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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
If you were to go back and re-read this thread you will find the aircraft that I consider most capable mentioned several times. Any guesses??

Ok. What about the A-4 Skyhawk??? Several posts mention the A-4 kicking ass against more modern aircraft, so my point is already made.

In closing if Skippytjc can make a fighter out of a C-130, I get to make a gunship out of a C-5B




posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
And i will of the An225



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
So who has the best pilots?
I don't mean who spends the most money on training, or who has the best technology. Which air forces are acclaimed by their fellow pilots?

[edit on 27-3-2005 by finder71]

[edit on 27-3-2005 by finder71]



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Top gun pilots are in my opinion pretty well trained. And as of the most capable fighter aircraft ever produced I would have to go with the F-15, never lost an A2A engagement what more do you want in a fighter.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
U.S.A. has never fought against Russian Sukoi's or MiGs so U.S. can't truly be considered "the best" but wait till WW3 then you'll all see the what Russia is made of.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
U.S.A. has never fought against Russian Sukoi's or MiGs so U.S. can't truly be considered "the best" but wait till WW3 then you'll all see the what Russia is made of.


I sure hope Russia gets an econmoy bigger then the US to start Mass producing planes to show what russia is made of, remember USSR is no more so that means lack of money for R+D and pilot training

And what do you mean US has never Fought against Sukhois or migs, im starting to think that your some young Kid who just repeats the same thing over and over again on different threads and you must not have been around for the first Gulf war Lotsa Mig be shot down there

and you totaly didnt follow the thread here or answer any questions, no one asked what russia was made of.

Anyways yeah i say F-15 or F-16 pilots from Topgun
But i have heard Isreal has very good and very dedicated Pilots



[edit on 27-3-2005 by zakattack]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
The Jaguar, a long service aircraft, mulit functional aircraft, can match any aircraft at bombing, and a desent fighter.

Also the Canberra, admitably better than the U2, been in service several decades, still flys and produces some of the best battlefeild photos avalible.

The Spitfire - the shining symbol of British Pride, kept the Germans at bay, and kept fighting for something like a decade after WWII

And the Harrier, superb multi-role fighter, proven combat effectivness, great A2A combat, proven bomber, and can also do recce

What more is there, yes there is other aircraft like the Phantom, and Hurricane, but you cant name em'all



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
My vote would probably have to go to the Junkers Ju-88. In all of its variants it was a fighter (used against US heavies in daylight raids until the Mustang put and end to that :lol
, high speed raider (JU-88S), medium bomer, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, strike aircraft, night fighter, training aircraft and guided missile (They were used in the Mistel Project).
I am amazed developement of the airframe wasn't continued after the war.

Another comparable aircraft would be the DeHavilland Mosquito.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
You might be surprised to learn then James that the French Air Force flew Junkers Ju-188's into the 1950's.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You might be surprised to learn then James that the French Air Force flew Junkers Ju-188's into the 1950's.


Tres Formidable!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Not just Ju 188's either it seems, while looking for a picture of a Ju-188 in French service I found this one and as you were talking about the Ju-88 in the first place I thought it would be more suitable, it shows a Ju 88 in service with the Aeronavale around 1949-50.



[edit on 28-3-2005 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
The best aircraft I've ever seen, well and actually commanded a few times, is the Protoss Carrier, able to carry up to 9 separate interceptors all doing 9+ damage each. lol sorry



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Nacum
The best aircraft I've ever seen, well and actually commanded a few times, is the Protoss Carrier, able to carry up to 9 separate interceptors all doing 9+ damage each. lol sorry



Well in that case...

I am all for the Fw-190D-9 in Il-2 Sturmovik



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I can't help but to agree with most of the replies, I do believe that skill and mindset have much to do with the success of the plane overall. I have my own personal opinion though that in order to compete with a plane like the Raptor, You would need to have a plane that could detect it on radar. I don't yet believe, however, that it is the most successful plane because it hasn't done anything yet. Without attempts, success won't come. I heavily agree with the fact that it is the experience, mindset, and skill will overall dominate more advanced fighters, but I also believe that since the raptor has such great stealth, it would be hard to compete with because I believe that you must be able to keep track on the opposing fighter in order to destroy it. It would be hard to destroy something you can't see, also I don't know, but as far as my short research has come, most fighters don't allow the greatest line of vision. This is just my personal opinion.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Not an aviation expert, but A 10 vs. tank should make any list of most successful aircraft vs. intended foe. Very intimidating piece of machinery.



posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
WW2 era:
I would have to say that Kurt Tank's Focke Wulf TA-152C

Used for almost all things in front.
Tank hunter, fighter, interceptor, Jabo (Fighter bomber), night fighter, close air support and aifield close support together with the TA-152H (High altitude fighter).
It boasted a formidable engine, and unrivaled arment, 20's and 30mm canons, with possibility to add extra canons or rockets.


Modern era:
F-16 BLOCK 50
Yes, I am Norwegian, and this is the fighter we use in Norway, but it's not the best, this is the runner up as it's about to be fazed out and to be replaces by eighter Saab's Jas Gripen N or F-35 Lightning 2.

Clear winner:
Russian
Sukhoi SU-37 Terminator
Powerfull engine, high payload and thrust vectoring nozzles gives this plane a far supperior manuverbillity in close combat then any other fighter around.

If it was up to me, Norway should bye this plane, and convert it for NATO weapons, it would kick ass i tell 'ya !!!



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoebus
 


Your "clear winner" is, so far, a technology demonstrator not ordered by any air force. It is still essentially a conventional fighter with a few upgrades. A Block 60 flown by a competent air force would give it a run for its money. Nevermind the F-22, F-35 or even Typhoon.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Ufffffff nice thread


I couldn't really decide, since there are quite a few really capable fighters or combat oriented planes


First of all, English Electric Lightning was one of the most advanced, capable and best interceptors of the time. Even the Soviet and American interceptors were worse, which was quite an achievement. Maybe it wasn't multi-role, but was best interceptor ever. It had great speed (M 2.3), fast climbing rate (260m/s)....

Secondly, A-7 Corsair II was really nice plane. It was the first to use HUD, inertial guidance, turbofan... It wasn't supersonic (F-8 was very similar and supersonic), but it had greater range, and in contrast to F-4 carried an internal gun, which enabled them to fight an enemy in close range. Furthermore it was ideal for Vietnam fighting.

To sum up, there were some really nice aircraft built through the history and I named just 2 of them.

Oh, and about F-4 Phantom. I was one of the worst aircraft ever built. The aerodynamics was really bad with "broken" wings (the air just didn't stay below the wing, since the wing tips were turned upwards) and tail wings turned downwards. The pilots reported it didn't meant no difference if you flew straight, or sideways. In addition it carried no internal gun, which made close combat impossible (missiles are useless in close dogfight) and it was found out, that pilots weren't capable to identify an approaching plane friend or foe before it was too late. To solve this problem, the engineers mounted an external gun, which even worsened bad aerodynamics. F-4 also consumed a lot of fuel, and..........



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRothe su 27 did not have the fire control system of the F15, the eagle would have destroyed the su bvr, beyound visual range, go figure
 





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join