• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the Best Fighter Plane in the World

Which is the Best Fighter?

  • F-22 Raptor

    Votes: 15 78.9%

  • EF-2000 Eurofighter

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • F-35 Lightning 2

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Su-50 (T-50) PAK Fa

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Su-48 Berkut

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Total voters
    19
repeter

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Given that the new Russian T-50 has had its first flight, I was wondering what everyone thought was the best fighter plane in the world. Now, I am asking what the best fighter is, as in dogfighter. Bombing roles aside, what do you think is best?

I personally feel the F-22 is best, because of who would be flying it, and the support the pilot would have, without even getting into the abilities of the plane itself.

EDIT: I've left out any fighters which have not yet actually flown.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the F-22.
 
Honestly, there hasn't been real air to air combat with real combatants in 30+ years. We don't really know what the key to success is. Granted, the f-22 dominates in stealth, maneuverability and avionics so it will be excellent regardless. The main problem is that it comes at incredible cost. The best fighter of the future may be a relatively cheap airframe that is basically just a bus for long range missiles and electronics. Or maybe stealth works well enough to limit engagement ranges to dog fights so that you can dump the LPI radar and carry a lot more cannon ammo.
 
repeter said:
I personally feel the F-22 is best, because of who would be flying it, and the support the pilot would have, without even getting into the abilities of the plane itself.[/I]
Click to expand...

But suppose those same pilots, with that same support, were placed in any of the other planes.

Which plane then would be the best?
 
F/A-18

Course I am biased having worked on them.
 
rathi said:
Honestly, there hasn't been real air to air combat with real combatants in 30+ years. We don't really know what the key to success is. Granted, the f-22 dominates in stealth, maneuverability and avionics so it will be excellent regardless. The main problem is that it comes at incredible cost. The best fighter of the future may be a relatively cheap airframe that is basically just a bus for long range missiles and electronics. Or maybe stealth works well enough to limit engagement ranges to dog fights so that you can dump the LPI radar and carry a lot more cannon ammo.
Click to expand...


That's not true. There were air-air fights in the original Gulf War.

F-22 hands down. The Russians wish they could make such a weapon.
 
Arch Enemy said:
That's not true. There were air-air fights in the original Gulf War.

F-22 hands down. The Russians wish they could make such a weapon.
Click to expand...
Oh, they can!
50 years from now.
 
Goobieman said:
Anything a P51 can do, an F4U can do better.
PLUS land on a carrier.
:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Almost any aircraft with a "4" is pretty awesome. The F4U, then F4, and best of all, the A-4, if for no other reason than you can pull 4 bolts and split the aircraft in half.
 
Goobieman said:
Oh, they can!
50 years from now.
Click to expand...
They could, but why would they waste the money? we have learned better, and no longer make them. the Military Machine likes to dream up more expensive toys. then to create neat little wars to use them in. while people starve in the streets at home. Nice move there for sure.
 
The f22 is over priced, requires somewhere around 30 hrs of maintainance after every flight 1 hr to 3 hrs,meaning few to no back to back missions and is comprimised if it gets wet....not a great jet at all.

In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.[144] The Office of the Secretary of Defense puts that figure at 34 hours of maintenance per single hour of flight at a cost of $49,808 per hour of flight.[144] However, a Lockheed spokesman says that the variable cost per flight hour is only $19,000,[143] with a direct maintenance man hours per flight hour of 18.10 in 2008 and 20.48 in 2009.[143] The Pentagon requirement is for 12 hours of maintenance per flight hour.[143]

The F-22 had required maintenance every 0.97 flight hours in 2004. This improved to 3.22 flight hours per maintenance event in production Lot 6 aircraft.[143]
 
pugetsoundwa said:
The f22 is over priced, requires somewhere around 30 hrs of maintainance after every flight 1 hr to 3 hrs,meaning few to no back to back missions and is comprimised if it gets wet....not a great jet at all.

In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.[144] The Office of the Secretary of Defense puts that figure at 34 hours of maintenance per single hour of flight at a cost of $49,808 per hour of flight.[144] However, a Lockheed spokesman says that the variable cost per flight hour is only $19,000,[143] with a direct maintenance man hours per flight hour of 18.10 in 2008 and 20.48 in 2009.[143] The Pentagon requirement is for 12 hours of maintenance per flight hour.[143]

The F-22 had required maintenance every 0.97 flight hours in 2004. This improved to 3.22 flight hours per maintenance event in production Lot 6 aircraft.[143]
Click to expand...

