I find it extremely surprising the F-14 wasn't included in the list. I mean, it must max out the innovation scale, being the first "teen" series fighter, and one of the best (if only good) swing-wing, as well as pioneering advanced radar and multi-targeting capabilities. Not to mention the frame itself, with a slanted engine intake and bottom body, gives the top of the craft life, so the whole thing is like a giant wing, giving it amazing maneuverability, probably better than the F-15.

F-14s haven't killed a whole lot because the enemy is just scared of them. There are countless stories of the enemy attempting to get F-14s radar locked, and the pilots just outmaneuver until they're on the enemy's tail and they bug off. Amazing aircraft, in my opinion, I don't know how it got snuffed.

I think the reason the F-16 was left out is because it is a difficult aircraft to fly without computer assistance. The Falcon is known as a fighter that "flies YOU", because of the strange aerodynamics and lift capabilities of it, the computer has to take control. That's why people compare it to the hard-to-fly F-104 Starfighter so much.

I'll never understand myself why the ME-262 is so renowned. Sure, first Jet fighter, uh-huh, great. Two problems. First, no one else is flying Jets, in fact most of your targets are slow bombers, so those fancy jet engines are going to shoot you right over your target real fast. Second, this is way before they thought of the assisted gunsight to compensate for G-force. Without that, how did anyone figure the 262 would conquer the skies? To hit anything you need to slow down... and then what's the point! Too ahead of its time in my opinion, but at least it paved the road for the Jet Age. Sorta.

I have to agree with you about the F22 being stubed. Any plane that has a 80 to 1 kill ratio

During the large-scale, force-on-force exercise, Raptor pilots flew 97 percent of their scheduled missions, achieved an 80-to-1 kill ratio against their Red Air opponents and scored direct hits with 100 percent of their 1,000-pound, satellite-guided GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition air-to-ground weapons. In addition, Raptor pilots increased overall situational awareness for the entire Blue Force team through the F-22's integrated avionics package.


The exercises are also showing just how good of a plane the F-22 is. In hundreds of simulated engagements against multiple aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, the F-22 has dominated. Still, keeping in mind how the "inferior" F4F was able to hold its own against the Zero, the Air Force has been emphasizing the ability of the F-22s to work together with not just F-22s, but other planes. The latest exercises featured the F-22 working with Tornados, Typhoons, F-15s, F-16s, F-111s, and F-117s.

So far, the kill ratio is about a hundred to one in favor of the F-22. The new fighter has been "shot down" in these exercises twice. Once by a U.S. Navy F-18F, and once by an F-16C piloted by a member of the U.S. Air Force 64th Aggressor Squadron (pilots trained to operate like those from various foreign countries.)

NELLS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNEWS) -- The first Red Flag exercise this year, dubbed "Colonial Flag," is scheduled to begin Jan. 16 at Nellis AFB, marking the 32nd year for Red Flag operations.

This is the first of three Red Flags this year, and the F-22 Raptor is participating for the first time.

More than 200 aircraft and about 5,200 military members from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia are taking part in the training. There will be two periods scheduled during this exercise with each period lasting two weeks.

The 94th FS deployed 14 Raptors and 197 personnel to play in the Red Flag exercise, which ends Feb. 16. Including the F-22s, more than 200 aircraft are participating. Among the foreign aircraft involved are the RAF's GR-4 and RAAF's F-111C. In addition, the F-22s are flying with the B-2 Spirit and F-117 Nighthawk, the aircraft that pioneered stealth. Other typical aircraft at Red Flag are the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and more.


Despite the F-22's "unfair advantage," Colonel Smith said flying against the Red Force aggressors of the 414th Combat Training Squadron is not an easy task. Aggressor pilots are made up of F-16 and F-15 pilots specially trained to replicate tactics and techniques of potential adversaries according to the 414th CTS/Red Flag fact sheet.

"These scenarios are not made to be easy," said Colonel Smith. "These [Red Force] pilots are well trained and good at their job." In addition, Red Forces aren't limited to aggressor pilots. There is no shortage of ground threats at Red Flag. These include electronically simulated surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, and communications jamming, according to 414th CTS officials.


