Television Program on Top Ten Fighters

[GregP]

Slightly off-topic ... and I apologize.

I saw a program on the Military channel last night that purported to define the top 10 fighter aircraft of all times. Their panel of experts was international and consisted of top Military experts from the U.S.A., the U.K, and Germany. Included were some WWII German Luftwaffe aces as well as famous authors that we all know (Bill Gunston and Mike Spick were included). Not surprisingly, the aircraft chosen were U.S., English, and German, as we might expect. I thought they left out consideration of the Yak-3 and didn't seem to consider Japanese aircraft at all. I also think that any top ten list without the Messerschmitt Bf-109 is flawed in the extreme.

While we have debated this subject in here, the people they had on the staff were acknowledged experts in the field of air warfare. I could go into a long discussion about here, but will instead simply give you their choices.


They rated each aircraft on 5 factors, in no particular order:

1) Kill Ratio
2) Service Length
3) Production Rating (ease of manufacture, including cost factor
4) Innovation
5) Fear Factor (the fear the enemy felt when engaging, helps a lot in actual combat

Their top 10 were:

10) Lockheed-Martin F/A-22 Raptor. Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines. Mach 2.5. 20 mm cannon plus 8 internal missiles. $200M each. Kept down due to little service, and difficulty of production, but expected to move up rapidly when called upon to perform.

9) BAE Sea Harrier. Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine. 736mph. 20 mm cannon plus 8 missiles. In the Falkland, it got 23 kills for zero loss. Surprisingly effective as a fighter.

8) Sopwith Camel. Clerget Rotary engine. 112mph. 2 x .3.3 MG. Average pilot life on the fornt was 2 weeks. Over 1,200 kills during the war. Tough to handle due to the Rotary engine, but was a teror in the air to the enemy.

7) Messerschmitt Me262. Junkers Jumo 004 engines. 540mph. 4 x 30mm cannons. 1,443 made, but less than 300 saw service. First active jet fighter in service, and set the tone for future development.

6) Supermarine Spitfire. Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. 369mph. 8 x .3.3MG or 4 x 20mm cannons. A wonderful aircraft, loved by pilots, friends, and foes alike. Kept at # 6 due to production difficulties and short range, meaning it could not go where it was needed when it was needed. Theyt finally DID get range after the war was all but won, but never was easy to produce.

Tied for 4th (4 & 5) North American F-86 Sabre and MiG-15. Little to choose between them.

*) North American F-86 Sabre. General Electric J-47 engine. 685mph. 6 x .500MG plus 8 x½ -inch rockets. Almost 800 kill vs 78 losses in Korea.

*) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15. Klimov VK1 engine. 668mph. 2 x 23mm plus 1 x 37mm cannons. 35° wing sweep. Rugged, able to operate where other designs couldn't, high;y innovative in its simplicity and ease of maintenance. Great serviceability and very long service life.

They waxed eloquently on both of these aircraft for about 5 minutes out of the hour.

3) McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom. General-Electric J-79 engines. Mach 2.5 (1,485mph), 8 missiles. 277 combat kills. Double ugly, but VERY effective when called upon to fight. DId have problem early in Viet Nam, but recovered to achieve a 10-to-1 kill ratio by the end of the conflict.

2) McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle. Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 engines. Mach 2.5. 20mm cannon plus 8 missiles. Combat record: 396 engagements with 104 kills and zero losses. Kept from # 1 by high costs only. It was stated that if you went into combat, this was THE plane to be flying when the furball starts.

1) North American P-51D Mustang. Packard-built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. 437mph. 6 x .500MG. More than 5,000 kills. For its time, it scored almost maximum in all categories, including ease of production, low cost, and long range. It could escort bombers to and from Berlin when no other plane could do that. They acknowledged that the Spitfire was superb, but said that the numbers of Mustangs, coupled with cost, range, innovation, fear factor, and service length moved the P-51D clearly into #1.

Please note, I did NOT pick this list. I am reporting on a televised program about the subject.

[Wuzak]

Was the opponents of the respective aircarft considered?

I doubt the Raptor has engaged any seriously effective opponent, the F15 would have rarely. The F4 had some decent aircarft against it, but not the most effective operators.

Similarly with the Harrier. Many of those kills, doubtless, came in the Falklands campaign. What sort of opposition did they have to oppose? In any case, the reality is that the Harrier was and is a strike aircarft, rather than an out and out fighter.

The F86 and the Mig 15 did at least square off against each other, with the honours seemingly going to the American aircarft. But again there was not a sustained campaign by the Soviets against the Americans with these aircarft.

The aircraft that were opposed at relatively even levels were the WW1 and WW2 aircraft. So I should have thought that the Spitfire and Mustang would have gained points for that, and that, like you Greg, the Me109 should be on the list.

