Well, I would agree with MiG-23MLD that the F-15 has the cleanest record of fighting….
except that one F-22 took down five F-15s (all of them F-22 pilots) no problem. Basically, while testing the F-22’s stealth and radar range capabilities, F-22 pilots (where were old F-15 pilots) attempted to do everything they could to find and attack the F-22….
but they never even SAW it. One of the pilots noted that after being “shot down” by the machineguns, the first time he saw it was when the F-22 flew over his head. He didn’t even see it fly by on his radar. None of the F-15s even got a lock on it; none of them could even dogfight with it.
In another training exercise (or same one, I don’t remember) in Alaska, 8 F-22s took down 33 F-15s. Same results: None of the F-15s ever saw them, no target locks, no dogfighting.
Come on see first this, what i like about the F-15 is it has kept what it has promised, it has fought the MiG-25, the MiG-29 and the MiG-23 and has beat them all.
I mean even the Russians admitt the F-15 is a great aircraft
For example the F-15 shot down close to 30 MiG-21s, around 15 MiG-23s, 4 MiG-25s and around 10 MiG-29s, i mean the aircraft shot down the high performance MiG-25, the agile MiG-29, the fast MiG-23 and the numerous MiG-21 besides other aircraft among them the Mirage F1.
Of course some have been lost, the number might be debateable, but the number is less than 10% of the kills it has achieved and i mean even taking in consideration russian sources, and less the 4% if we only consider westen sources.
Now compare the F-22 and the F-15 is unfair, we need to see the F-15 shot down aircraft of its own generation and of earlier generation.
The F-22 will be as great as the F-15 if it shoot downs lots of PAK FA or XXJs

See that for example the aircraft was built in large number in Japan, Israel and Saudi Arabia bought large number of the F-15, Korea has bought also another important number, so it has some degree of commercial success, probably other fighters could have done quit similar however one thing about the F-15 is quit remarkable is even newer fighters like the MiG-29 were stll shot down, yeah we can say their pilots were not as good it is true the F-15 fought with some degree of superiority in numbers but still the aircratf never disappointed their users.
Lightning (climb rate and perfection in its role… years ahead of its time)
TSR2 (looks, looks and looks again…. even if it didn’t make it into production)
Harrier (class of its own and hugely underrated by its own country of origin)
Thought I’d put in a non-pc, British boost as an antidote to all the US and Soviet love-in going on above…
Man i am surprised by your choices, to my opinion none except probably the Harrier deserve to be in the 10 top modern fighters.
The Lighting was a Horrible looking aircraft, never was produced like the MiG-21 in large numbers and its combat record is practically ignored, technologically is no more advanced than the MiG-19.
TheT SR2 another aicraft that was not even in operational service to even called one of the best aircraft of all times.
The Harrier has been easy to shoot down by MANPADS and has had a terrible service career suffereing many losses to accidents.
the only place where it scores high is its technological achievements, but i guess it is in reality minimal because modern aircraft use the Yak-141 configuration and not the Harrier`s so in that regard it never became a trend setter.
Speed was also a big weakness tha Harrier had, in fact the harrier can be engaged simply using high speed and long range BVR missiles, Argentina never used proper tactics with the Harrier and never had good variants of IR AAMs.
The Su-27, MiG-29 and F-15I can deal with the Harrier`s VIFFing agility simply with Pugachev`s Cobras, Python Vs or AA-11s
Ok. Firstly, I don’t want a lot of loyalty crap (who does?) on, “YOU AMERICANS ARE **** AND YOUR AIRCRAFT SUCK *** AND blah, blah, blah!”
Or, better yet, “Nough said” comments (Aircraft XX is better than XY. Nough said.) If you’re going to say something PLEASE put meaning behind it. Otherwise, its just your opinion versus someone else’s facts or interesting statements.
Thirdly, “modern” could mean anything after WWII.
Top Ten Modern Military Aircraft:
— Best kill ratio
— Overall status (of the time)
— Looks (heh, heh, in some cases, “ugly” or “scary” may be put into thought over “sexy”. Such as, A-10 scores high because its ugly, or the F-16 scores high because its sexy or cool.)
