TLTeo

I have a non-nuclear weapons manual for the German Air Force F-104G (not gonna post it just in case), but it refers repeatedly to the Dash 34 and only really mentions sight settings and depression tables, rather than e.g. target designations etc. The only exception is when high altitude level bombing is discussed, in which case the manual states "or in some specialized instances using the F-104G radar is a method of determining the correct release point." So my gut feeling is indeed, conventional weapons delivery should -for the most part- be visual only, and the LABS-y stuff is mostly for nukes only. Regarding the 104's role, for many other air forces it's important to remember that the conventional strike role was taken up by other aircraft (e.g. the F-84F, G-91, Mirage, F-5, Draken, depending on the operator/year) so focusing on nuclear delivery first and foremost kinda makes sense in the Cold War. Obviously that changed post Vietnam, but for many European operators it wasn't long after that that the F-16 or Tornado came online anyway.

It's in the highlighted post

Fwiw there were em charts posted in the F-104 section a while ago (so I assume they comply with rule 16 since they are still up) that show the F-4E having a slight edge over the Mig-23ML, in turn having a slight edge over the F-104G. Not sure what the source is though.

It already is implemented that way. The Viggen interacts with IFF in the same way every single other module in DCS does. As to why the Viggen is still tagged as being in EA, that's all up to Heatblur really but the truth is at this point the EA tag in DCS is essentially meaningless, and not just because of the Viggen.

The Mirage F1 and other aircraft with clickable IFF panels still do not model it - they simply added the animations to the cockpit, but whether you click those buttons or not is entirely irrelevant. IFF remains a simple check the game makes against coalitions.

I'd love an F-84! Bit of an understatement there - in the early/mid 60s it was actually the most common fighter in NATO, even more common than the F-86 (and the F-104/F-5 hadn't arrived in large numbers yet).

Correct, the Italian S interceptors did not have ECM gear (except for the fighter bombers that were passed to interceptor squadrons as the Tornado came online) at any point of their careers - supposedly the reasoning is that they didn't need defensive gear in their role which is naive at best, but hey, that's the Italian Air Force in the 90s for you, they don't call those years "the crossing of the desert" for nothing. The ASA upgrade did not feature a pulse-doppler radar, more of an MTI-type thing a-la Mirage F1 which was still pretty mediocre in look down. The jets that did have countermeasure dispensers were mostly the Gs that went to Desert Storm, I don't think even the fighter bomber ASA got them. As far as I know the only Starfighters to have a proper RWR like the ones we are used to in DCS were the F-104Cs in their second deployment to Vietnam, and CF-104s when they switched to conventional strike. The Dutch also had specific ECM gear, but I don't know whether it's a RWR antenna, some sort of jammer, or what else. In all 3 cases you can see the fairing under the nose.

This is the best pic I can find of jets from the 37th fighter wing (you can tell from the symbol on the tail) that are in the fighter bomber configuration (see the gun plus the antennae for the jammer), but are carrying wingtip AIM-9Ls (and all those point to these being ASA jets). The 37th fighter wing included the 18th Fighter Interceptor group (whose logo you can see on the intake), which indeed were/are (they fly the Typhoon now i strictly air to air. So yes, operating jets in the a2g configuration for a2a would be perfectly realistic actually.

I honestly wonder how these numbers compare to a Viper.

Aaah that makes sense. Still it's a bit amusing that at low speeds having flaps down is such an improvement that sustained turn is better than instantaneous turn with flaps up.

Looks about right, and consistent with the statement that flaps give one extra G worth of turning performance. ~14 deg/s sustained and ~16 instantaneous is also consistent with the claims that it wasn't an amazing dogfighter, but it wasn't as bad as it's made out to be either. Am I misunderstanding your chart, or does it look like below Mach 0.7 you actually have so few Gs available without flaps that sustained G is actually lower than the max G available?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p5qKcWR4Is

It's not even about range per se, being able to reliably take front-aspect shots (which the F-104S with the Sparrow/Aspide/AIM-9L could do better than any other F-104) is a huge advantage regardless of what an aircraft was designed for.

