Any information yet on planned version ?

[Get_Lo]

4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

I don't get why most users only want the latest version of any old aircraft, looks like they don't want anything without an MFD or digital HUD on it. I prefer to have the most used variant, the one with most liveries and operators, as it allows for a wider variety of missions. On the F-104, for me that variant is the G.

What MFD and HUD is there in an S/ASA? Those are mainly weapon system upgrades to include newer missiles

[Rudel_chw]

9 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

What MFD and HUD is there in an S/ASA?

 

I wasn't refering just to the F-104, but to all those users that want a souped-up Phantom, Mirage F1, or any other cold war aircraft .. seems like only the latest and greatest will do.

[algherghezghez]

5 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I wasn't refering just to the F-104, but to all those users that want a souped-up Phantom, Mirage F1, or any other cold war aircraft .. seems like only the latest and greatest will do.

They point is that it does not concern the 104 at all. the S is the variant that saw most extensive use in the Italian air force, along with ASA and ASA/M for the last years. The G was relegated to recce and air to ground roles. Without a radar guided missile it’s pretty useless as an interceptor which it was.

[Rudel_chw]

16 minutes ago, algherghezghez said:

Without a radar guided missile it’s pretty useless as an interceptor which it was.

 

This is a 70 years old aircraft, designed when radar guided air mounted  missiles were on their infancy, of course examined through modern eyes it is "pretty useless" ... but I wan't to experience it like it was at its heyday, not as a souped-up stop-gap aircraft like the 104S.

I'm also not interested in weapons configurations that it didn't use, like 6 AAM and the like ... I'd prefer it with its primitive RWR, primitive Radar, primitive INS, etc  ...  I will fly it on missions with reasonably contemporary opposition, so I don't need fantasy armament options.

[algherghezghez]

3 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

This is a 70 years old aircraft, designed when radar guided air mounted  missiles were on their infancy, of course examined through modern eyes it is "pretty useless" ... but I wan't to experience it like it was at its heyday, not as a souped-up stop-gap aircraft like the 104S.

I'm also not interested in weapons configurations that it didn't use, like 6 AAM and the like ... I'd prefer it with its primitive RWR, primitive Radar, primitive INS, etc  ...  I will fly it on missions with reasonably contemporary opposition, so I don't need fantasy armament options.

If you want the original A/C version as it was used you are basically getting a light air to ground Vietnam bomber or a mig-19 training target . 
If you want what was most produced and used it’s a fast recon airplane and a light bomber in the G variant. And a valid interceptor what was needed in the S variant. Still INS, primitive radar, no HUD, no RWR. A modern F-104 does not exist. 

[Backwards]

4 minutes ago, algherghezghez said:

no RWR.

The Norwegian F-104's got ALR-46's in the end of the 70's 

[algherghezghez]

1 minute ago, Backwards said:

The Norwegian F-104's got ALR-46's in the end of the 70's 

I’m talking about the S, which had no rwr, I think it got only a generic locked light if you want to call that rwr 

[Harlikwin]

23 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

This is a 70 years old aircraft, designed when radar guided air mounted  missiles were on their infancy, of course examined through modern eyes it is "pretty useless" ... but I wan't to experience it like it was at its heyday, not as a souped-up stop-gap aircraft like the 104S.

I'm also not interested in weapons configurations that it didn't use, like 6 AAM and the like ... I'd prefer it with its primitive RWR, primitive Radar, primitive INS, etc  ...  I will fly it on missions with reasonably contemporary opposition, so I don't need fantasy armament options.

Yup, a 104G vs mig19s/21's would be fun. 

[TLTeo]

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.

[jojyrocks]

Finally! My dream come true...

 

Now comes the wait...2026 maybe...

 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

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.

 

Thanks for that clarification. The loss of the gun isn't too unusual.

The Canadian CF-104s didn't have guns, initially. Their radars were A2G, as well. They removed the gun for additional tank space for longer range, but the Canadians used their Starfighters as recce and nuclear strike until (I could be wrong, if a Canuck or Starfighter obsessive wants to correct me, please do) starting in 1970 when they were converted into recce and ground attack, then just purely ground attack.

Edited August 25, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[TLTeo]

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.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

14 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

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.

This. This is what I want. What were the F-104S's derived from? A/C's or G's?

[TLTeo]

8 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

This. This is what I want. What were the F-104S's derived from? A/C's or G's?

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.

Edited August 26, 2023 by TLTeo

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Thanks for that clarification. The loss of the gun isn't too unusual.

The Canadian CF-104s didn't have guns, initially. Their radars were A2G, as well. They removed the gun for additional tank space for longer range, but the Canadians used their Starfighters as recce and nuclear strike until (I could be wrong, if a Canuck or Starfighter obsessive wants to correct me, please do) starting in 1970 when they were converted into recce and ground attack, then just purely ground attack.

 

Please enlighten us on the Canadian nuclear weapons program? Were moose of unusually large size involved. Also, we must know if Red Green was. 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I wasn't refering just to the F-104, but to all those users that want a souped-up Phantom, Mirage F1, or any other cold war aircraft .. seems like only the latest and greatest will do.

We  like to call those "skill issue" players.

