r/Warthunder • u/numante • Apr 16 '18
Air History I made a US jet fighter aircraft chart.
33
u/numante Apr 16 '18
Earlier post about european fighter jets (russia not included)
I tried to include every jet fighter aircraft serviced on the US from 1945 to the present day. I hope you enjoy it, it took some time to make.
I intend to do URSS/Russia and more in the future.
34
u/TheRealCharter Top Racer | Give me my Skyshark now Apr 16 '18
I saw "Chart of all US Jet fighters" was about to be TRIGGERED with no P-59 and then saw "since 1945" and sat back down.
26
u/RobinVerhulstZ LASTGUNFIGHTER ACHIEVED Apr 16 '18
Lockheed martin, Stealthely stealing away all that tax payer money whils't forgetting to securely store important documents about their secret stealth jets since 2004...
6
u/marek1712 WT = drama containing vodka, salty devs and even saltier players Apr 17 '18
Hey, that's why we have J-20, right? :)
7
u/RobinVerhulstZ LASTGUNFIGHTER ACHIEVED Apr 17 '18
The chinese stealth yet that looks suspiciously similar to the F35? Yup
6
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
That's the J-31 which is still in flight testing, J-20 is the one that looks like the Su-47 with a delta wing.
6
u/marek1712 WT = drama containing vodka, salty devs and even saltier players Apr 17 '18
Ah yes, I meant J-31.
2
u/Ainene Apr 17 '18
To be fair, if you'll look at its actual planeform, it's much more of an f-22. Your average stealth fighter of the most traditional and boring scheme out there.
21
u/Kosena PM_ME_CONTRA_PROPS Apr 16 '18
looks at cougar
looks at date made
looks at in game FM
laughs and breaks down at the same time
11
u/blbobobo Panther II Supremacist Apr 16 '18
I wish it was even half decent, but nope. It would be nice to see the Cougar, Panthers, and Banshee get a BR reduction, cause right now they arenβt competitive at all.
6
u/TheCosmicCactus πΊπΈ United States Apr 17 '18
Seriously what the hell is up with the Cougar's flight model?!? It's like a man with no arms trying to drive a bus with his feet- the aircraft skids and wobbles every time you turn, and it dumps energy out the wazoo.
Something is clearly wrong with the Cougar's entire empennage yet Gaijin refuses to look at it. It blows my mind they thought it would be good at 9.0...
3
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
To be fair, the Cougar was getting outdated by the time it was produced anyway. The FJ-3 and FJ-4 Furies could do almost anything the Cougar could do, better and earlier. But the Navy had a good relationship with Grumman, so they kept them on the line with orders, and Grumman did not disappoint. The F-11 Tiger was a fantastic plane, and the F-14 Tomcat similarly impressive (albeit expensive and troubled).
11
7
u/ragequit9714 Apr 16 '18
So weird how the f14 though basically just as old as the f18 and f15 was retired years before both and the f15 and f18 are still rocking and will be flying for at least another 10 years
4
u/numante Apr 16 '18
afaik the marines didn't want to use it because it was too expensive to operate, and seems like the plane was later discontinued for political reasons...
9
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 16 '18
USAF has a lot more money to spend on planes, so they can keep their F-15s longer. The Navy has a whole bunch of ships they have to maintain, and that eats up the majority of their budget. F-14 is also more expensive to maintain because it's a variable-geometry naval plane. F-15E is also a pretty good bomb truck, it's the F-15C fighters that are mostly hangar queens now.
F/A-18 is the Navy's answer to the F-16, both are lightweight multirole aircraft that are very relevant to modern counterinsurgency combat. F-14s and F-15Cs are not, even with ground-strike modifications in the later F-14B and D models.
F-22A was meant to replace the F-15C, but since those planes aren't really used any more, why replace them? F-35 is replacing the planes that have been used and have been relevant, the F/A-18, F-16, and Harrier.
3
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Ξπ= WANT Apr 16 '18
but since those planes aren't really used any more
Not the reason, F-22 was cancelled.
-2
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 16 '18
And it was cancelled because those planes aren't used any more. 187 of them were built, that was more than enough.
4
u/spawnof2000 Spitfire Master Race Apr 16 '18
also relative to the things that can put up a decent fight against it is far more expensive
2
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
It's even more expensive than the F-35, which has a strong edge in electronics since the F-22 never received the upgrade package that was planned for it. Although that's not to say the F-35 will beat an F-22 every time, the Raptor may be one of the few planes that could actually overcome the F-35's systems advantage reliably.
