303_Kermit

Just for my curiosity... What missiles are you going to use for BVR? no AiM-7 fly that fast / that far to be a BVR capable. Jesters Locks are fine - just do it within 10nm-15nm range. Not further. It's not F-14. For low lvl Boresight works well, but of course it's not a BVR

One can't have opinion about a temperature of boiling water.

Independent from own likes and dislikes, your suggestion is against logic and fairness to guys who bought Mirage F1. Shame yourself.

Wrong. I fly Sabre a lot, I fly MRF1 a lot - but mostly BE/CE. I never flew F-16/18/JF or any other BVR capable type. Not interested. I like to see my target sweat and scared. See their eyes when I kill them. See they stall their F-4 when I do rolling scissors. F1M is a competitor for gen 4+ fighters. BVR is not my music, and MRF1M on servers like BF modern or Contentions modern... I can't imagine that. ... Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. And how did you ever figured out that I like modern planes more, when I just wrote, that it's the opposite? It's just like with your MiG-21. PF/PFM/MF would be great for DCS. BISON is wasted time.

First prototype flew in 1998 so... I hope it's AiM-120 or MICA equipped. Some Vertical Scan acquisition also would be nice. otherwise it's pure masochism IMHO.

We fly F-1 as our main plane from over 1 year. Some of us don't even touch other modules. I have no problem taking F-4E out, but mostly we fly at least as a pair. I choose when I want to fight, and when I don't. at 0 lvl I'm faster. My engine is more economic, and when F-4 is out of fuel I still have 20 minutes of flight to rtb. 1 on 1 Phantom has better acceleration in range 0,4Ma - 0,7Ma. Also slightly better Turn rate, but if both pilots know their <profanity> it takes enormous amount of time to see actually visible advantage. F1 fights very well in vertical, if you know when to shut down Hyper Lift Devices. Doing that you can outmaneuver F-4. It's however not easy, and from my most experience pilots half of them don't feel comfortable in dogfight against F-5 or F-4. Personally In worst case with F-4 on my back I start from "break" and drop altitude rapidly in various vertical maneuvers trying to archive rolling scissors with F-4. Then I pull hard to low speed and High AoA. I use combat flaps first, and when second warning siren comes (first about high AoA second about speed under 220kt), I use full flaps. F-4 always fells down like a brick. Usually After that either I become gun solution or separate myself from dogfight. On most CW servers Phantom has artificially made weapon advantage. In spite of the fact that R530 was available in service from 1962 and Supermatra R530F in 1979. Usually we're Equipped in R530 not before when Phantom becomes AiM-7F (on Contentions we become R530(EM) when Phantom becomes AiM-7E2). Compared to AiM-7E2 our R530(EM) has much smaller range. Head on gives us no chance to hit him first without some F-pole maneuvers. Firing it from tail aspect makes much sense on high alt, when it keeps high speed for a long time. On deck lvl, I usually lunch my missile only to loose weight. It's actually very funny. missile starts accelerating, and after short period of acceleration missile flies 100-300m in front of my Mirage with roughly same speed as I have, and then I start catching up. I become gun solution before missile hits the target.

No, I'll post it PM to you if we perform something like that. For us "the worst case scenario" was the most important case.

Yes, but assuming all you said, does it make F-105 "Wholly inadequate for Air to Air combat" As someone tried to convince us? Because that was the whole point.

Great Idea! I'd like to have it instead of F-35 Regards Gents

I think, it's advisable to scroll up, and read. Questions repeats many times, and somewhere on the road there is also an answer. Regards.

I'm flying exclusively F1. Over a year now. Never bored.

