Your Top 10 Favorite Fighter Aircraft.

[///M-Spec]

The Flanker is an interceptor the Fulcrum plays the defense role. They are very different.

Common miss-perception

Um. The interceptor mission IS a defense role. I think you're a little confused.

Both planes evolved from the same program, the Perspektivnyi Frontovoi Istrebitel (PFI) from 1969, once the Soviets realized they needed a new fighter to keep parity with the F-15.

When they realized that the requirements were so tough they could not reasonably be met with only one design, the requirement was split into TWO; the Heavy PFI and Lightweight PFI. This was in 1970.

The Heavy PFI became the Su-27, the Lightweight PFI became the MiG-29. So in a manner of speaking, the two planes diverged from the same original design principle.

The Fulcrum became the smaller, less expensive multi-roled airplane while the Flanker stayed closer to it's fighter roots. There is no doubt they are two different airplanes, but at a fundamental level, they share the same basic roots. It's not a coincidence that they look very similar.

Interestingly, their American counterparts also came to a similar "high-lo" mix conclusion. Which is why we have the F-16.

Today, the Fulcrum currently has variants to handle a variety of air superiority, close air support, interdiction, all weather/night attack. The MiG-29M can handle anything from rockets to laser guided bombs. There are even planes fitted for a nuclear strike. And a different variant for carrier based operations. None of these are defensive roles.

Not necessrily. Look at the F-14, aside from 'mundane' bombing missions throughout the '90s and this decade, it's seen absolutely no action, aside from a pair of skirmishes with the Syrian Air Force (where it kicked major ass). Yet, the F-14 has boatloads of character, it's the muscle car of fighters.

Well, you may be right. The F-14 has a few things going for it.

1) Swing wings, which was a hella cool idea in the 60s.
2) Twin vertical tail design, which was also cool looking.
3) A payload that couldn't be touched (AIM-54)

So okay, the F-14 has character. The movie only helped the mystique. But I could not agree that it was a muscle car of fighters --it had barely a better power/weight ratio than the F-4 than it replaced. I'm pretty sure F-15 pilots still call it "the Turkey".

BTW, don't forget the incident in 1989 where a pair of Tomcats pwned some poor Libyan MiG-23s.


M

 

[skicrush]

They DO still call them turkeys. It is interesting to see how planes have evolved over the last few decades. The F-14s were designed to intercept russian bombers over the oceans, and to have that uber-long range capability. They still had the F-4s and intruders, and didn't care about bombing capability. Then, as the Phantoms were phased out, the F/A-18s took their place, again designed as a multi-role fighter/bomber.

The F-15 was similarly designed as a long-range interceptor, but unlike the F-14, they figured a bombing variant (or at least possibility of one--I'm not terribly sure) into the equation from the start.

With both planes, they had a top speed of Mach 2.34 and 2.4 or 2.5 respectively, but as we've already noted, had a rather poor thrust to weight (and even the later variants weren't stellar). The F/A-18 tops out at Mach 1.8, and the F-16 at around 1.6. But, they accelerate faster to that top speed, and in close quarters, that is what counts towards getting behind the other guy. Their thrust to weight is nearly (and in the F-16 it IS) enough to sustain vertical climb.

Another point of interrest is the design specs for the Navy. Due to the harsh conditions of operation on a carrier, and at sea, with no possibility of diversion to a nearby airport, they require certain design elements in their aircraft to create redundant systems. As a result, all naval aircraft generally have twin engines, and two pilots.

And M.A.T.S. is a great source for F-14 stuff. Check out the Combat Records under the history link.

[edit]Found this on a different page: F-14C: Same as F-14B but with ground attack capability added. This type was abandoned in favor of buying more A-6 Intruders.

 

[Gil]

Not necessrily. Look at the F-14, aside from 'mundane' bombing missions throughout the '90s and this decade, it's seen absolutely no action, aside from a pair of skirmishes with the Syrian Air Force (where it kicked major ass). Yet, the F-14 has boatloads of character, it's the muscle car of fighters.

Although many would argue the F-14 has an entire movie centering around it. But, if you ask me, the F-14 made the movie great. The movie didn't make the plane great.

There are also interesting legends that abounded when I was a member of "Uncle Sam's Canoe Club" related to the "Tomcat".

