In terms of successful performance, the F-15 is the best. With over 100 combat wins and no losses, the F-15 is the most successful fighter in history. But the F-22 is highly superior to the F-15. I would say the F-22.
@WarHawk95 certainly the Corsair would be in the running as the best shipborne fighter of all time, which, puts it in the running as the best fighter of all time, good thinking!
I’m seriously doubting between the 747 and the A380 but I think the A380 is better in the fighting aspect since it looks like a whale so enemy AA won’t shoot it down.
@ChiChiWerx ooooh, fighter aircraft, sorry. I'd go with p-51 or spitfire for overall greatness. For actual effectiveness I'd say f-22 or eurofighter typhoon
@atgxtg I meant "fighter" to mean air-to-air combat plane, but you are mostly right. It was intended to intercept the Valkyrie, Blackbird and any other high altitude mach 3 aircraft NATO was developing. However, it saw mass production as an interceptor and was even exported despite the cancellation of its intended prey. As you said, it saw use as a photo reconnaissance plane and the recon version even spawned a ground attack model.
@F104Deathtrap I thought the MIG-25 was an Interceptor that was converted to a recon plane when the aircraft it was designed and built to shoot down (the XB-70 Valkyrie) got canceled, not a fighter.
@Nerfenthusiast Not a good idea, that's why they canned it. Too expensive, poor combat effectiveness and a role that ceased to exist. ATGXTG is right on all counts.
There's only one mach 3 fighter, the Mig-25 Foxbat.
@Nerfenthusiast Not so much, at least not for a fighter. The problem with high speed is that it kills any sort of maneuverability. So while the YF-12 and later SR-71 could outrun some missiles. there was no way they could outmaneuver another airplane to get a shot themselves. Not without reducing speed and becoming vulnerable.
And it would have been much easier for the Soviets (or anybody else for that matter) to make a faster missile than it would have been to make a fighter jet faster once someone had done so.
Besides, in air to air combat, you really don't need speed beyond about 700 mph. Greater speed is more for interceptors.
@Nerfenthusiast But that's just it- mock dogfights. The F-15's track record is proven in real combat. The F-22's hasn't yet.
Yes, most of the F-15s victories were against lesser trained pilots-that's pretty much the whole point behind having such training programs.
I think the reason why there isn't much support for the earlier prop fighters is that jet fighters, radar, and missiles trump most of the earlier planes abilities.
I think this is one of those things where it's purely opinion and paper based. Stats are a good source of determining whether something is good or not, but they aren't the be all and end all. Just because a fighter jet is shot down less, doesn't inherently mean it's a good fighter.
.
The F-15 is a great example. It's got a near spotless record, but most of that is because it's too expensive for less developed countries to purchase. The more money a country has, the better facilities are available to it, such as aircraft and more importantly, the training for said aircraft. A lot of the F-15s victories have been over aircraft which were piloted by people that had very poor training in comparison to their US counterparts. It's a similar story to the SU-27 too. It was too expensive for a lot of countries to purchase and train for.
.
Ironically, my personal favourite fighter jet is the SU-35. It's a proven platform with a few additional bonuses thrown in like advanced avionics and Radar Absorbent Materials, etc. Either that or the Spitfire. One can't fault a bit of good ol' British aerospace engineering.
in the mock dogfight the us air force recreated modern air combat conditions and the single f-22 shot down all f-15s without being located except for when the f-22 flew right over head of one of the f-15s @ChiChiWerx
Interesting...not too many votes for the Mustang...or the Spitfire...seems to be overwhelmingly be the Eagle. A few others thrown into the mix (Flanker, Buffalo, P-47, Me-109, Eindecker) for good measure. Did the Eagle end Air to air combat as we’ve known it? Have the Eagle’s opponents thrown in the towel and decided they can’t win? I maintain no, at least not yet, the Chinese and Russians clearly have a capability to meet the Eagle on favorable terms. Thoughts?
In terms of successful performance, the F-15 is the best. With over 100 combat wins and no losses, the F-15 is the most successful fighter in history. But the F-22 is highly superior to the F-15. I would say the F-22.
@WarHawk95 certainly the Corsair would be in the running as the best shipborne fighter of all time, which, puts it in the running as the best fighter of all time, good thinking!
The F4U. Because of its 'family', its main chores, and its reputation 😁
@Djorg708 interesting choice and way of looking at the question; you are correct, though, the F-18 does many things well.