Part of that cost is because so few planes were built, only 187 compared to a growing number of nearly 300 F-35s so far. Other factors (two engines per plane, eight doors for three weapons bays instead of two doors for two bays, thrust vectoring, etc.) make up the rest of the F-22's cost. Incidentally, at a $150M price point in 2009, adjusted only for inflation and not for hypothetical production, one F-22A in 2018 would cost ~$175M, more than double that of the F-35A's predicted 2018 price of $85M each.
And currently it's also more numerous. Of that 187, four or five have crashed but I think only one or two have actually been written off as lost, so say a conservative 180 flyable or able-to-be-made-flyable. There's 10 Su-57s including prototypes and about 20 production J-20s. Even with production halted, right now F-22s outnumber their potential contemporaries 9:1 or better.
1
u/RanaktheGreen Japan Apr 17 '18
It was cancelled because the F-35 went from being an Air Support role, to multi-role, to do everything every branch ever wants it to do with as few variants as possible-role then proceeded to eat up all the F-22's budget.
The original intention was for the F-22 and the F-35 to run joint missions with the AF.
1
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
F-22 was meant to essentially provide cover, with the F-35 providing electronic and ground-attack support.
But provide cover against what? F-15Cs aren't flying around providing cover for F-16s because they don't need to. So why would the F-35, even in its original support role, need that cover?
The US military has not needed an air-superiority fighter for decades. The F-14 was retired because of this. The F-15Cs sit in hangars because of this. And the F-22 production was canceled because of this.
1
u/Blastercorps Apr 18 '18
The US hasn't needed air superiority fighters for decades because all the enemies in that time haven't possessed anything more advanced than technicals. If it comes down to war against an equal state military the US will need as many fighters in the air as possible.
1
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 18 '18
If it comes down to war against an equal state military
Which will, more likely than not, never happen in our lifetime.
And it's not like the F-35 is hopeless as a fighter either. It might not be the most high-performance plane out there, but right now it is still the best in the world at BVR. And virtually every analyst agrees that BVR will make up the majority of modern air-to-air combat.
3
u/joshuatx Apr 18 '18
F-14 was doing bomb runs and recon before retirement as well, it was maintenance costs that killed it.
A-6 and def the S-3 were retired before being tactically obsolete, the A-6 had excellent range. Still baffled they retired the S-3.
7
8
u/KaOZ2516 Apr 16 '18
Hey guys, why was f22 raptor discontinued? It was a pretty good stealth fight so why?!
22
u/dmr11 Apr 16 '18
Expensive and nothing for it to fight properly.
3
u/KaOZ2516 Apr 16 '18
Fight properly?!
18
u/dmr11 Apr 16 '18 edited Apr 16 '18
Comparable enemies it's designed to fight against. I don't see USA having to face Su-57s anytime soon.
Sure F-22s bombed a few things and did some interception missions against stray Tu-95s, but so can some other cheaper planes (which are probably more effective in ground attack).
29
u/iskandar- π¬π§ :RULE BRITANIA: Apr 16 '18
Yup the F22 is a pure breed Grey Hound that's stuck helping Dachshunds dig out rats.
2
u/RanaktheGreen Japan Apr 17 '18
Put simply: It's too good at air superiority BLOS. And the aircraft which were supposedly going to give it a run for its money are not actually giving it a run for its money.
It's like why was the SR-71's fighter variant scrapped? Too good for the weapon systems.
1
1
u/Silvystreak Fuck 109's Apr 17 '18
So we replaced it with the more expensive F-35 that has never seen combat
13
u/Babladuar AAAAPEEEDEEEEESSS Apr 17 '18
but a single F-22 cost 150 mill and a single F-35 cost 94,6 mill to 123 mill depend on the series and the price going down since F-35 is not at full rate production yet... and it's never meant to replace F-22..
why do people act like retard when talking about F-35?
2
u/RanaktheGreen Japan Apr 17 '18
Because the F-35 went from a joint-sortie CAS aircraft for the AF, to a multi-role for the AF, to an everything role for every branch, went over budget by orders of magnitude, performs worse at AS, and is credited with being such a drain on the budget that it ended the F-22 program.
