F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18 who's da boss thread.

[MaddogK]

Guess I got off topic- to the poll (last generation of fighters)- king of the skies,
Hard to knock the F-15 as it was designed to counter a mythical Soviet superplane (the Foxbat) so it was a from the ground up designed A/A fighter,
BUT
in a straight-up guns dogfight I'd go with the Falcon.

BVR I'm thinking the Phoenix (F-14) will win. The Hornet is not a specialist in any of these areas, as will the F-35 when she's finally ready to deploy.

[Krauter]

That's the problem with this poll (in my opinion).

Each aircraft is (save for the Hornet) designed for a particular mission so they if one cannot win in one aspect, it would simply be wiser to switch over to the area where it has an advantage.

The only multi-role fighter of the bunch, simply because it is a multi-role fighter, and thus average at every area, is the worst there! Simply for the fact that it does not truly excel in any area but is rather average.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Krauter

That's the problem with this poll (in my opinion).

Each aircraft is (save for the Hornet) designed for a particular mission so they if one cannot win in one aspect, it would simply be wiser to switch over to the area where it has an advantage.

The only multi-role fighter of the bunch, simply because it is a multi-role fighter, and thus average at every area, is the worst there! Simply for the fact that it does not truly excel in any area but is rather average.

Exactly, look at what the Hornet replaces: The Skyhawk and Corsair! Sure the Hornet isn't the best fighter around but its an awesome A/A capable strike bomber!

What good are 30 y/o aircraft against modern S/A missles ? Visible aircraft get shot down, invisible ones don't (ask a F-117 driver). This is why I think the F-22 project would save money in the long run, ya can't hit what you can't find.

A F-117 got shot down by a 30 year old SA-3! My philosophy is that Stealth doesn't' matter of all the enemy's radar sites have been pulverized by ARMs.

Originally Posted by Growler

Ah, the Fulda debate: Quality vs. Quantity.

I think it was David Drake who commented in the notes for the Team Yankee comic adaptation in the 80's: "I think of those excellent Panthers - and the waves of T-34s that rolled over them."

EOL: End Of Life

Took me a second to notice you mentioned Fulda... I was googling for when T-34 Mentors fought F-9F Panthers...

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Don't forget that the T-34, besides being (eventually) reliable, cheap and simple to produce, was also a highly effective tank. A Panther was in no way guaranteed to win one on one if the crew was good.

Cheaper equipment doesn't necessarily mean it will only win with numbers.



Yup, ask the pilot of 82-0806...

1 loss, shot down while likely being tracked by mk. 1 eyeball, at the planes most vulnerable time- when the bay doors were opened.

It is believed that the SA-3 crews and spotters were able to locate and track F-117A 82-806 visually

Thats what I would call a lucky shot.

[Krauter]

It still proves that Stealth is not the all winning aspect. Why send in a small strike team of stealth fighters when you could just send in a Wild Weasel Group escorting a strike group?

Yes I know logistics play a part, but for the sake of argument let's say the logistical costs are the same?

[Growler]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Took me a second to notice you mentioned Fulda... I was googling for when T-34 Mentors fought F-9F Panthers...

Now that'd be a fight.

[MaddogK]

Sure, stealth isn't an all-winning strategy but the idea is to minimize potential losses while inflicting the most damage, and a stealth aircraft increases the chance of that. It's a nice edge to have. Why risk 10 pilots and aircraft when 4 stealth a/c can do the job with less risk.

[Krauter]

True, but this is coming outside of the original question of which is the best fighter? Sure the stealth fighters are good pinpoint bombers. But what happens when you really need to move some mud? That bombay can only hold so much ordinance and bomb racks only increase your radar signature (not to mention make you even more un-maneouvrable)

[CaptainHaplo]

Of the 4, the F14 was the peak of the class against any of the other 3 under 1 condition - if it used the "modified" phoenix that stood a solid chance to hit a fighter. Why? Because with it, the others never get close enough to shoot. Dead sooner is a good thing...

For beauty, the F/A 18 SH is unmistakeably the crowned queen in my book. Add in her multirole ability, cost savings vs the others, and she comes out as the all around top.

F15 and F16? The F15 looks a little hornetish, but just lacks the style. The canted vertical stabilizers for example. It just doesn't have the lines. The F16? Ugh....

[MaddogK]

To move serious mud the B-52 has proven that quantity dropped from high orbit wins.

Besides, the F-117 wasn't designed to take out the entire neighborhood, just 1 house, and be gone before anyone knows WTF just happened.
I personally like the low-level penetration method of the B-1, but it also is cancelled.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Growler

Ah, the Fulda debate: Quality vs. Quantity.

I think it was David Drake who commented in the notes for the Team Yankee comic adaptation in the 80's: "I think of those excellent Panthers - and the waves of T-34s that rolled over them."

EOL: End Of Life

Its a false debate since one is not to the exclusion of the other.
But and this has been true since the dawn of times, in warfare quantity and logistics are paramount. Yes having advanced weapons will give you momentarily the edge, but against hordes of enemies you better hope to have some reserves.
You have to strike a balance between quality and quantity, americans in the last decade have shifted dangerously to the quality foremost, and quantity not so important (because each unit is costly very very costly).

[Krauter]

If you really want to move some serious mud just get a few W-41s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B41_nuclear_bomb)

The problem with the "Jack of all Trades" mentality of the Hornet is that it never truly excels at anything. Sure it means cost savings, but that is not what is being questioned here. Any dedicated interceptor/fighter/etc will stick to that profile and defeat the hornet in that area.

Edit: Goldorak you raise a good point. A very good example of a dangerous shift towards quality is the Germans during WW2. Sure they may look nice and perform nicely against small numbers of troops, but eventually, if you throw enough material at them, they'll look the same as that burned out POS that's right next to it.

The problem however, is that the States have no true competitors who can try to beat them with Quantity in a realistic fight (save for the PLA).

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Krauter

The problem however, is that the States have no true competitors who can try to beat them with Quantity in a realistic fight (save for the PLA).

I'd say that NK represent quite a menace.
A 1.x milion army is nothing to sneer at, and 50,000 US troups plus the the south korean military won't do the job.
Even air superiority by itself is not sufficient as the Vietnam war demonstrated.

[Krauter]

This is true, but how much of that is going to be used only against the U.S when there is an *apparently* angry China to its North also?

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I'd say that NK represent quite a menace.
A 1.x milion army is nothing to sneer at, and 50,000 US troups plus the the south korean military won't do the job.
Even air superiority by itself is not sufficient as the Vietnam war demonstrated.

"Plus the South Korean military"? You mean the 500,000 South Korean army personnel?

The North Korean army is mostly junk, the North Korean navy is junk, the North Korean air force is junk. And the situation in Korea is vastly different to Vietnam.