Your top 10 modern fighters

Aussie1001 · 08-17-2007, 05:29 AM

For me i love the great classics for instance:
1) The Harrier-just a great little plane with so many uses in the modern field the falklands proved that this little dog has a big bite.
2) Lightning- Maybe it is outdated by thirty or so years but this little bugger was faster than the F14, F16 and F15. (Information from Air Combat mag i have)
3) F15 Looks really cool so fast and sleek.
4) F22 raptor in the modern field this is the pinnicle of aircraft design. (for now)
5) Su27- Maybe it is in the stone age with reguards to electronics however it is like all russian things - its cheap and it works as well as doing what it should.
oh crap can't think of any more at the moment i'll get back to this in a moment.

mkloby · 08-17-2007, 06:03 AM

Aussie - the harrier??? Talk to some pilots and maint crews of those damn things... not exactly the pinnacle of successful design.

Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???

Aussie1001 · 08-17-2007, 06:28 AM

keep going down i screwed up a post.....

Aussie1001 · 08-17-2007, 06:32 AM

Mkloby- I have read Commander "Sharkey Wards" autobiography of the falklands and from what he had to say you had enough missiles to nail two mirarges thats enough isn't it, anyway the new harrier is a ground attack so it must have some payload capacity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

Aussie - the harrier???
Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???

Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?

Glider · 08-17-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkloby

Aussie - the harrier??? Talk to some pilots and maint crews of those damn things... not exactly the pinnacle of successful design.

Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???

More than a little harsh. When the chips are down the Harrier has delivered in spades for over 25 years. As for the pilots, yes I have talked to them and it was always the plane the pilots wanted to fly, before any other aircraft in the RAF. As for its ability as a fighter, the Sea Harrier had a remarkable record against the F15's/F16's at Red Flag excercises.
To maintain its always been petty reliable being designed from the start to operate away from an airfield. I admit, an engine change in the field is more than a little tricky but then again an engine change away from an airfield is a little unusual for any plane.
As for its payload a verticle takeoff does limit things but that isn't normal procedure, a rolling takeoff being the norm. The ski jump makes a huge difference at sea and I have always wondered why the USA didn't follow this practice.

renrich · 08-17-2007, 01:54 PM

Can you see an A6 loaded using a ski jump?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-17-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by comiso90

And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.

.

Thanks for that!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-17-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

.

Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?

Helicopter is not a jet....

Different mission and different capabilities.

FLYBOYJ · 08-17-2007, 03:26 PM

From what I heard the Harrier is a maintenance nightmare compared to other aircraft. An engine change involves removing the wing.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-17-2007, 03:46 PM

Yeah I talked to some Harrier mechanics in Iraq and they said it was a pain in the ass to work on.

I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.

Hunter368 · 08-17-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yeah I talked to some Harrier mechanics in Iraq and they said it was a pain in the ass to work on.

I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.

I agree Joe and Chris I have heard the same things.

mkloby · 08-17-2007, 08:28 PM

One of my good buddies is a former AV-8B engine guy - he loathes the harrier! Goes on and on about how he hated working on the thing day in and out.

And Aussie - my avatar is a helo... so what?

Aussie1001 · 08-17-2007, 10:36 PM

Never mind Mkloby its an Aussie thing

all meant in good fun....
Anyway i don't know much about the engine maintainence on a harrier so i'll take your word for it. Anyway mkloby as Glider said the norm for a harrier taking off under heavy load is a ski ramp after a rolling takeoff. THe verticle feature is however extremely usefull in a number of ways as i'm sure you already know.

Graeme · 08-18-2007, 12:51 AM

On the topic of VTOL.

I know the project never progressed...but never understood the 'why'.

SoD Stitch · 08-18-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme

On the topic of VTOL.

I know the project never progressed...but never understood the 'why'.

The Rockwell XFV-12A was waaaaaaaaay underpowered . . . it had a second-generation low bypass-ratio turbofan (a P&W F401) that didn't provide enough thrust to get it off the ground, even with 1/4-full fuel tanks, let alone any armament. It would be another 25+ years before we were able to develop an engine with a high enough thrust-to-weight ratio to allow vertical flight for a supersonic aircraft (the F-119 engine in the F-35 develops approx. 36,000 lbs. of thrust for takeoff).