Any information yet on planned version ?

[71st_AH Rob]

 

1 hour ago, Saguanay said:

It was a demo skin for 439 SQN.

If I recall, it was specifically for 'Tiger Meet' in 1968(?)

Maybe Giant Tiger got it from them? Interestingly, Tiger Meet and Giant Tiger were both founded in 1961, coincidence?

Edited January 16 by 71st_AH Rob

[Andrew8604]

So, F-104A first.  Then followed by F-104G, F-104S and maybe circle back to the F-104C for whenever the Vietnam map comes out.  But if we have an F-4C or D by then, as well as the F-100D, you probably won't really want the F-104C.  Unless the C is so close to an A that it would be easy and a no-cost upgrade to owners of the A module.  I don't think the CF-104A will be very popular in DCS, since it's mainly just a nuclear bomber using LABS (or if I'm wrong, I'll hear uh-boot it ).

This is just my guess of how they should do it, based on all your comments.    Yes, I think getting an F-104A first would be cool.  We'll learn how to fly the F-104 using that.  Then bring out the G and S for some real fun...I guess.  They'll do what they want to do, anyway.   

[Lyrode]

21小时前，Saguanay说：

It was a demo skin for 439 SQN.

Must be an Canadian Hornet.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

5 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

So, F-104A first.  Then followed by F-104G, F-104S and maybe circle back to the F-104C for whenever the Vietnam map comes out.  But if we have an F-4C or D by then, as well as the F-100D, you probably won't really want the F-104C.  Unless the C is so close to an A that it would be easy and a no-cost upgrade to owners of the A module.  I don't think the CF-104A will be very popular in DCS, since it's mainly just a nuclear bomber using LABS (or if I'm wrong, I'll hear uh-boot it ).

This is just my guess of how they should do it, based on all your comments.    Yes, I think getting an F-104A first would be cool.  We'll learn how to fly the F-104 using that.  Then bring out the G and S for some real fun...I guess.  They'll do what they want to do, anyway.   

You mean, based on the pretty long whilists these threads quickly become. My guess, Aerges is a Spanish team, Spain had F-104G and that was the only version ever flying in Spain (aside from USAF ones, but those doesn't count like "available and accesible info"), so we'll get first and foremost F-104G and perhaps later on more F-104G updates since it may not be fully finished at release date, and that's all .

Edited January 17 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Saguanay]

Canadian Starfighter

On 1/17/2024 at 9:52 AM, Lyrode said:

Must be an Canadian Hornet.

 

[Saguanay]

On 1/17/2024 at 7:27 AM, Andrew8604 said:

I don't think the CF-104A will be very popular in DCS, since it's mainly just a nuclear bomber using LABS

 

You are correct, you are wrong.

The CF-104, not CF-104A, has lots of interest.  Their initial role was nuclear strike then retasked into reconnaissance.  The final tasking was low level conventional attack using bombs and rockets prior to the type being phased out.

Edited January 18 by Saguanay

[Lyrode]

9小时前，Saguanay说：

Canadian Starfighter

I mean, those stripes look like a hornet, no? ;>

[TLTeo]

13 hours ago, Saguanay said:

The final tasking was low level conventional attack using bombs and rockets prior to the type being phased out.

And it was one of the more capable Starfighters at that role (together with the later German and Italian ones).

[Saguanay]

21 hours ago, Lyrode said:

I mean, those stripes look like a hornet, no? ;>

Tiger Meet 1992

 

Tiger Meet of the Americas 2003

13 hours ago, TLTeo said:

And it was one of the more capable Starfighters at that role (together with the later German and Italian ones).

Some awesome low level navigation and target ranges stories from Germany in the Bashow book.

[The-Dude]

Am 26.8.2023 um 12:55 schrieb 303_Kermit:

J is best performing F-104. its last pure "air superiority" variant of F-104. I know S had better engine, but it's also very heavy. And for F-104 it's actually a big issue...

 

 

 

According to my old mans logbooks, he once reached with an F-104F in ISA - condition 35000 fts in 01:32 minutes.

This thing was considered a hot rod.

With the G-engine in the D- airframe, it performed nearly as good as the Dash-19 A.

[cailean_556]

I know I'm late to the party on variants. Aerges haven't said (to my knowledge) that they'll do multiple variants in the one module, it seems like people are just expecting it (not that it's an unfounded expectation, given their past modules).

I'm inclined to agree that the most likely variant will be the F-104G, because Aerges has contacts/ties with the Spanish Air Force and the Spanish Air Force flew F-104Gs. I'll be happy with that. Just like I'm happy with the Mirage F1.

