Hey there, M.A.D, I don't know that I'd say I came to a "conclusion"
per se. That's partially why I never posted a follow-up.
I think the cheapest, deadliest, no fuss, no muss option is the F8U Crusader. The guns weren't as good as the 30mm DEFAs of its competitors, but the Sidewinder is king during this period and it gets it out of the box on day 1. If you don't care about what happens after the debut of the F-4E in 1968, then it's probably what I'd go with. Also, while I obviously have no empirical evidence to support this, months of reading along these lines lead me to believe that it was probably the most maneuverable of any of the supersonic fighters on this list. Also, it has great endurance for its size and an air to air refueling probe, something most contemporaries lacked, certainly in this timeframe (again, we're talking about out-of-the-box configurations).
The most proven option has got to be the Mirage III. This is the one you pick if you don't want to hear any criticism. It won the skies in '67 and continues to give a good account of itself in Pakistani service today. The guns are great and it eventually can pack a pair of Sidewinders, too. I don't think its limitations are properly appreciated, however. The R.530 in any of its forms is totally useless and should be left in the box it came in. The Atar engine was tough, but guzzled gas horribly when afterburner was on, so range could be limited in practical configurations. Sidewinder integration came later (with the Swiss and Australians, I believe), the Shafrir-1 was awful, and no matter what you're only packing two. The Mirage III is reliable, effective, and proven. I think the same can be said of the MiG-21 in the same period, though it has its own issues.
My secret favorite is the Draken. I love it. I love the looks and the capabilities. I think it may be the best of the three, too. It's just such a wildcard, though. It isn't combat-proven like the others and the early radars had many problems. Still, it can carry 4 Sidewinders with the fewest issues, probably has the best range and endurance, and the highest speed in practical conditions. It should be able to control the fight. It has the good 30mm DEFA cannons, too. It's mostly pluses, but there are a worrying number of question marks, too. I still suspect the F8U could beat it in a knife fight, though, because even a cranked delta is still a delta wing. And, in the early days of radar and AAMs that we're talking about, things are likely to be a knife fight, so once you're in a merge, I'm not convinced it would beat the F8U most of the time.
If you told me you had a squadron of F8Us, a squadron of Mirage IIIs, and a squadron of Drakens that we time-traveled to a winner-takes-all fight and I had to bet my life savings on who I thought would be the winner, I'd pick the F8U. As a weapon system (which was the point of this), I trust it the most.
So, with all this discussion and the benefit of hindsight, that's the one to go with, right? Well, no. Despite my misgivings about AAMs, I have really come to respect early AIM-9B Sidewinders, despite their serious issues. You can hang the Shafrir-1, the Sparrow III, the R.530, and the whole Falcon family as far as I'm concerned, but the AIM-9B was a game-changer. If you wanted a squadron of the best air superiority fighters from 1956-1968, I think the US Navy has the right answers. Go with the most advanced F8U Crusaders you can get your hands on until the F-4B Phantom makes its debut, then just load it up with as many AIM-9Bs as it can carry and send it out to dominate the skies.
I think Kelmola has it right. Do you need guns? Yes. Is it worth giving up a radar, an RIO, a J79, 600 miles of range, 300 mph, and four AAMs to get those guns? Hard to say, but probably not.
Cheers,
Logan
