Lt Col James Jabara, USAF ace

[Bone]

He wrote this article about jet fighters, and it was published in the Air Force Magazine 50 years ago this month. It's an interesting read.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1960/August%201960/0860fighter.aspx

[Ken Stallings]

Very insightful article. I think to no surprise he nailed the truth in his observations and reports about the air war in Korea. But, I think he gave the F-104 a bit too much credit. The Starfighter was no doubt very fast. But, the penalty was paid in term of manuevering. It featured a high wing loading and therefore had a poor turn performance.

As excellent a fighter pilot as Jabara was, I think he would admit himself that Luftwaffe Experten Erich Hartmann was a better fighter pilot who understood what it took to be a successful fighter pilot. And Hartmann had serious concerns about the F-104. He considered the aircraft lacking in maneuver performance, and better suited to interception than to dogfighting. He also had serious concerns about the aircraft's handling characteristics, especially during landing and takeoff operations. Frankly, he considered the jet dangerous.

The F-104 started the USAF's love affair with the mantra, "higher, faster, farther." This philosophy put the premium on raw speed. To this end, the F-104 was a marvelous expression as it was truly the "missile with a man in it." But, while this meant it was an excellent VFR interceptor, it also meant it was not a good dogfighter.

But, at least it had an integrated cannon onboard, which was a valuable asset that unfortunately was lacking in the F-4 that was considered the next generation of multi-role fighter. But the F-4 suffered also from high wing loading, as well as an overall poor aerodynamic design. It had very powerful engines, but even these featured a negative tendancy to smoke and give away location.

For all the problems with the F-86, it was still the only jet the Americans had that could go up against the MiG-15 and win. It was not a pure dogfighter, but it had a low enough wing loading coupled with excellent flight characteristics to make it a good enough dogfighter. Yes, it suffered in ceiling. But Jabara talked about tactics used to overcome the problem. Unfortunately, after Korea the USAF would have little else to rely upon besides good tactics!

It was not until the development of the F-15 that the USAF (and by the frankly the American military) had a fighter truly designed to go up against fighters and destroy them in dogfighting. Sure, any aircraft can be a weapons platform and haul air-to-air missiles up into the sky and use a radar to launch them. In these types of engagements, it isn't the jet that's dogfighting but the missile. And as long as you have reliable IFF and excellent radars, you could effectively use a B-52 loaded to the gills to establish air superiority!

What is needed is a fighter capable of both BVR missile engagement and dogfighting. After Vietnam where air superiority was only won after good tactics were used against a sub-standard air force flying marginal fighters, the USAF finally started to listen to smart men like Robin Olds who remembered how fighters worked in World War II and Korea. So, the direct result was the F-15.

I have no doubt that Jabara would have preferred the F-15 to the F-104 and would have really liked having a fighter with low wing loading and a thrust to weight ratio of greater than one-to-one. That good lesson is still in effect today with the F-15's replacement, the F-22. The F-22 has excellent maneuverability due to the same low wing loading and high thrust as the F-15, but it also combines thrust vectoring. In addition, it adds the truly revolutionary addition of low observability. Combined with the AMRAAM, which finally fulfills the promises made for the Sparrow, and you have a very lethal fighter. I think the next revolution will be remotely piloted fighters that can pull sustained 20G's and feature all the other performance features, but combined with a pilot with improved situational awareness.

Cheers,

Ken

[Bone]

I think if he was alive today, Jabara would agree he overrated the F-104. As you most likely know but didn't say, exactly, his view was probably more a sign of the times, when the mindset was that the days of dogfighting were over. A manueverable plane with a gun was "out", and "in" was a straight and fast platform to deliver an air-to-air missile.

Thankfully, this trend was somewhat shortlived, or we'd be flying alot of models in FS that flew like a brick.

[Bjoern]

Luftwaffe Experten Erich Hartmann

One Experte, two Experten. Unless Hartmann was a schizophreniac, the former applies.


And Hartmann had serious concerns about the F-104. He considered the aircraft lacking in maneuver performance, and better suited to interception than to dogfighting. He also had serious concerns about the aircraft's handling characteristics, especially during landing and takeoff operations. Frankly, he considered the jet dangerous.

