I do feel there is certain amount of vote rigging going on in this thread.
Yes in the given scenario of a fighter v a helicopter, the fighter has a much higher likelihood of bringing down the chopper, than the reverse.
In an actual peer war, both parties would be concentrating on their mission, not looking for bonus points.
The fighter has a mission, navigation, RWR etc to manage. The chopper the same, plus trees to dodge, ground fire etc.
Both are going to be far more focused on their peer threats, the fighter will be looking up and around, for other fighters, not looking in ground clutter for a whirleygig to play with.
In asymmetric warfare, have at it, but if charlie is shuttling around in a Mi-8 I'd suggest the west would either strike it on the ground, or send an apache to gun it down, than send an F16 to play tag.
And I agree, if there is a specific anti-helo force, armed trainers make far more sense, than fighters, or fighter-heli's.
