Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fastest Fighter Today  
User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7939 times:

What is the fastest non-Russian fighter in service today, in terms of top speed at optimum altitude?
TomH

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1369 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7689 times:

I think the F-15A/C: top speed should be Mach2.5 at altitude for 20 seconds, 2701Kph!

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1009 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7680 times:

YES steman you are right

User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7672 times:

I would say the F-15E Strike Eagle, but it may have the same specs as the F-15A/C.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7656 times:

I think the Strike Eagle is slightly slower than the normal one due to its higher weight and the extra drag imposed by the conformal tanks.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7648 times:

The F-15C/D can also carry those tanks.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineDuce50Boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7647 times:

I'd guess the F-15. not sure wether it'd be a or c model. the a's alot lighter, but the c's got more powerful engines. back in the 70's they had a stripped down (i'm talking almost no paint too!) f-15a called the streak eagle set a bunch of world records for altitude, time to climb and some others. got to 98,000 feet in something like 2 or 3 minutes, and got a little bit past 2.5 mach. but that was a stripped down bird and in extremely cold weather.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Nathan Long



User currently offlineTomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7632 times:

That's what I was thinking, the Eagle was tops. It also reminds me of what a performance penalty we pay for stealthiness. The F-117 is after all, an aircraft that has to stay home when the sun shines.
TomH


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7623 times:

Well, the F-22 is a stealth aircraft and it will be able to cruise at Mach 1 without afterburner. Am I wrong?

The F-117 is subsonic, and really a tactical bomber, not a fighter.


User currently offlineDuce50Boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7624 times:

i was just going by top speed. the f-22 can't go far past mach 2 because it doesn't have the 'talking' (variable) inlets. i heard somewhere the f-22 can cruise in the neighborhood of 1.4-1.5 mach

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7619 times:

Fighters with max speeds over 1300kts (Mach 2.25)

F-15: 1433kts
F-111: 1377kts
Su-27: 1350kts
MiG-23: 1349kts
F-14A: 1342kts
MiG-29: 1320kts
Kfir C7: 1315kts


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7614 times:

What about the MiG-25 Foxbat?

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7617 times:

Technically, the MiG-25 and -31 are not fighters, yet quite enormus interceptors. The MiG-31's maximum takeoff weight is greater than that of a Fokker F100's. They were designed to quickly get to and shoot down American bombers, not dogfight - that is why they were not included in the list. Yet, aside from the SR-71, they are the fastest aircraft in the sky... 1620kts (Mach 2.83).

User currently offlineAerotech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7615 times:

After they had the fuel burned down to the exact amout(somewhere around 7,300lbs), the Streak Eagle punched through the sound barrier 28 seconds after brake release!!!!!  Wow!

User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7599 times:

Aerotech,

You are right, the Streak Eagle should be mentioned, though not in regard to speed. This was the name for a project, as I recall, to break the FAI time-to-climb record. As one can expect, this F-15 was specially modified for this purpose, and so was not truly an operational fighter. The nose gear was modified for quick retraction and the aircraft flew as a bare metal platform to save weight. There may have been other steps taken to enhance the climb statistics.

MikeN,

I took a cheap shot at the F-117 because I personally don't appreciate the performance penalties brought about by first generation stealth aircraft. If it weren't for then SecDef Cheney, the USN would now be bringing into service the A-12, another stealth platform. The only plus I could see about that design was that it reminded me of cheap science fiction movies from the 1950s. Not much of a plus. It probably would have had lower performance parameters than the F-117 regarding speed, altitude and maneuverability.

Yes, like you, my impression is that the F-22 has supersonic cruise ability, which they are calling "super cruise." Although as Deuce pointed out, that means well below Mach 2. From what I have read this is a highly automated aircraft, and its relatively long development life should mean it has the latest in black boxes. We have learned with other aircraft, such as the B-1B, these black boxes MUST function properly or the weapon system is compromised to some extent. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the "Bone," though I truly dislike its "charcoal" paint job.

We should see great performance and combat survivability in the F-22. This, and the force multiplier effect should mean we won't have to field too many of these incredibly expensive aircraft, though two wings should be the minimum. Usually a USAF aircraft produced in numbers sufficient to equip only one wing experiences a shortened service life at the tail end of its career, due to high expense with spares, maintainability, reduced training availability and so on. A minimum production run over 10 years of say, 200 F-22s would be nice.