I have identical problem. I use VPN to connect with licence server, but then pings skyrockets, so I turn VPN off. Then I can play multiplayer, but I see no server list. I have no family protection. Problem seem to be on the side of internet provider. ED seem to be innocent here

We tested F1CE extensively: test was performed on 15-23.10.2024 Constant turn on altitude 300ft: Conditions: Standard atmosphere conditions, 20°C no wind, no turbulence, wakes on, fuel unlimited 100%, two Aim-9B payload. Test layout: during a test pilot performs a stabilized turn with constant speed, altitude, and bank angle. After stabilizing the turn at given speed, pilot reports "ready for measurement". After that moment, exact conditions are kept: altitude +/-20ft, speed +/-0,5kt. If conditions aren't kept, measurement is interrupted and repeated after meeting desired conditions. Measured are taken by external observer. Time start and stops at given HDG after performing 360° turn. Observations: 1. During turn (stable and unstable) proportionally to loss of speed, there's visible travel of aerodynamic center to the front. 2. Hyper Lift devices allow to perform tightening high "G" corner. 3. When speed drops below 400kt, drag seem to raise nonlinear (rapidly). Keeping constant speed becomes more difficult. 4. 5G may be kept even in 360° turn, prolonging turn fight after that isn't advisable. 5. Between 300 and 350 kt there's slot movement, that causes keeping constant speed difficult. 6. On AoA close to critical in full flaps configuration, at 200-220kt, right before stall , plane seem to be more responsive to steering. Keeping plane on AoA close to critical requires attention. Recorded times: 200 knot 0:36 slots + flaps full 225 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 240 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 250 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 255 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 260 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 265 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 270 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 280 knot 0:34 slots + flaps full 290 knot 0:34 slots + flaps combat 300 knot 0:34 slots + flaps combat 310 knot 0:36 slots - see "observations" 330 knot 0:35 slots 380 knot 0:33 slots 400 knot 0:31 slots 440 knot 0:31 slots 460 knot 0:33 slots - maintaining constant stabilized turn above 460kt was difficult. Small changes in input results in big changes in archived stabilized speed. 600 Knot 0:39 clean 700 Knot 1:20 clean

I swear I came here because I read: "Mirage Squadron Server blblablah best blablah ...." then I red your post about 3x searching for what type of Mirage you fly....

TBH I see only one true problem with F-104G Starfighter. Looks cool in every single one livery ... How shall I choose one? Throw coins?

She's too pretty!

Works perfectly on Syria and Caucasus, where I fly on the daily basis. I'll install PG, Sinai and South Atlantic to be sure. Thanks again for your work!

Here is an answer: https://www.16va.be/3.3_appui_tactique_part3_eng.html In short: PF, PFM, PFS, SMT were transition plane between Fighter bomber variants of MiG-17 and SU-7B/BM, later replaced by MiG-27 / Su-17. When MF and bis came into service, there were no place for MiG-21 in frontline fighter - bomber units. From second half of '70 MiG-27 and Su-17 came to replace them. Why? MRF1 is best DCS module. Nobody complains. F-104"G" is excellent choice. "Der Witwenmacher". Can't wait.

Rubbish. If you don't want to argue then don't nobody forces you. As for your arguments... They are weaker and weaker. You may call a working girl "A Lady", and she's still going to charge you before the night is over. In both cases - it's just wishful thinking.

And that's and argument for.... ? Well... check stats of Vietnam war. F-105 performed more missions than F-104, killed more MiG's than F-104 (27,5 A2A kills, 24,5 of them by M61/A1 Gun, at a cost of 17 planes lost in A2A combat. I say it's nice statistics), and dropped more bombs than F-104. I think it makes him quite capable. I know... F-104 wasn't popular during Vietnam war, and later send to secondary tasks etc... TBH I am sure that in capable hands F-104C would show in Vietnam war it's true valor. All these plane demands is very experienced pilot, unfortunately that was not the case in Vietnam. Anyway don't you think guys that it's not the point? The point of flying F-104 is to ride an ultimate "bad**s" To perform A2G is one thing, but making it in F-104 - that's the skill level. You can land in any weather conditions? great! Do it in F-104... You can kill MiG-19 ? good... Do it in F-104. You can always find better plane than F-104, but you can't be more cool if you ride it, and you can't show more skill than winning a fight in Starfighter. That's whole point IMO. I will fly F-104 since day 1 hour 1, but not because I think it's that great. I think it's ultimate challenge. Mastering a plane take me about a year of training. VFR, IFR, A2G, Memory Items and Emergency situations, etc. etc... I wonder how much care needs F-104 to master him. If F-4 is such a challenge... What can one expect from F-104? I have goosebumps.

