ThePops

Sorry. As I said, it would be somewhat interesting to know who these complainers are. Those categories are only my impression based on what I have seen, mostly here on this forum. Not meant to be taken super seriously. But looking through the F-35 threads it is IMO hard to not get a similar impression. I also know a thing or two, and so do many others here. You are not alone on that one. Among other stuff, I took part in field testing of the Penguin missile from Kongsberg in the mid-late 80s for instance, when the missile was adapted/upgraded to be launched from the F-16 (a small insignificant part, but nonetheless ). I worked in the Air Force back then and I know what this "stuff" is made of. Every time I start DCS on my PC it says: "For entertainment purposes only". I take that for what it is, and I'm sure ED takes it very seriously indeed, the entertainment part. Perhaps it's just me then. I don't take DCS "seriously" enough to fall flat on my back because of the introduction of the F-35. What ED has said is they have enough info to create this F-35 module in high fidelity for DCS. I am looking forward to that launch.

It would be somewhat interesting to see what part of the community who complain over this. I don't think it's the greybeard/purist, at least not in large parts. The greybeard/purist have been "playing the game" since long before DCS existed, and may very well be pleased or unpleased, but for the most of it see it for what it is. It's ED doing the right moves to shape the company into the future. When all is set and done, that's the thing that matters, and complaining over this is certainly just a waste of time in any case. I think two groups are the big complainers. The "gamers". The ones who see this purely as a game. They want game balance. Red and Blue should be roughly equal and have roughly the same tech. The F-35 + HF F-15 + HF Typhoon is a move (a huge leap in fact) in the opposite direction. A more hard to describe group that see DCS in their head as something else and much more than what it really is. The F-35 somehow shatters their illusions. I don't know why exactly, but the word "Karen" comes to mind. As for myself I am too old to have any nice and cozy "childhood memories" about the F-35. It's in large part a big unknown and therefore uninteresting compared with something like the F-104 for instance, or F-5, MiG-21 and so on. But I know there's a huge amount of data available. Now, when ED compiles all that data into a flyable module the same way they have done with all the other stuff. The F-35 suddenly becomes hugely interesting. I see F-35s passing by my window almost every day (literally). Getting the chance to know it more intimately, is a big thing really, and something to look forward to.

About fidelity. Lots of discussion has been going on from time to time among pilots about what a study level simulator is. One would typically use a study level simulator on a PC to improve flying skills in some way or the other (I have been flying myself for more than 40 years, and still am. I also own more than one aircraft). The short answer, there's no such thing as a study level simulator. It's a marketing term with no specific definition. Commercial simulators are graded A through D, where D is the highest grading. What this means is that an hour in a level D simulator is equivalent to an hour in a real aircraft, as far as training goes at least. I have never used such a simulator myself. If the producer of a simulator say it is a study level simulation, then that's what it is. It's as simple as that. However, there's still some merit to the term. A very common definition is a simulator/aircraft with accurate systems modelling. Study level then means the simulator can be used to study the systems. This is a bit moot and vague however. Even the simplest aircraft with no systems to speak of at all can be used to study air combat maneuvers for instance. Such an aircraft/sim would be equally study level, only now the FM is what's important to get correct as well as the weapons. The simplest will be a gunfight, and then also the bullet trajectories would have to be modelled for instance. The most common definition is accurate systems modelling. This is important for IFR in big jets in particular. You want the systems to brake down in a realistic manner, so you can mitigate the situation in a realistic manner. This requires detailed and accurate systems modelling. MSFS has some good planes, but the main platform for this kind of simulations is X-Plane where all the systems modelling is there from the start in any aircraft. Now, perhaps the best definition of study level simulation I have seen, I read in some magazine way back. It's not about the usage, but about the producer having studied to get the simulation correct. This is better because the term study has a specific meaning. This is from Oxford: "a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation". This makes much more sense. After all, if the simulator should be used for "studying" something, then a requirement is that a study, as defined by Oxford, has been done by the producer of the simulator. Back to the F-35. Using any definition of study level simulator, this will indeed be what we get. There are tons of stuff to be studied available for the F-35, and that stuff will be modelled in the DCS version of the aircraft for us to study. I think we can agree that the F-35 will be a study level simulator by any definition of the term. Then fidelity. Fidelity schmidelity When study level simulator is hard to define, then the term fidelity is a level or two harder. I think this is purely subjective. For some the visual aspects are high up on the list. Some are even expecting laser scanning. To me this is completely weird anyway. In what universe is a laser scanning better than old fashioned blue-prints or a CAD model ? For others it is the sound that has to be good. There's also a purely artistic dimension here, there's an X-factor that's really hard to define, it's a feeling. For me it's the FM. A mediocre/crappy flight model ruins everything for me even if all else are just superb, but that's me. The term is a big, hairy, fuzzy and subjective multi-dimensional ball that looks different depending on your perspective in that multidimensional universe. The only concrete thing to be said is bigger is better, and that the size is proportional to the study. Maybe, just maybe the F-35 has to be viewed from a slightly different perspective? I don't think it will, but if that should be the case. Will that decrease the fidelity? I would say no. Fidelity is after all proportional to the study, and for the F-35 tons of studies exist. I don't think I have anything more to say on this matter now. I am confident the F-35 will be just superb and very cool.

