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

[bf109xxl]

Naturally, how could you not expect the parent company to have introduced improvement of the type before the licence manufacturer?

License agreements were never a "sacred cow" for either the Chinese or the Soviets.

Actually, the Chinese did build the MiG-19P under licence.

They _tried_ to set up production, but failed. The plant in Shenyang assembled five MiG-19P, transferred from the USSR in disassembled state, then a year assembled one MiG-19P of its own production, the quality of which turned out to be unacceptably low. After that, the plant in Shenyang began to produce a copy of the MiG-19S. In Nanchang five MiG-19PM, received from the USSR in disassembled state, were assembled, then 7 aircraft (of unacceptable quality) were produced for two years, and further work on the J-6A continued in 1974.

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.

These were MiG-19PMs, most of which were built after 1974 - according to some reports the Chinese were helped by the Albanians who transferred several of their MiG-19PMs to them.

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.

Nevertheless, in 1957 the MiG bureau created on the basis of the MiG-19 the SM-12 front-line fighter, which was significantly superior to the MiG-19S in most characteristics. It was supposed to replace the latter, but due to the whims of the Air Force, testing was too long. In 1959, two SM-12s were armed with K-13 missiles (Sidewinder copy)

 

[Canaus]

It may be easier to list off the post war fighters that were the least cost effective and then see whats left.

The post war Soviet fighters dictated a robust simple construction and the ability to operate from rough field conditions and the life expectancy was a very short time frame.
The British post war fighters were always hamstrung by the lack of monetary resources, political backing and range.
The French post war fighters only had to be better than the British fighters.
The USAF post war fighters had near unlimited monetary resources, comparatively speaking, could be as complex as necessary, or more complex and when out classed by something better - retired unceremoniously.
The US Navy had less monetary resources for fighter aircraft than the US Air Force but had to build their aircraft to operate at sea from carriers and not rust & corrode.
The Swedish post war fighters had to operate from isolated field conditions, built on a small budget, easy to maintain, and because Sweden is a small country, the aircraft needed to be multi role.

I'm not sure how you would pick the most cost effective fighter as each countries criteria is different. Also the post war period needs to be narrowed down. Even picking "the best" from each decade would be a challenge depending on your time period criteria.

 

[Frog]

It may be easier to list off the post war fighters that were the least cost effective and then see whats left.

The post war Soviet fighters dictated a robust simple construction and the ability to operate from rough field conditions.
The British post war fighters were always hamstrung by the lack of monetary resources, political backing and range.
The French post war fighters only had to be better than the British fighters.
The USAF post war fighters had near unlimited monetary resources, comparatively speaking, could be as complex as necessary, and when out classed by something better - retired unceremoniously.
The US Navy had less monetary resources for fighter aircraft than the US Air Force but had to build their aircraft to operate at sea from carriers and not rust & corrode.
The Swedish post war fighters had to operate from isolated field conditions, built on a small budget, easy to maintain, and because Sweden is a small country, the aircraft needed to be multi role.

The French variant of the Jaguar (yes I know it is rather an attack plane) had less efficient engines than the British ones.

 

[nuuumannn]

License agreements were never a "sacred cow" for either the Chinese or the Soviets.

Not sure what exactly you are stating here. The Chinese had to rely on the Soviets as they did not have an industry of their own, therefore they received as much assistance that they could. That assistance dried up once destalinisation happened, so the Chinese had to improvise.

They _tried_ to set up production, but failed. The plant in Shenyang assembled five MiG-19P, transferred from the USSR in disassembled state, then a year assembled one MiG-19P of its own production, the quality of which turned out to be unacceptably low.

Not quite true, MiG-19Ps were built under licence by Shenyang in 1959 after the five kits arrived and were assembled. You don't have to believe me but the display board at the Shanghai Aviation Enthusiasts Center states that. Other published sources I have read also agree. Yes, production standards were low, for the reasons I previously mentioned. The same for the subsequent early production batches of J-6 models.

