Poll: Best interceptor of Cold War (1950-1970)?

[ShVAK]

Which interceptor do you see as the best counter for the strategic bombers of its day?

Vote here!

 

[davparlr]

Hard to beat the F-4 Phantom II.

 

[tyrodtom]

Same problem as the bombers, but worse. Not one of these planes had even had it's first flight even for several years after 1950, and many years after their first flight before they become operational. Most of these aircraft don't become operational till more than 10 years after 1950.

 

[ShVAK]

Same problem as the bombers, but worse. Not one of these planes had even had it's first flight even for several years after 1950, and many years after their first flight before they become operational. Most of these aircraft don't become operational till more than 10 years after 1950.

See bomber thread.

 

[Matt308]

See boredom.

 

[ShVAK]

*shrug* I tried.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You know the Cold War did not end in 1970 right?

 

[ShVAK]

Yes I know, but once we get into mid-70s and 80's we're talking hardware that is largely still being used today. I wanted to see how 50's and 60's designs are evaluated by the folks around here.

 

[nuuumannn]

Cripes!

Lightning.

 

[wuzak]

Hard to beat the F-4 Phantom II.

Would suggest that the Phantom II was not, strictly speaking, an interceptor.

 

[herman1rg]

Lightning, no question

 

[buffnut453]

Think "interceptor", think Lightning. No question!

 

[vinnye]

+1
Lightning does it for me.

 

[dobbie]

I picked the F106 for its speed, range and manuverability

 

[msxyz]

Tupolev 128. Flying that thing was like lifting off from earth an entire SAM site (both in size and weight!) but it was unmateched in range, autonomy and radar capabilities. Oh, and it was available in 1961.

It was no dogfighter, but since the OT specified we're considering only the early years of the cold war, the main job for an interceptor had to be chasing bombers, preferably before they dropped their nukes on friendly soil.

 

[tomo pauk]

MiG-25 for me. Performance, armament, it even had the range provided the big honking engines ere not on afterburner all the time.

 

[msxyz]

MiG-25 for me. Performance, armament, it even had the range provided the big honking engines ere not on afterburner all the time.

It had the range, despite the engines. The Tumanski R15 had a specific fuel consumption of 1.25 kg/kg(T)xh (dry thrust) which was much worse than even a typical late '40s or early 50s engine. Hence why the URSS kept the TU-128 (same Phazotron 'Smerch' radar, btw) flying up in the cold north till the Mig-31 became available in quantities.

 

[J.A.W.]

I reckon.. the poor bloody Lightning, anybody remember that cold-war era Gerry Anderson sci-fi show 'Stingray', with the drum beat scramble, I read that he got that classic intro from watching RAF scrambles.
limited missile suite notwithstanding, the under-funded Lightning still had the point squirt GO to get right up a Badgers butt quick-smart...

 

[Readie]

I voted for the Lightning. It was just the plane for the job, short range fast interceptor. I suppose it was the spiritual successor to the Spitfire.
But, I would say that wouldn't I
Cheers
John

 

[Matt308]

Yes you would, sir.