As I have said before. The obvious reason for the F-35 is to get money flowing in the right direction. What we will get for sure is the highest fidelity F-35 that is available in the history of commercial simulators. You cannot argue with that. No one can argue with that. This will sell like hot cakes and bring lots of new people into DCS. Let's look at the alternative. One alternative that has popped up is the Super Hornet. It will probably also be popular, but nowhere near the F-35. It will not bring new people in, the C already exist. It's safe to say that the (eventual) Super Hornet only is an extra bonus for those already in love with the C, and it will give newcomers a choice. They will chose one or the other, not both unless they are sold as 2 for 1 or something. In reality it's not likely to increase sales by anything that really matters. How about bringing the fidelity up? I have seen the comments on the re-mastered F-5E. It's the exact same part of the community that whines about paying $10 for vastly improved fidelity, at least in the graphical department, that also whines about not enough fidelity on the F-35. This a very good indication of how the community actually value fidelity. It's not even worth lousy 10 bucks. Never mind the fact the the F-35 doesn't even exist yet. We don't know how it will look or fly like, and no one is forcing anyone to purchase it in a year or two. To bring the value of DCS up requires channeling resources (money) into the ED. There's no other way. Obviously the F-35 naysayers are not ready to do that. Yet, someone has to channel money into the company. Perhaps another business model will work? Subscription based? perhaps, I don't know, but judging by the re-mastered F-5E, it doesn't look like it's an obvious way forward. The way it works in DCS as far as I can see, is sales of predominantly F-16, F-18, perhaps the Apache and one or two others in effect subsidizes the entire party. This is not a bad thing, but there are only so many F-16/F-18 geeks. The F-35 is on a different level entirely. Then when ED feels (are 100% sure is what they have said) that they can create an F-35 to a standard they are satisfied with, then from a business perspective it's complete madness not to do it. It's ED that decides what the standard is. It's not a smaller percentage of the community that sets YouTube and forums on fire because they have to pay $10 to upgrade the fidelity of the F-5 to a standard that ED feels it should have. So, "It degrades the reputation and value of DCS as well by bringing the fidelity down". Sorry, but that is just a bunch of bull. The F-35 will seriously put DCS on the map. I'm sure discussions about the fidelity will continue forever though, but I guess all PR is good PR in this matter. Very annoying, but still

I think you are a bit dishonest now. We all know the F-16 has had it's "issues", and still has. Just look at the updates and fixes that is done on that module in every single update of DCS coming about once a month. It must be perhaps 100 pages in total, if not more in the F-16. Things aren't black OR white. This OR that. Good OR bad. They are shades of grey everywhere. Fidelity itself isn't just a single dimensional 1 bit phenomenon that is 100% or nothing. There are lots of aspect, lots of dimensions, and lots of factors in every dimension. When ED say they believe they are able to create a module that is up to their standard, then why shouldn't we believe them? From what I have seen so far, the F-35 has so much open source academic research papers attached to it that the any other aircraft pales in comparison. These documents are not free though, but they are open. I mean, a laser scanned cockpit may be hard to obtain, at least legally, but details about the very complex flight control system is not. There is an overall picture here, you have to weight the total, not just one single factor. Here people go straight into attack mode as if this was about life and death. This is seriously weird. This is a game. It's made for entertainment purposes. If you are not entertained, you are using it wrong IMO.

