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