— Survivability (compared to aircraft and systems of the day)
— Cost
— Technology (of the time)
— Influence on history
— Most destructive/terrifying
— Mission success rate
— Capacity/capabilities (for its intended job)You might’ve noticed “at the time” everywhere. Well, obviously, state of the art technology in 1970 isn’t the same as it is now. Heck, I picked 10 comparisions, so we could even do a best aircraft in each.
(Basically, I’m just curious to see what people would say. More of a poll than a competition.)
I feel no aircraft can win in all the categories you want to be the basis for winning the trophy, but yeah honestly the F-15 should be the number one because no other aircraft has a combat record as clean as F-15.
best kill ratio: even counting it fought mostly MiG-21s and MiG-23s, it has proven capable of shooting down the MiG-29 and MiG-25
Its overall status has been the best operational fighter since 1972.
The F-15 also looks cool, few have been lost in combat and few in accidents
It was expensive in that sense the aircraft scores low but it was worthed so it has a good price.
So as far as technological achievement well the aircraft might have not been as agile as the MiG-29 or Su-27 but armed with AIM-120 and AIM-9X still rules the sky.
What i like of the F-15 is despite some new aircraft are definitively better the F-15 still can fight them and probably beat them thanks to excellent upgrades that keep them as ferocious as ever.
Get a Su-30MKI and arm your F-15I with Python V and the Su-30MKI won`t have it very easy the F-15 has excellent avionics and has been upgraded and kept as advance as even new modern fighters such as the Rafale and Eurofighter and probaly only recently the F-22 and Eurofighter can claim being better.
I mean it is true the MiG-29OBT and SU-30MKI are only better at BVR gun combat compared to the F-15, but still the F-15 has been proven to be the best all around fighter of all times since 1945 and the combat record speaks for it self.

The only other fighter i could say honestly can compete with the F-15 is the MiG-21 and think in the last half of the XX century only the F-15 and MiG-21 are really the best fighters of all time.

Other aircraft for example have not good reliable scores, the F-14 is one of them its combat record in an unclear one specially its combat record claimed by the Iranians; the F-16 has been shot down and in some wars has failed to kill in air to air combat, the MiG-23 and F-4 endoutedly were good aircraft but both designs were shot down in large numbers, the F-86 and MiG-15 became obsolete fast, other aircraft like the MiG-25 or Mirage III are other too excellent aircraft however despite being excellent aircraft never were as fearful or had the longevity that the F-15 and MiG-21 have
Ok. Firstly, I don’t want a lot of loyalty crap (who does?) on, “YOU AMERICANS ARE **** AND YOUR AIRCRAFT SUCK *** AND blah, blah, blah!”
Or, better yet, “Nough said” comments (Aircraft XX is better than XY. Nough said.) If you’re going to say something PLEASE put meaning behind it. Otherwise, its just your opinion versus someone else’s facts or interesting statements.
Thirdly, “modern” could mean anything after WWII.
Top Ten Modern Military Aircraft:
— Best kill ratio
— Overall status (of the time)
— Looks (heh, heh, in some cases, “ugly” or “scary” may be put into thought over “sexy”. Such as, A-10 scores high because its ugly, or the F-16 scores high because its sexy or cool.)
— Survivability (compared to aircraft and systems of the day)
— Cost
— Technology (of the time)
— Influence on history
— Most destructive/terrifying
— Mission success rate
— Capacity/capabilities (for its intended job)You might’ve noticed “at the time” everywhere. Well, obviously, state of the art technology in 1970 isn’t the same as it is now. Heck, I picked 10 comparisions, so we could even do a best aircraft in each.
(Basically, I’m just curious to see what people would say. More of a poll than a competition.)
My vote is like this
The best modern fighter is undoutedly the F-15

There are many new aircraft some are betetr in many ways but in combat record i guess the f-15 is the best, it has had losses but its operational carrer has shown it has gotten the best combat record of any modern aircraft.
2-MiG-21
3-MiG-25
4-Mirage III
5-F-4
6-F-86
7-MiG-15
8-F-14
9-MiG-23
10-MiG-29
Swing Wings
I tend to disagree. The swing wing was half heritage and half necessity on the Tomcat. In the late 60s, nearly everything had swing wings (F-14, Tornado, MiG-23, Tu-22, B-1A (which was in planning), Mirage VG).