I don't see why it should matter to anyone or anything if "we" support the F-35 or not. The decision is made, and I'm sure that 1/2 million new players support this decision by coming to DCS for the F-35 alone. Not supporting it is very simple though: don't purchase it. The graph up there speaks for itself anyway. "We" do indeed support it. I have always felt that DCS had one single huge problem. Making new modules takes way too long. How long since the F4U was first announced? 9 years? 10 years? How many other modules have been announced at some point, only to whiter away? The vapor ware factor is very high indeed in DCS. I don't think fidelity has anything to do with it. A single person is literally able to build a real F4U with his own hands faster than what is done in DCS. The P-51 prototype was created from nothing in 102 days. The P-80 in 143 days. These aren't just arbitrary airplanes. One is the most iconic of every warbird in existence. The other is the first operational jet fighter from the USA. It's very obvious that other factors are at work beside fidelity. I don't know exactly what, but my guess is that reinventing the wheel somehow for every module is what is going on. This is rather weird, because aircraft systems such as hydraulics, electrical systems, fuel systems, avionics, everything that goes under the umbrella called fidelity, is basically the same for every aircraft. Sure there are variations, but the principles are the same. This is why they were able to produce the P-51 prototype in 102 days. There's even a word for it, it's called engineering Nothing to do with the F-35 perhaps, but perhaps it has. Maybe, just maybe the F-35 is the first step towards a more generalized approach in creating modules? A more general, top down view, much more efficient, and with no real lack of fidelity. A more engineering approach, which also includes reverse engineering? Lots of guesswork from my part here. I initially put the F-35 as the least interesting of the new aircraft that are destined (or not) to come in a 1-2 years timeframe. Right now it has jumped to the top. I'm really looking forward to it. There's so much to this aircraft, and so much to discover. Learned earlier today it uses INDI (Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion) in the flight control system. It's super cool IMO.

The drag chute pod works like a wing pylon. It can be taken on and off in no time. Of course wiring and a switch has to be included if it's not there to begin with. https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/the-f35a-drag-chute-system.html

Good info, but it all appears to be behind a paywall. At least it shows that info is indeed available, even for something as obscure and complex as the flight control system. Anyway, good info about the control system DummyCatz. I didn't know the F-35 used a (I)NDI system. I thought this was a drone, robot, missile thing.

Just a note. Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion is a general method used in controlling nonlinear systems. What NDI does is to make this control simpler, not harder. In practical applications, the problem with NDI is it relies on a very good and detailed physical model. This is problematic because data in regions with high nonlinearities, like in a stall for instance, is by nature fuzzy (turbulent and chaotic). While NDI is good in theory, in practice it breaks down because it just isn't robust enough in the regime you want to improve in the first place. I'm not aware of any robots and drones that actually use NDI today. What is used (if not just PIDs) is INDI (Incremental Nonlinear Dynamic Inversion). The "incremental" stands for measuring accelerations in small time increments. This adds the needed robustness that NDI lacks by measuring the input needed (acceleration as far as drones and robots are concerned). It's what makes NDI usable in practical applications. That's my understanding. How Lockheed with their $billions of research and development have solved this, I have no clue. One point here is that small drones with their onboard Arduino or whatever is perfectly capable of implementing INDI. They react much more suddenly due to their small size, than an F-35 weighing several tons. The needed computing power is not particularly terrifying IMO. It will be cool to see how ED solves this though.

Drag Chute: https://www.f35.com/f35/news-and-features/the-f35a-drag-chute-system.html Probably the first stealthy drag chute pod ever made. It's designed as a wing pylon and can be installed and removed in no-time. It sits between the vertical fins just fwd of the nozzle.

I don't see any disagreement here. I was using the word illusion, not entertainment. Illusion as a concept certainly can be used for entertainment as well as more serious work. For a professional flight sim, the illusion aspect is more important than it's usually is in an entertainment sim. Kind of, if we had the money to buy the equipment and enough time to spend and space to spare, we would, also for entertainment purposes. I'm confident the F-35 will be cool. It certainly will be popular, and it will as NineLine said let the sim move into the future (even though I only roughly understand what he is aiming at). It's not my first choice, but I will certainly get it as I have done with all the other modules The F-35 and Kola fits together like hand and glove. Just remember to add the drag chute for the Norwegian F-35s. Today they are used in exactly the same manner as Swedish Gripens and Finnish F-18s using dispersed runways. Finland is getting them too of course.

