What is the #1 fighter based on performance, arment, historical impact, availibility, and overall goodness.

I think it is the old P-51. It handeld well and had a good ceiling with good climb/dive speeds, wasn't prone to failure, had the range necasary to escort bombers on their long runs into Germany and it's 8 .50 M2s packed a punch (though not as powerfull as the 20mm cannon seen on many other planes).

I think the MiG 15 was a huge revolution because it was the first largely viable jet fighter and really allowed jet propulsion to become a viable way to fly. The Soviets used expertly made designs combined with British jet designs and made a very nice fighter. It flew fast, high, and was well made.

It didn't see too much combat but it impacted fighter design to a huge extent of the latter half of the 20th century.

Both awesome fighters, I think the Mig21 would be up there inexpensive all around well done.

MiG-29 Fulcrum, they're everywhere in the world. And can really make some tight turns.

I'd have trouble choosing anything over the Mustang. It had all the factors you mention, SGI Butch, plus greater range than it's contemporaries. It was heavily responsible for giving the Allies air superiority in Europe.

The spitfire is the plane that comes to mind for me

Huge importance in battle of britain

looks gorgeous

For modern fighters, well typhoon looks good.

In terms of performance and capabilities compared to other fighters of the same time period nothing comes close to the Avro Arrow. Unfortunately the Americans and the Canadian political situation teamed up to force the Canadian government to cancel the project so it never entered service in the RCAF. However, many of the best US fighters that came after it incorporated aspects of its amazing technologies.

In terms of historical impact the Spitfire is a leading contender.

Your assessment of the Arrow id dead wrong, please search the forum for the thread that was done on that very topic.

The plane with the highest kill ratio of all time is the Grummen F6F Hellcat, an astounding 19-1.

The Mig 15 was often defeated by F-86 Sabres.

The Mig 21 often fell victim to F-4 Phamtoms.

Neither could ever be considered a top fighter.

The Spitfire is a good candidate, reliable design uprated throughout the forties, but never acchieved superiority over the Bf-109 or the Fw-190

In the second world war, the most inovative AC is the Me-262.

In the Jet age, this is shared by the F-4 and and the F-15, the first fighter to have a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, enabling it to climb in a verticle arc.

The most produced plane is the Mig 21, light and very manuverable.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The plane with the highest kill ratio of all time is the Grummen F6F Hellcat, an astounding 19-1.

Is that counting kamakazis as 'kills'?

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The plane with the highest kill ratio of all time is the Grummen F6F Hellcat, an astounding 19-1.
What about the F-16? If you count just air-air then it has a pretty amazing ratio (thanks mainly to Israeli pilots and generally shoddy victims, it's true, but one might say the latter about the F6F too i suspect, late war Japanese pilots hardly being very good in general)

The Mig 15 was often defeated by F-86 Sabres.

The Mig 21 often fell victim to F-4 Phamtoms.

Neither could ever be considered a top fighter.

The Spitfire is a good candidate, reliable design uprated throughout the forties, but never acchieved superiority over the Bf-109 or the Fw-190

In the second world war, the most inovative AC is the Me-262.
Not sure I would agree there. After all Jets, while a huge improvement in propulsion, are only one facet of an aircraft. What about remote turrets (B-29 or Arado), pressurisation, radar in all it's guises, etc. I'm sure there must be an aircraft which is more innovative overall than the Schwalbe, even if not as spectacular.

In the Jet age, this is shared by the F-4 and and the F-15, the first fighter to have a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio, enabling it to climb in a verticle arc.
By design, any VTOL aircraft MUST have a T:W of greater than 1:1. Therefore that accolade must go to one of Harrier, Yak-38 or another VTOL aircraft.

The most produced plane is the Mig 21, light and very manuverable.
Most produced plane or most produced jet? Did they really build more MiG-21's than Bf109s, say? It's amazing if they did, although with the Soviets anything is possible I guess.

Personally I'd have to go with P-51, Bf-109 or P-38 for WW2. First two are obvious, and people have already suggested them. P-38 is not for the plane, but what it did. Would the PTO have been the same if Yamamoto had lived longer? (I dont think Japan would have won, of course. But it's the only fighter to kill a truly war-level figure in WW2, IIRC. I was tempted to add the Zero, too.