Your story about drag has wet feet: Drag increases basically squared with speed, but only for subsonic speeds. When the airflow becomes transonic, things get funny. Right is that aircraft with high wing sweep experience less transonic drag rise between 0.9 and 1.2 (which is a reason the Hornet has a little drag problem in this region), but there are better ways:
- A delta with moderate sweep and good high lift (blown flaps) gives nearly equal results.
- Accept higher AoA at carrier approach.
- Reduce weight!!!!! Don’t have a 19ton empty weight supersonic fighter on your deck!
The big drawback of variable sweep is weight, limited structural strength, complexity and limited number of pylons. That does not offset the advantages any more. Just look for the last proposal with swing wings.
Funnily the Tomcat wasn’t particularly good in aerodynamics. The lateral stability must be considered poor in some flight regimes (OK for 1970, but not OK for 2005).
Your “supersonic manouvering” is limited on the Tomcat mostly by the G-limit and the available thrust, I don’t think that contro authority is an issue. Again: How many tri-plane configs have entered service? Additional surface = additional drag and weight. Not the best way to lose something of the 19 tons.And it wouldn’t help too much. Look how F-18 and Su-27 achieve superior lateral stability. The F-14’s vertical fins are shadowed for higher AoAs. However, with modern control techniques and high authority FBW you could help out, but this would again need considerable investment.
I don’t consider the USN as extremely wise, especially is it always between needs, lobbies and congress (like basically every western military organisation). But I think they had their reasons for trading speed against stealth. Flying supersonic close to ground is luxury no fighter can afford for more than 2-3 minutes. For max speed dry at SL you will see Tomcat and Hornet within a range of maximum Mach 0.05.
Actually, I didn’t really consider it. But I don’t see why a mobile force like the US Navy should put the focus on range. For a force that is mostly limited by the number of aircraft available, the focus is on high availability, easy maintenance, similar stocks of weapons and spares, and multi-mission capability.
It is limited to M1.88 for most times and will not sustain anything beyond that speed much long, either.
The aircraft you propose would have its advantages, but it would not save much costs, would still carry the inherent weaknesses of the Tomcat (weight!) and would look best in a photoshop fan-work. Actually, that is all that I have ever seen of the Tomcat 21.
I think the F-14 could had been upgraded if only they had kept it in production as long as they kept F-18A/C on the production lines.
But since it never achieved large production orders and they destroyed all the machinery to build new Tomcats, the only thing left was either upgrade old airframes or simply retire it.
If the F-14 would had recieved AIM-9Xs. Meteors, and AIM-120 i guess it would had continue as a long range fighter for a few more years however now even the tiny JAS-39 can carry Meteors, AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs i see no need in having the F-14, when you can get F-18Es with the same weapons the JAS-39 carries, the US can simply get some Meteors and AIM-9Xs and they will be able to fight with any rival much better than the F-14 and with some extra air refueling the F-18E will get the range it needs.
Much more interesting would be dry thrust numbers, TBO, afterburner cycles, maintainability (not to be confused with TBO) SFC etc. We’re not even getting half the picture when talking about max static thrust. Another interesting question is is there a limit on sustained supersonic conditions? The F119 has a titanium front end so it can handle long periods of supersonic flight. The F135 doesn’t have this. Without these (classified) numbers we’re once again pissing into the wind. Yet, here we are once again…
BDF
Man you do not have niether reliable information for the F119 or the AL-41F to compare both types in terms of reliability and maintainability to even consider you will compare both types in 2007, there is not sufficient information available to compare both types and know which engine it is better in terms of maintainability and serviceability.
But at least in terms of thrust, supercruise ability and thrust vectoring capability, the Russian engine is not second to the american engine
We’re still waiting for you to explain this one. What did either of these men invent with regard to engines?
Wasn’t it just a couple of days ago that you said 2007? What happened?
Sukhoi will release the information when it is convinient, The Russian defence minister Sergei Ivanov declared that the Indian-Russian aircraft will fly in 2009.
he also said last year that in 2007 the Fifth generation will fly, you can be an exceptic and claim it never will fly, but surely it will fly but it is possible it will happen within a short period of time perhaps a year or two
Mig obviously has no idea of what he’s talking about and as usual they are based in fantasy most of the time.
