Air Superiority goes to the F-22. Nothing can touch it. Before that, it was the F-15. We used to "war game" against the Air Force and their F-15's all the time and they were just deadly.
lol indeed they do look alike. Both were/are fashion victims as well. Maybe we can get Trump to wear a helmet in his press conferences. that would really make the red diaper babies squeal, and hopefully make them seriously leave the country instead of just teasing us with false hope about leaving. I think many of them found out there are few white countries who will take them, and despite all their big noises about 'celebrating Diversity n Stuff' they're terrified of balcks and hispanics in real life and wouldn't dream of moving to a non-white country, despite some of those being better places in many respects. They're too racist and bigoted.
Only 4 votes for the F-35 now. I get to bird watch them nearly all day, training and playing games, most days of the week around here; none have fell out of the sky or landed in the lake yet.
I know more than a few Marine fighter jocks who have turned down transitioning to the F-35 B preferring flying their old FA-18 C and D's that are falling out of the sky because Obama said he would veto any attempt by Congress of repealing his sequestration.
You mean 2nd to none, I hope. Those Raptors are a serious package of weaponry and electronics that are on a level far above anything else in the world. I think the issue they currently have is staying airborne without accidents, as I recall. I could be wrong though and they may have worked out those issues.
Been watching F-35's all day practicing stalls and drops; fly straight up, stop and shut off engines, drop, restart and recover, and doing it low to the ground; otherwise I wouldn't see them from my porch. It's been a free air show nearly all day here. No fire balls and smoke clouds rising up from the horizon yet. Pilots certainly seem to trust them.
Indeed. The F-35 I heard is very easy and comfortable to fly and control since everything is automated. Finger on the touchscreen and a joystick has lot of a control of the airplane.
The OP asks for best *fighter*, not best *multi-role aircraft*. The F-22 is objectively the best fighter in the world. Edit: on second look it does say "multi-role fighter". I'm going to have to change my vote to the F-35.
As a "multi-role fighter" the best multi-role fighter has to be the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II. "Jack of all trades...master at none." Not excellent at any one mission but good at them all. The F-4 did it all from interceptor, air superiority fighter, attack aircraft, deep strike attack aircraft, low level bomber, high altitude bomber, battlefield air interdiction, close air support, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) "Wild Weasel," tactical reconnaissance, target drones (QF-4). Note: The last active duty USAF QF-4 was decommissioned and sent to the "Bone Yard" last December, 2016. -> http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/versatile-f-4-phantoms-making-final-flight-for-us-military
And an F-4 would last all of 5 seconds against any fighter on the list in the OP's poll. The best multirole fighter of all time is either the F-16 or the Mirage III.
Going forward, a multi-role is nothing but SAM bait unless it has stealth technology. There isnt even really a point of even putting weapons on non stealth aircraft that are trying to penetrate a modern air defense network. Radar, missiles, and tracking software are just too good. That makes F-35 the best of the dedicated multi roles.
Also that's the reason why stealth technology for cruise missiles is taking off. Kill the IADS and you don't need stealth.
The F-4 can out run most of the aircraft on the list except for the F-15 and maybe the F-22. I'm still on the fence with the F-35. I know Navy and Marine FA-18 pilots who don't want to transition over to the F-35. I don't see the F-35 A, B or C being able to full fill the mission of CAS and lack's the payload and range being able to conduct deep strike missions. But then again the U.S. Navy is no longer capable of conducting deep strike missions with the retirement of the A-6 Intruder and the same is true with the Air Force retiring the F-111. Sec. of Defense Dick Chaney canceled the A-6 replacement the A-12 and the Air Force never had a replacement on the drawing board for the F-111.
Thats the problem with multi role aircraft. They do everything well, but dont really excel at anything.
It's Congress not the military who demands multi role aircraft. The F-4 was designed as an interceptor to intercept Soviet maritime bombers. It was the Air Force who added a gun to the F-4. The F-22 was designed to be only an air superiority fighter. It was Congress who demanded that the F-22 to be able to carry bombs. The F-15 was originally just an air superiority fighter but with the retirement of the F-111 and F-4's the Air Force no longer had a deep strike aircraft, the solution was the F-15 E. But the F-111 was better at deep strike missions than the F-15 E. Remember the Air Force's F-103 and F-106 ? They were single mission aircraft, to intercept Soviet bombers not air superiority dog fighting fighters.
Deep strike is the realm of cruise missiles these days. And with mid-air refueling, the F-35 can most definitely conduct deep strikes as much as any other aircraft. The F-4 can't outrun an AMRAAM and really that's all that matters.
Do the Chi-Coms have the AMRAAM ? Tomahawk cruise missiles are normally used during the opening stages of a war. They aren't capable of taking out harden targets or destroying air fields runways or hitting a moving target. All you have to do is look at how Tomahawk cruise missiles were used during the first Gulf war (Desert Storm) and during the Iraq war in 2003. They took out SAM sites, radars and command and control infrastructure of the enemy. When the United States needs to put an enemy airfield out of business they call on the RAF since the U.S. military no longer has a weapon in it's arsenal to accomplish the mission. Runways can be quickly repaired when a hit by MK-84 (2,000 lb.) or a MK-82 (500 lb,) bombs. What the Brits have is the JP233 . The bad news... the JP233 has been declared to be politically incorrect by the left just like napalm and teargas. That sucks... you can't even use teargas on the battlefield today to get Charley out of the tunnels.
Which F-35 are you observing ? A, B. or C ? I'm still on the fence with the F-35. For some reason the F-35 reminds me of the Brewster F2A Buffalo I hope I'm wrong.
No bomb can take out an airfield for more than a few hours unless its nuclear. Cratering a runway only takes it out as long as it takes for engineers to find a bulldozer, gravel, and a grader. And yes, the Chinese do have an equivalent to the AMRAAM. So do the Russians. And Tomahawks can take out runways if the warhead they carry has submunitions in it instead of a single unitary warhead.
I don't know why people keep saying "Chi-Com", the Chinese aren't even "communist" at least not in a Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist sense. They are state-capitalist focused on profits and internationalism/globalism.
Just military slang from the Vietnam War. Chi-Com (Chinese-Communist) VC (Vietnamese-Communist) Like how "O-Dark Thirty" is misused today. "O-Dark Thirty" is military slang from the Vietnam War. It's the time period between 2400 hours to just before dawn, it's when Charley preferred to fight.
The Red Chinese are still very much Reds, no matter what the labor racketeering PR hacks at the Wall Street Journal keep trying to sell us. They are merely encouraging tech transfers and raising foreign currency in order to expand their imperialist reach and power. If or when the U.S. finally ignores history and retreats into the 'Neutral' and/or 'isolationist' mindset once again, they will follow along behind us and take over all the little countries we left behind. Same for Putin and dozen other dictators. And, we no longer have the production capacities and deep skill sets necessary for a repeat of our buildups that won for WW I and WW II.
