, it has not the real frame of reference for combat that the F-15 does. Even as limited as it is compared to the F-4. 

I can't vote F-4 when it's best known legacy is "The F-4 Phantom is proof that if you stick enough engine on a garbage truck, it will fly". Although I do love it's lines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2018)

special ed said:


> From what I read and have been told if a chute was seen, it was a kill. Of course, if ejection occurred out of sight from the battle, no kill.


Exactly - 

But in some cases the gun camera footage was examined and based on damage assessments, credit for the kill was awarded.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 19, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Who did Robin Olds have to blow to get that done?



No one - he just out smarted them.

Operation Bolo - Wikipedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 19, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No one - he just out smarted them.


So, he simply either bent rules without anybody knowing, or followed the rules in a way that allowed him to get what he wantd?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 19, 2018)

Olds didn't bend the rules, he got approval from higher USAF command.
He used a tactic that hadn't been used against the NVAF before.

He had ECM pods usually used by F-105s and used the formation F-105 used when equipped with those pods.
It being a overcast day the only information the VNAF had was what was on their radar screens.
On those radar screens it appeared to be F-105s on a bombing mission, not really easy meat for the NVAF, but something they'd gladly commit a big part of their Mig-21s to.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 21, 2018)

Flyboy:

Thank you for explaining what happens to that F-15, how it continued to fly without the right wing, & where it all took place. That's a popular photo but never found any caption that fully explained what happened.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 21, 2018)

soulezoo said:


> Another for the F-15.
> 
> That it is still very much a viable aircraft for combat ~45 years later is a testament.
> 
> While the F-22 may very well be the "best" or most capable currently, it has not the real frame of reference for combat that the F-15 does. Even as limited as it is compared to the F-4.


One hopes the F-22 doesn't need to have a combat legacy; I like the people in the service and I'd rather not have any more maimed or killed.

Quite a few of the aircraft listed have served in many conflicts; quite a few jet fighters that have served in combat are not listed (without thinking too hard, I've got at least 8). 


soulezoo said:


> I can't vote F-4 when it's best known legacy is "The F-4 Phantom is proof that if you stick enough engine on a garbage truck, it will fly". Although I do love it's lines.



I suspect that a serious analysis will find the F-4's aerodynamics are quite a bit better than a garbage truck -- or a number of its contemporaries. On the other hand, it won't win many beauty contests. The F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 are very much reactions to the shortcomings of the Phantom (not least of which was its engines, which were notoriously smokey). On the other hand, a couple of aircraft are on that list that never existed except as prototypes. Interestingly, quite a lot of the avionics development on the F-15 was to get comparable radar and BVR performance to the F-4 without a back-seater.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 21, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One hopes the F-22 doesn't need to have a combat legacy; I like the people in the service and I'd rather not have any more maimed or killed.
> Really,really agree with that. Hopefully just having the F22 and,F35, in substantial numbers will aleviate the need to use them.
> Of course I can't prove it but my own personal feeling is that if the allies had stronger militaries, shown a united front, and not apiesed hitler there is a very good chance WW2 could have been avoided altogether.
> If the having the F22 and F35 detures the verry need for there use and they end up having no combat history in the end then they will be in my estamation the best combat aircraft in history.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Oct 21, 2018)

I'd vote for the F-22 & -23 except they operate in secrecy. We never really know how they performed in combat or how the design & hardware performed. Anyone has answers here?


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 22, 2018)

Skyediamonds said:


> I'd vote for the F-22 & -23 except they operate in secrecy. We never really know how they performed in combat or how the design & hardware performed. Anyone has answers here?



Since the F-22 is so focused on air-air, it’s probable that its closest use to combat is reconnaissance overflights. The F-23 was never produced; it was built to the same spec as the F-22, and building both would be pointless.


----------



## soulezoo (Oct 22, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect that a serious analysis will find the F-4's aerodynamics are quite a bit better than a garbage truck -- or a number of its contemporaries. On the other hand, it won't win many beauty contests.



Having turned wrenches on F-4's, I feel qualified to suggest that under those "aerodynamics", it's a garbage truck. A loveable one, yes, (and one I do like) but still...


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 22, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry D - the Lightning was a great interceptor, but no combat record, and in a dogfight she would of been lunch.....




The Lightning, from what I have read, had a spectacular rate of climb and showed itself to be very capable in mock dogfights. Of course, this would need to be near base, as its range was not exactly stellar.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 22, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> One hopes the F-22 doesn't need to have a combat legacy; I like the people in the service and I'd rather not have any more maimed or killed.


I agree, it would be nice if we could one day put all these wars behind us. I doubt it'll happen, but even if we could make them few and far between would be an improvement.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 23, 2018)

Well, there are great interceptors here, and great dogfighters and great fighter-bombers and high speed recce machines and weasels and buddy tankers to boot. There are planes that made quantum leaps and others that made evolutionary improvements, some with long service lives, and some with shorter ones. Some served worldwide, and others in narrow arenas, on land and at sea, but as far as I'm concerned, only one did it all and well for 30+ years: the mighty Phantom!
Solid as a brick, and with the aerodynamics of one, and the power to send that brick to the stratosphere, then plant it back on the boat with a MIG scalp or two under its belt. Escorting a Bear out of the ADIZ, snapping images of missile sites, cratering an Egyptian runway, breaking up an NVA ambush or foxing SA-6s, it's all in a day's work.
No Contest!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Oct 25, 2018)

What, no love for the F-106?…_oh, the humanity!_…

Personally I love the early jets...there's something so _pure_ about them.
I think its because we were in the infancy of that technology at the time. I guess its the same attraction for the planes from the first world war.
Given that, my _favourite_ is a plane that actually never existed (as far as I know, anyway...). It's my avatar, which is a Canadair Sabre Mk. VI, but in my fantasy world, it would be powered with an Orenda 17 engine, which I believe was only ever built as a proof of concept.
The 17 was the most powerful of the Orenda engines (8490 lbs. w/afterburner). Just the thought of that kind of power in the ol' Sabre. Man, that would be a ride.

...however the question was for _All-Time_.

Given that, I think a newer jet would be the likely choice.
I just don't know enough about the F-22 to choose it, so my choice is going to be the F/A-18.
A newer platform than the F14 or -15, it has a well known and proven track record.


Elvis


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 27, 2018)

Elvis said:


> ...however the question was for _All-Time_.
> Given that, I think a newer jet would be the likely choice


 I think for any jet that hasn't completed its service life yet, rating it on the "for all time" scale is a bit premature, n'est-ce pas?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2018)

I would think one would have to choose the best realative to its peers when it was in service otherwise the pole is effectively 
" what is the greatest fighter jet of today" as pretty much any of the newer aircraft are of course going to outclass something that went into service in say 1948.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Oct 27, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> pretty much any of the newer aircraft are of course going to outclass something that went into service in say 1948


Depends on your criteria. If you're going to base "outclass" solely on ACM capability, then maybe. But if you think parts of greatness include versatility, adaptability, superior performance in a variety of mission types, and long term dominance in many conflicts around the world, then in my book it's kind of premature to judge current fighters before they retire from service.
If we were conducting this survey in 1990, we would have to discount the F-14 and F-15C as air superiority "one trick ponies". Then along came the PAVE precision munitions targeting system and the pod mounted ECM and photorecon systems, and the Tomcat, at least, became a multi-mission fighter. I'm not sure how much of this stuff made it to the C Eagle. Biff will tell us. The Cat only misses "greatest fighter" status by its limited distribution and it's somewhat lackluster ACM performance against opponents of its generation.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Depends on your criteria. If you're going to base "outclass" solely on ACM capability, then maybe. But if you think parts of greatness include versatility, adaptability, superior performance in a variety of mission types, and long term dominance in many conflicts around the world, then in my book it's kind of premature to judge current fighters before they retire from service.
> If we were conducting this survey in 1990, we would have to discount the F-14 and F-15C as air superiority "one trick ponies". Then along came the PAVE precision munitions targeting system and the pod mounted ECM and photorecon systems, and the Tomcat, at least, became a multi-mission fighter. I'm not sure how much of this stuff made it to the C Eagle. Biff will tell us. The Cat only misses "greatest fighter" status by its limited distribution and it's somewhat lackluster ACM performance against opponents of its generation.
> Cheers,
> Wes


I do see your point and its a good one but since the thread is " greatest fighter jet" I was assuming it was in reference to air to air capabilities as oposed to say " greatest multi roll jet".


----------



## Elvis (Oct 28, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think for any jet that hasn't completed its service life yet, rating it on the "for all time" scale is a bit premature, n'est-ce pas?
> Cheers,
> Wes


*OF* all time, Wes, not for.
My thinking is that a new design would benefit from R&D gained from older designs.
I'll stick with the F/A-18 for this one, thanks all the same.


Elvis


----------



## rob23 (Jul 5, 2019)

With all due respect to the Phantom, in Vietnam the best ACM jet was the F-8 Crusader. A 19:3 exchange rate, the North Vietnamese tried to avoid it to the point a Crusader got behind a MiG 17 and the MiG pilot ejected before Jerry Tucker who was flying that F-8 could squeeze the trigger. The F-8's record would have been better but it flew off the smaller 27C WWII era carriers and as a result had fewer opportunities.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2019)

rob23 said:


> With all due respect to the Phantom, in Vietnam the best ACM jet was the F-8 Crusader. A 19:3 exchange rate


19:3, F8s vs MiGs, but judging from Dan Fahey's exhaustive list, it looks like the MiG17 leads the pack in total kills. Not glamorous, not fast, but apparently plenty lethal.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 6, 2019)

Mig-17. Incredibly effective aircraft. One of the few who still had worth after Korea.
In later years, the F-5A would be seen in the same light against aircraft of the 70's and 80's.


Elvis

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> 19:3, F8s vs MiGs, but judging from Dan Fahey's exhaustive list, it looks like the MiG17 leads the pack in total kills. Not glamorous, not fast, but apparently plenty lethal.



Yes..have done exhaustive research!
The key tool that started turning the Air War advantage back to the US was not just good piloting but vectoring.
US lost many planes because we could not see where VN fighters were coming from to counter their tactics.
What changed it for the USAF was the introduction of AWACs.

Before AWACS Navy had a better handle on Vectoring than USAF because of their positioning off the coast.
It provided the key information that gave the Crusader a bit of an advantage over USAF where the Migs were.

From land and sea there were only so many routs to hit targets and the Vietnamese knew these routs well.
So they were armed with SAMS and AAA, the air force was only one tool. They created corridor Traps...!

USAF coming from bases in Thailand and Laos and South VN had nothing comparable to the Navy because of terrain.
Viet Migs had Russian radar a key advantage and their fighters were vectored for best positioning.
For example F100s or F105s would drop down from 20k to about 10k.
Migs were positioned at 5k or lower at full throttle would climb shooting down the loaded US aircraft or forcing them to drop bombs early and escape.
Either way a lot of ordinance was dropped with zero affect.

