Most successful jet fighter of all time?

[tempestfan]

Look guys, I don't mean to play rough, but I mean to say, who was ever influenced by the F-4's aerodynamics?

Most bricks are, except those of the more aerodynamic variety.

[bzn20]

The 'Wasp Waist' area rule was a bit different to the blended body in the metal. The body and wings are smoothly blended into one another to create lift, apparently. The SAAB Draken, F-16, B-1, are good examples of this. I'm sure there are many other examples...

And Hunter,that type of blending will give lift. All the above aircraft you mnetioned are blended.The Viggen hasn't got this its got wingroot falsework like the VC-10 aft wingroot. I doubt very much that it produces any lift . It smooths the joint reducing drag (and possibly induced drag). The Viggen's is not a ground breaking feature as implied in #123. Falsework, in this case a gap filler between the wing and Fuse.

[KRK4m]

- we all mention mig-15 but it was mig-17 that enjoyed much more success in its generation. Widely spread across Asia and Africa, fought in many conflicts well into the 60s, performance improved compared to its predessor.

I voted for the MiG-15, considering the -17 just being the modified variant of its predecessor. Front half of the fuselage including cockpit, the vertical tail and the engine are the same - the difference lies in wings and horizontal tail sweep. In total the differences are smaller than those you find between the F-5A and F-5E, the F/A-18A and F/A-18E, the FJ-3 and FJ-4 or the F9F-2 and F9F-8.

It's standard Russian practice to introduce new designation for just the modified variant of the well-established design. During the WW2 we had the Yak-1/7/9 series (with most important changes introduced between the -9M and -9U), the La-5 and -7 (featuring less differences than P-51A and P-51D) or the Tu-1/6/8 variants of Tu-2. Later on there were various designations used for the variants of the Sukhoi "Fitter" (Su-7/17/20/22), Mikoyan "Flogger" (MiG-23/27) and "Fulcrum" (MiG-29/35), Tupolev "Bear" (Tu-95/142), not to mention the numerous derivatives of the Su-25 and Su-27.

[upnorth]

First with Fore Planes but for different reasons to the jets today .That wasn't blazing a trail for Agile Combat Aircraft which is the reason combat have it today. Just looks the same.

Very true. the Viggen's canards were there for added lift and better stability at higher speeds in lower altitudes. With the exception of a movable elevator, the Viggen's canards were fixed in position.

The all moving canards of today's fighters are there primarily for manueverability.

The bulk of the Viggen's inovations were to be found internally.

[LeVi Tophatter]

And Hunter,that type of blending will give lift. All the above aircraft you mnetioned are blended.The Viggen hasn't got this its got wingroot falsework like the VC-10 aft wingroot. I doubt very much that it produces any lift . It smooths the joint reducing drag (and possibly induced drag). The Viggen's is not a ground breaking feature as implied in #123. Falsework, in this case a gap filler between the wing and Fuse.

Ah, my mistake. Your comment was in relation to the Viggen, not the concept of the blended body.

Still, my vote is for the F-16, pretty much continues the legacy of the F-4 but with aerodynamic innovations (for the era, such as relaxed stability, lifting body) and of course a systems 'package' that has proven to be fairly easy to maintain, upgrade and add to over the last 40 years.

[bzn20]

Ah, my mistake. Your comment was in relation to the Viggen, not the concept of the blended body.

Still, my vote is for the F-16, pretty much continues the legacy of the F-4 but with aerodynamic innovations (for the era, such as relaxed stability, lifting body) and of course a systems 'package' that has proven to be fairly easy to maintain, upgrade and add to over the last 40 years.

I did wonder LeVi!

[stalal]

If success be measured by number of countries operating a plane and number of units produced, MiG-21 and F-16 stand out.

[steelpillow]

Saab's breakthrough with the Viggen was to achieve acceptable aerodynamic characteristics for a canard, especially in the stall.

This allowed it to exploit other inherent benefits, including:

- A smaller wing because the auxiliary surface contributes lift at takeoff and in tight turns, which are when the wing is struggling hardest.