Rumor has it that back in the early eighties a pair of Russian built/Syrian owned fighters (MiG 23's I believe) were harassing/threatening a Multi-national Peacekeeping force transport jet (a Lear).
When the Lear radioed for help an F-14 on patrol, fully loaded, joined the party and flashed it's belly at the two offending at the MiGs.

As the story goes, those two MiG performed a very high speed egress from the area rather than tangle with a fully armed Tomcat.

So it didn't actually "kick major ass"...
But the prospect of having to duke it out with an F-14 was enough to send folks back home, often with their tails between their legs.

As for the F/A-18. It can be said that an airplane that does alot of things well, is likely to not be stellar at any of them. Also the -18 is a single passenger aircraft.
While it is a good plane, I think the redundancy of a second pair of eyes to watch for bogeys, read the radar, and fly the aircraft when the pilot is tired or injured, is a good thing when you have to land on a rolling deck, that appears to be not much bigger than a postage stamp.

I've never been on a carrier at sea. But I can tell you from personal experience that a Knox-class frigate can roll as much as 45*. We had the boot prints on the walls to prove it. I imagine a ship as big as a carrier wouldn't roll much more than about 20* . Though I have no idea how much it would pitch (up and down from bow to stern) You also have to take into account that this "airfield" would be moving from side to side, and up and down at the same time.

So, maybe an F-14 can't carry as much ordinance as an F-15 (That is why the Navy still uses the A-6). But an F-15 would not stand up to repeated carrier landings.

 

[a6m5]

Boy, that stuff about MiG-29 and Su-27 was very informative. 👍 I've always thought they were similar, but now I know why!

On the F-14 having character, I don't know about that. Thing with F-14 is, it's just so sexy, and good looking. I was never a huge fan of the Tomcats, even after one of my favorite movies, "Top Gun". But to me, Tomcats were like the jet fighter version of Ferrari F40 or Lamborghini Countach. You guys might not think so, but I've always thought about them that way, designwise. So in short, it's not so much the character with the F-14, but it's about the killer "looks", IMO.

 

[RACECAR]

F-4 Phamtom
F/A-18 Hornet(love the roar of that engine)
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F-14D Tomcat(first fighter I liked, saw it at an air show before the movie "top gun came out)
SU-27 Flanker
MIG-29 Fulcrum
EF-2000 Eurofighter
Mirage 2000C
A-4 Skyhawk
F-15 Eagle

 

[Greycap]

Hasn't the F/A-18 started carrying them now?

They had to make it multi-role, or it would have been extinct long ago. Even if it was just for political means.

The Hornet was a multi-role fighter since the very beginning. You can see it even from its "code name". The F-18 is a fighter version and the A-18 is an attack version (although it's the same aircraft).

And I have to admit it is well suited to both of these jobs. A quite fast and very manoeuvrable aircraft, it is a good fighter and can also deliver its payload as a ground-attacker and still gat away from the defences.

 

[Duke]

I've never been a Tomcat fan; dunno why - too heavy and too complex, I guess. It's a good airplane, it just doesn't do it for me.

The FA-18, in Super Hornet form, barely nudged the F-16 off my list. I've always like the Falcons.

Somebody up above mentioned the A-4 Skyhawk, which has always been one of my favorites, but didn't make the list because it's more of an attack aircraft, and while it's had a hugely long service life it doesn't have the raw performance of some of the others. It's a cutie, though, by all lights.

As someone old enough to have seen both the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels do their bits in the Phantom (from right on the flight line, no less), I have to say the F-4's an awesome aircraft, too. But it got edged out again by the incredible performance of the modern jets.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The Hornet was a multi-role fighter since the very beginning. You can see it even from its "code name". The F-18 is a fighter version and the A-18 is an attack version (although it's the same aircraft).

The comment was refferring to the F-14.

 

[Greycap]

Oh, sorry. My mistake, no wonder it sounded a bit funny...

