303_Kermit

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?

F-104 isn't capable of performing one. Either drop tanks or bombs. See... I mentioned "With A2G payload" and diagram surely is charted for A2A payload. Having next to no wing - with supersonic airfoil, that produces marginal Lift coefficient, F-104 needs a lot of speed and a lot of AoA to produce some similar Lift to F-105. F-105 poses subsonic airfoil and swept wings, that actually produce some lift. The more bombs - the bigger advantage F-105 has. Again - I with A2G payload A-6 and A-4 are faster. F-104 can of course use AB , but can't fly supersonic with bombs. Carrying bombs, and keeping some descent altitude without occasional use of AB won't be an easy task. Forget about Hi-Lo-Hi mission profile. F-104 is faster in clean configuration - sure, but taking into account all limitations of A2G payload? He can't compete against A-6. The latter one will be faster and more economical. What conflict of 1960 did you meant? I missed that nuclear one. How many Nukes were dropped from F-104? Can you provide some stats? But I see your point. F-104 will be unstoppable on every nuclear campaign / mission played in DCS... If it becomes a nuke of course. Fantasy. Mirage F1 is 1970 gen III fighter, one may say even fighter bomber. Swept wing, modern aerodynamics, Viggen is also Gen III Fighter bomber with Double delta wings. They both produce more lift than F-104 may dream of. Range of Mirage is beyond competition even for much better F-4 Phantom. Last Reforger mission I was able to perform 1:50 min flight that included interception of MiG-25 with only one drop tank , and without any airborne refueling. After I land there was still enough fuel for another 30 minutes of flight. I can reach every destination on every DCS CW public server with any bombload and without single droptank. Neither MiG-21 nor F-104 can compare. If we consider bombload, range, speed and agility with full payload - not the avionics. MRF1 looks comparable even against F-16 and F/A-18. Dramatic difference is visible especially whem one fly next to F-5E. MRF1 carrying 2x as many bombs is 2x fast over target, without use of AB. Don't expect that from F-104. These plane won't fly without AB. Viggen is other case. I won't say much since I'm Mirage F-1 pilot, but he posess some serious set up of missiles. I doubt if F-104 can carry some comparable setup of those. As for bombload - everyone know that Viggen isn't very impressive here, but it's also not his task. His capable in anti shipping strikes, and on that field F-104 can't compare. I expect rather something similar to MiG-21 in terms of A2G, but MiG-21 is much easier to fly on high AoA, while F-104 is really not built for that. We shall have plane with just as little range with bombs, struggling to climb with bombs in any other way than on full AB - just like MiG-21, easy to stall in 10 possible way during A2G strike by every speed , when pulled up rapidly. You may expect widow maker. PS. The beauty of CW 50-60-70 planes is, that good pilot will perform even in "Widow Maker". In CW duel, pilot is more important than plane, and it's visible in F-104 career, if somebody care to learn about it. Amazing story.

I truly don't care if you like what I like or not. I check what I see, I check sources and post what I found. -If you check my facts, see them correct / or not correct, and provide some sources for your statements - It makes me ( and probably not only me) smarter. Logical discussion based on facts leads to greater knowledge. but... -If you're limited to like / dislike what I wrote - you're presenting not a point of view but a believe. Such discussion is pointless. For me the case is interesting. Statement, that F-104 is in any way useful in A2G means, that somehow plane with lack of maneuverability on high AoA, difficulty in control by low airspeed, without any significant advantage by A2G over A-6, A-4, F-105, F-4, or F-9F is somehow better than them in A2G. Either It's just bollocks and F-104 is useless in A2G compared to any plane from 1960, or I am not aware of something important in air to ground attack, so I may learn something. Let's put it more clearly. I just wonder... if F-104 with A2G payload isn't more agile than F-105, isn't faster than A-6 or A7, has no better range, carry less payload, isn't more accurate ... where's the advantage? -it can't provide precise bombing, can't provide CAS, can't perform deep strike - so he's not better as a bomber. -during attack run over target isn't faster, isn't more robust, isn't more agile - so in any way provides better survival chance. I see all your argument. I see a lot of emotions in them, there are even some facts - however all completely irrelevant to the discussion topic: What capabilities should we expect from the F-104? I say - I expect him to be interesting Fighter, with interesting advantages, like speed, acceleration, climb, probably very capable Interceptor in good hands. And I expect him to be totally rubbish in A2G compared to anything in DCS. I will love him anyway. And you all somehow are offended by that. I find it funny