We lost over 5000 aircraft...and US history loves to make sure the history books read what they want us to read.
Like shootdowns not being credited to to VN pilots because the US fighter crashed OTW or making back to base, never to be used again
The success of the Crusader was fractional success. Like to many things we did in Vietnam.

F8 Crusader did well at sea. Most of their combat was coastal where the Navy could see the Migs.
If it was a USAF Fighter coming from western US airbases it may not had anywhere near the success the Navy had.

Not uncommon for the US to spend $1million to take out a $1 target !


----------



## rob23 (Jul 6, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Yes..have done exhaustive research!
> The key tool that started turning the Air War advantage back to the US was not just good piloting but vectoring.
> US lost many planes because we could not see where VN fighters were coming from to counter their tactics.
> What changed it for the USAF was the introduction of AWACs.
> ...



So very true. I look at Vietnam this way- The United States had all kinds of jets designed to take on the Soviets in very specific ways. The entire Century Series was designed and implemented for some very specific missions. Lots of interceptors and deep penetration strike fighters like the the F-105. The 105 did have an internal bomb bay to carry a tactical nuke into the USSR. The F-101 carried an AIR 2 Genie nuclear rocket to bring down lots of Soviet bombers, as did the F-102 and F-106. The Starfighter was an interceptor and not great at turning. The only Century Series fighter that I think of as a basic ACM jet was the Super Sabre. And it too was used as a strike fighter in South Vietnam. The Navy equivalent to the Century Series was the F-8 and it was designed for ACM and trained that way and fought that way and did well in the ACM mission with the help of radar pickets and S2F's, the early carrier borne AWACS. 

Vietnam turned all that specialization on its ear. In my weird imagination I see all those US jets and their pilots like Olympic judo, boxing and wrestling athletes stepping into a street fight against thugs wielding knives, chains, bottles, bats and guns. Judo against judo can do well. But judo against a chain and a bat- pretty iffy. Judo has to be very very careful and always on the defensive to just survive, much less prevail.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 6, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> The key tool that started turning the Air War advantage back to the US was not just good piloting but vectoring. US lost many planes because we could not see where VN fighters were coming from to counter their tactics. What changed it for the USAF was the introduction of AWACs.


Technically, even during Vietnam there were EC-121's that were effective control agencies, when they were allowed to tell pilots they were being tailed.

I don't really get the point: In WWII, pilots were often made aware of where planes were forming up so they could quickly go in there and bust them up.


> Navy had a better handle on Vectoring than USAF because of their positioning off the coast.


I think the USN had a better feel for what had to be kept secret and what didn't.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> We lost over 5000 aircraft...and US history loves to make sure the history books read what they want us to read.


 Not quite - 3,744 planes, 5,607 helicopters and 578 UAVs. (Correll, John (2004). _The Air Force in the Vietnam War_(PDF). The Air Force Association. p. 26.)


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2019)

rob23 said:


> The Navy equivalent to the Century Series was the F-8 and it was designed for ACM and trained that way and fought that way and did well in the ACM mission with the help of radar pickets and *S2F's*, the early carrier borne AWACS.


Actually, they were E1Bs and C's, "Willy Fudd", the "Stoof with a roof". S2F was the ASW version of that airframe, and with a pair of 1820s, what a clatterbox that was! Shake your fillings loose. Despite its diminutive size, it had the weight, the power, and 3x the wake turbulence of a DC3. Ask me how I know.



Zipper730 said:


> Technically, even during Vietnam there were EC-121's that were effective control agencies, when they were allowed to tell pilots they were being tailed.


Actually, there were EC121s and then there were EC121s. Different outfits with different missions. There were Navy birds who did ELINT, and Air Force birds that did AWACS. Both had to keep their distance from the action, as they made juicy MiG fodder.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> 19:3, F8s vs MiGs, but judging from Dan Fahey's exhaustive list, it looks like the MiG17 leads the pack in total kills. Not glamorous, not fast, but apparently plenty lethal.


His list has many "claims" and duplicates - a classic case of "cut and paste with great haste."


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> His list has many "claims" and duplicates - a classic case of "cut and paste with great haste."


That's true, and pretty obvious, but if you parse through it, you can discard most of the chaff. If you have the patience. I discounted all the "unconfirmed" and "attributed to AAA/SAM".
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> F8 Crusader did well at sea. Most of their combat was coastal where the Navy could see the Migs.
> If it was a USAF Fighter coming from western US airbases it may not had anywhere near the success the Navy had.



Dan - I think you have to do more research because I think you might be quoting lines from Top Gun or Hot Shots.

file:///C:/Users/JMOR1/Downloads/an-examination-of-the-f-8-crusader-through-archival-sources.pdf


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That's true, and pretty obvious, but if you parse through it, you can discard most of the chaff. If you have the patience. I discounted all the "unconfirmed" and "attributed to AAA/SAM".
> Cheers,
> Wes



The F-8 shot down 19 MiGs, 16 MiG-17s and 3 MiG-21s. IIRC most of these missions were MiG Caps over land. 3 F-8s were lost to VPAF MiGs although the NPAF claimed something like 10 or 11.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

I think this the piece Mr. Fahey is referring to. Better explained if the full test was shown:

_"While the North Vietnamese air force had excellent ground-controlled intercept radar to direct its planes, U.S. Air Force radar coverage ranged from spotty to nonexistent over assigned strike routes. Aircrews operated with little more than their eyes to guide them. Fighters escorting the bomb-carrying aircraft never knew where the threat would come from and therefore normally stayed close to the planes they were protecting so they wouldn’t be caught out of position during an attack. As a result, U.S. Air Force aircraft usually entered engagements from a defensive and reactive posture.

On the other hand, the Navy used its carrier-based operations to maximum advantage. North Vietnamese fighters had less warning time to react to the U.S. strikes and far less opportunity to maneuver behind Navy fighters, whose backs were protected by ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Additionally, naval air operations over North Vietnam were completely covered by radar-equipped ships operating in the Gulf under the code name “Red Crown.” Navy pilots were mainly assigned targets in coastal areas where they had good radar warning and control from ships patrolling just offshore.

Navy fighters were therefore able to take a more aggressive posture than their Air Force counterparts, flying offensively oriented combat sorties instead of defensive close-escort missions. After-action reports found that 65 percent of Air Force losses were suffered by aircraft fighting from a defensive posture, which required a fighter under attack to reverse positions to get a kill, a very difficult maneuver to make. In contrast, only 20 percent of Navy and Marine Corps losses were aircraft in a defensive posture."_

https://www.historynet.com/great-kill-ratio-debate.htm

What's not mentioned is this situation was a result of the ROEs imposed on aircrews coming out of Thailand.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not quite - 3,744 planes, 5,607 helicopters and 578 UAVs. (Correll, John (2004). _The Air Force in the Vietnam War_(PDF). The Air Force Association. p. 26.)


Considering that helos and UAVs are aircraft too, I make that 9929 losses, and since those are USAF figures, probably doesn't include USN/USMC.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 6, 2019)

JMHO, but I think the F8's biggest nemesis was the F4. It was just so much more useful, it got used way more often than the F8.
Look at it from a logisitics standpoint....If you have a single platform that can be used as fighter, bomber and...I'll call it _surveillance_, then your carrier only needs to know how to maintain that single platform and almost all of the space allotted to house the parts to keep aircraft in working condition can be used for that single platform.
...now let's take the F4 out of the picture and see what we have....
We have the F8 as the fighter, the A4 as the bomber and the S3 as the _surveillance_. Now that carrier needs to know how to maintain at least 3 different aircraft (I'm sure there's also some helicopters in the mix there somewhere, but they would permeate both scenarios, so they cancel themselves out in this case, because they're going to be present regardless) and the same space now has to house parts to keep at least 3 different aircraft in working condition.
Sure, you could replace the A4 with the A8 and it would be, basically, the same platform but, IIRC, the commonality between F8 and A8 isn't the same as the F4 being used in the fighter/bomber role.
Like the F-106, the F-8 was liked by pilots. It was fast, it could climb like a monkey, it was agile. I understand it could chew up F4's and spit'em out like so many sunflower seeds, all day long.
However, the F4, in the eyes of our government, had _satisfactory_ performance to get the job done and its versatility just made it the obvious choice more often than not.
It was quite _Macnamarian_, by design.
If you notice, with exception to a very few, just about every newer generation aircraft that's come down the pike since, has had that same versatility built into their designs.
...lessons from 'nam.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2019)

Elvis said:


> We have the F8 as the fighter, the A4 as the bomber and the S3 as the _surveillance_.


Whoa, Elvis, you've got your chronology a little mixed up, and you're leaving out a couple players. First of all, S3s were ASW, not surveillance, and they never made the scene til after it was over. The all weather attack community (A6) was very much present, even on the 27 charlies, and Forrestal class and up housed RA5C photorecon birds as well. By the time I went in (1970), the A4 was being phased out as a front line attacker in favor of the A7 (the F8's descendant). Talk about a logistical nightmare; the A4 was a simple stick-and-rudder bird, while the A7 was a gee-whiz machine, full of gadgets and gewgaws. Now as for surveillance, I think you meant to refer to the E2, the "Hummer", so named for the sound of its T56 turboprops. Big deck carriers had to find room for a couple of these as well. And last, but not least, we mustn't forget the helo detachment, usually 3 or 4 SH3s to provide plane guard, SAR, and very occasionally, sonar dunking duties. 
Any volunteers for Enterprise's supply department? Anybody? *I can't hear you!*
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Considering that helos and UAVs are aircraft too, I make that 9929 losses, and since those are USAF figures, probably doesn't include USN/USMC.


All sources


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2019)

Actually IIRC there was a fly off between the F-8 and F-4 that ultimately set the F-4 to be the fleet's primary fighter, although it did have a very effective multi-mission capability.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 6, 2019)

Elvis said:


> the commonality between F8 and A8 isn't the same as the F4 being used in the fighter/bomber role.


Never heard of an A8, but the commonality between the F8 and the A7 was essentially zero. The designs were a generation apart and almost everything was different. The one major advance with the A7 was a robust landing gear. F8s were notorious for their fragile gear.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Actually, they were E1Bs and C's, "Willy Fudd", the "Stoof with a roof". S2F was the ASW version of that airframe, and with a pair of 1820s, what a clatterbox that was! Shake your fillings loose. Despite its diminutive size, it had the weight, the power, and 3x the wake turbulence of a DC3. Ask me how I know.


You flew behind one?


> Actually, there were EC121s and then there were EC121s. Different outfits with different missions. There were Navy birds who did ELINT, and Air Force birds that did AWACS. Both had to keep their distance from the action, as they made juicy MiG fodder.


Yeah, but in many cases they were able to track aircraft, and some were listening in on radio transmissions. Various regulations prohibited them from relaying the position of enemy aircraft (since they could pick up the IFF, it was possible to track them in the weeds), so they'd often get jumped.



Elvis said:


> JMHO, but I think the F8's biggest nemesis was the F4.


Yeah, quite a number of them ended up either getting shot down by them or ended up having to take some seriously creative evasive action to avoid it. From some angles, it looked like a MiG-21


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 6, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not quite - 3,744 planes, 5,607 helicopters and 578 UAVs. (Correll, John (2004). _The Air Force in the Vietnam War_(PDF). The Air Force Association. p. 26.)


The link didn't load for some reason.

I'm looking at another source here


----------



## Elvis (Jul 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Whoa, Elvis, you've got your chronology a little mixed up, and you're leaving out a couple players. First of all, S3s were ASW, not surveillance, and they never made the scene til after it was over. The all weather attack community (A6) was very much present, even on the 27 charlies, and Forrestal class and up housed RA5C photorecon birds as well. By the time I went in (1970), the A4 was being phased out as a front line attacker in favor of the A7 (the F8's descendant). Talk about a logistical nightmare; the A4 was a simple stick-and-rudder bird, while the A7 was a gee-whiz machine, full of gadgets and gewgaws. Now as for surveillance, I think you meant to refer to the E2, the "Hummer", so named for the sound of its T56 turboprops. Big deck carriers had to find room for a couple of these as well. And last, but not least, we mustn't forget the helo detachment, usually 3 or 4 SH3s to provide plane guard, SAR, and very occasionally, sonar dunking duties.
> Any volunteers for Enterprise's supply department? Anybody? *I can't hear you!*
> Cheers,
> Wes


I hate it when I do that.
Thanks, and yes, you're right.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually IIRC there was a fly off between the F-8 and F-4 that ultimately set the F-4 to be the fleet's primary fighter, although it did have a very effective multi-mission capability.


Actually, IIRC, that occurred prior to heavy engagement in Vietnam, when ACM was still considered obsolete and all-electronic BVR combat was the wave of the future.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> You flew behind one?


When you find yourself inverted 1200 feet over downtown Key West with a first flight rider onboard, it kinda gets your attention. "WTF? WHERE'D THAT COME FROM? Must be that Stoof up ahead, he's the only other plane in the sky. BUT WE'RE FOUR MILES IN TRAIL! WTF??" I got reprimanded by the control tower at Key West International for unauthorized low level acrobatics in the control zone, and had to explain to the FAA and the Navy.
Beneficial side effect of this episode: my passenger was an obnoxious, arrogant, know-it-all, ace pilot wannabe with more ego than ability who was taking his "get acquainted" flight before joining the club. The club members heaved a sigh of relief when he finished cleaning his puke out of the plane, said "You bastards are crazy!", and disappeared never to be seen again.
Footnote: A year later, we heard he was discharged from the Navy, on a "dishonorable" because he refused orders that required flying to an overseas base, and told a Lieutenant Commander to "F___ off and die! No way I'm going to fly!"
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Yeah, but in many cases they were able to track aircraft, and some were listening in on radio transmissions. Various regulations prohibited them from relaying the position of enemy aircraft


Those were the Navy ELINT birds, who operated under radio silence. For the Air Force AWACS planes, call sign: Hillsborough, their job was air traffic control and fighter direction. Their handicap was that from south of DMZ, their coverage of the north was limited. That's why the clandestine Lima radar sites were set up in Laos. Red Crown on Yankee Station didn't reach much beyond Thud ridge.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

Elvis said:


> I hate it when I do that.
> Thanks, and yes, you're right.


But your comments on the F4's versatility and it's multi role effects on succeeding designs are right on target.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Jul 7, 2019)

Regarding the fly off between the XF8U-3 and F-4, that F-8 was a totally different jet than the F8U-1 and F8U-2N used in Vietnam. The Crusader III had a single J-75, same as the F-105 and F-106, carried 3 Sparrows 4 Sidewinders and the same crappy Colt 20mm cannons (never installed in the test articles) and at mach 2.3 the windshield began to melt. In the fly off, the XF8U-3 actually outperformed the F-4, but the single pilot got behind the curve especially in radar intercepts with the Sparrow. The Navy preferred two engines, two crew and an ability to be multi mission capable. So Phantom got the nod. The Crusader III airframes were transferred to NASA at Pax River for atmospheric research as the jet had a ceiling of 65,000 feet. NASA pilots and Navy F-4's would have mock dogfights and the NASA guys routinely beat the Phantom guys, but this stopped when the Navy asked NASA to stop picking on them. 

Comparisons between the Vietnam F-8 and F-4 aren't so straightforward. The Crusader, as I mentioned earlier, is a Century Series equivalent, a second generation jet. The Phantom is a third generation jet with the F3H Demon being McDonnell's second generation design. Once the Phantom community learned via TOPGUN how to do ACM it did become a better air superiority fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

rob23 said:


> Regarding the fly off between the XF8U-3 and F-4, that F-8 was a totally different jet than the F8U-1 and F8U-2N used in Vietnam.


Thanks for filling in the details. NASA beats Navy. Cool!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

rob23 said:


> the XF8U-3 actually outperformed the F-4, but the single pilot got behind the curve especially in radar intercepts with the Sparrow.


That's what we worked on with my trainer at the F4 RAG, but we had a heavy emphasis on Visual ID engagements with Sidewinders, due to the ROEs at the time and the lack of Sparrow reliability in hot humid climates.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 7, 2019)

rob23 said:


> the NASA guys routinely beat the Phantom guys, but this stopped when the Navy asked NASA to stop picking on them.


Déjà vu. The Air Force F4 OTU at MacDill had to ask the Navy F4 RAG at Key West to stop hassling their pilots. Their BFM training area abutted our ACM training range out over the Gulf of Mexico, and a certain amount of "border jumping" was taking place that was hurting AF trainee morale. They had to keep scraping the wax off their tails.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 7, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Those were the Navy ELINT birds, who operated under radio silence.


Was this about mapping their command structure?


> For the Air Force AWACS planes, call sign: Hillsborough, their job was air traffic control and fighter direction. Their handicap was that from south of DMZ, their coverage of the north was limited.


They couldn't see everything well enough? There was this book called "Clashes" and they talk about matters such as the collected data being unable to be sent to the fighters.

In some cases it was due to secrecy regs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 8, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Dan - I think you have to do more research because I think you might be quoting lines from Top Gun or Hot Shots.
> 
> file:///C:/Users/JMOR1/Downloads/an-examination-of-the-f-8-crusader-through-archival-sources.pdf


No...got information from Westinghouse Linthicum Heights Md.
They developed AWACS with help from NRL Radar and Wave propagation division at Bolling AFB. 
USAF did not have a radar system to see Migs taking off. 
Did have them for Defensive use not for offensive. 
The Navy could see them after they took off and got some Altitude for the coastal missions they flew.

Navy also adopted AWACS early warning systems.
When it was implemented US Fighters could be staged to meeting them. 
That is when the Vietnamese started losing a lot more fighters.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 8, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Technically, even during Vietnam there were EC-121's that were effective control agencies, when they were allowed to tell pilots they were being tailed.
> 
> I don't really get the point: In WWII, pilots were often made aware of where planes were forming up so they could quickly go in there and bust them up.
> I think the USN had a better feel for what had to be kept secret and what didn't.



Actually the terrain...the sea did not have mountains or high terrain that a plane could hide behind and the horizon behind that.
On the sea issue you got the earth and tall enough Radar to see over the horizon..


----------



## Dan Fahey (Jul 8, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> No...got information from Westinghouse Linthicum Heights Md.
> They developed AWACS with help from NRL Radar and Wave propagation division at Bolling AFB.
> Navy and USAF used and liked the Connie....I know personally some of the crew and engineers.
> USAF did not have a radar system to see Migs taking off.
> ...


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Was this about mapping their command structure?


The ELINT birds were full spectrum snoopers. They could monitor and record just about every form of electromagnetic emision generated in their assigned area. Everything from broadcast radio and TV, all kinds of communications, microwave, navigation, radar, IFF, remote control signals, missile steering signals, you name it, they got it on tape. They carried linguists, cryptographers, communications specialists, intelligence analysts and spooks of all stripes onboard, and could record just about any event in real time. Needless to say, they could track and record MiGs as they intercepted strike forces, and by listening on aircraft frequencies, could hear them being vectored for attack runs. They knew which bases the MiGs were coming from by their communications long before they could see them on radar.
BUT, being on the intelligence side, not the operations side, they were reduced to spectator status. Part of their effectiveness stemmed from most of their "targets" being unaware they were being watched. Needless to say, coming on the air to play fighter director would compromise their effectiveness and make them a target.



Dan Fahey said:


> USAF did not have a radar system to see Migs taking off.


Both the airborne radars south of DMZ and the Lima sites in Laos had too much terrain between them and the scene of the action to see low altitude targets. It didn't take the NVAF long to figure this out, so they would approach their targets at high speed on the deck, then pop up under their victims and shoot. The AI and terrain mapping radars that the Americans carried had a hard time painting a fast mover in the weeds in look-down mode and of course, no coverage at six o'clock low. The only folks in the know were the helpless spectators in the ELINT birds and they could only hear and mostly not see.


Dan Fahey said:


> Navy also adopted AWACS early warning systems.


These were the E2 Hawkeyes, commonly known as "hummers". Their primary mission was task force protection and AirTraffic Control, but they could see much further into "feet dry" territory than the ship based radars could, and they didn't have the intelligence constraints the Willy Victors did.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 8, 2019)

rob23 said:


> Regarding the fly off between the XF8U-3 and F-4, that F-8 was a totally different jet than the F8U-1 and F8U-2N used in Vietnam.


Basically, it had the chin intake feeding an engine that exhausted out the back, a variable-incidence high wing, a low stabilator, and a single vertical tail. It also had cheek mounted missiles, but the airframe was totally different in addition to the engines.

The airframe was much cleaner overall, the plane was substantially heavier based on the need to fly faster and further (and carry a bigger engine), which resulted in bigger wings. The larger wings had a lower angle of incidence when raised, the leading edges had double-drooped leading-edge flaps, the flaperons were drooped more than the flaps, and the trailing-edge used BLC on both the leading-edge and trailing-edge.


> The Crusader III had a single J-75, same as the F-105 and F-106, carried 3 Sparrows 4 Sidewinders


Early on the requirement was 3 AIM-7 (early on called the AAM-N-6, all the way until 1963, the missile systems still differed); as the design evolved, they specified that it carry both together.


> the same crappy Colt 20mm cannons (never installed in the test articles)


Never installed at all: While Vought wanted to install them, the USN had little interest, and as the design went from the earliest configurations

The nose had its characteristic shape, but the intakes weren't swept forward initially
Wing shape seemed established, but variable-incidence was the same early on as the F8U-1/2
Radar was a modified AN/APQ-50 (this version was also used on the XF4H-1 prototypes), with a 24" radome.
Armament was now: 3 x AAM-N-6, or 4 x AAM-N-7 (AIM-9), no air-to-ground provisions.
To the prototype stage which saw

The ferri-intake was added
Wing-incidence was lowered, flaperon deflections increased
Armament remained the same
Bypass doors added (possibly during flight test) which served as auxiliary intakes at low speed
Reconfiguration of cooling air system: The original arrangement had less air to the engine, and more for cooling (acceleration was inadequate)
To the flight-test/pre-production stage, which saw...

