ChrisL Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 While it's not something I know the answer to, I wonder how it'd look if we changed the first criteria from number built to profitability, or revenue generated? How many MiGs were sold primarily because they were dirt cheap compared to western options? Were jets sold as loss-leaders to tie countries in to military alliances or reliance on ordnance supplies? Presumably you could also deduct the bribe money from the income Lockheed made from selling the Starfighter to NATO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) It's a difficult decision based on the three criteria given. Most of the aircraft I can think of miss on at least one of them. The Saab Viggen could be in the running on the second and third points, but definitely not on the first. The Lockheed F-104 might do it on the first and third, but I'm not sure it was all that innovative compared to it's contemporaries. One also has to keep in mind, especially considering machines like the MiG-21 and F-16, how much the aircraft has evolved in it's life and how much familiarity beyond sharing a name the earlier versions have with the later ones. Some aircraft took a few versions before they became real successful and tons of changes may have been required. Edited January 15, 2015 by upnorth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis_C Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 One also has to keep in mind, especially considering machines like the MiG-21 and F-16, how much the aircraft has evolved in it's life Ability to evolve is a factor that makes an airplane successful too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lengyel Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 When we're talking about fighter jets, I would consider the role they were designed to. Kill ratio should be the main metrics here. Some examples taken from the article on MilitaryPhotos.net[Fighter WON-LOST]F-4 306-106F-5 25-23F-14 135-4F-15A/C/I/S 102-0F-15E 1-0F-16 76-1F/A-18A/B/C/D 2-1F/A-18E/F/G 0-0Mirage 2000 1-0Sea Harrier 21-0Mirage F.1 24-43MiG-21 240-501MiG-23 25-102MiG-25 8-8MiG-29 6-18Su-27 6-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Ability to evolve is a factor that makes an airplane successful too Very true, and it should constitute a criteria all its own. Innovating is one thing, but being flexible and adaptable to changes in technology is even more important in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Rogers Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 F-15 for me, no contest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyverns4 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 So, not the Supermarine Attacker then...? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denford Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Shouldn't this thread be on Real Aviation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Shouldn't this thread be on Real Aviation? Its a fantasy survey. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis_C Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) MiG-21 240-501 it is a sorrow consequence of fighting against 3 and 4 gen Israeli fighters. Ratio in 1968-1982 conflicts (War of Attrition to Lebanon crisis) is 88 to 309 while the rest is 152 to 192. BTW the same series of conflicts produced excellent ratios for F-15 and F-16. Actually it proves that same generation fighters are hardly comparable. Edited January 15, 2015 by Dennis_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Nobody,as far as I can see has mentioned the F-14 Tomcat. With the Pheonix on board hitting Libyan Migs 20 odd miles out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGKent Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Mig-29 and Su-27 (and others variants) this is most successful jet fighters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 And of course when it comes to combat success a large amount depends on the skill and training of the pilots. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGKent Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Sorry, for comment. In the beginning of the topic, I didn't understand what the conversation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lengyel Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Nobody,as far as I can see has mentioned the F-14 Tomcat. With the Pheonix on board hitting Libyan Migs 20 odd miles out. It's mentioned in the article I've shared above. Iranian Tomcats scored over 100 kills during the war with Iraq while Iraqi pilots didn't even know what blew them out of the sky. And of course when it comes to combat success a large amount depends on the skill and training of the pilots. Andy Training is considered to be more important than the technology, Iran-Iraq War however was the different case. Check the article above where some observations was made. See the ridiculous kill ratio of Iranian F-14s. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotthldr Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 F-16 no contest, Over 4500 built from 5 production lines around the World, operated by 28 air arms and still coming off the production line and continually evolving with today's demands. It operates daily from the frozen Arctic to the hot deserts of Africa to the humid jungles of South East Asia, weather it be air superiority, close air support, long range strike, forward air control, maritime strike, phys ops, SEAD, reconnaissance and now unmanned target drone.....the list goes on...... 40 years next week since it's first flight. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 The Lockheed F-104 might do it on the first and third, but I'm not sure it was all that innovative compared to it's contemporaries. AFAIK she was the first in service Mach 2 fighter. The increase in speed as compared with the previous fighters in general service was greater than when the first jet fighters took over from the last prop ones. Cheers, Andre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Nobody,as far as I can see has mentioned the F-14 Tomcat. With the Pheonix on board hitting Libyan Migs 20 odd miles out. I was under the impression that the USN never obtained a kill with the Phoenix.I am quite glad to be corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 No body has suggested the F-86 Sabre! That would be my vote! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVi Tophatter Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 I was under the impression that the USN never obtained a kill with the Phoenix.I am quite glad to be corrected. I'm sure the AIM-54 never scored a combat kill in US service, AIM-9's and AIM-7's were used during both 'Gulf of Sidra' incidents... The Iranians on the other hand, showed exactly how devastating the AWG-9/AIM-54 combo could be... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Lockheed.... Successful through bribing.Especially the 1960's. Having said that, if it came out of the Skunk Works it MUST be leading edge technology. Anyone in the industry would give their arms and legs to work there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorth Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Nobody,as far as I can see has mentioned the F-14 Tomcat. With the Pheonix on board hitting Libyan Migs 20 odd miles out. If we're to look at the three criteria the OP mentioned, the Tomcat only scores on point two. The radar system and its ability to track and lock onto multiple targets at once was the real innovation. It was used by only one nation beyond its country of origin and it had a reputation as a hangar queen due to the TF30 engine the early ones had and the fact that it leaked like sieve on the ground. Despite the fact they got it to haul bombs later in life, it wasn't particularly adaptable outside of the air-to-air arena. It really was one of the last specialist aircraft in the days when multi-role fighters were coming into fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 When we're talking about fighter jets, I would consider the role they were designed to. Kill ratio should be the main metrics here. Some examples taken from the article on MilitaryPhotos.net But what when a design is so good that no one actually dares to attack, so it can never prove how good it actually is ? I know this is stretching it a bit, but one could say to some extent this holds true for the Draken and Viggen (Viggen has been mentioned already - once), both IMHO scoring high in the innovation stakes, both in aerodynamics, ergonomics and electronics categories. Not the design's fault if its country of origin has the most stringent weapons export rules in the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzn20 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 There is a lot of postings like they've been written by designers and experts in opperating jet fighters. You can argue about kill ratios.That isn't the thread starter. You can argue about sales and then look at the bribing that went on. The export versions that are not the same as the Home market version. Aircraft that haven't been in a war that could be as good,we'll never know what Viggen,Grippen or even a Draken could do in a dog fight. 2 kills by a Tomcat not good enough because nobody will take them on from 28 miles out. This is one of those going nowhere threads. Innovation? How many actually know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 2 kills by a Tomcat not good enough because nobody will take them on from 28 miles out. Not including Maverick's then? Sorry, couldn't resist Sean 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now