 

[skicrush]

Per design spec, the Navy's aircraft are all twin seaters. In fact, all US fighter aircraft (AFAIK) come in at least one twin seat variant (mostly for training as far as the Air Force goes). The F/A-18 seems to have had three variants, with a one and two seater for each (a/b, c/d, e/f). I don't know what the Marine's design spec is, but they must not require the two seat setup, or they wouldn't make a single seater (the 7 or 8 Blue Angels aircraft hardly merit their own variant!). Incidentally, though, the last Blue Angels jet IS a two seat variant--it's the joy ride seat for the local DJs or news reporters.

 

[katana87]

I like the old type of bombers. don't know why and the F-15

 

[skicrush]

Check out http://www.drublair.com/.
Especially the Lancer painting called "Power," and the F-111 "Timing is Everything." Awesome paintings.

 

[///M-Spec]

Per design spec, the Navy's aircraft are all twin seaters. In fact, all US fighter aircraft (AFAIK) come in at least one twin seat variant (mostly for training as far as the Air Force goes). The F/A-18 seems to have had three variants, with a one and two seater for each (a/b, c/d, e/f). I don't know what the Marine's design spec is, but they must not require the two seat setup, or they wouldn't make a single seater (the 7 or 8 Blue Angels aircraft hardly merit their own variant!). Incidentally, though, the last Blue Angels jet IS a two seat variant--it's the joy ride seat for the local DJs or news reporters.

Do you mean that the Navy requires a 2 seat version to exist or that all aircraft must have two seats? If you mean the latter, then that's not true and never has been.

AFAIK, the Marine Corp flies the same version of the Hornet as the Navy, with only minor avionics changes.


M

 

[Mike Rotch]

I'm olde skool.

Mitsu Zero
FW-190
Supermarine Spitfire
ME-109
Hawker Hurricane
Me-262
Lockheed Lightning (smokes, cant remember the denomination...P-38?...feeble memory)
Thunderbolt (ditto...P-47?)
P-51 Mustang
Wildcat (ditto... )
Hellcat (ditto... )
And some Yaks...


Damn, I need to go pick up some of my old books again

 

[ExigeEvan]

I'm olde skool.

You'd have never guessed.

I've never seen the big fuss over the Spitfire. Yeah it was a great plane to fly but it didn't have most kills and wasn't particulary ground breaking.

 

[Duke]

You can't deny the power of a few hundred brave twentysomethings in their Spitfires stopping the might of the German blitzkreig.

It was the English Zero: fast, light, maneuverable. It was also beautiful to look at. And anyone who's ever heard a Merlin wail will understand the "big fuss" without needing explanation. It literally makes my hair stand up.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You can't deny the power of a few hundred brave twentysomethings in their Spitfires stopping the might of the German blitzkreig.

It was the English Zero: fast, light, maneuverable. It was also beautiful to look at. And anyone who's ever heard a Merlin wail will understand the "big fuss" without needing explanation. It literally makes my hair stand up.

Okay I'm sold... Well not quite but I have a better idea now.

 

[skicrush]

I believe that in practice, they generally require a pilot/copilot (or RIO, Navigator, Bombardier, etc) situation. All their current and former combat aircraft have 2 engines and a crew of 2 (F-4, F-14, A-6, F/A-18). There are single seat F-18s, and maybe F-4s, but the others are strictly 2 seaters, and it has always been my understanding that the Navy requires the 2 seat arrangement, as far as operational aircraft go. The JSF represents a deviation from the 2 seat/2 engine platform.

From The M.A.T.S site. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm
In 1968 the F-14 program was born with the Navy's proposal for the VFX (Navy Fighter Experimental) and resulted in Grumman's general design 303 (see below). The VFX required a fighter with a two-man crew with tandem seating, two engines, an advanced weapon system with a powerful radar plus the ability to carry a variety of long-, medium- and short-range high-performance air-to-air missiles and an internal gun.

From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_1.html
Once the formal requirements had been issued, the Navy announced that it would select a single contractor to begin engineering development of the NACF. Northrop thought that they had a potential candidate for the NACF in the YF-17, since the Navy tended to prefer the added safety presumably offered by a twin-engine format and the design seemed to have greater potential for growth into a radar-equipped multirole aircraft.

So, maybe not a requirement, but...it was obvious to the people building the planes what they preferred. As far as the tandem seating goes,I can't find any design spec info on that.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The JSF represents a deviation from the 2 seat/2 engine platform.

