This thread got me thinking about the A-10 and how it’s my favorite aircraft, mainly because it’s like a tank with wings. Very good armaments, very good armor, redundant systems, but slow as death, at least compared to modern supersonic aircraft. The queastion remains, though, is it the best aircraft? Methinks not, since there are plenty of other planes that can kill a tank with a Maverick missle just fine enough, but can also dogfight other jets if need be, as well as maybe do other things.
So, to the more aviaonic dopers out there, what would you say is the best military aircraft? (And generaly speaking I’m refering to attack aircraft, though the importance of cargo, refueling, troop transport, and other types of planes cannot be disregarded either.)
Unless you define “best” more clearly you’ll have a hard time reaching a consensus. The A-10 may be slow but it it far more maneuverable than any other military fixed wing aircraft. It’s made for a specialized role that other planes don’t do as well but it is a specialized role so the air force keeps other types in inventory like F-16s for attack use.
I vote for the Skyraider for it’s durability and long service life. How many other planes that came out at the end of WWII were still in service in the seventies?
I like the A-10, because it looks like they took the gun, gave it to the engineers and said “Make this thing fly”. On a similar note, I like the AC-130 because it looks like they looked at the C-130 cargo plane and said “Hey, I bet you could fit a Howitzer on that thing”.
I guess by “best” I mean, if the military had to choose to only have one attack aircraft, what would it be? Would they got for stealth, and pick the B-2 or F-117? Or maybe speed and get an F-18 (or whatever F fighter is the fastest…i really don’t know if it’s the 14 (do they still use this?), 15, 16, or 18.) Maybe a combination of both and use the F-22? (Though I don’t think that is in service yet.)
*Since the A-10 was built around the General Electric GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm cannon, its performance in testing was crucial in determining how many A-10’s would be built. The GAU-8 Avenger exceeded all expectations. *
According to here, they have cut back, but it looks like they will still purchase some Raptors, just not as many as initially planned, and their use might be scaled back. Of course, the last news update is back from December, so I don’t know if newer information has come to light.
No good reason, but I always liked the F-4 phantom (F/A-4, maybe?). Ugly as sin, looked like a ton of bricks in the air… but had a larger payload then most modern Attack aircraft, decent speed and range, and far and beyond the best avionics of its generation.
They just don’t make 'em like they used to… although the latest version of the F-15 in IAF service (the F-15-I) (which should probably be designated F/A as well, since it can carry over 7 tons of armament!) comes close.
Having flown in the F-4 Phantom, I wouldn’t say that it is the best ever made. It did carry a lot of ordinance, and was fast, but look at the dogfight performance in Nam against various early series MIGs. And it sucked fuel like nothing else and took forever to make a 180 degree turn.
But I do have a fond place in my heart for it…and it was very good for its time.
Well, my vote goes to the B-52 StratoFortress that was designed right after WW2. It is still very much in service and is the plane that put some major bombing hurt on any country in the world with conventional or nuclear weapons. The B-52 may remain in service until 2040 when many of the planes are almost 90 years old :eek: . Engineers have tried to come up with superior replacement designs but none could the B-52.
I’ll go back a little further and nominate the DC-3/C-47. This thing first flew in 1935, and it is STILL in service with a number of militaries and in civilian roles. There are still hundreds of them flying, and I’ll bet some will still be flying 50 years from now.
They had a huge impact in WWII, and over 10,000 were built for that war.
bouv, the problem is that you’re positing an unreal situation. Different aircraft are built for different missions, and there is no plane that can do them all.
The A-10, IMNSHO, is the best close support platform in the US arsenal - designed to attack ground targets in close combat with ground troops. Everytime the Air Force suggests taking it out of the inventory the Marines say that if they do, they’ll gladly put it back in, in their inventory.
But an A-10 is at the mercy of most air superiority fighters out there, so it isn’t meant to be used in a theatre where air superiority is still in question - or at least not without a covering force of allied air superiority platforms: F-16, F-15, F/A-18, or F-14’s.
Harriers are generally inferior (though a gutsy Harrier pilot can do things no traditional aircraft pilot can do, including, AIUI, flying backwards.) to any non-VSTOL craft, but their VSTOL/VTOL capability makes up for that.
Etc, etc, for every craft in the inventory.
They all have strong points, but none is truly an all-around plane. The closest that I know of for that is the F/A-18, and that’s more a compromise than a true replacement for the stand-off capability of the F-14.
Whilst most people here have concentrated on fighters, I’m going to definitely give a big “ME TOO” for Shagnasty’s vote for the B-52.
A NINETY YEAR-OLD PLANE??? In a museum as a static display that’d be a tough enough ask. For an airworthy civilian machine to be gently flown around at an airshow or two every other year, it’d be damned near impossible. But a commissioned military plane?
Yeah. Well Spad is still a cooler nickname than BUF so I still vote for the Able Dog.
I didn’t vote for the F-14 even though I worked on them as a weapons tech for six years. As bad ass as the Tomcat is it never operationally did what it was touted to do. The scenario of six AIM-54s at independant targets was only done in test and a heavily biased test at that. I have never seen more than four Phoenix missles loaded and rarely more than two. I don’t think six have ever been loaded shipboard because there isn’t a way to safely raise a thousand pound missle six feet off the deck of a carrier to mount on the pylon stations. Aft stations were rarely loaded becuase the two ton load of a pair of missles and launchers made the plane tail heavy. AFAIK AIM-54s were never fired at anything other than drones in controlled tests. My own experiences with Phoenix shoots are anecdotal but the first time was four days of keeping planes going in torrential rains then having the radar fail as the shoot was about to take place forcing the pilot to shoot in boresight mode like he was aiming the gun. This had to be done at relatively short range. Hitting a target at 100 miles was possible but generally only if the target flew in a straight line and made no attempt to evade.
If that’s the case, nobody’s told the Air Force yet. Here’s some info that’s only a couple of months old, and there are two Raptor pilots on another message board I frequent - they’d be pissed if they had to transition back to F-15’s.
I’m going to define “best” as “best for it’s time”. In this case, I vote for the F-86 Sabre.
It was the first swept wing jet in the U.S. inventory, and had a lot of other new stuff: the flying tail, supersonic capability (barely), etc. And not only did it all work, but it was a knockout. Pilots loved the F-86. It was a pussycat to fly, and had few bad tendencies.
I think that’s amazing for an airplane that was so advanced for it’s time.