Fidelity - schmidelity. The two best words I have read in this thread My $0.02 on this is that DCS is an illusion. All simulators are illusions, because that's the main purpose of making a sim, at least flight sims. The illusion of flight. The illusion of operating advanced war machines in a contested battlefield. Even professional moving platform simulators are illusions. They go far to make this illusion as believable as possible. The are still just illusions, it all happens in your head (and inside a computer). Nothing happens for real. From what I read, what's "wrong" with the F-35 in DCS is: It's out of place with no adversary It's not likely to be accurate enough (whatever that actually means) because there's no available accurate data It will put an imbalance to the playing field Lots of people simply don't want it. It draws recourses away from more important tasks. And so on and so forth The only true and correct point is the first point. As of today it has no adversary to speak of in real life either. I don't see why this should matter. This is how the real world is. It's not like a balances game of chess. Besides, the first point only matters if you look at DCS as not an illusion, but as a game. By that time you have thrown all illusions of accuracy and fidelity out the window in any case. You might as well play any fantasy space war sim if game play is what's important. As to why, I think this is the most obvious of all. The F-35 will sell like hot cakes and bring lots of new customers. The only question remaining is: Will ED pull it off and create a believable illusion with the F-35 module that's comparable to the illusions called for instance F-16 and F-18? There's no doubt in my mind they are capable of doing exactly that. Will they succeed in doing that? Only time will tell, but I will give them a 99.9 % probability As for myself, I would have the F-104, Draken, F-100 and even the C-130 before the F-35. But I am obviously not the main audience of ED. I do see one problem here though, and that is with 3rd party developers. Is the playing field level between third party developers and ED regarding documentation for modules? Perhaps, perhaps not. If there's one standard for 3rd party developers, but a more subjective and changing standard for ED themselves, this is very far from good in the long run. Obviously I have no inside knowledge of any of this, but from the outside it certainly looks like this is the case right now. Objectively speaking there's no way the same level of accurate and detailed information can be obtained for the F-35 as for the F-104 for instance. That is not even up for discussion.

So what. Seriously, you win some, you lose some. That's how the world turns. I think we will have the F-15E for all eternity though. The alternative can only be seen as the best (worst) example of how to shoot yourself in the foot in the history of flight sims. It's not impossible, but not very likely either. Not from a business perspective. But, as with the Draken, we will have to wait and see I don't find these aircraft even comparable. The F-15C is a true eagle at the top of the food chain (or at least it tried to be ). The F-15E is a tank, a war machine. I agree that the E is overall more interesting than the C though. My point is that a "full fidelity" C is a really big thing, and something that has been wanted for ages. That people find negative things to say about that is just that. It's pure negativity. Pure negativity as in believing it is somehow important to find something negative to say and litter the forums with. It serves no purpose other than spreading negativity.

According to rumors, "someone" have been working on this for some time already. But, rumors are rumors We will have to wait and see. On another note (not directed at you btw), I must say I am disappointed at all the whining lately. It's like people are turning every little stone to find something to complain about. I have been into DCS a really long time. Not very actively and not very online, but I still got the original Flanker in some carboard box somewhere. DCS is what it is, and it's evolving S - L - O - W - L - Y. I mean, the "full fidelity" F-15C is something people have been wanting since the beginning of time. Today, when that is finally announced, a whole bunch of people finds all sorts of wrong with that also. It's unbelievable. The same goes for the re-mastered F-5E. It was already rather OK IMO, maybe only slightly faded, but has now become much better and fit for fight the next 5-10 years. And people are whining because it costs $10. I mean come on. $10 is not even half a dessert at a restaurant. The value of that re-mastering for anyone really interesting in flight sims is way more than $10. I look at this $10 purely as a token thing. Over the next 5-10 years it will pay for some of the development and maintenance costs. If you follow some series on Netflix or whatever, from time to time you grow tired of it. Do you start complaining? No, you just move on, and forget about it. Why can't people do that with flight sims? I really have no clue. It's an odd thing. Having said that, I think this beyond video lacked the introductory commentaries. It lacked a grooving beat and a female voice. It lacked the "X-factor" in a way. It made up for it by the content and screen play. I cannot remember anything in the past that has presented so much new stuff as this year's video, and presented it this well screen-vise.

My favorite scene That would be cool.

