It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Most Capable Fighter Aircraft Ever Produced

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I don't want to start an argument again about this, but the F-15 never faced anything that was as advanced as it self, it faced mainly export models of various MiGs, it never faced it's arch-enemy, the Su-27.




posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Yeah F15 in most fights was like a vetran Centurion tank vs a rookie panzer 2 or so. At best it was like a vetran P51 vs a rookie P40.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
How about the German Eindecker? For its time the best figher in the air, coupled with the best pilots. Nearly unbeatable until superior French and British aircraft showed up in superior numbers.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
As I have said all along. Its not the plane, its the pilot. I'd bet an expierenced F-4 crew from back in the day could beat a young stud in anything flying today, be it Mig-29, F/A-22, or Su-35.

Just find an old F-106 pilot that routinely beat young hotshot F-15 pilots during exercises.

How do ya like them apples!!



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist
As I have said all along. Its not the plane, its the pilot. I'd bet an expierenced F-4 crew from back in the day could beat a young stud in anything flying today, be it Mig-29, F/A-22, or Su-35.


Not too sure about the phantom. Ritchie said in an interview that it took an experienced F-4 crew not to get shot down by an inexperienced Mig pilot, and that if he were flying the Mig 21 he could have easily had five plus Phantom kills per mission based on the Mig's superiority alone.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
The Best ever aircraft...

I would have to say the FIRST ever multi-role aircraft,

de Havilland Mosquito



it did every thing from, fighter, night fighter, fighter bomber, anti ship, anti tank, photo recon and ECM to merely name a few.

Can't beat the classics


- Philip



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I'd say the X-22...
In fights between it and Iraqi personnel, the X-22 won every time. Probably because the Iraqis didn't know it was there and ended up as burn marks on the ground...
Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
While it's true that the F-15 hasn't faced an aircraft that rivals it's capabilities, isn't that exactly the point, in naming "the most capable fighter aircraft?" It's been perfectly capable at it's designated role, Air Superiority, and bombing, for the E-models



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyle325is
While it's true that the F-15 hasn't faced an aircraft that rivals it's capabilities, isn't that exactly the point, in naming "the most capable fighter aircraft?"


That'd be like saying a Mustang is the fastest street car simply because it's only raced Volkswagons and never a Corvette.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I'm sorry, I guess I was supposed to interpret "most capable" as "fastest, coolest," etc, etc....I interpreted capability as exactly that, CAPABILITY. However, I'm not stating that the F-15 is the most capable fighter ever produced, though I do think it's held up as quite CAPABLE, over many years....who has threatened it's capabilties around the world?

Actually, my statement is absolutely nothing like "saying a Mustang is the fastest street car simply because it's only raced Volkswagons and never a Corvette," whislt there are many many cars in the same performance, price, and capability range as Mustangs and Corvettes, there aren't many aircraft operating in numbers that are as CAPABLE as F-15C-Es. It feels like you find fault with my post probably because you don't like the aircraft. Well believe me, I dislike, and probably have more personal reasons to dislike the F-15 than anyone on these forums. That said, I cannot diminish the true value of that aircraft's CAPABILITIES.


[edit on 12-3-2005 by Kyle325is]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The spitfire was very good compared to planes of the time.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyle325is
It feels like you find fault with my post probably because you don't like the aircraft. Well believe me, I dislike, and probably have more personal reasons to dislike the F-15 than anyone on these forums.
[edit on 12-3-2005 by Kyle325is]


No, not at all. The F-15 and F-18 are my two favorite American planes, without a doubt. And I have no doubt that the Eagle is one of the baddest, most capable jets on the face of the earth. However, I can't help but think that if it went up against some bad-a** Russian crewed Migs or Su's, it would be humbled just a bit. Not blown out of the sky like expensive confetti, just more evenly matched.

I simply thought your logic was a bit skewed.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wagovan
I'd say the X-22...
In fights between it and Iraqi personnel, the X-22 won every time. Probably because the Iraqis didn't know it was there and ended up as burn marks on the ground...
Just a thought.


I can't let this rubbish go without a big belly laugh!


The X-22A was a VTOL research aircraft of the 1960's, nothing more. That statement about Iraq is pure fantasy.

As to choosing a best ever aircraft from the real world, it is obviously very subjectyive and we all have our own predjudices, can't really argue against the nomi9nation of the DH Mosquito though, that plane was absolutely awesome and untouchable until the jets came along.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
US Stealth (F117, B2 & who knows what else) vs. the world's radar systems


You could look at this the other way too.

Which country's Stealth jets are common knowledge and who's isn't?
Wouldn't that make the other country's stealth more effective? :p



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Yeah, the F-15 is definitly a capable aircraft, but I personally prefer the F/A-18E...

Rememeber that the F-15 has a huge RCS


Well, everyone knows the TR-3B is the best and most capable aircraft ever! it abducted Saddam during the gulf war and anal probed him, controlled the minds of all those iraqi's to have an orgy with each other, and ofcourse blasted HUNDREDS of Iraqi T-72s with it's Photon Torpedo's and it's Phasers
j/k

Most capable aircraft,
hmmmm.....I might actually go with the F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornet/Grolwer since it has so much roles it can do I.E. CAP, SEAD, ground attack, Electronic Warfare just to name a few...