Why you do not say that to the Russians news out lets, you do not know nothing:rolleyes: , man please see that most of the information i get comes from Russian news outlets.
Is this the quality of education in those places these days? What is the mass flow rate of these engines? Recall the F-4K/M? And that’s just one small aspect out of so many.
So what about the MiG-23 that can accept different engines of different thrust yields? what about the F-15 and F-16 both can be powered by different engines or the same types of engines and have different inlets?
What about the Su-27 that can accept engines of different yields?
I guess you have a very fixed idea, many aircraft accept different engines that is not a big problem, the most important aspect is the speed and altitude and aircraft flows;) because any aircraft needs more less a fix amount air flow volume.
http://www.be-and-co.com/ako/dvigate…l-uzh-slozhno/
двигателя этого типа создают самолету тяговооруженность на земле на режиме «полный форсаж», соответствующую 1,2 ед. Это выше, чем у любого другого истребителя в мире, будь то Eurofighter-2000, Mirage-2000 или да¬же Су-37. Поэтому, чтобы приблизиться или превзойти характеристики F-22 Raptor, отечественный истребитель МиГ необходимо оснастить силовой установкой из двух ТРДДФ, способных обеспечить на земле при работе на режиме «полный форсаж» это же значение тяговооруженности. Для российских авиационных комплексов семейства «Су» такой ТРДДФ должен обладать тягой на режиме полного форсажа в 20.000 кгс на каждый двигатель, то есть, суммарной тягой силовой установки в 40.000 кгс. Для МиГ-23МЛ подобным двигателем может стать ТРДДФ АЛ-41 Ф или ему подобный 5-го поколения.
This is explained as following; a fifth generation russian fighter needs at least a unitary thrust of an AL-41 of 20000 kgs and a a total of 40000kg to beat the F-22 in terms of thrust to weight ratio, higher than the 26000kgs a Su-27 generates currently however a single engine should be able to power and generate enough power to give to the PAK-FA a thrust to weight ratio of 1.2:1 in the case of the MiG-23ML, this is only achieved with the retrofitting of an AL-41F, that gives it a thrust to weight ratio similar to the F-22 or PAK-FA
See that the MiG-23 is a quit light aircraft, its empty weight is only 9900kgs so an AL-41 gives it a really high thrust to weight ratio in the class of the F-22, even its weight load is only 14700kg
Now let us examine a question about the maneuverability characteristics of this machine, using a procedure of German professor K Heineker, and by the Russian development of the author of this article (published in the collection of the works of defense of the University of Debrezeite in 2001.). With respect to it we compare horizontal turn rate with the use of a nozzle with variable thrust vectoring and without it.
We calculated the turn radius while this maneuvering. Which is interesting, if we compared to the F-22
We assume, that the turning of the nozzle is achieved in the pitching plane to the angles +- 20° as in F -22, so in MiG-23ML. The ratio of the parameters of angular rate of rotation MiG-23ML to F -22 composes 0,963.
Теперь рассмотрим вопрос о маневренных характеристиках этой машины, используя методику немецкого профессора К.Хайнека,дополненную российской разработкой автора этой статьи (опубликована в сборнике трудов Оборонного университета в Деб-ре-Зейте в 2001 г.). По ней мы сравниваем скорость вращения самолета на вираже в горизонтальной плоскости с применением многоракурсного сопла с изменяемым вектором тяги и без такового. Или рассчитываем радиус виража, который описывает самолет при этом маневре. Что любопытно, сравнивать будем с истребителем F-22 Raptor.Принимаем, что поворот многоракурсного сопла осуществляется в плоскости тангажа на углы +/- 20° как у F-22, так и у МиГ-23МЛ. Отношение параметров угловой скорости вращения МиГ-23 к F-22 составляет 0,963. То есть, старенький советский истребитель .
the parameters, identical for both engines [TRDDF]) it is obtained by 1550,7 m, and it is identical in both machines. Thus, [re-engine of domestic fighter aircraft is capable of drawing nearer and of even making even the parameters of maneuverability of the MiG-23ML with the F-22 Raptor. The angular velocity of turn in this case corresponds 12° per second.
