list of top 20 modern jet fighters (gen 4, 4.5, 5)

[ThinkPad R]

Hi

I'm trying to make a youtube video featuring the top 20 list with pics & stats & ysflight simulation footages

This is what I have got down. Can anyone who has interest in this kind of stuff give me their opinions? Thanks.

01) F-22 Raptor
• Stealth
• Thrust Vector
• Supercruise
02) F-35 Lightning II
• ¾ stealth
• (VTOL)
03) Eurofighter Typhoon
• Long operational range
• Large payload
• Supercruise
• Super maneuverability
04) Su-35 “Super Flanker”
• Supercruise
• Reduced radar signature
• Thrust vector-enabled
• Long operational range
• Large payload
• Very long range AAM & aperature AESA radar
05) Dassault Rafale
• BVR & operational range & payload, all slightly less than Eurofighter Typhoon
• Supercruise
• Higher super maneuverability
06) F-15C/D/E/K/SG (Strike/Slam) Eagle
• APG-63(V)1, 2, 3 AESA BVR
• Long operational range
• Large payload
• High maximum speed of mach 2.5
07) Mig-35 “Fulcrum F”
• Supercruise
• Reduced radar signature
• Smaller operational range and payload, but higher maneuverability than F-15
• Thrust vector-enabled
08) Su-30MKI/MKK “Flanker H” / “Flanker C”
• Thrust vector & front canards provide super maneuverability
• Larger payload
• Weaker airframe with shorter lifespan than the Mig-35 or Su-35
09) F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
10) JAS 39 Gripen NG
11) F-16 E/F/IN Fighting Falcon
12) F/A-18 Hornet
13) Shenyang J-11
14) Su-27 Flanker
15) Mig-29 Fulcrum
16) Chengdu J-10
17) Su-33 “Flanker D”
18) F-16 Fighting Falcon
19) F-14 Tomcat
20) Mirage 2000

[mattbiernat]

you are missing X32 and X35. predator is also top of the line. the "Sub" class of fighters from scandinavia are also said to be better than F16s in terms of performance.

[ThinkPad R]

would that be the Saab's JAS 39 Gripen? I think I have that listed.

[sb102]

I would opt for the russian MiG 31 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31

Features:

Capable of 2.8 mach flights on long distances without using afterburners.
The first plane equiped with a passive electronically scanned array radar (in theory it could detect the first planes designed in STEALTH technology, the F-117 as an example) - the Zaslon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaslon

[mattbiernat]

would that be the Saab's JAS 39 Gripen? I think I have that listed.

yes.

[sparta.rising]

Add VTOL to the F-35 features. I know the Marines pulled out their order, but the Air Force is supposed to be ordering some. If you are comparing features, there's the cost of an F-22 vs cost of F-35. F-22 is more than twice the cost. Also a lot to be said about the pilot HUDs used in the next gen fighters too.

[ThinkPad R]

I'm just considering the best fighter jets in terms of current capabilities, not historical.

Mig-31 does have remarkable maximum speed, but it has very limited turning rate and mediocre radar & armament. A plane that is not very maneuverable sucks at close range dogfights, so it needs good BVR capability, which is lacking on the Mig-31.

I'll put VTOL in parenthesis because it will be available only for the navy version.

I put emphasis on the beyond visual range combat capability (power of the radar, long range armament).

Other criteria include stealth, operational range, payload, and maneuverability.

[mattbiernat]

A plane that is not very maneuverable sucks at close range dogfights

it might suck in a dog fight but if the target gets shut down 50 miles away it makes no difference whatsoever. in modern era you don't see dog fights the way you used to have back during world war II. I believe Mig 31 was designed to be a long range interceptor that means it will be scrambled to pursue and destroy target that would be otherwise unreachable by other fighters. If Russians need to shut down F-22 raptor flying near their cities all they have to do is scramble a couple of Su-27s.

[sb102]

I'm just considering the best fighter jets in terms of current capabilities, not historical.

MiG 31 is not historical - that's for sure (a much younger construction than F-14 which is on your list).