It flew against the best of the best.

Frank

while i agree with you that the f-22 is great it has never seen real combat against a foriegn enemy. i can't say that it is a top ten fighter until it has faced combat.
i definetly think that the f-16 and f-18 should have been on the list.
i've read that a lot of people want to put the zero and the corsair on this list. i disagree with both because the zero was matched by american fighters such as the corsair. the reason i don't want to put the corsair on even though i love the corsair is because even though it was designed as a fighter and did preform quite well in the pacific it is better as a close air support bomber and that is how it was used often in world war ii. the corsair was used as a close ari support bomber in korea and vietnam. if there was a list of top ten close air support providers i would put the corsair at the top of that list.

I don't know the top 10 as I havn't seen the show ( just saw the AFV one ) however some comments I thought I'd comment on in this thread.

Bf109 vs Spitfire... not a lot in it, the carb vs Fuel injection wasn't a huge issue ( look up Miss Shilling's orifice ) and the Spitfire could outturn a 109 ( actually there is some debate on that, the Spitfire was a lot easier to flight in a tight turn so most pilots could outturn a 109 ), armament IMO was better in fighter v fighter and visibility was better.

Spitfire, other than range, was easilly better than the P-51 too.

Harrier I think is the most inovative multi role aircraft ever. Not truly a fighter but a highly capable fighter none the less.

agree with the comments on the F22 (which also work for the Eurofighter), not the best fighter till it's fought properly and regularly.

Modern fighters I agree something from the F14/F15/F16 should probably be in there. Not particularly an expert on them so not sure which but agree one probably should be.

262 - biggest problem was the engines.. slow to spool up, unreliable ( could give up in 10 hours flying ). The armament wasn't a dogfight armament either as the 30mm had a very slow muzzle velocity. Best WWII aircraft armament was the 4x20mm used by the brits.

the 262 should not be on their. the germans were forced to make the armament for a close air support bomber because hitler wanted close airsupport not a fighter. if they hadn't changed the armament then hitler would not have approved production of the 262.

262 was the first serial production jet fighter - that alone places it into special category.

...and i thought that 262 was armed with 4 20mms?

I just watched the first half of "Top Ten Fighters" (obviously, a re-run since I *just* watched it at 10:00 AM CDT on 9/18/2007.)

I turned it off after the SECOND gratuitous anti-U.S. comment by that so-called Military Historian Aryeh Nusbacher. I'm surprised that no one else in this forum has commented on it.

First, he said "Why would the U.S. WASTE MONEY on the F/A 22 Raptor when the F-15 and F-16 are 'good enough?'"

Then, in discussing the U.S. modifications to British Aerospace's Harrier (resulting in the AV-8B) which immeasurably improved its speed, range, avionics, firepower and flexibility, Nusbacher sarcastically said "the U.S. Marines just HAD to add a sexy nose to the Harrier"- the implication being that the extended nose of the AV-8B was added by the U.S. just for cosmetic reasons, i.e. frivolously.

Both of these "issues" have rational, logical, need-driven answers, but the show's producers chose not to provide any response or counterpoint to Nusbacher's gratuitous political editorializing. Nusbacher makes no such snide remarks about any other country or their aircraft. One wonders, for example, why he wouldn't whine and carp about Germany's short-sightedness in giving the ME-262 conventional gear (tail-dragger) at the outset, despite several other contemporary aircraft having proven the advantages of tricycle gear. But he reserves his sarcasm solely for the U.S.

This effeminate jerk needs to go spout his blatant anti-American agenda on Al-Jazeera TV where it could reach a more receptive audience. I'm through watching any of the numerous shows wherein he is featured as an "expert."

Am I out in left field here? Am I the only viewer who is continually disgusted by Aryeh Nusbacher's incessant derogatory, mocking political comments about the U.S. in shows that are supposedly "all about the airplanes?"

