Best fighter

master

New Member
ascend the following fighters from the best to worst and choose your favourite and best fighter .

1- F 35 lifhtning II
2- F 22 Raptor
3- F 18 super hornet
4- F 16 vista
5- F 16 I sufa storm
6- F 15 E strike eagle
7- F 15 Slam eagle
8- F 14 tomcat
9- F 104 starfighter
10- F 105 thunder chief
11- F 117 night hawk
12- Mirage 2000
13- Mirage 5000
14- Mirage F1
15- Dassault Rafael
16- Tornado
17- Eurofighter Typhoon
18- Mig 29 SMT
19- Mig 31
20- Mig 35
21- SU 35
22- JF 17
23- Mitsubishi f2
 
The list is wrong, because it is incorrect to compare, for example, MiG-29 and MiG-31, as well as F-117 and F-14 - because all of those are jets with different purposes (MiG-29 is frontal fighter, while MiG-31 - long range interceptor, F-117 - steatlth bomber - ground attack jet, while F-14 - naval interceptor... the same with F-22 and F-104 - those are jets of incomparable generations.
 
It would be best if someone makes threads like
Best fighter
Best bomber
Best interceptor

Instead of making one long list of all miscellaneous aircraft
 
You just can't produce a list like this and expect valid comparisons.
If you want to know what aircraft will best another in a dogfight, then you need to factor pilot experience, skill and daring, plus state of airframe maintenance, limitations, weather and time of day. Su-22 pilots with 5K hours have bested F-16s. Mirage III pilots have bested F-15s.
There are some very active platforms missing;
Mirage III (Argentina, Pakistan, Brazil),
MiG21 (Romania, Poland),
J-10 (China),
JAS-39C Gripen (Sweden, Austria, Czech, Hungary, Sth Africa),
F-4 Phantom (Germany, Turkey, Iran, Japan, Greece),
Harrier (AV-8B Spain & USMC) (GR.9 & 9A RAF),
A-7 Corsair (Greece),
Su-27/Su-30/Su-33/Su-34/Su-35/Su-37 (12 Air Forces),
F-5s are still in operation with 28 air arms.

F-104, F-105, F-117 - No longer operational anywhere.
Tornado F.3 being withdrawn.
F-14A only flown by Iran with drastic serviceability limits.
The "Slam" Eagle is just a 2 seat F-15C sold to Sth Korea.
It's Rafale, not rafael. B, C & M versions, all with different roles and specs.
Tornado will only be in GR.4 and ECR in RAF service.
The F/A-18 is in A, B, C, D, E, F & G models (Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Finland, Switzerland, Spain, USN, USMC)
Finally, F-35 (all versions) and Su-37, MiG-35, Su-47 & PAK FA have yet to be declared operational from test phases
Any way, just define what you actually want to know a bit closer and I'll be glad to help.
 
The last post one year ago?
Well I read this article from aviation magazine ( based in USA ) this year and it said that the best active fighter nowadays is the Swedish Jas39 Gripen. Any thoughts?
 
It´s totally irrelevant to talk about what is the best fighter, tank or assault rifle. Ultimately it's about the person using the equipment. His ability to use the tool based on his training and operational experience.

For example:

Is the M4 a better weapon than the AK47? Well!
If my opponent has fought with an AK for 10 years, and kept himself alive chances are, that it's probably me who ends up 6 feet under.
 
The last post one year ago?
Well I read this article from aviation magazine ( based in USA ) this year and it said that the best active fighter nowadays is the Swedish Jas39 Gripen. Any thoughts?

System 39 Gripen is a small fighter that were never designed for the airsuperiority role.
Having said that, they have performed well in Red Flag and other joint TRAINING exercises with NATO forces.
(I think the Chechz won some competition or other with theirs.)
There are currently 8 of the C/D version flying CAP,s over Lybia on request from NATO so they can´t be utterly useless.

Best fruit to use for getting orange juice is oranges.
If you want apple juice I recomend using apples..
Just saying.

KJ sends...
 
I think when people want to make comparisons of weapons, they are referring to "IF" the weapons were being operated by equally competent people. As KoreanSeaboy said, categories of different types of fighters, fighter-bombers, interceptors, etc. (They could see if their favorite is the best or not.) The era in which the the plane is designed would also be needed. Planes not operational (I don't feel) should be included in the list for the amount of information.

As far as how well a plane does in exercises such as Red Flag, Frisean Flag, etc., whenever you see some results you should ask yourself, "what are the rules of engagement?" There are some nice pictures of some of the newest planes with old planes 'riding' their six! A picture of some Luftwaffe F-4s with kill marks on their fuselage for killing Rafales or, a picture through the HUD of a T-38 riding a F-22A just slightly above. Reading the HUD of the T-38, the altitude ≈ 15,000ft., speed ≈ 450kts. and, pulling only 5Gs!! It turns out the exercise the F-22A was limited to pulling only "5½Gs"!
Things aren't always what they appear to be. There are some 'free play' exercises but, usually they don't publish the results.
 
