What is your all time favorite military fighter jet?

[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!

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

I give up.

If you're going to put John Boyd and his ilk on a pedestal, it's probably your wisest move.

 

[Rastoff]

Well, zzzippper, you obviously have more experience than I do with these aircraft. So, if you say one is better than another, it must be true.

However, this is a little over the top:

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 wasn't part of the acquisition team for either of these, but I can read. The cost I found for a F-14 was about $38M. I found a price for the F-18 of $57M. I'm no rocket scientist, but 57>38 last time I checked.

Now, those values are just what I found on the internet and we know how trustworthy that is. So, if you say it cost more, I believe you, but that's no reason to tell me I'm on drugs. It costs nothing to discuss this without resorting to insults.

 

[Cpo1944]

My wife and I were watching a show on Naval avaition and a beautiful aircraft was shown, and we both remarked how pretty and way before it`s time it was . I googled it and found it was a Douglas Sky-Ray. It only served for a few years in the early 1950`s . Google it and see what an amazingly neat little bird it was.

 

[olcop]

Favorite Aircraft

F-8-U Crusader, a unique and wicked looking plane,it had an wing that could be raised and lowered to change the angle of attack.
olcop

 

[M E Morrison]

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.

IIRC, the Air Force did use/consider it for airfield defense. It could be airborne & up to altitude very quickly, much quicker than other aircraft thus having a shorter scramble time.

 

[Stevens]

A-10, second choice B-52

 

[M E Morrison]

A-10, second choice B-52

UMMM, neither of these is a fighter....

 

[Double-O-Dave]

IIRC, the Air Force did use/consider it for airfield defense. It could be airborne & up to altitude very quickly, much quicker than other aircraft thus having a shorter scramble time.

If I recall correctly, BG Chuck Yeager was involved with the F-5 (later became the F-20 Tigershark).

Regards,

Dave

 

[Rastoff]

If I recall correctly, BG Chuck Yeager was involved with the F-5 (later became the F-20 Tigershark).

Regards,

Dave

He may have been, but his input was negligible.

 

[427mach1]

He may have been, but his input was negligible.

Correct, he was hired as a public relations spokesman and flew the airplane a few times but had no input to the design.

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

Douglas Sky-Ray

That was was a really cool airplane. Today little known, in 1953 the Douglas F4D Skyray held the absolute speed record of 752 mph, making it the first Navy plane that could exceed the speed of sound in level flight. In it's day it held a number of time-to-height records including from a standing start flying to 49,221 ft in 2 minutes and 36 seconds. Add to this an incredible 55,000 ft altitude capability, 5,000 ft higher than a F/A-18 of today.

X-ray of a Skyray. This had to be one of the last American planes built with guns in the wings.

Skyray production line in El Segundo, CA, c. 1956. This picture, I think, makes them look futuristic, like Star Wars X-Wing fighters.

The Skyray used the Pratt-Whittney J57 turbojet engine. The same engine used in the North American F-100 Super Sabre, Vought F-8 Crusader, and McDonnell F-101 Voodoo. A non-afterburn version of the J57 was used to power the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Suffice to say, for it's time, it had a really good engine.

The Skyray had an advanced Westinghouse APQ-50 (Aero 13) modular fire control radar system, the same radar used in early F-4 Phantoms. The Aero 13 lead to a family of "plug-in" open architecture radars, upgraded and improved over the decades, culminating in the AN/APQ-120. Direct decedents of which are still in use with the US Navy and other air forces to this day.

Early Westinghouse Aero 13. Note the vacuum tubes.

There were three flaws that caused the Skyray to be withdrawn after only about 8 years in fleet service. One, it was built with no provisions for aerial refueling. In 1947 Douglas didn't anticipated how critical this feature would be. Two, it had a reputation as being difficult to fly. The plane was naturally unstable, which gave it great maneuverability, but it had too many "watch outs" and "don't go theres" in it's flight envelope. It was tiring to fly and required constant inputs from the pilot. Three, it was a dedicated interceptor and the Navy was moving to multi-role aircraft. Though it had six hard-points, with Vietnam on the horizon, the Navy elected to replace it with newer designs that were better adapted to multi-role uses.

