TLTeo

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.

Holy crap this is so awesome! After doing a bit of digging around, I think for the S the very theoretical limit would still be six missiles - two on the wingtips, two on the outboard stations (which potentially could carry AIM7/Aspide) and in theory two on the catamaran rack (which in practice wasn't used). The inboard stations on the S only carried tanks, not missiles. Regarding the catamaran rack - other -G users did carry it; there are lots of pictures of Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese and Taiwanese aircraft hanging AIM-9Bs or Ps from them.

Most ASA and every ASA/M also lost air to ground capability completely, as well as the gun (they put avionics for the Sparrow/Aspide in there). If we had to have only one version I would much rather it was a classic G for that reason alone. Of course, Aerges could also repeat what they've done with the C-101 and Mirage and just give us different versions. I don't think it's a coincidence the announcement picture didn't show the tail for instance, since that is the most noticeable differentiator between the A/C and G/S.

Per thread title, with radar on standby you still get to scan and lock targets, take missile shots, and guide missiles. The only differences compared to TX are a) the close combat mode does not work and b) the intercept/lock HUD symbology (including velocity/distance scale/radar gunsight) are not displayed. Steps to replicate: just do not switch the radar to TX and go into a fight. Track attached for demonstration. Radar_bug.trk

Re-read my post. I'm not saying no Italian variant is relevant, simply that the ASA and ASA-M were very late life updates to an aircraft that was already outdated, and lost a ton of other capabilities to keep going. That "BVR capabitlity from the 60s to the 80s" that you mention? That's the vintage -S for the AMI. In that period of time the Italian -S were arguably the most capable Starfighters in NATO.

Frankly I don't think either the ASA or ASA-M are particularly relevant for DCS. By the time they were around the 104 was just a relic of an interceptor barely hanging on, and the -M upgrades aren't even relevant to how DCS is played. The ASA-M lost any a2g capability and basically never even carried a gun, and the -ASA may also have been mostly an interceptor since by the 90s the Tornado and AMX had fully taken over the strike mission(s). The original -S on the other hand may actually be a good compromise between "muh capabilities" (because it still does carry the Sparrow) and the more historical/relevant variants. And having said all that, I think some -G variant (there are actually quite a few) is much more worth including in DCS than any -S version.

It was the main interceptor and strike fighter (which means nuclear bomber) in NATO for most of the Cold War, so it's an icon for a lot of countries. It just so happened that its main operators didn't fight in many all-out wars. It also wasn't as unsafe as it's made out to be for a lot of reasons: other planes from the same era had a similar or worse accident rate (e.g. the F-100 was just as bad) and the safety record improved greatly once it was supported properly. For context, in Italian service it had roughly the same accident rate as the AV/8B has had in USMC service.

Starfighter or C-27J for me. Guess I'm a bit patriotic like that

Bring custom tweezers with you on the flight, duh

That's exactly what I mean - the 101 has the Sea Eagle even though no country ever actually bought/used them. You're right about pit/controls for the Exocet, but depending on how much work it is it wouldn't be impossible either, see e.g. Lantirn on the Tomcat (or some features on the Mirage 2000? I think the GCI datalink thingy changes the pit a bit for instance).

I don't think the argument of "it was never on the Spanish jets so it won't be included" works, given what they're doing with the Super 530 or the Sea Eagle on the C-101. My guess is if the F1M was remotely capable of using it (or other similar weapons), it will be included for the sake of variety. Which is honestly perfectly fine given how loadout restrictions work these days.

Yea the issue isn't that the datalink is classified and therefore it can't be implemented (datalinks are super simplified in DCS anyway). It's that the datalink is classified for whatever reason (and other things on top of it?) and the document that details it also contains information on other systems.

ED's guns are consistently too inaccurate for whatever reason, from the weird barrel issues with the M3, to excessive dispersion in the M39, M61 and GAU-8, all of which have been reported. I don't think one can infer anything about the F-14 just by comparing it to ED's modules.

Take height h from the radar altimeter, take dive angle a from attitude gryo, assume terrain is perfectly flat, estimate range as r = h/cos(a) I guess?

It was never alive

Nothing at all there is specific to the CE. It only says the E (which is relevant to the EE variant, NOT the CE) has improved a2g avionics and that is true - it comes with an INS and improved RWR. Nothing at all on that page says anything about CCIP or CCRP.

The CE was just the export version of the C, it did not receive the upgrades of the CT. The upgraded version is the M.