The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

Best of the best list :

1. F/A-22 Raptor
2. EF Typhoon
3. Su-30 MKI
4. F-15C (AESA Equipped)
5. MiG-31 Foxhound

Best combat proven (over the years) :

1. Supermarine Spitfire
2. Me-262
3. F-4 Phantom
4. F-14 Tomcat
5. F-86 Sabre

And add the F-16 and MiG-29 below that

Okay here goes...

1. F-22- stealth, super-cruise, advanced avionics, superior maneuverability
2. Typhoon- super-cruise, high-turn rate, advanced avionics
3. F-35- advanced avionics, maneuverability comparable to the F-16
4. Su-30MKI- very manueverable, large payload, large combat radius
5. JAS-37 Gripen- highly maneverable, advanced avionics

These are all operational planes...not testbeds like the Su-37 ect. F-22 is #1 due to it's low observability and likelihood of the all important first look, first shoot, first kill capablity coupled with unmatched maneuverablity. Typhoon is second due to it's fast cruising speed coupled with it's high sustained turn rate. F-35 due to it's advanced avionics which are modeled after the F-22 and don't forget that the F-16 level of maneuverability coupled with American pilots and AWACS makes this fighter venerable against any opponent. Su-30MKI,the best fully operational Russian-made fighter on the market at this time. It has a high degree of maneuverabilty with a powerful radar, long range and a very large payload which means it has unmatched combat persistence. And rounding it out is the JAS-37 which continues the Swedish legacy of making outstanding fighters. It has incredible maneuverabilty and a very advanced avionics suite.

That's my top 5

Lucretius,
Impressive charts but I'll go with this (from globalsecurity.org)

Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.

GlobalSecurity.org, bottom of the page




seekerof

Originally posted by devilwasp
best air superiority fighter ?

1. F4 phantom (come on has anyone played ace combat 4? it can beat a raptor!)
2. hawker hurracane/spitfire
3. P51

I think i will go with good old Ace Combat 4 too but the plane ratings rather than the arcade flight dynamics where all planes are almost equal. Seems close enough looking at other charts. Great game BTW.

1. F-22
2. F-2
3. F-15
4. Rafale
5. Typhoon

[edit on 19-12-2004 by Trent]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Lucretius,
Impressive charts but I'll go with this (from globalsecurity.org)

Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed.

GlobalSecurity.org, bottom of the page

seekerof

It was conducted by the British. I am not really that convinced that these calculations are correct. Maybe if it involved Russians it could be possible. But the Russians are only letting you know what they want you to know about the Su-35, isn't that the case with the F-22 ?

Right, here goes the history lesson

Murcielago said;

When France broke out of that because of there need for it to be carrier capable they still had all the design aspects of that plane (becasue they to had spent money on it). Much of the plane is the same, France only changed what they needed to to make it a good Navy aircraft. Just because it looks a little different doesn't mean they dont come from the same aircraft design.

So do you consider the Super Hornet to be a completly different aircraft then the Hornet because they dont look the same?

No, they did not have the design of the plane (EFA) as it had not been designed when the split happened, the split occurred during the definition phase when the three major partners were all working on trheir own separate designs. These were the BAe P.110, MBB TKF.90 and Dassault ACX. The Typhoon is a combination of the BAe P.120 and the very similar TKF.90, France did not 'only change what they needed to' but went on alone and continued with their own ACX which became the Rafale, far from them looking 'a little different' there is, in fact, no design commonality whatsoever between the Rafale and Typhoon.

Your comparison with the Hornet/Super Hornet is utterly wrong as they ARE both designed from the same airframe by the same company, hence the fact that the Super Hornet is still an F-18. I could return the purile comparison by saying do you consider the F-22 to be a variant of the F-15 because it is still a twin jet, twin finned, single seater US fighter? Of course not, but that is how far wide of the mark your comparison was.

Devilwasp, this is also wrong;

Much of the hawker hurricane and the spitfire where the same yet they are two diffrent fighters,

The only things that were common to the Hurricane and Spitfire were the Merlin engines, Browning machine guns and De Havilland propellers. The Spitfire was designed with the then revolutionary all metal stressed skin construction which allowed for a much smaller lighter and faster aircraft but which took longer to produce while the bigger, heavier, slower Hurricane was designed around the same principles as the previous generation of biplane fighters with much of the airframe being fabric covered, although the wings became stressed skin type by the time production started. This allowed a rapid build up of production quickly as it was all designed around proven techniques. Bearing this in mind the two designs could not have been more different from each other, the benefits were that the Spitfire had all the performance but the Hurricane allowed us to get rid of our obsolete Furies and Bulldogs before the outbreak of war and is the reason that the Hurricane was the main British fighter in the Battle of Britain.

Originally posted by waynos


The only things that were common to the Hurricane and Spitfire were the Merlin engines, Browning machine guns and De Havilland propellers. The Spitfire was designed with the then revolutionary all metal stressed skin construction which allowed for a much smaller lighter and faster aircraft but which took longer to produce while the bigger, heavier, slower Hurricane was designed around the same principles as the previous generation of biplane fighters with much of the airframe being fabric covered, although the wings became stressed skin type by the time production started. This allowed a rapid build up of production quickly as it was all designed around proven techniques. Bearing this in mind the two designs could not have been more different from each other, the benefits were that the Spitfire had all the performance but the Hurricane allowed us to get rid of our obsolete Furies and Bulldogs before the outbreak of war and is the reason that the Hurricane was the main British fighter in the Battle of Britain.

