I just cannot believe you could do a show on the top ten fighter aircraft of all time and leave the F-16 Falcon out of the top ten. But I just watched the show and the Falcon wasn't in there. UNBELIEVEABLE!!!
Well...I have to agree with you, they did quite allot mistakes in that show. Like the F-22 was put on the 10th place or the P-51 on the 1st.
The order I think they should be in is: 1-F-22 Raptor 2-Su-37 Terminator 3-P-51 Mustang 4-F-15 Eagle 5-Japanese Zero 6-F-16 Falcon 7-Av-8 Harrier 8-Mig-29 Fulcrum 9-F-35 Lightning 10-Mig-31 Foxhound
I certainly agree with you. A "fighter" that never fought? Reminds me of the colonel in the national guard here who commands a "fighting" battalion but does not qualify for a CIB. I' rapidly losing confidence in the military channel. I believe there is a significant number of program designers, writers, etc., who haven't the foggiest idea of what fighting is really like.
There were a few mistakes on that list as far as I was concerned. The F/A-22 Raptor has only been in service for a few years (as has the Su-37 Terminator), and has yet to actually fire a shot in anger. Although, the comment early that states the Mig-31 and Mig-29 should be on that list must realize that the only real fights that these aircraft have ever been involved in were Saddam Hussein's aircraft, and didn't last very long in the Desert Shield/Desert Storm campaigns, and refused to take of during Iraqi Freedom, so neither of those should have been on the list. The AV-8B Harrier is an attack aircraft, and really shouldn't have made the list either. Some aircraft that truly deserved to make the list should have included the F4-U Corsair and the F6F Hellcat fighters used in the Pacific, as well as the P-38 Lightning.
I do agree with the post concerning the F-16. It is a hi-powered, highly maneuverable, simple (relatively speaking) aircraft. And very few aircraft in the world are able to compete against it. It should be noted that during the Air Force trials to develop what would become the F-16, the competition was put up by McDonald-Douglass, and would later be adopted by Naval Aviation as the F/A-18 Hornet.
Also, there were so notable omissions from the list, such as the german aircraft like the Me-109 and the Focke-Wulf FW-190. Early in the war, the Me-109 was able to fly circles around the Spitfire because Daimler-Benz had developed the fuel injected engine, while nearly everything else still used a carbeurator.
They say top ten of all time!!! Personally, I think the #1 of all time should be the F-15. It has the best record of any air combat fighter that has yet to be matched. With over 100 kills to 0 losses added to the attack capabilities, what other fighter deserves the rating!!! However, if you add total number of combat sorties added with the numbers built, the Me-109 should be #1.. To date, the 109 still holds the record of numbers produced. There are a lot of varibles that go into picking which aircraft should be in the top ten, and I really had a hard time agreeing with some of the choices put into the top 10 Fighters. Why didn't they pick the Yak-9 or La-5 which were very notable fighters of the Russian Air Force during WWII?? I have to agree on the F4U Corsair, F6F (or even F4F), P-38 and the A6M Zero, all excellent fighters. How they can concider the F-22 as being in the top 10 of all time when it has only been in service for less then 5 years and never seeing combat is beyond me. The F-16 should also have been in the top 10, but most of the combat it has seen is in the ground attack mode. In air to air combat, the F-16 is also undefeated, but not near the number of kills as the F-15.
I agree with everything you have said. I fear that our "favorite" channel is nothing more than a money making venture for the discovery channel; run by a bunch of Holidwood dandies for the profit, for the hype impact, not for the accuracy. I wonder, do you think any of them were ever members of any branch of the armed services?
Here is my list of planes that should be thought of in a best fighter list( Not doing a top ten, just a list of plane's that earned the right to be on a top list), removed from the Military Channel Top Ten, and some you guys are over-glorafing
My Choices for a list WWI Nieuport 11 Baby Spad D. 13 Albatros D. III: The Red Baron's plane that he made most of his Victories Sopwith Camel Fokker D VII
WWII Polikarov I-16 Rat: First Low-Monowing fighter with retractable landing gear to enter full-service. Hawker Hurrican: The fighter that took care of the bombers during the Battle of Britain Supermarine Spitfire: The fighter that took care of the fighters during the Battle of Britain. Grumman F4F Wildcat. Focke-Wulf Fw 190. Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Vought F4U Corsair: North American P-51B and Up. Republic P-47D Thunderbolt. Grumman F6F Hellcat: 75% of the Navy's Victories Hawker Tempest. Messerschmitt Me 262. Gloster Meteor: Better then the 262
Cold War MiG-15 & MiG-17. MiG-21. North American F-86 Saber. Vought F-8 Crsader: Better K-R then the other Veitnam War US Fighter Dasault Mirage III.