As I understand it, the F-104G lacks BVR capability (as it cannot carry/use AIM-7 Sparrows) but comes with an INS navigation system and an AG-capable radar. As I also understand it, they could also only ever carry 2x AIM-9s at a time. Whether that was an operational practicality or a physical limitation, I'm unsure as I have seen IRL pictures of a JASDF F-104 fitted with 4 Sidewinders (or maybe they're Smokewinders/just for show) on the wing tips/under the intakes - however most pictures I've seen of armed Starfighters from European nations (bar Italy) show either intake-pylon mounted or under-wing mounted Sidewinders and tip tanks (or some variation thereof). The Gs were also used (not by the Spanish) for anti-ship strike and in a fighter-bomber role, so a (somewhat limited) AA and AG (just not multi-role) capable aircraft is the best compromise in terms of aircraft variant. It's not like F-104s would have been expected to dogfight MiG-29s (or at least they wouldn't be the *first choice* to go up against them), or F/A-18s or F-16s (especially not late 2000s variants). People will try, some might even be successful. I'm sure we'll see GS do an F-104 v MiG-29 or Su-27 video at some point...

If we were to get a second version, a BVR-capable (or as BVR as the AIM-7 can be, I guess) version would be nice. It doesn't need to be the latest and greatest version, something Cold War-era is just fine (which actually seems to be a trend with modules recently announced or in the works, with only a couple exceptions - with no complaints from me), so the original F-104S works (the upgraded 'S' Starfighters rely on having the Italian Aspide from what I've read, which is not currently in DCS - not outside the realms of possibility it would be added, however everything the original F-104S uses is already in DCS vs needing to be developed for a later upgrade).

I've also noticed a lot of discussion surrounding whether the F-104 was an interceptor or an air-superiority fighter and that interceptors needed range, while air-superiority fighters relied on GCI. I would have to disagree with that assessment. 

Soviet interceptors lacked significant range (MiG-21, in particular but also MiG-23 and early MiG-29s) and relied on GCI. Likewise, the EE Lightning was similarly notorious for not having enough range (and relying on GCI). While I can't say I have read or heard the F-104 lacking range in the same way as the MiG-21 or Lightning, it's not a very big jet and there are drop tanks in more pictures of the F-104 than not, regardless of version (except the F-104S, as it tends to carry Sparrows and AIM-9s, but no tanks - at least in the pics of it I've seen).

Interceptor range only became more of an issue when cruise missiles (carried by strategic bombers) became more commonplace - as the bombers would need to be intercepted 100s of kilometres further out than they would have with normal/nuclear bombs - at least on the 'Western' side. The Soviets just made the Su-27 for long-range intercept duties (it still amazes me that the Su-27 *DOES NOT HAVE* external tanks...or at least very rarely, if ever, uses them), whereas the 'Western' militaries either designed planes with AAR in mind, or retrofitted their interceptors for AAR (however I don't believe the F-104s had AAR capability?).

In terms of interceptor v air superiority, from where I sit (with my lack of inside-knowledge as to what constitutes what) to me an interceptor has a high top speed, and a high rate of climb. It will likely only carry 2-4 missiles, generally has a short range (mostly due to being in afterburner almost the entire time) and rely on GCI for vectoring toward targets. An air superiority aircraft, while it may also have high top speeds and high rates of climb, carries more missiles (4-8+) and has a longer endurance (to provide duties such as CAP and/or escort missions). The lines are blurred these days, but back when the F-104 was the bleeding edge of military aircraft technology, that assessment holds relatively true. Aircraft like the F-4, F-15 and F-14 (and Su-27) are anomalies in that they were really the first jets to blend the two roles into one (in my assessment).

Just my 2 cents. Looking forward to hearing more about the F-104 project once the Mirage F1M has been released and the Mirage F1 module is considered 'complete'.

[Bremspropeller]

There was a refuelling probe kit, but it was only used on deployed F-104C models. There might have been trials with canadian CFs.

https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/category/f-104/

[TLTeo]

There were also trials in Italy, I imagine with the -S, although it was not adopted.

[Kalasnkova74]

On 2/5/2024 at 4:45 PM, cailean_556 said:

As I understand it, the F-104G lacks BVR capability (as it cannot carry/use AIM-7 Sparrows) but comes with an INS navigation system and an AG-capable radar. As I also understand it, they could also only ever carry 2x AIM-9s at a time. Whether that was an operational practicality or a physical limitation, I'm unsure as I have seen IRL pictures of a JASDF F-104 fitted with 4 Sidewinders (or maybe they're Smokewinders/just for show) on the wing tips/under the intakes - however most pictures I've seen of armed Starfighters from European nations (bar Italy) show either intake-pylon mounted or under-wing mounted Sidewinders and tip tanks (or some variation thereof).
 

