[Andrew]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

I wouldn't put too much credence in whatever was in that idiotic book (which I did read, but boy, what a waste of time). Stevenson absolutely does not know what he is talking about when it comes to fighter development, design, and employment.

He has been promoting the so-called "fighter mafia" agenda for a long time now, but I can tell you their ideas are seen as a bit of a joke in the fighter pilot/crew community these days. It's not to say all their ideas were wrong, but they have pushed them to absurd lengths and have thus become irrelevant to any debate on that subject.

The F-104 was a lousy fighter, by the way, no question about it. It was OK as a pure point-defense interceptor, but even then, it's lack of substantial armament (quantity-wise, that is, even the S model) and range were severe limiting factors.

FVD

Wasn't the F-104 designed for the requirement of something fast and could climb high?

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Wasn't the F-104 designed for the requirement of something fast and could climb high?

True enough, Andrew. So as a pure interceptor, as I wrote, it was fine (apart from somewhat limited range - though airplanes such as the BAC Lightning and MiG-21 were even worse in that respect). But even there, the Air Force went with the F-106 which was superior in most ways to the F-104.

As a fighter, speed, acceleration, and climbing ability are of course important, but so are range/endurance, maneuvrability, ease of handling, armament, sensors, etc... all areas where the F-104 was deficient. The one thing the Starfighter did have going for it besides speed and climb was its (relatively) small size, which is a definite plus in a close-in visual fight. Another factor is pilot visibility from the cockpit, for which I would rate the F-104 as just average (F-16 being the ultimate in that respect).

FVD

[Rush104]

I think the point that I was trying to make has been misinterpreted.
The author was trying to point out this- when Vietnam started, the Air Force did not have a plane that fit the definition of a classic fighter, one capable of truly mixing it up in close combat with other aircraft. The inventory consisted of aircraft that were either interceptors or fast bombers. These aircraft were designed in an era geared towards fighting a nuclear war; either stopping an incoming attack (in the case of the interceptors) or delivering an attack to the enemy.
As such, the "fighters" in the Air Force consisted of the Century Series and the F-4, with the F-111 in the works.
With the exception of the F-100 and to an extent the 104 (the design of which, again, was to fulfill the wishes of Korean War fighter pilots for a plane that could go higher and faster than anything the enemy had), none of the CS planes could be considered fighters. They were either interceptors or bombers, not classic fighters. The F-4 was designed for the Navy's fleet defense interceptor requirement, and the F-111 was designed to fulfill the interceptor role for the navy and the strike role for the AF. So, at the time of the war, the Air Force had nothing either in the inventory or in development which met the requirements of a classic fighter, whereas the Navy had the F-8- one of the best dogfighting jets of all time.
Trying to rectify this, the Air Force put a lot of time and effort into upgrading the F-4, making it more of an air superiority fighter instead of an interceptor.
The author was trying to point out that of all the planes the Air Force did possess, the F-104 was a logical candidate to upgrade. Of all the CS aircraft, and the F-4 and the F-111, it had a BETTER BALANCE OF ALL OF THE CHARACTERISTICS that were desired in an air superiority fighter.
No doubt it would have taken a lot of work improving the maneuverability and armament load of the F-104- but not as much work as was required to make the F-4 a truly close in combat capable aircraft. Personally, I think the author was right on that point.
Ultimately, though, the Air Force learned its lesson. The F-16, with the help of the Fighter Mafia, came into being to address the lack of a dedicated air superiority fighter.

[jjgilz]

Rush,
I didn't mean to sound harsh about your comments. You have brought up and awesome topic that has led to a very spirited, mostly adult debate. I applaud you for that! I agree with your latest post. Things could have turned out differently. In the end, the F-4 won out and led to the F-16/F-15 backbone of the '80s. However, I do disagree with your last statement. I think the F-15s capabilities rival/exceed the F-16 as an air superiority fighter. The simple advantage of a -16 is that they were cheaper and had a more dynamic air/land capability.

Take Care,
Jeff
AimHigherJets.com

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by jjgilz

Rush,
I didn't mean to sound harsh about your comments. You have brought up and awesome topic that has led to a very spirited, mostly adult debate. I applaud you for that! I agree with your latest post. Things could have turned out differently. In the end, the F-4 won out and led to the F-16/F-15 backbone of the '80s. However, I do disagree with your last statement. I think the F-15s capabilities rival/exceed the F-16 as an air superiority fighter. The simple advantage of a -16 is that they were cheaper and had a more dynamic air/land capability.

Take Care,
Jeff
AimHigherJets.com

Hey Jeff,

You're right. When you get right down to it, the F-4 was in service, and more were coming (whereas no more F-104s were coming), so it had to be upgraded.
I wasn't trying to diss the F-15. Both the 15 and 16 are great air superiority fighters, and both were designed with the lessons of Vietnam in mind.
And I'm not about to go down the "F-15/F-16 which is the better fighter" road!

[Andrew]

So far, I think the F-15 usually wins due to its BVR capability. but in a knife fight, the F-16 has the edge with its maneuverability and small size. But I heard there were politics involved with the development of the F-16. The alternative was the F-5 for the role of point defence which some still argue was better suited than the F-16. I've never heard of it being compared to the F-104 though.

[jjgilz]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Hey Jeff,

You're right. When you get right down to it, the F-4 was in service, and more were coming (whereas no more F-104s were coming), so it had to be upgraded.
I wasn't trying to diss the F-15. Both the 15 and 16 are great air superiority fighters, and both were designed with the lessons of Vietnam in mind.
And I'm not about to go down the "F-15/F-16 which is the better fighter" road!

We should just agree that the C-17 is the best airlifter! (No personal plug intended!)

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by jjgilz

We should just agree that the C-17 is the best airlifter! (No personal plug intended!)

I totally agree. The C-17 is the best airlifter in the world. AFTER THE C-5!!!

(No personal plug intended there, either)!

[FormerViperDriver]

Well, I still disagree with Stevenson. And I'm not the only one apparently: the F-4 is still in service as a fighter in many countries (Germany, Greece, Turkey, South Korea, Japan...) whereas the F-104 has long been retired (with the Italians being the last ones to stick with it, for far too long IMO). The F-4 made a better fighter than the F-104 in the end, with far fewer modifications. The F-4's aerodynamic mods were limited to adding leading edge slats, that's it. All others were avionics mods (plus the internal gun on the E model). The F-104 would have had to have a completely redesigned wing to be viable, in addition to new avionics. In fact, Lockheed did propose such a design in the mid-to-late 70s (called the "Lancer"), but there were no takers as by then the F-16 was arriving on the scene (thankfully itself heavily improved compared to the original design envisioned by the fighter mafia, which would have been pretty useless in modern warfare).

FVD