I think perhaps you are mixing different things together. Looking at how fighter planes have developed and changed after WWII, it's obvious that at some point in the 50s/60s/70s they became too hard to fly and operate to be used effectively by an average pilot (with some exceptions). That didn't change until the 4th gen fighters came. Then the interaction of human-machine was put in the front seat together with the technology to make it happen for real. The efficiency of a 4th gen fighter in the hands of an average pilot is really high. The same cannot be said for the F-104. The definition of a "good" fighter is in many ways an aircraft that has a high efficiency in a combat scenario, even with an average pilot. The F-104 didn't score high on that chart. The F-5 on the other hand, and the F-4 did. Especially the F-5. The F-5 is still in wide spread operation, more than 65 years later. If it wasn't for politics, there would also be a 4th gen F-5 in wide spread operation today, the F-20. The F-104 was exceptional in a few things, but it wasn't what the air forces wanted or needed in general. What was wanted and needed was a more capable F-5, and this they got in the F-16. The USSR counterparts were the MiG-21 and the MiG-29, in some ways at least.

Need to comment on this, since I found another source (a book I didn't remember I had) which I find a tad more trustworthy. The image is from testing of the Bullpup missile. The red pod is camera/measurement equipment for the testing. The Bullpup missile was produced (amongst others) by Kongsberg (Norway) and they had a test range for it. The aircraft in the picture is a (R)F-104G from Lockheed used as a test bed. The first source mentioned that the CF-104s which they got in the early 70s was modified to be equipped with this missile. This is apparently not so according to the other source. The Bullpup was only tested on the F-104, but the CF-104 was never equipped with the bullpup in active service. It was only the F-5 which had the Bullpup, and I believe that was standard equipment from Northrop? Tests with the Bullpup on the F-104 was obviously done in the late 60s though. I guess the results were too suicidal ?

That will perhaps be a thing with the F-104. There has to be an environment where it will work well. It's no F-16/F-18 that anyone can jump into and do an OK "job". It's probably better suited for well crafted campaigns or dedicated servers focusing on the 60s/70s era.

This is a bit like saying that VHS is better than Betamax because VHS "won". All by gone history now, and everyone knows that the "best" format didn't win Anyway, back to topic. The F-104 (G) was used primary as interceptor and in the deep/precise strike role, particularly naval role the last 10-20 years of operation. With INS, suitable radar, RWR and the Bullpup or Kormoran missile + rockets/bombs, as well as being small and fast, it was pretty much state of the art in air to sea until the late 70s/early 80s as far as fighter-bomber/attack aircraft go. In many ways the Mirage F-1 is the next logical step after the F-104. A direction in fighter development largely abandoned today, replaced by the more cost effective 4th gen aircraft, and now 5th gen. A German FB version of some kind could easily work as any f-104 FB version. But we must also have an interceptor variant IMO.

I didn't. What I said was that the F-104 was the "cruise missile" of the 60s/70s and that suicide drones have created an entire new logics. What Luftwaffe learned was that Luftwaffe needed to re-structure everything starting with basic training. Operating the F-104 as if it was some kind of IL-2 or later incarnation, is obviously stupid on several levels. That's what Luftwaffe learned (the hard way) amongst other things. The F-104 was very good at the things it was good at, but it was no multirole fighter, like the F-5 or F-4 or later the F-16 which pretty much has re-defined the term to another level. We have to look at the F-104 for what it was, not for what it never was. What it was good at was interception and fast pin-point strike missions, especially at sea. Both are very difficult operations and are today done exclusively by missiles, launched from air, sea or ground. It never helped that the F-104 was a handful to fly either. Again, it really is back to economics. What an air force needs is a fleet of multirole fighters that do everything well. The few things that the F-104 did well, can be done better with any 4th gen fighter due to cruise missiles and BVR, not because they are better aircraft for those particular roles. Even though the F-104 in principle could be modernized with modern radar, modern avionics, modern weapon systems etc, this would make zero sense because you would still need another sort of very complex and expensive aircraft for all the other roles. There's no economic incentive to have an F-104 (or similar aircraft for that matter). At the end of the 70s, the F-104 was already a dead end, economically speaking. It's an interesting matter IMO. Looking at the F-104 and F-5. Norway got both in the early 60s. The F-5 was the multirole fighter that it is. Very economical and does the job well, especially CAS. The bang for the buck is almost impossible to surpass. They doubled the number of F-104 in the early 70s. 2 squadrons, one for interception, one for strike attack at sea primarily. Both are tasks for which the F-5 is ill suited (I mean they simply won't work in that role). When the F-16 came in the early 80s, all F-104s were retired immediately. Now, one would naturally believe that this would also lead to retirement of the F-5s, since the number of F-16s almost doubled the number of F-104s, and the F-16 is a much better fighter-bomber than the F-5. This did not happen. The humble F-5s were kept another 25 years, but of course gradually decreasing in numbers due to age/fatigue and cut backs. They were even modernized, at least 2 times. There's only one reason for that, and that is economics. In the CAS role, bang for the buck is king. Today Norway got F-35 exclusively. Economically it must be the most expensive thing ever for the CAS role, but perhaps survivability makes up for it? Who knows. IMO it's a bit odd that no modern "F-5" exists; simple, cheap and does the job well.

Thanks, sounds good

Maybe answered already somewhere, but which time period is the Kola map supposed to be from? Is it contemporary? the cold war (60s? 70s? 80s). From the looks of it, it looks mostly contemporary, but some things also looks like 10-20 years old. Or is it supposed to be some fictional "near contemporary war state" map? Just wondering, because the Caucasus map is definitely from a bygone era compared with Google satellite photos. I think a "near contemporary war state map" definitely would be most fun in the long run.

Not really. This is more about $ than most other things. There's only one reason to build a dedicated fighter bomber/attack aircraft, and that is to get the cost per boom down. For this to pay off, you have to drop a huge number of bombs. It also demands that you are able to do it without getting shot down, impossible without air superiority in a sitting duck like the A-10 for instance. In the cold war, if it should turn hot, there was no such thing as air superiority. The only way to do it was with speed. Get there fast, release some bombs/rockets/missiles, get out even faster. A fighter bomber and an interceptor therefore essentially had to operate with the same parameters, at least initially, which was the only thing that counted. Today we have long range Air to Air, SAMs and cruise missiles instead. And of course (suicide) drones which has created a new set of logics entirely. In most ways, the F-104 was the perfect fighter bomber in it's time and in the environment it should operate IMO. More like a manned cruise missile.

He he. You are right. Looking a bit closer into it, Canada ended up with some 50 aircraft they had no use for. These were stored in the UK (Scotland I believe) and ended up being sold to Norway and Denmark and then modified to "normal" 104G standard. Funny thing, the reason for Norway to get more F-104s was actually to replace lost F-5s, which crashed in unexpected numbers. Something was needed to fill in the gap until a new platform was planned in the early 1980s. But, at that time two more things happened. The USSR abruptly started flying more bombers and big reconnaissance aircraft (huge flying listening posts essentially) and abruptly increased their activity with the naval fleet. Those existing F-104 was used exclusively for interception (air to air), and it was found that the F-5 was (very) ill suited for naval activities (air to sea). Lack of avionics such as INS I would guess, perhaps radar? This is also a bit funny, because when the F-5 was chosen, the main competitor was the A-4, which would have been more suited for the naval job that was needed in the late 60s/early 70s I think (but I know very little about the A-4). Of course, no one knew that anyway in 1963. The F-104 was found to be perfectly suited for air to sea missions, and Canada wanted to sell lots of them. The CF-104 only stayed for 10 years, when they were replaced with the F-16. The F-16 was better in most things, especially air to ground, air to sea and as a dogfighter (much better handling of course), but not necessarily interception, where the F-104 was a tad faster. The F-16A initially had only Sidewinders and gun, no BVR capabilities. During the cold war, the job was not to blow up Soviet aircraft and ships. This would have started WWIII. The job was to be there, flash with the sabers, but keep it cold.

The CF-104 (the Canadair version of C-104G) was optimized for nuclear strikes and reconnaissance. Among the changes were no cannon, no provision for Sidewinders, a special radar, extra fuel cell and a detachable refueling probe. In the 60s, Canada had 8 squadrons of these planes in Europe. In the late 60s this operation was gradually reduced to nothing eventually. The aircraft were put on Storage in the UK for a short while until Denmark and Norway bought them. Not sure what was done with the Danish aircraft, but the Norwegian aircraft were modified to have more weapons stations, more varied weapons, Sidewinder, a gun etc. They should be more or less identical to the existing Lockheed produced F-104G that Norway already had. Cannot find any info on what happened to the refueling probe, but I have never seen a picture of a Norwegian CF-104 with it. The CF-104 definitely had a detachable refueling probe though, along with longer range (more fuel). If the probe ever was used by the squadrons, who knows. A long-range, reconnaissance CF-104 with refueling in DCS would be really cool