The F-106 never proved itself in combat either.  Let's be fair here.

The F-106 never proved itself in combat either.  Let's be fair here.  

While the Draken and the F-106 never saw combat I think that based on their observed capabilities they could both be considered pretty damn good.

The Draken had an excellent speed and climb performance, was manouverable, capable of short field ops, as well armed as any of the aircraft of the day, had an advance collision course intercept system that was automated to take navigation information from the Sweedish ground radar network from the B onwards, was viceless once some intial problems with pitch control were sorted out in the A, and was versitile enough to make a good attack and recon type. It was short ranged but that is all that the Swedes needed given their battlespace. It was as good as any in the "pretty damn good catatory".

 

The F-106 was long-ranged, had a high transit speed helped by an internal weapons bay and had an advanced avionics system that tied in with SAGE (the radar was initially buggy but was sorted out). This made it an ideal platform for hitting bombers attacking the US before they could launch stand-off weapons. The only thing I didn't like about it was its armament. The effectiveness of the Genie could be redued by splitting up packages of bombers into smaller groups and the Falcon wasn't a very good missile. It was also limited to firing two Falcon's at a time, reducing the potential number of kills on each mission. The only reason that I didn't bump it a catagory as a consequence of this is because between the 5 weapons you could expect that it would achieve a couple of kills on each mission, but I think it would have been much better if it had been fitted with a gun well before 1970 and "Project Six-Shooter".

 

As for the Mig-21, we'll have to agree to disagree on that for the reasons I have already stated. I actually think the Mig-19 was a more useful type given its better manouverability and rate of climb combined with an adequate supersonic performance.

 

 

I think both the F-106 and Draken were successful designs but the difference is the F-106 during its time was the best in the business in its role as a pure interceptor. The Draken was perfect for Sweden, for obvious reasons but I don't think you can put it in the top of the class.

 

One more thing. why do think the most successful Russian fighter of all time (in terms of combat, production, and service length) was not that good?

Ian

 

One more thing. why do think the most successful Russian fighter of all time (in terms of combat, production, and service length) was not that good?

sentinel :

Herald : (Ooops sorry) Hamilcar :

 

Rafale operational ceiling is 55,000ft+ , not 75,000 (!) . The Mirage III was not only a very high altitude interceptor but a deadly dogfighter and that in itself shows that the Snecma Atar 9C (the one I was talking about) had a lot to do with it .

 

Cheers .

The Falcon was a horrible missile that needed a lot of work before it performed halfway decently.

That Draken was definitely better that the F-106. Better radar intercept setup, plus it used Sidewinder/Improved Falcon clones. it also used the ADEN cannon whicj was a lot less troublesome than the DEFA cannon.

 

The Mig 21 scored a  coupler of hundred kills and was a piece of flying JUNK as was and is the Mirage.

 

Junk is JUNK. Excellent pilots gave those design and build horrors a reputation they didn't deserve.