82 replies to this topic

[Flying Tigers]

well I just watch the top ten fighters
they are rated based on
1. Kill Ratio
2. Fear factor
3. Innovation
4. Production rating
5. Service length

Here's the list
10. F/A-22 Raptor (today)
9. Sea Harrier FA2 (today)
8. Sopwith Camel (WW I)
7. ME 262 (WW II)
6. Supermarine Spitfire (WW II)
5. none because there are 2 balanced fighters in number 4
4. Mig 15 / F86 Sabre (Korean war)
3. F4 Phantom (Vietnam)
2. F15 C Eagle (today)
1. P15 D Mustang (WW II)
Is this list logical? I think yes based on history and 5 factor. Based on technology, no way.

[TehKiller]

wtf a Mustang better than Spitfire....this list aint logical if you ask me

also the MiG 21 was almost the same as the F4 and it didnt got on the list?!

[Rayburn]

Fear-factor is a point but there is NO Stuka!? Yeah, right...

[Dauth]

As i said in the otehr top 10 fighter thread, Spitfire forever.

[Eddy01741]

Stuka isn't a fighter, it's a ground attack aircraft... BTW, mustang is better than spitfire in many ways. However, how did the F-4 get on, the plane that started out without a freaking gun lol. It's just a huge airframe with huge jet engines made to go as fast as possible.

[Dauth]

As i said, the spitfire is the best fighter because it won the hearts and minds of the UK populus, you hear the merlin throbbing in the sky and see the unmistakeable wing shape and you know that plane is supreme

[Cryptkeeper]

that bias to the max as the uk population is nothing compared to the rest of the world's population and popularity is not how these were judged
how ever with that said i think the list is fairly accurate according to the factors

Edited by cryptkeeper, 23 December 2006 - 19:04.

[Dauth]

I know its UK and not related to topic but its spelt bias

[TehKiller]

cryptkeeper, on 23 Dec 2006, 19:45, said:

that byest to the max as the uk population is nothing compared to the rest of the world's population and popularity is not how these were judged

huh? the rest of the world would mostly claim that the Sturmovik or MiG3 was better

[Cryptkeeper]

which is why i said these arn't judged by popularity just the factors they gave

[Flying Tigers]

Quote

how did the F-4 get on, the plane that started out without a freaking gun lol. It's just a huge airframe with huge jet engines made to go as fast as possible.

easy
because of innovation (this was the first jet that use advanced tracking missile system)
by the way, the production rating, kill ratio, and service length of the raptor is low but the rest is very high (innovation, Fear Factor), that's why it's in tenth place
anyway raptor is the only plane that could fire missiles while doing a barrel roll

[BillyChaka]

Get the Raptor off that list. It hasn't even been in combat. How can they have a kill ratio on a plane that hasn't even been in the field.

[TehKiller]

yeah....the MiG21 has a very big kill ratio and it was used by more than half of the world and i dont see it on the list

[Eddy01741]

Flying Tigers, on 23 Dec 2006, 14:51, said:

Quote

how did the F-4 get on, the plane that started out without a freaking gun lol. It's just a huge airframe with huge jet engines made to go as fast as possible.

easy
because of innovation (this was the first jet that use advanced tracking missile system)
by the way, the production rating, kill ratio, and service length of the raptor is low but the rest is very high (innovation, Fear Factor), that's why it's in tenth place
anyway raptor is the only plane that could fire missiles while doing a barrel roll

Well, duh i know about the raptor (which is why i get pissed off at people saying the raptor should be #1 when it has absolutely no service length). Anyways, srry, mind blank there with the missle tracking system lol. Anyways, the Mig-21 isn't feared enough i guess, and american planes have better kill ratios i reckon as well.

[BillyChaka]

The F4 was shit. To be honest, it wasn't actually the plane, it was the missles. They were in their primitive form, so they didn't perform well. And it didn't have a machine gun on it, so it sucked balls when in close range. Innovation could have been one of the "pros," but it had more cons because of it. They thought missles would be the ultimate weapon, but they could have shot down a lot more with a gun.