That's basically because the NAVY are now understanding that modern engines are more reliable, and that computers can now do alot for the pilot that a second crew member usually would.

 

[skicrush]

That's basically because the NAVY are now understanding that modern engines are more reliable, and that computers can now do alot for the pilot that a second crew member usually would.

You should read some of the problems they had with early variants in the 60s and 70s, especially with the engines. Considering they were in the middle of nowhere, and more than not being able to land at an alternate landing strip, pilots might drown even if they ejected safely. Nice thing, all this modern technology.

 

[ExigeEvan]

You should read some of the problems they had with early variants in the 60s and 70s, especially with the engines. Considering they were in the middle of nowhere, and more than not being able to land at an alternate landing strip, pilots might drown even if they ejected safely. Nice thing, all this modern technology.

You call 60s and 70s modern?

And from the 70s till present is over half the life of the jet engine. Reliability has increased considerably.

 

[Zardoz]

It never went into production, and even the amazing prototype no longer exists, but the Sukhoi Su-37 Super Flanker was one of the most remarkable aircraft of all time. Nothing has ever matched it's phenomenal agility:

"Any time, any place" were the words of Sukhoi's Chief Designer, Mikhail Simonov, as he challenged any US aircraft to a mock combat after being questioned about the relevance of the Su-37's Thrust Vectoring (TV) maneuvers in combat, and it is a challenge which has not been taken up. The Su-37 Super Flanker is yet another development of the Su-27 which now seems basic in comparision! The main improvement/addition in this development is the addition of the AL-37FU thrust vectoring engines.

When the Su-37 was displayed at Farnbrough in 1996 it stole the show. Under the control of Sukhoi's Chief Test Pilot, Eugeny Frolov, the Su-37 performed some astounding maneuvers. These included the "Super Cobra", demonstrated for the first time. In this move the aircraft enters with a speed of 400 kph and is pulled through to an alpha of 135 deg, then recovered to the vertical using thrust vectoring and held in place for 4 to 6 seconds. After hanging in the air the nose is allowed to fall to the horizontal position and the aircraft emerges from the maneuver at 150 kph with no loss of height!

Another was basically using the TV to flip the Su-37 onto it's back and then to rotate it upright and continue on level in the direct opposite direction from which it had come, all in not much more than the length of the whole aircraft!

The most impressive maneuver though, was the "kulbit" (somersault). With an entry speed of 350 kph the aircraft is flipped onto it's back (a full 180 degrees) facing the opposite direction, inverted and practically stationary. Then after 'pausing' there TV is used to complete the 360 deg somersault with a nose down angle of 30 degrees and an exit speed of just 60 kph! While this is impressive to read it has to be seen to be believed.

I've seen a video of the Super Flanker in action, and it boggles the mind. It sure made a splash at the air show, but that was all it will be remembered for, unfortunately...

 

[///M-Spec]

I believe that in practice, they generally require a pilot/copilot (or RIO, Navigator, Bombardier, etc) situation. All their current and former combat aircraft have 2 engines and a crew of 2 (F-4, F-14, A-6, F/A-18). There are single seat F-18s, and maybe F-4s, but the others are strictly 2 seaters, and it has always been my understanding that the Navy requires the 2 seat arrangement, as far as operational aircraft go. The JSF represents a deviation from the 2 seat/2 engine platform.

From The M.A.T.S site. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm
In 1968 the F-14 program was born with the Navy's proposal for the VFX (Navy Fighter Experimental) and resulted in Grumman's general design 303 (see below). The VFX required a fighter with a two-man crew with tandem seating, two engines, an advanced weapon system with a powerful radar plus the ability to carry a variety of long-, medium- and short-range high-performance air-to-air missiles and an internal gun.

From http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_1.html
Once the formal requirements had been issued, the Navy announced that it would select a single contractor to begin engineering development of the NACF. Northrop thought that they had a potential candidate for the NACF in the YF-17, since the Navy tended to prefer the added safety presumably offered by a twin-engine format and the design seemed to have greater potential for growth into a radar-equipped multirole aircraft.

So, maybe not a requirement, but...it was obvious to the people building the planes what they preferred. As far as the tandem seating goes,I can't find any design spec info on that.

Yes, the Navy now prefers twin engine jet aircraft if it is an option. But many single engine fighters have served on carriers in the 50s through the 70s.