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Yeah, the F-15 is definitly a capable aircraft, but I personally prefer the F/A-18E...Rememeber that the F-15 has a huge RCS



Just as an FYI, the F-15 with the ESRA Radar is supposed to have a smaller RCS becoasue of less reflectivity of the huge dish versus a fixed array.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Not too sure about the phantom. Ritchie said in an interview that it took an experienced F-4 crew not to get shot down by an inexperienced Mig pilot, and that if he were flying the Mig 21 he could have easily had five plus Phantom kills per mission based on the Mig's superiority alone.


The point I was trying to make is that all this talk about this plane can pull this many G's, and has thrust vectoring, and has this widgit and that widgit is pointless. ITS THE PILOT not the plane!!

You are right during the early stages of Vietnam, the F-4s got waxed by Mig 17s and Mig 21s. The F-4 was a bomber intercepter not a dog fighter, plus pilots were not trained to dogfight and were dependent on missles. However, once the Air Force got its act together, starting training real fighter jocks instead of missle junkies, the advantage went back to the Phantom. During the later stages of the war, I'm not sure what the kill raitio was, but it was heavily in the Phantoms favor. There is an incident were a well trained Phantom crew shot down three Mig 21s in one sortie.

Air Forces from around the world, US, Russia, etc. are making the same mistake now. Pilots are becoming too depedent on missles, computers, widgets and gadgets, and becoming more 'computer engineer' than hardcore 'fighter jock' .

I stand by my claim, a WELL TRAINED EXPIERENCED F-4 crew, or even an F-106 driver, from back in the day could wax a young stud in anything flying today, be it F-15, Mig-29, F/A-22, or Su-37.

Keep in mind, when the F-15s first came on-line, they ROUTINELY got killed in exercises by well trained, expierenced F-106 pilots. Anyboy who served in the Air Force at the time can verify this. Even look as far back as the Luftwaffe during the WWII, it was lack of WELL TRAINED PILOTS that brought them down, not lack of aircraft.



[edit on 17-3-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I think this we are getting away from the topic I indended. I was hoping to find ACTUAL instances and statistics. So newer, untested or even older planes that never saw combat really cant be included.

I am assuming the most capable plane out there is one that has seen a great deal of action with plenty of data to support a nomination as most capable aircraft.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist
You are right during the early stages of Vietnam, the F-4s got waxed by Mig 17s and Mig 21s. However, once the Air Force got its act together, starting training real fighter jocks instead of missle junkies, the advantage went back to the Phantom. During the later stages of the war, I'm not sure what the kill raitio was, but it was heavily in the Phantoms favor.


Keep in mind, when the F-15s first came on-line, they ROUTINELY got killed in exercises by well trained, expierenced F-106 pilots. Anyboy who served in the Air Force at the time can verify this. Even look as far back as the Luftwaffe during the WWII, it was lack of WELL TRAINED PILOTS that brought them down, not lack of aircraft.

How do ya like them apples!!


Vietnam is a perfect example of your point. During the earlier years, both the Navy and Air Force suffered abysmal losses. However, the two branches chose seperate strategies. The Navy established Top Gun, and indeed the pilot training program gave the advantage back to the carrier based craft. But the Air Force chose to take the technology route. Granted, in the early days the side-winder had less than a fifty percent chance of even tracking an enemy plane. But the fact that they decided to pursue radar and missle development (they even encouraged regularly seperating air crews after a minimal number of missions) resulted in barely bringing the AF's kill ratio to 3-1 in the Phantom's favor while the Navy had long been in the 7 to 10-1 ratio.

The Navy had their first aces shortly after Top Gun was established, while the AF couldn't produce an ace until 1973!

So yes, I agree about pilot skill trumping technology. Even now, there's a group of old guys who routinely smoke F-15s and F-16s in military training exercises while flying the old A-4 Skyhawks.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

So yes, I agree about pilot skill trumping technology. Even now, there's a group of old guys who routinely smoke F-15s and F-16s in military training exercises while flying the old A-4 Skyhawks.


Finally!! someone who gets it!! pilot skill will ALWAYS trump technology end of discussion. an F-106 pilot once said all this technology on aircraft nowadays is like fighting a knife fight in phone booth with a spear, the spear is nice, but I want the knife.

Miltaries from around the world often suffer from CRS syndrom (Can't remeber 'stuff'). We're making the same mistakes all over again. I can't waint until the first exercises when the F/A-22 gets smoked by some old guy in an A-4 or F-5! (if it hasn't happended already)

As per the F-4 in Vietnam, the 3-1 Air Force ration is somewhat missleading. That takes into accout the entire war. The kill ratio towards the later years was much higher.


I think this we are getting away from the topic I indended. I was hoping to find ACTUAL instances and statistics. So newer, untested or even older planes that never saw combat really cant be included
.

We're not getting away from the topic just approaching it from a different angle. The capabilities of a fighter depends on the heart and mind of the person or persons flying it. This has been proven time and time again, and will be proven again in the future.

So in my opinion, the most capable aircraft is a tie between the F-86 and the F-4. The Mig-15 was superior to the F-86 in many ways, but the kill ratio was around 10-1 (or 12-1 depending on your source). It was superior pilot training the allowed the F-86 to win most engagments. The F-4 was fighting a battle it was NEVER intended to fight, agian against aircraft (Mig-17 and Mig-21) that were superior for dog-fighting. Again It was pilot training, skill, and motivation that won the day.

So take some old aircrews that flew 300+ sorties in Vietnam (that are probably bored out of the minds flying people haulers), put them in their old F-4 (most F-86 pilots are probably retired by now) and that is the most deadly fighter flying today. PERIOD!






[edit on 17-3-2005 by KyleChemist]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join