Random opinions on the relative merits of the fighters discussed here, and on the show itself:

Spifire vs. Mustang- the Mustang was by far the superior fighter- but not with its original engine. Only after being fitted with the incomparable Rolls-Royce Merlin engine (the Spit's engine) did it hit its stride. Remember that range, casually dismissed in this thread, is one of the "big five" qualities that a good fighter MUST have- speed, altitude, range, maneuverability and armament. Having 3 or 4 of the 5 as the Spitfire did just doesn't quite make the cut for "top dog." Also, contrary to some popular beliefs, most of the RAF shootdowns of German aircraft during The Battle of Britain were by Hawker Hurricanes, not Spifires. Look it up. While admittedly a great (and seductively beautiful) fighter, the Spit was "overall" outperformed in real combat by the Merlin-engined P-51 Mustangs flown by RAF and AAC pilots.

F-14 (Tomcat) being excluded from "Top 10": I agree with several posters here that this is a travesty. The F-14 was developed as a Fleet Defense fighter-interceptor, i.e. a single-role aircraft. To say that the F-15, a later-developed aircraft than the F-14, is superior to the F-14 because the later versions of it can do air-to-mud as well as air-to-air is a non-sequitur, like saying a Ford F150 is superior to a Corvette because you can haul lumber in it. Also, since the F-14 was a carrier aircraft, it was necessarily much heavier than it would have been if designed for soft touchdowns on 10,000 foot runways like the F-15, so direct speed and range comparisons against the F-15 are not necessarily valid. The F-14 was exceptionally good at its designed single role, better IMHO than the F-15 was in ITS multiple roles. It definitely should have made the list.

The F/A-22 Raptor can't be "the best" until it's been tested in actual combat against foreign aircraft/pilots: while this may have been true last century, it is no longer so- previous posters have already mentioned Red Flag, in which the Raptor soundly trounced the best of the best. You don't have to actually put your 550-horsepower Dodge Viper on the drag strip to know that it will outrun a Toyota Corolla. There is currently nothing on this planet that can beat the F/A-22 Raptor flown by U.S. Air Force pilots. Period. You don't have to try suicidally to actually shoot one full of holes to prove that, in this era of true-to-life simulations and realistic exercises like Red Flag and others.

All the extraneous factors used by the Top Ten show to "judge" miltary hardware:

"Production Run" is not a factor of greatness, it is a reflection of economics and political climate. For example, the Germans stopped making the ME-262 because the war ended and the Allies blew up their factories anyway. Should "short production run" be counted against the world's first operational jet fighter? NOT! Using it as a criterion of greatness is absurd.

"Fear Factor" is a measure of foreknowledge and/or personal beliefs, not the actual merit or effectiveness of an airplane (or tank, whatever.) For the first five years of its operational deployment, the mis-named F-117 (it's not a fighter, it has ZERO air-to-air capability, it's an attack aircraft so it should have been designated A-117) had a "Fear Factor" of ZERO because nobody knew it existed. The poor tyrants in Panama, where it was first deployed "in anger," never saw it, never detected it on radar and thus had no idea why their stuff was blowing up. So despite its effectiveness, it had a "Fear Factor" of zero until it was brought out of the closet for Desert Storm. The German V1 "Buzz Bomb" pulse-ramjet "cruise missile" had a huge fear factor in England, mostly because it was noisy and had a distinctive sound. But it was grossly inaccurate, just as likely to demolish a farmer's haystack as a building, and was easily defeated by both ground-based and airborne assets. Fear Factor has nothing to do with reality or relative merit and should not be a criterion of "greatness" on this show.

I'll get off my soap box now and go fly a Mooney, which has a "Fear Factor" of zero unless you forget your GUMP check on short final.....

quote:

Aryeh Nusbacher

don't fret, Aryeh is a jerk to everyone. You can hear his comments in weaponology and other top ten series.

