Posted on 05/06/2005 2:01:49 PM PDT by squidly
These are the top ten fighter aircraft ever, as chosen by the folks who choose such things at The Military Channel.
The scoring system is based on five criteria:
Kill ratio
Fear factor (the amount of terror the plane struck in its enemies' hearts, sounds kinda subjective to me)
Innovation
Production rating (cost, ease of maintenance, etc.)
Service length
So without further ado.....
10. F/A-22 Raptor. Top of the scale on innovation and fear factor, but gets N/A for kill ratio and service length, and a low production rating due to its $200 million per plane price tag.
9. Sea Harrier FA2. Good kill ratio, fearsome fear factor per the Argentines, top marks on innovation, and a lengthy service length. Not so hot on production rating - maintenance issues, mainly.
8. Sopwith Camel. Another strong kill ratio for a British plane, also high scores in fear factor and service length. I can't remember what kind of innovation score it got. Low on production rating, as it was a maintenance nightmare.
7. Messerschmidt 262. Highest innovation score on the list. Good kill ratio, and practically off the scale for fear factor. Short service length and high cost keep it down at #7.
6. Supermarine Spitfire. Strong scores across the board without being head of the class in any one category. TMC's panel of experts kept going on about what a pretty plane it was.
4 - tie. F-86 Sabre and Mig-15. F-86 had a rockin' kill ratio, and was strong in every other category save innovation, as it ripped off the ME 262 in several ways. The Russkie plane had high fear factor and service length, and the best production rating on the list, but scored less spectacularly in kill ratio and was not innovative.
3. F-4 Phantom. Longest service length on the list. High innovation score due to its being the first plane to carry such a wide variety of armaments. Good fear factor and production rating. Somewhat modest kill ratio.
2. F-15C Eagle. Best kill ratio on the list. Pretty much maxed out in every other category as well, save production rating due to its high unit cost.
1. P-51D Mustang. High in all categories. Slightly lower on innovation due to its borrowing of the Spitfire's Merlin engine, but still a good innovation score thanks to being the first fighter plane to use drop tanks.
Overrated: Mig-15, F-4 Phantom.
Considering that the F-86 vs. Mig-15 head to head produced a kill ratio of 700 to 68 in favor of the F-86, I find it laughable that the Mig is tied for fourth with it. If they felt obligated to put a Russkie plane on the list, which I wouldn't have, they should have chosen the Mig-29F.
The F-4's performance in combat was too spotty for it to be #3, imo. However, it's versatility and long service do earn it a place in what should have been the lower reaches of the top 10.
Underrated: Messerschmidt 262, F-15C Eagle.
The 262 could have won the war if the krauts had only kept building them and sending them up.
IMO, the Eagle's kill ratio and combat record speak for themselves. Should have been #1.
I also find it odd that, by their criteria, a single engine Cessna gets a higher production rating than the F/A-22 or F-15C. That doesn't make it a better fighter plane though.
no F-14's?
I think the F-14 is a great fighter and one of the reasons that no one wants to play tag with our carriers....
Or perhaps its just their obvious bias against Grumman products.
could be, I dont know...
I dont know how the F22 could rate right now....
F-4 also had horrible swichology but was/is in service for almost 50 years!
ping
I figured you might have an opinion on this. ;-]
What about the Grumman F4F3 Wildcat!!!!!! Wake, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Butch O'Hare, Jimmy Thatch---that list is BOGUS!!!
Where is the F6F Hellcat or the F4U Corsair? The Pacific War could not have been fought without that tandem.
McDonnell Douglas must be paying TMC a lot of advertising dough or something. Grumman definitely got dissed on this list.
Where's the Strike Eagle? It'd pretty much the baddest thing in the sky except for the F/A 22.
Either the ME-109 or the FW-190 (my pick) should have made this list. Both were produced in great numbers and had a tremendous impact in air combat. Far greater and for far longer than the Sopwith Camel fer cryin out loud.
The F4F3 was a tough, heavily-armed fighter. It flew from escort carriers throughout the war, I belive. But if it weren't for the superior battle tactics of the Marine pilots on Guadalcanal, this plane would have earned as horrible a reputation as some other forgettable aircraft -- like Bell's P-39 AirCobra.
No F4U's either. Cossacks.
Good grief, what a biased list. I don't see any mention whatsoever of the P-47 Thunderbolt or the P-38 Lightning, both absolutely awesome fighter aircraft.
Of course, my selection is biased, as well!
And someone has already mentioned that kill ratios are as much a function of the pilots as the abilities of the aircraft. The F-15 has a high kill ratio...but, correct me if I'm wrong...aren't the two Gulf Wars their only air-to-air combat experience? Again, you have to consider the relative skills of the pilots involved.
The F4 Phantom II was more of a bomber than a fighter. It's deficiencies in ACM forced the development of the F14/F15 & F16. If it weren't used to good effect in ACM engagements by the Israelis, I don't know what kind of reputation that the Phantom would have.
Where's the warthog in this list?
A6?
Pictures, always appreciated...
Perhaps splitting hairs, but the A10 is an attack plane, not a fighter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.