F-18 with its unique capability of different load outs for different missions
F-22 RAPTOR
But seriously there are loads of great ones like the F-15 and PAK FA Su-50
Focke-Wulf Wulf Fw-190 no questions asked
This post reminded me of this click bait I saw yesterday.
I’m seriously doubting between the 747 and the A380 but I think the A380 is better in the fighting aspect since it looks like a whale so enemy AA won’t shoot it down.
@ChiChiWerx ooooh, fighter aircraft, sorry. I'd go with p-51 or spitfire for overall greatness. For actual effectiveness I'd say f-22 or eurofighter typhoon
@atgxtg I meant "fighter" to mean air-to-air combat plane, but you are mostly right. It was intended to intercept the Valkyrie, Blackbird and any other high altitude mach 3 aircraft NATO was developing. However, it saw mass production as an interceptor and was even exported despite the cancellation of its intended prey. As you said, it saw use as a photo reconnaissance plane and the recon version even spawned a ground attack model.
@BurkeEnterprise that’s probably my next question. But not yet.
@F104Deathtrap I thought the MIG-25 was an Interceptor that was converted to a recon plane when the aircraft it was designed and built to shoot down (the XB-70 Valkyrie) got canceled, not a fighter.
Dc-3 or how about Boeing 737
@Nerfenthusiast Not a good idea, that's why they canned it. Too expensive, poor combat effectiveness and a role that ceased to exist. ATGXTG is right on all counts.
There's only one mach 3 fighter, the Mig-25 Foxbat.
@Nerfenthusiast Not so much, at least not for a fighter. The problem with high speed is that it kills any sort of maneuverability. So while the YF-12 and later SR-71 could outrun some missiles. there was no way they could outmaneuver another airplane to get a shot themselves. Not without reducing speed and becoming vulnerable.
And it would have been much easier for the Soviets (or anybody else for that matter) to make a faster missile than it would have been to make a fighter jet faster once someone had done so.
Besides, in air to air combat, you really don't need speed beyond about 700 mph. Greater speed is more for interceptors.
But was still quite fast and a good idea @F104Deathtrap
@Nerfenthusiast Some missiles. The YF-12 was too unstable and incapable of acquiring targets long enough to actually be used in combat.
F-15 Eagle
I just remembered about the yf-12 which could outrun missiles @atgxtg
@Nerfenthusiast But that's just it- mock dogfights. The F-15's track record is proven in real combat. The F-22's hasn't yet.
Yes, most of the F-15s victories were against lesser trained pilots-that's pretty much the whole point behind having such training programs.
I think the reason why there isn't much support for the earlier prop fighters is that jet fighters, radar, and missiles trump most of the earlier planes abilities.
I think this is one of those things where it's purely opinion and paper based. Stats are a good source of determining whether something is good or not, but they aren't the be all and end all. Just because a fighter jet is shot down less, doesn't inherently mean it's a good fighter.
.
The F-15 is a great example. It's got a near spotless record, but most of that is because it's too expensive for less developed countries to purchase. The more money a country has, the better facilities are available to it, such as aircraft and more importantly, the training for said aircraft. A lot of the F-15s victories have been over aircraft which were piloted by people that had very poor training in comparison to their US counterparts. It's a similar story to the SU-27 too. It was too expensive for a lot of countries to purchase and train for.
.
Ironically, my personal favourite fighter jet is the SU-35. It's a proven platform with a few additional bonuses thrown in like advanced avionics and Radar Absorbent Materials, etc. Either that or the Spitfire. One can't fault a bit of good ol' British aerospace engineering.
in the mock dogfight the us air force recreated modern air combat conditions and the single f-22 shot down all f-15s without being located except for when the f-22 flew right over head of one of the f-15s @ChiChiWerx
Interesting...not too many votes for the Mustang...or the Spitfire...seems to be overwhelmingly be the Eagle. A few others thrown into the mix (Flanker, Buffalo, P-47, Me-109, Eindecker) for good measure. Did the Eagle end Air to air combat as we’ve known it? Have the Eagle’s opponents thrown in the towel and decided they can’t win? I maintain no, at least not yet, the Chinese and Russians clearly have a capability to meet the Eagle on favorable terms. Thoughts?
Po-2
Because Po-2 is 2-oP
.
.
.
haha get it?