I swear the god. Flat Earth society. 1962 W. T. Competition: 1. Planes that took part: F-104C, F-101, F-106, F-100 2. The competition tested various aspects of aerial combat proficiency, including: Air-to-Air Missile Engagements: Pilots engaged unmanned target drones to demonstrate missile accuracy. Gunnery Exercises: Involved shooting at towed banner targets to assess gun accuracy. Team Coordination: Evaluated the effectiveness of crew coordination during intercept missions. 3. Air to Ground Attacks were also tested - but they play a marginal role and scoring system was created so, that it was interceptor competitions. A2G points weren't crucial (otherwise F-104C would lost since he scored 0 points in one of A2G competitions). 4. Only USAF Pilots took part. no USMC, no US navy. Only TAC, and ADF. 5. In first air to ground competition - iron bomb drop F-104C scored best, but in another - napalm strike pilot completely missed the target, (10:43) lost orientation over shooting range, and scored 0 points. Mainly because F-104 lack of maneuverability, and too big approach speed for such task. Pilot saw the target for very short time period. 6. However it was USAF Interceptor competition There are no source to confirm, that F-104C truly won. Films were made in time , when US tried to massively sell F-104 overboard, and there's strong suspicion, that it's just a marketing statement. What's more It's worth to mention that F-104 was piloted by TAC pilots, when F-106 and F-100 was piloted by ADF pilots - and that makes also the difference. @Bremspropeller Your posts are kind of nasty manipulation and somehow remind me old soviet joke: Radio Erevan: -"Is it true, that Ivan Vladimirovitsch won a car Volga on a lottery in Moscow" Party spokesman: -"yes, it's true. However.... Not Ivan Vladimirovitsch, but Vladimir Ivanovitsch... Also... not in Moscow, but in Petresburg...and not on lotery, but on the "Red Square"... and not a Volga, but a bicycle...and not won, but was stolen..." You're wasting my time sir.

If you're truly interested in my explanation, and subject is for you interesting, I suggest don't mess the thread. Please write me in private. I'll respond starting from"errors in the thought process" like: "false lead", "false universality", "confirmation bias" and few others

Thank god I'm not alone who thinks that! My point in every discussion when someone asks: "Why don't you fly F-16" ? No period in history of aerial warfare when pilot was more important than 50-60-70. MiG-17 could kill F-4 and that was the beauty of it. The pilot was more important than plane

I am going to check how far F-104G will bring me... Or rather my squadron. We had no problem hunting Tomcats with MiG-21bis, we have no problem hunting Phantoms in Mirage F1CE. And I'm going to check what can we hunt down in F-104 How about some challenge between gentleman? Who's going to hunt down bigger prey in F-104 on PvP public server? I would suggest maybe a separate thread for it. Sometimes I forget, that "having right" in discussion is not that important. Maybe I'm bit old for internet. Thank god I'm not to old to fly :-) Have a nice day gent's. Can't wait to take Starfighter in the air... Not that I'm bored with F1. God forbid

I both posts above there's not a single sensible, logical, based on some fact and data argument. A lot of words but lack of content and facts, or numbers. It's like discussion with some flat earth society members. They also talk a lot, avoiding any sense as hard as they can. Keep things simple, use Occam's razor. I'd like to see how any of you will perform in any PvP server in F-104 proving your point.