Thank god they added a gun later... But the F4 definetly doesn't belong on that list.

[Flying Tigers]

BillyChaka, on 24 Dec 2006, 04:56, said:

Get the Raptor off that list. It hasn't even been in combat. How can they have a kill ratio on a plane that hasn't even been in the field.

because that plane score the highest in innovation (the 21st century fighter) and fear factor
but you should be glad it's still number 10 not 1
and the kill ratio meter of that plane is zero

Edited by Flying Tigers, 26 December 2006 - 13:19.

[Eddy01741]

Umm, yeah, innovation? It's a fighter with stealth, internal weapons bay, and thrust vectoring, that's about all. If you notice, planes have accomplished all of the above (jeeze the F-117 accomplishes two by itself). THe only uniqe thing about the raptor is that htey combined everything on one and still made it manuverable and faste enough to be a air superiority fighter. Anyways, are you saying that the raptor's k:d ratio is terrible, or amazing, because if it was amazing it wouldn't be 0, it would be infinitely high (108:0 in SIMULATED COMBAT), since you all know what happens when you devide by zero. Anyways, lets just say this, The eagle has a better K:d ratio, it is actually combat proven. Seriously, there is no way the raptor could ever be #1 till it's combat proven, period.

[BillyChaka]

Flying Tigers, on 26 Dec 2006, 08:18, said:

BillyChaka, on 24 Dec 2006, 04:56, said:

Get the Raptor off that list. It hasn't even been in combat. How can they have a kill ratio on a plane that hasn't even been in the field.

because that plane score the highest in innovation (the 21st century fighter) and fear factor
but you should be glad it's still number 10 not 1
and the kill ratio meter of that plane is zero

BillyChaka, on 24 Dec 2006, 04:56, said:

Get the Raptor off that list. It hasn't even been in combat. How can they have a kill ratio on a plane that hasn't even been in the field.

There can't be a kill ratio if there hasn't been any kills. And like Eddy said, simulated combat doesn't mean shit. It's starting to remind me of the XM8.

[AllStarZ]

TehKiller, on 23 Dec 2006, 08:22, said:

wtf a Mustang better than Spitfire....this list aint logical if you ask me

also the MiG 21 was almost the same as the F4 and it didnt got on the list?!

The MiG 21 has quite a few flaws. Only thing it has going for it is supersonic capability and being cheap. Meanwhile, the MiG 15 is a decidedly inferior plane due to its armament. It's only worth noting as a milestone in military aviation, not as a powerful aircraft in its own right.

[LCPL Carrow]

The MiG-15/17 and -21 were both pieces of shit. The Sabers and Phantoms owned the shit out of the Fagots/Frescos and Fishbeds. Call it training, call it the plane, but I call it a little of both. If the MiG-21 has a high kill ratio at all it's because of how widespread it is, and because it usually ends up fighting against other shitty aircraft.

The F-4 Phantom, on the other hand, was nothing like a piece of shit. It had an endurance of longer than 45 minutes, it could carry more and better weapons farther and was better capable of helping the pilot deliver them accurately. The F-4 was faster by over 100mph. The only things the MiG-21 has on the Phantom are service ceiling (by only around 200 feet, well within the engagement envelope of the Phantom), cost, and ease of use.

The abysmal kill-to-loss ratio against the MiG-21 early in the Vietnam war was due entirely to inadequate training, not to equipment inferiority, and once we improved our training regimens the kill ratio climed back into the positive figures.

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Anyone wondering where the MiG-29 is? A certain SU plane gave NATO cause for worry in the 80's but I can't remeber.

[Eddy01741]

LCPL Carrow, on 19 Jan 2007, 00:13, said:

The MiG-15/17 and -21 were both pieces of shit. The Sabers and Phantoms owned the shit out of the Fagots/Frescos and Fishbeds. Call it training, call it the plane, but I call it a little of both. If the MiG-21 has a high kill ratio at all it's because of how widespread it is, and because it usually ends up fighting against other shitty aircraft.

