Best Modern Fighter

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by MVictorP, Apr 3, 2016.

?

What's the Best Multirole Fighter

  1. Dassault Rafale

    5.4%
  2. Eurofighter Typhoon

    5.4%
  3. F/A-18 Super Hornet

    8.1%
  4. F-22 Raptor

    51.4%
  5. F-35 Lightning

    10.8%
  6. SU-30 Flanker

    8.1%
  7. Other (specify)

    10.8%
  1. MVictorP

    MVictorP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    7,666
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the light of the Canadian debate about our next multirole fighter, I suggest you a poll.

    Imagine you are the military brass of a modern, occidental nation wealthy enough to consider buying one type of multirole fighter. You get to chose which.

    You must consider costs, performance in all domains and operability. Here are some obvious candidates: Please comment your choice.
     
  2. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Oh wait, you want "multi-role" fighter.... I thought you meant air supremacy and voted F22. Multi-role is different from a dedicated air supremacy (ie fighter), strike or interdiction platform - though interdiction as a specialized aircraft platform (at least in fast jets) has gone the way of the dodo bird since the advent of standoff and cruise weapons and emergence of integrated air defenses and look down shoot down radars.

    Multirole is F35, easy, IMO.

    Nations like the US can afford specialized platforms for things like air supremacy (F22) and strike (B2, B1 etc), and use multi-roles to fill the gaps. Smaller nations can only afford one, or maybe a couple of different platforms so need to find multirole platforms which work better in the areas they need. It's why Australia is getting the F18F/G and F35A combination - they both can share work, but they both have advantage at each end of the spectrum of air warfare/combat taskings.
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  3. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2008
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Pound for pound...or dollar for dollar I will have to give it to the SU.
     
  4. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That's why I didn't vote, the F-22 was listed and the F-22 isn't a dual purpose weapons platform but an air superiority fighter.

    The F-102's, the Navy's original F-4 Phantoms were interceptors not air superiority fighters that would get into dog fights.
     
  5. Bast

    Bast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Should the F35 even be considered, is it not still testing, working out the problems? Saw a vid few days ago that included a carrier landing. To my amateur eye it looked really unstable, took a hard landing. As for Russian plane, do we know enough about (k)hibiny. If it can take down electronics of rival jets surely this is a major advantage?
     
  6. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,347
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The F-15 has never lost an air-to-air engagement. It is 101 - 0.

    We can talk paper victories based on technical data, exercises and simulations or we can talk real World combat records.

    The record speaks for itself, it is arguably one of the greatest fighter aircraft in history and the multi-role version has a similar pedigree.

    Of course true 5th generation fighters like the F-22, would probably defeat the Eagle given the Raptor excels at beyond visual range tactics....however if the discussion is about real World combat records, of all the fighter aircraft flying today, the F-15 remains the undefeated champion in air superiority.
     
  7. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    F-18 and F-15 dogfight

    [video]https://youtu.be/Icto81Z92fk[/video]


    Note: The FA-18 pilot in the video comments in the comment section.

    In a dogfight, I would say it all depends who's in the cockpit.

    The story of a legendary F-14 pilot and the gun kill on an F-15
    -> http://theaviationist.com/2014/08/1...l-on-an-f-15-that-could-sell-tomcat-to-japan/

    Then there was the two commie Mig-17's that were shot down by Navy A-1 Skyraiders during the Vietnam War.

    The most unusual MiG killer: the Skyraider air-to-air victories on North Vietnamese MiG-17s

    Douglas Skyraider has been the last piston engine propelled aircraft to shoot down a jet fighter. -> http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/1...air-victories-on-north-vietnamese-mig-17s/The
     
  8. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,347
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Your example isn't real World.

    AIMVAL/ACEVAL (the Air Combat Evaluation/Air Intercept Missile Evaluation) fighter trials

    The F-15A/C has never been lost in air to air combat, the F-14 has.

    The Eagle's record speaks for itself, it has the highest kill ratio of any fighter in the jet age.
     
  9. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,347
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is also the mission capable rate or "availability" to consider. Basically availability is the proportion of time a system is in a functioning condition.

    The F-15E maintains a mission capable rate of 95.5% while the F-14 never got above 80%.

    The F-15C has a 9G turning capability versus 6.5 to 7.0 G for the Tomcat.

    The Eagle is a pure fighter, and in that role it was the greatest at would it did in the Cold War era...later multi-role strike versions of the F-15 were developed but it was designed for air-to-air superiority.
     
  10. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Kill ration, OK. But how many times has it been in an actual air to air dogfight ? Who were they going up against, Arabs ? :roflol:

    The F-8 Crusader during the Vietnam War was known as the "Mig Killer." The F-4 Phantom shot down 107 Migs during that war in air to air combat.

