750 KIAS or Mach 2 or Engine Compressor Inlet Temperature of 121 Degrees C up to 35,000 feet (whichever is first) according to the Flight Manual for the F-104S

At 45000 feet, Mach 2.2 or CIT of 153 Degrees C (whichever is reach first) as long as CIT is not above 121 Degrees for more than 5 minutes in any one flight.

This is for an aircraft clean of external stores.

The figures for the F-4D were about the same for a Clean aircraft plus 4 Sparrow up to 30,000 feet, but the Mach number could reach 2.3 for 5 minutes with the Hi temp light lit in any one flight.above 30,000 feet.

The 1972 edition of the F-106 manual states airspeed limits of Mach 2 / 752 KIAS / Maximum Stagnation Temperature of 249 F (which I assume is the same as CIT), with drop tanks.

Has speed ever been a critical element in practice for these aircraft? Apart from the F-106, there has been considerable combat experience for most of these, so perhaps someone could enlighten us.

Salute!

Ask the Thud drivers I flew with up north 50 years ago about speed. Only time I had to go fast in my VooDoo was chasing down a B-58 one night during a big ADC/SAC exercise.. Sucker was zipping along at approx 0.95M at 35 or 40 K and I had to go supersonic to close for my shot. ORAC can tell you about a poor intercept geometry. I don't think the controller realized how fast the Hustler was going or we would have had a beam shot versus classic stern with 50 kt overtake.

Secondly, the Double Uglies burned gas like you would not believe. They even had something called "abort fuel" if there was a delay getting off the ground. They had to get gas going in and coming out and had very little play time if other folks were in the tgt area on our CAS and direct support missions for the grunts.

Gums sends...

You probably meant MiG-25, not -23, didn't you?
25 had max speed of about 3000 km/hr (2.83 M), while 23 had 2500 only (2.35M).

As for MiG-23 in US, about a dozen of them came from Egypt and AFAIK they were used by 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron (Red Eagles) in 80's.

It was just an offhanded comment about the 23s you mention. :)

USAF never got any MiG-25s, at least not for keeps.....just one pilot.

And realistically of course, those high Machs achievable by a number of fighters at high altitude have limited practical use. After a long fuel burning climb, the run from 1.1 or so to 2.0 in a clean F-4 took somewhere around roughly 5-6 minutes in AB on a good day, and 100+ miles of non-maneuvering flight, and resulted in about half the fuel remaining that you started the run with. With this amount of fuel left you'd better be reasonably close to an airfield....or a tanker.

They got most of one!

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...revich-mig-25/

Estonia has got one in their aviation museum, along with an F-4, F-104, Mig-23 etc etc.


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2f78bd806d.jpghttps://www.sightraider.com/the-estonian-aviation-museum/#jp-carousel-9552

As "best" can usually never be resolved in any debate with lots of opinions, a perspective you might want to consider is what was a particular airframe good at? Think poor, average, good enough, great, and excellent when thinking about different qualities of fighters and interceptors. What did they excel at? Speed, maneuverability (dogfighting), payload, sensors, weapons systems, range, adaptability (multi-use) etc. Stealth as a new wrinkle. Few are excellent at everything, some are excellent at only one thig....Lets try a few:

F-104: blistering speed, average to poor at everything else. A point based interceptor. MiG-21, MiG-23 similar.
EE Lightning: excellent top speed and climb. Maneuverable. Awful range/endurance. Missiles/systems sub par. a "one trick pony" (standing by for incoming)
Mirage III: great performance, limited payload, limited avionics.
F-105: Excellent top speed, especially down low. Excellent payload. Capable enough as a fighter but really a penetrator (designed for nuclear delivery)
F-106: high speed (single engine record.) Good enough maneuverability. Falcon missiles sub-par.
MiG-25: excellent top speed. Not a dog fighter.
F-4: high speed (especially clean), perhaps not excellent at anything, but definitely good enough at about anything else (and great in a few like payload) Very versatile and "good enough" interceptor, fighter, bomb truck, carrier capable in some versions, recce...)
F-22: Excellent in many categories. Very expensive.
F-35: perhaps the next "good enough" aircraft?
F-5: great (visual) dog fighter, average otherwise.
F-14: great in a few categories, and matured. Very capable avionics/weapons for the day. Early engine problems, big, expensive.
F-16: great in a few categories, and vastly matured with avionic upgrades and versatility.
Tornado ADV: Acceptable performance (and fine for a bomber interceptor) . Good avionics/weapons. Boring

etc etc.

The Su-15 might well have been up there. But, as a fighter or interceptor I'd say the MiG-31 takes the prize.

S89,

I note you omitted the F15C and F-15E from your list.

p.s. For its day the Lightning AI-23 was far above average. 60nm mile range and a HOJ mode.

ORAC,
but the Lightning had a very poor weapons load and the ones I worked on (92) were a nightmare to keep serviceable.

At Deci, we cranked up our F4M to 810KCAS at 5000ft in order to successfully outrun an Aggressor F5 engaging us. The F5 driver went by the name of Dil Deaux......

Dil Deuex....
precious.
thank you guys for your ongoing input, it is invaluable.

Why would anyone run from a good fight with an F-5?

‘Why would anyone run from a good fight with an F-5?” - Getting ready to convert to the F3?