A few more rare Italian liveries. The first one was an experiment for a low vis livery in the early 90s, unfortunately they went with the boring NATO grey instead: The first F-104s were delivered with metal colors, but with anti-flash white on the wings:

Ah yes that sounds about right, I was quoting from memory

Interesting, those antennae look Identical to the a2g F-104S ASA jets, which carried a jammer (the AN/ALQ-73): The Dutch ones also got ECM gear but the antenna looked completely different:

No F-104G or S used refueling probes in front line service. In Italy it was tested by a test squadron, but they decided against its adoption.

I have a 1996 F-104S manual (so no posting stuff from it because 1.16, but it's easily found online) which shows up to 7.33 G at 500 KIAS up to 30000 ft, so that's roughly Mach 0.75 to 0.8. That is just the structural limit so I'm not sure whether it's with combat flaps extended or not (but I don't see why not - that speed is within the flap envelope). It's similar to the OP's post, except for the larger envelope overall due to the 7.3 G limit vs only 6 of the F-104A (which I think is what the first diagram is). The same manual states that combat flaps give one extra G worth of turning performance across the envelope, which will definitely come in handy. Comparing it to an F-4 E/M diagram I imagine the F-104 will actually be competitive at Mach ~0.75 and above at low weight, but trash tier below it. edit: regarding the flaps, the same manual states that they can be safely kept out up to Mach 0.85 or 520 KIAS, whichever comes first, but extending or retracting is only allowed below 450 KIAS or Mach 0.7 - ish.

The CF-104 also received a better RWR eventually: You can actually see the blisters under the nose and on the side of the exhaust (this is where Kriegsmarine and Italian jets carried countermeasures too afaik) on the later jets:

To be fair, the CF-104 is fairly close to an F-104G.

They were basically improved Gs (as in, same tail as the G, similar avionics, same concept/missions) with a better engine, small aerodynamic changes, small improvements to the radar, Sparrow (and eventually Aspide) capability, and two more hardpoints under the wings. edit: regarding the capability alone, I don't think the G will be too far off what I posted though.

Yea to me losing the gun is no big deal, but being purely a2a would be a letdown for an aircraft that was supposed to do a2g as well. Oh and speaking of capabilities, there's a 1996 F-104S manual online (which I won't post here because rule 1.116) with a performance envelope that shows a) a max G-limit of 7.3 at 500 KIAS between 0 and 30000 ft, so that's roughly Mach 0.8 for a (instantaneous) turn rate of ~12-16 deg/s and more hilariously b) a max speed at sea level of 750 KIAS. The 104 will leave even the Viggen in the dust for low level high speed strike.

Just throwing in some one-off Italian ones:

The Canadian and (I think, not sure) Dutch jets also received a better RWR at some point of their lives. The ECM gear on the Italian ones was indeed always awful though, up to 2004.

My understanding of (Italian) missile loadouts is that the 1xAIM-7 + 1xAIM-9 + tip tanks was used for QRA, while 2xAIM-7 2xAIM-9 + wing tanks would have been an option in war, together with 2xtanks plus two AIM-9s (I imagine on the wing tips?). It would be interesting if anyone has any info on the aircraft that flew CAP during the intervention in the Balkans actually, iirc 104s flew a few combat missions then. But also, the endurance/range issue for the 104 is kind of overrrated (especially in DCS when we fly comparatively short sorties - look at how little fuel F1s fly with for instance). I remember reading that as a nuclear strike aircraft (so 4x tanks plus centerline nuke) it could actually outrange an F-4 in the same role for instance. How sure of this are you? I remember reading an F-104G manual that said the a2g jets had a radar that didn't have automated/ACM type modes, but that could still lock targets manually. I imagine the -S radar would be the same since it was just a small upgrade over the G.