- enhanced flow over the wings at high angles of attack, helping to delay the stall, improve turn radius and - especially important in mountainous countries like Sweden - reduce landing and takeoff speeds.

Sure the ACA concept uses a relaxed-stability canard, but then, the F-16 introduced relaxed stability yet scrupulously stuck with a conventional layout. It wasn't until a ruck of stable canards had flown that some d-d-d-d-digital nut finally got the idea. There's hardly an innovation left in the history of aviation that hasn't been turned on its head by a whack of number-crunching. That doesn't diminish those innovations one bit.

[bzn20]

Innovation? The first foreplanes were on the first aeroplane, The Wright Flyer and several others had it earlier too BUT the Viggen was the first into production.

On to the Viggen. Yes, I've read Wikipedia too. It had the 2nd afterburning Turbofan and the first (I think,not sure) afterburning Turbofan with reversers.

Copy and pasted from W/pedea below.

Mechanical simplicity was also favoured, so the air intakes were simple D-section types with boundary layer splitter plates, while the fixed inlet had no adjustable geometry for improved pressure recovery. The disadvantage was that the required engine would be very large. In fact, at the time of introduction, it was the second largest fighter engine, with a length of 6.1 m and 1.35 m diameter; only the Tumansky R-15 was bigger.

Whatever the Viggen had........... It hasn't led to anything except a blind alley.

Edited January 22, 2015 by bzn20

[PLC1966]

And the Viggen was that good that export sales numbered.....

And the Draken was so good it sold to Denmark, Austria & Finland......so two of those nations who probably not be involved in a WW III Day 1 scenario's.

(Although the above off the top of my head so may be wrong).

However the mighty Viggen deserves to be up there because...well...its a Viggen init...

[steelpillow]

Funny how this Viggen business seems to have touched a nerve.

[bzn20]

There isn't a jet that I'd argue black was white. My favourite jet doesn't mean its has to be good at anything.The Viggen is a brute and looks full of purpose,I don't dislike it at all. I know what shouldn't be ( or even near to) the top of the list though. I'm not saying you'll have to guess!

[Graeme H]

No body has suggested the F-86 Sabre! That would be my vote!

Yes I just had go for other so I could add the F-86 Sabre, real game changer, although I have never counted them, it would be close to the top on the number of Air Forces that used it

[Mikoyan_21]

MIG-21 is the most successful fighter of all time. The most produced military jet and IT is still flying in many air forces in the world. It is durable, robust, easy and chep to maintain.

[KRK4m]

MIG-21 is the most successful fighter of all time. The most produced military jet and IT is still flying in many air forces in the world. It is durable, robust, easy and chep to maintain.

MiG-21 is NOT the most produced military jet - this honour belongs to another Mikoyan fighter, namely the MiG-15.

Nevertheless the "21" is by far the most numerous SUPERSONIC fighter with no fear of losing this leadership in foreseeable future.

[Mikoyan_21]

I was convinced that there was more 21s than 15s. Sorry.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Mikoyan_21

[Alexis]

The only way to know wich is better is for kill ratio....F-15 of course

[KRK4m]

I was convinced that there was more 21s than 15s. Sorry.

True numbers are: 17.344 MiG-15s (1344 "15", 8354 "15bis" and 3433 "15UTI" in Soviet Union plus 3486 in Czechoslovakia and 727 in Poland) plus 10.603 MiG-17s (7999 in Soviet Union plus 1828 in China and 776 in Poland) totals 27.947 aircraft. On the other hand there are 11.496 MiG-21s (10.645 made in the USSR, 657 in India and 194 in Czechoslovakia) plus some 2400-2500 Chengdu F-7s built in China, making total of some 13.900-14.000.

[Mikoyan_21]

True numbers are: 17.344 MiG-15s (1344 "15", 8354 "15bis" and 3433 "15UTI" in Soviet Union plus 3486 in Czechoslovakia and 727 in Poland) plus 10.603 MiG-17s (7999 in Soviet Union plus 1828 in China and 776 in Poland) totals 27.947 aircraft. On the other hand there are 11.496 MiG-21s (10.645 made in the USSR, 657 in India and 194 in Czechoslovakia) plus some 2400-2500 Chengdu F-7s built in China, making total of some 13.900-14.000.

