What were the best cost effective fighters of the postwar era?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

anetos05

Recruit
2
0
Mar 23, 2025
Aircraft like the Folland Gnat did do well in places like India, and there are other light fighter candidates from the 1950s like the F-5, Draken, Mirage III and of course the Mig-21
 
I would think that the most cost effective fighter, would be a type that was built in large numbers and had a substantial parts supply in reserve, like the Spitfire, F6F, P-51D and so on.

And I am assuming this question was aimed towards nations that were not manufacturers, but on the receiving end of surplus grants?
 
F-5, MiG-21, maybe F-100? Lightweight, missile-capable but not a truck, light-duty avionics, relied upon pilots more than gear.

I don't know the production costs so corrections are welcomed.

GTX GTX has a good question about cost-effectiveness. That's basically cost/utility, but how do we define the utility? Deterrence, ability, or back to the numerator, cost? And where does the pilot sit in this mix? Good pilots in a MiG-17 shot down more than a few F-4s, F-8s, and so on.
 
Last edited:
Another completely incorrect question generates a heated discussion, in which, however, interesting facts may come to light.
I will add:
  • hardly anyone can really compare the cost of aircraft, which in the case of the Soviets was determined mainly by non-economic factors
  • it is difficult to compare the cost of aircraft maintenance and spare parts for the same reason
  • due to the influence of external and internal political factors, the number of produced aircraft can not be considered as an evaluation criterion
  • the definition of "fighter" is too broad - from interceptor to fighter-bomber, to compare the former with the latter is somehow incorrect
An example: MiG-19 vs. F-100. The MiG was better as a fighter (in general, a highly underrated airplane whose potential was revealed only by the Chinese), but as a fighter-bomber the F-100D was preferable. The F-5E was superior in close air combat to both the latest MiG-21s and the early MiG-23s, but the higher speed of the MiGs allowed them to be used more effectively for interception.
 
Aircraft like the Folland Gnat did do well in places like India, and there are other light fighter candidates from the 1950s like the F-5, Draken, Mirage III and of course the Mig-21
I see that you are new to forum and I would like to welcome you.

That said you are going to get a lot of push back on such posts as there is a lot of time involved (1945-1970?), What mission/s are being considered (day fighter/all weather fighter/fighter bomber) and things like what is a light fighter?
For the latter a F.1 Gnat had a loaded weight of 6575lbs as a short range interceptor while a J-35A Draken was over 20,000lbs without drop tank.

I Like the Draken, it has been a favorite for many years, But it is only a light fighter compared to an F-4 Phantom ;)

With more information in the question we can give better answers.

Even if we take out 'money' and base cost on airframe weight and labor there are still huge differences in electronics (and capabilities due to electronics).
 
The ones that only cost the customers $1.00, like the P-47's and P-51's supplied by the USA.
Some of the military supplies from the USSR to North Vietnam - including fighter jets - were simply a $0.0 gift.
But we can more or less specify the task: for example, choosing the most optimal multirole fighter for India or Finland in the late 1960s - early 1970s in terms of efficiency/ total cost of ownership.
 
To elaborate more on my question, do we measure cost effectiveness based upon:

  • Simple acquisition price ? But what if said platforms are useless?
  • Total cost of ownership? Thus taking into account that a cheap to buy platform may actually be very expensive to sustain. And for that matter, over what period?
  • Combat effectiveness? But if a platform never sees combat but aids in deterrence thus avoid war, isn't that even more effective?
  • Other?
 
I am interested in the selection prosses of the listed aircraft. None of them went into service until 1958 or later which puts them into the 3rd (?) generation of post war fighters. Rather ignores the first 10-13 years after WW II.
The 3 fast ones (and bigger) also saw substantial increases in electronics (expensive) and engine power and overall capabilities.
Also ignores the changes/improvements in armament. Many of the 1950s and early 60s missiles were not actually very good. In fact mediocre to poor is probably more accurate.
 