Keep in mind one thing - it was designed because the Russian (then USSR) Army wanted a plane that would be capable of patroling the whole country - which is very big.

it might suck in a dog fight but if the target gets shut down 50 miles away it makes no difference whatsoever. in modern era you don't see dog fights the way you used to have back during world war II. I believe Mig 31 was designed to be a long range interceptor that means it will be scrambled to pursue and destroy target that would be otherwise unreachable by other fighters. If Russians need to shut down F-22 raptor flying near their cities all they have to do is scramble a couple of Su-27s.

exactly what matt said - different situations in air combat need different aproaches. It's true - the classical dogfight is very rare (one might say obsolete) - why waste a couple milion of $ when engaging in a dogfight when you can send a guided missile from ffar away. Also this is an interceptor - not a jet-fighter. It's main role is a rapid approach to an unknown object.

Mig-31 does have remarkable maximum speed, but it has very limited turning rate and mediocre radar & armament.

Armament- may be so, but the fact that it has a Zaslon radar - this is a plus - a very big one.

[mattbiernat]

I wonder when future fighter jets will be piloted from the ground. we already have the predator and that makes me wonder whether predator is capable of worth air combat with maned aircraft.

[ThinkPad R]

it might suck in a dog fight but if the target gets shut down 50 miles away it makes no difference ...Mig 31 was designed to be a long range interceptor... to pursue and destroy target that would be otherwise unreachable by other fighters. If Russians need to shut down F-22 raptor.... all they have to do is scramble a couple of Su-27s.

Its intercept capability is limited to spy planes and the likes. It does not have a good BVR capability, so it will lose to all the fighter jets that are listed here. I don't think you should relate to the overall strength of an air force. The ranking is strictly based on the individual aircrafts' capabilities. F-22 has 144:0 kill ratio against Su-27's, F-15's, F-14's, F-16's, and F-18's.

MiG 31 is not historical - that's for sure (a much younger construction than F-14 which is on your list).

But sb102 you were making a historical argument. "Mig-31 was the first plane to be equipped/to do etc etc."

different situations in air combat need different aproaches. It's true - the classical dogfight is very rare (one might say obsolete) - why waste a couple milion of $ when engaging in a dogfight when you can send a guided missile from ffar away. Also this is an interceptor - not a jet-fighter. It's main role is a rapid approach to an unknown object.

Again, what you describe would not be a "combat" mission. Should I also include bombers and spy planes and electronic warfare planes b/c "air combat need different aproaches" ?

Traditional dogfight is not obsolete. That was disproved during the Vietnam War --> guns that had disappeared on the early generation jet fighters returned in Generation 4, 4.5, and 5.

Armament- may be so, but the fact that it has a Zaslon radar - this is a plus - a very big one.

Zaslon is an outdated PESA radar (as opposed to AESA), which reveals the plane to enemy radars.

[mattbiernat]

Traditional dogfight is not obsolete. That was disproved during the Vietnam War --> guns that had disappeared on the early generation jet fighters returned in Generation 4, 4.5, and 5.

while i concur that obsolete is not a good choice of wording for a dogfight but remember that since Vietnam war air to air missiles have greatly improved. i doubt any modern plane would use guns against another jet fighter unless it last ditch of desperation.

[ThinkPad R]

while i concur that obsolete is not a good choice of wording for a dogfight but remember that since Vietnam war air to air missiles have greatly improved. i doubt any modern plane would use guns against another jet fighter unless it last ditch of desperation.

That's not true. Radars can't detect planes flying at very low altitude.

[sb102]

That's not true. Radars can't detect planes flying at very low altitude.

ThinkPad R - can you give any details why there arent any radar systems that could do it ? Because while browsing google i've came accross a rather fascinating patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3906495.html - although this is just a patent (from the mid 70's) it is a possibility that it would work (as I am not familiar with current radars - they might actualy implement this technology).

[mattbiernat]

That's not true. Radars can't detect planes flying at very low altitude.

that's why you don't use missiles that rely on a radar. use the heat seeking missiles.

