I once read an account by an F-8 pilot who had experience fighting against F-104s. He wrote that the F-104 had a one trick zoom advantage over his F-8, but he definitely preferred his F-8.

Why not dispose of the F-16s? They don’t have the ability to do anything that an F-15E can’t do. I know that is a large chunk of the Air Force, but if we are forced to slash muscle, it at least isn’t killing anything with a unique capability.

I’ve heard that the potential exists for F-7PGs to serve past 2020 for PAF. The PGs are very advanced and when networked, can still be very relevant and very deadly.

But will they be able to catch a B-52?

Depends on what speed is being used and what opponent is being used as a comparison.

“Better”? Probably not, particularly in the layman’s view of slow speed knife-fighting.

I was assuming a high speed. I would think the small wings would bleed less energy in a high g turn.

That wasn’t the point.

Granted. I’m being hypothetical.

In the example given (50s-60s era high altitude environment), bombers could cruise at the same altitudes as could fighters…but they could do it slower…and when fighters tried to follow them in stern gun attacks, the fighters couldn’t match the turn.

So why cruise with the bombers when you can zoom up at Mach 1.5 and hit from below, and then from above on the way back down? Is the closing speed too much?

These altitudes were high enough that the fighters did not have the energy available to mount a slashing attack from above…the bomber’s cruise altitude was the “above”.

The F-104C set a world altitude record of 103,389 feet in 1959. Of course it couldn’t sustain that, but there were no bombers up there… So was there a problem of controlling the fighter at high altitudes, or was it too difficult to get in position?

Sure! Back in my day, most air combat took place at lower altitudes…what may have been seen in the designer’s eyes, didn’t happen as real life turned out.

The F-104, for example was designed for superior performance at higher altitudes…meaning climb rate, max altitude, and max speed. As it turned out, air combat was flown at much lower altitudes.

I expect a turbojet powered fighter is going to perform better at high altitude. But I would think a fighter designed to turn at high altitudes would have a much bigger wing, like the F-106 or Mirage III had. My impression has always been that the F-104 was designed to make vertical slashing attacks at high speed, and avoid horizontal turning fights with those little wings.

But at lower altutudes, I would think the F-104 would turn very well compared to other fighters. In the thick air, even the small wings would be able to generate plenty of lift, and it would have less drag and weight, and therefor a better thrust to weight ratio. Would not an F-104 be the better fighter in a turning fight at lower altitudes?

Maybe folks here might have heard stories about 50s and 60s era fighters not being able to turn with bombers at high altitude. The reason was simple. The bomber would be cruising at a IAS that for it was reasonable…but that IAS for the fighter was too slow. So, if the bomber started a turn, the fighter could not follow it at that speed. The fighter would quite literally ‘fall out of the sky’.

But what if the fighter was moving much faster? Could a fighter then sustain its altitude and make slashing attacks?

More like using a minicab as a bus.

Speed

Is the F-18E faster than an A-6E at sea level?