The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

syscom3 · 10-21-2005, 11:29 AM

One thing I give credit to for this list, is if it actually saw combat. If it was involved in a lot of big air battles, then even more weight is given.

While the F15 has had a distinguished career since the mid 70's, it never has been involved in a big dogfight like what occured over Israel or Vietnam. Some pilots say that the huge size of the F15 makes it vulnerable in such a dogfight. I remember in the 80's, some F20 pilots saying that in such dogfights, the smallest most nimble fighter would prevail (and I bet the F16 pilots say the same thing).

In addition, the opportunities of the F15 to go one on one with its "peers" have been limited. No fair to put the F15/F16 up against a Mig23. The F4 on the other hand, did spend a lot of time one on one against Mig19's and 21's.

Untill the F15 is put into that scenario PLUS put into the wild weasel role......I'd with hold judgement that its the best.

FLYBOYJ · 10-21-2005, 11:38 AM

My fater in law got to fly the F-20 - he liked it better than the F-16!

Glider · 10-21-2005, 05:16 PM

Syscom. An observation. If being small in size is so important in a dogfight, then why weren't F4's slaughtered in the skies by the Mig 21.

Its because size isn't important in a dogfight, its capability that counts. The F4 and the and the F15 had it in spades which is why they in contantion to be the best.
Of the two the F15 has it because it can fight in the vertical and the horizontal against all comers. It has electronics that are at least as good as anything in the air and they have never been shot down in combat.
F4's couldn't fight in the horizontal, F5's flown by well trained pilots could have them. Due to this F4 pilots were trained to fight in the vertical which they could do very well. Even here there were a small number of planes such as the Lightning that could take them on.
So you have the difference. F4 pilots had fewer options tactic wise, The F15 has no such worries.
Therefore the best has to be the F15.

Finally, if small size is everything, why didn't the UK sell thousands of Gnats?

plan_D · 10-21-2005, 06:59 PM

I know, lanc, I've seen the Vulcan climb vertically off the runway. It has to wing-over at around 1000 feet before he stalls and goes crashing into the ground though.

My dad came into contact with a few Vulcan crews and they said, they only used to do it to shock the Lightning crew members who thought they were the only one.

The F-15 is just superior to the F-4, if it were otherwise the U.S wouldn't be using the F-15 - they'd have stuck with the F-4.

jrk · 10-21-2005, 07:57 PM

i think the harrier should get a mention in this debate.be it any british,spanish or american mark.

FLYBOYJ · 10-21-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

Syscom. An observation. If being small in size is so important in a dogfight, then why weren't F4's slaughtered in the skies by the Mig 21.

Its because size isn't important in a dogfight, its capability that counts. The F4 and the and the F15 had it in spades which is why they in contantion to be the best.
Of the two the F15 has it because it can fight in the vertical and the horizontal against all comers. It has electronics that are at least as good as anything in the air and they have never been shot down in combat.
F4's couldn't fight in the horizontal, F5's flown by well trained pilots could have them. Due to this F4 pilots were trained to fight in the vertical which they could do very well. Even here there were a small number of planes such as the Lightning that could take them on.
So you have the difference. F4 pilots had fewer options tactic wise, The F15 has no such worries.
Therefore the best has to be the F15.

Finally, if small size is everything, why didn't the UK sell thousands of Gnats?

PERFECT COMMENT GLIDER!!!! Also keep in mind due to political limiatations placed upon fighter pilots during Viet Nam, the F-4 was almost always at a tactical disadvantage and severl were lost because of this stupidity, but that's another story. In the vertical the F-4 is a rocket ship, as D pointed out almost climbing as well as the Lightning (NOTICE D - I SAID ALMOST

) I could attest my few rides in the F-4 were awesome. In the verticle I coulds swear I could perfectly see the tailplane becuase my eyes were in back of my head!!!!!!

Size is a factor in attempting to get a visual, throw radar in there and you're on a level playing field....

syscom3 · 10-21-2005, 08:08 PM

Well the IAF, USAF and several European govts were convinced in the 70's that size does matter in a big dogfight. The F16 and F20 (maybe even Eurofighter?) were an outgrowth of that. The F15 while quite capable is still is one big target to shoot at. And the thrust to weight ratio of the smaller single seat aircraft are still similar to the F15.