MiG-21bis / MF - 2x 500kg + 2x250kg MiG 21 has 3 generations, and none of them is considered a Fighter bomber. However some versions were capable of carrying even nuclear warheads, plane itself posess no true ground Attack possibilities. During 1972 war of attrition Egypt used those plane in that role - evaluated as useless in A2G, in opinion of both sides. In whole Warsaw pact there was a term of "Training ground weather" - 0m/s wind no clouds etc. In other weather conditions it wasn't even practiced. Practical use of MiG-21 in CAS missions was never seriously taken into account. Other types of A2G missions (deep strike etc.) were not even considered. saying that it's "One of his important missions" is a wishful thinking and bending facts into own opinion. no. MiG-21 isn't a fighter bomber. Almost every fighter since WW1 can carry some bomb ordnance. A6M Zero, F4F-3 Wildcat, Bf-109 F/G/K, FW-190A (however his F and G mods are fighter bombers), F-86 Sabre, and many others. Not every Fighter with capabilities of carrying some bombs is considered a fighter bomber. Su-7bkl - a modification of Su-7 which originally by design was planned to use as nuclear warheads only. Without capabilities of carrying conventional payload. Adaptation to classical A2G role came later, and was rather improvised one. But... 4x500kg - is for Su-7bkl a fully operational payload Mirage III isn't a fighter bomber, it was rather a role of Mirage 5 isn't it? In Russian doctrine in 1950 a role of ground attack plane CAS - fulfilled IL-10. Later , there were modifications of MiG-17, even later main role of ground support took Mi-24. A role of tactical bomber played IL-28 (way too long IMO), later Su-7 (later almost all modified to BKL standard), and from mid 1970 - Su-17. And again... why you consider F-105 as not direct competitor for F-104 ? Aren't they both fighter bombers? Why not F-4 Phantom ? they all both served in '60, and they all are fighter bombers. In DCS - his competitors are F-4 Phantom, Mirage F-1CE, and AJS -37. Every one of them outclass F-104G dramatically. So considering the main topic: "What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?" my answer is correct, and any arguing is just throwing dust into the air, because facts are simple: 1. F-104 is capable of flying fast, however combination of range - speed - payload forces you to choose between them. He's either fast or maneuverable or posses necessary range. never all of it in the same time. 2. Even in best case his payload is tiny. Mk83 is heaviest bomb that he can carry, and he may take maximum 3 of them. No 2000lb bombs. 3. It's pure fighter made for aggressive and skilled pilot. It posses some A2G possibilities, but any WW2 late US fighter bomber can easily compare with him in terms of range and payload. In any conventional doctrine of use aerial forces, these plane may not be taken seriously as ground attack plane. Ah... one more thing. Almost every CW scenario involves a use of various AAA / SAM / SHORAD /MANPAD systems.... What kind of RWR posses F-104? Isn't it AN/APR-25 RWR? The one who highlights only when an aircraft is being locked onto or is targeted by semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles? AFAIK it provides no directional input? Even as little as F1 or MiG? Does it warn about missile Launch? As for passive countermeasures, is it AN/ALE -40?