параметрах, идентичных для обоих ТРДДФ) получается 1550,7 м, и у обеих машин одинаков. Таким образом, ремоторизация отечественных истребителей способна приблизить и даже уравнять параметры маневренности МиГ-23МЛ с F-22 Raptor. Угловая скорость виража при этом соответствует 12° в секунду.
__________________
Yet, the article you quoted says that it is a prototype.
That is correct it is prototype but it also says the engine has passed the trial tests and is ready to become operational, according to what i have read basicly the PAK FA is poised to fly in 2009 and by 2014 it will be operational, see that basicly it was similar with the MiG-29 and F-16 or the F-15 and Su-27, the Su-27 entered operational service in 1986 and the MiG-29 in 1982 around 10 years after the F-15 and F-14 and less than 10 years from the F-18.
The F-22 at least will be operational until 2040 so why you think the Russians are late they are basicly on time specially since the F-22 is a fighter takes to long to be build and few will be build, it is not like the F-15 that more than 1000 were build for the USAF even not close to the 700 F-14 built;)
See the f-35 still is in prototype form too and the F-22 is basicly a really good aircraft but few have been built
ИНДИЯ ПОМОЖЕТ РОССИИ С ИСТРЕБИТЕЛЕМ ПЯТОГО ПОКОЛЕНИЯ
Вице-премьер – министр обороны РФ Сергей Иванов сообщил, что истребитель пятого поколения будет создан совместными усилиями России и Индии и поднимется в воздух в 2009 году
India WILL HELP Russia WITH THE DESTROYER OF THE FIFTH GENERATION
vice-premier – Minister of Defense RF Sergey Ivanov it reported, that the destroyer of the fifth generation will be created with the joint efforts of Russia and India and it will rise into air in 2009
1. an engine that “flew” (I presume that ” ” mean that it “flew” on a testbench :p) only 30 hours can not be used on anything yet.
2. Is there a Russian “aircraft of the fifth generation” flying around and no one is yet aware of?:diablo:
Aurcov
It seems you forget very easily the Mig 1.44 had AL-41s, today the Russians are making a better engine called Al-41F, this engine is the definitive engine for their newer PAK FA.
the engine is in fact older than you think, Russia has had the Al-41 for several years but as you might know, the MiG-144 was not the definitive fighter they wanted, the specifications changed, the engine specificatons too in fact they are talking about the AL-41F;)
source
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%90%D0%9A_%D0%A4%D0%90
Let me quote the key words used in the article: …TESTS…prototype … You got it? :p The equivalent in US would be the F 119. This one flew in 1990…We are in 2007, right?
Let me remeber you this
today it can be used as the power plant on the aircraft of the fifth generation”, – stated by the central board VVS of Russia Vladimir Mikhaylov
Young man, I can only agree with you. After all, that’s exactly what I’ve said: the newest Russian engine (in testbed stage in 2007) can at last compete with two engines introduced by US in mid ’80 (and powering by now thousands of frontline fighters)…:D ??? Regarding engines???:eek:
СУХОЙ» ЗАВЕРШИЛ ИСПЫТАНИЯ ДВИГАТЕЛЯ ДЛЯ ИСТРЕБИТЕЛЕЙ ПЯТОГО ПОКОЛЕНИЯ
Опытный образец двигателя для российского истребителя пятого поколения прошел испытания. «В ОКБ Сухого выполнены десятки полетов, двигатель полностью подтверждает расчетные характеристики и уже сегодня может использоваться в качестве силовой установки на самолете пятого поколения», – заявил главком ВВС России Владимир Михайлов.
Проектирование двигателя АЛ-41 осуществляет НПО «Сатурн». В работе принимают участие специалисты машиностроительного завода «Салют», завода имени Климова и других ведущих двигателестроительных предприятий.
превосходит по абсолютной и удельной тяге существующие двигатели АЛ-31 используемые на истребителях семейства Су-27, а также отличается большим межремонтным ресурсом.
«Двигатель 117С для ПАК ФА уже «налетал» более 30 часов, – сообщил глава НПО «Сатурн» Юрий Ласточкин. – Он полностью отвечает требованиям, предъявляемым ВВС к авиационным энергетическим установкам нового поколения.»
