What was the best third generation fighter?
>>27920736
Phantom
>>27920736
In what respect?
Fastest? Cheapest? Tightest turning? Capable of causing the most butthurt?
Because the Arrow would win the latter category.
>>27920736
Certainly not that one with it's lack of a gun and sub-par missiles.
>>27920932
There are five of them for every one of your capitalist fighters due to good engineering cutting the cost.
>>27920967
Yeah, and like the Israelis did, our capitalist fighters will shoot them all down with little to no losses.
Given the historical hit ratio of the R-27 being only 4%, the older R-40 is probably even worse.
>>27920932
>R-40
>Subpar
Try again.
>>27920736
that looks fucking huge
>>27920967
Hmm
>Number built: 1186
We have determined that that is a lie. But what about it's cousin, MiG-31?
>Number built: 519
Oh dear. Slavaboo caught in a lie.
![Iraqi-MiG-25-in_sand[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3ooLceH.jpg "Iraqi-MiG-25-in_sand[1].jpg")
>>27921004
It is
F14
>>27921019
Related to this?
>tfw you'll never ramp a captured MiG-25 with an Abrams.
Mig-23
>>27921050
Them Duke boys are at it again.
>>27921019
MiG-25 big. Pictured next to a hornet, it was the only fighter to score a confirmed air-to-air kill against US aircraft when it downed an F-18 with the R-40.
There was also an unconfirmed claim that a MiG-25 downed an Israeli F-15 with the R-40, but it's either a total fabrication or the F-15 was at least damaged.
>>27920736
Phantom and it's not even close.
>>27921052
OP asked for the best fighter, not the literal worst one.
>>27920983
Quality /k-tier analysis.
>In the Vietnam War, an average of 200 AIM-7 Sparrow missiles were launched for every kill they achieved. During one period in 1968, there were over 50 Sparrow launches without a single kill resulting from any of them
>>27921050
What a waste. It could have gone to arming moderate rebels.
>>27921071
The F1 is easily as bad performance wise.
>>27920736
I've never gotta a clear understand how how "good" the MiG-25 actually was. It is so specialized in purpose that it is hard to directly compare it to other fighters.
>>27920736
The one with the best Kill/loss ratio.
>>27921004
>We have determined that that is a lie. But what about it's cousin, MiG-31?
>We have determined that
>We
Who?
>>27920932
>Certainly not that one
MiG-25 was an interceptor, not a fighter
>>27921229
Maury.
>>27920736
MiG-23, though it was more of a 3.5 gen
>>27921275
What?
>>27921083
>>In the Vietnam War, an average of 200 AIM-7 Sparrow missiles were launched for every kill they achieved.
>one period in 1968, there were over 50 Sparrow launches without a single kill resulting from any of them
This pair of statements makes no contextual sense with each other, and there is no source for either claim. Try harder.
>>27921318
The source is the same forum that implies "hit ratio of the R-27 being only 4%".
>>27921359
But... what? You can't even find the URL? Cant copy pasta the address?
Sure, anon. You totally have a source for that.
>>27921385
You are incapable of googling greentext? I hope at least typing Ctrl+F is still in the range of your capabilities.
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/387-3080.aspx#startofcomments
F-8 crusader
/thread
>>27921408
No. I just couldn't believe that your "source" for this excellent "research" and "insight" was a fucking retard on a forum, who also said the following in his exceedingly retarded post:
>Only 5 of 25 Sparrow kills in ODS (Operation Desert Storm) were BVR. All others were WVR. Also, it took more than 120 launches to achieve those 25 kills.
>The first kill in ODS was by an F/A-18C Hornet, using a Sidewinder, and all Coalition aircraft other than F-15s scored their kills with either Sidewinders or gunfire.
>To date, only 9 confirmed BVR kills in any conflict have ever been achieved, out of thousands. If the Sidewinder is allowed to become as expensive and complex as the Sparrow, Alamo, or AMRAAM, it (along with all air arms employing i) will cease to demonstrate adequate results in air-to-air combat.