He's just extremely arrogant thats all. I have my doubts he ever actually been close to an aircraft that was not in museum

F-22 Raptor even on the list? It's only been in service a few years, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I heard on one of the other Military Channel shows that they were going to phase it out in '08.
As far as the Sea Harrier goes, don't forget that the British version was far better than ours initially because they [wisely] used the Rolls Royce engine while we had the Allison. Once we threw the Allison in the scrap heap and stuck in the Rolls, it became 1 kick-a** aircraft.

As far as I am able to determine, including credible fact-based TV shows, credible aviation publications and "official" U.S. Air Force websites, there are no plans to "phase out" the Raptor in 2008 or in any specified timeframe.
The development of the Joint Strike Fighter and its variants is not intended to supplant the primacy of the F/A-22, any more than the F-16 supplanted the F-15. As was the F-16 to the F-15, the JSF is intended to provide a lower-cost, hence higher-volume supplementary capability to the Raptor, not a replacement.

quote:

correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I heard on one of the other Military Channel shows that they were going to phase [the F/A-22 Raptor] out in '08

I think I just saw the show you were referring to, wherein the USAF announced the phase-out of a stealth "fighter" in 2008- but it was the F-117 "Wobbly Goblin" that is being phased out, not the Raptor.

quote:
correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure I heard on one of the other Military Channel shows that they were going to phase [the F/A-22 Raptor] out in '08

Thanks hoggedogg, and I [humbly] stand corrected. With all the different military, discovery and science channels I watch, it's easy to forget what you heard where.

I remember this caught my attention, because I immediately thought that how can anything so new, with the billions of $$ in research and production, be fazed out in such a short time?

Same with the F-117. Is this aircraft really ready for the history books so soon? I realize that this aircraft was up and flying long before the public even knew it existed, but is it ready for retirement?

hoggeedogg said:

quote:

I turned it off after the SECOND gratuitous anti-U.S. comment by that so-called Military Historian Aryeh Nusbacher. I'm surprised that no one else in this forum has commented on it.

Aryeh is a twit. Just the sound of his voice grates on me, much the same as fingernails raking down a chalkboard.

Remember, he's associated with RMA Sandhurst, the [supposed] equivalent of our U.S. West Point Military Academy. The Brits have pretty much always looked their noses down at us "Colonists," but yeah, hogg, you're not the only one irritated by this guy.

One of my favorites, if not THE favorite on these shows is Dr. William "Jack" Atwater, the rough, no-neck ex-Marine (Favorite quote:"It's just a GOOD, SOLID Tank.") While not usually seen on the aircraft series, no Armor, Artillery or Firearms series would be complete without him.

retleo99 says:

quote:

Same with the F-117. Is this aircraft really ready for the history books so soon? I realize that this aircraft was up and flying long before the public even knew it existed, but is it ready for retirement?

The "F"-117 is about 20 years old or more, if you count the HAVE BLUE development platform & testbed article. It was the first of its kind, and very successful at what it did, i.e. sneak into high-value target areas undetected. However, it is also very limited- it has no guns or air-to-air capability (hence my incessant carping over its erroneous "F" designation, which was done to obfuscate paperwork and further conceal its existence) and it carries only one or two air-to-mud ordnance items. It's also very slow, relatively speaking. So now that the F/A-22 Raptor is operational, it has simply been superceded by a much more versatile and higher-performing aircraft.

A short service life for groundbreaking aircraft is not unusual; the Lockheed P-80 "Shooting Star," our first operational jet fighter, was very rapidly phased out in a flurry of development of better jet fighters- I don't think the P-80 was around for more than 5-6 years in its original form, quickly replaced by the F-94 evolutionary design and several others- F-84 Thunderjet comes to mind here.

The F-117 is ALL ABOUT stealth. That's it, a one-trick pony. The F/A-22 has ALMOST the same tiny radar cross-section as the F-117, but with well over twice the speed and maneuverability, plus it carries much more (and more diverse) ordnance and has much better avionics.

And, the F-117 is UGLY. Not lovably-ugly like the A-10 Warthog. Just butt-ugly. The old saying "if it looks right, it'll fly right" is exemplified in the F/A-22 Raptor, and rumor has it that the F-117 is virtually unflyable if the computers go out. DUH! It *looks* unflyable.

quote:

Aryeh is a twit. Just the sound of his voice grates on me, much the same as fingernails raking down a chalkboard.

