The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[102first_hussars]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

 

[Nonskimmer]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

Agree now!!

 

[102first_hussars]

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.

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).