 

[bf109xxl]

Not sure what exactly you are stating here.

This means that after 1961, China had no licenses to produce Soviet equipment, and only increased its production. The Chinese made minimal changes to the design and announced it as their own development. However, the USSR violated license agreements in the same way - for example, in case of the RR Derwent and Nene engines.

The Chinese had to rely on the Soviets as they did not have an industry of their own, therefore they received as much assistance that they could. That assistance dried up once destalinisation happened, so the Chinese had to improvise.

No one forced China 1) to deny the need for de-Stalinization 2) to produce Soviet equipment without a license. If China had been flexible, it would not have had to improvise - the USSR would have provided all the necessary assistance.

Not quite true, MiG-19Ps were built under licence by Shenyang in 1959 after the five kits arrived and were assembled.

That's what I wrote: they managed to assemble one (!) airplane of their own production in a year. It is possible that the Chinese assembled a few more airplanes of inferior quality that could not operate normally - this cannot be called "mastered mass production" in any way.

You don't have to believe me but the display board at the Shanghai Aviation Enthusiasts Center states that.

I don't believe any official Chinese source. Moreover, both in European and US museums I have met many errors in descriptions, but nobody cares about details - well, what's the difference whether the caliber of the gun is 76 or 57 mm?
I believe Soviet sources only in one case - if they are facsimile copies of documents. But not always.

Other published sources I have read also agree. Yes, production standards were low, for the reasons I previously mentioned. The same for the subsequent early production batches of J-6 models.

All I wanted to say is that the Chinese managed to better unlock the potential of the MiG-19, even if forced. And the Soviets had the opportunity to do it much earlier, but were fascinated by the speed of the MiG-21, which overshadowed the higher maneuverability of the MiG-19.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

This means that after 1961, China had no licenses to produce Soviet equipment, and only increased its production. The Chinese made minimal changes to the design and announced it as their own development. However, the USSR violated license agreements in the same way - for example, in case of the RR Derwent and Nene engines.

No one forced China 1) to deny the need for de-Stalinization 2) to produce Soviet equipment without a license. If China had been flexible, it would not have had to improvise - the USSR would have provided all the necessary assistance.

That's what I wrote: they managed to assemble one (!) airplane of their own production in a year. It is possible that the Chinese assembled a few more airplanes of inferior quality that could not operate normally - this cannot be called "mastered mass production" in any way.

I don't believe any official Chinese source. Moreover, both in European and US museums I have met many errors in descriptions, but nobody cares about details - well, what's the difference whether the caliber of the gun is 76 or 57 mm?
I believe Soviet sources only in one case - if they are facsimile copies of documents. But not always.

All I wanted to say is that the Chinese managed to better unlock the potential of the MiG-19, even if forced. And the Soviets had the opportunity to do it much earlier, but were fascinated by the speed of the MiG-21, which overshadowed the higher maneuverability of the MiG-19.

On the other hand, modern Chinese fighters and others platforms are much more credible threats than current Russian aircraft based on legacy-Soviet designs in 2025.

But though the Chinese could not foresee the fall of the USSR, that fact, plus the fact that caused broken links in that industry, meant that Chinese aeronautics was forced to improve indigeneously. Now the Chinese are landing drones on the Moon and building aircraft that are likely close to or equal to top-notch western stuff, while the Russians are flying legacy gear against a much smaller country with much older equipment, and still finding hard slogging.

 

[GrauGeist]

while the Russians are flying legacy gear against a much smaller country with much older equipment, and still finding hard slogging.

And in many cases, getting their ass handed to them by their own (former) equipment.

 

[bf109xxl]

On the other hand, modern Chinese fighters and others platforms are much more credible threats than current Russian aircraft based on legacy-Soviet designs in 2025.

I'm not entirely sure about that, but since I have no interest in either modern Russian or Chinese aviation, I can't argue.

But though the Chinese could not foresee the fall of the USSR, that fact, plus the fact that caused broken links in that industry, meant that Chinese aeronautics was forced to improve indigeneously.