Post war? No-one has mentioned the YF-12 yet. If pure performance is what you want :)

quote
________
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
The plane with the highest kill ratio of all time is the Grummen F6F Hellcat, an astounding 19-1.
_____


actually for air to air its the harrier

29 to 0

Air force pilots say that the f-86 sabre is easier and more controlable than many of todays fighters (though would still lose in a dogfight).

However the best fighter would be around level 20, having rolled 10s for all his hitpoints... whoops wrong fighter ;)

Thrust to weight ratio is higher in the F-15 than the Harrier.

But Ellie is right, the Harrier shot down 29 argentine planes without air-to-air loss.

Of course, the Hellcat shot down over 6,000 planes.

Case, the Japanese had inferior equipment and training until 1945, when it was too late, the Hayate came into army service, this was a match for a mustang and a hellcat if compitently flown.

An interesting sidelight is the French De-520 had a 2-to-1 kill ratio over the Lutfwaffe during the battle of France.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Thrust to weight ratio is higher in the F-15 than the Harrier.

But Ellie is right, the Harrier shot down 29 argentine planes without air-to-air loss.

Of course, the Hellcat shot down over 6,000 planes.



Patriotically kitten says:

If the Argentinians had sent enough plans the Harrier would have shot over 6,000 down as well :p

Double post due to slow, slow, slow server :o

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Thrust to weight ratio is higher in the F-15 than the Harrier.
But not the first at >1:1. Nor, I doubt, the highest overall. I wonder what the first was? Depends if you count experimental types, or in-service only, I guess. *thinks* Me163?? Had a fantastic RoC for the day, could it have been over 1:1??


An interesting sidelight is the French De-520 had a 2-to-1 kill ratio over the Lutfwaffe during the battle of France.
That's what I was trying to think of before - De-520. (It was annoying the **** out of me, not remembering it)

I think it is difficult to compare fighters as they are just like any other piece of military equipment, they only supplement the skills of their users. In fact in the Indo-Pakistan wars, Indian Migs have also had air superiority over the Pakistani F-86 and a host of other American fighters used over that period.

Also a well trained Mig-21 pilot can still come out on tops against an untrained F-16 pilot. :p

Also, most of the comparisions mentioned above have rarely been fights between equals, i.e in training and back up. E.g, the Israelis shot down over 300 Syrian planes without losing even 10 to them. It is not as if the Mig-21 was THAT bad, but the Syrians were shoddy pilots and poorly trained.

mike tyson or evender holyfield .....;)

you saud the best fighter after all.......

said, not saud.....

Originally posted by Xen
said, not saud.....

Before someone correctly targets you for spamming you can if logged in already edit your post and the spelling by clicking on the "edit" button to the right hand-side of your post. That way you could edit your mis-spelling and remove your quip with something more worthwhile ;)

What do people know about the F-22 Raptor.

Carrier Based: Corsair, it got the most that a propeler could give and was a great airplane though the Hellcat is good too.

I think the P-38 lightning was also excellent and came through when we needed it espeacially after Charles Lindbergh made the improvement that doubled their range.

What do people think about the joint strike fighter.

Originally posted by SGI Butch
What do people know about the F-22 Raptor.
Nothing. :) Anyone claiming otherwise is likely either lying or spying ;)

On a speculative note, though. It's expensive. Gonna be a hard sell in the export market, assuming they do release any. Not going to be easy for USAF to defend the numbers either - as they cut, the unit cost will rise, and that's a vicious circle.

What do people think about the joint strike fighter.

Don't really understand the need for the STOVL version. USMC can operate from the CVNs anyway, and load/range are very poor in VTOL mode. The red threat of destroyed runways is pretty much over - can't see western forces operating from insecure bases these days. The FAA requirement looks dodgy too - why buy 50,000ton CVs and put STOL aircraft on them? Of course, if their lordships are taking out insurance against CVF cancellation, that's another thing.

Originally posted by thedirk
In terms of performance and capabilities compared to other fighters of the same time period nothing comes close to the Avro Arrow. Unfortunately the Americans and the Canadian political situation teamed up to force the Canadian government to cancel the project so it never entered service in the RCAF. However, many of the best US fighters that came after it incorporated aspects of its amazing technologies.



We've had this discussion on previous threads; the Arrow was cancelled because it was a toilet for money (I think that's the phrase I used). The American political situation had nothing to do with it, the Americans even offered to buy some to keep the project going but Canadian pride produced a "no."

Tough luck, sorry, but your nationalist story doesn't wash.

R.III
A fellow Canadian

old tyson or maybe rickson. :)

Best fighter? The obvious answer is Hawker Tempest Mk.V (http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/tempest.htm)! If nothing else, then just for the looks!

The Tempest could, according to French ace Pierre Clostermann, move at maximum 705 kph in straight-forward flight. It was the only allied plane capable of catching up on a V-1 without coming from above. Tempests shot down about 900 of those flying bombs over the Channel, thoigh its main role was a ground attack fighter/fighter-bomber.

Most planes could reach sonic speed in a dive, but the Tempest could do that and keep a relative manouverability.

Thumbs up for Sydney Camm!

F-22? Perhaps we'll see when it is finally deployed, but it'd be my choice based on technology and the pilots that would be flying them (USAF).

F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s are pretty impressive to me, so I'm anticipating the "next big thing."

As in other "#1" threads, I"m curious why the point is made about number of units sold correlating to the overall quality of the equipment. A Mercedes Benz S55 is sold in far fewer numbers than say, a Toyota Corolla (which is a fine car in its own regard) but given the choice, I'd take the Benz...

I've considered the #1 status regardless of price...

Oh, and Tyson in his "prime" - unbeatable.

Originally posted by El Tee
F-22? Perhaps we'll see when it is finally deployed, but it'd be my choice based on technology and the pilots that would be flying them (USAF).
Have to say I can think of at least one, if not two other nations whose pilots would be reasoanbly considered equal or superior to USAF crews. Not to mention the hurt feelings of the USN/USMC pilots, for that matter. :)

F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s are pretty impressive to me, so I'm anticipating the "next big thing."
The only 'teen' series fighter omitted is the Navy's one? Do I sense a trend here?

The Hornet has definite shortcomings; I wouldn't class it in any 'best fighter' list.

And the 'next big thing' likely won't have a pilot at all ... will it even be called a "fighter"?

As in other "#1" threads, I"m curious why the point is made about number of units sold correlating to the overall quality of the equipment. A Mercedes Benz S55 is sold in far fewer numbers than say, a Toyota Corolla (which is a fine car in its own regard) but given the choice, I'd take the Benz...

Perhaps a fairer criterion would be length of production run; but it comes to much the same thing. If you can't keep selling the item, likely there's something wrong with it.

As we're getting into the modern age of aircaft, I'd suggest looking at the F-14 Tomcat. Perhaps the only aircraft capable of engaging multiple targets at ranges of 100 miles or more, this is truly a unique aircraft.

As an aside, there was one additional aircraft that could have carried the AWG-9/AIM-54, but the Navy version was cancelled. Anyone care to guess?

Originally posted by MadScot

Have to say I can think of at least one, if not two other nations whose pilots would be reasoanbly considered equal or superior to USAF crews. Not to mention the hurt feelings of the USN/USMC pilots, for that matter. :)

[b]
The only 'teen' series fighter omitted is the Navy's one? Do I sense a trend here?

The Hornet has definite shortcomings; I wouldn't class it in any 'best fighter' list.

And the 'next big thing' likely won't have a pilot at all ... will it even be called a "fighter"?



Perhaps a fairer criterion would be length of production run; but it comes to much the same thing. If you can't keep selling the item, likely there's something wrong with it.

MadScot:

Any error in omission of the good folks in the USN/USMC was not intended to be a slight towards them. Anyone who can carrier land a plane (or "postage stamp" a plane, I believe the jargon goes) is certainly a good pilot. If you read what I posted, I was referring to the people who would be piloting the F-22 initially - the USAF. And there are certainly other nations that boast pilots of equal skill and/or training - again, the omission wasn't meant to slight them; just read the context of what I posted.

And to your next point, that I omitted a Navy fighter, I assume you mean the F-14 - it's a fantastic fighter, but OP Iraqi Freedom may have been its last big hurrah as far as combat operations go - due to greater maintenance requirements than say, the F/A-18 and the age of the platform. But (again) in the context of my post, I wasn't trying to slight the Tomcat, but rather to mention that I was impressed by the current offering of fighters the US military had to offer. There isn't a "trend" to speak of; you'll note that the F/A-18 is a joint use airframe by the Navy and the Marines. My post wasn't intended to slight either the Navy or Marines - and I don't see why you saw it necessary to make it seem as though I did. I like my squiddies and leathernecks just fine. :)

Also, just because "you can't keep selling the item" doesn't mean there's "likely ... something wrong with it." A lot of manufactured products stop selling for reasons unrelated to whether or not they had some kind of problem. Often times, the production cycle ends because a newer product comes out, or the executives of the company decide a different product strategy is necessary. I'd bring up the analogies of the car industry, but methinks that's for another thread.