    Vought F-8 Crusader vs. McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II -> https://youtu.be/QprQcfr45fk

    I believe the F-8 was the last air superiority fighter built around it's guns.
     
  11. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to mention that when somebody is going to throw in an aircraft like the F-35, you then have to immediately ask "which one"?

    The F-35 is not a single aircraft, it is a family of 3 very different aircraft, all based upon the same airframe.

    First you have the F-35A, an aircraft that is expected to replace the F-16. It is a conventional multi-role fighter, which is the lightest of the 3 versions (by 1-2 tons), and is considered to be the most nimble of the 3.

    Then you have the F-35B. This is the STOL version for the Marines. It can operate in a VTOL configuration, and has the shortest range. Weight wise it is in the middle between the versions the Air Force and Navy use, and has a somewhat reduced payload and fuel capacity because of the needs of the VTOL equipment.

    Finally, the F-35C. By far the heaviest of the 3, it has to be in order for the strengthened landing gear and airframe required for CATOBAR landings and takeoffs. Payload and fuel capacity is pretty similar to that of the A model, but it is not considered to be as nimble because of the much greater mass.

    You can't just throw in the "F-35" without saying which one is being proposed for this competition. The same with the F-18, which is also a dedicated Naval Aviation asset. Any time you throw in Naval Aviation, you automatically have to take into account the fact it is designed to take off and land on a ship.

    And "fighter" is such a loose term. Fighter against what? Ground targets, air targets, sea targets, or multi-role? CATOBAR, CTOL, or STOL?

    I generally hate these kinds of threads, because they rarely amount to much more then "my whanger is bigger then your whanger" arguments. And fanbois from each side line up behind their own personal choices, and prancing about screaming in the areas where their choice has been the best, but ignoring anything else.

    And then there is the exclusion of another aircraft that may have some great potential, the JF-17 Thunder. Essentially a Chinese blending of the MiG-21 and the F-16, China has been able to roll out a pretty modern aircraft with some advanced features, for around half the cost of a US fighter. Even if it is only 75% as capable as the equivelent US Fighter, it's cost per unit allows a nation to buy twice as many, converting this from a "which is best" to "how many can be fielded" question.

    If 1 aircraft is better, this matters very little if the other side can field an aircraft that is 25% inferior but at 200% the quantity. As somebody once said, quantity has a quality all it's own.
     
  12. MVictorP

    MVictorP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    7,666
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey, thanks for the answers - I was sure this poll had gone to oblivion.

    First, I must admit not knowing much about modern fighters... I just recently read a couple of analysis and found the debate to be interesting. Don't look here for an expert thought, I'll just be happy to ride the wave.

    My personal choice would be Dassault's Rafale, a small fighter (comparable to a F-16), carrier-capable, and battle-tested. From what I read, it's pretty much dominant in a majority of comparative matches that I saw.

    Second choice would be Eurofighter Typhoon, for its great digfight capabilities or (I didn't include it in the poll) the Saab Gripen, for its cost. Not really a fan of the F-35, that I think is expensive while being quite ordinary.
     
  13. Zorroaster

    Zorroaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you're interested, here's a very detailed analysis of the anti-F35 talking points, particularly those put forward by Pierre Sprey:
    [video=youtube;-HVY6Fdc2CM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM[/video]
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    4,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Saying the F-22 is strictly air superiority is a bit of a misrepresentation. It was always intended to be capable of delivering air to ground ordnance from the beginning. In fact at one time the USAF wanted to redesignate it as the "F/A-22" to emphasize this dual capability.
     
  15. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it wasn't. Adding some hard points to the F-22 was the only way Congress would sign off on the F-22, it was Congress who had little knowledge of weapons platforms that demanded that the F-22 be able to carry a bomb. The F/A designation was strictly a political move to get Congressional appropriations.

    I actually personally know an Air Force retired Lt. Gen. who was involved in developing and putting the F-22 in the air.

    First mistake according to him was Congress not allowing the F-22 to be exported or allowing Japan being involved in manufacturing the F-22 that would have significantly would have reduced the cost of the F-22.

    Second mistake was Barack Obama becoming President. Obama refuses to look into the future on what threats America will be facing in the future. It was Obama who pushed Congress to shut down the F-22 production line without enough F-22's to guarantee air superiority into the 2030's and 2040's.

    There are some aircraft that will only serve within the U.S. military and not even our most trusted allies will ever be allowed to acquire them like the F-22, B-52, B-1, B-2, etc.
     
  16. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    4,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  17. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  18. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Got a reference for that?

    Because the US since WWII has never exported it's primary bombers, nor in the last 30 years it's stealth technology aircraft, nor it's top level recon aircraft.