This on top of the complete logical inconsistencies in your original quote. For instance, just after he made the statement you quoted, he claimed:
>while the Sparrow's [pK ratio] was a completely inexcusable 0.05%.
while he just fucking got done claiming that the Sparrow got one kill for every 200 fired (still complete bullshit, by the way). Do the math. Dude is a fucking moron.
And you were dumb enough to quote this moron, who threw numbers around that a 5 year old with an abacus could tell you were donkeyfucked. Numbers with absolutely zero sources.
Well done. You fucking retard.
>>27921478
>gun kills in Desert Storm
Even if he's talking about that A-10 kill on the heli, he's still fucking gay.
Also incorrect.
>>27921267
interceptor is a type of fighter.
>>27921478
How am I fucking retard for using the same source the actual retard used to prove how retarded it is to use random forums as proofs?
>>27921478
What was the RoE for Desert Storm?
>>27921409
This.
>>27921504
in that case, OP's pic is definitely related.
this was a third gen plane that shot down an F-18 and possibly an F-15.
>>27921504
Air superiority fighter is a type of fighter too. They are different types of fighters with different combat roles than can not be compared.
>c:trains
>>27921508
I wonder, Captain Potato, where the fuck the anon here >>27920983 said his source was that forum, much less that exceedingly retarded poster you decided to quote from?
>>27921597
And what else for a source would that be? Only google results for his retarded claim are two forum posts and a dead /k thread.
>>27921636
One of the ten other forums suggesting such a thing?
Also:
>but he was retarded too
>having a good defense for being pants on head retarded
Pick fucking one and only one.
>>27921669
>Forums
Pls.
>>27921716
Fucking kek. This just keeps getting better. Please do explain to me how
>http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-100828-p-2.html
is the same source as the one you supplied >>27921408
>http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/387-3080.aspx#startofcomments
Holy fuck. Are you really this stupid?
>>27921716
>>27921744
Oh, and once more, you're still a fucking moron for supplying either as a source or shitposting stupid from either of them.
>>27921744
>http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-100828-p-2.html
So the same forum post that states that 24 missiles were launched and that "We don't know about type of R27 used and they were apparently "max range" shoots." both of which is a complete bullshit? Please.
>Forum posts
Please.
>>27921751
Calling me a moron won't change the fact that the claim made by the original poster is idiotic. I am not supplying either as a source, he did.
>>27921811
At least the other anon wasn't quite so fucking retarded that he posted an OBVIOUSLY contradictory quote, and then tried to pass it off as legit. Hes a fucking retard, sure, but you're on a whole other level. This damage control is too fucking funny.
>>27921840
But this is quite literally exactly what he did. What are we even arguing about?
>>27921877
Kek. You really don't see why the statement here >>27921083 is so fucking retarded, do you? God, you're too fucking funny.
>>27921892
>Quality /k-tier analysis.
So you didn't get the irony then? Once again, "using the same source the actual retard used to prove how retarded it is to use random forums as proofs".
>>27921915
>only pretending to be retarded guize!
AND
>b- but he was a retard, too!
in the same post. It's like a dumbass daily double. My sides.
>>27921942
>Quality /k-tier analysis.
>Anything but irony
Man.
>>27921974
>trying to slink away with a weak poe's law drop
Man.
>>27921915
>>27921974
So what you're saying is you were trying to be ironic, but were too stupid to quote from the same source?
Never change, /k/.
Oh, what could have been :'(
>>27921318
Neither is there a source for yours.
And how the fuck can't you understand what he said?
![tomcat4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xjS55gG.jpg "tomcat4[1].jpg")
>>27924561
The F-14 is 4th gen you mong. Also it's the best fighter/interceptor ever built.
>>27924561
>F-14A
ew.
Come back when you have better engines.
>>27925006
F-14 really is the last of the 3rd gens.
Everything about her design really screams 1960s mindset.
While the F-15, F-16, and F18 are clearly statements about why the 60s were wrong.
Even the A-10 isn't 4th Gen.
>>27925532
I'm actually kind of curious what you mean here. Take the F-14 vs F-15 for example, both were large, reasonably agile aircraft that were initially built solely for air to air, each one took the same lessons learned from the Phantom (and to a lesser extent the Crusader), and used them to push fighter design forward for their respective branches.
>>27920983
Polished 104s
