Your top 10 modern fighters (1 Viewer)

[Aussie1001]

Sir Winston Spencer Churchill onec said this which in the circumstances i think is rather approporiate if a little wrong in this case anyway:

Eating words has never given me indigestion.
Winston Churchill
He also said this:

Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement.
Winston Churchill

 

[Graeme]

Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???

Could have been.

Russians did.

Now go outside, and kick the footy for awhile!

 

[The Basket]

The Harrier performed excellently in the Falklands.

The Harrier isn't supersonic but so what?

Tanks aren't supersonic. The Apache isn't supersonic.

The Harrier was the ONLY successful VTOL aircraft.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You have the remember the Harrier was not designed to be a interceptor or air supperiority fighter like the F-15, F-14, F-16 and so forth.

The Harrier was designed to be used in ground attack and support missions. That is why the US Marines bought it and why other nations such as England use it.

To compare it to aircraft such as the F-15 and so forth is a bit foolish in my opinion.

The Harrier is a great ground attack but does not come close to the A-10 in my opinion.

 

[Aussie1001]

Could have been.

Russians did.

Now go outside, and kick the footy for awhile!

WTF dont have a footy however will ride motorbike at soonest oppotunity....

 

[plan_D]

The Harrier was simply designed to operate in areas where other aircraft could not. It cannot actually be compared to any other aircraft except in individual parts of operation; the reason is that no other aircraft can do what it does.

The A-10 is the better ground attack aircraft, but then the Harrier can be there at the FOB and get to action to quicker. The best picture of the Harrier I've seen is of one landing in a tiny clearing in a forest, not even a helicopter could land in that situation. Consider the Harrier a fast attack helicopter ... because that's all it really is but without the rotors.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The best picture of the Harrier I've seen is of one landing in a tiny clearing in a forest, not even a helicopter could land in that situation.

Sure it can. Ive landed in many tiny clearings with as little as a foot clearing the rotors.

 

[Ramirezzz]

The Mig-25 was sh*t but a gem, it's a dog but a Thoroughbred. It was designed to take down one aircraft that never materialized and when pitted in other roles it suffered sadly. It didn't have an ejection seat...

I took this tread out of the dusty shelf only for one purpose - once for all: MiG-25 HAD an ejection seat (the good old KM-1, installed on MiG-21 , Su-7 and on other planes)! The seat of the Belenkos airplane was dismantled and removed for a closer investigation.

its just that the Su-27 wasn't the unstable...they don't have very advanced avionics, they designed the Su-27for stability and tweaked it for more maneuverability and agility

Su-27P avionics was much better in comparison with such of F-15A and roughly equal with the avionics of the F-15C

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I took this tread out of the dusty shelf only for one purpose - once for all: MiG-25 HAD an ejection seat (the good old KM-1, installed on MiG-21 , Su-7 and on other planes)! The seat of the Belenkos airplane was dismantled and removed for a closer investigation.

Belenko has stated in his book, in numerous publications and in LIVE appearances prior to his death that the MiG-25 in his squadron had NO ejection seats. This has been confirmed by other former Soviet MiG-25s drivers who have either immigrated or defected to the west. It seems however in later years (Post 1976) the MiG-25 did receive a seat.

Perhaps this was a little incentive to remain gamefully employed with the Soviet Air Force?!?!?

 

[Ramirezzz]

Belenko has stated in his book, in numerous publications and in LIVE appearances prior to his death that the MiG-25 in his squadron had NO ejection seats. This has been confirmed by other former Soviet MiG-25s drivers who have either immigrated or defected to the west. It seems however in later years (Post 1976) the MiG-25 did receive a seat.

As far as I know Belenko was the only MiG-25 pilot who defected to the west . In fact, before 1989 he was the only pilot of the soviet Air Force and PVO who has defected.
Back to the question:
I have 3 different books with the description of the construction of the Foxbat, unfortunately all in russian. They all confirm the presence of an ejection seat even in the prototype plane and in the earliest versions ,both fighter and recce - MiG-25P and MiG-25R respectevly.
So according to the information in these books there was an ejection seat KM-1 installed on the first versions of the MiG-25R (1967),which was changed later to the more advanced KM-1M. MiG-25P was equipped with this seat as well (V. Iljin, M.Levin, Sovremennaja Aviacija,M.,1992).
The only changes were made after Belenko's defecton was the completely changed "friend-foe" system which became useless after his betrayal - that costed about 2 billion soviet rubles - the development of the first soviet aircraft carrier was cancelled due to this reason, than a better radar was installed and some other changes in avionics were made.
And quite frankly, can you imagine a mach 3 plane without an ejection seat? I highly doubt any pilot would climb in that airplane even to make a touch-n-go training flight - the Soviet Union was not known for a very human treatment of its own citizens,but we shouldn't exaggerate THAT much.
As for Belenko, I don't know why he lied all the time on that issue -he could have his reasons for this. BTW, are you sure he's dead by now? There're some rumours in Russia now and then , that he was killed in a plane accident 2 or 3 years ago , but then, I saw an interview with him dated 2005 or something like this.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As far as I know Belenko was the only MiG-25 pilot who defected to the west . In fact, due to the 1989 he was the only pilot of the soviet Air Force and PVO who defected.
Back to the question:
I have 3 different books with the description of the construction of the Foxbat, unfortunately all in russian. They all confirm the presence of an ejection seat even in the prototype plane and in the earliest versions ,both fighter and recce - MiG-25P and MiG-25R respectevly.
So according to the information in these books there was an ejection seat KM-1 installed on the first versions of the MiG-25R (1967),which was changed later to the more advanced KM-1M. MiG-25P was equipped with this seat as well (V. Iljin, M.Levin, Sovremennaja Aviacija,M.,1992).
The only changes were made after Belenko's defecton was the completely changed "friend-foe" system which bekame useless after his betrayal - that costed about 2 billion soviet rubles - the development of the first soviet aircraft carrier was cancelled due to this reason, than a better radar was installed and some other changes in avionics were made.