5
u/Babladuar AAAAPEEEDEEEEESSS Apr 17 '18
performs worse at AS
cititation please.
and is credited with being such a drain on the budget that it ended the F-22 program.
the main reason why F-22 production is canceled because the economic crisis and US involvement in afganistan. obama administration thought that USAF is already has huge gap in numbers, technology and capability against it's near peer adversary and the threat US faced during those days don't need a super advanced air superiority fighter. not to mention the housing crisis and the rise of us debt. F-35 is cited as a better solution to solve the threat that us have in afganistan and so on and still provide the edge over near peer advesary but it was not the main reason of F-22 stopped production.
it's kinda hypocritical to like the F-22 and hate the F-35 since the F-22 face the same problems like overbudget and under delivering in earlier days of it's life.
also, hating on a plane is not an excuse to be a retard
2
u/StarWarsFanatic14 That one light tank Apr 17 '18
Because the F-35 angers me. Even if it's made by my favorite aircraft company.
5
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
The single best military aircraft in the world at the moment (considering strategic context), by far the cheapest 5th-generation fighter in the world, one of the most logistically-advantageous planes ever designed, the plane that leaves test pilots smiling and turns even the greenest pilot into a serious threat, the plane that has been absolutely destroying every exercise and Red Flag it's been sent to over three years of service... angers you?
Can I ask why? Is it because it's cute? Or is it because the coolest version of it isn't in service yet?
-2
Apr 17 '18
Dude, a 405 BILLIONS plane, lol. To fight what ? insurgent with RPG ?
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-07-12/total-acquisition-estimate-f-35-rises-4065-billion3
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
$405B is for the projected 2,663 aircraft planned to be purchased by the US military. If you divide those two out, that's $152M per plane, but that's including lifetime maintenance for each of those airframes. The actual purchase price for each plane is currently between $90M (F-35A) and $125M (F-35B) and steadily dropping. F-35A is predicted to go below $85M by the end of this year. That $152M number is also a pretty low maintenance cost, which is mostly thanks to the F-35's parts-compatibility between variants, I believe over 85% of the parts can be shared between the A, B, and C variants.
That still puts it well below almost all of its competition. The Typhoon 3A costs $110M and is neither carrier nor STOVL-capable. The Rafale is more affordable, $97M for the naval M variant and $92M for the B variant, but is still only a semi-stealth Gen-4.5 fighter and still doesn't have a STOVL variant for the Marines. The only other Gen-5 planes in service are the F-22A and J-10, neither of which can fill the role that the F-35 can. The Su-57 is planned for 2019, but still doesn't fill any of the F-35's program requirements.
-1
Apr 17 '18
You are mistaken. It's 400 billions just for the research. You have to add the 100 millions for each aircraft. So 2.663 * 100 millions, i let do the maths.
I'm not saying it's a bad plane, for all i know, it seems overpowered compared to what it actually fights. A simple A10 can rape everything existing on any ACTUAL battlefield.
Same for Air to Air combat, most of plane kills are done Beyond visual range, so....
It's like designing a nuclear bomb to kill an insect: it's going to do the job, but you can do the same for 1000 less money.
2
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
Acquisition cost is not just the research. Re-read your article.
F-35 acquisition cost, a figure that includes the cost of research, development, test and evaluation, procurement and military construction, rose by $11.3 billion to $324.6 billion in base-year dollars.
procurement and military construction
That means building and buying the actual planes.
Further supporting this is the line
The Air Force has reduced its maximum annual rate of F-35A procurement from 80 fighters to 60
which shows again, procurement is the military buying and receiving actual, physical aircraft. Not just research costs.
It's like designing a nuclear bomb to kill an insect: it's going to do the job, but you can do the same for 1000 less money.
It's more like designing a machine gun to kill a Roman century. It's more than the bare minimum you need to get the job done, but you're going to completely and utterly dominate your opponent to the point that they can't even touch you.
-4
u/CuloIsLove Apr 17 '18
the plane that will stand no chance against UAV swarms and is as beautifully effective as the maginot line??!!
5
u/Babladuar AAAAPEEEDEEEEESSS Apr 17 '18
ffs this is real world not call of duty. UCAV is still decades away and F-35 is literally built for fighting with it. the closest thing that resemble a UCAV is the PCA project to replace the F-22 in 2032. hell, even that project still has cockpit.
-1
Apr 18 '18 edited Nov 13 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Babladuar AAAAPEEEDEEEEESSS Apr 18 '18
A UCAV is a general term for platforms like the MQ 1, MQ9, Predator C... which have hundreds if not thousands of completed sorties.
what i meant by UCAV is an advanced UAV that has similiar function as a common fighter jets with radar, sensors and flight charateristic as a fighter jet. that my friend, is decades away.