….It's not like F-104s would have been expected to dogfight MiG-29s (or at least they wouldn't be the *first choice* to go up against them), or F/A-18s or F-16s (especially not late 2000s variants). People will try, some might even be successful. I'm sure we'll see GS do an F-104 v MiG-29 or Su-27 video at some point...

Two points.

One: the F-104 was initially just wired to carry AIM-9s on the wingtip stations. The Pakistani Air Force completed local modifications enabling AIM-9 carriage on inboard wing pylon stations, which was later adopted by other F-104 operators over time after the bugs were sorted out. In not sure if Spain was one of them. Incidentally, this modification resulted in the PAF F-104s losing out on a chance to shoot down an IAF MiG-21. A malfunction caused the F-104s AIM-9s to fail, resulting in two misfires. While under-belly (catamaran) and under intake fitments were trialed, few operators used them in practice due to excessive drag & deleterious impacts to fuel range + speed.
 

Two, the F-104 was - and probably even now- an effective air superiority fighter. We must step back from the “Top Gun”  images of airplanes WVR dancing and look at the statistics. Between 60% and 80% of air combat kills are ambushes- meaning the losing aircraft never even knew they were attacked until they got hit. No turns or “hit the brakes he’ll fly right by” aircraft jiu-jitsu, just a missile /gun pass on a totally unaware victim.

People get hung up on E-M WVR chart dogfighting , but that regime is a minority of air combat engagements. When the F-104 was designed in the 50s, BVR was science fiction and infrared missiles were cutting edge tech. Kelly Johnson’s team designed the F-104 to be an air superiority fighter for the 60%-80% when you’d spot the bad guy from high altitude and just drop down to shoot them. As proven by the Operation Featherduster tests in the 1960s, the USAF F-104s were the deadliest fighters in the inventory. They even gave later F-15s fits. 
 

Today? With good CGI vectors, an F-104 would be a terrible opponent even for a modern Su-27 /Mig-29. Sure, those jets can do the visual fight jiu-jitsu better. But the F-104 is still hard to see, very fast, and clean has a better climb rate than the Soviet iron. Not that I expect Growling Sidewinder or other YT publishers to act accordingly. 
 

 

Edited March 19 by Kalasnkova74

[algherghezghez]

11 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Today? With good CGI vectors, an F-104 would be a terrible opponent even for a modern Su-27 /Mig-29. Sure, those jets can do the visual fight jiu-jitsu better. But the F-104 is still hard to see, very fast, and clean has a better climb rate than the Soviet iron. Not that I expect Growling Sidewinder or other YT publishers to act accordingly. 
 

 

 

This is laughable at best, it has less sophisticated systems than the mig-21 we currently have, which other than lots of skill requires a good deal of carelessness from the receiving end.

[TLTeo]

Yeah to say the 104 would be competitive today is the overstatement of the century. It is fair to say that back in its day it was a competent air to air fighter though.

[Volator]

3 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

People get hung up on E-M WVR chart dogfighting , but that regime is a minority of air combat engagements.

One of the better comments I've seen here in a long time.

Gotta love people discussing the advantages of a Hornet vs. a Viper in a dogfight in smallest detail and then ending up slinging AMRAAMs at each other all day long or finishing the fight slightly after tally with a -9x.

 

Edited March 19 by Volator

[cailean_556]

On 3/20/2024 at 12:15 AM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Two points.

One: the F-104 was initially just wired to carry AIM-9s on the wingtip stations. The Pakistani Air Force completed local modifications enabling AIM-9 carriage on inboard wing pylon stations, which was later adopted by other F-104 operators over time after the bugs were sorted out. In not sure if Spain was one of them. Incidentally, this modification resulted in the PAF F-104s losing out on a chance to shoot down an IAF MiG-21. A malfunction caused the F-104s AIM-9s to fail, resulting in two misfires. While under-belly (catamaran) and under intake fitments were trialed, few operators used them in practice due to excessive drag & deleterious impacts to fuel range + speed.
 

Two, the F-104 was - and probably even now- an effective air superiority fighter. We must step back from the “Top Gun”  images of airplanes WVR dancing and look at the statistics. Between 60% and 80% of air combat kills are ambushes- meaning the losing aircraft never even knew they were attacked until they got hit. No turns or “hit the brakes he’ll fly right by” aircraft jiu-jitsu, just a missile /gun pass on a totally unaware victim.