The F-4 Phantom, on the other hand, was nothing like a piece of shit. It had an endurance of longer than 45 minutes, it could carry more and better weapons farther and was better capable of helping the pilot deliver them accurately. The F-4 was faster by over 100mph. The only things the MiG-21 has on the Phantom are service ceiling (by only around 200 feet, well within the engagement envelope of the Phantom), cost, and ease of use.

The abysmal kill-to-loss ratio against the MiG-21 early in the Vietnam war was due entirely to inadequate training, not to equipment inferiority, and once we improved our training regimens the kill ratio climed back into the positive figures.

Obviously over-patriotic (as I can see throughout al your posts) Anyways, the Mig-15, is not shitty, your comparing a Mig-15 to a F-4, that's a terrible comparison, it's more like Mig 15 compared to the F-86 Sabre. Lets see, Mig had better high altitude performance, the Sabre was more manuverable, their armaments were about equal in power, both great airplanes. And Mig-21s... lets see, Mig-21s were a prized possesion of the North Vietnamese. They didn't want to lose these, so they went on hit and run A-A attacks (as in streaking into a dogfight, launching all it's missiles, and hopin one hits). And you call inferior training on the F-4? Well imagine the inferior training on a Mig-21, when pilots are trianed to save the plane instead of battle against other planes, the NVA had shitty pilots anyways. Honest, how about you stop being so "US is so great" and actually look at the planes and the experience behind them before judging planes


BTW, Picard, are you referring to the Su-27 Flanker (rival to teh F-15C)

[Alias]

Please, would someone bloody please tell me why the Spitfire is not Number 1? Without it, we would all be Nazi's.

[Overdose]

We aren't Nazis because germany was too slow to train their sailors to the supreme technology (at the time) of the Type XXI 'Elektroboote' took too long to take place (115 were built and only 2 got to be on patrol). With just a little push and they would've completely replace the Type VIIs as the main arsenal of the german Kriegsmarine.

In case you are confused, the Type XXI is the grandfather of all modern submarines and it's the first capable and created for completely submerged combat meaning that it didn't even need a periscope to aim as it only needed sonar contact and it's also the first submarine with a self loading torpedo mechanism and could fire 17 torpedoes in 20 minutes.

The reason why American and Soviet submarine technology became so advanced after the war is because a pair were brought back to both countries. The US liked the Type XXI so much that both were commissioned for up to 5 years in the Navy while Russia made a cheaper to produce (yet not as powerful) version of it's own.

Yes I got carried away xD now back to this highly biased top-10 fighter list.

Edited by Overdose, 24 February 2007 - 08:41.

[Eddy01741]

Alias, on 24 Feb 2007, 02:37, said:

Please, would someone bloody please tell me why the Spitfire is not Number 1? Without it, we would all be Nazi's.

No, it would only lead to the destruction of Britain in the Battle of Britain, but i'm American, not British, so I wouldn't become Nazi. Lets see, why the P-51 is better. It's more manuverable, MUCH longer range (first fighter to have even NEAR the range of a bomber, this helped VERY considerably because bombers desperately needed escorts), better high altitude performance, and it has the numbers to show it (look at K: D ratio). Mustang is the number one fighter ever, it's unarguable. The Mustang was the best fighter in WWII (at least produced in the masses and used for the RIGHT purposes unlike the COUGHCOUGHME262COUGHCOUGH), and World War II is the only massive scale battle where planes can prove themselves actually worthy. They arn't going against underdogs that are very poorly trained with poor equipment like in Vietnam and kind of Korea. Look at it this way, if there was a WWIII, like in between the gulf war and Vietnam, then the F-15 would be on the top no questions asked, but so far it has little over 100 kills (although no losses to enemy fighters), and has not proved itself against well trained pilots (like Israelis, Indians, some Russians like Yevgeny Frolov). Anyways, getting back to the arguement, no question the Spitfire was a great fighter, but it was still only about equal with the BF-109 and considered by many to be inferior to the Fw-190 in many aspects (THAT is what I'm wondering, where the hell is the Fw-190). At least Spitfire had the best plane engine, which was also fitted into the P-51 (without the merlin engine, the P-51 would be unbelieivably bad).