Remember, he's associated with RMA Sandhurst, the [supposed] equivalent of our U.S. West Point Military Academy. The Brits have pretty much always looked their noses down at us "Colonists," but yeah, hogg, you're not the only one irritated by this guy.

One of my favorites, if not THE favorite on these shows is Dr. William "Jack" Atwater, the rough, no-neck ex-Marine (Favorite quote:"It's just a GOOD, SOLID Tank.")

Mr. Nusbacher is a just a "twit?" I would have gone a little further, but I didn't want my post to be rejected. Yeah, he's AT LEAST a twit. It would be different if he actually KNEW anything, but from what I have seen on the 3 series he's regrettably a part of, he doesn't.

I have known several British military pilots, and my overall sense is that they remembered and respected what "we" did for them in the early 40's even though they weren't old enough to have been there, much less flown there. In other words, I have NEVER experienced the "Bloody Yank!" disparagement from any of the many fine Brits I have known and interacted with. But then again, Mr. Nusbacher obviously isn't a pilot- he's regurgitating his inane and offensive drivel from a secure position behind the walls of stodgy academia. I just wish they'd drop him from the shows that I like to watch, so I could watch them again.

...and I thought I was the only one who LOVED to see "Tank" Atwater, even in the little promo blurbs where he says "It's just a good ... solid ... TANK!" I love that guy, and he obviously has some actual knowledge of the subjects he talks about- unlike Aryeh.

The other guy I really like is the ex-Seal on Future Weapons. I can't remember his name as I type this, but if you hate Nusbacher and love Atwater you already know who I mean, and you probably like him too.

quote:

As far as the Sea Harrier goes, don't forget that the British version was far better than ours initially because they [wisely] used the Rolls Royce engine while we had the Allison. Once we threw the Allison in the scrap heap and stuck in the Rolls, it became 1 kick-a** aircraft.

You know, it's odd that the exact same thing happened in the 1940's with the P-51 Mustang- it was a dog with "our" engine in it, but the minute we gave in and put the Rolls-Royce (Merlin) power in it, it became an absolutely outstanding tactical aircraft. Am I the only one who sees a pattern here?

I'm going to start checking the little stickers on the engine nacelles more closely on the airliners I fly in- if it says "GE" instead of "Rolls-Royce" I may wait for a later flight....

I'm imagining the Reservation conversation now:

"Sir, we can get you on our non-stop flight 123 at 7:15 this evening."

"What's the equipment?"

"Let me check that for you Sir, just a moment ... ... It's a new Airbus 340, Sir, one of our newest and best!"

"Rolls Royce or GE?"

"I beg your pardon?"

"Does it have the GE engines or the Rolls-Royce engines?"

"Sir, I'm sorry, but our system doesn't show that information."

"OK then, what's the N-number and I'll look it up online and let you know."

"The WHAT number?"

"The N-number, you know, it's painted on the side of every U.S. registered civil aircraft. It's probably blue on yours."

"Just a moment, Sir, while I connect you to a supervisor..."

"Never mind, I'm feeling lucky. I'll take the flight."

"I'm sorry Sir, but based on the questions you've been asking we're not going to be able to accept any reservations from you until Homeland Security gives us the green light. May I have your full address and phone number please?"

"<click>"

First, hoggedogg and I are NOT the same person!

Sure, we agree that Aryeh Nusbacher is a twit (the strongest we can get without being rejected), we both like Dr. William "Jack" Atwater (The "Tank") and ex SEAL Richard "Mack" Machowicz.

