The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[Matt308]

What's that he's saying? Oh yeah, "If I suffer a birdstrike, I want a closed casket burial."

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Maybe it needed two conformal ventral tanks, like a budding virgin.

 

[plan_D]

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]

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]

I vote her most brutally handsome. The Lightning just looks bad@ss. Besides I like side and chin mounted AA missiles.

 

[HealzDevo]

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]

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]

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]

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????

 

[Matt308]

THANK YOU...

 

[pbfoot]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!!

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.