As "visibility" wa smentioned, thats where the small fighters have the edge. Turn on the radar and you announce "here I am". Look for the enemy and smallness counts. When youre in a fight with dozens of aircraft in sight, the radar isnt going to help.

When the first couple of F20's were built and put into simulated dogfights against the F15, it was surprising to the F15 folks that they (F20's) were holding their own quite well.

Now I'm sure you remember in the Vietnam War, the kill ratio of the Phantoms vs the Mig 19's and -21's was not all that great prior to the introduction of the top gun school. At one point I think the ratio was dropping to almost 1:1. Once the F4 pilots were taught again how to dogfight, the kill ratio went up. The IAF had a far better kill ratio against the arabs simply because they had the best pilots in the world.

The F15 is superior to the F4 performance wise. But its the combat record over three decades that makes the F4 my choice in best jet of all time

102first_hussars · 10-21-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

Well the IAF, USAF and several European govts were convinced in the 70's that size does matter in a big dogfight. The F16 and F20 (maybe even Eurofighter?) were an outgrowth of that. The F15 while quite capable is still is one big target to shoot at. And the thrust to weight ratio of the smaller single seat aircraft are still similar to the F15.

As "visibility" wa smentioned, thats where the small fighters have the edge. Turn on the radar and you announce "here I am". Look for the enemy and smallness counts. When youre in a fight with dozens of aircraft in sight, the radar isnt going to help.

When the first couple of F20's were built and put into simulated dogfights against the F15, it was surprising to the F15 folks that they (F20's) were holding their own quite well.

Now I'm sure you remember in the Vietnam War, the kill ratio of the Phantoms vs the Mig 19's and -21's was not all that great prior to the introduction of the top gun school. At one point I think the ratio was dropping to almost 1:1. Once the F4 pilots were taught again how to dogfight, the kill ratio went up. The IAF had a far better kill ratio against the arabs simply because they had the best pilots in the world.

The F15 is superior to the F4 performance wise. But its the combat record over three decades that makes the F4 my choice in best jet of all time

Cobat Record? The F-15s record much better than the F-4s
The Kill ratio for most of the Veitnam war was 3-1 Phantom, when as I cant recall an eagle ever being shot down by another plane, and shooting down atleast 50 enemy planes.

102first_hussars · 10-21-2005, 08:45 PM

And your right, after Pilots were retrained in acm the ratio was somewhere around 12-1 Phantom, but by then it couldnt save the USAF enemy kill record.

Glider · 10-22-2005, 03:03 AM

The main problem with the F15 was its cost. I am sure given the choice that the USAF would have preffered to be 100% F15 but the cost would hav been far too high.
This was the reason why the European airforces went for the F16 in what must have been one of the largest export deals ever. It was still more than capable of doing what we needed it to do but I admit that I would have preferred to see the F17 win.
I was lucky enough to see the prototype F16 and YF17 fly (showing my age here) at the height of the sales drive at Farnborough and both were stunning compared to the Viggen and Mirage the main European contenders for the contract. The reason for my preference was the extra engine and slightly larger size. It seemed to have more growth potential.
As we all know the F16 won and the YF17 developed into the F18.
The F20 was also a good performer but never really had a chance once the F16 was in production.

102first_hussars · 10-23-2005, 01:04 AM

I dont see how the F-20 would be expensive in comparison to the F16,
It was designed from the F-5 sereis which meant to be cheap.

syscom3 · 10-23-2005, 01:43 AM

He meant a 100% F15 equiped air force

trackend · 10-23-2005, 02:45 AM

F15, I like the lightning but it never had to prove itself, perfomance does not always mean it will be a success in combat so up to the present day I will go with the F15 having said that with so much fire and forget ordenance coming on line stealth, targeting and electronic counter measures will make the biggest impact on a planes combat performance.

Glider · 10-23-2005, 02:45 AM

Syscom your right I meant an all F15 airforce.

102. Once the F16 is in production with orders that must have been for around 1,500 aircraft, the unit cost would have come down so far that no other aircraft, including the F20 would have stood a chance of being economical.
In a sales situation the F20 would have always been expensive.

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-23-2005, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrk

i think the harrier should get a mention in this debate.be it any british,spanish or american mark.

if you want to count the harrier in a fighter poll it can only really be the Sea Harrier FRS.1 or F/A.2, the RAF harriers are more for ground attack than dogfighting.........