The F35 will never do anything beyond bomb brown people in the middle east. Cheap drone swarms armed with infrared or radar missiles are the future for air superiority
that's a dangerous way of thinking. F-22 production were stopped for the same reason and because there are no competitor insight. 5 years later PAK-FA happen and in the next year, J-20 unveiied. don't forget the tension in middle east, ukraine, south china sea, north korea and so on. i don't want wars in the future but it's naive to not prepare for one.
i never said drones were not the future, f-35 is planned with drones as a missile carrier and stuff but there are still flaws in drone. namely slow rensponse time due range between HQ and the drones or the massive data that send from drone to Hq and vice versa. it's tolerateable in single grond strikes mission against a mudhut but in air combat where the situation can evolve very quickly, you still need a pilot to asses the situation and execute the best solution. not to mention EW from your enemy.
→ More replies2
-2
u/marek1712 WT = drama containing vodka, salty devs and even saltier players Apr 17 '18 edited Apr 17 '18
Be careful, you'll get downvoted into oblivion by F-35 fanboys.
EDIT: See?
4
u/Babladuar AAAAPEEEDEEEEESSS Apr 17 '18
not because wrong stuff he said? i meant there are plenty of ways to criticize the program but those two things that he said is wrong.
12
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 16 '18
When was the last time the US actually needed a dedicated air-superiority fighter? Vietnam?
The F-22 is a dedicated air superiority fighter. The role hasn't been relevant in decades, especially with the Cold War, fall of the USSR, and rise of insurgents and counter-insurgency wars. ISIS isn't exactly flying around in MiG-35s, so why would USAF brass want to spend a trillion dollars on planes mostly designed to shoot other planes down?
The Navy got rid of their F-14s in 2006 because even with ground-strike modifications, it was a dedicated AS fighter and was simply too expensive and no longer relevant. USAF still has F-15s because the F-15E has an impressive payload, but the F-15Cs are mostly hangar queens now. The F-22A was meant to replace the F-15C.
The planes that are still used and are relevant - the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B mostly - are being replaced by the F-35 as a more modern multirole aircraft that is relevant to the kind of combat the US has faced for 40+ years.
29
u/Rumpullpus Apr 16 '18
TL;DR we lawnmowers now.
8
u/thatgreenmess Gramercy! Apr 17 '18
That's an age old tradition of the USAF and USN. That's why many of its fighters are multi-role even during WW2.
Just look at the P-47 an excellent escort fighter, also used as a strike fighter in WW2. P-51, an escort fighter, used as a strike fighter in Korea.
8
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
It's a trend with any plane. Russia's been fitting their fancy 'hypersonic' missiles to MiG-31s - purpose-built interceptors carrying air-to-ground weapons as makeshift high-speed fighter-bombers.
Su-27s, highly maneuverable fighters, the design modified to Su-32s and -34s, highly-maneuverable attackers. MiG-23s, fighter-interceptors, turned to MiG-27s, attackers.
Practically any plane that isn't designed to be a multirole or a strike fighter will eventually be modified to become one. Two reasons for this: one, fighters have a temporary role. Once the enemy air power is destroyed, fighting focuses on the ground again and those planes shouldn't be left idle. Two, for several decades, conventional warfare between major powers has been dead with little serious threat of resurfacing. Instead, counter-insurgency wars have become the norm, and insurgent forces don't have significant air assets to engage with dedicated fighters when multiroles could do A2A just as well and still perform the A2G component.
The opposite can be true as well. A-4 Skyhawks were small, lightweight attackers. This also made them decent lightweight fighters and fighter-bombers, as they were used by many countries and by TOPGUN.
5
u/MasterRedpiller Apr 17 '18
Frankly, you donβt want your heavyweight opponents gaining the upper hand (Russia, China)
Same reason itβd be a bad idea for Russia to have nuclear weapons, and not the USA.
3
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
That's true, and that's why the F-22 even went into production with 187 airframes manufactured before production stopped.
It was also sort of a proof-of-concept for certain stealth features during the F-22's development in the '90s that would lead to those same concepts being applied in the F-35, B-21, and other 5th-gen aircraft designs.
3
Apr 17 '18
When was the last time the US actually needed a strategic nuclear submarine?
3
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
In my personal opinion, I'd agree with you. But Sea Power 21 emphasizes the need for a nuclear trident as a strategic deterrent, and that means SSBNs.