China has been exploiting the "Soviet legacy" for more than 20 years, and in 2000 it was stealing technology from Russia for small things - when Russia refused to sell the Su-33.

Now the Chinese are landing drones on the Moon

They flew into space on the "Soviet legacy" too. It was only later - thanks to a much higher level of technological development in the world - that they abandoned the "Soviet legacy".

and building aircraft that are likely close to or equal to top-notch western stuff, while the Russians are flying legacy gear against a much smaller country with much older equipment, and still finding hard slogging.

It seems that in 2000-2010 there was a "Great Leap Forward" - I quite admit that now China is seriously ahead of Russia in the field of aviation technology, it is not surprising. China's human resources are enormous - even if they are not utilized particularly efficiently, they surpass Russia's many times over. Sooner or later, what should happen happened. It seems to me that the issue of cooling Russian-Chinese relations is also just a matter of time.
But I was writing about the late 1950s, when both communist regimes made extremely inefficient decisions that actually hindered the effective growth of industry.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And in many cases, getting their ass handed to them by their own (former) equipment.

I think anyone still rating most Russian gear highly is Wehraboo-level overselling. Don't get me wrong, the Russians are building and using drones to a very high level, but planes, tanks, or local AA, nah. The Ukrainians have already burst that balloon.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not entirely sure about that, but since I have no interest in either modern Russian or Chinese aviation, I can't argue.

China has been exploiting the "Soviet legacy" for more than 20 years, and in 2000 it was stealing technology from Russia for small things - when Russia refused to sell the Su-33.

They flew into space on the "Soviet legacy" too. It was only later - thanks to a much higher level of technological development in the world - that they abandoned the "Soviet legacy".

It seems that in 2000-2010 there was a "Great Leap Forward" - I quite admit that now China is seriously ahead of Russia in the field of aviation technology, it is not surprising. China's human resources are enormous - even if they are not utilized particularly efficiently, they surpass Russia's many times over. Sooner or later, what should happen happened. It seems to me that the issue of cooling Russian-Chinese relations is also just a matter of time.
But I was writing about the late 1950s, when both communist regimes made extremely inefficient decisions that actually hindered the effective growth of industry.

Since my point was obviously missed, I'll simplify it: although the immediate divorce of Russian input from Chinese aeronautics hampered the latter's progress immediately, it also forced the Chinese to themselves take up the cudgel in both design and technology, to the point that the student has surpassed the teacher. Of course, China has had the benefit of plentiful national resources not squandered by an inefficient system.

Once Soviet centralization broke down, so too did Soviet advances. China getting away from that early, they did themselves a favor, in hindsight. We don't see former Warsaw Pact countries, or DPRK, introducing modern designs. China was able to leverage its inherent resource base, and that shows now.

 

[bf109xxl]

Since my point was obviously missed, I'll simplify it: although the immediate divorce of Russian input from Chinese aeronautics hampered the latter's progress immediately, it also forced the Chinese to themselves take up the cudgel in both design and technology, to the point that the student has surpassed the teacher. Of course, China has had the benefit of plentiful national resources not squandered by an inefficient system.

Well, I'll simplify my point: only an insane communist regime could use gigantic human resources so botchedly that it would take almost 40(!!!) years to catch up and overtake a country that doesn't have even 20% of that resources. Considering the kind of aid the USSR was giving China in the late 1950s, this is a disaster.

Once Soviet centralization broke down, so too did Soviet advances. China getting away from that early, they did themselves a favor, in hindsight. We don't see former Warsaw Pact countries, or DPRK, introducing modern designs. China was able to leverage its inherent resource base, and that shows now.

What exactly has China given away? How exactly does decentralization take shape in China? In the case of the Soviets, it was not centralization that collapsed, it was the whole country that collapsed - it essentially disintegrated into national states, so it is pointless to compare the processes in the post-Soviet space and in China after the collapse of the USSR.
The Soviets first of all had their own scientific and technical schools - they realized early on that it was extremely stupid to kill their intellectuals (but unfortunately too late for many of the latter). These scientific schools often emerged around scientists working in the West in the 1920s and 1930s. Even these crumbs of intellectual potential have yielded rich fruits. And China neglected this factor for a long time.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I'll simplify my point: only an insane communist regime could use gigantic human resources so botchedly that it would take almost 40(!!!) years to catch up and overtake a country that doesn't have even 20% of that resources. Considering the kind of aid the USSR was giving China in the late 1950s, this is a disaster.

You'll struggle in vain to find any passage where I praise the Chinese regime.

What exactly has China given away? How exactly does decentralization take shape in China?

Why are you asking me? I was writing about the past, not the future.

In the case of the Soviets, it was not centralization that collapsed, it was the whole country that collapsed - it essentially disintegrated into national states, so it is pointless to compare the processes in the post-Soviet space and in China after the collapse of the USSR.

I had thought it clear that by "the collapse of Soviet centralization" I was referring to the system as a whole; I was relying upon your intelligence to seize the metaphor. I will make sure to be painfully clear going forward in our conversations. I wouldn't want you writing 500-word screeds based upon your mistaking a metaphor for literal truth.

The Soviets first of all had their own scientific and technical schools - they realized early on that it was extremely stupid to kill their intellectuals (but unfortunately too late for many of the latter). These scientific schools often emerged around scientists working in the West in the 1920s and 1930s. Even these crumbs of intellectual potential have yielded rich fruits. And China neglected this factor for a long time.

The Chinese killed their own educated class too. That doesn't change my point.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Soviets first of all had their own scientific and technical schools - they realized early on that it was extremely stupid to kill their intellectuals (but unfortunately too late for many of the latter).

No they didn't.

Anyone who ran afoul of Uncle Joe was soon to be eliminated regardless of the situation.

 

[bf109xxl]

You'll struggle in vain to find any passage where I praise the Chinese regime.

No problem: "although the immediate divorce of Russian input from Chinese aeronautics hampered the latter's progress immediately, it also forced the Chinese to themselves take up the cudgel in both design and technology, to the point that the student has surpassed the teacher.."
"Taking up design and technology" means making minor improvements to Soviet designs without creating anything fundamentally new. In the early 1990s the Chinese were shocked by the capabilities of the Soviet/Russian Su-27 - by that time the Chinese had nothing comparable in performance, 30 years of no real evolution, no serious original development. And this is the time to start counting in the evolution of Chinese aviation - only after mastering the production of the Russian Su-27/30 and their deep modification, Chinese engineers gained sufficient experience for autonomous development - after 30 years lost! The superiority (possible) over Russian airplanes was due not so much to the outstanding qualities of Chinese engineers as to Russia's problems and the degradation of the Russian aircraft industry. In addition, China gained access to Western technology (e.g., French aircraft engines). The student was very lucky in that the teacher was addicted to alcohol, got liver cirrhosis and was in intensive care - it was hard for the student not to surpass the teacher under these circumstances.

Why are you asking me? I was writing about the past, not the future.

I merely asked for clarification.

I had thought it clear that by "the collapse of Soviet centralization" I was referring to the system as a whole; I was relying upon your intelligence to seize the metaphor. I will make sure to be painfully clear going forward in our conversations. I wouldn't want you writing 500-word screeds based upon your mistaking a metaphor for literal truth.

It's not a metaphor. It's an incorrect use of the term.

The Chinese killed their own educated class too. That doesn't change my point.

I'll try to make the point again. The Soviets realized that it was stupid to kill intellectuals before the Chinese and finally stopped doing it after the Stalin's death. Indeed already in the mid-1940s repressions against physicists, mathematicians and chemists were practically stopped - highly qualified personnel were needed to build the atomic bomb and to carry out other Soviet defense projects. Repressions against biologists and clinicians continued, but their scale was less catastrophic. And in China, Hongweibin and Jiaofan crowds continued to kill and abuse intellectuals until the mid-1960s. Lack of highly qualified personnel did not even allow China to equal the USSR/Russia in terms of aviation technology until the mid-1990s.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Soviets realized that it was stupid to kill intellectuals before the Chinese and finally stopped doing it after the Stalin's death. Indeed already in the mid-1940s repressions against physicists, mathematicians and chemists were practically stopped - highly qualified personnel were needed to build the atomic bomb and to carry out other Soviet defense projects.

Anatoly Sharansky and others might want to have a word with you. Though they weren't killed in the GuLags, being imprisoned in mental hospitals is also a form of torture, even if not deadly.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No they didn't.

Anyone who ran afoul of Uncle Joe was soon to be eliminated regardless of the situation.

Actually, they did carve-outs for exceptionally-bright scientists. These were special camps, with moderated conditions, called sharashkas, where the prisoners were fed livable, though still often-foul, rations, not forced into deadly labor such as logging or gold-mining, and even had other privileges such as library access. This goes back to at least 1947, and probably further, when you consider Tupelov's survival and so on.

Stalin was not a bulldozer. He was a fickle bull.

 

[bf109xxl]

Anatoly Sharansky and others might want to have a word with you. Though they weren't killed in the GuLags, being imprisoned in mental hospitals is also a form of torture, even if not deadly.

Shcharansky wasn't executed. Shcharansky was not a renowned scientist - he was a young employee who had just received a college degree.
Shcharansky and other dissidents were openly engaged in public activities and criticized the regime, something that was completely unthinkable in Stalinist times. They suffered for their public activities, which does not justify the regime, but shows that there is no connection between Shcharansky's case and Stalinist repression.
Moreover, the brilliant physicist and Nobel Prize winner Lev Landau was arrested in 1938 not on far-fetched charges, but for a real crime - in terms of Stalin's laws! He printed and distributed leaflets as well as participated in the activities of a secret organization aimed at changing the regime. A rare case in those years, when the absolute majority of the charges were pure fiction. And what? Pyotr Kapitsa vouched for him, and Landau was released. However, Lev Shubnikov, who was a candidate for the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Shubnikov-de Haas effect, was executed about the same time.

 

[bf109xxl]

Actually, they did carve-outs for exceptionally-bright scientists. These were special camps, with moderated conditions, called sharashkas, where the prisoners were fed livable, though still often-foul, rations, not forced into deadly labor such as logging or gold-mining, and even had other privileges such as library access. This goes back to at least 1947, and probably further, when you consider Tupelov's survival and so on.

A "sharaga" ("sharashka") was usually a design bureau or industrial research institute, where the labor of highly qualified prisoners, mostly engineers, was used. Along with prisoners, freelancers also worked in sharagas.
The food in the "sharagas" was incomparably better than in the camps - the prisoners were fed quite well, and I have not met any complaints about food in the memoirs of the prisoners of the "sharagas".
The Tupolev's "sharaga" (OKB-29) was not located in a prison at all.
There were not many "brilliant" scientists there - the physicists were taken under the care of Beria, who supervised the atomic project since early 1940s.
Many "sharagas" were closed during the war and reorganized into ordinary design bureaus and research institutes. Many prisoners of the "sharagas" were released with expunging their convictions during the war. In particular, Tupolev was released at the end of July 1941.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Shcharansky wasn't executed.

Right, which is exactly why I wrote "... though they weren't killed."

I guess that makes everything okey-dokey, hey we only stuck them in mental asylums, but hey-ho.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Along with prisoners [...]

Yep. People were imprisoned by Stalin and still forced to work to his ends in order to, you know, not be sent to Karaganda or other, worse places. Pretty as they were, sharashkas were still prisons.

We can discuss forced prison labor in another forum where such a topic won't broach forum rules. I'll suffice to say that if you're forcing labor in incarceration, it's probably not a level playing-field. Your mileage might vary.