# The Best Fighter pre 1970



## General Pain (Apr 24, 2007)

I am looking for the best fighter aircraft pre 1970

1 interceptor
1 dogfight
1 ground attack


----------



## 102first_hussars (Apr 26, 2007)

EE Lighting Interceptor

F4 Phantom/Mig-21 dogfighter

A4 Skyhawk Attacker


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2007)

General Pain said:


> I am looking for the best fighter aircraft pre 1970
> 
> 1 interceptor
> 1 dogfight
> 1 ground attack



EE Lightning

Mirage F1

A4 Skyhawk


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2007)

Lightning = Interceptor

Hunter = Dogfighter

F4 = Ground Attack


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 27, 2007)

F104 - interceptor
MIG 17 - dogfight
A4 - ground attack


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 27, 2007)

Interceptor - Lightning II
Dogfight - MiG 21
Ground Attack - A4 Skyhawk.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 27, 2007)

The f104 an excellent delivery platform due to its high wing loading not a knife fighter dogfighter but boom and zoom . In the 12 years the 104 was at Red Flag not one was lost in the simulated combats what else needs to be said


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> In the 12 years the 104 was at Red Flag not one was lost in the simulated combats what else needs to be said



Good to know that.

The job of an interceptor is to engage the enemy as far from their target as possible. In that capacity, all you need is speed, high ceiling, range, good rate of climb and a strong weapons system.

The F-104 was flawed but it did the job it was designed to do.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2007)

I pretty much agree with Glider.

It's a shame the Lightning was never forced to dogfight; sit on its tail and climb to the stars, then come roaring down like ...well, lightning. 

Initial rate of climb; 50,000 feet
Ceiling 60,000 feet
Speed Mach 2.3

All official ... not true figures. The Lightning bounced U-2s... an 11 Sqdn. pilot recently declared he took an unmodified Lightning to 88,000 feet and felt it could keep climbing. Lightning T.5 beat the F-15 to 30,000 feet...


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 27, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> The f104 an excellent delivery platform due to its high wing loading not a knife fighter dogfighter but boom and zoom . In the 12 years the 104 was at Red Flag not one was lost in the simulated combats what else needs to be said


I must correct my statement not one was lost I Red Flag while performing its role as strike aircraft . but had kills as it would "pop out of the weeds " while going a good clip and pull a snap shot.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 28, 2007)

Glider said:


> Lightning = Interceptor
> 
> Hunter = Dogfighter
> 
> F4 = Ground Attack



Yep, I would choose the same.


----------



## Glider (Apr 28, 2007)

Been thinking about this and I have decided to put the Gnat up as a dogfighter.
Sure as hell isn't an interceptor or GA, but as a dogfighter it would take some beating


----------



## Torch (May 1, 2007)

I've seen a few times the mention of the Hunter as a dogfighter, when and where was it used in a dogfight situation and what was it's kill/loss ratio?


----------



## twoeagles (May 1, 2007)

I flew an A-4 against a Hunter a long time ago, and we had gun camera 
footage after each sortie. What I remember is that the Hunter's pipper was
not only always on my aircraft, it was steady on my cockpit, and it was
quite humbling. For pure classic dogfight, I am leaning towards the Hunter.
F-106 for intercepter, my beloved Scooter for attack.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 1, 2007)

Dogfighter? Mig-19. Highly maneuverable with a lot of power, 2 engies to boot. Pakistan put Martin baker seats in their and armed them with sidewinders.


----------



## Matt308 (May 2, 2007)

No one has mentioned the F-8 Crusader...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 2, 2007)

1 Interceptor: F104 Starfighter
1 Dogfight: F-8 Crusader
1 Ground Attack: A-1 Skyraider


----------



## renrich (May 2, 2007)

Noticed a few listed F4 for a air to mud fighter. Not what I hear. Have a friend that flew 150 FAC missions in Viet Nam and he said they were not noted for their bombing accuracy. Also read a book about A1s flying out of Thailand and the author said the F4s were notorious for their inaccuacy in bombing. Said the most proficent was the F105.


----------



## renrich (May 2, 2007)

I would also vote for the F8 as the top dogfighter.


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2007)

Here's some great footage of the Hawker Hunter.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtaoZvB7EFs_


----------



## TinWolf (May 4, 2007)

Hi guys.