Yeah i know about the diffrences between the two for one thing they where made of diffrent materials one aluminuim and one wood.
I was pointing out how even if they look the same they can be completly diffrent.

Well thats true, except that while the Spit was all metal the Hurri was metal framed with a partial canvas skin, not wood.

You are right that making a snap judgement based on the appearance of a plane is wrong. I still fail to see how anyone thinks the Rafale and Typhoon even look the same though. except for partial blindness, that would explain it Its like the posts that claimed that the Indian LCA looked like the Mirage, utterly without credibility or foundation.

Originally posted by waynos
You are right that making a snap judgement based on the appearance of a plane is wrong. I still fail to see how anyone thinks the Rafale and Typhoon even look the same though. except for partial blindness, that would explain it

Its like the posts that claimed that the Indian LCA looked like the Mirage, utterly without credibility or foundation.

LOL have to agree with that lol.

Here is my list:

1. F-22A Raptor
2. Eurofighter Tranche 3/F-35A/C JSF
3. Rafale F2/3
4. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/EF Tranche 1&2
5. F-15C v(3) AESA
6. Su-30MKI
7. F-16C Block 50/52 CCIP
8. Su-27PD
9. F/A-18C/D
10. F-14D
11. MiG-29N (Malaysian variant with R-77)
12. JAS-39 Grippen





[edit on 20-12-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
Here is my list:

1. F-22A Raptor
2. Eurofighter Tranche 3/F-35A/C JSF
3. Rafale F2/3
4. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/EF Tranche 1&2
5. F-15C v(3) AESA
6. Su-30MKI
7. F-16C Block 50/52 CCIP
8. Su-27PD
9. F/A-18C/D
10. F-14D
11. MiG-29N (Malaysian variant with R-77)
12. JAS-39 Grippen


[edit on 20-12-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

Beautiful list...

What is the EF tranche? I never heard of it before.

1. Su 30 MKI

2. Rafale F2 / 3

3. F-15 E/C

4. Su 27 D/M/K

5. FA-18 E/F Super Hornet

6. MiG 29 M/S

7. F-16C Block 50


FUTURE TOP 5

1. Su 37 (when it eventally comes out)

2. MAPO MiG 1.42 / 1.44 (don't know the tech specs yet but seen video footage of a test flight - looks AMAZING!!!)

3. F-22 Raptor

4. Eurofighter / JSF (take your pick)

5. Su 30MKI / v(2)

[edit on 22-12-2004 by eastern_block]

^^ List is horribly flawed...


Just to point out a few, the F-16 should be an E/F with AESA...
The F/A-22 not on top?
The Mig-1.44 will NOT go into production. I've also seen footage of it, gong strait...
Anyone to base a fighter by just watching a video is, well let�s not go there. The Mig-1.44 was a technology demonstrator and will be nothing more. It�s hard to believe a country with absolutely no stealth past can pounce a fighter whose country has a long history with it�

Man...that is a horribly biased list

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
What is the EF tranche? I never heard of it before.

The Typhoon is to be produced in three batches, these are called tranches. The aircraft currently in production are from tranche 1, these represent the IOC (Initial Operational Capability) standard which means that they have the lowest acceptable capability for acceptance into air force service, the second batch will have a higher degree of capability (ie installed equipment standards, flight envelope clearances etc) with the final batch having the full capability with all the preceding aircraft then being brought up to 'tranche 3' standard. Its just a way to make the introduction of a new and advanced system as painless as possible by not trying to do everything in one go. Even before production has been completed all aircraft will be up to tranche 3 standard as a minimum.

Originally posted by eastern_block
1. Su 30 MKI

2. Rafale F2 / 3

3. F-15 E/C

4. Su 27 D/M/K

5. FA-18 E/F Super Hornet

6. MiG 29 M/S

7. F-16C Block 50


FUTURE TOP 5

1. Su 37 (when it eventally comes out)

2. MAPO MiG 1.42 / 1.44 (don't know the tech specs yet but seen video footage of a test flight - looks AMAZING!!!)

3. F-22 Raptor

4. Eurofighter / JSF (take your pick)

5. Su 30MKI / v(2)

[edit on 22-12-2004 by eastern_block]

That's the worst list I have ever seen.

wow.....

Originally posted by ChrisRT

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
Here is my list:

1. F-22A Raptor
2. Eurofighter Tranche 3/F-35A/C JSF
3. Rafale F2/3
4. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet/EF Tranche 1&2
5. F-15C v(3) AESA
6. Su-30MKI
7. F-16C Block 50/52 CCIP
8. Su-27PD
9. F/A-18C/D
10. F-14D
11. MiG-29N (Malaysian variant with R-77)
12. JAS-39 Grippen


[edit on 20-12-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

Beautiful list...

Thanks man

New guy here, what is that russian plane that can take out planes that are behind it. Supposedly all the pilot had to do was hold the botton down and just look at the target. I think it was called look and shoot system? I read a book about it many years ago. And the missles had little rockets on the ends of the wings to help 'em turn better?

Ahem: Please watch the big quotes, and one line replies in this thread. Thanks

FredT