What is your all time favorite military fighter jet?

[DesertFox]

My father flew RF-4C during the Vietnam "conflict" stationed out of Udorn, Thailand so I'd have to say my favorite would be the F-4 since it managed to bring him home safely after over 200 combat missions.

All great planes and great men who have served their country under some "mixed" conditions!

Great pics on this thread!

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

The MiG-25 Foxbat.

I always considered this a sinister and formidable weapon. To be respected. Like the AK-47 and the T-64. The Foxbat was a revolutionary design, half a generation ahead of anything in the West when it first flew in 1964. The design elements it ushered in are still echoing today.

Look at the main gear tires. Did those come off a R Series Mack truck?

The Mother of all Afterburners. The Foxbat was designed to intercept the supersonic XB-70 Valkyrie.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

We did get our hands on a Foxbat. The defecting Russian unfortunately landed it in Japan and we had to give it back.
But after we got through with it, The Ruskies flew it out in crates.
It most likely never flew again.

 

[jrm53]

I always thought that the ME 262 looked very neat and balanced with the two Junkers Jumos under the wings, next most beautiful is the A 10 close support tank kller. The ME 262 may have had BMW engines. Jeff

 

[M E Morrison]

I have always liked some of the less popular ones. I like the ninety series jets, which are all but forgotten. They represent an important transition era and designers learned a great deal from the early jet fighters.

I like the English Electric Lightnings, their vertical engine configuration always intrigued me and the more I learned about their design, but more it appealed to me.

I like the F-101 Voodoos. Not that they were particularly good, nor had a long service life, I just liked the design from the era.

I like the R/A-5 Vigilantes. Such a sleek design, reduced to reconnaissance roles. My father's childhood best friend flew them in Vietnam and was lost on mission. Some of his possessions ended up with my dad afterwards. Years later, when I went off to boarding school, my dad gave me his friend's portable chess set, still inscribed with his friends name. Him holding onto that chess set for thirty years made me think, long and hard, about a lot of things. Maybe someday I'll pass it on to my kid and explain where it came from.

The list goes on. There's too many interesting designs out there to decide upon one or five.

You are not really gone as long as someone remembers you!!!

 

[M E Morrison]

Hawker hunter and a close second would be Lockeed F104 Starfighter.

IIRC, the F-104 was called the flying prostitute, because it had no visible means of support. I don't know if that is an insult, or a tribute, to that small wing.

 

[zzzippper]

Not to be insulting but it is clear a lot of people have no experience with fighter aircraft other than what looks cool. The F-14 and Mig-25 are two planes that never should have been built. They both had one purpose, neither of which ever performed that function.

The F-14 was nothing more than a platform for the fleet defense Phoenix missile. It was too heavy, too complicated, and too expensive. It's maintenance costs, supply demands, mission capable rate, and manpower demands are what finally drove a stake through its heart. The F-18 can fly twice as often with half the maintenance.

The Mig-25 was a low tech missile. The one we examined proved that Soviet technology was vastly inferior to ours. Their manufacturing technology was decades behind ours. They bolt on steel while we sculpt composites. That is why, to this day, our enemies are more interested is stealing manufacturing processes than they are weapon designs.

 

[Rastoff]

The F-14 was nothing more than a platform for the fleet defense Phoenix missile. It was too heavy, too complicated, and too expensive. It's maintenance costs, supply demands, mission capable rate, and manpower demands are what finally drove a stake through its heart. The F-18 can fly twice as often with half the maintenance.

While both of these statements are true, it is not a reasonable comparison. Yes, the main weapon of the F-14 was the Phoenix and it was extremely effective with it. However, it was developed in a different era before the F-18. In fact, you could say it was a transitional aircraft. The F-18 also costs almost twice as much to build.

But that is the nature of the fighter jet. Allow even one year to pass and the technology changes dramatically.

Sure, the JSF and Raptor are nifty aircraft, but they cost a lot more and utilize a lot more modern technology. Still, we work hard to keep all of them up to date. We are still doing testing with the F-15 and F-16. The B1B is still flying though only God knows why. There is a new bomber in the works to replace the B2 and we have a new tanker coming on board.

People are not wrong to like the venerable F-14 any more than they would be wrong to like the F-4. It's just what they like. It has nothing to do with maintenance cost or MC rate.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

The fatal flaw in the F-14 was it's Pratt & Whitney TF30 engines. If the Navy could of waited two more years they could of had the superb next-gen Pratt & Whitney F100, the same engine used to power the F-15 and F-16. But the Navy had to have the F-14 ASAP. They opted for the TF30 which was the same first-gen turbofan technology that powered the F-111 (another plane limited by it's less than stellar engines).

What you say about the Mig-25 is true. In some respects it was crude. Crude like an AK-47. While it's unfair to compare the Foxbat to American planes that entered service 10 years later, when the Foxbat first flew the West's primary fighter was the F-4. An impressive airplane, but hardly a triumph of aerodynamic finesse. The F-4 was an evolutionary dead end, while new planes that look essentially identical to the Mig-25 are still being made and designed today.