New boy here

What about the MiG25 as an interceptor?
good speed, plenty of power to get where it needs to be.
As long as it`s not facing something that can turn i.e. a bomber i think it`d do the job.

Dogfighter: I think it`s gotta be the F8
Mudmoving: My favourite, the F-105 Thud, a great plane in it`s day and once the RAF had shown how to fly it low, it couldn`t be caught. Thinking about that what about the Buccaneer, again it couldn`t be caught down low.


----------



## Heinz (May 17, 2007)

Interceptor - Lightening

Dogfight - Crusader

Ground Attack - Phantom


----------



## V-1710 (May 30, 2007)

Best interceptor of all time was the F-106. Very fast, very advanced avionics, and very well armed, thanks to the MB-1 Genie. The ability to take on dozens of bombers all at once with a high probability of getting ALL of them. Dogfighter, probably the F8U, ground pounder the F-105 or Buccaneer.


----------



## Matt308 (May 30, 2007)

I've read about the F-106. Had a high top speed, but literally took almost 10 minutes to get there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 30, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I've read about the F-106. Had a high top speed, but literally took almost 10 minutes to get there.



Mentioned a few times, bare with me - My father in law ran a squadron of F-106s used as chase planes on the B-1 program (He was the chief test pilot on the B-1 program). He said they took forever to accelerate but once at speed would keep picking up speed until they self-destructed. He said the F-111 and the B-1 were the same way. They had the opportunity to play with F-15 during dis-similar aircraft exercises and he said a few times they caught an Eagle drive napping! Some of his boys also brought back a few 106s with some popped rivets in the wings.

Dad has high regards for the 106, they even had a 106B (Tandem trainer) which they referred to as the "station wagon."


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2007)

FBJ, when you talk about the B-1, are you referring to the original Carter cancelled version with the strait inlets and no diffusers?

The -106B was an ugly airplane. Just ruined the lines in my opinion. Also, wasn't the -106 what Bush flew while in ANG?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> FBJ, when you talk about the B-1, are you referring to the original Carter cancelled version with the strait inlets and no diffusers?


No - he was the chief test pilot on the B-1B - production test pilot. He and one of his buddies took one out over 4th of July weekend in 1987 and set about 90 world speed and altitude records, about 20 still stand today where he flew as co-pilot, he as 6 remaining as pilot. 

They won the MacKay Trophy for that one. He could of accepted it in his own name, he's such a modest guy he shared it with the whole unit....

NAA: National Aeronautic Association




Matt308 said:


> The -106B was an ugly airplane. Just ruined the lines in my opinion. Also, wasn't the -106 what Bush flew while in ANG?


No, he flew an F-102...


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2007)

I thought that with the revision to the B-1 program post Carter, that they sacrificed top speed for stealth. While I had seen the records broken for the weight class, I didn't realize that top speed was not greatly affected by the B modifications.

And Bush flew -102s. Man those were antiquated even for his time.


----------



## pbfoot (May 31, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I thought that with the revision to the B-1 program post Carter, that they sacrificed top speed for stealth. While I had seen the records broken for the weight class, I didn't realize that top speed was not greatly affected by the B modifications.
> 
> And Bush flew -102s. Man those were antiquated even for his time.


The early 70's the 102 was about right for ADC in Texas not many threats that far into the Gulf anything out of Cuba would have been tagged by Florida or Louisiana ADC


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> I thought that with the revision to the B-1 program post Carter, that they sacrificed top speed for stealth. While I had seen the records broken for the weight class, I didn't realize that top speed was not greatly affected by the B modifications.


 It reallly wasn't. I believe the top speed was limited due to some of the RAM material placed around the intakes and other areas of the airframe...


Matt308 said:


> And Bush flew -102s. Man those were antiquated even for his time.


Considering was was being develped at the time, they were. F-102s actually got deployed to Vietnam and Bush "Could of" gotten deployed, much to the sh-grin of his detractors...