[Tasurinchi]

Hi!

There is a great forum for Airline enthusiasts. In case you don't know it yet go and check out this page: http://www.airliners.net

Then go to the Mil.Aviation forum, you'll be surprised the # of topics there. There also have an amazing photo database...

my 0.02 cents...

[ThinkPad R]

ThinkPad R - can you give any details why there arent any radar systems that could do it ?

Fighters can't b/c its radar will confuse enemy planes with the ground

ur patent speaks of a radar station.

that's why you don't use missiles that rely on a radar. use the heat seeking missiles.

Heat seeking missiles are only useful for close range.

Thx I needed thoes pictures for the vid.

[mattbiernat]

Heat seeking missiles are only useful for close range.

that is exactly my point. no need for guns when you have heat seeking missiles.

[ThinkPad R]

that is exactly my point. no need for guns when you have heat seeking missiles.

nope. u can avoid heat seeking missiles with flares. also the latest fighter jets with supercruise can't be easily targeted by heat seekers

[mattbiernat]

supercruise just means that the plane is not using afterbuners to go faster than the speed of sound. it doesn't mean that it does not produce any heat. anyways we can argue in circles but there is no point.

[ThinkPad R]

supercruise just means that the plane is not using afterbuners to go faster than the speed of sound. it doesn't mean that it does not produce any heat. anyways we can argue in circles but there is no point.

that's the whole point of super cruise. Heat signature from afterburners are highly visible. The newer exhaust nozzles create much shorter trails of exhaust that also reduce chance of detection by heat seekers.

Why do you think F-22's stealth is a major plus if it can be easily shot down by heat seekers?


I don't even know what you're trying to argue, and no I don't see the circles. You didn't mention anything about the flares & you're simply wrong on everything else.

All right. Let's say u can shoot down any plane with heat seekers. Your point?

[sb102]

That's the whole point of super cruise. Heat signature from afterburners are highly visible. The newer exhaust nozzles create much shorter trails of exhaust that also reduce chance of detection by heat seekers.

The fact that the nozzles reduce the heat signature of a plane doesn't mean that it could be invisible to heat seekers. In fact, you'd be suprised how little heat is needed for a clear lock-on on a target (my father has recalled that during his service in our Army he and a couple of his friends "tested" the Soviet "Strela 2" rocket - when active it detected a burning cigarete from 20 meters - when they moved the cigarete to the sides, the rocket's flaps followed it). Also nowdays the rockets are filled with electronics that run algorithms that help the missile to make out wether if it has a potential target or not (these algorithms are utitilized by modern-day Passive Infared Detectors used in security systems - that way it can distinguish a crawling person and a 25 kilogram dog and react only to the person) - this is fairy easy to develop nowdays with the help of A.I. algorithms, as there are fast CPU's that are small and cheap. I'm of course not saying that this will have a 100% ratio of success and will render the stealth technology completely obsolete - a normal thing to observe in the race of arms is that almost every action mde by people to improve a weapon has encounterad a counter-action by other people to make it less powerful (or less deadly if you prefer).


Also, a word for ThinkPad R about the topic - it's YOUR list and you can put WHATEVER aircraft you feel that could fit in. Just keep in mind that not all of us have to agree on your choices (this is why I hate all kinds of "TOP OF THE ..." lists - many people just don't get the picture that I can have a different opinion). Just close the topic and make that video or I have a feeling that this discusion can lead directly into a nice little flame-war (like mattbiernat said - this IS arguing in circles, because every of our suggestions had been bounced back by your statements). A simple "thanks, I'll keep your ideas in mind" would be more polite here.

[ajkula66]

You might also be very surprised to find out that an ancient USSR-built radar could see this...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/archive/index ... 45697.html

And the rest is history...

[beGi]

You might also be very surprised to find out that an ancient USSR-built radar could see this...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/archive/index ... 45697.html

And the rest is history...

Most of that article is BS...nothing but famous oldschool Serbian propaganda...you've been abroad for too long, my friend...