I would appreciate if you don't call me a "bro". That's first. if there were only 70 F-104 that is probably a reason for it. If plane is capable - he's ordered in numbers, and deployed in numbers. If it's not working as expected - it makes little sense. That's second. as for F-100... young man. Please check before you type something. Otherwise you bring confusion to the topic. We may disagree, but we all try to stick to the facts: yes over north Vietnam it wasn't used in biggest mission numbers - if we take into account whole war, but at the beginning of war F-100 conducted 5 000 missions over North Vietnam. It was used massively in most important task this war. Bombing Ho-Chi -Minh trail. There- where finding a target under dense jungle cover was very important. And if it's not a deep strike mission than check your definitions. I'd like also to remember you, that famous Wild Weasels started from these very plane. Famous "first in last out" came from it. Sure - it was than replaced by better planes, but he wasn't replaced by F-104. They both were replaced by F-105, F-4, A-6 etc. F-100 marks a beginning of Vietnam War. And being in service in the same time as F-104 he was always first choice over F-104 to air strike role. F-100 Remained long time active in combat duty over North Vietnam unlike F-104. F-100 was used in abut 360 000 combat missions over Ch-Chi Minh trail and South Vietnam (I count together Tiger Hound, Steel Tiger, "Praire Fire" and CAS over South Vietnam and Laos). For Tiger Hound and Steel Tiger US used AFAIK such planes: F-100 Super Sabre (CAS and Misty FAC). A-1 Skyraider (low-altitude precision strikes). B-52 Stratofortress (strategic bombing under Operation Arc Light). F-4 Phantom II (air superiority and strike missions). OV-10 Bronco, Cessna (Super)Skymaster, and other FAC aircraft. That's third. null Thank you. PS. I don't mention F-104 contribution to A2G missions, but it's very easy to check. Wasn't good in deep strike, wasn't good in precise strike, and wasn't good in CAS missions. After modifying F-104 to be capable of A2G he was moved back to air superiority missions and other operation areas / theaters.

It's really worth to compare. Payload and range with that payload. -F-104 Plane with tiny wings, taking tiny payload , able to deliver it very inaccurately, really hard to take off with any A2G payload, unable to dodge any SAM with full payload, maneuverable like a train, and fragile for any hit. There is probably a reason why even F-100 conducted more A2G missions over north and south Vietnam. The question is not how much better in A2G than F-104 are those mentioned aircrafts, but if there's actually any aircraft worse in that role? I doubt. F-104 proved being capable fighter in 1958 during Taiwan Strait Crisis, but never performed well as Ground Attack. In fact, during Vietnam War even F-105/F-100 were considered too fast, and too inaccurate for that role. It was later learned especially by Luftwaffe in very hard way, that it's a very bad idea...

Any plane armed with bombs is a sitting duck. Best example here is F-4 Phantom, and it's Vietnam battle experiences. USAF invested huge money in development of F-4E with wide A2G capabilities. Very soon they discovered: 1. A2G armed Phantom needs escort anyway (in fact USAF doctrine theoretic's never expected that fighter bomber will be able to defend by himself. Air domination is must have either way.) 2. Survival ability of A-10, A-4, A-7, A-6 on battlefield is many times higher than F-104, F-4, F-100 and others. 3. Suicide drones don't exist in '50-'60-'70 - don't mix modern warfare and F-104G Building Fighter - Bomber was economically questionable from the very beginning. In a peace time - It's cheaper solution. In war time, it's surely more expensive. Ground attack plane don't need radar, expensive A2A weapon systems. Can be stripped from everything what is not absolutely necessary. F-105, A-4, A-7 were the examples of such solutions. They - not the F-104 took the role of delivering heavy punch.

Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of that plane, and I truly think , that it's great supersonic fighter of '50-'60. Definitely I'll put my hart into mastering that plane, but I'm also standing firm on earth. A2G on cold war jets was difficult. F-105, MiG-21 - first practice and results were disaster. Whole squadrons on practice flight managed to miss targets terribly. It's hard. -in F-104 you have to make it all even faster, -in spite of it, you have to work even gentler with the stick, -if you won't - it's not a forgiving plane. Unlike for example MiG-21. Having a choice in A2G I would choose F9F or A-1... Even F-86F. Older, better, more agile. Wouldn't you?

If someone can confirm or deny it would be nice: 1. Is it true , that Spanish Air Forces were the only one, where there was not accidents involving F-104 2. Is it true , that Spanish AF never used Starfighter in ground attack role? (mainly because it's hard to find a plane less suited for that role) If both are true that would rather imply interceptor. In ground attack F-104(G) is helplessly useless anyway.