I believe that it was possible that the squadron Belenko was in, considering its proximity to the "west" did not arm their seat - again just a theory based on what Belenko said.

And quite frankly, can you imagine a mach 3 plane without an ejection seat? I highly doubt any pilot would climb in that airplane even to make a touch-n-go training flight - the Soviet Union was not known for a very human treatment of its own citizens,but we shouldn't exaggerate THAT much.

You have valid points however I could see trainers so equipped with the seats and that training done at an inland base. As far as ejecting at Mach 3 - I wouldn't know what is worse - ejecting or staying with the plane although I know there have been successful MiG-25 and SR-71 egresses.

As for Belenko, I don't know why he lied all the time on that issue -he could have his reasons for this. BTW, are you sure he's dead by now? There're some rumours in Russia now and then , that he was killed in a plane accident 2 or 3 years ago , but then, I saw an interview with him dated 2005 or something like this.

It's funny - on an other forum I corresponded with another fellow from Russia and he stated that a lot of Belenkos statements were lies - especially after his book was published. There were rumors that he was killed in a car accident about 2 years ago, I haven't seen anything confirming that. I think a lot of the media confused him with Alexander Zuyev.

 

[Ramirezzz]

I believe that it was possible that the squadron Belenko was in, considering its proximity to the "west" did not arm their seat - again just a theory based on what Belenko said.

The only problem is that the fighter regiments equipped with the MiG-25P, the type which Belenko has flown, were PVO regiments, that means they all were situated in the proximity to the border - some in Cola Peninsula near the Norwegian/Finnish border and some in Chukotka near Alaska and some in the Far East of Russia , where the Belenko's regiment was deployed.
AFAIK the only measure to prevent possible defection (just not to fill fuel tanks to 100%) was made after Belenko's infamous flight and only in his regiment.

You have valid points however I could see trainers so equipped with the seats and that training done at an inland base. As far as ejecting at Mach 3 - I wouldn't know what is worse - ejecting or staying with the plane although I know there have been successful MiG-25 and SR-71 egresses.

The flights on trainers are very different kind of situation - a training plane like L-29, MiG-15UTI or T-39 can usually make a safe landing without engine power from every pattern section exept crosswind. Moreover, it has pretty decent chances to survive even after a landing in a field somewhere nearby the airbase
Now imagine a beast with a 37 t of normal takeoff weight - if both engines fail it will fall from the 500 m alltitude just like a brick without a slightest chance to survive.
The trainers don't go supersonic - and I'm talking not about Mach 3 - without ejection seat you dont have a chance even at lower speeds.

It's funny - on an other forum I corresponded with another fellow from Russia and he stated that a lot of Belenkos statements were lies - especially after his book was published.

Personnaly I think the only reason to such statements was his wish to "sell" himself in the new country which was at the peak of Cold War- he just told people what they wanted to hear. For me , he was neither a fighter against the system nor the person, who betrayed only to fill its bank deposit with a cash - if you read some details of his biography, you'll come to conclusion that he was an "adventurer" of the worst kind , who wanted to change something in his life in a very radical way, even at the cost of betrayal of his country and regiment.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Personnaly I think the only reason to such statements was his wish to "sell" himself in the new country which was at the peak of Cold War- he just told people what they wanted to hear. For me , he was neither a fighter against the system nor the person, who betrayed only to fill its bank deposit with a cash - if you read some details of his biography, you'll come to conclusion that he was an "adventurer" of the worst kind , who wanted to change something in his life in a very radical way, even at the cost of betrayal of his country and regiment.

Exactly what the Russian in my other forum said....

 

[GeorgeSanders]

1. su-37 super flanker
2. F/A-22 Raptor
3. f-15 eagle
4. eurofighter typhoon
5. f-35c lightning II
6. saab gripen
7. F/A-18E/F super hornet
8. F-14D super tomcat
9. mig-29 fulcrum
10. f-4F Phantom II

 

[F-14]

My morden 10 are as follows

Dassault Mirage III

Gurrman F-14 Tomcat

Su-27/30 Flanker

MiG-21 Fishbed

MiG-29 fulcrum

SPEPCAT Jaguar

MiG-27/23 Flogger

MiG-25 FoxBat

Folland Gat

North American F-86 Saber

 

[lesofprimus]

So the F-22 and the F-15 arent on ur list at all??? Oh, u only have 11 posts, that explains it....

 

[F-14]

well iam not a G8 fan of the Raptor or of the F-15 for that matter 1 reson being the F-15A/S is operated by the RSAF (the Royal suadi Air Force ) the resons for that is puerly political but the Reson for not choosing the Raptotr is because it is a relatively new Combat platform and has not being tested in battle

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

What does the fact that the F-15 is operated by the Saudis have to do with whether the aircraft is good or not?

 

[Lucky13]

My top 10 list and in no particular order....

Vought F-8 Crusader
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Mig-21
Dassault Mirage III
English Electric Lightning
Grumman F-14 Tomcat
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
Mig-31
Su-27

 

[fly boy]

the f-14 is really good i don't get why they put it out of sevice and now china can get f-14 parts from the black market