Auxiliary intake added at base of tailfin (provided additional engine cooling capability)
Inlet contours re-designed to deal with airflow disturbances that would occur at supersonic speeds, possibly at altitudes above 47000' while subsonic
A new glass fabrication technique was used for the nose, to effectively allow for higher temperatures and provide a bullet-proof glass effect.
Radar replaced from AN/APQ-50 to the AN/APQ-72 (32" radome used on F-4) or -74 (34" listed in some sources): Other changes included the USC-2 datalink, and a redesigned fire-control system.
To keep the nose contours as close as possible to the earlier design: The radar antenna was repositioned further back in the nose; electronics were repositioned either behind the radar, or in the fuselage.
Fuel capacity was actually reduced, but it was felt that the fuel capacity was still considered adequate

Armament now changed to 3 x AAM-N-6 + 4 x AAM-N-7
It was also possible to carry 4 x AAM-N-6 + 2 x AAM-N-7 as an alternate loadout
There were proposals to carry up to 5 x AAM-N-6 (I guess the idea was similar to the F4H-1/F-4B's 6 x AAM-N-6 layout)
Provision for air-to-ground included up to 6000 lb. of bombs
There was a flush mount added that could include a 2000 lb. "special" (i.e. nuclear) store, an extra fuel-tank, or a gun-pack

IRST added on the forward lower fuselage on at least one side, if not both.
Nozzles extended slightly aft to permit a set of speed-brakes like the F-105's
There also might have been some change to the tail-fin, but the point is that the reposition of equipment by this stage would likely have made any attempt to stuff guns in the plane impossible without a massive-redesign. The provision for the gun-pack, provided the USN pursued it (it seemed something the RN was more interested in than us), would have provided an effective armament as it was basically an M-61.


> at mach 2.3 the windshield began to melt.


I'm not sure if was exactly melting, so much as losing structural strength. From what I recall, it would probably take a few minutes at high speed before it would seriously endanger the aircraft's structural integrity (I wouldn't want to be the pilot on that flight). There was also an issue with the glass itself turning opaque at high speeds. Ultimately, the proposal was to use a different type of glass, and use a new lamination technique.

That said, the XF4H-1 had issues with the canopy too (in fact both had issues with the canopy and inlets).


> In the fly off, the XF8U-3 actually outperformed the F-4, but the single pilot got behind the curve especially in radar intercepts with the Sparrow.


That was actually the biggest problem, more so than the number of engines. I'm not sure by how much, but that was something that really had them concerned. Interestingly, the F4D/F3H both used single-seaters and seemed to have given a good account of themselves.


> The Navy preferred two engines, two crew and an ability to be multi mission capable.


Multi-mission capable was probably the bigger of the two, though it was possible to fit up to 6000 pound bomb-load to the aircraft.

As Bill Nye once said (He had this show in the 1990's when I was a kid): "Consider the following"

There's naturally a favoritism for an aircraft that have an innate ability built in: The F4H did, the F8U-3 didn't
The F4H-1 had an interesting design history
Early on, it was designed as a fighter: In this configuration it had a secondary air-to-ground capability.
Later on, it was re-classified as an attack aircraft (basically, the money in the fighter-budget ran out; so they shifted it into the attack budget until more budget came in), and more air-to-ground capability was added.
The aircraft was then moved back into the fighter-budget and interceptor capability was either added at this point, or re-added. The air-to-ground capability remained. I'm not sure if all the armor and fire-protection systems remained, as I was told the F-4 didn't have good damage resistance compared to the A-4, F-105, A-6, or A-7.

The maneuverability of the F8U-3 is interesting: It wasn't quite as good as the F8U-1/2. It's stall speeds were similar, actually, to the F4H, which affect corner velocity. The thing is, it had leading and trailing edge flaps that were designed explicitly for maneuvering purposes, so with those being used, it'd be able to crank it in tighter. I wouldn't be surprised if it'd be somewhat better on roll and responsiveness on pitch (this is based on guesstimates, since I don't know to what extent the flaps have on stall speed, and what degree the blown flap system has on speed).


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Radar replaced from AN/APQ-50 to the *AN/APQ-72 (32" radome used on F-4)*


That was the radar in my trainer, and with all its bells and whistles, operating it was a full time job. A pilot trying to do that and engage in combat would be seriously task saturated.



Zipper730 said:


> The provision for the gun-pack, provided the USN pursued it (it seemed something the RN was more interested in than us), would have provided an effective armament as it was basically an M-61.


No it wouldn't. We built gunpacks at GE to strap onto gunless F4s, and they worked great on the ground. In the air they were useless, as they couldn't be rigidly enough attached to the airframe to garauntee bullet strike on the aiming point with flight loads applied. Pilots described it as "a loose fire hose".
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> That was the radar in my trainer, and with all its bells and whistles, operating it was a full time job. A pilot trying to do that and engage in combat would be seriously task saturated.


Possible, but the automation the F8U-3 had would have basically computed interception vectors automatically and relayed that into a steering dot.

While many radar intercepts required a person to be looking constantly down at the scope, it had one of the first HUD's: It wasn't like the kind that exist now with a heading up top, speed on the left, altitude on the right, and the pitch ladder and everything where it is now; it was basically a radar scope displayed.

In some ways, it's automation was less than the F-106 in the prototype stage: It didn't automatically fly the airplane into the intercept position. The steering dot gave the pilot what he needed to position himself (that said, it had a mach-hold auto-throttle, which I'm not sure the F-106 had). The USC-2 datalink, however, would have been similar to SAGE and might have had a few features it didn't even have (If I recall the datalink would allow data from the radar to be transmitted back to the center, where as with SAGE, the data seemed to come only from the ground, which was used to direct the plane), though both had auto-land features.

The upgraded fire-control system proposed by the pre-production/production stage might very well have been similar enough to the F-106, however (unsure).


> No it wouldn't. We built gunpacks at GE to strap onto gunless F4s, and they worked great on the ground. In the air they were useless, as they couldn't be rigidly enough attached to the airframe to garauntee bullet strike on the aiming point with flight loads applied. Pilots described it as "a loose fire hose".


Well, that's a gunpod and it was attached to a thin pylon: The F8U-3 proposal called for a semi-submerged kind of configuration, which would probably have fairly little wiggle room compared to the F-4's set-up. That said, I could be wrong as I could envision some vibration setting up.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> Well, that's a gunpod and it was attached to a thin pylon


Not exactly. It attached directly to the centerline hardpoint, replacing the centerline fuel tank, which meant a couple of wing pylons had to be rededicated from ordnance to fuel.



Zipper730 said:


> Possible, but the automation the F8U-3 had would have basically computed interception vectors automatically and relayed that into a steering dot.


Our APQ72 did that too, through its (I forget the nomenclature) AP51?? fire control computer. That's pretty much basic to any AI radar of its generation. The problem was that the system had many different modes and options that had to be manually selected, and the antenna had to be manually steered in azimuth, elevation, and range in acquisition mode to highlight a target and enable lockon. The level of automation was severely constrained by the limited computation power available at the time. Circuitry was all tube-driven, and computation was all analog. Memory capacity was zero, so everything was in real time with no recall. No transistors, integrated circuits, or microprocessors.
The problem was that the steering dot led you directly to the weapons launch position for an immediate shot at the target locked on your screen, under the assumption that it automatically is hostile, and that you're using a forward quadrant flight path interception weapon like Sparrow. That's fine for shooting Bears or Bisons over the Arctic wastes, but in the sauna of rice paddy land, AIM7s were notoriously unreliable, and the ROEs required visual ID of targets before shooting. 'Winders, though bragging of a frontal aspect capability, tended to lose lock unless fired from behind their target, with a good view of its tailpipe. A loose 'winder in search of a heat source is not healthy for anybody nearby. Now the problem here is that once you've crept up to VID range behind your bogie, you're inside min firing range for the AIM9. If you shoot, you'll harmlessly scare the crap out of poor Nguyen as your missile zooms past his canopy, and he'll be out for bear. If he's in a 17, he'll "pull a Zero" and loop onto your tail, and if he's in a 21 and he's smart, he'll chop his throttle, pop his boards, slow down abruptly, and your Vc (closing velocity) will shoot you right out in front of his Atolls. The 21 is light and has gobs of thrust in burner, so can re-accelerate quickly as you skid past.
So how to deal with this conundrum? Teamwork in the VID. Wingman becomes "eyeball" and moves in, and Lead becomes "shooter" and hangs back. Once the "MiGs" call is made, eyeball exits the Sidewinder's lethal cone by the most expeditious route possible, and shooter waits for a solid tone from the missile's seeker head before squeezing the trigger. At the call of "Fox one" eyeball kills burner, chops throttle, and swings around to point his nose toward shooter and make his heat signature to the missile as small as possible.
Sound like fun?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 8, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Not exactly. It attached directly to the centerline hardpoint, replacing the centerline fuel tank, which meant a couple of wing pylons had to be rededicated from ordnance to fuel.


From what I recall there were three hardpoints that could carry fuel, two could carry 370 gallons each, with the centerline carrying around 600 from what I remember (my memory's decent, but not perfect).


> Our APQ72 did that too, through its (I forget the nomenclature) AP51?? fire control computer.


AN/APG-51?


> That's pretty much basic to any AI radar of its generation. The problem was that the system had many different modes and options that had to be manually selected, and the antenna had to be manually steered in azimuth, elevation, and range to highlight a target and enable lockon.


By range, you mean selecting the setting on the scope, then moving the radar antenna onto that spot and locking on?


> The problem was that the steering dot led you directly to the weapons launch position for an immediate shot at the target locked on your screen, under the assumption that it automatically is hostile, and that you're using a forward quadrant flight path interception weapon like Sparrow. That's fine for shooting Bears or Bisons over the Arctic wastes


That was what both were designed for...


> in the sauna of rice paddy land, AIM7s were notoriously unreliable, and the ROEs required visual ID of targets before shooting.


From what I remember, the reason for the ROE's was that we couldn't identify enemy IFF's (not sure if it was all USSR aircraft or exports), and we'd risk blowing up friendly aircraft. The F-8's seemed to do better in this regard because the plane was more maneuverable than the F-4, and they were more routinely trained in air-to-air combat because they were a gun-equipped aircraft.

That said, there were cases where F-4's managed to score head-on shots on MiG's with AIM-7's. One of the first few kills of the war (6/17/65?) involved a pair of down the gullet shots (Ironically they took out three to four airplanes, two were direct hits, the others were hit by debris from the damaged aircraft, one appeared to be viewed as a kill, the other seemed to be damaged but it wasn't clear what happened).


> 'Winders, though bragging of a frontal aspect capability


I thought the AIM-9J was the first to claim all-aspect capability?


> A loose 'winder in search of a heat source is not healthy for anybody nearby.


Yeah, it was a simple infrared seeker, it didn't care what heat-source it homed on...


> Now the problem here is that once you've crept up to VID range behind your bogie


That was already an iffy proposition depending on aircraft.