The german secretary of defense at that time 'though, might have found Lockheed's bribe more important than the flaws of the F-104.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals


But, while this meant it was an excellent VFR interceptor, it also meant it was not a good dogfighter.

Who would want to dogfight anyways when you can just boom 'n' zoom?


It had very powerful engines, but even these featured a negative tendancy to smoke and give away location.

It was just an invitation for the OPFOR to come and get their butts kicked. ;)

Give me an F-4 any day.

[Bone]

Give me an F-4 any day.

If you only knew how many times I've said that.

[Bjoern]

If you only knew how many times I've said that.

Probably mostly when stuck in a holding pattern because of traffic. A bunch of 'winders and Sparrows could do wonders to make you #1 for landing. :icon_lol:

[Bone]

Probably mostly when stuck in a holding pattern because of traffic. A bunch of 'winders and Sparrows could do wonders to make you #1 for landing. :icon_lol:

LOL.:icon_lol:

[jmig]

Okay, I know I am bias. Still, it seems to me that saying the F-104 wasn't a good yank and bank fighter to mix it up because of high wing loading is like saying a dump truck sucks as a NASCAR ride. The F-104 was designed during a time when the inanimate threat was thought to be high altitude Soviet bombers. It was designed to up high, fast and destroy a less maneuverable bomber.

The F-4 was originally a stand off fighter to protect the fleet, aka the F-14. It was expected to locate the enemy far out and use long range radar missiles It proved to be much more than just a stand off fighter and became the most famous multi-role fighter bomber of the era.

Comparing the F-4 against the F-15 is like comparing the P-51 to the F-4's speed and load caring capabilities. If you really want to compare the F-15, compare it to the F-16 or F-18.

[Ken Stallings]

Probably mostly when stuck in a holding pattern because of traffic. A bunch of 'winders and Sparrows could do wonders to make you #1 for landing. :icon_lol:

Now THAT'S just old fashioned funny right there! LOL!!

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Okay, I know I am bias. Still, it seems to me that saying the F-104 wasn't a good yank and bank fighter to mix it up because of high wing loading is like saying a dump truck sucks as a NASCAR ride. The F-104 was designed during a time when the inanimate threat was thought to be high altitude Soviet bombers. It was designed to up high, fast and destroy a less maneuverable bomber.

The F-4 was originally a stand off fighter to protect the fleet, aka the F-14. It was expected to locate the enemy far out and use long range radar missiles It proved to be much more than just a stand off fighter and became the most famous multi-role fighter bomber of the era.



No question on these points. But we built the F-104 for the perceived full role of fighter duties. Dogfighting was considered "old fashioned." The achieved its design spec's, but the spec's were proven woefully inadequate. Lockheed even offered an upgraded version of the F-104 to compete against the F-15. So, clearly even after the lessons of Vietnam rolled in, some still didn't fully understand them.

Cheers,

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Comparing the F-4 against the F-15 is like comparing the P-51 to the F-4's speed and load caring capabilities. If you really want to compare the F-15, compare it to the F-16 or F-18.

However, I have to disagree with you on that point. The F-15E compares very positively against the F-4 in the air-to-ground role -- much better actually. In addition, with its upgraded engines, it also retains a powerful air-to-air capability.

Cheers,

Ken

[jmig]

*pulls out his teak wood F-4 model and polishes it tenderly* Don't let that mean old Ken hunt your feelings Phantom. You are still beautiful*

Ahhh, yes Ken but it took TWO models of the F-15 to do what the C, D or E model F-4 did. :d.

You are, of course, right about the short comings of the F-4. Her turn radius was like that of a pickup and you had to go to min burner to clean up the smoke, at a cost in fuel.

[bearcat241]

... The F-15E compares very positively against the F-4 in the air-to-ground role -- much better actually. In addition, with its upgraded engines, it also retains a powerful air-to-air capability...

Yes indeed Ken...the Echo is highly underrated when comparison discussions arise regarding modern multi-role fighters. Now there's a tandem seat Eagle that can still maneuver WITH its payload onboard and can carry a heavy load of anything presently used in the US arsenal -- AG or AA. If its gotta be a two seater, i'll take the E over the F-4 anytime. But i admit i'm still partial to the F/A-18F on that multi-role, two seater thingy. :icon_lol: