It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Greatest Fighter Aircraft - Ever?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I was just going to say, the F-14 is the best. Simply put, it was capable of doing some extremely nice stuff. It was fast, maneuverable, had lot's of range, had an amazing radar, and could carry AIM-54's. No other aircraft has carried the AIM-54, which was the worlds best AIM. They say that thing coupled with the F-14's rader (pre-launch of course), it had the capability to intercept cruise missiles.

Sure is a shame the F-14 is being retired.

Here's a link to the latest variants........ dam shame

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:00 PM
I have read a lot of weird answers for the greatest fighter ever. A lot of bad ones. If you really want to learn a great deal about fighter jets the read the biography of John Boyd. He was an instructor pilot at Nellis and went on to be a major influence in the design of the F-15, F-16 and the A-10. Also his concepts helped create the F-18. He is also considered the father of modern military aviation.

I saw on some of the Posts people put the F4 as one of the greatest. It might have been one of the worst. A fighter aircraft that had no machine guns and fired missles that were so unreliable that they were considered worthless. Also the horrible design flaws in its wings that were covered up by the ugly angles. The palne was overweight but could pull a 7G turn. A design flaw thought revealed that while in turn the plane would lose enery and altitude making it a wide open target for MiGs. Against the MiGs in early vietnam it was losing horribly and the only way to stay alive was to hit the deck and outrun them.

Another plane the F-111. Hands down the worst. If it was so good then why did every country cancel its orders along with the navy. The Air force had to eat the project. And why was that plane only in commission for a decade if it was awsome it might have stuck around. It was found that the sweep wing design was one of the worst ideas ever because it would create stress fractures in the body. Also once again the thing was to big. Also, how are you going to fight another aircraft when you cant see behind yourself. Awsome design of the cockpit.

F-14 here is another brilliant design with the sweep wing. A classic example of the top brass in the military thinking Bigger is better. if this plane was so good then why was it referred to as "Turkey Tom". It wasnt a compliment. If you really think the F-14 is sweet Air-to-Air then you have been watching way to much Top Gun. It is good for one pupose and that is perscion bombing. It is not an Air-to-Air fighter. It was underpowered because of its size. yeah it could go fast but it had no acceleration. Bad quality to have as a fighter. If it was so good then why get the F-18?

F-15 In development was actually the F-X. Was supposed to come out as the premier Air-to-Air fighter plane. But when the generals got a hold of it they gold plated the thing with unecessary gizmos. Over complicating the plane. It was oversized and over weight. Once again it was good as a quick in and out persicion bomber. If it is such a good Air-to-Air then why develope the F-16?

When thinking of the best planes ever you must think of their role. US versions only

BEST Air-to-Air

1. F-16
-Lightweight, handles the most G's(the most important thing in a dog fight) awsome thrust to weight ratio(outstanding acceleration).
2. F-18
great Air-to-Air similar in performance to the F-16. they were designed together. The yF-17 wa the original F-18 and competed with the F-16 to be the Air Force premiere fighter. It was destroyed over and over by the F-16 in competition.

-Air-to-Air combat is virtually non exsitant in modern war fare and is partly the reason these two planes have lost their luster and the F-15 and F-14 seem the kings of the air. The F-16 and F-18 have had to abandon their original purpose and do the perscision bombing thing.

Best CAS

1. A-10 the best ever at Close Air support. No plane will ever come close. Damn thing can take a missle shot to an engine. It also has heavily armored fuel tanks to where they can also take a missle shot. The Warthog is king at CAS

Best Bomber

1. B-52 Find anyplane better. it is undiputed the greatest plane ever. Name another plane in commision today that is over 50 years old. You can't.
2. B-2 pretty kick butt. Not as good as the B-52. Just out of respect and longevity.

Best bomber Fighter??
- what ever the hell that is. How can a bomber be a fighter and a fighter be a bomber. Doesnt work out that well. Too many tradeoffs

1. F-15 Could have been the greatest Air-to Air until the Air force wanted it multi purpose. Became to big and heavy. Not Agile enough to hang with the f-16 or f-18 or any smaller MiGs.

2. F-14. Same problem as the F-15

3. F-22 not enough action yet. I have a feeling that in close Ai-to-Air it is going to have the same problems as the F-15. It is just to big for Air-to-Air. Yeah its stealth until you have a visual. that is how close dog fighting is. The F-16 was going to be built without a radar at first. You don't need one in dogfighting. We will never know how good the thing really is because the Air Force generals will always butter it up.

There is no such thing as a multipurpose because of all the tradeoffs you have. To cary more bombs and missles you must give up agility and turning radius. To be light and quick you can't carry as many bombs. Think of it this way...I want multipurpose car one that can carry a load of 5,000lbs, offroad like a jeep, plow snow, go 250mph and handle like and Indy car. By the way it also must get 30mpg. Not going to happen.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:40 PM
Hey Timcouchfanclub. Way to go. I just love the B-52s. The Big Ugly Fat Focker is just an amazing weapon. I remember watching all those films during the Viet Nam conflict and wondering just how the VC and NVA could survive those bombardments. Bought a new meaning to the term 'carpet bombing'. Good job the yanks never had them during WWII!