The bolded part is the problem. It's still a relatively new aircraft. FA-18E requires ~19.1 MMH/FH(Maintenance Man-Hours per Flight Hour), and ~1.5 flight hours between failures, but trust me, both those nubmers used to be much different. When I got the the fleet, my squadron had FA-18A's, and the everything from a bad choice in wiring to too weak bulkheads around the landing gear caused us much headache. These problems where fixed with the FA-18C's, and when we got our lot 11's, life got much better for us, and we went from 12/7 to 8/5 work schedule.
 
WII: FW190D, A6M, Yak-3, Ki-84, P-51, Me109 and Spitfire.

Almost forgot F4U.
 
Blackdog said:
WII: FW190D, A6M, Yak-3, Ki-84, P-51, Me109 and Spitfire.

Almost forgot F4U.
Click to expand...

The Me109 was the best looking aircraft from WW2.

me-109.jpg
 
Redress said:
The Me109 was the best looking aircraft from WW2.

me-109.jpg
Click to expand...

I personally liked the look of the FW-190.

But it's all a matter of opinion.
 
The Mark said:
I personally liked the look of the FW-190.

But it's all a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...

I had to look that one up, and yeah, it looks great for the same reason the 109 does, nice clean lines.
 
Redress said:
The bolded part is the problem. It's still a relatively new aircraft. FA-18E requires ~19.1 MMH/FH(Maintenance Man-Hours per Flight Hour), and ~1.5 flight hours between failures, but trust me, both those nubmers used to be much different. When I got the the fleet, my squadron had FA-18A's, and the everything from a bad choice in wiring to too weak bulkheads around the landing gear caused us much headache. These problems where fixed with the FA-18C's, and when we got our lot 11's, life got much better for us, and we went from 12/7 to 8/5 work schedule.
Click to expand...

When I got to the fleet, A's/B's were used in training squadrons only. I worked on the D model myself. Our squadron had lot 14-17 aircraft in it, as we swapped aircraft with other D squadrons who were looking to take 12 airplanes on WestPac tours, or combat tours. Somebody always had a **** aircraft that wasn't going to go anywhere, and the people that just got back from deployment usually took it and gave away their ****tiest aircraft that had limped its way back with all its parts.
 
WI Crippler said:
When I got to the fleet, A's/B's were used in training squadrons only. I worked on the D model myself. Our squadron had lot 14-17 aircraft in it, as we swapped aircraft with other D squadrons who were looking to take 12 airplanes on WestPac tours, or combat tours. Somebody always had a **** aircraft that wasn't going to go anywhere, and the people that just got back from deployment usually took it and gave away their ****tiest aircraft that had limped its way back with all its parts.
Click to expand...

You missed the joys of Kapton wiring and cracked bulkheads and poorly sealed compartments that water got into, and...
 
Redress said:
You missed the joys of Kapton wiring and cracked bulkheads and poorly sealed compartments that water got into, and...
Click to expand...

We had our own issues. My Gunny worked in an A squadron when he was a junior Marine, so we heard the stories about what bitches we were and how easy we had it. I still want to know if they ran out of money after the people who designed the internal workings of parts finished. Because whoever they hired to figure out where to put the parts in the jets, had to have been brought in on the cheap. Its as if somebody was sitting on the flight line and he said "All done" and someone walked up and said " Hey, where should we put this special receiver?"
 
WI Crippler said:
We had our own issues. My Gunny worked in an A squadron when he was a junior Marine, so we heard the stories about what bitches we were and how easy we had it. I still want to know if they ran out of money after the people who designed the internal workings of parts finished. Because whoever they hired to figure out where to put the parts in the jets, had to have been brought in on the cheap. Its as if somebody was sitting on the flight line and he said "All done" and someone walked up and said " Hey, where should we put this special receiver?"
Click to expand...

ALR-67, 'nuff said....
 
I think the A-10 Warthog should really be on the list.

The F-22 generally uses a 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A2 Vulcan gatling gun. The Warthog can pretty much ignore armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm.

So in a fight between the two, the Hog could just wait patiently for its shot while the Raptor ineffectually emptied its arsenal into the Hog's titanium armor. One hit with a round from its 30 mm (1.18 in) GAU-8/A Avenger gatling cannon and the Hog could watch the Raptor shatter like glass.

Add to that the fact that for the cost of an F-22 you could get 50 Warthogs, and there is just no contest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom