The MiG 21 had flaws but was ultimately very successful. The US equivalent in this sense is probably the (also flawed but ultimately highly succesful), versatile and adaptable F-4 Phantom. Two very different aircraft but both highly capable in their own way. Another perhaps /arguably equivalent fighter was the French Mirage III.
The
ultimately successful often seems to include several generations of aircraft. More later.
I think limited fuel / flight endurance was an issue with most early supersonic jet fighters. I would say all three of the ones I mentioned to various degrees. But they were effective in spite of that rather severe limitation.
Early Mig-21s had rather sever fuel limitations. They couldn't even use all the internal fuel without the CG going out of w
whack.
The Century series by contrast didn't have a stellar record. F 104s were used in Vietnam in 1965-67, to little effect - losing about a dozen including one to a MiG 19. (Pakistani) F 104s engaged (Indian) MiG 21s in 1965 and came out on the short end, losing about a half dozen for no victories.
F 102s served in Vietnam, losing 14 mostly to accidents and ground fire, but including 1 to a MiG 21. No confirmed victories as far as I know.
F 101 was used in Vietnam as a recon plane in the early to mid 60's, losing 33 including 1 to a MiG 21.
F 105 served as a successful fighter bomber in Vietnam but took fairly heavy losses. 27 air to air victories were claimed (all against MiG 17s) for 17 lost to fighters. Ultimately they had to be escorted by F4s.
US aircraft procurement in the 1950s was an absolute mess when it comes to figuring out what the intended job of the aircraft was from the designation.
Pre-dating the century series you had the YF-97
Which was produced as the F-94C even though there were very few parts that were interchangeable with the F-94B.
in 1947 this was followed by the unmanned F-98 Falcon.
in 1950 the air force decided not to use the "F" designation for unmanned aircraft. This also affected the F-99
Which was part of the US Army vs US Air Force pissing contest in which both wanted to control the anti-aircraft rockets/missiles.
The F-100
started in 1949 but was recast several times while still on paper, due the pressure of the Korean war the Version which we are familiar with (mostly) was given the go ahead as a day fighter in 1951. This was within a few months of the Mig Bureau starting work on the Mig-19. By the time the prototype flew there were 273 production aircraft on order ( a risk that did not pay off). this flight was on May 25th 1953. The first squadron to operation with F-100Cs was in July of 1955.
The F-101 is a rather mixed bag. It
started as a long range escort fighter. A development of the older XF-88 but much larger, It won the design competition in 1951, However in time needed to actually design and build even the prototypes the Air Force had several changes of mind as to the actual role and wound up including nuclear fighter bomber, while still carrying the radar and fire control for air to air missions. The last of the F-101A recon planes (a later adaptation) were retired in 1979. The airframes were over 20 years old.
The F-101B was a two seat All-weather interceptor with 479 built. They were intended as a stop gap as problems with the F-102 were worked out. They wound up carrying the nuclear warhead Genie rocket and went through a number of of upgrades. The last few in service lasted over 10 years in training and the last was retired in 1982.
The F-101C was a Fighter bomber with a beefed up structure to handle higher G loads but the Air Force had 2nd thoughts and after 47 of them completed the next 96 as additional recon machines. Most later models were refurbed machines converted to recon except for the F-101F which was a dual control trainer.
Now, aside from doing photo recon I don't believe any F-101 Voodoo's ever performed their intended missions in anger. Which makes them a little hard to judge as to success or failure.
A F-101B with max external fuel could gross over 52,000lbs at take-off.
The F-102 was the well known Delta Dagger. Including 2 seat trainers about 1000 were built and the first squadron got them in April 1956. Which is about a year after the Day only Mig 19 went into service. The Dagger could max out at around 32,500lbs.
Part of the radar/fire control for the 102
The XF-103 was a bi powered interceptor
With afterburning turbojet and a ramjet, top speed was a hoped for 2600mph. It is 77 ft long.
the Familiar F-104,
Supposed to be a day fighter but the war it was intended for ended and it was forced into other roles, perhaps the worst of the century series.
The F-105 was never really supposed to be a fighter.
" For its primary mission, the aircraft would be expected to carry a nuclear store in an internal bomb bay. Because of the large size of the nuclear weapons of the day, the bomb bay had to be 15 feet 10 inches long, 32 inches wide, and 32 inches deep"
Complaining that an aircraft designed around that weapons bay is a lousy dogfighter kind of misses the point. It is like complaining that an Douglas A-26 was lousy dogfighter.
The F-106 is a revisited F-102 and again is an all weather interceptor tasked with stopping russian nuclear armed bombers. dog fighting was never one of the goals.
The F-107 had 3 prototypes and the F-108 was never built. The F-108 was in response to a 1955 requirement for "The specification was laid down on 6 October 1955, calling for an interceptor that could fly at 60,000 ft (18,000 m) at a speed of
Mach 1.7 (1,122 mph (1,806 km/h), with a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km) " which again rather rules out a dog fighter type aircraft.
I would note that most (all?) of these aircraft stayed with the original engine/s even though they did get later models higher powered/more reliable models.
The F-100C made it to service status 4-6 years earlier than the Mig 21 and Mirage III.
The other Century series fighters made it to squadron service several years before the Mig-21 and the Mirage III.
The Mig-21 has gone through 3 different engines (and several models of each) and several generations of avionics.
for many countries it is cheaper to upgrade old airplanes than to by new ones.
The Early and mid 50s were a period of confusion for aircraft designers. It wasn't until the end of the 50s and the early 60s that mach 2 was accepted as a defacto limit to speed (much above that required extraordinary investment in propulsion, structures and materials).
Comparing the success or failure of aircraft on their length of service or on kill/loss ratios while ignoring what their original intended missions were or the pace of replacement aircraft coming into service (and by even the mid 50s it wasn't even replacement aircraft, it was replacement
weapons systems as a new aircraft would have new radar/electronics, new model missiles and sometimes a new generation engine.)
Simplistic comparisons don't work well.
