Matt308
Glock Perfection
What's that he's saying? Oh yeah, "If I suffer a birdstrike, I want a closed casket burial."
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
It just had 0 rangeRegarding 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.
100% W-R-O-N-G! Look at the spec the Lightning was develped to - it's primary purpose that that of an interceptor.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...
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 ....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????
But nothing - it met it's design intent. It gave the UK a first class interceptor in it's day.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 ....
That was the reason it was designed to begin with!!!!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.
The multi-role philosophy came almost a decade later when by that time technology allowed modern combat aircraft to perform multi roles effectively.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.