Now to the Spitfire vs Mustang. The Mustang entered service in Europe late (1943?) and was a generation later than the Spitfire. And the reality was that the war was heavily favoured towards the Allies before, or as, the Mustang was introduced.

I think it does really show how difficult it is to compare across ages.

[Kutscha]

When flown by Soviet pilots, the MiG 15 gave the Sabres a tough time in Korea. N Korean and Chinese pilots were not in the same league as Soviet pilots, many of whom had fought in the GPW against the Germans.

The P-51B arrived in Sept 1943 and flew there first mission in Dec 1943 but the Mustang (Allison powered) had been in combat from May 1942.

The best thing about these shows is the video footage even if the audio does not match the a/c being described.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

They rated each aircraft on 5 factors, in no particular order:

1) Kill Ratio
2) Service Length
3) Production Rating (ease of manufacture, including cost factor
4) Innovation
5) Fear Factor (the fear the enemy felt when engaging, helps a lot in actual combat

They used those criteria, and did not come out with the Bf-109?[V]

I agree with the Camel, the F-86, MiG15, F4, F-15, Mustang & Spitfire.
Additional consideration should be made for the Fokker Triplane, The Bf109, the Focke-Wulf 190 (untouchable when introduced and competative until the end), the Yak-3, the Mirage III, etc.

[pmjwright]

Like everyone else, I can agree with some and disagree with some.

IIRC most Harrier kills were of A-4 Skyhawks and Mirage III, not all that inferior. While it was a multi-role aircraft, its thrust vectoring while in flight allows for some remarkable ACM that conventional aircraft can't hope to match. That gives the Harrier major advantages as a fighter, it shouldn't be so easily discounted.

Raptor--has it even seen combat? How can it make the list?

F-4--most of its opponents were Mig-17 and -19. And for much of its Vietnam service, it had no gun and very unreliable missiles. And later in the war, only USN showed much improved kill ratio, mainly as a result of Top Gun and improved tactics that USAF didn't match. How can bad armament and mediocre kill ratio vs inferior opposition give it a 3rd place rating?

Fear factor--how can Bf-109, Fw-190, Zero (first half of war) and Yak-3 be overlooked? Same goes for Fokker triplane and D-7 in WW1.

Ease of construction--current generation are light years more complex than earlier a/c.

I agree with Wuzak that it's so hard to compare aircraft of different eras. As we've seen here in other multi-multi-page forums, it's hard enough comparing WW2 aircraft!!

[GregP]

I agree with all of you. I think the Bf 109 and Fw 190 deserve a place, certainly moreso than the F/A-22, which has yet to see real service, much less combat. I expect it will be a top of the fighter game, but that is yet to be proven. Expectations are not always met.

The Zero had a fear factor out of sight for the first half of WWII, and was respected until the end unless the Americans had a 50-to-1 advantage. There were never enough Ki-100s or Ki-84s to make a real difference in the war, but Zeros were everywhere.

To me, the Me-262 was a really innovative aircraft, but was an abysmal fighter. It was unmaneuverable in the extreme when compared to its piston rivals, had unreliable engines, ate up large quantities of much-needed German manpower and materials, and was not really a factor in the end. It certainly was a harbinger of the future, and so showed us all the way, but effective? No way.

Overlooking the Yak-3 and La-5 is a serious flaw. These aircraft were among the best in the world at their trade. The Soviets certainly made a strong recovery after being decimated early in the fight.

As for WWI, the Fokker D.VII was the best fighter of it day, bar none.

Ah well, what do so-called "experts" really know anyway? They probably don't read our forum, so they're not really experts! [:p]

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

F-4--most of its opponents were Mig-17 and -19. And for much of its Vietnam service, it had no gun and very unreliable missiles. And later in the war, only USN showed much improved kill ratio, mainly as a result of Top Gun and improved tactics that USAF didn't match. How can bad armament and mediocre kill ratio vs inferior opposition give it a 3rd place rating?

It did do very well in Israeli service...

[pmjwright]

Ricky.
I had assumed that most Israeli/Arab air combat had involved the Mirage III and Kfir, but your comment got me to look into it some more. You are of course correct. F-4E Kurnass did well in early 1970s (11:2 kill ratio, though one was a Libyan 727), and especially in the Yom Kippur War.

Hey, this raises another candidate: Mirage III/Mirage 5/IAI Kfir. It had a long service length (40+ years), innovative (VTOL-capable IIIV), economical, built in large numbers, and it also had a very impressive record in IAF service through several wars.

[andyo2000]

quote:Originally posted by pmjwright

Ease of construction--current generation are light years more complex than earlier a/c.