F-8 Crusader: The plane had a better rate of turn at lower speeds than the F-4 and, while not able to climb as well, possessed a rate of climb that could be useful, and because of it's gun and AIM-9 armament, still were well versed in the art of ACM. The fact that the F8C's had limited all-weather capability, the F8D/E were all-weather capable, meant that they were also pretty skilled in employing their missiles as well as their guns (unfortunately, the guns also jammed quite a lot). 
F-4 Phantom: One of the best climbers in the world (particularly at high subsonic speed), and able to eclipse the MiG-21 right on up to around 30,000 feet; turning rate varied from poor to excellent due to the corner-velocity being rather high-up (around 420-475), and the high thrust/weight ratio allowing a rather surprising sustained agility (around 7g) that might very well beat even the MiG-21 (if I recall they had better instantaneous response on pitch and roll, but lower sustained figures than the F-4 as long as you kept the speed over 400-450). The aircraft's problems seemed to be due to the fact that...
The aircraft's lack of a gun meant that crews wouldn't have been as trained in close-in combat (this affected the USAF and USN in different degrees).
There was an assumption that the F-4's long range radar (and the presumption that enemy IFF could be read) meant that they'd be able to engage beyond visual range with AIM-7's.
The USAF had problems with training at the time: It seemed to have started when jet-bombers (B-47 in particular) came online with SAC, and then leached over into TAC through a combination of osmosis, and the fact that they felt air superiority wouldn't be needed (after all, by screaming in under the radar and lobbing nuclear weapons, there wouldn't be much warning). Around the time the F-4 came into service, General Sweeney took over TAC and began taking this up to eleven with the painful process of 'SACumcizing' (though when done shortly after birth, leaves little trauma, and makes women more likely to bump uglies), and the F-4's adverse yaw traits at high alphas (from what I recall, the plane was being rolled almost totally on rudder at high alpha, lower alphas merely required varying degree of rudder inputs), and mishandling could cause a loss of control (from what I remember, it'd gyrate and tumble a whole lot, then it'd cut out into a flat spin that was unrecoverable), particularly in crews that were inexperienced, or poorly trained.

F8U-3 Super Crusader: While it's power-off stall might have been not all that different from the F-4 flaps-up, the maneuvering flaps probably gave it a considerable advantage in tightening up the turning circle, and it was likely more responsive on roll as well. Climb-rate was superior to the F8U-1/2, but inferior to the Phantom at subsonic speeds (at supersonic speeds, it was actually something like 3 times higher). It's hard to tell how training would have worked out...
On one hand: Many of the former pilots would have been Crusader pilots, and the plane handled (in some ways) more docile than the F-8
On the other hand: The plane had no internal gun and, whether the gun pack would have been more wobble resistant (it was mounted in a semi-submerged station) than the gun-pods, it's unclear if that would made any difference for training.

With the right speed and use of the vertical, it was usually possible to get behind the enemy; without proper training (more a USAF problem): Pilots were often making all sorts of mistakes that, had they simply been taught right, would never have done (and didn't make early on -- from early to late 1965 they were doing okay, around 1966, things started to go sideways) with the F-4's. The F-8 drivers were experts in the aerial combat arena, and having both decent turn-rates and the ability to climb well, could often position themselves up for a shot. With guns, they also could fight more boldly.

Without guns (or with guns that jammed), the issue was being able to gain separation if they ended up too close for a missile-shot, while stopping the enemy from turning the tables, or getting away.


> So how to deal with this conundrum? Teamwork in the VID. Wingman becomes "eyeball" and moves in, and Lead becomes "shooter" and hangs back. Once the "MiGs" call is made, eyeball exits the Sidewinder's lethal cone by the most expeditious route possible, and shooter waits for a solid tone from the missile's seeker head before squeezing the trigger.


There was actually a tactic used by F-104's called "sneak and peak". They'd come screaming in first, confirm ID, then the F-4's would go to work.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 8, 2019)

> the same crappy Colt 20mm cannons (never installed in the test articles)





Zipper730 said:


> *Never installed at all*: While Vought wanted to install them, the USN had little interest, and as the design went from the earliest configurations
> 
> The nose had its characteristic shape, but the intakes weren't swept forward initially
> Wing shape seemed established, but variable-incidence was the same early on as the F8U-1/2
> ...


The F-8 never had guns installed?...















...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2019)

Right from the XF8U-1. Even the mock-up for the XF8U-1 had them


----------



## Graeme (Jul 8, 2019)

Elvis said:


> The F-8 never had guns installed?...



Elvis, I believe Zip was referring to the "Super" Crusader...

Vought XF8U-3 Crusader III - Wikipedia


*Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (planned; never installed)*_*[8]*_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 8, 2019)

Good thing it was never chosen, the butt ugly version of the F-8


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 8, 2019)

Your not kiddin. I knew about the F8 of course but not that version. I actually kinda like the looks of the f8 so I thought how bad could this experimental version be so I headed off to Wiki to get a peak.........well I got my answer....... it really is that bad. Ouch!!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 8, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> From what I remember, the reason for the ROE's was that we couldn't identify enemy IFF's


Of course, because their IFF circuitry aped ours, and their SIGINT folks monitored Hillsborough and Red Crown, and the Hummers and Lima sites, and copied the codes assigned to US aircraft by controllers, and relayed them to GCI, who then had their interceptors mirror those codes, throwing the entire strike package into confusion.


Zipper730 said:


> there were cases where F-4's managed to score head-on shots on MiG's with AIM-7's. One of the first few kills of the war (6/17/65?) involved a pair of down the gullet shots


Those were probably Air Force birds carrying missiles newly arrived in theater that hadn't had time for the wiring insulation to deteriorate yet. In the heat and humidity of Yankee Station (the Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club), AIM7s deteriorated mighty quick.


Zipper730 said:


> the high thrust/weight ratio allowing a rather surprising sustained agility (around 7g)


For a clean, light, flight test prepped plane, maybe. Out in the fleet you'd never see a combat equipped bird do that.


Zipper730 said:


> mishandling could cause a loss of control (from what I remember, it'd gyrate and tumble a whole lot, then it'd cut out into a flat spin that was unrecoverable)


Well you're right about the gyrate and tumble. That's pretty spectacular, but from inside the cockpit it's confusing, as it's not readily apparent whether you're stalled positive or negative, or what your net direction of rotation is. The trick is to focus on the AOA and Rate of Turn indicators, both of which are oscillating wildly, and average their fluctuations, while ignoring the visual and kinesthetic cues. Once you've determined the nature of the stall and the direction of rotation, apply the appropriate recovery technique. If you do this wrong, THEN you'll wind up in a blanked stabilator flat spin, and it's Martin Baker time.


Zipper730 said:


> the issue was being able to gain separation if they ended up too close for a missile-shot, while stopping the enemy from turning the tables, or getting away.


This is what we worked on endlessly in the trainer, since every properly executed VID would result in the eyeball aircraft too close to shoot and fouling the target area for the shooter.


Zipper730 said:


> I thought the AIM-9J was the first to claim all-aspect capability?


It was the first to claim 360° aspect, but a couple of its predecessors claimed limited forward aspect in addition to the traditional tail chase mode. I don't remember the nomenclature, but I do remember that the crews were a little dubious of those claims, and didn't trust that feature.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Of course, because their IFF circuitry aped ours, and their SIGINT folks monitored Hillsborough and Red Crown, and the Hummers and Lima sites, and copied the codes assigned to US aircraft by controllers, and relayed them to GCI, who then had their interceptors mirror those codes, throwing the entire strike package into confusion.


So their IFF circuitry mimicked ours because they were monitoring them, and relaying them to their interceptors?

What kind of SIGINT were they using? Aircraft, ground listening posts, ships, etc...


> Those were probably Air Force birds carrying missiles newly arrived in theater that hadn't had time for the wiring insulation to deteriorate yet.


Nope, they were off the USS Midway...


> For a clean, light, flight test prepped plane, maybe. Out in the fleet you'd never see a combat equipped bird do that.


From what I remember, the plane would have it's missiles, no drop-tanks, and 60% fuel.


> This is what we worked on endlessly in the trainer, since every properly executed VID would result in the eyeball aircraft too close to shoot and fouling the target area for the shooter.


That's good to know...


> It was the first to claim 360° aspect, but a couple of its predecessors claimed limited forward aspect in addition to the traditional tail chase mode. I don't remember the nomenclature, but I do remember that the crews were a little dubious of those claims, and didn't trust that feature.


They were probably right...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 9, 2019)

Elvis said:


> The F-8 never had guns installed?...


The F-8's generally had guns; the F8U-3 didn't.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 9, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> So their IFF circuitry mimicked ours because they were monitoring them, and relaying them to their interceptors?


No, their IFF circuitry mimicked ours because they were so far behind us in that technology it was easier to steal it through espionage than to develop their own version.


Zipper730 said:


> What kind of SIGINT were they using?


Ground stations, mostly I would guess, as they weren't particularly well supplied with aircraft or ships.


Zipper730 said:


> Those figures seem to have been reported over the years.


I have a hard time imagining an F4 with pylons and ejector racks sustaining 7 Gs without bleeding energy, even with no ordnance hanging. It's all about L/D at high alpha, and those ejector racks are draggy beasts.


Zipper730 said:


> The F-104G's with the GE-19's


What the heck is a GE-19? Is that a typo for GE J79, the Starfighter's actual engine, an earlier version of the F4's and RA5C's engines?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## rob23 (Jul 13, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> Your not kiddin. I knew about the F8 of course but not that version. I actually kinda like the looks of the f8 so I thought how bad could this experimental version be so I headed off to Wiki to get a peak.........well I got my answer....... it really is that bad. Ouch!!


I always thought the Vietnam F-8 looked like it was going 1000 just sitting on the ramp. But the F8U-III, pretty ugly. No, really ugly. Must have scared the ground away.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 13, 2019)

rob23 said:


> Must have scared the ground away.


No, made the sea want to rise up and smite it!


----------



## Elmas (Jul 13, 2019)

Many years ago (early '80s) I was talking with _Oberstleutnant_ Lothar S., that was then the deputy Commander of the Luftwaffe detachment at Decimomannu AFB and had been previously the Chief test Pilot of the MRCA-Tormado program. The rest of his qualifications could be easily imagined, as He flew with anything from F-84 to F-15, and from G-91 to F-4.
_Son of Art_, as his Father was in the _Nachtjagt_.
_"What has been the plane you loved best, Lothar?"_ I asked.
He didn't even let me finish the question.
_"But F-104, of course."_


----------



## Glider (Jul 13, 2019)

Elmas said:


> Many years ago (early '80s) I was talking with _Oberstleutnant_ Lothar S., that was then the deputy Commander of the Luftwaffe detachment at Decimomannu AFB and had been previously the Chief test Pilot of the MRCA-Tormado program. The rest of his qualifications could be easily imagined, as He flew with anything from F-84 to F-15, and from G-91 to F-4.
> _Son of Art_, as his Father was in the _Nachtjagt_.
> _"What has been the plane you loved best, Lothar?"_ I asked.
> He didn't even let me finish the question.
> _"But F-104, of course."_


Which proves one thing, he never flew the Lighting.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Sid327 (Sep 1, 2019)

For looks,

In my humble opinion, the Mig 29 is a real beauty to look at. The Mig 35 also. They just look right.

I'm not bothered about nationalism, nor combat kills. A good pilot in a ''clunker'' will often make the difference as I'm a big believer in the ''sloppy-link'' between the seat and the controls being the key.

Combat records may count for others ....and I don't disagree, but this assumes the opponents were equally capable fly boys; In most cases I believe they were not.

When you consider the effectiveness of the people that these aircraft were against it's not something that's too surprising (having lived and worked in the Middle East for almost twenty years ...and worked as a Military SAR pilot for two of them). [I'm trying to be tactfull here, but it's difficult]

If the F-15 and others were up against equally capable ''sloppy-links'' it might tell a different story.

But I'm happy to accept being schooled by others that know better, without taking offence.
Just saying there may be a need to consider the effectiveness of certain countries military prowess, or effectiveness.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Sep 1, 2019)

Glider said:


> Which proves one thing, he never flew the Lighting.



Wich Ligthning? This one?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Sep 1, 2019)

Elmas said:


> Wich Ligthning? This one?
> 
> View attachment 550693


Full marks for imagination, not a lot for accuracy


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 1, 2019)

I voted fpr the F15 all round but just wanted to add, the Electric Lightning for it's particular nitch at it's particular time was really excellent imho and gets points for imaginative/ thinking outside the box design as well.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 1, 2019)

...all this talk of English Electric Lightnings makes me yearn for a good ol' _F-106_. 
That'll give ya' a stiff upper lip.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I voted fpr the F15 all round but just wanted to add, the Electric Lightning for it's particular nitch at it's particular time was really excellent imho and gets points for imaginative/ thinking outside the box design as well.



It's a funny thing about the sobriquet of "greatest". It's not hard to imagine the Lighting as the greatest point defense interceptor. Greatest fighter? A great argument could be made for the MiG-21. I guess it all boils down to what could you strap on the airplane and expect it to do fairly well outside its' original design parameters as well as the original designed mission.
So even as a now ancient F-14 8345/6415 guy, I'd have to look pretty hard at the F-4/F-15/F-16, having said that, please let me know what other aircraft you feel were as efficiently versatile. 
The F-18? No legs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> It's a funny thing about the sobriquet of "greatest". It's not hard to imagine the Lighting as the greatest point defense interceptor. Greatest fighter? A great argument could be made for the MiG-21. I guess it all boils down to what could you strap on the airplane and expect it to do fairly well outside its' original design parameters as well as the original designed mission.
> So even as a now ancient F-14 8345/6415 guy, I'd have to look pretty hard at the F-4/F-15/F-16, having said that, please let me know what other aircraft you feel were as efficiently versatile.
> The F-18? No legs.


Well for versatility you just can't beat a Phantom in my opinion. Can't really think of anything that plane couldn't do at least reasonably well.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I voted fpr the F15 all round but just wanted to add, the Electric Lightning for it's particular nitch at it's particular time was really excellent imho and gets points for imaginative/ thinking outside the box design as well.



It's a funny thing about the sobriquet of "greatest". It's not hard to imagine the Lighting as the greatest interceptor. Greatest fighter?


michael rauls said:


> Well for versatility you just can't beat a Phantom in my opinion. Can't really think of anything that plane couldn't do at least reasonably well.


Well, you have to add points due to the simple fact that it could repeatedly trap onboard a CV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> It's a funny thing about the sobriquet of "greatest". It's not hard to imagine the Lighting as the greatest interceptor. Greatest fighter?
> 
> Well, you have to add points due to the simple fact that it could repeatedly trap onboard a CV.


Must admit I'm not 100% sure what trap means in this context. I'm guessing it means to "operate" off a carrier(cv). 
And yes, this is good for alot of versatility points imho.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 1, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> I voted fpr the F15 all round but just wanted to add, the Electric Lightning for it's particular nitch at it's particular time was really excellent imho and gets points for imaginative/ thinking outside the box design as well.



It's a funny thing about the sobriquet of "greatest". It's not hard to imagine the Lighting as the greatest interceptor. Greatest fighter?


michael rauls said:


> Must admit I'm not 100% sure what trap means in this context. I'm guessing it means to "operate" off a carrier(cv).
> And yes, this is good for alot of versatility points imho.



Sorry, old navy guy. Trap does indeed mean land onboard a carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 1, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> It's a funny thing about the sobriquet of "greatest". It's not hard to imagine the Lighting as the greatest point defense interceptor. Greatest fighter? A great argument could be made for the MiG-21. I guess it all boils down to what could you strap on the airplane and expect it to do fairly well outside its' original design parameters as well as the original designed mission.
> So even as a now ancient F-14 8345/6415 guy, I'd have to look pretty hard at the F-4/F-15/F-16, having said that, please let me know what other aircraft you feel were as efficiently versatile.
> The F-18? No legs.


Let's not forget, it was your F-14 that eventually replaced the F-4 as the Navy's main fighter.
Flew faster, flew farther, carried a greater payload, piloted by Tom Cruise in the movies, what's not to love?!
F-4 proved the idea of _the i-Phone Fighter_, the F-14 took it to the next level, the F/A-18...…..


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 2, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Flew faster, flew farther, carried a greater payload, piloted by Tom Cruise in the movies, what's not to love?!


Maintenance man hours/flight hour, especially as the airframes began to age. That's what's not to love.
Now Iran is the only member of the Tomcat Club. It priced itself out of the market for us. That's why it comes after the F4, Mig21, F86, Hawker Hunter, F16 and F15 in my lineup. Versatility, performance, and longevity are what count in my book.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 2, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> Trap does indeed mean land onboard a carrier.


Trap: To be grabbed by a wire attached to a 70,000 ton ship when your 45,000 pound jet is in full burner and trying to get airborne again. The old timers used to tell me the term originated in the days of straight deck carriers when bolters were not possible, so if you missed all 13 wires, the elastic barrier "trapped" you. Every touch down resulted in a full stop landing, one way or another.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 2, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Maintenance man hours/flight hour, especially as the airframes began to age. That's what's not to love.
> Now Iran is the only member of the Tomcat Club. It priced itself out of the market for us. That's why it comes after the F4, Mig21, F86, Hawker Hunter, F16 and F15 in my lineup. Versatility, performance, and longevity are what count in my book.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Say what you will, it still REPLACED the F-4. 
It's neve perfect. There's always some bad with the good.

Elvis


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 2, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Say what you will, it still REPLACED the F-4.
> It's neve perfect. There's always some bad with the good.
> 
> Elvis


True enough, but when the bad gets so bad you can't afford it, you lose the good as well. And then there's the hidden factor. As long as we operated and supported Tomcats, the black market supply of parts and support to Iran couldn't be stopped. Somehow that became more important than the additional marginal utility of the F14 fleet.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Elvis (Sep 2, 2019)

So we replaced the F14 with the F/A-18 to stop the flow of parts on the black market to Iran....


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 2, 2019)

Elvis said:


> So we replaced the F14 with the F/A-18 to stop the flow of parts on the black market to Iran....


Disgusting, ain't it? Nothing could "replace" the Tomcat, but I guess they decided the Super Hornet was an acceptable substitute.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Sid327 (Sep 2, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> True enough, but when the bad gets so bad you can't afford it, you lose the good as well. And then there's the hidden factor. As long as we operated and supported Tomcats, the black market supply of parts and support to Iran couldn't be stopped. Somehow that became more important than the additional marginal utility of the F14 fleet.
> Cheers,
> Wes




Were they THAT bad?
(maintenance hrs/per Flt hour approx)?
I'm used to R/W so it won't surprise me....


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 2, 2019)

Gentleman, 
If I may; The -14 was a both a complex aircraft and a political football. Some other things like a rather indifferent attitude towards quality by the OEM, rather spotty spares procurement by the Navy didn't help, but IMO Cheney's attitude towards Grumman was probably the final nail in the coffin. 

The Navy also sacrificed F-14, A-6, and the S-3 at the altar of the all F-18 wing which while I loved that from the prospective of running the ship's jet engine repair shop (12 hours to replace a F404 hot section section and push the engine across the cell versus over 100 hours to do the same with a TF30.) meant a huge retrograde step in terms of offensive capabilities for the airwing. 

The Navy stopped modifying and upgrading the airplane and started doing some interesting parts procurement as well. Reworked Turbine guide vanes (?!?) for example took the on-wing time for a TF30 from about 600 hours to less than 300. 

The Navy starved the F-14 as much as anything else and I believe they also did the same thing to a lesser extent to the P-3 in order to bring in the P-8. 

My F-4 time was very limited to about 5 months, it wasn't a difficult aircraft to work on, just time consuming. It was enough to make you appreciate the little modern touches like the fasteners being retained in the panels by little washers, rather than having to stick them in a homemade cardboard template.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 3, 2019)

So the F-14 was dropped because Cheney didn't like it? (well, Grumman, in general)…_politicians_...
However, the plane that is slower, doesn't carry as much and has a shorter range gets the nod because....it's easier to work on....


----------



## michael rauls (Sep 3, 2019)

I'm certainly no expert but the discontinuation of the Tomcat was always a bit of a head scratcher for me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 3, 2019)

Elvis said:


> However, the plane that is slower, doesn't carry as much and has a shorter range gets the nod because....it's easier to work on....


".it's easier to work on...." and cheaper to buy and support, and requires less of a logistical commitment (as jetcal pointed out), has newer technology onboard, and most important, is manufactured in a district that votes for the correct party. When you're thinking of sending an air wing to sea in the finite space of a carrier for six or more months, logistics is a biggie, easier and cheaper if they're only supporting two types of tactical jets, and both of the same family. You wonder how they did it on Yankee Station back in the day with seven or more aircraft types, including ASW, AEW, and helos. And the only serious shortcoming of the Hornet is range, as a few tenths of a mach at the high end is of dubious practical value, and the max load capacity of the F14, as stated in most specs listings, is, I'm told, an optimistic figure not often achieved in actual operations. Operationally, I'm told the F18 isn't far behind. You gotta remember, the F14 was designed as a pure fighter interceptor, and mud pounding wasn't part of the plan. The Hornet, OTOH, was designed from the get-go as a fighter-bomber.
While I miss the ol 'cat, I guess I can sort of understand the reasoning.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 3, 2019)

Sid327 said:


> Were they THAT bad?
> (maintenance hrs/per Flt hour approx)?
> I'm used to R/W so it won't surprise me....


I don't have the numbers, but the folks who were doing it, supporting it, supplying it, financing it, and planning for it reported that it was nudging the prohibitive zone. I'm sure the reliability and parts issues mentioned by jetcal had a part in it.
Read "Punk's War" and "Phantom Over Vietnam" for some insight embedded in the narrative on the struggles of maintaining availability in a squadron engaged in intense operations.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 3, 2019)

Of the "swing wings", (F-111, F-14, B-1) only the B-1 survives, and mostly due to necessity of airframes rather than a vindication of design. While the variable geometry wing theory was very popular at one time resulting in the three I listed (ignoring Soviet aircraft which arguably was stolen tech), there is a reason they are not in use today. For the given tech of the day, they were very heavy, expensive to manufacture, maintenance intensive and overly complicated to work properly. The weight perhaps the largest sin. I can tell you from experience that working the hydraulics on a Bone is no picnic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> ...The Hornet, OTOH, was designed from the get-go as a fighter-bomber.


