I always thought it was the last one that saved my ass.
If I’m on the ground with Charlie in the wire, the best aircraft in the world is the one shooting at Charlie right now, but if I had my druthers, the AC-130 Spectre/Spooky Gunship is my wish to rain great pain and discontent upon my enemy. Hands down.
If someone offered to let me fly an F-16 or an A-10 I’d choose the A-10.
Can’t answer your question except to note that aircraft are only part of the mix. The ability to direct the aircraft in a coordinated attack is what makes it successful. Today it is possible for a single person on the ground to interact with a tank, a submarine, an aircraft, a drone, a satelite, and a command center half way around the world (in real time).
With that said, if I was in a tank and saw an A-10 on the horizon I would exit immediately and play dead.
I heard a second hand account of how they developed the gunship with a C-47. They brought out mechanics and engineers to discuss the concept and they walked around the plane drawing where they wanted to cut. The mechanics followed behind and started cutting. It went together in weeks. It was tested on a small island in Cowan lake. They leveled it.
A former USMC fighter pilot once told me that the best fighter plane in the world is the one directly on your six. 
The F-4 may not be the best, but man, what a frightening profile. A six year old Brownie scout could glance at that beast and know it’s primary mission is to blow shit up.
I think OtakuLoki made a great point. There are many different aircraft to carry out many different missions.
However, I’d say the F-15 would best fit what’s asked in the OP. It was designed as a multi-role all-weather fighter. From what I know (which frankly ain’t much), it does a fine job from ground support to air superiority and all points in between.
I have to agree, the B-52 wins hands down; the simple fact that in 50 years of service nothing better has showed up is enough proof for me.
When the B-52 was first designed, the USAF was still using P-51 Mustangs as fighter planes. Think about that.
The B-52 has been in service for FIFTY ONE YEARS. There are no plans to retire it. It is older than pretty much anyone who flies it today. When it was brought into service, jet fighters were just beginning to take hold. It has been so successful that it survived having at elast TWO aircraft being conceived, designed and built to replace it. There is simply no other aircraft even remotely comparable. It is a perfectly designed aircraft.
I was under the impression that it was designed as a straight air superiority fighter. I don’t believe attack roles were in the picture at all during design. It’s just such a robust design that abilities could be tacked onto it after the fact. The story I heard was that the USAF thought that the MiG-25 Foxbat was an uber-air superiority fighter, and had the F-15 developed in response. In fact, the Foxbat was a straight interceptor with very limited dogfighting abilities. Sure it could do Mach 3 and reach 80 thousand feet, but that was all it could do. It in turn was developed as a response to the XB-70 Valkyrie, which in the end never made it into production.
My knowlege on he dubject isn’t all that broad, but I do know that the Israeli Air Force, considered by many to be one of the most effecive in the world, has only two types of fixed-winged attack craft in active service - the F-15 and the F-16 (and lots of them, in various configurations, including a unique two-seater F-16). Apparently, both platforms are considered versetile enough to handle any target given to them, be it an enemy aircraft, an enemy installation or an enemy tank.
That has to count for something.
The best military aircraft would, of course, be one with an intimidating shark’s mouth painted on the nosecone…
'Fraid there’s nothing unique about a two-seat F-16. That’d be either an F-16B or F-16D in USAF inventory - not sure what the Israeli variants are “officially” called. Most F-16 units have at least one two-seater in inventory.
I’ve got to put in my vote for the A-6 as best aircraft. Extremely versatile, the basic A-6 airframe is still in use in the EA-6B electronic warfare configuration. The all-weather A-6E attack version was retired in 1997, in favor of the multi-purpose FA-18. A tanker variant, the KA-6D, was also retired
The A-6E, weighing 28,000 lbs., could take off weighing 60,400 lbs. – and take off from a carrier weighing 58,600 lbs. That’s a 31,000 lbs. payload. The plane was designed as a night attack bomber, and could easily fly completely blind. With advanced radar and low-altitude equipment, it used nape-of-the-earth flying to avoid radar detection. Once over it’s target, it could deliver 15,000 lbs. of armament with unparalleled accuracy.
During air combat and look-down, shoot-down maneuver testing at the Fallon, Nevada test range, the A-6E showed an uncanny ability to out-maneuver and ‘shoot down’ the F-14 Tomcats which were the subject of the testing. The A-6E pilots were supposed to be targets for the F-14’s, simply flying along at low altitude. Unfortunately for the F-14’s, the A-6E pilots were allowed to maneuver at will once they detected an F-14.
The A-6’s ability to quickly change direction and altitude, and ability to fly into narrow canyons and follow the terrain, made it difficult for the F-14’s to acquire and maintain a target. But to add injury to insult, as it were, the A-6E pilots used the A-6’s unique deceleration capability* to get behind the speeding F-14’s – and once behind the F-14, the A-6E was easily able to shoot them down.
This resulted in a modification in the test program – the A-6’s were told to fly straight, and at a constant speed. Lo and behold, the F-14’s look-down, shoot-down capability test was a great success! Some believe that this humiliation of the fighter guys was the start of a political process that eventually led to the end of the A-6 as an attack platform.
*The A-6 originally had fuselage-mounted air-brakes just behind the exhaust outlets. This was found to be quite unworkable, as fully deploying the air-brakes often resulted in a full stop – not desirable in mid-air! The replacement, wingtip speed-brakes were much better, but still, very effective. The plane could simply out-decelerate anything else in the air.
Wikipedia has an excellent write-up of the history of this aircraft.
My appreciation for this plane is based upon my many thousands of hours ‘flying’ it, in the flight simulators I worked on in my early Navy career.
How is an A-6 going to shoot anything down?
With a coconut. It could grip it by the husk.
Uhhh, how about a harpoon then. Might hit an F-14. They might have some Zunis in inventory still. Hell a spad shot down a MiG with A-G rockets. The point was that a fighter jock allowing anyone to get in his six will seriously lose face even if the bandit isn’t equipped to shoot him down.
If that’s your definition, I would think the forthcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fits the bill. It will be replacing many existing planes, acting alongside the Navy’s F/A 18s, the Air Force’s F-22, and being the sole strike fighter for the Marines (thereby replacing Harriers, Marine F/A 18s, A-10s, A-6s, F-15s, F-16s, and so on). Even the UK plans on using them to replace their Sea Harriers and Tornado GR-7s.
F-16B and F-16D… Oh, and there’s also the F-16F, as well as an even more recent model which I no longer know the designation of (having been out of the airforce for over 10 years now). They all have various Hebrew names, such as “Hawk”, “Lightening”, “Storm” – but these are unofficial (and translated to boot!)
(And just for the record, I was not a pilot, but did have to know the various aircraft fairly well, theoretically, as part of my duties)
Dani
After the tiniest bit of research, I find that Gorsnak is completely correct.
However, as he also says, it’s such a solid design that it is a multi-role aircraft. So I stand by my original statement. And for the record, I’m glad we’re in IMHO!
Either 2.75" Rocket Pod, 5" Zuni Rocket Pod, or AIM-9 Sidewinders. IIRC, they were carrying Sidewinders and simulating firing in this exercise. Sorry, I should have been more specific. Weapons loading varied wildly on the A-6E, but they almost always loaded some sort of anti-air weapon, most commonly the Sidewinder.
Well, according to this:
If they kept the newest planes in service the longest, that means that in 2040, the B-52s will only be around 78 years old. And I’d really have to wonder how much of these planes would still be ‘original aircraft’, rather than parts cannibalized off of the 650ish retired planes or as ‘new’ spare parts.
But still… that’s damn impressive.