I've read about that later. Didn't know really.

[KRK4m]

I've read about that later. Didn't know really.

It's nothing to be ashamed of But there's something where the Fishbed is by far "world's jet fighter number one" - it's the list of users. Here the MiG-21/F-7 family with SIXTY SEVEN air forces of all over the world is well ahead of the Fagot/Fresco family (44 users), F-80/T-33 (39 countries), F-5/T-38 (36 users), F-86/FJ (34 countries), DH Vampire/Venom (33 users) and several others.

The so much acclaimed F-16 barely fits into "top ten" of such competition with 27 users so far.

So - in my opinion - the Fishbed is the second "most successful jet fighter of all time".

And surely the most successful SUPERSONIC fighter of the world

[tempestfan]

And the Viggen was that good that export sales numbered.....

And the Draken was so good it sold to Denmark, Austria & Finland......so two of those nations who probably not be involved in a WW III Day 1 scenario's.

May the the Viggen have been prevented from sales success by certain diplomatic "events", possibly ? Sale of the Century, India, etc. ? And in just about any other possible case by the strict Swedish rules on arms exports ? That argument certainly isn't very strong, especially if it is taken into account that a number of possible competitors were more or less subsidised.

Edited January 23, 2015 by tempestfan

[Giorgio N]

In the case of the Falklands any potential Argentine aircraft would have been forced to comply with the same conditions as the next, as would any Royal Navy aircraft. It has been said that the Sea Harrier was the only aircraft available to humanity that could take off and land on a carrier in such heavy seas as experienced in the South Atlantic. The F14 or F15 may well have been superior to the Sea Harrier in most respects but certainly not in any situation where they were unable to take off or land.

Not really ! Some of the conditions the argentine aircrafts were forced to comply with were due to the airframe. Different aircraft, different conditions. Replace the Daggers with F-15s for example and the situation changes completely

It's been said that the harrier was the only one to take off and land in certain situations... however the availability of a different type of carriers with different types of aircrafts would have impacted the war in totally different way. Replace the Invincible and Hermes with a single CVN with Tomcats and Hawkeyes on board and again the situation changes completely.

As I said before, the Sea Harrier did an amazing job in the South Atlantic. Other types however have had a much bigger impact on the history of air warfare.

I think it's at least partially because the Falklands war happened when many Britmodellers were at impressionable ages. As a child growing up in the UK at the time the war was impossible to ignore and in retrospect much of what happened was already being mythologised as it occurred. Yomping, viffing and many other things were held up as signs of good old British pluck and ingenuity and were milked for all they were worth. It isn't surprising that the conflict made the Harrier the ultimate jet fighter for a generation of British boys. It was much later that I learnt how many other factors influenced those dogfights, such as the Argentinian aircraft having to fight at the edge of their range and the shiny AIM-9Ls that the Sea Harriers were armed with.

Agree, and the same happened to me ! The Falklands war had a huge impact on this kid in 1982 and a large part of my interest in model airplanes come from those days. BAe also worked very hard after the Falklands to promote the Sea Harrier and the marketing thrown behind this type was impressive, at some point the aerospace magazines were talking about the Sea Harrier as it was the best fighter ever built. All this work did not bring much in the end but the effect is still felt...

Now the Falklands sure taught a few lessons and these were immediately analysed and put to good use, however in the same year another brief war made the news when Israel practically destroyed the Syrian air force over the Bekaa Valley. The lessons in air warfare learnt from that event can be considered today much more important compared to the Falklands.

Well, history took a turn different from the one they anticipated (which I suppose is actually the same as being wrong). But from 40-50 years' distance it is sometime forgotten that the nightmare scenario they envisaged was one in which all NATO's fast jets had been rendered useless because overwhelming Warsaw Pact airpower would, despite no doubt terrible losses, have rendered all NATO's runways unusable. So VTOL aircraft operating out of forest hides a la Harrier might have been all the fixed-wing air support NATO troops would have got. Glad to say history didn't take that turn but VTOL was a sensible measure against the eventuality. Sweden had the same prospect in view with its requirement for Viggens to operate off highway strips. Had the red hordes swept across Western Europe, we might now have been saying, no doubt in Russian, "Hmm, pity we put all our money into high performance jets when we should really have gone VTOL big-time."