Движок — это главное у истребителя 5-го поколения. Он должен обеспечить не только высокую грузоподъемность, маневренность машины, но и сверхзвуковой крейсерский полет. На современных моторах, стоящих на истребителях «Су» или «МиГ», это возможно только при кратковременном включении форсажа, что приводит к перерасходу топлива и износу самого мотора. Новый двигатель НПО «Сатурн» совершенно спокойно выдает на килограмм собственного веса тягу в 10—12 тонн, что позволяет без особых проблем летать на крейсерской сверхзвуковой скорости — более 1200 км в час. В КБ «Сухого» рассказывают, что во время обкатки нового мотора на серийном истребителе Су-27 пилотам удалось превысить считавшиеся предельными пилотажные возможности машины.
«Некоторые из этих полетов стоят на грани мировых рекордов, — рассказывает Ласточкин. — Например, у самолетов «Су» есть предельная скорость, которой они достигают с обычными двигателями, сейчас она значительно превышена. Это говорит о том, что истребитель может летать быстрее, брать больше ракетно-бомбового вооружения и при этом обладать большей маневренностью. А также позволяет делать вывод, что внедрение двигателя 117С не только на истребителях 5-го поколения, но и на обычных войсковых «сушках» даст существенный прирост боевых возможностей ВВС.»
http://legion.wplus.net/news/5th.shtml#LAST
SUKHOI COMPLETED THE TESTS OF ENGINE FOR THE DESTROYERS OF THE FIFTH GENERATION
the prototype of engine for the Russian destroyer of the fifth generation it underwent tests. “In OKB Sukhoi are executed tens of flights, engine completely confirms design characteristics and already today it can be used as the power plant on the aircraft of the fifth generation”, – stated by the central board VVS of Russia Vladimir Mikhaylov.
The design of engine AL -41 achieves [NPO] “Saturn”. In the work participate the specialists of the Machine Building Plant “Salyut”, plant the name of Klimov and other leading engine-building enterprises.
it exceeds on the absolute and specific thrust the existing engines AL -31 the utilized on the destroyers families Su-27, and it is also characterized by the large resource between repairs.
“The engine of 117[S] for PACK [FA] already “flew” more than 30 hours, – reported chapter [NPO] “Saturn” Yuri Lastochkin. – It completely satisfies requirements, by presented VVS to the aviation power plants of new generation.”
Cursor – this the main thing in the destroyer of the 5th generation. It must ensure not only high load capacity, the maneuverability of machine, but also supersonic cruise. On the contemporary motors, confronting on the destroyers “sou” or “MiG”, this is possible only with the short-term start of afterburner, which leads to the excessive fuel consumption and the wear of motor itself. The new engine OF [NPO] “Saturn” completely quietly issues to the kilogram of dead weight thrust of 10-12 tons, what makes it possible without the special problems to fly at cruising supersonic speed – more than 1200 km in hour. In KB “of dry” they say, which during the running-in of new motor on the series destroyer Su-27 for pilots was possible to exceed the counted by maximum piloting possibilities of machine.
“Some of these flights cost on the face of world records, – says Lastochkin. – For example, the aircraft “sou” have maximum speed, by which they reach with the usual engines, now it is considerably exceeded. This speaks about that, that the destroyer can fly more rapidly, to take more than rocket- bomb armament and in this case to possess larger maneuverability. But also it makes it possible conclusion, that the introduction of the engine of 117[S] not only on the destroyers of the 5th generation, but also on the usual troop “dryings” will give considerable increase in the combat capabilities VVS.”
http://legion.wplus.net/news/5th.shtml#LAST
Источник: vg-news.ru, 22.01.2007
I wouldn’t dare to compare the prototype of AL 31F with those US engines. I think that the AL 31F is more in the class of F 129/F 229 (same thrust, but probably half lifetime:p ). Considering that they manage to field such a prototype in 2007, that means that they are “only” 20 years behind US (F 229 and F 129 flown in 1986):diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo:
Say that to Eugeny Frolov or Victor Pugachev;) yes they will remind you a few things they invented:D :dev2: