"What's your favorite fighter jet?"

"What's your favorite fighter jet?"

"Well... that depends."

One of my problems is that I can't seem to give a simple answer to even the simplest question. I started thinking about what my favorite fighter jet is, and realized that "it depends" really is the answer.

I've always loved fighter jets, though my favorite has fluctuated depending on a wide variety of factors. Interestingly enough, technology is actually not one of the factors in play here. I think that mostly goes to show how long modern fighter development cycles have become. The F-22 was already heavily featured in games even 15 years ago, but only now is it really starting to see active duty service. Notably though, as far as I know, the F-35, the PAK FA, and the J-20 weren't publicly known. But otherwise, it's a largely familiar roster to choose from, though now sadly missing the F-14.

I decided to write this post partly out of nostalgia, but also due to the realization of the fact that my tastes are also influenced by the country I reside in, affecting my sympathies. Enough talk, time for a blast from the past(?)

In chronological order:

F-14: I think just "Top Gun" should be enough, haha. I haven't actually seen another fighter jet movie that cool since. "Iron Eagle" was just silly, and "Stealth"... well, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Top Gun inspired me to become a fighter pilot, to the dismay of my mother, though her fears were quickly assuaged when I began wearing glasses in 2nd grade. It's hard to overstate how much of an influence Top Gun had on us young boys at the time - how many of us made MiG-28s for the lulz in Fighters Anthology, or tried to duplicate the infamous "We were inverted" moment? Even now, with advances in technology and the increased range of the AIM-120D, there's just no replacing the F-14 for long range fleet defense. The F-14 also left me heavily biased in favor of naval aviation over the Air Force for awhile, though I've grown to appreciate the F-16 (since Taiwan operates it). It also delayed my acceptance of the F/A-18, because I saw the Hornet as an unworthy usurper. Though I've grown to appreciate multi-role fighters and cost-effectiveness, I will always have a soft spot for the F-14. It just looks so damn cool.

MiG-29, Su-27: I grew up believing that Soviet fighters were all shoddily made pieces of crap that relied upon sheer numbers to get the job done. While it's true that Soviet (and to a certain extent, modern Russian fighter jet procurement philosophy) does put more emphasis on numbers than the United States, this is obviously an incomplete picture that also doesn't take into account disparities in pilot training, the massive logistical advantages favoring countries using Western equipment whenever they have faced countries operating Soviet equipment, and other factors. All this is to say that if there was a Soviet fighter that I really liked, it had to be *really* cool. And the MiG-29 and Su-27 are just that. I talk of the two together mostly due to some physical similarities, but also because I fell in love with them at around the same time. My preference really varies, depending on what kind of operating country I sympathize with at the moment. For example, I used to prefer the Su-27 because I liked its superior range and its huge missile payload. But having lived in a small country with a limited military procurement budget, I've started to swing towards liking smaller aircraft with that excel in their specific roles, like the MiG-29. The fact that these two models are highly maneuverable seemed rather chivalrous as well - I think that despite this being an age of Beyond Visual Range combat dominance, there's something romantic about close range dogfighting that everyone loves, hence a soft spot for amazing agility. Plus, Russian paint schemes were always pretty cool.

Rafale: This was my favorite fighter throughout high school. The story behind this isn't nearly as interesting as the ones before - simply, I really enjoyed playing a flightsim called "Fighters Anthology" at the time. Games are now quite different than they were before, and it's not just due to graphical improvements. The gaming market has expanded, and developers have much more information than they did compared to their predecessors decades ago, and they also have to take international appeal into account. As such, "modern" flightsims like DCS, LOMAC, Falcon 4.0, and Strike Fighters have generally tried to reflect aircraft capability as best they can, based on the raw stats. But back in the 90s, this definitely wasn't the case. If playing a game by an American developer, you would invariably be piloting a veritable death machine armed with a ridiculous number of missiles, swatting MiGs out of the sky without breaking a sweat. To a certain extent, Fighters Anthology wasn't *that* bad of an offender compared to some other games, but it was clear from the outset which side you were supposed to be playing on. (taking a look at the game code later on merely confirmed my suspicions) Ironically though, I actually tended to despise the game's "favorites" - the F-22 is so ridiculously overpowered in an unmodded version of Fighters Anthology (I recognize that this is the case in real life as well, but it's not exactly fun) that I don't enjoy fighting in it as much as I do a less capable aircraft. I grew to love the Rafale, and that remained my absolute favorite for quite a while. I liked that it was French, and developed after the French gave a middle finger to the Eurofighter project for not being carrier-capable. There's just something admirably silly about spending a *lot* more money unnecessarily in order to act like a world superpower (because honestly, who else needs carrier-capable aircraft, unless you're trying to project global power), just because of pride. And as always, it looked damn cool. I appreciated the canards, though it contributed negatively to stealth, and that aesthetic appeal carried on to my current favorite:

Gripen: This is probably the prime example of how my personal preference has shifted due to living in a disadvantaged country. The Gripen is a small Swedish fighter originally designed to hold off a Soviet invasion - as such, it was expected that most airfields would be rendered inoperable within the first few days (or even hours) of war, and as such the Air Force would need a fighter that was simultaneously advanced, yet easy to maintain so even conscripts could get a jet prepped for a sortie within half an hour, and could take off from highways. This is exactly the type of jet that I didn't see the appeal in when I was still fully "American" in mindset. In America, we like to just throw money at a problem until it goes away - the F-22 is a good case in study, but the Army's reliance on air support against ragtag resistance fighters with rifles demonstrates it as well. When you have essentially unlimited resources, it's easy to judge something purely based on capability, and I will readily admit that the Gripen isn't even in the same league as the F-22, or perhaps even the F-35, really. And yet, as Taiwan is in a situation more closely resembling Cold War Sweden, I appreciate the philosophy behind the Gripen more and more. Studying political science and learning more about procurement, budgets, and political feasibility is also part of it.

I suppose what this post does, in addition to being just a long stream of consciousness about cool fighter jets, is to show that you will almost never get a simple answer from me.

On a side note, I have grown to appreciate the F-22 due to how... well, at the risk of repeating myself, ridiculously overpowered in impractical it actually is in real life. Just operating the aircraft for a few hours would probably bankrupt most small countries. And yes, it's quite likely that it will never see action, and that if it ever did face off against a real power like China 30 years from now, it would be stealth vs stealth and as such back to close range dogfights because neither side can detect the other from BVR... but there's something so "American" about spending oodles of cash (while attempting to cut social services because of the government debt) in a successful attempt to retain dominance in a very specific aspect of war.