 

[Texas Star]

I built a model of that Skyray. I remember it well.

 

[jtcarm]

The Fightin Falcon:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/f16_10.jpg

 

[jtcarm]

Yes, in Viet Nam a pair of A-1 Spads brought down a MIG.

And a Vought F4u (Corsair) took down a MIG15 in Korea.

 

[Big Cholla]

Kernel: My compliments;........ for an Army guy, you sure do know your AF airplanes and history. Also, my profuse thanks for posting the link to Mr. Marshall L. Michel's doctoral thesis. I read every word of it and was both impressed and horrified at the goings on within the USAF's upper ranks. I have read extensively of the infighting between the upper ranks of our Navy and our Army during the WW II and then the destructive competition between the Army and Navy in the Pacific Theater. Given the namby-pamby workings of our Congress vs. Executive Branch and vice versa, I am surprised that the USA has prevailed in any armed conflict that it has been involved. ................

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

... my profuse thanks for posting the link to Mr. Marshall L. Michel's doctoral thesis. I read every word of it and was both impressed and horrified at the goings on within the USAF's upper ranks. ..........

Thanks. I grew up as an Air Force brat. I've been interested in airplanes, in more than superficial ways, from a very early age. I encourage everyone on this tread to follow that link to Michel's doctoral thesis. It's an eye opener, and you don't have to buy anything from Amazon. It's totally free!

Marshall L Michel III is an impressive guy that REALLY knows what he's talking about. He's a graduate of Georgetown University with a BA in English. Has an MA in International Relations from Catholic University, and a PhD from Auburn University. Most recently he's been teaching as a Visiting Fellow at MIT in the National Security Studies Program.

This is a serious guy, and if that wasn't enough, previously Marshall was a career Air Force pilot flying the F-15 and F-4. He flew 321 combat missions during the Vietnam War. He later served as the American Air Attaché at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv.

But there are some things he's never done. He never testified before congress in order to support corrupt politicians wanting to cut the defense budget during the most critical periods of the Cold War. He's never written a self aggrandizing book claiming to be the greatest jet pilot and tactician that ever lived. He's never taken credit for things he's never done. He's never been quoted by editorial writers at the New York Times and Washington Post when they unfairly criticize the Air Force's weapon systems and purchasing practices. He's never done any of that stuff.

 

[jtcarm]

As usual, I'll be the kid who targets the hornet's nest with his slingshot:

The A10, A4, et all are really cool, but that A means "Attack".

Pieces of trivia:
The names we know Soviet aircraft by such as Foxbat, Flanker, Fishbed (a somewhat disrespectful title for the highly-successful MiG-21) were assigned by NATO. I don't think the Soviets ever gave them official names.

The F-111 was never officially christened, thus the uninspiring name "Aardvark", probably thanks to it's awkward looking nose. From what I've read, pilots were none to fond of it, which may also have contributed to the not so flattering name.

 

[M E Morrison]

As usual, I'll be the kid who targets the hornet's nest with his slingshot:

The A10, A4, et all are really cool, but that A means "Attack".

Pieces of trivia:
The names we know Soviet aircraft by such as Foxbat, Flanker, Fishbed (a somewhat disrespectful title for the highly-successful MiG-21) were assigned by NATO. I don't think the Soviets ever gave them official names.

The F-111 was never officially christened, thus the uninspiring name "Aardvark", probably thanks to it's awkward looking nose. From what I've read, pilots were none to fond of it, which may also have contributed to the not so flattering name.

well, at least one other person figured that out...

 

[Kernel Crittenden]

..."Aardvark"...

The F-111 just wanted to be first in the phone book. Any competitive advantage, however small....

 

[Bob R]

For you guys who like the F/A18 here is about 5 minutes of video that is not too bad.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfOD2y_AD_w[/ame]

bob