Your top 10 modern fighters

[plan_D]

Your English is fine. Obviously it could be improved, and hopefully will get better while conversing with the English speakers on here. As we always say: Your English is better than my Chinese.

[MacArther]

Mine is going to be a bit biased, but then thats the way I am.

1. F14
(the F15 may have lost the long range missile contest, but not the F14; ya gotta love the Phoenix missil)
2. F4 II/F15
(couldn't decide which would be better with the same avionics, etc.)
3. F104
(As far as pure speed goes, this fighter can take all enemies on)
4. BAe Sea Harrier FRS Mk 2
(good carrier plane, especially with the VTOL)
5. MiG 25P
(A good, but old, high speed interceptor)
6. Tornado ADV
(Older plane, other wise it might be higher up, otherwise a good plane.)
7. F-5E
(A good plane for a good price)
8,9,10: can't think of any, except the Fi 103 , even if it is a bit old it can still knock a bomber out of the sky, or blow up a bridge or something.

[syscom3]

Mine is going to be a bit biased, but then thats the way I am.

1. F14
(the F15 may have lost the long range missile contest, but not the F14; ya gotta love the Phoenix missil)......

The F14 was more an interceptor than a dogfighter. The F14A/B/C all had a poor performing engine as compared to any model of the F15. The F14 also had a two man cockpit which added complexity, cost and weight penalties compared to the F15. Id take the F14 for fleet defense any day, but the F15 was the better of the two for land based fighters.

2. F4 II/F15
(couldn't decide which would be better with the same avionics, etc.)

The F4 was a 60's era fighter that was good in its day, but in no way compares to the F15. The performance of the F100 engines alone put the F15 into a whole different class. And even the avionics of the F15 were superior to the F4.

3. F104
(As far as pure speed goes, this fighter can take all enemies on)

I have to admit the Brits in this forum did make a convincing argument that the Lightning was the superior interceptor of its day. (60's and 70's)

4. BAe Sea Harrier FRS Mk 2
(good carrier plane, especially with the VTOL)

I the suppose the Harrier is better than nothing. Its a good specialized aircraft, but not hardly something to mention a "top ten" award.

5. MiG 25P
(A good, but old, high speed interceptor)

I dont think the Mig 25 ever proved it was worthy of anything. just because its fast doesnt mean its good.

6. Tornado ADV
(Older plane, other wise it might be higher up, otherwise a good plane.)

Thats actually a good pick.

7. F-5E
(A good plane for a good price)

Another good pick.

[Glider]

How about this then. Another J-10 pic.

Stolen design or not, there is no doubt it will be a significant advance on anything else that China has produced.
It will be interesting to see if there production techniques are able to build them in serious numbers.

[FLYBOYJ]

F-5 was a great aircraft - Although we hear about the Mig-25's potential, it combat record showed it couldn't fly its way out of the junk yard, as a matter of fact I posted earlier, F-5s have shot down Mig-25s!!!

[plan_D]

Let's be honest for a moment here, syscom ... it was just me that proved the Lightning to be the interceptor of the 60s and 70s.

Because of the fact that the Lightning was a breakthrough in aeronautical design, and supersonic flight it deserves a place in the Top Ten of all-time great fighters. But this thread is about modern fighters ...and I hardly consider the Lightning modern, since it's development began in 1947.

[syscom3]

Since the Starfighter was mentioned, I had to admit that the fighter that was its peer, the Lighting was a better aircraft.

Further, since you proved that its performance margin was so good, all it needed was avionics upgrades over the years to stay competitive.

Now if you want to say the Lightning wasnt so good, Id be happy to not argue that fact.

[plan_D]

I'll never say the Lightning wasn't good, even as a joke. If you ever need a hand in arguing for the Lightning, I'll be willing to lend a hand. Mentioning avionics, remember one of the reasons the Lightning was so fast to target was because it was basic.

What the Lightning really needed, and which was propsed by EE, was a lighter airframe, stronger under-carriage, more efficient (and powerful) engines and a better weapons package (AIM-9 was put forward).

Also, maybe a bit longer for increase fuel capacity in the ventral tank ...

The Lightning proved it could be used in ground strike as well as interceptor roles, so it certainly wasn't a one hit wonder. I would have loved to see the Lightning developed ... but the MoD were tied by liberal military cuts.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Whatever you said. Infact, the J-10 is not you think,or our, or anyone.
But, this design is great breakthrough for my country. It`s honor.
We don`t follow russian`s outmoded design.
My English is not good enough.

No your english is fine and yes it will be a step up for the Chinese AF.

[dinos7]

The F-22 wins in pretty much any perspective in the debate. it has good air to ground, exellent air to air and is very manueverable. And is fairly new aircraft.

[loomaluftwaffe]

gawd i have so many Russian prototypes on my mind!!!!

F-22
Eurofighter Typhoon
Su-35? if not Su-27SMK
F/A-18
F-15
Dassault Rafale
MiG-29
F-16
MiG-31
Mirage 2000? cant think now

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Um none of those are Russian Prototypes.

[cheddar cheese]

Didnt you hear about that Adler? The F-16 is just a big conspiracy, its really an all Russian design made by the what was thought to be defunct Lavochikin company.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

LOL

[Gnomey]