 

[Raisuli]

9 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Please enlighten us on the Canadian nuclear weapons program? Were moose of unusually large size involved. Also, we must know if Red Green was. 

 

As long as you don't carve your initials on it with the sharpened end of a toothbrush...

[Joe Miller]

4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

I wasn't refering just to the F-104, but to all those users that want a souped-up Phantom, Mirage F1, or any other cold war aircraft .. seems like only the latest and greatest will do.

I hate this viewpoint. DCS isnt built around your personal likes and dislikes. Dismissing other peoples preferences like they matter less than yours is really pretentious. Myself, and MANY others who fly DCS and who dont type in the forums, would love to have a late navy phantom with the excellent radar, as an example (thankfully this is coming) or even an AMRAAM capable one, like my country flew. These arent "fantasy" aircraft. I personally love using cold war aircraft that have excellent fox 1 missiles, for example. They're extremely fun and very effective against modern fighters.

 

The F16 or F15 are NOT the only fighters that deserve to have their avionics/misiles upgraded. The F16A with the terrible radar is not the only variant that exists, even though it was one of the most common variants built, and according to you, the one that stays "true to the era it was designed in." Military aircraf are NOT static things. The rare exception are things like the F14, which sadly never got more modern radars like every other 4th gen aircraft. There's a good reason wealthy european countries spend multiple millions to upgrade 40 year old aircraft, like the F16. Militaries arent stupid, and they clearly judge these to be worth the money and time invested, and effective against their perceived threat environment, which arent F22s. You dont need an F22 or F35 to fight an SU-27 effectively. 

 

Plus, why complain about more variants? If the devs want to do it and have the required information, why stop them? 

[Raisuli]

9 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I always loved the look of it... just a 'deadly' looking beast.

It IS a deadly beast, but with enough hours and some luck pilots occasionally survived flying it.

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

As long as you don't carve your initials on it with the sharpened end of a toothbrush...

Or use too much Duct tape

[Harlikwin]

16 minutes ago, Joe Miller said:

I hate this viewpoint. DCS isnt built around your personal likes and dislikes. Dismissing other peoples preferences like they matter less than yours is really pretentious. Myself, and MANY others who fly DCS and who dont type in the forums, would love to have a late navy phantom with the excellent radar, as an example (thankfully this is coming) or even an AMRAAM capable one, like my country flew. These arent "fantasy" aircraft. I personally love using cold war aircraft that have excellent fox 1 missiles, for example. They're extremely fun and very effective against modern fighters.

 

The F16 or F15 are NOT the only fighters that deserve to have their avionics/misiles upgraded. The F16A with the terrible radar is not the only variant that exists, even though it was one of the most common variants built, and according to you, the one that stays "true to the era it was designed in." Military aircraf are NOT static things. The rare exception are things like the F14, which sadly never got more modern radars like every other 4th gen aircraft. There's a good reason wealthy european countries spend multiple millions to upgrade 40 year old aircraft, like the F16. Militaries arent stupid, and they clearly judge these to be worth the money and time invested, and effective against their perceived threat environment, which arent F22s. You dont need an F22 or F35 to fight an SU-27 effectively. 

 

Plus, why complain about more variants? If the devs want to do it and have the required information, why stop them? 

Yeah as you say there are plenty of variants. But data for later ones or more modern ones tends to be fairly sparse, and the overall lack of any sort of standards for how sensors are modeled in DCS, i.e. (razbam Great, HB/deka ok, ED poor at this point, other 3rd parties pretty bad) doesn't help the situation. 

And LOL on your F14 comment. You realize the F14D had literally the best Air to Air radar developed in the 20th century right? That was still better than most radars most militaries are running today? 

 

 

[Rudel_chw]

18 minutes ago, Joe Miller said:

Plus, why complain about more variants?

wasn’t complaining about variants, I just don’t want the initial module to be about a late-life model … hope my preferences are as worthy as yours. anyway this is a byzantine debate, I will leave it on the hands of the developer and just enjoy whatever variant they decide to do.

[Gunfreak]

It is the most space ship looking plane ever made, fit right into those 30s Sci fight pulp things.

[Bremspropeller]

8 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

The Canadian CF-104s didn't have guns, initially. Their radars were A2G, as well. They removed the gun for additional tank space for longer range, but the Canadians used their Starfighters as recce and nuclear strike until (I could be wrong, if a Canuck or Starfighter obsessive wants to correct me, please do) starting in 1970 when they were converted into recce and ground attack, then just purely ground attack.

They put the guns back in, when they shifted from strike to attack, though.

Pulling the guns off some birds was done as well with the Luftwaffe and Marine (IIRC) - either for the strikers (they'd put in a tank instead) or for the recce birds. All the cameraswere internal onthe german RFs and the Luftwaffe RFs didn'thave a radar altogether. Marine birds did, however.

[303_Kermit]

18 hours ago, algherghezghez said:

Not developing the S ans ASA ans ASA/M versions later would be passing up on a great opportunity given the habit of Aerges to provide lots of variants

No "S" please. No F-104 without M61A1 Vulcan. J/C/A/G but not S please. Especially C would be interesting since it's (correct me if I'm wrong) the only variant with air refueling probe.

Edited August 26, 2023 by 303_Kermit