The F/A-18 _was designed_….from _The GET-GO_ as the X/YF-17.
It was Northrup's entry into the competition for the low altitude interceptor contract that eventually went to the General Dynamic F-16.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 3, 2019)

Elvis said:


> So the F-14 was dropped because Cheney didn't like it? (well, Grumman, in general)…_politicians_...
> However, the plane that is slower, doesn't carry as much and has a shorter range gets the nod because....it's easier to work on....



The -18 was less expensive, had a better spotting factor and compared to the F-4 and A-7 much better fire control. It was originally only supposed to replace those two aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 3, 2019)

soulezoo said:


> Of the "swing wings", (F-111, F-14, B-1) only the B-1 survives, and mostly due to necessity of airframes rather than a vindication of design. While the variable geometry wing theory was very popular at one time resulting in the three I listed (ignoring Soviet aircraft which arguably was stolen tech), there is a reason they are not in use today. For the given tech of the day, they were very heavy, expensive to manufacture, maintenance intensive and overly complicated to work properly. The weight perhaps the largest sin. I can tell you from experience that working the hydraulics on a Bone is no picnic.


S/W for the AFCS, composite materials affecting wing shape, and CFD for wing airflow have negated the need for V/G. (IMO)


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> ".it's easier to work on...." and cheaper to buy and support, and requires less of a logistical commitment (as jetcal pointed out), has newer technology onboard, and most important, is manufactured in a district that votes for the correct party. When you're thinking of sending an air wing to sea in the finite space of a carrier for six or more months, logistics is a biggie, easier and cheaper if they're only supporting two types of tactical jets, and both of the same family. You wonder how they did it on Yankee Station back in the day with seven or more aircraft types, including ASW, AEW, and helos. And the only serious shortcoming of the Hornet is range, as a few tenths of a mach at the high end is of dubious practical value, and the max load capacity of the F14, as stated in most specs listings, is, I'm told, an optimistic figure not often achieved in actual operations. Operationally, I'm told the F18 isn't far behind. You gotta remember, the F14 was designed as a pure fighter interceptor, and mud pounding wasn't part of the plan. The Hornet, OTOH, was designed from the get-go as a fighter-bomber.
> While I miss the ol 'cat, I guess I can sort of understand the reasoning.
> Cheers,
> Wes



The -14 always had a A/G mode on the stick, and the D would carry 1K lbs a 110NM further than a -18E. Too bad the Navy didn't purse the TC21. They might have had a replacement for both the early -14 and the A-6 with that nice fixed wing while dropping some serious weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 3, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> The -14 always had a A/G mode on the stick, and the D would carry 1K lbs a 110NM further than a -18E. Too bad the Navy didn't purse the TC21. They might have had a replacement for both the early -14 and the A-6 with that nice fixed wing while dropping some serious weight.


Well you worked on 'em, and I was leaving just as they were coming on board, but I sure saw a lot of hype for them about that time, and one slogan sticks in my mind: "Not a pound for air to ground." All the publicity and briefing info was about long range interceptor and air superiority fighter and "world's best dogfighter" and "Anytime, baby!", and "No points for second place". And talking with the crews at every opportunity it was all about ACM and air-to-air. I'm honestly surprised to hear about the A/G switch being there since day one. Did it control weapons, or radar modes? I remember being briefed that one of the bragging points of the mighty AWG9 was that it was one of the first Air Intercept radars to have ground mapping capability.
I was running an APQ72 trainer for a RAG squadron when the F4Js got the AWG10 and the Nav declined to upgrade my trainer. Long story short, the instructors tied me in knots trying to get me to tweak the APQ72 system to behave like an AWG10. They finally gave up ragging on me, stuffed me in the backseat of a J, and off we went to turn and burn and run intercepts. I had done a little acro in the flying club's T34 and Cessna Acrobat, but that didn't prepare me for the F4's G loads, not by a long shot. I held on to my lunch and kept my mask clean, and got to go a couple more times, including in an aggressor TA4. Never did get the trainer to do a satisfactory imitation of an AWG10, though.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 3, 2019)

Elvis said:


> The F/A-18 _was designed_….from _The GET-GO_ as the X/YF-17.
> It was Northrup's entry into the competition for the low altitude interceptor contract that eventually went to the General Dynamic F-16.


I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor, although I think it was for low price, not low altitude. Those planes were supposed to be the low price alternative to the shockingly expensive F14/F15. But then MacD got ahold of it and it became a whole new machine with a whole new mission, or combination of missions. That's what I was referring to. It was not a Johnny-come-lately to mud pounding like the F14 was. The 'cat didn't really get into the attack world until LANTIRN came along.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 3, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor, although I think it was for low price, not low altitude. Those planes were supposed to be the low price alternative to the shockingly expensive F14/F15. But then MacD got ahold of it and it became a whole new machine with a whole new mission, or combination of missions. That's what I was referring to. It was not a Johnny-come-lately to mud pounding like the F14 was. The 'cat didn't really get into the attack world until LANTIRN came along.
> Cheers,
> Wes


LANTIRN was the big motivator along with the loss of the A-6.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor, although I think it was for low price, not low altitude. Those planes were supposed to be the low price alternative to the shockingly expensive F14/F15. But then MacD got ahold of it and it became a whole new machine with a whole new mission, or combination of missions. That's what I was referring to. It was not a Johnny-come-lately to mud pounding like the F14 was. The 'cat didn't really get into the attack world until LANTIRN came along.
> Cheers,
> Wes



One other aside that I just remembered today. We had a Congressional tour come through my shop during a cruise (Nice junket for them to fly to Slovenia.) Their escort, some sort'a -18 desk four striper was thrilled to hear me say that the F404 was experiencing premature aging due to the number of cycles put on the engine in such a relatively short time in comparison with the J79 and TF30. (True statement, the -18C/D except for hard landing inspections (of which there appeared to be an inordinate amount.) the airplane was a flyer and had high FMC/PMC rates.)

This was about a year after the F-4G was retired, and I had the temerity (As a White hat) to suggest that the -14 would make an outstanding Weasel. He shut me down right there with, "he's only enlisted and doesn't know about these matters." He came back a few hours later and gave me a nice dressing down for expressing an opinion.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 4, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I remember those days, and yes the YF17 was designed as an interceptor...
> Wes


So you were wrong when you posted that the Hornet (i.e., F/A-18) was designed, "...from the get-go...", as a Fighter/Bomber.

Elvis


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 4, 2019)

Elvis said:


> So you were wrong when you posted that the Hornet (i.e., F/A-18) was designed, "...from the get-go...", as a Fighter/Bomber.
> 
> Elvis


No, the F-17 started out as a lightweight land based fighter. It was developed into the F-18 the same way the F4D was developed into the F5D, or the MiG-15 into the MiG-17, or the F-18C into the F-18E.
The F-18 was made a few inches wider, I think about an extra 4K lbs in fuel was added (Don't get me to lying.) The gear was beefed up (Well redesigned.), the structure was modified to handle a launch bar and a tail hook. The engines were changed from the J101 to the F404 and an extra 10 or 11 thousand pounds added for good measure. 

The F-18L was supposed to be the Northrop sales side for non-naval aircraft, but I think Macair might have "poached" those sales in spite of an agreement.


----------



## Elvis (Sep 4, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> The -18 was less expensive, had a better spotting factor and compared the F-4 and A-7 much better fire control. It was originally only supposed to replace those two aircraft.


Well, wait a minute....The F-14 had already replaced the F-4, so how could the F/A-18 replace a fighter that had already been replaced?
_...curiouser and curiouser..._


----------



## Skyediamonds (Sep 5, 2019)

The original designs of both the F-16 & F-17 were indeed, in competition for a light-weight pure fighter. The (then) F/A-17 morphed into the F/A-18 & its derivatives. I was fortunate enough to crawl all over the original F/A-17 when it was placed on display at the Western Air Museum in Hawthorne, CA. many (really embarrassingly many) years ago. Fantastic plane. 

I also recall there were issues with the twin vertical tails & the LEX. I believe the LEX had created turbulence at high alpha flight regimes that lead to the problems with the vertical tails.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 5, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Well, wait a minute....The F-14 had already replaced the F-4, so how could the F/A-18 replace a fighter that had already been replaced?
> _...curiouser and curiouser..._


This is beginning to sound like a semantics controversy; nitpickers vs broad concepters. The F4 and A7 were "teammates" from Vietnam through the 80s. The arrival of the Tomcat initially complemented rather than replaced the Phantom, as there was a lengthy period of overlap between the two types, and the F14 relegated the F4 to "secondary fighter" role just as the Phantom had done to the Crusader. The Hornet was slotted in as the new secondary fighter, the lower cost alternative to the Topcat dollarsink. As a side benefit, it supplanted the A7 in the light attack role in support of the "heavy" A6. When the A6 fatigued out and the F14 priced out, the Super Hornet became the jack of all trades and master of none, but affordable by all.
Now that's "the world according to Wes", and don't you go messing with it!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 5, 2019)

jetcal1 said:


> "he's only enlisted and doesn't know about these matters." He came back a few hours later and gave me a nice dressing down for expressing an opinion.


Of course! Ya gotta keep a tight handle on the information, opinions, and imagery that gets fed to purse string holders and decision makers, and make sure it's all in accordance with the agenda of those who "know about these matters". "You almost upset the applecart there, Son!"
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## vandee (Sep 5, 2019)

The Crusader was a fighter, not a multi role aircraft. I believe it could actually take out an F-4 Phantom
with no problem. The only other jet that was close would be the F-106 Delta Dart which was a "sleeper". John


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 5, 2019)

vandee said:


> The Crusader was a fighter, not a multi role aircraft. I believe it could actually take out an F-4 Phantom with no problem.


For most of the overlap period between the two aircraft, Phantom crews were not really taught ACM in any serious way. It wasn't until the "Topgun revolution" came along that Phantom crews really learned how to properly handle an agile opponent like the Crusader.
All the instructors who used my trainer had done their initial F4 weapons training exclusively in "bomber intercept" mode, specializing in long range Sparrow shots against BVR radar blips that had sophisticated ECM, and never live firing an actual missile. What little ACM they were exposed to was against other F4s, and restricted by course rules to a sort of choreographed dance using textbook tactics with strict G and Mach limits.(Check out the dogfight scene in "The Great Santini") Entirely foreign to the "no holds barred" nature of an actual dogfight. Naturally, scrappy aggressive Crusader pilots ate them for breakfast.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 5, 2019)

Elvis said:


> Well, wait a minute....The F-14 had already replaced the F-4, so how could the F/A-18 replace a fighter that had already been replaced?
> _...curiouser and curiouser..._


Except for the USS Midway, and USS Coral Sea the Navy VF community had gone all F-14. The F-18 was supposed to be the replacement for the Marine VMFA community F-4 and for the two left over baby carriers until they decommissioned.