The unarmed recon version of the Mig-25 was perhaps the most useful variation. In the 1970's Foxbat-B's overflew Israel at will. Even though the IDF was armed with state-of-the-art Sparrow missiles mounted on F-4's, they never successfully intercepted a Foxbat-B. It flew too high, and too fast. In a way, it was the Soviet's SR-71, but could operate from a grass cow pasture. In fact, it is a Mig-25, not a Blackbird, that still holds the world's record for absolute maximum altitude -- 123,520 ft.

 

[THE PILGRIM]

The IAF went after the Foxbat with the F-4 armed with Sparrow Missiles.
The used a frontal snap-up intercept. None were successful.

 

[6actual]

Douglas A-1 Skyraider, and the A-10 Warthog. While not strictly fighters, as a groundpounder these always made me all warm and fuzzy when they were around the AO

 

[oberlin1]

In jets the F104 star fighter...in prop jobs the P51.

 

[zzzippper]

While both of these statements are true, it is not a reasonable comparison. Yes, the main weapon of the F-14 was the Phoenix and it was extremely effective with it. However, it was developed in a different era before the F-18. In fact, you could say it was a transitional aircraft. The F-18 also costs almost twice as much to build.

But that is the nature of the fighter jet. Allow even one year to pass and the technology changes dramatically.

Sure, the JSF and Raptor are nifty aircraft, but they cost a lot more and utilize a lot more modern technology. Still, we work hard to keep all of them up to date. We are still doing testing with the F-15 and F-16. The B1B is still flying though only God knows why. There is a new bomber in the works to replace the B2 and we have a new tanker coming on board.

People are not wrong to like the venerable F-14 any more than they would be wrong to like the F-4. It's just what they like. It has nothing to do with maintenance cost or MC rate.

You can like something because you are a fan but don't grant it qualities it doesn't have. You can like your favorite shortstop but don't compare him to Ozzie Smith.

The F-14 and F-18 shared carrier decks and the F-18 pushed the F-14 over the side. The swing wing of the F-14 was too heavy, too complex, and too expensive. The F-18 was a result of the F-14 being too costly to build and maintain just as the F-16 was a result of the F-15 being too expensive.

If you think the F-18s that shared the flight decks with F-14s were more expensive you need to stay out of the medicine cabinet. I work for the agency of DoD that buys and maintains these aircraft. I was stationed at McDonnell Douglas and then Boeing building F-15s, F-18s, AV-8s, T-45s, and C-17 major subassemblies. I worked overseas maintaining F-18s, F-15s, F-16s, C-130s, P-3s, E-2s, A-10s, and numerous helos while sharing hangers with F-4s. I did analysis of the F-18 purchase proposals. I performed QA on all of these aircraft during construction and afterwards while maintaining them. I was the supervisor of teams that did the same thing. I have done this for 35 years. Now I build satellites at Lockheed Martin. I know aircraft and not as a security guard.

Read this book about the father of the F-15, F-16, and A-10. Learn why the F-14 and F-111 never should have been built.
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/0316796883/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426112618&sr=8-1&keywords=john+boyd"]Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War: Robert Coram: 9780316796880: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dU1i1%2BAiL.@@AMEPARAM@@51dU1i1%2BAiL[/ame]

In the meantime continue being a fan, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

... the F-16 was a result of the F-15 being too expensive. ...

Not true. The F-16 and F-15 were conceived and developed simultaneously as a purposeful strategy. It's happenstance, more than anything, that allowed the F-15 to enter the inventory first.

To say John Boyd is the father of "F-15, F-16, and A-10" is laughable when you know he was opposed to all three as they exist in their current multi-role forms today. If anything, Boyd was the father of the Northrop F-5. A turkey the Air Force was reluctant to buy, and then only in small numbers.

John Boyd was the Joe Biden of fighter design. A long distinguished career.... and wrong about everything.

THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM

 

[Snapping Twig]

The F5 is a high performance jet to be sure.

Too small for the enlightened leadership, but effective and used by numerous countries as a front line fighter - with good reason.

We use them - T 38 trainers and for NASA and others as a test flight follow on to record and document.

The F 104 similarly was thought too small, but it was one heck of an aircraft.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

The Northrop F-5 was basically the American answer to the MiG-21, an inexpensive, easy to maintain, low tech, day fighter. It had engines borrowed from a disposable decoy missile, and initially no radar. It had it's place, I suppose. Enough to impress Ethiopia, Botswana, and Honduras. Fortunately, the US did not buy this fighter in large numbers.

 

[Snapping Twig]

As well as many European countries.

Heck, it was even used by us for air superiority training school as adversarial aircraft.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

...it was even used by us for air superiority training school as adversarial aircraft.

Precisely because performance wise the F-5 was so similar to the MiG-21. For a 2nd generation jet, the MiG-21 was built in HUGE numbers. Nothing in the West comes close. If the Cold War had ever gotten hot it was the MiG-21 that would of darkened the skies over Norther Europe. So it's no wonder we trained against that threat and developed strategies to defeat it.

 

[zzzippper]

"In their current muti-role form..." I give up. I don't have time for people who are too smart to learn. Less for people who can't admit they are wrong.

 

[Sconnie]

So many choices. I would have gone with the P-51. My father loaded them up with .50 cal and bombs in WWII. And at the airshows they just sound soooo smooth.

But I have to go with the F-18 Super Hornet. My son worked on them while he was in the Navy. And the turn and burn at the airshows....

Go Checkmates!