System 39 Gripen is a small fighter that were never designed for the airsuperiority role.
Having said that, they have performed well in Red Flag and other joint TRAINING exercises with NATO forces.
(I think the Chechz won some competition or other with theirs.)
There are currently 8 of the C/D version flying CAP,s over Lybia on request from NATO so they can´t be utterly useless.
KJ sends...

Well, I was faced with the task of defending the Scandinavian countries from an enemy whose idea of airsuperiotity was to strafe and bomb airfields on regular basis, my choise would be in favour of the JAS Gripen.

If I was the enemy with a main interest in bombing and strefing airfields, I would choose something completely different.

On the other hand, if I was the one to face JAS Gripen in the role I pictured, it would demand som creative thinking.
 
Technology changes so quickly that after a decade there are massive changes in the fighter aircraft, and for any comparison these threads should be broken up into at least ten year blocks
 
I am totally unsure if the Euro-fighter Typhoon would be the best choice as a fighter/interceptor for the RAF. There's something that I cannot put my finger on, I don't like the aircraft, but then again what do I know. It might turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, only time will tell.

Many regarded the development of the Harrier as a complete waste of time and money, yet she proved herself time and time again. Its a pity that the supersonic version never left the drawing board.
 
I am totally unsure if the Euro-fighter Typhoon would be the best choice as a fighter/interceptor for the RAF. There's something that I cannot put my finger on, I don't like the aircraft, but then again what do I know. It might turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, only time will tell.
What choice does the RAF have? None! The F-35 would not take care of all their aerial defense needs. I don't know how an fighter like the F-35 could possibly prevent an Su-27 from penetrating or deep probing the air defense of countries like Japan, and Israel (which have had this problem).

Many regarded the development of the Harrier as a complete waste of time and money, yet she proved herself time and time again. Its a pity that the supersonic version never left the drawing board.
Politicians often are very short sighted. Congress was arguing over discontinuing the B-17 program because it was costly, one test aircraft crashed and, they saw no need to continue the program. Then in June 1937 a Tupolev ANT-25 made a non-stop flight from Moscow over the north pole to the military base near Vancouver, Washington after passing over Seattle! Then congress considered that the USAAF could probably need the Y1B-17 in development. So many examples like this. This also spurred the need for interceptors... the P-38, P-40, P-47, the F-4U Corsair, etc. Otherwise German bombers could bomb the USA much like the Tu-ANT-25 passed over American cities.
Many complain that about the cost of the F-22, it was congress that did not want the F-22 in the early 1980s, because the Israeli AF showed the F-15 and F-16s were doing so good in 1981-82. When the MiG-29 and later the Su-27 came out they were not able to dominate the skies. Congress also felt the Euro-canards would perform about as well as the upgraded F-15s and F-16s. Congress still saw no need for the F-22 to continue. Upgrading the F-15s and F-16s these people felt would be enough to keep the USAF the top air force. Then, President Clinton (near the end of his first term) told the USAF to stretch out the program by at least seven years and that the production run will be cut 'at least' in half! The end of President Clinton's first term is when the F-22 was originally supposed to become operational. All this stretching out of the program ate up money and damaged the overall program financially. If the F-22 became operational back in 1994-95, the the number of F-22s produced would have been a lot higher program cost would be radically lower.

I've always been a fan of F-22 Raptor!
Despite the administration and congress positions on the F-22 Raptor the fighter, there are millions of us who felt more F-22s should been produced.
 
As dog fighter the Typhoon is specially equipped for this with the canard wings at the front which makes it very unstable to fly with out fly by wire. Also it is equipped with the latest fire and forget missiles with range of over 50 miles and can take on a number of targets at once. The idea of dog fighting is becoming obsolete as the idea is to shoot down the enemy before it is any where near you.
 
Most, if not all, modern fighters are made unstable and can only be flown with FBW.

I am a bit sceptical with that dogfight issue. The US burned their fingers with that topic in the Vietnam war, that's why the Phantom got it's canon and the F-22 also has one.

In the latest Red Flag (I think it was Red Flag) exercise the F-22 was quite good versus the Eurofighter in dogfights. The latter was helpless in long distance fights against the F-22.
 
The yf-23 was less maneuverable than the yf-22 but it was stealthier and had bigger weapons bays, and I believe a slightly greater range, but the air force made their choice.
 
The yf-23 was less maneuverable than the yf-22 but it was stealthier and had bigger weapons bays, and I believe a slightly greater range, but the air force made their choice.
One big factor was the loss of faith in Northrop and, the way the B-2 bomber progressed through the design and production process. If Northrop could not keep the B-2 bomber program anywhere near the cost or schedule, they probably would not be able to do it with YF-23. A valid concern!
 
Back
Top