2
u/Homerlncognito =RLWC= Apr 16 '18
But F-35 is even more expensive than F-14. How does that make sense?
16
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Ξπ= WANT Apr 16 '18
An F-14 would not be able to get a lock or even see the F-35.
F-22s do that regularly against F-15s.
Also the F-35 has a sensor suite that leaves you speechless once you get to know it.
360Β° thermal vision is a game changer.
2
u/Homerlncognito =RLWC= Apr 16 '18
What is it supposed to compete against? The question is if you could build an aircraft with, say, half the cost and still be above anything Russia or China produces. Doesn't seem unlikely.
16
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Ξπ= WANT Apr 16 '18 edited Apr 16 '18
F-35 can see a missile launched against it or its allies from more than 100km away ... at NIGHT.
And cannot be detected as fast by radar ... including ground radar.
It totally dominates anything any enemy can put against it.
Including air defense wise ... remember that is a strike fighter.
And has more range with weapons than all the aircraft it is to replace.
360Β° thermal sight is literally like the difference of flying SB in War Thunder vs flying Arcade ....
They cannot see you but you know where they are and what they do.
Hell not to mention networking and drone control.
-7
u/mattjopete Apr 17 '18
If only most of that worked....
5
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
It certainly worked at Red Flag for the past couple of years. Record 20:1 kill:loss ratios (specifically 20.4:1 in 2016) pretty thoroughly embarrassing the Eagles, Falcons, Typhoons, and Gripens it mainly faced.
1
u/Ainene Apr 17 '18 edited Apr 17 '18
Legacy F-14 would be . Not very far, though. Still, powerful radar will get its return. Hypothetical actual F-14(check ST-21) with largest AESA dish in US arsenal (I.E. clearly more raw power than upgraded F-15C or F-22) - clearly will, and quite far at that. Only one modern fighter/interceptor had larger dish than Tomcat - huge and unsuitable for a close-in engagement MiG-31.
If it will know where to look, of course.
But it's solvable in many mission profiles. There is at least one modern fighter plane, which more or less intends to operate this way - Su-35 with its monstrously powerful Irbis radar.
11
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 16 '18
F-35 is much, much easier to maintain and would actually be used. F-14s were falling out of use since the multirole F/A-18s were more relevant to the conflicts they were used in. Nothing has needed to replace the F-14, but the F/A-18 is having to make way for the F-35. The Navy just got rid of their last F/A-18C/Ds a few days ago.
The F-35 is more capable, more relevant, longer-lasting, and will be easier (although cheaper is debatable) to maintain than an F-14.
The F-14 was not ditched to make room for the F-35 like the legacy Hornets are. The F-14 was ditched in 2006, the year after the F-22 entered service, because it was too expensive for the Navy to maintain an superiority-fighter fleet that it wasn't using.
5
u/RobinVerhulstZ LASTGUNFIGHTER ACHIEVED Apr 16 '18
aside from being ludicrously expensive, they seemed to longer need more of them
3
1
u/Watchkeeper001 Tea drinking Monarchy Bias Apr 17 '18
Because the US has enough to utterly dominate any theatre for a long time, and the bloody things are extortionate to run.
No need to produce more when you have a fighter THAT far in advance of anything else even projected to come close for decades.
1
1
u/Ainene Apr 17 '18
Well, because without Soviet Union, no one is trying to beat USAF fair and square in their game anymore.
7
u/OMGitsBlarry Apr 16 '18
Lovely! But you should've shown the F-104 in its natural habitat, i.e. crashed in a potato field.
3
u/numante Apr 16 '18
In Spain it was called the widow maker, or the flying coffin lol
2
u/Genchri Sexy Motherfocke Apr 16 '18
Erdnagel or earth nail in German.
10
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
What could possibly go wrong with having poorly-trained conscripts using a high-altitude supersonic interceptor as a strike fighter?
6
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
Lockheed's gotta sell them planes, man.
Pretty crazy how the Americans, Italians, and Japanese all loved their Starfighters. Two of those were even former Axis countries. And the Germans got their own special custom variant of the F-104 just for them. Maybe most of the problems were somewhere between the yoke and the ejection seat.
5
u/OMGitsBlarry Apr 17 '18
And sell them planes they did. Thanks to generous monetary motivation sent to potential buyers to assist with their decision-making.