_"By the end of 1958, 26 Air Defense Command squadrons were flying F-102As, and the Delta Dagger had replaced the North American F-86D Sabre as the most numerous interceptor with the ADC. F-102As in service numbered 627, or about half of the total number of interceptors operated by the Air Defense Command. At the height of its service, 32 ADC units flew the F-102A. The last of 873 F-102As produced was delivered in September 1958. 
The first overseas deployment took place in June 1958 when the 327th Fighter Interceptor Squadron moved to Thule, Greenland. The first squadron in Europe to receive the F-102 was the 525th FIS based at Bitburg in West Germany. Five other squadrons based in Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands also got Delta Daggers. 

During the early 1960s, the F-102A was gradually replaced in the ADC by the McDonnell F-101B Voodoo and the Convair F-106 Delta Dart. By the end of 1969, with the exception of a squadron maintained in Iceland, all ADC F-102As had been transferred to the Air National Guard. The F-102As stationed in the Pacific had been withdrawn in December of 1969. The last ADC unit to operate the F-102A, the 57th FIS based at Keflavik in Iceland finally traded in its F-102As for McDonnell F-4C Phantoms in mid-1973. 

As they left USAF service, most F-102As were transferred to the Air National Guard. First to receive the F-102A was the 182nd FIS of the Texas ANG in mid-1960. Twenty-three ANG units ultimately got F-102As, including squadrons in Louisiana, Florida, Texas, North Dakota, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New York, Washington, Connecticut, Oregion, Maine Vermont, Tennessee, Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, and California. 

Large-scale retirement of the F-102A from the ANG began in late 1969 and continued throughout the 1970s. The last F-102A finally left ANG service in October of 1976, when the 199th FIS of the Hawaii ANG traded in their Delta Daggers for F-4C Phantoms. Most of the retired F-102As ended up in the boneyards at the Davis-Monthan AFB storage facility. Many were subsequently converted into remote-controlled drone aircraft. 

Each F-102A squadron normally included two TF-102A two-seaters on strength. 

Vietnam-era deployment
Though essentially useless in the small-war role, F-102s were indeed deployed to South Vietnam. Aircraft from the 590th Fighter Interceptor Squadron were transferred to Tan Son Nhut AFB near Saigon in March 1962 to provide air defense against the unlikely event that North Vietnamese aircraft would attack the South. F-102As continued to be based there and in Thailand throughout much of the war. F-102As also stood alert at Bien Hoa and Da Nang in South Vietnam and at Udorn and Don Muang in Thailand. The F-102A was finally withdrawn from Southeast Asia in December of 1969. 
A few missions were flown over North Vietnam, but the Southeast Asia-stationed F-102As are not thought to have actually engaged in air-to-air combat. However, Joe Baugher cites an F-102A of the 509th FIS being lost to an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-21 while flying a CAP over Route Package IV on February 3, 1968. Two F-102As were lost to AAA or small-arms fire, four were destroyed on the ground by the Viet Cong, and eight were lost in operational accidents. 

The F-102A even flew some close-support missions over South Vietnam, even though the aircraft was totally unsuited for this role. These operations started in 1965 at Tan Son Nhut. Operating under the code-name "Project Stovepipe," the F-102s used their heat sinking Falcon missiles to lock onto heat sources over the Ho Chi Minh trail at night, often Viet Cong campfires. They would even fire their radar-guided missiles if their radars managed to lock onto something. 

The F-102s soon switched to a day role, firing unguided FFAR rockets using the optical sight; 618 day sorties were flown, the last one at the end of 1965. One F-102A was downed by ground fire during one of these rocket attacks. There were some later missions flown, especially in emergencies when the 102's were the fastest response available in South Vietnam. Some TF-102A two-seaters were also used on occasion in Vietnam as forward air controllers." _


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2007)

what a tough question - particularly the dogfighter as so few of the list actually fought against each other and you have to assume the envelope. In WWII if you wanted B-17's and defend against Mustangs or T-Bolts you had to be good at 22000-30,000 for the strike zone.

In VietNam I assume you want mid to 25,000 where the 105s and F4's played before rolling in or dropping level.

In Egypt/Israel most of the fights were on the deck. This is not best place for F4 to be but the F1 and Hunter and the A4 and the Mig19 would be pretty tough subsonic.. I suppose the 102/106 would be agile fighters but guns were badly overlooked by USAF

I guess I would pick the F-8 for dogfighter because of internal gun to go with the missles and much more agile than the F-4 and close to the Mirage and MiG21 but still able to accelerate.. The F4 was awesome in vertical, but...somewhat one dimensional for full range of one on one (or two or more) fights around strike force altitudes?