I would say this is pretty true. However, when compared to its counterparts certain planes will be easier and harder to build. If the Air Force decided to build Fokker Triplanes instead of F-22s, we'd have enough to use as landfill. However, I doubt we'd have much of an air defense anymore :D[:p][:p]

[Lightning]

Hi All,

*Kill Ratio
*Cost
*Ease of construction

With these factors considered by the "experts" as being important, how could they have EVER left out the F6F Hellcat?

Regards,
Lightning

[GregP]

Good question Lightning and I agree with you.

The F6F Hellcat had the best kill ratio of any fighter series, piston or jet, despite the musings of the FM-2 crowd, up until the F-15 Eagle. The FM-2 was a Wildcat, and belongs with Wildcats.

It was relatively cheap and was the most effective carrier fighter ever. But heck, if they omitted the Yak-3/9 and La-5, why not the Hellcat?

It just goes to show you that even so-called "experts" don't think much alike. Personally, I would never have included a WWI type since they were still inventing effective aircraft well into the 1930s. I would also not have included the F/A-22 since it is just barely into service, and not much at that. I would also never have included the Me-262. It did nothing for the German war effort.

With these three spots, I would have included the Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat, the Yakovlev Yak-3 series or the Lavochkin La-5FN series, and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 series. I also would probably have included the Mitsubishi Zero in lieu of the Harrier.

[Ricky]

I would assume that the Hellcat lost out on length of service.
It 'only' had 2 years of service.

Admittedly the Sopwith Camel only had about the same, but back then things moved faster.:)

[simon]

I thought that the Hellcat was still being used by the French in Indochina, in any case if you're going discount the Hellcat's length of Service, how the hell did the F-22 and Me262 get in there?!?

[Ricky]

Err... Umm...

[xx(]

[Double T]

Simon:
Perhaps you are confusing the Hellcat with the BEARCAT in French service Indo-China 1950's.
The French and Royal Thai airforces used Bearcats in that timeframe.
The Royal Thai aircraft were some very colorful birds...

Tim

[simon]

No, I knew the Bearcats were there and some Corsairs too, I'm sure I'd heard of Hellcats as well, perhaps I was wrong.

[ChrisMcD]

To be cynical, I do not think that you have allowed for the American/British audience of the TV show.= and availability of cheap footage.

10) F22 - latest and best?

9) Harrier - Recent, makes good TV, actualy shot aircraft down in peoples lifetime.

8) Sopwith Camel - gives programme historical scope, was actualy significant (as opposed to small number of Tripes)

7) Me 262 - it was a paradigm shift - the first jet fighter that actualy got to fight, and if Galland had got his way would have made a real mess of the Mighty 8th

6) Spitfire - Brits would boycot programme if it was missed out

4/5) Sabre/Mig 15 Our german airodynamacists/british jet engines were better than yours! Or to be realistic,another paradigm shift - to the first real jet fighters that actualy fought. And what a surprise that Mig was!

3) Phantom F4 - Even as a protagonist of two seater fighters I am surprised at how high up the Phantom is. OK it had a good Vietnam, but the Mig 17/19's must have the purist fighter vote. Has anyone got the story behind the USAF/RAF insult about the Phantom K? Something to the effect that "when bitches get old and 'spayed' its not surprising they get fat in the arse and slow down!"

2) F 15 currently top gun - nuff said

1) Mustang - THE paradigm shifter! To quote Goering (?) - or was it Scheer. "When I saw it over Berlin I knew that we had lost the war. This one I agree with totaly

But what about the first fighter - the Fokker Eindecker?

What about the Me109 - an essential ingredient of Blitzkrieg

And yes, what about the Hellcat - the aircraft that won the Pacific war

I know we are biased to WWII but even so!

[Kutscha]

If there had been no Sopwith Triplane, there would have been no Fokker Dr1. The fear the Sopwith caused was the reason for the Dr1. As the Dr1 was coming into service, the Sopwith was being phased out.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD


3) Phantom F4 - Even as a protagonist of two seater fighters I am surprised at how high up the Phantom is. OK it had a good Vietnam, but the Mig 17/19's must have the purist fighter vote. Has anyone got the story behind the USAF/RAF insult about the Phantom K? Something to the effect that "when bitches get old and 'spayed' its not surprising they get fat in the arse and slow down!"


The British Govt insisted the RAF Phantoms were powered by RR Spey engines. The F4K/M was the heaviest, slowest and easily most expensive Phantom model. By the time the F4K was operational the Phantom was reaching the end of its first class life with the replacement generation (F15) flying.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi curmudgeon,

Yes, I was aware of the fact that the Phantom K was slower with a pair of more powerful engines.

What I am after is the cunningly crafted 'bon mot'