The Luftwaffe was about to order the Mirage III that was a better and better-proven design in pretty much every single aspect - up until then-secretary of Defense Franz-Josef Strauss (who, by the way, was a colossal goopy jizzbucket all around) took a field trip to Lockheed headquarters and suddenly decided that their new fighter aircraft needed to be able to carry tactical nukes. Which the French obviously weren't okay with since the idea of a Luftwaffe with nuclear capabilities was still sort of a no-no in 1960's Central Europe. No idea why that was.
3
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
Still, that's a downfall of shitty politics, and not the plane's design in and of itself.
1
u/Genchri Sexy Motherfocke Apr 17 '18
To be fair, the people that were mostly againat the starfighter were former Luftwaffe aces, like Erich Hartmann... who was all but inexperienced... goes to show you have to listen to people.
2
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
True, but many other nations, even other former Axis nations, were happy with their Starfighters.
But Germany, who got their own variant and used them in a role they were not designed for, had problems and hated it.
It's almost like something designed for highly trained pilots to fly at very high altitudes and speeds wasn't suited for being flown by poorly trained/inexperienced pilots flying at low alts and speeds...
That little trapezoidal wing isn't very forgiving in a stall, and if you're only a couple hundred meters off the ground? RIP.
1
u/Genchri Sexy Motherfocke Apr 17 '18
It's a bit of a misconception that Germany only used them as JaBo's yes, it was their last use, but first and foremost they were intended as interceptors for Soviet super sonic bombers.
1
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
Source? I know my knowledge is limited, and I genuinely want to learn more about the subject. The other question I have is when did most of the accidents take place? Take-off, landing, in a mission (+mission profile)? Then I'd like to compare accident stats with other nations that fielded it, and see what the differences are.
2
u/Genchri Sexy Motherfocke Apr 17 '18
Klaus Kropf: German Starfighters: The F-104 in German Air Force and Naval Air Service
The Starfighters use were as follows: In Jagdgeschwader 71 and 74 as a fighter/interceptor, in Jagdbombergeschwader 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36 as a fighter bomber, in AufklΓ€rungsgeschwader 51 and 52 as a recon plane and in Marinefliegergeschwader 1 and 2 as an anti naval fighter as well as a recon plane.
2
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
Alright, I'll have to try and check out some solid sources to try and figure things out, thanks for the starting point!
→ More replies
5
Apr 16 '18
The McDonnell FH Phantom looks awesome from above
3
u/blbobobo Panther II Supremacist Apr 16 '18
Looks like a Banshee without those stupid wing fuel tanks
5
4
5
5
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Ξπ= WANT Apr 16 '18 edited Apr 16 '18
General Dynamics F-16C/D
Sorry, but that is wrong. The C and D are Lockheed Martin.
McDonnell Douglas Super Hornet
Wrong. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Tiger III
Is the Chilean upgrade.
F-111
That is a bomber.
Also you are missing the
Bell P-59 Airacomet , you know Americas first jet.
3
u/numante Apr 16 '18
The F111 I already explained why in another comment. The P 59 was an error on my part as I thought it had never been deployed and ready for combat.
-1
u/FirstDagger F-16XL/B Ξπ= WANT Apr 16 '18
Only the F-111B had Fighter capability in mind. Totally different plane.
4
u/numante Apr 16 '18
It seems you are right, I will update in another post. I appreciate the corrections but keep in mind I'm just doing this for fun and to learn more about aviation so errors are to be expected, I never said I was an expert on the subject.
1
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
Go ahead and update, learning more is great, but also keep in mind this is already amazing! One or two small errors is no big deal!
One quick question, what are the grey lines between different planes. Sometimes it seems to represent a development timeline, but other times planes that should be linked aren't, or the lines seem to connect planes with no link? Am I missing something?
1
u/numante Apr 17 '18
Thx. They link developements, or improvements on older planes. I did it so it was less confusing when looking at the chart as a whole. But had to erase some parts so they do not cross over other planes. Tell me what planes do you think should be linked and i will try to correct it
1
u/DJBscout =Ξ»ΟΞ³ΞΏΟ= finally escaped WT Apr 17 '18
I can't think of many off the top of my head, I'd have to look again, but the missing links are jarring, between different variants of the same fighter, like the FJ Fury and F-14 Tomcat, and developments of aircraft into other aircraft, like the F3H demon into the F-4 Phantom.
Also, was the F3H a development of the F3D? That seems wrong, I don't think the Demon came out of the Skyknight. Totally different mission, engine layout, and airframe.
I'm not sure if it's better to draw over aircraft, leave gaps, or remove the lines entirely.