For interceptor? F4 or F106 because of speed, altitude load and range combined.

For dirt the A4 or AD depending on the threat environment? 

The Thud was an awesome bird in a lot of ways but really designed for Nuke delivery at high speed and down low - not really a TacAir even though it did what was asked of it in the 60's.

Lot better opinions than mine on this board that flew most of the a/c - and I just don't know squat about post war Euro birds.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 1, 2007)

Thanks FBJ. I had read about the -102 in SEA.

Regarding the B-1, here is what I was referring too. The B-1B is fitted with fixed geometry engine inlets that feed the engines through curved ducts incorporating stream-wise baffles, blocking radar reflections from the fans. These reduced the maximum speed at sea level to about 1.2 Mach. The earlier B-1A had external compression inlets and could reach a higher ultimate mach at altitude (about 2.2 Mach as I recall), but the B-1A also had about 10 times the radar signature without the modifications.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Aug 28, 2007)

While it is fun to talk about aircraft performance, it's hard to get away from the consideration of the aircraft as part of a "weapons" or "air defense" system (SAGE ... NTDS ... radars / missiles).

For fleet air defense, it has to be the F-4J / FG. Mk1 Phantom with pulse doppler radar (AWG-10/ APG-59 in the -J and the AWG-11 in the FG. Mk1). Aircraft: unsurpassed combination of performance and BVR missiles (4-6 Sparrows)
System: supported by NTDS 

Then there is the Mach 3 YF-12A with the first demonstrated "look-down, shoot-down" capability (ASG-18 / AIM-47 combo). Too bad it never reached operational service.

A Pakistani upgraded J-6 has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.9, three NR-30 (heavier shell and higher mv/ flatter trajectory than DEFA and ADEN) directed by a radar ranging/ lead computing gun-sight, as well as AIM-9 ... That's pretty potent! Its powered controls allow it to turn at high speeds - something the MiG-17F - itself a strong contender - couldn't do.

Nevertheless, I would go with a weird one, Harrier GR1 that entered service in 1969. Granted it was 1970 when USMC pioneered the use of VIFF (and it took a bit of modification to the nozzles to optimize) but that "threw the rule book out the window" with the extraordinary things it could do ... The GR1 had the high thrust-to-weight ratio and the ability to do VIFF plus two 30mm ADEN and a good gunsight. That makes it my choice for "pre-1970" ... (I suppose you would have to bend the rules a bit to allow the 1970 version that was really optimized - the USMC AV-8A version carrying the high performance AIM-9D Sidewinder with a cooled seeker.)

If "ground attack" is taken to mean close air support, then an Israeli modified Skyhawk would be amongst the best - all things being equal with its USN/USMC cousins, the 30mm DEFA gives it the edge.

For all weather strike, the A-6A with DIANE is hard to beat for its ability to accurately hit targets in appalling weather. F-111A with TFR would have gotten the nod but for the fact that its deficiencies were not corrected until the 1970's. For good bombing accuracy and that all important ability to out-run a lot of interceptors at low altitude, the Buccaneer deserves a mention ...


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2007)

Hard to disagree with any of that


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 28, 2007)

Interceptor: F-106 Delta Dart
Dogfighter: MiG-17
Attack: A-6 Intruder

As stated above, the original B-1A had variable-geometry inlets for it's F-101 engines, which allowed it to reach Mach 2.2 at altitude. However, after it's cancellation, between better Soviet interceptors (the MiG-31), and better Soviet AA missles, it became suicidal for a bomber to fly high and fast (which is why the XB-70A got cancelled). After that, the flight profile for penetration bombing changed from high fast, to low fast; that's why the B-52 mission profile is to get as low as possible now, instead of high and fast like during the Vietnam War. 

The newer B-1B was optimized for low fast operation, meaning there was no longer a requirement for Mach 2 capability; so the complicated variable-geometry inlet was chucked in favor of a simple, fixed-geometry inlet with RAM-coated baffling. The B-1B is said to have an RCS (Radar Cross-Section) of a bird.


----------

