MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
The Jag and Tornado were never considered to be multi role
What?! The Jaguar you could make a case for just "hoped for" cross-purpose. (The French wanted a two seat trainer, we wanted a strike/ground attack aircraft). But the Tornado? It's early prototypes were literally called the Panavia MRCA, Multi Role Combat Aircraft...or Mother Reilly's Cardboard Aircraft, depending on how generous you were being.
....and it was a bomber with multiple Ground attack mission roles.
The F3 (ADV) was spawned off the bomber project, but you couldn't honestly argue it was multi-role at inception.
It's like saying your estate car is an offroader. Sure it can go off road, but....
Ironically F3 had a credible role in its final years in a role not dissimilar to it's original one, but its days were numbered.
MRCA was good/hopeful marketing I guess...
the Germans had to use it for pretty much everything, including very low level bombing.
The Germans bought it for very low level strike; the G model was the first production fighter with an inertial navigation system.
….and it was a low level bomber.
Could've had just as capable an aircraft quicker by sticking more capable avionics in a Buccaneer. Further useless fact of the day: the Buccaneer had better attack speed and radius than the Tornado...
but you couldn’t honestly argue it was multi-role at inception. MRCA was good/hopeful marketing I guess
Hmmm, It was always designed with a ADV, IDS and ECR roles in mind, right from the get go. How achievable that was is arguable. Agreed.
The F3 (ADV) was spawned off the bomber project
No, Here's the F2 prototype alongside the GR1, They were designed to use most of the same bits, it's just that the "bomber" version was also the basis for the ECR, the maritime strike and IDS versions so it got made first, but the F2/3 was developed at the same time using the same design but not "from" the "bomber"
IDS ECR Would be compatible with its design concept, yes, hence the MRCA title. ADV concept was a means of selling more jets, not as a specific drawing-board role.
The F2 (->F3) was ordered from an existing GR order to keep the numbers up. It was basically an afterthought.
It certainly never had any pretence of being a fighter; it was considered an Interceptor. For that reason, it might be in the "cool jet" list, but has no place in a "best fighter" list.
It certainly never had any pretence of being a fighter; it was considered an Interceptor.
Tiring isn't it?! 🤣
But this is a best Fighter Jet thread, yes??! 🤣🤣
Perhaps we need the mods to vet the suggestions? #justsaying
Oh c'mon, "best fighter " threads were made for pedantic idiots...it's pretty much baked in. 🙂
Lol! I'll try to get off my high horse!
Like a moth to a flame: but its soooooo bright 🔥
Oh c’mon,
“best fighter ”STW threads were made for pedantic idiots…it’s pretty much baked in
FTFY.
Back on topic, has anyone mentioned the mighty F-8?
Variable incidence wing,
Capable of flying with the wings folded,
Engine intake that was a major hazard to ground crews,
Appalling accident rate (Wikipedia suggests 1200 built, 1100 accidents…)
What’s not to like?
I was hoping to see someone mention the Mosquito fitted with jets, but it turns out they never actually built it.
Childhood false memories are a bummer. 🙂
That would be the meteor almost..
50s British jets ruled. Love the lightening
Though the su27 is a beauty
Meteor had an awful accident rate... ISTR in the 50s the RAF lost about 300 in one year alone...
Lots of accidents practicing engine failures. Not sure how many were actual engine failures.
Lots of the early generation jets had nasty handling characteristics that sadly caught out their pilots.
If it's the best fighter, it has to be the F22. The F15 was designed to be THE best fighter in the world - it was so good the Russians created 2 new fighters (The Su27 and Mig 29) to beat it. The F22 was designed to be, in every measurable way, a better F15. And in every measure except range - It is - power, speed, maneuverability, awareness, stealth. Everyone is still designing and building aircraft to beat it despite the fact that the oldest F22 is 20+ year old.
Back on topic, has anyone mentioned the mighty F-8?
Or the Super Crusader III, the aeroplane that actually looked like a ****ing shark...
It certainly never had any pretence of being a fighter; it was considered an Interceptor. For that reason, it might be in the “cool jet” list, but has no place in a “best fighter” list.
Genuine question though - isn't that just a hangover of the original design? Cold War era, the whole idea was to get out and shoot down the big bomby things - the enemy was the bomber not other fighters so they evolved as interceptors. ??
All the stuff in the 80's was designed in the 70's with that old way of thinking.
Although this thread has taken a different turn than I had intended, it’s still great. That said, I always loved the shape and look of the F-18, and this is something confirmed to me in the most unlikely of places. You may have seen this when it happened, but take a look at this rather haunting crash of a CF-18 at a Canadian air show. (Importantly, no one is injured.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0HDIxzSMp-0
Arguists wanna argue this isn't the most perfect photo ever taken of a multi-role warplane botherin the sheep in Wales?
https://www.instagram.com/leighton_owen_photography/
Apparently the F-15E was only developed when it looked like the USAF might buy Tornadoes to replace F-111s, and it’s not got a great wing shape for low level.
(You learn a lot of random facts from Bill Gunston’s books…)
I've always liked the F16. Designed to be slightly unstable to improve maneuverability. Could you imagine going up to your boss and going "I've got a great idea for a plane lets make it unstable to fly"
Lockheed Martin F16V
Could you imagine going up to your boss and going “I’ve got a great idea for a plane lets make it unstable to fly”
Somebody somewhere mooted the idea of making the U2 without enough wheels on to land properly.
KJ - "so how the hell is this thing going to land and not fall over?"
Erstwhile designer - "erm, what about somebody in a fast car driving onto the runway as it's actually landing and chasing it with a set of wheels in the boot?"
#Cue hoots of laughter, and here we are 50+ years later.
Slight thread drift though...
What about the little Mig15? Did a good job over Korea and Vietnam.
IIRC: The Tornado GR1 excelled at what it did, optimised for low level strike missions at high speed in dense air. You'd be hard pushed to find an airframe and engine combination less well suited to zoom climbing to altitude and staying there for any length of time. If I recall correctly, the plan was to re-engine the F3 with EJ200 engines from the Eurofighter as part of an MLU, which could have been quite a thing but rendered pointless by the existence of the Eurofighter itself.
Think Daffy has the best suggestion, the F22.
I wonder how that would fare against the F35, though?
And scuttler’s pic is lovely....the turn rate they have is astonishing for such a big jet!
The F22 would hammer the F35 in air to air combat. The F35 is a strike fighter, the F22 is an air superiority fighter. The F22 is designed to maintain energy during dog fighting, the F35 is not, it’s wing area is too small and it’s fuselage too large to allow for true energy retention. It’s what happens when you design an aircraft for too many purposes. The F35 has a huge fuselage area and small wing area in order to accommodate the lift fan and low speed thrust requirements of the B variant for STOVL.
it might be in the “cool jet” list, but has no place in a “best fighter” list.
That's troglodyte thinking.
He even disdains the term “fighter” for the F-35 and F-22. “I’ve said for years and will continue to do so until the defense troglodytes finally get it (and some are slowly coming around)—5th generation aircraft are not ‘fighters’—they are ‘sensor-shooters’
https://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/
Cheers Daffy & Hols2...
I'll stick with your F22 suggestion then, as 'the best'.
For anyone interested in the engineering side at Lockheed, then I can highly recommend Skunkworks by Ben Rich as a read.
Much U2 and Blackbird content.
Second that about the Skunkwork book.
Good stuff about the stealth bombers and how when computers was used for the designs the different companies ended up with very similar looking planes.
Re the Tornado, there's an interesting take on Hushkit about the compromises forced by the Tornado's variable geometry here. The Tornado was slower (at low altitude) and could not carry the same payload as the aircraft it replaced in the low level and maritime strike role.
mikertroid Member
But this is a best Fighter Jet thread, yes??! 🤣🤣
Given that this thread started with a picture of an interceptor, it may be hard to win this argument 5 pages later.
My personal favourite is probably still the F-15.
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4404/36546937876_fa8762c1b4_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4404/36546937876_fa8762c1b4_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
The French film of the Mirage(posted by Ewan) just shows the French pilots don't care how they perform, only that it makes them look really cool. And no expert, but aren't they high altitude fighter/bombers, while the British favour the mid altitude fighter/bomber.
There was a documentary on the Falklands conflict went into this.
'Bomb Alley' short vid showing the Mirage in action.
The Saab Viggen, the only plane to manage to catch and allegedly lock-up an SR-71. Way ahead of its time in terms of tech.
It's basically a Swedish Tornado without the swing wings, and 3 stage Volvo aferburner.
The F106 Delta Dart is really starting to grow on me, pretty much well ahead of its time.
Also heard again recently about the F111 being mach 3 capable, amazeballs!
Also heard again recently about the F111 being mach 3 capable, amazeballs!
Also untrue, according to Wikipedia it’s maximum speed at altitude was just over Mach 2, and in its natural domain (low level, in crap weather) M1.2. Again, it’s a bit questionable for a ‘fighters’ thread as for most of its career it was a low level all weather precision bomb truck with no pretence at air to air ability. You might as well stick an A-6 on here.
That’s what he claims, but if you try to check with actual witnesses, you’ll find they’re all either dead or have been institutionalized. Convenient, don’t you think?
You are Jivebunny’s alter-ego, and I claim my £5.
Re the F-22, unsurprisingly, there’s a lot of internal politics involved with that aircraft, and there were never the numbers built that should have been. I’ve read some online articles about it, I’ll see if I can track something down. I think it does have some claim to the thread title, though.
Found this, one example of the malignant narcissist running Americaputting his own obsession first...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29698/upgrades-needed-for-sustained-f-22-ops-during-a-crisis-in-europe-axed-for-border-wall
I know it's not a fighter or a jet, but just read At The Edge Of Space, about the X-15, and as much as I'd love to fly in an F4 or F14 or F22 (and SR-71 even more), I think a full-bore X-15 altitude flight must be about as nuts as sub-orbital flying gets.
Much more interesting book to read than I expected - d'you know that only 12 men ever flew X-15? We know only 12 men walked on the moon - one bloke done both. What a life that was! 🙂
Re F111 doing mach 3, Jeff Guinn over on aircrew interview says it can.
Re F111 doing mach 3, Jeff Guinn over on aircrew interview says it can.
My understanding is that a lot of the fast jets are limited by thermal considerations rather than thrust/drag, notably the F15. At those speeds, the engines apparently function as ramjets, so if you keep pumping in fuel, they'll just keep producing more and more thrust. Problem is, they can't take the thermal stress. It would be like screwing on a gigantic turbo to a little hatchback engine and turning up the boost to 100 psi. In theory you could probably produce 1000 hp, but the engine will detonate long before that. So, the "it can do mach 3" claims sound to me like some guy down the pub claiming his Sierra Cosworth could do 200 mph if he wired the wastegate shut.
go to 60,000ft point the nose down full throttle then yes it's probably a mach 3 jet.... advisable probably not. Sustained in level flight nope. It's a bit like describing the Hawker Hunter as supersonic... yes it could go supersonic with gravity assistance but it's not a supersonic jet.
go to 60,000ft point the nose down full throttle then yes it’s probably a mach 3 jet
Once the wings are torn off it would probably go even faster... briefly