Best Fighter of all Time

[SaburoS]

The A6M Zero fighter. Without it, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. WWII as we know it wouldn't of happened (as it did).






edited (as it did)

[midnight Target]

No question about it...

[artik]

Originally posted by Replicant
Ya, it was awesome during the Falklands War, the Sea Harrier FRS.1 surely proved itself (Sea Harrier had radar, Harrier GR.3 didn't).

But, having worked with them now, I'm sick to death of them!  Unfortunately the Harrier GR7 doesn't even have cannon, only AIM-9 sidewinders.  In mock dogfights on the ACM ranges it still regularly beats F16s, Tornados, F18s, F15s, Mirages etc., but most of their victories are with the simulated 'cannon', which it can no longer carry! (they can't get cannon to work with system software and would cost too much to rectify).

The Sea Harrier can carry cannon still, along with ASRAAM and AMRAAM.

But the main problem with Harrier in not weapos, manuverability, Radar etc.... It is  subsonic. That means it is not figher plane it is strike plane like in AH Ju87 and Il-2 good but... bombers.
It has no chance in air combat with Fighter planes F-18/16/15 or others.

The A6M Zero fighter. Without it, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. WWII as we know it wouldn't of happened.

 you know - the only one thing Zerro does good is truning - even F4F and P40 in right hands better - they faster, stronger, and better divers. The sucses of Perl Harbor and early IJAF vs USAF was absolutly failture of US Intelegence and good  trained Japanies pilots- US pilots didn't know about perfomances of Zerro nothing.... the expireicne of IJAF pilots was much better - that was the reason of first victories but then.... I think you know history

[Replicant]

Originally posted by artik
But the main problem with Harrier in not weapos, manuverability, Radar etc.... It is  subsonic. That means it is not figher plane it is strike plane like in AH Ju87 and Il-2 good but... bombers.
It has no chance in air combat with Fighter planes F-18/16/15 or others.

 
 

Yup, BVR it wouldn't have a chance, but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15.... it has done on the ACM ranges.  At least the GR7, with no radar, has much less radar image than others - only RWRs.  The radar equipped Sea Harrier was 100% successful against super-sonic Argentine jets.

The Israeli F15s are lesser models of the USAF F15s, I'm certain that the Israeli ones do not have BVR capability and was one of the conditions of its sale to Israel.

[FUNKED1]

F-15 without a doubt.
F-4 already had big advantages over the Soviet stuff.  When the F-15 came out it stretched the advantage even further.  Nothing else in the world even came close until the Su-27, ten years later.

[artik]

Originally posted by Replicant
Yup, BVR it wouldn't have a chance, but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15.... it has done on the ACM ranges.  At least the GR7, with no radar, has much less radar image than others - only RWRs.  The radar equipped Sea Harrier was 100% successful against super-sonic Argentine jets.

The Israeli F15s are lesser models of the USAF F15s, I'm certain that the Israeli ones do not have BVR capability and was one of the conditions of its sale to Israel.

Have you tried to kill 262 in Spit V? Hard isn't it? Almost impossible.... to catch. Of course if 262 pilot is not idiot and start turnfigting Spit V . In other side it is not easy for 262 to catch manuverable Spit V.

But witch is suprior? You can talk about missiles, radars and other electronic eqipment but finaly if you can't catch him or disengege of him you'll have to work very hard to survive.

[SaburoS]

Artik,
The strength of the Zero fighter (like the P-51 Mustang later in the war) was its range. Never mind that at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor it had very good all around attributes of speed, climb, and maneuverability as well. Without its range, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor.
The Zero was so good at that time, the Japanese short-sightedly didn't have a replacement in the works until way too late.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by artik
Have you tried to kill 262 in Spit V? Hard isn't it? Almost impossible.... to catch. Of course if 262 pilot is not idiot and start turnfigting Spit V . In other side it is not easy for 262 to catch manuverable Spit V.

But witch is suprior? You can talk about missiles, radars and other electronic eqipment but finaly if you can't catch him or disengege of him you'll have to work very hard to survive.

I originally said 'but subsonic it would own a F18 or F16 or F15', which has been proven on the NATO ACM ranges (the Harriers ability to VIFF made it a very difficult plane to engage at subsonic).  That's why it would be stupid for a supersonic jet to engage a manouvrable jet at close range and hence why most modern fighters would be engaging at BVR.

Anyway, i'd sooner have a JAS39 or a Typhoon.

Best combat plane ever, I'd have to go with the Spitfire (although it's not a personal favourite).

[Replicant]

Originally posted by GScholz
DACT exercises conducted with Luftwaffe Mig-29A's show that these first generation Mig-29's are a match, or even superior, to the F-16's and F-18's currently in service 20 years later. The Su-27 remains untested, however now that the Russians are having friendly exercises with us Norwegians we are bound to learn more about how it matches up to our F-16's.

Good point GScholz, the NATO ACM ranges allow RAF, USAFE, French, Danish, German (inc MiG29), Dutch, Belgian etc, etc, jets to engage each other under different conditions.  The MiG29 has managed to engage and survive against many of the more modern counterparts.

The main thing I like about the ACM ranges is that it allows different countries with different aircraft, techniques etc., to engage each other and in doing so allow development for both pilot and aircraft for the future.