The VTOL concept had already lost favour well before the end of the cold war and every NATO country had already acted to protect their aviation assets, only in a different way. Once it was found that runways can be repaired very, very swiftly, it was considered more important to protect the aircrafts under armoured shelters. And the post-1989 wars have proved this to be the right approach.

Interestingly, as you mention Sweden, both this country and Switzerland, that have massive underground shelters and dispersed runways, never seriously considered the Harrier. Why bother with an aircraft of limited capabilities (as the original GR.1/3 was) when it's possible to operate Viggens ?

There's also the matter of the hides used by the Harriers: are we so sure that these would have not been found ? The Soviets had devoted a lot of resources to find where the GLCMs would have operated from in case of alert. And spotting a GLCM launcher is harder than spotting a squadron of Harriers

In any case, had the red hordes really decided to invade Europe, I believe that today we'd not be speaking any language at all and having VTOL aircrafts or not would have been irrelavant....

True numbers are: 17.344 MiG-15s (1344 "15", 8354 "15bis" and 3433 "15UTI" in Soviet Union plus 3486 in Czechoslovakia and 727 in Poland) plus 10.603 MiG-17s (7999 in Soviet Union plus 1828 in China and 776 in Poland) totals 27.947 aircraft. On the other hand there are 11.496 MiG-21s (10.645 made in the USSR, 657 in India and 194 in Czechoslovakia) plus some 2400-2500 Chengdu F-7s built in China, making total of some 13.900-14.000.

Numbers that make most western jet types pale in comparison !

[PLC1966]

May the the Viggen have been prevented from sales success by certain diplomatic "events", possibly ? Sale of the Century, India, etc. ? And in just about any other possible case by the strict Swedish rules on arms exports ? That argument certainly isn't very strong, especially if it is taken into account that a number of possible competitors were more or less subsidised.

Okay, my full quote said that the mighty Viggen should be in because, frankly it is the Viggen, end of. And particularly in its later colour scheme a great looking aircraft.

I cannot see it as being the top jet fighter of all time as some were suggesting, however that is what a forum is all about. Maybe a 'Devil' smilicon should have been added after the sentences you quoted above, I was at the time tweaking the tails of the guys espousing the Viggens virtue.

However I am game, every day is a school day after all. Tell me more about the Sale of the Century and India in relation to the Viggen. And if it was impossible to export out of Sweden how did the Draken emerge ? Subsidised sales, well I guess that is the way the world was Politically split at that point in time, or is that the 'Diplomatic Event' to which you were referring ?

At this point, production numbers seem to have been adopted on here as an indicator to a Fighters greatness, lack of sales must therefore count. Once again, I am genuinely interested, not getting a monk on.

[tempestfan]

One of the criteria was "innovation", and my point (and of several others) was that all the SAABs (except perhaps the Lansen) were highly innovative in one aspect or another. In the specific case of the SAABs my point was that sheer numbers which can only be achieved by exports were out for SAAB, as no way their government would have allowed export to some central american general's state or other markets, where most other competitors or their governments would not have been scrupulous. Finland and Denmark are as democratic as you could wish for, so the Draken for them was no problem. The "Sale of the Century" (F-104 replacement for European NATO countries) has, IIRC, been described more than once as having been heavily influenced by political considerations in favour of the F-16. The Viggen was a contender but wasn't chosen. A possible sale of the Viggen (which would likely have been for a respectable number, had it occured) to India reportedly was vetoed by the US on the grounds of the basically US engine the Viggen used.

Re the Viggen having the third afterburning fan, I'm not completely sure about the timelines, but I'd have said it was the third (in the West, that is), after the TF-30 and the Spey - unless the TF-30 isn't counted as an afterburning fan but as a waste of time and money

[bzn20]

It was the 2nd afterburning Turbofan in sevice.

Edited January 23, 2015 by bzn20