The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

Which is the Best?

  • Total voters
    281

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

I saw a recent price of 24 million. An A10 in 1998 dollars was 10 million.
 
syscom3 said:
If one thing the Harrier ISNT is.... is a fast aircraft.
Click to expand...



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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

 

"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.....
 
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.
 
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.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

F-4 Phantom II - McDonnell Douglas Supersonic Jet Interceptor And Fighter Bomber
Replies
11
Views
625
Gnomey
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
573
Snautzer01
M
What Is The Point Of This?
Replies
3
Views
376
SaparotRob
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
Bombardier to Supply Jet to U.S. Army
Replies
1
Views
548
Denniss
D
Menu
Log in
Register