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 5, 2019)

Skyediamonds said:


> The original designs of both the F-16 & F-17 were indeed, in competition for a light-weight pure fighter. The (then) F/A-17 morphed into the F/A-18 & its derivatives. I was fortunate enough to crawl all over the original F/A-17 when it was placed on display at the Western Air Museum in Hawthorne, CA. many (really embarrassingly many) years ago. Fantastic plane.
> 
> I also recall there were issues with the twin vertical tails & the LEX. I believe the LEX had created turbulence at high alpha flight regimes that lead to the problems with the vertical tails.


Yep, mid-80's the tails started cracking. The little "plates" you see on top of the fuselage to the side of the turtleback shape the airflow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 5, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> This is beginning to sound like a semantics controversy; nitpickers vs broad concepters. The F4 and A7 were "teammates" from Vietnam through the 80s. The arrival of the Tomcat initially complemented rather than replaced the Phantom, as there was a lengthy period of overlap between the two types, and the F14 relegated the F4 to "secondary fighter" role just as the Phantom had done to the Crusader. The Hornet was slotted in as the new secondary fighter, the lower cost alternative to the Topcat dollarsink. As a side benefit, it supplanted the A7 in the light attack role in support of the "heavy" A6. When the A6 fatigued out and the F14 priced out, the Super Hornet became the jack of all trades and master of none, but affordable by all.
> Now that's "the world according to Wes", and don't you go messing with it!
> Cheers,
> Wes


Yeah, that makes better sense.
I dont' recall a "secondary fighter" role for the F4, but we could be talking about two different eras.
From what I remember, when the F14 replaced the F4, it took on other roles, most notably, being the vehicle for the "Wild Weasel" program (Thank you Desert Storm) and that seemed to, more or less, "save" the F4 from being decommissioned for, like, another 20 years (?).
You guys who were in the service might have some "inside" information, but what I'm giving you here, is a _Civilian's Eye View_.
So forgive me if what you remember, as a member of the armed services, is different from the information laid out to a civilian. I guess the news media lied to me.


----------



## Barrett (Sep 5, 2019)

Criteria??????????


----------



## Elvis (Sep 6, 2019)

...not driven by a prop....


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 6, 2019)

Elvis said:


> I dont' recall a "secondary fighter" role for the F4, but we could be talking about two different eras.


When the F4, came along and became the Navy's primary fighter, it was considered too heavy and fast for the "small deck" Essex class carriers, which continued to operate the F8, even though it wasn't as fast or long legged as the Phantom. Then along comes the F14, which was considered a bit of a tight fit on the 27Charlie boats ,(FDR, Coral Sea, Midway) so the F4 was retained for their air wings, as well as photorecon and defense suppression (what USAF calls wild weasel). During this time Tomcats were strictly air-to-air fighters, as they had neither equipment nor training for attack missions, and there were plenty of less expensive and less complex aircraft around for that purpose. Then someone got the bright idea of hanging a LANTIRN laser designator system on the F14, and it became the go to option for long-range precision strike missions such as defense suppression.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## soulezoo (Sep 6, 2019)

IIRC, the last of the F4 Wild Weasels belonged to the ANG unit in Reno Nevada. I am uncertain when they were retired, but am thinking it wasn't 2011 (20 years after Desert Storm). 

F-16's have the Weasel role now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 6, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> When the F4, came along and became the Navy's primary fighter, it was considered too heavy and fast for the "small deck" Essex class carriers, which continued to operate the F8, even though it wasn't as fast or long legged as the Phantom. Then along comes the F14, which was considered a bit of a tight fit on the 27Charlie boats ,(FDR, Coral Sea, Midway) so the F4 was retained for their air wings, as well as photorecon and defense suppression (what USAF calls wild weasel). During this time Tomcats were strictly air-to-air fighters, as they had neither equipment nor training for attack missions, and there were plenty of less expensive and less complex aircraft around for that purpose. Then someone got the bright idea of hanging a LANTIRN laser designator system on the F14, and it became the go to option for long-range precision strike missions such as defense suppression.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Ok, I see what you're getting at with the "secondary fighter" term.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that.

Elvis


----------



## Fighterguy (Sep 12, 2019)

As a correction (and no, I didn't read through all 50 pages of this thread), the one F-15 that lost it's wing and returned, was during a training exercise, not combat. It collided with an A-4 Skyhawk. I'm biased here, being a mechanic on both F-15's (A through D) and F-4G's, my nod goes to the F-15. It's just so damn sexy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 12, 2019)

Fighterguy said:


> the one F-15 that lost it's wing and returned, was during a training exercise, not combat. It collided with an A-4 Skyhawk.


We had a similar episode involving an F4 and TA4 that miscalculated a head-on pass in ACM training. The F4 came back missing its entire outer wing panel and took the wire. The TA4, after recovering from several uncommanded rolls determined that control could not be maintained below 300 KIAS and the fuel was rapidly disappearing over the side. They made it most of the way to the waiting helicopter before they flamed out and stepped out of the jet.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Skyediamonds (Sep 12, 2019)

Wasn’t that an Israeli F-15 that lost its wing? If so, was it still due to training or was there yet another F-15 (Israeli) that lost its wing in combat?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 14, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> When the F4, came along and became the Navy's primary fighter, it was considered too heavy and fast for the "small deck" Essex class carriers, which continued to operate the F8, even though it wasn't as fast or long legged as the Phantom. Then along comes the F14, which was considered a bit of a tight fit on the 27Charlie boats ,(FDR, Coral Sea, Midway) so the F4 was retained for their air wings, as well as photorecon and defense suppression (what USAF calls wild weasel). During this time Tomcats were strictly air-to-air fighters, as they had neither equipment nor training for attack missions, and there were plenty of less expensive and less complex aircraft around for that purpose. Then someone got the bright idea of hanging a LANTIRN laser designator system on the F14, and it became the go to option for long-range precision strike missions such as defense suppression.
> Cheers,
> Wes


BTW, here's a nice little clip of the F-111B on the Coral Sea.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UxDV9y5Is64/hqdefault.jpg


----------



## Elvis (Sep 14, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (Sep 15, 2019)

Elvis said:


>




I think you may have just fixed my link!
Thanks!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Sep 15, 2019)

jetcal1, you're welcome.
When posting a link, best to post straight from the source.
Always strive to link as directly from the source as possible.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Fighterguy (Sep 26, 2019)

Skyediamonds said:


> Wasn’t that an Israeli F-15 that lost its wing? If so, was it still due to training or was there yet another F-15 (Israeli) that lost its wing in combat?


Yes, it was an Israeli F-15B on a training exercise. The only F-15's lost in combat were "E" models shot down by SAM's. Also, there was an F-15C damaged by a Sidewinder (pictured). I was in this unit (54th Fighter Squadron) when this mishap occurred.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skyediamonds (Sep 26, 2019)

Fighterguy,
Thank you for pointing out that it was an Israeli F-15 & on a training mission. I didn’t know the circumstances how the -15 lost its wing, but now I do. Don’t blame you for your nod to the F-15 either.


----------



## Zipper730 (Mar 13, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The ELINT birds were full spectrum snoopers. They could monitor and record just about every form of electromagnetic emision generated in their assigned area. Everything from broadcast radio and TV, all kinds of communications, microwave, navigation, radar, IFF, remote control signals, missile steering signals, you name it, they got it on tape. They carried linguists, cryptographers, communications specialists, intelligence analysts and spooks of all stripes onboard, and could record just about any event in real time. Needless to say, they could track and record MiGs as they intercepted strike forces, and by listening on aircraft frequencies, could hear them being vectored for attack runs. They knew which bases the MiGs were coming from by their communications long before they could see them on radar.


Impressive


> BUT, being on the intelligence side, not the operations side, they were reduced to spectator status. Part of their effectiveness stemmed from most of their "targets" being unaware they were being watched. Needless to say, coming on the air to play fighter director would compromise their effectiveness and make them a target.


I'm not sure I said this before, but didn't the E-3's end up doing exactly this later on?

BTW: I was looking through some information on the F-8J which used a BLC system and it trimmed 15 knots off the landing speed. The thing is, I'm not sure if it covered the flaps only, or the flaperons as well. The -J might have used a different flap deflection angle (lower). The XF8U-3 used a higher flaperon deflection angle, what appears to be, similar flap angles to the F-8C's. I'm not sure how much BLC they used, but I wouldn't be surprised if you could squeak 20 knots out of such an arrangement.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 14, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm not sure I said this before, but didn't the E-3's end up doing exactly this later on?


Yup, those EC121s were the original surveillance AWACS bird. Now if they had just had a digital data link with which to alert the airborne strike controllers in the "talking" EC121s without going audible, they might have saved a lot of losses.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Mar 14, 2020)

Gentlemen,
Ironic it was mentioned if “only the EC-121’s had data links without going audible, they might’ve saved a lot of losses...”. I just read in one of the latest issues of Aviation Weekly that Israel has taken this data link one or two steps further. They’ve developed an incredible system “in-house” & therefore free from any restrictions that might be imposed from OEM of say the U.S. or EU from maximizing the full potential of what has been recently declassified as BNET.

The article basically describes the following scenario: A soldier identifies a target hundreds, maybe thousands of yards away using his high-powered telescopic gunsight. ThIs target may be on the fourth floor & third window from the right. The target may be out of range of his rifle or even not in direct line of sight for his bullet. The soldier needs help from one of his support groups.

So instead of verbally announcing his need for support he presses a button in his “smart sight” of his say, M-16. The rest of his battle group has already been logged into his datalink & by use of a computer system, within seconds determines the best source for engaging the target by picking out & connecting the other source for active engagement. These other sources may be a tank, another soldier or even an UAS that’s been loitering around. The computer determines the best means of utilizing this support group’s weapons to ensure minimal collateral damage.

Even if the target is not easily seen by the other members of his support group, this datalink provides accurate sighting from the original soldier. Once verified by the group & confirmed by the soldier, the target is engaged. All within seconds & without any verbal communication whatsoever.

Sort of like a bullet zipping above rooftops, going around clotheslines & slightly around a corner to ultimately engage the target. Or why we see on television a b+w image of a target from overhead yet a missile or JDAM is coming in from the side.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 14, 2020)

Skyediamonds said:


> Sort of like a bullet zipping above rooftops, going around clotheslines & slightly around a corner to ultimately engage the target. Or why we see on television a b+w image of a target from overhead yet a missile or JDAM is coming in from the side.


Sounds like some sort of GPS network enhanced laser designator targeting. Laser designators have been around since Vietnam, GPS since Gulf War I. Their marriage was predictable. It's about time their offspring showed up.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Mar 14, 2020)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Sounds like some sort of GPS network enhanced laser designator targeting. Laser designators have been around since Vietnam, GPS since Gulf War I. Their marriage was predictable. It's about time their offspring showed up.


----------



## Skyediamonds (Mar 14, 2020)

XBe: agreed. It would seem their offspring have been genetically manipulated to near perfection for this time period.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

