Skyediamonds
Staff Sergeant
- 1,088
- May 26, 2018
I'd vote for the F-22 & -23 except they operate in secrecy. We never really know how they performed in combat or how the design & hardware performed. Anyone has answers here?
The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,974
- Jun 25, 2013
Since the F-22 is so focused on air-air, it's probable that its closest use to combat is reconnaissance overflights. The F-23 was never produced; it was built to the same spec as the F-22, and building both would be pointless.
soulezoo
Senior Airman
Having turned wrenches on F-4's, I feel qualified to suggest that under those "aerodynamics", it's a garbage truck. A loveable one, yes, (and one I do like) but still...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,974
- Jun 25, 2013
The Lightning, from what I have read, had a spectacular rate of climb and showed itself to be very capable in mock dogfights. Of course, this would need to be near base, as its range was not exactly stellar.
I agree, it would be nice if we could one day put all these wars behind us. I doubt it'll happen, but even if we could make them few and far between would be an improvement.
Well, there are great interceptors here, and great dogfighters and great fighter-bombers and high speed recce machines and weasels and buddy tankers to boot. There are planes that made quantum leaps and others that made evolutionary improvements, some with long service lives, and some with shorter ones. Some served worldwide, and others in narrow arenas, on land and at sea, but as far as I'm concerned, only one did it all and well for 30+ years: the mighty Phantom!
Solid as a brick, and with the aerodynamics of one, and the power to send that brick to the stratosphere, then plant it back on the boat with a MIG scalp or two under its belt. Escorting a Bear out of the ADIZ, snapping images of missile sites, cratering an Egyptian runway, breaking up an NVA ambush or foxing SA-6s, it's all in a day's work.
No Contest!
Cheers,
Wes
Solid as a brick, and with the aerodynamics of one, and the power to send that brick to the stratosphere, then plant it back on the boat with a MIG scalp or two under its belt. Escorting a Bear out of the ADIZ, snapping images of missile sites, cratering an Egyptian runway, breaking up an NVA ambush or foxing SA-6s, it's all in a day's work.
No Contest!
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
What, no love for the F-106?…oh, the humanity!…
Personally I love the early jets...there's something so pure about them.
I think its because we were in the infancy of that technology at the time. I guess its the same attraction for the planes from the first world war.
Given that, my favourite is a plane that actually never existed (as far as I know, anyway...
). It's my avatar, which is a Canadair Sabre Mk. VI, but in my fantasy world, it would be powered with an Orenda 17 engine, which I believe was only ever built as a proof of concept.
The 17 was the most powerful of the Orenda engines (8490 lbs. w/afterburner). Just the thought of that kind of power in the ol' Sabre. Man, that would be a ride.
...however the question was for All-Time.
Given that, I think a newer jet would be the likely choice.
I just don't know enough about the F-22 to choose it, so my choice is going to be the F/A-18.
A newer platform than the F14 or -15, it has a well known and proven track record.
Elvis
Personally I love the early jets...there's something so pure about them.
I think its because we were in the infancy of that technology at the time. I guess its the same attraction for the planes from the first world war.
Given that, my favourite is a plane that actually never existed (as far as I know, anyway...
). It's my avatar, which is a Canadair Sabre Mk. VI, but in my fantasy world, it would be powered with an Orenda 17 engine, which I believe was only ever built as a proof of concept.The 17 was the most powerful of the Orenda engines (8490 lbs. w/afterburner). Just the thought of that kind of power in the ol' Sabre. Man, that would be a ride.
...however the question was for All-Time.
Given that, I think a newer jet would be the likely choice.
I just don't know enough about the F-22 to choose it, so my choice is going to be the F/A-18.
A newer platform than the F14 or -15, it has a well known and proven track record.
Elvis
Last edited:
I think for any jet that hasn't completed its service life yet, rating it on the "for all time" scale is a bit premature, n'est-ce pas?
Cheers,
Wes
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I would think one would have to choose the best realative to its peers when it was in service otherwise the pole is effectively
" what is the greatest fighter jet of today" as pretty much any of the newer aircraft are of course going to outclass something that went into service in say 1948.
" what is the greatest fighter jet of today" as pretty much any of the newer aircraft are of course going to outclass something that went into service in say 1948.
Depends on your criteria. If you're going to base "outclass" solely on ACM capability, then maybe. But if you think parts of greatness include versatility, adaptability, superior performance in a variety of mission types, and long term dominance in many conflicts around the world, then in my book it's kind of premature to judge current fighters before they retire from service.
If we were conducting this survey in 1990, we would have to discount the F-14 and F-15C as air superiority "one trick ponies". Then along came the PAVE precision munitions targeting system and the pod mounted ECM and photorecon systems, and the Tomcat, at least, became a multi-mission fighter. I'm not sure how much of this stuff made it to the C Eagle. Biff will tell us. The Cat only misses "greatest fighter" status by its limited distribution and it's somewhat lackluster ACM performance against opponents of its generation.