You're right in that the "next big thing" may not even have a human pilot on-board. We'll just have to see what the future holds...

FWIW, I believe the Predator-series drones may offer insight into the future of modern aerial combat. Certainly the Predators have recon ability and some ground attack capability - on a larger scale the use of pilot-less airframes would allow for more maneuverability (no human to withstand g-force) and more weapons payload configurations (no need to worry at all about pilot safety or comfort, there's no one home). At the very least, the losses incurred as far as airframes being downed with loss of crew or ejecting crews being captured removes some casualties from the battlefield.

As was once said,

"The wars of the future will not be fought on land, or sea, or in the air...but in space! By robots! And as you go forward, your job will be to maintain and repair those robots!" :D

Originally posted by ravensfire
As an aside, there was one additional aircraft that could have carried the AWG-9/AIM-54, but the Navy version was cancelled. Anyone care to guess?
F-111B - Navy version of the "TFX", a misguided programme if ever there was one :)

Nice MadScot.

With the F-14 being retired towards the end of this decade, I wonder what, if anything, will replace the F-14's role in air-defense. The F-18 is a great aircraft, but doesn't have the legs or the long-range capability of the Tomcat. No other aircraft can carry the AIM-54 Phoenix, and the replacement for the Phoenix (AAAM) was cancelled.

From the little research I did, the consensus is that with the fall of the USSR, and the resulting end of the Cold War, no country has the capability to launch a massive bomber raid against a US fleet. The Tomcat was designed primarily for this type of engagement.

Beyond smacking down dictators with poor equipment and worse training, what countries can pose a credible air threat to the US Navy? I'd like to limit the discussion to the Navy, as they appear to be at greater risk on shorter notice than the Air Force.

-- Ravensfire
(who's mighty po'd that the Harpoon IV release got pushed back AGAIN)

Originally posted by ravensfire
With the F-14 being retired towards the end of this decade, I wonder what, if anything, will replace the F-14's role in air-defense. The F-18 is a great aircraft, but doesn't have the legs or the long-range capability of the Tomcat. No other aircraft can carry the AIM-54 Phoenix, and the replacement for the Phoenix (AAAM) was cancelled.
The logic presumably is that with a greater capability from AEW aircraft, the long range CAP capability is no longer required. If the incoming threat can be detected earlier then the CAP can be vectored faster? After all, the F-14 had no replacement prior to 1990, either, so the USN must have had some plan for carrier group air defence. Or perhaps AEGIS was supposed to pick up the slack?

From the little research I did, the consensus is that with the fall of the USSR, and the resulting end of the Cold War, no country has the capability to launch a massive bomber raid against a US fleet. The Tomcat was designed primarily for this type of engagement.
Realistically, the threat wasn't Backfires but their missile armament. And the Soviet threat really centred on Radar Sat recce capability; few countries do indeed possess the mid-ocean targeting abilities the Red Threat once did. But the carriers are being increasingly called upon to operate in littoral waters. In those cases the threat is truck mounted SSMs, rather than bombers and ASMs. With the short legs of the Hornet that's only going to get worse, and JSF will be probably shorter legged still, especially the USMC variants. I suspect the CVBGs were uncomfortably close to Iranian waters while operating against Afghanistan and Iraq. A few supersonic sea skimmers would be a handful if shore launched.

The main antidote has to be finding the launchers first. The Navy needs it's own JSTARS type platform, I guess. I don't think the Hawkeye, even in its latest guise, is much use at ground imagery.


edit: I suspect I use the phrase 'I suspect' far too often:)

Before someone correctly targets you for spamming you can if logged in already edit your post and the spelling by clicking on the "edit" button to the right hand-side of your post. That way you could edit your mis-spelling and remove your quip with something more worthwhile

sorry, i dint even look for an edit button befor you said that...thank you, i dont wanna be accused ah notin