Successful Fighter/Attacker designs from service entry? Are/were there any?

[scautomoton]

So, there are many, many fighter/attacker designs that have entered service worldwide over the decades that have just not been mature enough. Whether its stopgap engines (F-14), sub-par avionics, underwhelming performance (Cutlass), some serious design flaws (or any of a host of other things people like us argue and whine about until the end of time), it's typically resulted in protracted continual in-service development (Typhoon), numerous iterative variants until its right (Hunter anyone), or even outright cancellation due to lost confidence (I'm looking at you Supermarine Swift). And all at a continued cost overrun.

But, what designs have been right from the start? As in, the whole package was fit for purpose from the day it entered service, and no one had a bad word to say about it. Are there any? Discuss.

 

[H_K]

But, what designs have been right from the start? As in, the whole package was fit for purpose from the day it entered service

Mirage F1 comes to mind. It helped that the engine and avionics were only minor iterations from the Mirage III series and not cutting edge.

 

[red admiral]

A few other examples, although different people will have different success definitions:

Harrier in all variants?
Jaguar
Tornado GR fairly trouble free
F-117 surprisingly trouble free but a few supportability issues in service

 

[timmymagic]

it's typically resulted in protracted continual in-service development

You won't find any successful post war combat aircraft that didn't have this. All combat aircraft get upgrades in capability, remedial work done etc. and thats a good thing. Sometimes the extent to which these have occurred is a little obscured due to the way different nations attach different designations to them. For example the US makes it very clear in model designations, other nations like the UK tend to reserve new model numbers for major revisions only. For example you'll see AIM-120 having its different versions clearly visible. But would anyone know we were now on Asraam Block VI? The preceding 5 blocks barely got a mention...and it can be similar for aircraft.

 

[H_K]

Harrier in all variants?
Jaguar
Tornado GR fairly trouble free
F-117

Ahh I thought this thread was about multirole fighters! (with a ground attack capability)

Which is a harder nut to crack IMHO than more attack oriented (or attack-only) aircraft like the ones you mentioned (one might add the A-4 Skyhawk to that list).

Among fighter-only types the F-8 Crusader was good from the start.

 

[scautomoton]

You won't find any successful post war combat aircraft that didn't have this. All combat aircraft get upgrades in capability, remedial work done etc. and thats a good thing.

I agree with all you've said, I was trying to isolate examples such as the Hawker Hunter, where the F1-5 were basically debugging efforts until the F6 arrived. I mentioned the Typhoon since it seems they just pushed it though to service with less than the bare minimum it really should have had.

Obviously, when better HMI, more efficient engines, more capable weaponry, higher bandwidth datalinks etc come along then they should be added once appropriate development has taken place.

One that sprang to mind for me was the A-10. Unless there were foibles I'm unaware of.

 

[timmymagic]

One that sprang to mind for me was the A-10. Unless there were foibles I'm unaware of.

Was A-10 actually capable of doing the job it was purchased for though? Many would argue not.

Tornado GR1 looks, on the surface like it was good, but then when the Gulf War arrived it turned out to be not fully equipped for the reality of modern war with PGM capability. Now this had been realised some years before with TIALD, MSOW and ALARM under development to close the gap. But was GR1 as a result, from service entry in 1982, actually the real deal?

F-15A, F/A-18A and, perhaps, F-16A might have better claims.

 

[Archibald]

Dassault learned to read Armée de l'Air RFPs; build the prototype(s) they wanted; and immediately start a parallel "Plan B" which made far more (financial, most of the time) sense... and carried the day in the end.

Mirage III was a happy accident of history after AdA and NATO LWF (Mirage I, II) went nowhere.

Mirage F1 was a happy accident of history after VSTOL, VG, F2 and F3 went nowhere.

Mirage 2000 was a happy accident of history after G4/G8, ACF, F1M53 and 4000 went nowhere.

SAAB comes to mind: unlike the AdA, the Flygvapnet set extremely realistic RFPs, whatever time that took (future Viggen matured over the best part of a decade). Draken, Viggen, Gripen fully assumed their future mission right off the drawing board, or close

-Draken: affordable Mach 2 interceptor;

-Viggen: attack first (AJ37) to replace the many obsolete pre-Draken types ; interception later (JA37) to replace the Drakens;

-Gripen "we need something a little smaller and more affordable than Viggen to replace them all"

 

[red admiral]

Which is a harder nut to crack IMHO than more attack oriented (or attack-only) aircraft like the ones you mentioned (one might add the A-4 Skyhawk to that list).

Among fighter-only types the F-8 Crusader was good from the start.

A-4 had lots of developmental issues actually when you read the history e.g. significant control system redesign driven by flying qualities

F-8 had a worse accident rate than F7U Cutlass to begin with...

 

[bennyp]

Tornado GR1 looks, on the surface like it was good, but then when the Gulf War arrived it turned out to be not fully equipped for the reality of modern war with PGM capability. Now this had been realised some years before with TIALD, MSOW and ALARM under development to close the gap. But was GR1 as a result, from service entry in 1982, actually the real deal?

But wasn't the GR1 designed for a different doctrine, which it did achieve the objective of? It was doctrine that changed on the aircraft, not an aircraft that failed to achieve its designed purpose.

 

[Hanse]

F/A-18 Hornet. F-4 Phantom.

 

[Scott Kenny]

One that sprang to mind for me was the A-10. Unless there were foibles I'm unaware of.

Solving the gun-gas ingestion problem took a lot of work. And even then, the final "cure" was giving up on anything fancier and wiring a relay into the gun trigger that turned on the engine igniters and left them on for a couple seconds after the trigger was released.

SAAB comes to mind: unlike the AdA, the Flygvapnet set extremely realistic RFPs, whatever time that took (future Viggen matured over the best part of a decade). Draken, Viggen, Gripen fully assumed their future mission right off the drawing board, or close

-Draken: affordable Mach 2 interceptor;

-Viggen: attack first (AJ37) to replace the many obsolete pre-Draken types ; interception later (JA37) to replace the Drakens;

-Gripen "we need something a little smaller and more affordable than Viggen to replace them all"

I dunno, Gripen focused too much on "smaller" and not enough on "more affordable". It did work, but I think the development of a plane a little bigger would have gone faster and been easier to maintain.

For example, the JA37 Viggen has an MTOW of 19,250kg, while Gripen C/D is 14,000kg. Call it 2/3rds the weight, both empty and MTOW. Aiming for an airframe that is closer to 75% the weight would have left more space around components for access, which makes replacement easier.

Because I don't think Gripen ever got to the "2/3rds the cost of Viggen to maintain."

 

[red admiral]

Gripen "we need something a little smaller and more affordable than Viggen to replace them all

There's definitely a element of "the grass is greener elsewhere". Gripen was many years late due to flight control system safety issues. The A was pretty limited capability too e.g. lack of BVR missiles