To digress a bit more. I think the F-22 will be the last manned fighter. Like space flight, I don't see the sense in dragging around these made-for-earth bodies of ours in the next generation of combat aircraft. Why pretend we can sustain higher G-figures that we presently experienced in aircraft like the F-16 and F-15? We have too much bone and muscle mass, and we are really only comfortable in a puny 1G environment. I'm sure the electronics industry can produce a pilot replacement box capable of much higher G forces, no family ties, and no retirement benefits. And no need for much sabre-rattling when one falls into enemy hands, just build in self-destruct capability.

H'mm, whatever happened to the top speed issue I was originally talking about? Later....
TomH

TomH


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7598 times:

Isn't the MiG-25 capable of mach 3?

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7590 times:

If u include the russian why don't u mention an mig-31

User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

LY744 & Fireblade,

I don't know who is being asked the question, but yes, I believe both those aircraft top out around Mach 3. The original question involved non-Russian fighters, but those two may be the fastest overall fighters in regular military service. (They are in regular military service aren't they?)

Here's a question for you. Are they powered by turbofan or turbojet engines?
TomH


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

LY744 & Fireblade, I'll repost my earlier reply:

Technically, the MiG-25 and -31 are not fighters, yet quite enormus interceptors. The MiG-31's maximum takeoff weight is greater than that of a Fokker F100's. They were designed to quickly get to and shoot down American bombers and cruise missiles, not dogfight - that is why they were not included in the list. Yet, aside from the SR-71, they are the fastest aircraft in the sky, both with a max speed of 1620kts (Mach 2.83).


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7581 times:

Flyf15, again, I'm pretty sure the MiG-25 is capable of speeds as high as 3 mach (maybe more), the MiG-31 is heavier and has different engines so it has a lower max. speed (mach 2.83 sounds right).
And yes, both are in operational service.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineAerotech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7576 times:

Wow, Tom, you brought a tear to my eye. IF they removed the pilot form the fighter, that would be my hell. But I think they will keep pilots in fighters for the same reasons they keep pilots in airlners, the humam brain and it's unparalleled ability to access situations. And there are about a million more accesments to be made in a combat enviroment (Range, vectors to target, speed, altidute, his fuel, my fuel, what AWACS is telling me,ect, ect), so a computer my be more likely to shoot down a friendly aircraft. OR imagine a scenario where some future Russina fighter has stealth capabilities. The computer wouldn't see him on radar, but he could be flying right next to the unmanned aircraft. Fighter pilots always say the number on tool onboard a modern fighter is the mk.1 eyeball and the brain to operate it.

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7568 times:

LY,

How I understand it, both aircraft are limited to 1620kts as a peacetime operational max. Yet, during a wartime emergency situation, the MiG-25 can be pushed to Mach ~3.1 if absolutely necessary. After doing so, major engine maintaince and possibly engine replacement are a must. I'm not sure if the MiG-31 has similar capabilities (but I'd assume so).


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7565 times:

Aerotech,

I agree with you, fighter pilots will be around for at least another 30-40 years. With the F-22 coming online soon and the X-32 and X-35 aircraft in testing, that should be some assurance. But, like the downsizing during the late-1980s and 90s, there will be less pilots needed because there will be less planes to fly. During Vietnam, for instance, there were 10 planes to perform 10 roles, now there are 5 planes to perform 10 roles. However, I do forsee more unmanned, remote controlled surveillence and tactical bomber-type aircraft coming soon.

Mike


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (13 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

Guys,

We are getting off my original topic (fastest NATO fighter) with all this Mig-25/31 talk, so I'm going to open up a new topic dedidcated to that series of aircraft. My point on the powerplants on these two aircraft wasn't taken up, so I'll start with that in the new topic.

LY744-it just hit me-are you in VP-92? You can reply by direct Email if you prefer.

Regarding the manned fighter. I'll continue my theme. Don't get me wrong, I would hate to see the "Stick Actuator" (as we called them in my old A-10 unit) taken out of the aircraft, but once the game is on the thinking ability and reflexes of a pilot in a complex High-G environment are not up to the ability of a properly hardened, redundant cybernetic-based system. Pilots may disagree, but they have a vested interest in doing so-namely their future in the sky. I really think a computer is better in combat at the grey-out limit than a flesh and bone pilot.

The lessening need for a pilot is especially true in an AWACS-monitored air-to-air combat scenario. In an identified combat zone (no fly, for instance), we see less human judgement input within the fighter's cockpit and more monitoring of weapon and flight systems. In this invironment, Aerotech, the fuel quantity issue is determined by instruments, the pilot is left trying to intellectually interpret the instrument readout while grunting and groaning his way through the sky. Virtually everything he sees under these conditions could be data-linked via air-to-air relay or satellite to the appropriate controlling center. Let those guys apply the intellectual factor, they are in a 1G air-conditioned environment and can think better. The fuel remaining onboard the bogies is already known to AWACS, because they have been watching these bad guys since they taxied out from the Red Force home drome. All this can be data-linked to the Blue force, or whoever the good guys are.

A lot of this stuff was done years ago, in the vacuum tube age. Remember the SAGE system? It was perhaps very limited by today's standards, but it worked. Visiting the online radar museum (www.radomes.org) may be in order for some, to get the historical perspective behind this last statement.

Having a human on board really doesn't guarantee much. Our neurons don't have much of a parity check in place. The recent episode in South America where innocent people were killed due to a questionable shootdown of a light aircraft is simply a recent example-there have been many others over the years.

I'm gonna knock it off right here-see you at the club.

TomH


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (13 years 2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7563 times:

What's VP-92? I guess that's a no. Sorry. Have a look at my profile!

In the early 70's when Soviet MiG-25's used to invade Israeli air space they were confronted several times by IAF F-4's, the F-4 pilots reported that every time they tried to get close, the MiG-25 would accelerate to Mach 3 and disappear into Egypt. Now, that may be what you would call an emergency, but the Soviets had only two or three a/c based in Egypt at the time and they were forced to fly at Mach 3 quite a few times during that time period, they didn't have much time and equipment for complicate maintenance work.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
25 L-188 : I belive that the Y-12 probably rates as being faster then the MIG-25. But it didn't enter service unlike the Mig Aircraft. It could substain it's spe
26 Jwenting : Correct. YF-12 could sustain Mach 3.2 or more for extended periods, where the MiG-25 burns out the engines in a few minutes. It was designed to counte
27 Tomh : LY744, Sorry about the misidentification. The Israelis were working on water-injected engines for their F-4, possibly in response to these overflights
28 L-188 : Got to agree with you Tomh on the Arrow. Unfortunatly the aircraft never flew (TBMK) with the intended Orenda engine. It would have definatly been a M
29 Fireblade : Yes the ARROW is the greatest
30 L-188 : Yes it is pretty sad that there is no such thing as an Indiginous Canadian fighter. I will say that the failure of the Orenda is the only reason why t
31 TomH : I didn't know that about the potential French application of the Orenda. So the loss to Canadian industry was greater than I knew. My suspicion is tha
32 L-188 : Actually I put in the wrong engine....bad me... By Orenda one should think of the earlier Candian powerplant that powered the CF-100 and the Canadian
33 Lucifer : Eurofighter Typhoon needs to be included in above lists
34 Tomh : Lucifer, What is the top speed for the Typhoon? We are up over 1,600 MPH with the F-15 already. TomH
35 747400sp : F-22A NO QUESTION! It can cruise ta super sonic speed.
36 CX747 : I don't forsee piloted fighters going away anytime soon. In 50 years, the technology might be there to make is plausible. Technology wise, it might no
37 Sovietjet : Yes but if you read it isn't above M1.4-1.5 so it isn't the fastest. F-15 takes the cake but if you count Russian then the Mig-31 and Mig-25 win. It'
38 Post contains links AislepathLight : The Mirage 2000s is close to 1300 knots, with a top speed of 1260 knots (Mach 2.2, 1452 MPH, and 2336 K/PH) The Thuds also just fall short, with a top
39 Post contains images 4holer : All interesting facts. But I think that the big question is how a 5 year old thread managed to be revived?
40 AislepathLight : Wow Sure, it has a high cruise speed, but not much else in the top end performance range.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Fastest Fighter Today
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Whose 3 Fighter Jets Flew Directly Over DCA Today? posted Wed Aug 21 2002 21:55:04 by Bobcat
Fastest Wwii Prop Fighter? posted Fri Jan 18 2002 22:36:45 by TechRep
Single A-37 Flight Today posted Sat Nov 11 2006 02:47:42 by Braud65
Fighter With The Highest Landing Speed. Which One? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:29:05 by Art
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Fastest British Military Jet posted Thu Nov 2 2006 17:36:49 by N215AZ
RAF Hercules At CWL Today posted Thu Oct 26 2006 19:44:32 by Cardiffairtaxi
Croatia Future Fighter Purchase Options? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 10:03:18 by Mig21UMD
Fighter Almost Shoots Down Learjet posted Mon Oct 16 2006 17:30:54 by Columba
Usaf Memorial Dedicated Today (Oct 14) posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:22:39 by TaxPilot

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format