Cheers,
Wes
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I do see your point and its a good one but since the thread is " greatest fighter jet" I was assuming it was in reference to air to air capabilities as oposed to say " greatest multi roll jet".
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
OF all time, Wes, not for.
My thinking is that a new design would benefit from R&D gained from older designs.
I'll stick with the F/A-18 for this one, thanks all the same.
Elvis
With all due respect to the Phantom, in Vietnam the best ACM jet was the F-8 Crusader. A 19:3 exchange rate, the North Vietnamese tried to avoid it to the point a Crusader got behind a MiG 17 and the MiG pilot ejected before Jerry Tucker who was flying that F-8 could squeeze the trigger. The F-8's record would have been better but it flew off the smaller 27C WWII era carriers and as a result had fewer opportunities.
19:3, F8s vs MiGs, but judging from Dan Fahey's exhaustive list, it looks like the MiG17 leads the pack in total kills. Not glamorous, not fast, but apparently plenty lethal.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Mig-17. Incredibly effective aircraft. One of the few who still had worth after Korea.
In later years, the F-5A would be seen in the same light against aircraft of the 70's and 80's.
Elvis
In later years, the F-5A would be seen in the same light against aircraft of the 70's and 80's.
Elvis
Yes..have done exhaustive research!
The key tool that started turning the Air War advantage back to the US was not just good piloting but vectoring.
US lost many planes because we could not see where VN fighters were coming from to counter their tactics.
What changed it for the USAF was the introduction of AWACs.
Before AWACS Navy had a better handle on Vectoring than USAF because of their positioning off the coast.
It provided the key information that gave the Crusader a bit of an advantage over USAF where the Migs were.
From land and sea there were only so many routs to hit targets and the Vietnamese knew these routs well.
So they were armed with SAMS and AAA, the air force was only one tool. They created corridor Traps...!
USAF coming from bases in Thailand and Laos and South VN had nothing comparable to the Navy because of terrain.
Viet Migs had Russian radar a key advantage and their fighters were vectored for best positioning.
For example F100s or F105s would drop down from 20k to about 10k.
Migs were positioned at 5k or lower at full throttle would climb shooting down the loaded US aircraft or forcing them to drop bombs early and escape.
Either way a lot of ordinance was dropped with zero affect.
We lost over 5000 aircraft...and US history loves to make sure the history books read what they want us to read.
Like shootdowns not being credited to to VN pilots because the US fighter crashed OTW or making back to base, never to be used again
The success of the Crusader was fractional success. Like to many things we did in Vietnam.
F8 Crusader did well at sea. Most of their combat was coastal where the Navy could see the Migs.
If it was a USAF Fighter coming from western US airbases it may not had anywhere near the success the Navy had.
Not uncommon for the US to spend $1million to take out a $1 target !
Last edited:
So very true. I look at Vietnam this way- The United States had all kinds of jets designed to take on the Soviets in very specific ways. The entire Century Series was designed and implemented for some very specific missions. Lots of interceptors and deep penetration strike fighters like the the F-105. The 105 did have an internal bomb bay to carry a tactical nuke into the USSR. The F-101 carried an AIR 2 Genie nuclear rocket to bring down lots of Soviet bombers, as did the F-102 and F-106. The Starfighter was an interceptor and not great at turning. The only Century Series fighter that I think of as a basic ACM jet was the Super Sabre. And it too was used as a strike fighter in South Vietnam. The Navy equivalent to the Century Series was the F-8 and it was designed for ACM and trained that way and fought that way and did well in the ACM mission with the help of radar pickets and S2F's, the early carrier borne AWACS.
Vietnam turned all that specialization on its ear. In my weird imagination I see all those US jets and their pilots like Olympic judo, boxing and wrestling athletes stepping into a street fight against thugs wielding knives, chains, bottles, bats and guns. Judo against judo can do well. But judo against a chain and a bat- pretty iffy. Judo has to be very very careful and always on the defensive to just survive, much less prevail.
Technically, even during Vietnam there were EC-121's that were effective control agencies, when they were allowed to tell pilots they were being tailed.
I don't really get the point: In WWII, pilots were often made aware of where planes were forming up so they could quickly go in there and bust them up.
I think the USN had a better feel for what had to be kept secret and what didn't.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not quite - 3,744 planes, 5,607 helicopters and 578 UAVs. (Correll, John (2004). The Air Force in the Vietnam War(PDF). The Air Force Association. p. 26.)
Actually, they were E1Bs and C's, "Willy Fudd", the "Stoof with a roof". S2F was the ASW version of that airframe, and with a pair of 1820s, what a clatterbox that was! Shake your fillings loose. Despite its diminutive size, it had the weight, the power, and 3x the wake turbulence of a DC3. Ask me how I know.
Actually, there were EC121s and then there were EC121s. Different outfits with different missions. There were Navy birds who did ELINT, and Air Force birds that did AWACS. Both had to keep their distance from the action, as they made juicy MiG fodder.
Cheers,
Wes