People get hung up on E-M WVR chart dogfighting , but that regime is a minority of air combat engagements. When the F-104 was designed in the 50s, BVR was science fiction and infrared missiles were cutting edge tech. Kelly Johnson’s team designed the F-104 to be an air superiority fighter for the 60%-80% when you’d spot the bad guy from high altitude and just drop down to shoot them. As proven by the Operation Featherduster tests in the 1960s, the USAF F-104s were the deadliest fighters in the inventory. They even gave later F-15s fits. 
 

Today? With good CGI vectors, an F-104 would be a terrible opponent even for a modern Su-27 /Mig-29. Sure, those jets can do the visual fight jiu-jitsu better. But the F-104 is still hard to see, very fast, and clean has a better climb rate than the Soviet iron. Not that I expect Growling Sidewinder or other YT publishers to act accordingly. 
 

 

 

Thank for you clearing up the Sidewinder carriage/load placement... So am I correct in understanding that the Spanish F-104s likely only ever carried 2 Sidewinders operationally, so we'll have what is essentially a faster F-5 (not that there is anything wrong with that at all - I meant more in terms of weapon carriage before RTB)?

I just read an article on Featherduster (I wasn't aware of the program myself) and those are some interesting and encouraging numbers.

[Bremspropeller]

This SPAF jet carries the underwing AIM-9 rails:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain-Air-Force/Lockheed-Canadair-F-104G-Starfighter-CL-90/2602308/L

More underwing rails

 

 

This should be a Vinten recce-pod:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain-Air-Force/Lockheed-SABCA-F-104G-Starfighter/3898819/L

 

 

Edited March 30 by Bremspropeller

[Silver_Dragon]

Old F-104G ADA (Spanish Air Force films)

 

[Kalasnkova74]

5 hours ago, cailean_556 said:

Thank for you clearing up the Sidewinder carriage/load placement... So am I correct in understanding that the Spanish F-104s likely only ever carried 2 Sidewinders operationally, so we'll have what is essentially a faster F-5 (not that there is anything wrong with that at all - I meant more in terms of weapon carriage before RTB)?

I just read an article on Featherduster (I wasn't aware of the program myself) and those are some interesting and encouraging numbers.

Looks like they could carry 6 max (2 wingtips / 2 center / 2 wing station). But the centerline stations are draggy and pose a risk of engine stall upon firing due to rocket smoke ingestion. 
 

Realistically, most Starfighter users carried 2 Sidewinders and 2 fuel tanks. As far as F-5 comparisons go, the F-104s substantially faster and flies higher. 

[TLTeo]

The centerline stations thing is weird because plenty of operators actually used a fair amount and you can easily find pictures of Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Japanese, Taiwanese and German jets carrying them (often without tanks actually). I remember reading that they were draggier below Mach 1, but actually less draggy above Mach 1 than the underwing ones. I've also seen claims that it wasn't used in Italy (except that one airshow picture with a meme loadout on an F-104S) not because of smoke ingestion, but because the missile seekers were low enough to the ground that they risked getting damaged during takeoff and landing.

Regarding the comparison with the F-5, beyond the performance, the F-104A and C are probably similar indeed, but the F-104G has a bunch of cool strike avionics (INS/nav system with 12 waypoints, a bomb delivery timer like the F-4, decent air to ground radar, decent autopilot) that are closer to the F-4 or even Viggen (with some optimism...) so it's far more capable in that sense.

Edited April 1 by TLTeo

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 3/30/2024 at 10:24 PM, Bremspropeller said:

This should be a Vinten recce-pod:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain-Air-Force/Lockheed-SABCA-F-104G-Starfighter/3898819/L

Yep, it is, but no, it was never used in Spain so I guess no info available for that. That airframe is a German F-104G due to the Spanish ones being handed back after their use (they ended up in Turkey and Greece), so there's no real Spanish flown example left in Spain. The German one was lent for the air museum in which that picture is taken. The aircraft wasn't "allowed" for many years to be repainted or modified into Spanish version, so it was painted in half Spanish (the side you see in the pic) and half German. Only in recent years it was allowed to be repainted in whole, and the recce pod not present in Spanish ones was removed. The current repaint is awful, by the way , there are too many pictures of those aircraft in Spanish service for the sloppy and clumsy paint job they did, wrong colours (very well known ones), and wrong typography in the bort numbers .