    There are some things the US just does not sell. And our premier penetration strike nuclear bomber is just one of them. And that would especially have been hard to do, considering that we only made 104 of them in the first place. And they could not even be built for export. The last bomber was rolled off the factory in 1988, and shortly afterwards the molds and other things used to build them were all destroyed.

    But please, I would love to see a credible reference where we were going to sell B-2 bombers to another country. Heck, we have not even sold B-52 bombers to anybody else.

    Oh, and until the mid-1990's, the B-1 was a nuclear payload bomber only. That's right, it could only drope nukes, no conventional ordinance. The packages to allow that were only being tested and refined in the early 1990's. That is why we saw no B-1 bombers used in the Gulf War, the big bomb truck for that conflict was the good old BUFF.

    So why would Australia need a bomber that only dropped nukes?
     
  19. MVictorP

    MVictorP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    7,666
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's okay. Yeah, the poll could have been better, I guess.

    That is also Canada's choice, but voices of dissent are rather loud: the f-18 are not getting younger, but they still get the job done, and at a fraction of the cost that having F-35s would do. Many here start to wonder if the F-35 is a good choice at all: the performence is there, sure, when the arcraft is able to fly, that is about 1 hour every 2 days.

    I think at this point we're chosing an ally rather than a fighter here.
     
  20. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    4,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    IIRC, the U.S. offered both the British and Australians a number of B-1Bs back in the late 1990s when they were contemplating pulling more than a dozen B-1B Lancers out of service and using them as gate guards on military bases. The thinking was that they would have all nuclear weapons delivery equipment uninstalled and be sold as pure conventional bombers (as the B-1Bs in service today are).

    Australia has needed long range ocean patrol and strike capability they've lacked since their F-111s left service. Likewise the B-1Bs were thought to be able to provide the British with the extreme long range strike capability they lacked since the last of the Vulcans were retired.

    International Air Power Review was my source on this IIRC.
     
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Errr, there are only 10 on display. And 2 of those are B-1A bombers, which takes the number now down to 8 (since those are obviously not B-1B bombers).

    83-0065 Star of Abilene, this was the first B-1B delivered, and was retired in 2003. Count is now down to 7.

    83-0066 Ole Puss, the 3rd aircraft delivered, and retired in 2007. Count is now down to 6.

    83-0067 Texas Raider, the 4th aircraft delivered, retired in 2003. Count is now down to 5.

    I can go through the remaining 5, but is there any point really? Either the article you read was complete garbage, or your memory is mistaken.

    The newest B-1B on display is the 84-0051 Boss Hawg, the only display aircraft not built in 1983. This is the 11th aircraft built, and was retired in 2002.

    All of the aircraft on display is a matter of public record, and the tail numbers, names, and history of those aircraft are easy to find with Google. You stated "more then a dozen" as gate guards in the 1990's, yet only 10 have been retired. And of the 8 B-1Bs in that status, they are the oldest ones in the fleet, and became "gate guards" in the 2000's.

    In fact, only 1 of them is anywhere near the gate. Most of them are in on-base museums (and could theoretically be put back into service again since they are only on loan from the Air Force). That one that is at a gate is 83-0071 Spitfire, at Tinker Air Force Base. It was the 8th B-1B built, retired in 2003. That leaves only 4 that I have not checked the retirement date on.

    This is why I urge people to fact check.
     
  22. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,645
    Likes Received:
    4,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I said the USAF CONTEMPLATED using a dozen as gate guards. Not that they actually did. Gate guards, museums. That's all semantics.
     
  23. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,347
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In 1990 engine fires in two of the Lancers caused the grounding of the fleet. As a result the aircraft were placed on "limited alert"; in other words, they were grounded unless a nuclear war broke out. Following inspections and repairs they were returned to duty beginning in early February 1991.

    Basically, due to the engine problems, the B-1B was effectively sidelined in the Persian Gulf War, they would have otherwise been used to carry at least some conventional ordnance The conventional refit happened by 1991, so the B-1 could carry a modest conventional capability, primarily the 500 lb. Mk-82 (GP) bomb, dropped from low altitude. Despite being cleared for this role, the problems with the engines prevented their use in Operation Desert Storm

    This aircraft was used during Operation Desert Fox in 1998 and in Kosovo carrying non-nuclear load-outs..namely un-guided GP bombs.
     
  24. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .................
     
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I remember when the liberals were whining that the B-1B wasn't used during Desert Storm and it was a waste of money. The biggest cry babies were Rep. Dellums and Rep. Pat Schroeder the worse enemies the U.S. military ever had before Barack Obama.

    The way I remember it, the Cold War was still going on at the time. Most of the U.S. Army that was in Germany was moved to the Middle East for the build up for Desert Storm.

    There was still a Soviet threat in late 1990 and early 1991.

     

Share This Page