F-4 Phantom II all the way. I want to have my enemies graveyard dead, and my crewmen to return to home safely ;)
If I cannot have that (due to either monetary reasons or the political reasons, or the timing, or a combination of these factors), it is probably the Mirage III. Draken has a good showing here, too, mostly because of it's extensive electronics. It was also very pricy (pricey?) because of that.
MiG-19 or the Hunter, if the early bird is needed. MiG-17 if even an earlier bird is needed.
Last, but not least on the list is F-86.
 
I have often wondered if the purpose of fighter aircraft acquired by 3rd world nations is to really defend the country or just to look good. I recall doing a report to our AFROTC class in 1972 about how 3rd world countries were getting restless over being stuck so far behind. As the head of the Brazilian Air Force summed it up, they not only could not intercept incoming hostile aircraft, they could not even intercept Pan Am. So would the best thing be to buy the F-5, which looks good, seemed easy to maintain and operate, but has limited offensive capability. With the CF-5A Canada bought about the minimum fighter they could get by with, and it seems that was what the government there intended. But Canada had real air defense responsibilities in terms of cooperating with ADCOM.

And I was not joking with that $1.00 P-51 comment. 3rd world countries were better off doing COIN missions with the WW2 stuff.
 
Sometimes the free fighters -- whether MiGs or Northrops came with very expensive strings, although those on the MiGs may have been costlier strings.

Comparing the Folland Gnat, which was more of a featherweight fighter than a lightweight, to almost anything else, even the Northrop F-5, is almost pointless, as it's so much smaller than anything else. Given the Gnats short range and limited warload, I think it doesn't score highly in the "effectiveness" box, but it was fairly cheap to operate. On the other hand, from an effectiveness scale, how does it compare to its near-contemporary armed trainers or something like the G.91?
 
On the other hand, from an effectiveness scale, how does it compare to its near-contemporary armed trainers or something like the G.91?
The Gina is a great tactical ground attack aircraft (may be, the most optimal choice for this purpose), but it's hard to call it a fighter.
 
I have to agree with the MiG-19/Shenyang J-6 design as being very cost effective. It remained in production for more than 30 years, with more than 4,500 being built, and it served with air forces to whom cost was critical. It offered supersonic performance and in upgraded J-6 versions, close in air-to-air missile capability. The Chinese built several different variants of the type, extending its life far beyond what the original manufacturer intended, remaining in frontline service until 2000 with Pakistan, although the DPRK might still operate the type in a training role. I have a secret interest in this aircraft, it's a neat thing.

51271146701_7b4dd359fe_b.jpg
DSC_9284

51271328043_6b985004cf_b.jpg
DSC_9298

37578287446_ff07d7a68b_b.jpg
DSC_6228

36956060963_ae6743f1bb_b.jpg
DSC_6433
 
and in upgraded J-6 versions, close in air-to-air missile capability
The Chinese failed to produce either the MiG-19P or the even more complex MiG-19PM, they were able to master production of the simpler MiG-19S with great difficulty. The J-6A with the Sidewinder is from the mid 1970s, 11 years behind the Soviets (MiG-19PT).
1751705055683.jpeg

1751704632812.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The Chinese failed to produce either the MiG-19P or the even more complex MiG-19PM, they were able to master production of the simpler MiG-19S with great difficulty. The J-6A with the Sidewinder is from the mid 1970s, 11 years behind the Soviets (MiG-19PT).
View attachment 837828
View attachment 837824

Naturally, how could you not expect the parent company to have introduced improvement of the type before the licence manufacturer? Actually, the Chinese did build the MiG-19P under licence. For various reasons the Chinese took longer to develop an indigenous industry; the Great Leap Forward was a disastrous leap backwards for China's military industry development and the first J-6s, or Dong Feng 102s were MiG-19Ps, but they were so badly put together that the PLAAF rejected the lot of them and only 33 were built. Not only that but following Khruschev's de-Stalinisation and Mao's rejection of that, China went it alone with almost all of its licenced aircraft manufacturing programmes since the Soviets refused to continue aiding China. Nevertheless, unlike in the MiG buro and the MiG-21 overshadowing MiG-19 development, the J-6 programme continued despite the growing investment in the more capable J-7 programme.

A surviving Dong Feng 102 in Shanghai. The display board records that it is a rare aircraft but doesn't state why.

37408649500_e107734e75_b.jpg
Dong Feng 102
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back