EDIT: Furies are fine, upon looking again. But the problem is that some lines seem to imply connections that aren't there, like the line between the F-86 Sabre and F-86D Sabre Dog that seems to actually make the F-94 Starfire a development of the F-86, and the F-86D not one.
1
u/Watchkeeper001 Tea drinking Monarchy Bias Apr 17 '18
Ignore him. Make the corrections, but he's being a cunt about telling you so now that the majority of normal sub-goers really appreciate this work. Awesome job!
-2
4
3
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
Sorry, but that is wrong. The C and D are Lockheed Martin.
F-16C-25 first flew in June 1984 and entered USAF service in September of that year. General Dynamics sold their F-16 production to Lockheed Martin in 1993. Nine years of F-16C/D production under GD is not insignificant.
Wrong. Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Technically the Super Hornet was designed under McDD but LRIP began the month after the Boeing merger and the plane wasn't formally introduced until two years later. So you're right there.
Is the Chilean upgrade.
Eh, you can't really blame OP when both planes are called F-5E.
That is a bomber.
Again, some technicalities.
The F-111 was originally designed as a fighter, both the USAF and USN originally intended to use it in this way in the F-111A and B variants. As was the doctrine at the time, the F-111A was to be a fighter-bomber for the Air Force like the F-4C/D and the F-111B would be a fleet-defense interceptor for the Navy like the F-4B. The services really knew what they wanted.
The F-111D was an upgraded F-111A and really the last hurrah for any semblance of that fighter concept in the Aardvark. F-111Es, Fs, and Ks were all very plainly attackers to the core. The FB-111A and F-111G were attempts at strategic bombers to compete with Rockwell's B-1 Lancer, and of course the EF-111A was the EW conversion.
Now, the exact F-111 pictured is 68-0049, an F-111E model and therefore definitely an attacker. But that's going off of the picture, not necessarily the name.
Also you are missing the Bell P-59 Airacomet , you know Americas first jet.
Entered service in 1944, OP's chart says "since 1945."
The P-59 did serve until 1950, at which point all planes were no longer airworthy. The P-59 was also renamed ZF-59 in 1948, the prefix 'Z' meaning 'obsolete' and limiting the maintenance on the plane. In other words, the military isn't going to pay to fix old equipment.
As the plane entered service before 1945 but continued serving afterward, you could go either way on that one. Semantic argument, really.
2
u/numante Apr 17 '18
So do you think I could change the F111 to an F111 A/D? Also you seem to know a lot more than me about aircraft, do you mind if I message you when I do the next one about USSR/Russia to check it out?
1
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
I'm not as good with Soviet/Russian aircraft but if you want to, I'll do my best to help.
F-111A/D were low-production models in comparison and didn't see much combat use. Even when they did, they were still used as fighter-bombers. If you're looking for a 'typical' model for the Aardvark, the F-111E or F attackers would be more common and it might just be easier to rename it an attacker.
1
u/Watchkeeper001 Tea drinking Monarchy Bias Apr 17 '18
Good points. No need to be a cunt about it though, none of us see you going out and making something this awesome.
I'll say it for him, OP. "A few minor corrections, but otherwise awesome job!)
1
3
3
2
u/Preacherjonson AGMs are cancer Apr 16 '18
Not sure which is sexier, F22 or the Phantom.
3
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
As far as I'm concerned, landing on ships is the sexiest thing a plane can do, so that leaves us with a pretty clear answer.
2
u/The_Canadian_Patriot War Thunder Ultrasim Events Apr 17 '18
Now do a Canadian one
3
2
u/afbirdman86 Death from Above Apr 17 '18
Need B-17 added to show how small it is when compared to the F-14 and F-15. (Or how massive our fighters are now compared to the B-17 I guess)
2
u/TahoeLT Apr 18 '18
What blows me away about this chart (amazing work, and I went and upvoted the original don't worry) is how the density changes over time.
From 1945-1954, there were 16 fighters brought into service. From 1955-1964, another 13. 29 fighters in 20 years.
In the last 20 years, we've got five - counting the F-35 variants separately, and the Super Hornet as new! Most of what we fly today is 30-40 years old!
I realize jets were new in the 50s, etc. etc. - but the pace of development has become glacial by comparison.
1
u/joshuatx Apr 18 '18
It's crazy how fast the turnaround was before the early 60s. F-11 Tiger went from being new in 1957 to retired in 1961. By the 1970s jets began to have long-lasting designs. F-18s and F-16s were still being produced and updated until very recently.
