Your top 10 modern fighters

[Matt308]

And the Gripen is not effective in multi-role? That was the top level requirement for its development. I think that FBJ hit it on the head. Against a Block 60 and you have a more even fight. Put an AESA radar in it and the Gripen likely wouldn't stand a chance. But you can't knock the Gripen. It does what it was designed to do...air-to-air, air-to-gnd, air-to-sea and recon all in one rugged package with excellent commo equipment for situation exchange. I wouldn't feel undergunned if that was my primary aircraft.

 

[102first_hussars]

no.1-f22 Raptor
no.2-f-35 lightning II
no.3 F-16
No.4- EF-2000
No.5-SU-37
No.6-F-15 Eagle
No.7 F-14 Tomcat
No.8 Mirage 2000
No.9 F-18 Hornet
No. 10 Mig 29

 

[Matt308]

Wow. One of your top ten is no longer in service too. No Gripen. No Rafale. Care to break them down by model version?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And the Gripen is not effective in multi-role? That was the top level requirement for its development. I think that FBJ hit it on the head. Against a Block 60 and you have a more even fight. Put an AESA radar in it and the Gripen likely wouldn't stand a chance. But you can't knock the Gripen. It does what it was designed to do...air-to-air, air-to-gnd, air-to-sea and recon all in one rugged package with excellent commo equipment for situation exchange. I wouldn't feel undergunned if that was my primary aircraft.

I am not knocking the Gripen. I think it is excellent aircraft but I dont see that the example he gave against the F-16 is a legit arguement against the F-16.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

does no one else think it odd hussars has no number 3?

 

[Matt308]

I am not knocking the Gripen. I think it is excellent aircraft but I dont see that the example he gave against the F-16 is a legit arguement against the F-16.

Agreed.

And leave it to Lanc to catch that one.

 

[timshatz]

Hold on, maybe #3 is a stealth bird of some type. So stealthy, it even covers the number.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You mean its probably this aircraft here.

 

[Matt308]

Add an AESA radar to any of those aircraft and the list quickly changes. I would rank the F-18E/F higher up for that exact reason.

 

[timshatz]

You mean its probably this aircraft here.

That's the one.

 

[102first_hussars]

 

[CrescentMoon]

i dunno... i'd be hesitant about attacking the gripens. i can imagine a scenerio: a squadron of f16's is set to attack the enemy's key bases and operations. the area is uneven forest terrain. scattered throughout hidden points are gripens, about the size of a large van, quickly getting off the ground on short, makeshift runways. by the time the f16's realized they missed these initial targets, the gripens are already in the air, locking in their radar. f16's are deciding whether to continue their mission or to counter, they scramble around, lose formation. a few volleys of missiles, maybe both sides get some kills, and we're in dogfighting range. gripens comes standard with hmc, f16's afaik does not, gripens easily takes out f16's. yeah, i think vipers are great machines, but the gripen is designed for quick response, hard to kill on the ground, and anti-air measures. it's a tie for me.

 

[comiso90]

i dunno... i'd be hesitant about attacking the gripens. i can imagine a scenerio: a squadron of f16's is set to attack the enemy's key bases and operations. the area is uneven forest terrain. scattered throughout hidden points are gripens, about the size of a large van, quickly getting off the ground on short, makeshift runways. by the time the f16's realized they missed these initial targets, the gripens are already in the air, locking in their radar. f16's are deciding whether to continue their mission or to counter, they scramble around, lose formation. a few volleys of missiles, maybe both sides get some kills, and we're in dogfighting range. gripens comes standard with hmc, f16's afaik does not, gripens easily takes out f16's. yeah, i think vipers are great machines, but the gripen is designed for quick response, hard to kill on the ground, and anti-air measures. it's a tie for me.

And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.


.

 

[The Basket]

Me no understand.
Are you guys planning a war against Sweden?
What likely scenario would the US attack Sweden? You had a Volvo which spent too long in the shop!

The Viggen and the Draken were some of the coolest looking jet fighters ever built.

 

[CrescentMoon]

And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.


.

then you agree, that fighting gripens with f16's isn't a favorable scenerio

are there planes that's better suited for quick response and still manage to be competitive with the enemy other than the gripen?

 

[Aussie1001]

For me i love the great classics for instance:
1) The Harrier-just a great little plane with so many uses in the modern field the falklands proved that this little dog has a big bite.
2) Lightning- Maybe it is outdated by thirty or so years but this little bugger was faster than the F14, F16 and F15. (Information from Air Combat mag i have)
3) F15 Looks really cool so fast and sleek.
4) F22 raptor in the modern field this is the pinnicle of aircraft design. (for now)
5) Su27- Maybe it is in the stone age with reguards to electronics however it is like all russian things - its cheap and it works as well as doing what it should.
oh crap can't think of any more at the moment i'll get back to this in a moment.

 

[mkloby]

Aussie - the harrier??? Talk to some pilots and maint crews of those damn things... not exactly the pinnacle of successful design.

Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???

 

[Aussie1001]

keep going down i screwed up a post.....

 

[Aussie1001]

Mkloby- I have read Commander "Sharkey Wards" autobiography of the falklands and from what he had to say you had enough missiles to nail two mirarges thats enough isn't it, anyway the new harrier is a ground attack so it must have some payload capacity.

Aussie - the harrier???
Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???

Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?

 

[Glider]

Aussie - the harrier??? Talk to some pilots and maint crews of those damn things... not exactly the pinnacle of successful design.

Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???

More than a little harsh. When the chips are down the Harrier has delivered in spades for over 25 years. As for the pilots, yes I have talked to them and it was always the plane the pilots wanted to fly, before any other aircraft in the RAF. As for its ability as a fighter, the Sea Harrier had a remarkable record against the F15's/F16's at Red Flag excercises.
To maintain its always been petty reliable being designed from the start to operate away from an airfield. I admit, an engine change in the field is more than a little tricky but then again an engine change away from an airfield is a little unusual for any plane.
As for its payload a verticle takeoff does limit things but that isn't normal procedure, a rolling takeoff being the norm. The ski jump makes a huge difference at sea and I have always wondered why the USA didn't follow this practice.