[Kyocera]

ThinkpadR, find a forum that is populated by people that actually have ties to the Aircraft and/or military (specifically the Air Force) , there has to be many out there. I've been using forums to talk to other soldiers for years.

Any topic posted in here is immediately taken to the "I know more than you" level "and will prove it with these links".

You are not going to get anything here. It's already self evident I would say. Some of the "facts" posted are crazy.

I'm just sayin

[ajkula66]

beGi wrote:

Most of that article is BS...nothing but famous oldschool Serbian propaganda...you've been abroad for too long, my friend...

Well, I was there when that plane was taken down, and most of the European TV stations (no, I'm not talking about Milošević's "TV Bastille"... ) reported it, with numerous pictures and film footage at the time...

Of course the people who took it down are going to be bragging about it, especially for the fact that they eventually lost the war...not that they ever had a chance to win it to begin with, but that's a whole another story which doesn't belong in this thread...

My point was that "invisibility" and "invincibility" of the "stealth" technology were proven not to be as bulletproof as originally advertised. In all fairness, it's very likely that the USAF aviation engineers have made significant improvements to it over the past decade...

[beGi]

I know that that plane went down (that is why I wrote "most of the article..."), I remember it clearly, we listened planes and tomahawks flying over our heads back in 1999...and a month ago while I was in Belgrade, your people told me it was a fluke, actually...

I was referring to the rest of the "article" as BS...

70 planes? Please...

"another page in the history of the courageous defense of Serbian people and state" ...that $hit reminds me on 1991...and that is why Serbia is like Nokia; you're getting smaller every year...


On topic: Well, Kyocera summed it pretty good...

[ajkula66]

beGi wrote:

and a month ago while I was in Belgrade, your people told me it was a fluke, actually...

Then it must have been the best con job of the past century given the number of non-Serbian news media who bought into it...

.and that is why Serbia is like Nokia; you're getting smaller every year...

The answer to that question belongs to the "Welcome to the new form of slavery" thread and not this one...

Agreed on the fact that Kyocera has summed it up pretty well..

[Tasurinchi]

ThinkpadR, find a forum that is populated by people that actually have ties to the Aircraft and/or military (specifically the Air Force)

I provided one in my post above. It's not specifically an Air Force forum, but there are plenty of people there which work or used to worked for the military...

my 0.02 cents...

[ThinkPad R]

I thought the F-117 was shot down by a gun.

What I know is that F-117 has a PESA radar, so it can't be used in air to air combat. It's called a fighter, but really it's a bomber. Its speed is quite slow. Also stealth is not an absolute thing. Stealth planes need to be flying at certain speed etc. for them to actually achieve stealth.

Anyways I don't think this really matters, although it is interesting to bring up. It's just one incident, and the stealth technology is 10 years apart with F-22 & F-22 is a supersonic fighter.

@ sb102

The reason why I'm making this vid is b/c it's fun but also I'm sick & tired of these top 10 military xxx vids that are so completely off with nationalist bias. This is what drives me to argue with some of you in this discussion thread (cuz I suspect u ppl r biased too) & I don't see it as a contest where I necessarily need prove I know more than everyone else. No, I don't let you have your own opinion, but if u actually had valid point I'd gladly take it.. This also helps me to build my confidence that there is nothing lacking in the list.

So far what I've gotten down from you is that Mig-31 is fast, its actual air to air combat capabilities suck rlly bad, but that doesnt matter cuz u just need to shoot the heat seeking missile, and everyone will be dead so the Mig-31 is as good as F-22. I don't think that's a very intelligent & helpful way of discussing. I think you're being stubborn & you're the one who keeps making arguments that just go in circles; it seems like you aren't really interest in helping me build a top 20 list as much as in proving your little grudge against these top ## vids.

Evidence? You keep introducing new minute details that really don't address my points but create areas of disputed uncertainty, and you ignore stuffs like

flares, flares, flares, flares, flares, flares, my pillow, flares, flares

Plus, "you'd be surprised how little" reduction in heat signature "is needed for a" heat seeker to lose its target. A fighter jet can head toward the sun, and the heat seeker will literally lock on to the sun