Modern Grumman F-14 Tomcat: Kicked the F-15 in a buying airshow for Iran. Took out its Soviet rival the MiG-23 in Lybia. Boeing F-15 Eagle: Lower then the F-14 Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon Boeing F/A-18 Hornet
Remove F-4 Phantom II Had a 1:1 K-R untill they added a gun and tought the pilots how to dogfight and it was forced to dogfight when it was a Intercpter Sea Harrier: Light Attack Plane, not really a fighter
Overhieped F-22: Not proven in REAL COMBAT F-15: See F-14 And I belive that the most advance plane it fought was the MiG-21 by the Isralies (outdated) Zero: Was unable to stay in the air after so long in WWII Fokker D I ( Triplane) Was built for dogfighting, and that is not what a pilot want a plane to be built for. only 20 of the Red Baron's Victories were in the triplane
This message has been edited. Last edited by: dauntless2000,
to me, there are a number of fighters that should have been included that were not, as most of you have stated. think about vietnam, and while the F-4 was a satisfactory entry for me, what about planes that have made major differences in combat, particularly in vietnam, such as the F-105, of the MiG-21. sure, the F-105 qualifies as a fighter-bomber, but it did have it's share of air-to-air victories. another underestimated fighter in my opinion is the F-5. i suppose if they were to make a top 10 attack aircraft show, that'd take care of things like the A-10, A-6, A-4, etc. but also the lack of the F/A-18 and F-16 is kind of a shock.
I am not sure how they could have left the F4U corsair off the list when it could have contended for the top spot. Some notable accomplishments:
+ First fighter to break 400 mph in level flight + Fastest Prop Fighter of world war two + Highest Kill ratio of any allied fighter + Excelled in both Air to Air and Air to Ground Roles + Longest production run of any WWII fighter. It was in continuous production until the mid 1950s + Rugged enough for carrier operations + Served until the late 60s in developing air forces +In the only known engagement between the Corsair and Musting (football war Honduras vs El Salvador) a Corsair downed two Mustangs.
OK, in that last one the quality of the pilot probably played a big role but other than combat range, and in which the p-51 had the edge, I think the Corsair was the superior allied fighter of the Second World War.
I notice there are a lot of haters of the f-22 I think it was on the right spot on the list mainly because it has not been proven in combat however with stealth, supercruise, integrated avionics and thrust vectoring it can outperform any aircraft in any countries inventory. It combat trials it was able to defeat as many as 8 f-15s and come out un touched.
Although the f-4 had only a 1:1 kill ratio until pilots were trained to dogfight and gun pods were equipped the aircraft is still very noteworthy in the fact that it was one of the first fighters designed to engage enemy aircraft at standoff range if the f-4 pilots were not required to visually identify enemy aircraft the kill ratio would likely be alot higher.the f-4 was not as agile as fighters such as the f-15 of the 95 kills racked up by the f-15 most of the aircraft were destroyed by medium range radar guided missiles.
Despite the impressive combat record of the f-15 I wonder is it really the best fighter its combat record is impressive but i belive otherwise. Simulations conducted by British Aerospace and the British Defense Research Agency compared the effectiveness of the F-15C, Rafale, EF-2000, and F-22 against the Russian Su-35 armed with active radar missiles similar to the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The Rafale achieved a 1:1 kill ratio (1 Su-35 destroyed for each Rafale lost). The EF-2000 kill ratio was 4.5:1 while the F-22 achieved a ratio of 10:1. In stark contrast was the F-15C, losing 1.3 Eagles for each Su-35 destroyed. Although the f-15 will always have a special place in our hearts. It is apparent that the f-15 is in several respects inferior to, or at best equal to, the MiG-29, Su-27, Su-35/37, Rafale, and EF-2000, which are variously superior in acceleration, maneuverability, engine thrust, rate of climb, avionics, firepower, radar signature, or range.
I simply cannot belive the f-16 didnot make the top ten list. Benig a lightweight low cost highly producable fighter possibly the most numerous fighter in the world today. And with the inovations it brought to the table such as fly by wire, high g loads as much as 9gs due to the 30 degree reclined seat,negative stability pilot vison and radar integration I dont see how the f-16 could not earn a spot high on the list
the av-8 has no place in the list as it is a light attack aircraft
Alot of people contest that the corsair and the wild cat should of made the top ten I think they probally wanted to limit the number of wwii fighters in the line up you dont want over half of the top ten wwii era fighters. The best all around fighters of wwii were the p-51 the spitfire and posibly the me-109
WHAT ABOUT THE F14 TOMCAT. SURE THE F15 HAS 100 VICTORIES, BUT THE TOMCAT HAS OVER 150- SCORED BY THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN AIR FORCE DURING THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR!
I am surprised no one has really attacked the decision to put the P-51 at the top of the list. I'll be the first to admit it was a great fighter, but it wasn't all that innovative, and it was outdated almost before it saw action. It sure knocked down 109s, but the 262s had the P-51 playing catch-up from the first engagement. I love the P-51, I grew up on stories of it, but aging fighter pilots are not aeronautical engineers.
The P-51 had to have aces like Chuck Yeager to take a Me-262 to take it down.The F-15 is in no way innovative, it was more of an adjustment. The F-14 is a limited fighter.The F4U had a very high accident rating.The MiG is impressive altogether but not indivdually.The Me-109 was outdated when it went in to production.
Many people forget that the Sea Harrier earned a 25 Kills to 0 losses in just 6 weeks! If that doesn't qualify it as a fighter then what does? Even the F-15 needed a much longer period of time to get it's 100-0 (and several different airforces) Also little know is that in mock combat exercises in the 1970's and 80's the British version of the Harrier ate everyones lunch, so much so that the USAF asked that it no longer participate as it was embarrassing their F-15's and F-16's.
I'm with the OP on this one. My jaw dropped when I realized the F-16 didn't get a spot on that list. Versatility, maneuverability, production cost, number in service worldwide... all those things come to mind when you say F-16. I don't get it.