In fact, the plane that the Hornet replaced, the A-7 Corsair was a single engined, single pilot light attack fighter.

The airplane that the Corsair replaced, the venerable A-4 Skyhawk was also of the same type.

When the F/A-18 Hornet was phased into service, it was primarily a single seat airplane. That's because the Navy decided one pilot was enough to fly the attack mission.

The B was a trainer.

But it has always had a different view of the Fleet Defense mission, which the F-14 was tailor designed for. For aircraft of this role, two crewmen has been the requirement.

The Navy is now flying mixed C, D, E and F model squadrons. I presume the squadrons that are transitioning from the F-14 are moving to the two seat F model, while attack squadrons that have been on the A or C will pick up the E model.

Check out this cool table listing regarding F/A-18E vs. F/A-18F deployment. As you can see, there is a roughly even split of E/F deployment.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18ef-unit.htm


M

 

[skicrush]

You call 60s and 70s modern?

And from the 70s till present is over half the life of the jet engine. Reliability has increased considerably.

I sure do. Most people don't realize how long it takes to get an aircraft off the ground (no pun intended ). The F-14 was commissioned in 1968, and the A variant officially entered service in 1974. They were officially retired at the end of last year, but F-14s are OLD. They may not look like it, but they are. Same with the F-15--design was begun in 1966, and the first squadron was ready to go in 1975.

Hornets entered service in 1983 from what was originally a 1971 design.

The F-22 project was started in 1986, to enter service later this year (That is 19 years of development!).

F-35 that was officially started in 1997 is scheduled to enter service in 2008, a mere 11 years.

And we thought we had to wait a long time for concept CARS to become a reality!

P.S. And global security is an AWESOME website.

 

[sukerkin]

Nice pics of thrust vectoring/decoupled flight, Zardoz 👍.

A most remarkable feat of manoevering - I just wish I'd gotten the chance to see it for real rather than just on video/stills .

 

[DQuaN]

I have always been a massive fan of the Mig-25 Foxbat. Mainly because of its awesome speed (mach 3.2). The E variant had uprated engines and i think was capable of mach 3.5!!!

It looks pretty cool too!

 

[skicrush]

Makes you wonder why the F-15 couldn't do it. It originally looked VERY much the same--NASA actually designed the basic layout, but during development they made a few changes. They rounded the wingtips to (I THINK) reduce vibration, and increased the ailerons' size to get better response at supersonic speeds as well (to give them the unique F-15 look). Also, NASA'a original spec called for a much thinner nose to the aircraft, but it had to be enlarged for that advanced radar to fit (much to NASA's disgust--it killed it's supersonic drag). Global Security, of course.

If you look at them side by side, you can see how much bigger the F-15's nose cone is. They were scared to death of the MiG, but I doubt it's cruise was any better than an F-15's. If you look at our current linup, they don't break Mach 2. Top speed means a lot less when it can't be sustained. That's why the Supercruise capability is so important (cruise above Mach1.5). F-14s and F-15s max cruise was around 0.8 Mach. The F/A-18 can cruise above Mach 1. So even though it's max speed with burner was less than Mach 2, it was a better deal than the F-14s/F-15s that maxed out at 2.4-2.5. You can only go on full afterburner for a few minutes, so max velocity on burner is of VERY limited use.

 

[Ev0]

As you said, the F-15 couldn't reach the speeds of the Foxbat, mainly because the F-15 was designed to be an air superiority fighter. It had to have a good top speed for interception duties, and still be able to defeat most aircraft in a dogfight incase the initial interception doesn't work. The formula definitley worked though; the F-15 is the most dominating fighter in air to air combat; I believe it's got 80 kills with no losses in air-to-air combat (a small number of F-15Es have been lost to ground fire, and a Japanese F-15J accidentally shot down another F-15J due to software issues with the sidewinder during a training exercise). Outstanding plane.

 

[Zardoz]

...I believe it's got 80 kills with no losses in air-to-air combat...

I saw a Military Channel show on the F-15 that said it's record is 104-to-0.

 

[Ev0]

I think that's the higher estimate. Kills in the IAF turkey shoots were a bit sketchy, so the number varies depending on the source.