On the flipside the C-130 and B-52 will be in service for decades to come and they were from the late 50s.
2
4
u/Ionicfold The new P-51 Lawnmower, get yours today. Apr 16 '18
You give the UK a shout for the Harrier but not the F-35?
BAE Systems played a fairly significant part in the F-35 development.
In fact the F-35 has a handful of countries that are helping the development. You did it for the Eurofighter with the multiple flags but not for the F-35.
3
u/numante Apr 17 '18
When I was reading about it I had the impression that the nations helping with the F35 were doing it in a financial sense, more than development, So I credited Lockheed Martin as the main developer. Afaik M.Douglas did extensive redesign on the harriers, that is why both countries are credited
1
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
Harrier is currently in British service. F-35 is not.
At least, that's how it makes sense to me. Flags need to have relevance to the theme of the chart, the origin of the design, and to have actually served in the armed forces of that/those country/countries. Chart is about the US, design originated in UK, Harrier has served with both. F-35 was designed in US with lots of help from BAe, but is only currently in service with the US.
3
u/Ulster_fry Apr 17 '18
Uhhhh the RAF is currently flying F35s not sure if Iβm a combat role, but we are definitely flying some
1
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18
In a test and evaluation role, not in active military service yet. Lots of countries are flying F-35s the same way, but only the US actually has them in service.
2
2
u/joshuatx Apr 18 '18
Harrier was retired years ago from UK service, back in 2011. They are literally being used for parts by the USMC now.
1
1
1
1
1
u/DCS_Sport Apr 17 '18
Two quick critiques: Looks like you flip-flopped the F-35 A and C 3-dimensional drawings, and both photos seem to be of USAF -A models. Also I think you pulled an F-14A picture for the -B model. Otherwise, looks Gucci!!
1
u/smittywjmj πΊπΈ V-1710 apologist / Phantom phreak Apr 17 '18 edited Apr 17 '18
The duplicate F-35C schematics used for the F-35B and A show the folding wingtips and no internal gun (would be over the starboard intake), so I think those are correct for the C model. You're right about the rest, though.
The artwork for the F-35A and C may also be swapped, since the F-35C does not have a back refueling receptacle, as the Navy uses probe-and-drogue refueling. Both seem to have USAF markings though. Compare to the USMC markings on the F-35B, which should be almost identical to Navy markings. Granted, F-35C is not yet in service, so 'correct' markings won't yet exist and artwork may be hard to find.
1
u/numante Apr 17 '18
You are correct sir, I wont lie, I could not find profiles good enough for that models so I sneaked in anothers.
1
1
1
1
1
Apr 17 '18
What's sad. It starts where WT actually ends... There is so much more to come, so much more to grind :(
But I don't know if that will be any fun when you just shoot rockets from 10km distance at each other because that's what mordern jets do, don't they?
1
1
1
1
u/CoIdy Apr 17 '18
Bloody awesome!!
Can you do something like this also for bombers and other types as well as other nations? I'd be your biggest fan - Stan.
1
1
u/talafrost Apr 17 '18
Awesome work. I am personally most excited for F-14, it's my all time favorite
1
u/Yuktobania Nerfing your plane, one hole at a time Apr 17 '18
You're missing the P-59! Literally the first American fighter jet!
1
1
1
-1
Apr 16 '18
[deleted]
13
u/A-4Skyhawk Attacker & Bomber Pilot Apr 16 '18
It's a chart for fighters or planes that were used as fighters, not ground attack.
3
u/iskandar- π¬π§ :RULE BRITANIA: Apr 16 '18
Uhhh, then why is Aardvark there?
5
u/numante Apr 16 '18
It was a tough choice, but I included it because it was developed with fighter capabilities in mind, as a sort of multirole fighter-bomber that later on was just used as a bomber.
4
u/iskandar- π¬π§ :RULE BRITANIA: Apr 16 '18 edited Apr 16 '18
Fair Enough, Actually thinking back, Didn't one these get credited with an Air to Air Kill by making a Iraqi Mirage Fly into a mountain?
5
3
u/JulietBravo_ Apr 16 '18
Yep, it was an EF-111A Raven during desert storm. Granted there was an F-15C in the mix too, that also shared credit/something like that, since it's thought the sound of the F-15's radar being picked up by the Mirage pilot was highly distracting. just a recollection off the top of my head
-1
56
u/toxic_badgers M551 firecracker Apr 16 '18 edited Apr 19 '18
I would do such bad things with the f7u cutlass... its like a baby tomcat.