I used to have a Marine Corps book - Siege, 77 Days at Khe Sanh - where the B-52s were used to good effect to break the siege. Apparantly, their bombs formed two sides of a three sided box, whilst the combined artillery of Camp Carrol, The 'Pit' (wherever that was!) both with 175s, together with the 105s of Khe Sanh and Hills 881 (N) and 881 (S) [once they had been captured] formed a 'rolling barrage' inside the two sides of the box.

I read somewhere that the B-52s used in GWI, released their payload whilst over Saudi airspace and the bombs hit spot on! Awesome.

We should have a link dedicated (in perpetuity) to BUFFs and not allow Mods to close it when it starts rambling.

Gimme some links to film clips or vids - please!

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by fritz
No. 10 (not surprisingly) was the F-117A Nighthawk. 'Not really a fighter, but a bomber'

if the f-117a was a bomber it would be b-117a

the 'f 'at the front stands for fighter e.g f-18

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:58 PM
The F-117 has a fighter designation, but it is a Tactical Bomber. It has no air to air capability whatsoever, and carries two bombs. Therefore it is NOT technically a fighter.

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The F-117 has a fighter designation, but it is a Tactical Bomber. It has no air to air capability whatsoever, and carries two bombs. Therefore it is NOT technically a fighter.

I have never been able to find backing data anywhere else for this but the World Air Power Journal summary states specifically that the F-117 has basic integration of both Sidewinder and Maverick but (ironically) was the first jet in several decades /without/ a nuclear strike option.

Aviation Week also published an article in the mid-90's which detailed supposed 'hunter killer' teaming of the F-117 with the F-16C.50d that stated, specifically, that the Nighthawk had AGM-88 HARM capability.

While the notion of using F-117's for anti-Mainstay (A-50) attack is laughable as the SUAWACS would be as fast if not faster than the 117 and it is /highly/ unlikely that Nighthawk VLO is capable of protecting it to within the 6-8nm that even a high altitude Sidewinder shot would require.

The idea that there is no credible nuclear munition qualification along with rail-forward (all three missiles) munitions compatibility (presumably at an additional LO penalty for the time that the trapeze' require to extend and retract) would tend to suggest that the aircraft is compatible with select air to air 'assassination' missions.

And thus eligible for an 'F' designator.

Bring this scenario forward a decade and assume that both discrete (LPI) netcentrics and AIM-120C7 or 8 allows for offboard datalink control of a 60-100km weapon that is 'lofted' from distance and even high asset value electronic platforms may be reachable, with care.

My personal feeling is that the 117, while hardly a 'grey = day' capable platform, suffered unjustly at the end of the Gulf War when Congress was in lust with graphs showing perhaps 4 +2 +2 (tactical stealth, tankers, jammers) instead of the 24 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 2 (strikers, weasels, sweep, tanking, EA). And the Air Force was seeing the writing on the wall in BUR drawdowns that would probably pull their 26 wing power projection capability down towards 12-17. Even as they had just pulled the wings off the F-16A fleet and were going to have to 'cascade down' the C.25's and .30's to keep the Guard from going under.

Such that a _proper_ 117 upgrade, with a weather penetrating radar and standoff (glide) munition (optical or inertial) integration was foregone in providing first-up-for-CMUP 'roadmap' guidance to the Bomber Fleet.

As a justification to continue with Viper Block.40 upgrades and the Block.50/ATP development.

This being one of the dumbest ideas they've ever had in terms of real utility even as it left the 117's stuck with a basically laydown mission that would _inevitably_ lead to Stealth Technical Compromise over Belgrade.

If you take 'F' to mean 'Functionally Ubiquitous WarF-ighter' then a proper review of the 117 program (i.e. an upgrade short of the 117C/X/N with new wings and engines but to include the cockpit upgrade along with replacement of the hard to maintain IRADS with almost /anything/ 'better') would have provided for a solid 5-7 wing Stealth Strike capability that was productionized sufficiently to have long term supportable tail (spares and manpower training) and materials improvement justification. While being a tactically better solution than hordes of LGPOS that suddenly 'have to be' replaced by the F-35 because they have the range of a castrated gnat and a signature that is entirely dependent on close escort by companion jam, itself thin on the ground and unable to hold pace with a USAF styled fast ingress.

The JSF and specifically a desire to replace our entire inventory with a jet that costs four times the 27 million dollars of an average F-16 will be the death of the U.S. Air Force. Not least because, as a 'CALF', however golden; it is tied to two entirely different subvariants whose complexity and cost for numbers purchased adds at least double to the sunk (R&D plus Ramp) fees for the 35A version.


new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in