Speaking of the latter, and somewhat off-topic from the topic "Top 10 Fighters," Mack was on either Weaponology or Future Weapons the night before last. This program was the first [I've seen anyway] to do a whole segment on the V-22 Osprey. This was quite impressive to me, as I had not had the chance to see much on this innovative aircraft. I wasn't aware that this was to be made in 3 variants, for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. And despite an old decree by Congress (someone who knows more about this, feel free to jump in) that the Army cannot have fixed-wing aircraft, only helicopters; well, this IS [sorta] a helicopter, so why not let the Army have one? They transport troops too!
This is one neat aircraft. I missed the Airfair in Dayton, Ohio this past year, so I don't know if they had a demo there or not, either static or flying, I just hope there's one next year.

And as hoggedogg said "I'll get off my soap box now and go fly a Mooney, which has a "Fear Factor" of zero unless you forget your GUMP check on short final.....," In my case, I'll go jump into a Citabria, which also has a fear factor of zero, and with no GUMP to fret about...

The P-47 Thunderbolt was the largest and deadliest single seat, single engine fighter during World War II and an aircraft of many firsts. The most produced Allied fighter aircraft with 15,683 rolling off the assembly line, it was the first U.S. aircraft to have self-sealing fuel tanks, telescoping landing gear, and a bubble canopy. Operationally speaking, it was the first aircraft to drop napalm, first in battle on D-Day, the first aircraft to operate from and to be stationed on the continent, and the plane that spearheaded the role of pilots as forward air controllers. These operational firsts were all courtesy of the famed 368th Fighter Group. The Jug was the first fighter to fire high velocity aerial rockets.
The P-47 had the ability to dish it out and take it. Many of its pilots returned home with the planes and engines falling apart, not to mention parts of telephone poles, trees, fence posts, and other low altitude souvenirs. Scores of pilots owed their lives to this versatile wonder. The high success rate helped justify why special dive-bombing tactics were set up with over a dozen Ninth Air Force P-47 fighter-bomber groups who provided close ground support missions during the Allied race across Europe.
Now let’s talk about the P-47’s unmatched combat record. The combination of the well-trained pilots and support crews, combined with the awesome firepower and versatility of the Thunderbolt platform brought significant returns. P-47s flew more than 546,000 combat sorties between March 1943 and August 1945, twice as many sorties than any other fighter. As a group, Jug pilots shot down 3,752 enemy aircraft. This represents 62 % of the enemy total shot down during the war, many of which were supposedly more agile aircraft. In addition, P-47 pilots destroyed about 2,800 more on the ground, which was 75% of the war’s total. In comparison, P-47s sustained 824 combat losses, which represents only 0.7 % of the Jugs lost per sortie, the fewest percentage of losses per sortie of any fighter during the war. This is an amazing statistic when one considers the true danger due to the flak and small arms fire that was encountered on low level missions by fighter-bomber pilots.
I can only guess that those who put together this list are waiting until they do a top ten dive bomber list and can include others left out of this faux list, such as the A-10, F6F, P-38, Corsair, and German planes like the Stutka, Bf-109, or FW-190.

I also was turned off by his "Too fast - too stealthy - too - much money " comment - Is he still driving a Model T? Oh, wait..news flash...he is now a she. That right air fans..HE had a sex change, and I dont think you will be seeing HER on any more shows... SHE goes by the name of LYNNE now. I am not making this up...just google on his old name...

quote:

Originally posted by hoggedogg:
Random opinions on the relative merits of the fighters discussed here, and on the show itself:

Spifire vs. Mustang- the Mustang was by far the superior fighter- but not with its original engine. Only after being fitted with the incomparable Rolls-Royce Merlin engine (the Spit's engine) did it hit its stride. Remember that range, casually dismissed in this thread, is one of the "big five" qualities that a good fighter MUST have- speed, altitude, range, maneuverability and armament. Having 3 or 4 of the 5 as the Spitfire did just doesn't quite make the cut for "top dog." Also, contrary to some popular beliefs, most of the RAF shootdowns of German aircraft during The Battle of Britain were by Hawker Hurricanes, not Spifires. Look it up. While admittedly a great (and seductively beautiful) fighter, the Spit was "overall" outperformed in real combat by the Merlin-engined P-51 Mustangs flown by RAF and AAC pilots.

F-14 (Tomcat) being excluded from "Top 10": I agree with several po