[artik]

The Mig-21 entered operational status in the 1950's and when it met with the F-4 over Vietnam it still was superior in almost every aspect of performance. The only advantage the F-4 had was range, radar sophistication and BVR capability

Not exectly - F-4 Phantom was much faster then MiG-21 even later versions. US Sidewinder missiles was better then Russian in that times. It had better climb raito. In late 60s and early 70th it was supritior plane. Why it was not so sucsefull in Vietnam - tactics pilots.... can't say don't know exectly but in 1973 at Middle East it show his supriority on MiG-21s.

By the way it is not about only good IAF pilots. There were one fight in 70s of Soivet pilots flying MiG21 in Egypt and Israeli F-4 and Mirages. The result 5:0 for IAF, for the truth - one of Mirages landed damaged but landed.

This changed by MiG 23 and MiG 25 -- but there were allready F-15

Yes MiG-21 is still used in lot of air forces s but.... because they have no ability to purchashe newer planes.

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by GScholz
Not quite true I'm afraid. The Mig-21 entered operational status in the 1950's and when it met with the F-4 over Vietnam it still was superior in almost every aspect of performance. The only advantage the F-4 had was range, radar sophistication and BVR capability. That the Mig-21 is still in service and (with avionics and weapon upgrades) can still present a credible threat to modern fighters speaks volumes. The F-4's BVR, radar and in some degree it's range advantages were equalized by the Mig-23. The Flogger is faster and more maneuverable than the F-4 and matches it's BVR capability and radar (some claim that this was possible because the Soviets salvaged a crashed F-4 and copied its radar).

When the F-15 and F-16 entered service in 1974 and 1978 respectively, they were clearly superior to the Mig-23 and Mig-25. However in 1982, only 4 years after the F-16, both the Mig-29 and the Su-27 became operational with the Soviet air force. DACT exercises conducted with Luftwaffe Mig-29A's show that these first generation Mig-29's are a match, or even superior, to the F-16's and F-18's currently in service 20 years later. The Su-27 remains untested, however now that the Russians are having friendly exercises with us Norwegians we are bound to learn more about how it matches up to our F-16's.

The Mig 21 entered service in 1959, the Phantom first flew in 1958, went into service in 1961. They are pretty much of the same era. The Phantom was never designed to be a fighter, it was an interceptor. The US had the mistaken belief that the fighter era was over and that missles would decide fights. In fact, the F-15 was a direct result of the lack of a fighter during VietNam. Even so, the Phantom was a more capable plane than the Mig-21.... and I include electronics in the deal too, because that's part of any plane's capabilities.

The F-15 had no equal until about 10 years later, and even that's speculation. That's a long time considering todays rapid evolutions. The F-16  was made mostly as a cheap, lessor capable plane than the F-15 and was intended mostly as an export.

[GRUNHERZ]

Uhhm Gscholz your bias against the US fighters is as unbelivqble as it is uninformed....  There is no point in arguing with you because its so bad.  Just for example you completely discount out of hand the F15, the most sucessful combat proven air to air combat air superiority fighter of the past 30 years as nothing....

Yet you put so much faith in untested unproven never in air combat  unarmed lightly fueled sukhoi airshow birds.  Just nutz...

[GRUNHERZ]

Just to point out more of your ridiculous bias Gscholz:

In my opinion no US aircraft since the Korean War has shown any superiority or even equality in air combat over its contemporary adversaries

What a tool!

[MrCoffee]

Quite to the contrary, my opinion is that the mig-21 should have gotten the edge more often in combat during that era. It was an era where electronics were just starting to make a difference in airiel warfare. Air to air missiles were new (and somewhat still unreliable) however the notion of dogfighting had grown old. The intercept tactics used by west & east were vastly different in implementation. Still during this era, many intercepts often factored down to a visual id of the bogey before a fight. In that situation the mig-21 should have faired very well against the phantom. Pull out the dagger and get in close but instead the mig-21 pilots were usually out flown. I dont think mig-21 pilots were trained to dogfight either. From what I've read they made bad decisions which often lead to their deaths. My opinion, its a tought fight for a phantom if a mig gets close and doesnt let go.

As for best fighter of all time, would say the Spitfire, F-15.

However I also like the SR-71 and Mig-25 cas they go mach3 at the edge near space.

[artik]

Originally posted by GScholz

Mig-21PF
Initial Climb Rate: 58,000 ft (17,680 m) / min
Service Ceiling: 57,400 ft (17,500 m)

F-4 Phantom II
Initial Climb Rate: 28,000 ft (8,535 m ) / min  
Service Ceiling: 58,750 ft (17,905 m)  

I have no information on this battle. How many F-4's, Mirages and Mig's were involved, and where did this take place? I know the Soviets flew Mig-25R for Egypt, but I have never heard that they flew Mig-21's in combat.

I do not know what model you compere,

IAF used F-4E Phantom with  improved enginies
the inital climb ratio on my resources is: 61,400 feet

(mybe in your rescorces it was taken without AB or one of the first models?)

And MiG-21Bis 1972 (the Yom Kipur War was at 1973):
Max initial rate of climb with two AAMs and 50% fuel 45,275ft/mm

Maybe you compared models from different periods?

I know that when Phantoms were purcashed by IAF in 1970 they were purcashed as air supriority planes with exccelent Strike capabilities