That's kind of answer that actually I was hoping for. 590kt on 0 lvl is really impressive. However... 3x 1000lb... abnormally heavy? You mean for a F-104? I would say ... it's tiny. It's impressive if we compare to P-47, but 2x 500kg + 2x250kg is a payload available even for MiG-21bis, and no one calls MiG-21 a fighter-bomber. I hope we agree that MiG-21 is comparable plane? F-1CE, A-6, A-7 and other planes named in these topic, I find far outside the range of comparison. It's difficult to even compare such tiny payload with anything. F-105D carry 16x750lb bombs, A-6 13x1000lb or 5x2000 lb... but F-104? is 3x 1000lb bombload enough to even call a plane fighter-bomber? Sorry for off topic... back to question: 1. If you use to comparison F-104G it would be better to compare it at least against A-4F. A-4C was outdated already in 1965... And for a plane that costs 50% of F-104 it would be fair, right? (correct me if I'm wrong F-104C was 1,5mln $ , and A-4E about 860 000$ right? What was the price of single F-104G - does anyone know?) 2. What about higher altitudes? MiG-21 with 2x500kg+2x250kg (there's no 3x bomb payload on it), couldn't climb effectively without AB. My guess is, that F-104 can't do that either. Flying all mission profile low over ground would reduce the mission range. How about FL100 - 120? I'm interested in performance on optimum altitude. For subsonic wing of A-6 FL100-120 will be more effective, for F-104 with his supersonic airfoil a low altitude, and dense air will be advantageous, but not for A-6, not for A-7, and not for A-4. Can you provide some data how does it look like on higher altitude? Is F-104 still faster with his tiny payload? What's the transition speed of compared planes on such altitude? Regards.

My point exactly, would you like to have "that" as support? Or one of those? Again: What capabilities should we expect from the F-104? Answer is - A2A - a lot A2G - a joke (pictures provided by @TLTeo and @Bremspropeller of Vietnam era F-104 shows it clearly) I will be cruel when finally F-104 shows up in DCS. I won't allow you all to forget about those topic, as soon as anyone appears on forum with question like these: "Air to ground in F-104. Help! Any tips?" Can you please explain @Bremspropeller where did I personally attacked you? And please notice the difference - pointing out someones mistake, not sharing his point of view, isn't equal with offending him. I never said any offensive word against you. To make it clear; if one say: -"Kermit you're an imbecile" - that is abusive and personally offensive. but if you say: -"Kermit the thing you said about fuel tanks is stupid" -it is actual critic, and can't be taken as an abuse. It doesn't imply that Kermit is stupid, but only, that those particular sentence you find stupid. Please see the difference. PS.. In times of Internet it's real shame, that Rhetoric isn't one of basic lessons in school anymore.

I see... plenty of them. You need a squadron of F-104 to deliver a payload of single A-1H. Care to learn what SOG teams or USArmy soldiers thought about A2G performance of that plane? I imagine those "Danger close" bomb delivery. Too little but at least miles from target. I' just reading "SOG Kontum: Secret missions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia 1968-1969." There are stories about ground support there. In short - SOG were not impressed.

I wasn't as precise as I shall, but also I expect that people here know their stuff. I shall explain myself. Being a F-104 freak as some of you - I am aware , that of course it posess wet pylons on the wing tip. Cool stuff. My F-104 an the desk in Job is exactly in those payload presented. 2x Fuel tanks on the tip, and 2 x AiM-9 Sidewinder under belly. So... you may ask "what's my point?" There is a logic behind it. As you know - drop tanks have their limitations. Biggest problem is, that dropping them is a bit unpredictable, and there were accidents during that procedure in F-104. Especially if there are bombs on. So standard procedure is, that while carrying bombs under wings, one can not drop tanks until bombs are gone. We all know - every plane has G limitations when fuel tanks are on. That was the reason why I wrote what I wrote. You may theoretically take 2x additional fuel tanks, but would you actually do it in real combat flight? Would you make your survival chances over target even smaller than they are already? I mean... Flying Mirage or Phantom, you may just fly slower and limit your "G", but F-104 can't fly slower. These kind of plane fly on full AB or not at all. I imagine myself in such situation - having to be extremely precise with controls under gunfire by 450-500kt, low over ground during bombing run. Hair raising stuff. In DCS or in Peace time practice flight - A2G payload of F-104 looks impressive. In real life mission over Vietnam it looks like that: 2x fuel tanks and no bombs. Light, and able to drop tanks in any given moment, in case of emergency. It's a bit like F-16 in DCS. I see him plenty of times with 3x Fuel tanks , on every DCS milsim mission. But did anyone ever see F-16 in RL with such payload?