Please do not slander me with falsehoods.

You will find that most of the kills were gun kills. The Israelis did not have Sidewinder until later *(67 and after) Shafir did not work. The Paks did not know how to use the Sidewinder and didn't have that many either. Most of their Sabre/Hunter kills were machine guns.

 Participating in the 1965 and 1971 conflicts with Pakistan, the Hunter proved to be a formidable ground attack aircraft and took a heavy toll of Pakistani armour. However in the air to air role the Hunter did not come off too well in combat with Pakistani Sabres, with 8 being lost in the 1965 war compared to 6 Sabres being shot down by Hunters. Pakistani pilots were lucky in that most of the Hunters they encountered were bomb-laden and operating at extreme range, and much easier prey as a result - especially when Sidewinder AAMs were employed by the Sabres. When encountering Hunters configured for air defence, they did not do so well but wisely dragged Hunters into low level, low speed turning dogfights, where the Hunter's performance was closest to the Sabre, instead of engaging at higher level where the Hunter would have been far superior. A single Pakistani F-104 finding itself in combat with a Hunter eventually had to disengage when the pilot found himself unable to turn with the Hunter.   

 

           In the 1971 war the Sabres did not do so well. While six Hunters were lost,  eight (possibly nine) Sabres were claimed by Indian Hunters (Pakistani sources accepting fewer losses  but not by any great margin). - See more at: http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/

 

which happens to be one of your own sources

 

 

As for the F-104...

The good and the bad.

Not designed to survive, is how I describe it. It, like the Hunter did not meet the first requirement of a combat aircraft, be easy to use, and relatively fitted to the purpose as designed.

If the Hunter had been used for its intended purpose (Look at the beast, it is a classic strike interdiction platform, not a fighter), then I would not be so harsh about it. The plane was misused because the people who obtained it didn't know how or for what it should be used.

 

The Hunter was designed as a fighter and operated as such, it was only the advent of true Supersonic fighters that relegated it to Ground attack, as a transsonic fighter it was a match for any of the other Transsonic fighters of the Era, I notice the two you pick were both later supersonic fighters (oh and the F104 had a smaller combat radius than the Hunter)

Must I point out, that what I said was factually correct? 

 

As for being the best transonic fighter, I already told you that honor goes to the Mig 17 which fought as a fighter and stayed competitive against supersonic missile and gun carrying fighters that would eat Hunters for breakfast (that would be the Mirages and the Starfighters that shot the Hunters down in the mid 60s and which named planes had trouble with those Mig 17s.) all the way into the 1970s. The Hunter's window as an effective fighter was 1954-57 (bugs worked out in the initial design which was as terrible as the contemporary F-100 another typical rotten American mis-designed plane relegated to fighter bomber status) to 1964 after which it became a Sabre (Pakistan) and Mirage (Israel) cannon target in the air until the all the good Pak pilots were shot down, After 1967 the Indians acquired (Russian) MISSILES and went on Sabre hunts (even in Hunters).  The Israelis (even when they flew Mysteres) never had trouble with it at all. They regarded it as dead meat.

 

data. 

oh factually correct but one sided, as they say the truth but not the whole truth you kind of forgot to mention that the 65 losses were when operating in ground attack and all occured outbound ie fully armed, you miss mentioning the 71 war where the Hunter actauly comes out ahead against the Sabre.

 

As I said you have your dislike of the Hunter (or is it just Camm?) and filter anything you read through that,

 

you do seem to dislike Camm despite his list of successful designs

Hart

Hind

Fury

Nimrod

Hurricane (one of the best of its generation)

Typhoon

Tempest

Sea Fury (arguably the best piston fighter ever cetainly one of 3 contenders for that crown)

Sea Hawk (best kill/lose rate of any aircaft in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965)

Hunter

Harrier

I also dislike Willy Messerchmidt for much the same reasons. Camm is grossly overrated as an aircraft designer. He made many stupid mistakes that his line engineers in the Hawker design shop had to tear their hair out to correct in subsequent plane marks as operation and use revealed defects in his original concepts.

 

R  J. Mitchell had nothing like that kind of track record for bolluxed initial marks as Camm.

 

How many botched wing planforms and flying kazoos did HE design? Answer... NONE. 

the supermarine type 224?

He didn't pick the Goshawk engine and evaporative cooling which was the dumb idea. The air ministry did.

 

The PLANE flew fine although severely underpowered. The Americans learned from it. 

I did work for and with many such men, including both Norm and Buzzy. In the early '80s in Incirlik AFB, Adana, Turkey while employed by Boeing Services International.
Now that I have made such an easily verifiable claim, why don't you do the same and post your employment history that is relevant to this discussion?
You see, I am tired of arguing with pissants about important things and ideas only to have them ignored and diminished by no-nothings and book worms who have never done anything real and, or important in their entire lives.

Another LIE. You never worked for such men.