AERGES announces the F-104

[Rudel_chw]

Great news:

 

 

I hope they will do the G version used by spain, and hopefully include a two seater variant.  

Here is a very detailed video documentary on the F-104 ... it is in german language but subtitles can be enabled and autotranslated:

 

 

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Excellent news.

The F1 is one of my fav modules.  Just based upon my experience of that, I'll probably end up buying the F104.

[Beirut]

Okay, now I'm happy. 

[The-Dude]

Reading the article in the news, it looks like it is the late, beefed up version of the A.

 

Day Fighter only.....and not the G. Which is a little bit unfortunate, IMHO

We will see, after the Q&A will come out and more details

Edited August 25, 2023 by The-Dude

[bies]

3 minutes ago, The-Dude said:

Reading the article in the news, it looks like it is the late, beefed up version of the A.

Later "beefed up version of the A" was the best performer among all - it has lightweight lowest drag "A" airframe and more powerfull engine. They were built for pure air superiority. This one would be great.

[Rudel_chw]

26 minutes ago, bies said:

They were built for pure air superiority.

 

Actually, they were interceptors, not air superiority fighters like we know them today ... the first true air superiority fighter was the F-15A.

[Bremspropeller]

25 minutes ago, The-Dude said:

Reading the article in the news, it looks like it is the late, beefed up version of the A.

null

The seat looks like a Martin-Baker seat, which would narrow it down to not being an A, but a later G (SpAF heritage) or possibly an S. Many users didn't even upgrade to the MB seats and retained modded C-2 seats.

Here's what a souped up A would look like (notice the long engine nozzle of the J79-GE-19 motor) - MAP jets of the ROCAF:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wR256.htm

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wR253.htm

Both are ex 319FIS jets, which was the only unit to put the motos of the S into the airframe of the A. They'd also mod the flaps to G/S standard, which gave them ~50% higher flap-limits.

 

Just now, Rudel_chw said:

Actually, they were interceptors, not air superiority fighters like we know them today ... the first true air superiority fighter was the F-15A.

Nope. Kelly Johnson built them to be air superiority fighters with a secondary ground attack role - based on Korean War experience.

Everybody thinks it was supposed to be an interceptor, because the F-104A was hastily introduced into ADC, when the F-102A failed big and didn't meet specs by a long shot, so the 104 was used as stop-gap. It was a Mach 2 jet, after all. With a sh1tty radar and no frontal attack capability. The gunsaight was good, though. If the gun worked.

But that's not what the aircraft was designed to be, which in turn was the F-104C for TAC. TAC, however, was all in on the F-105, so the 104 got sidelined and Lockheed went on a rather aggressive sales-tour. With known results.

[303_Kermit]

[bies]

8 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

Actually, they were interceptors, not air superiority fighters like we know them today ... the first true air superiority fighter was the F-15A.

It was even more complicated: originally Kelly Johnson designed F-104 as air superiority fighter to defeat MiGs in air combat. He personally contacted Korean war US fighter pilots to know what was, in practice, the most important factors in air combat. Their conclusion was more or less: speed, acceleration, climb rate, zoom climb, ceiling, gun. Thus he created a fighter which overperformed every existing aircraft in this parameters, armed with newly designed powerfull Vulcan gun.

But USAF testing it was more inclined to use it as interceptor due to its fantastic performance.

Still, their USAF pilots in units were trained for air combat to outfly enemy fighters, using it as the most powerfull BnZ fighter ever.

Edited August 25, 2023 by bies

[splash]

I'm more than happy! Aerges has proposed to develop all the planes of the Spanish Air Force and it is going to achieve it.

[Trooper117]

Another Century airframe!!!  

[The-Dude]

vor einer Stunde schrieb bies:

Later "beefed up version of the A" was the best performer among all - it has lightweight lowest drag "A" airframe and more powerfull engine. They were built for pure air superiority. This one would be great.

 It all comes down to the matter of taste.

My old man transitioned from the F84 to that bird and later became an IP on it. In service he flew the F, the G and the TF- 104 G with a couple of hundred hours on it. And his IPs all said that the G was flying much better than the A, despite the fact, that it was heavier. 

Better radar, an Litton LN-3  INS and the Mergenthaler bombing computer was not that bad either, despite beeing replaced by the dual Lear Timers later on.

Ground Mapping was first class for those days and the same like in the 105.

And the As with the big engine were in service for over 2 years only. Only aircraft frome one particularf  unit, the 319 FIS ( 26 airframes) only those received the Dash 19 engine.

 

vor 27 Minuten schrieb bies:

It was even more complicated: originally Kelly Johnson designed F-104 as air superiority fighter to defeat MiGs in air combat. He personally contacted Korean war US fighter pilots to know what was, in practice, the most important factors in air combat. Their conclusion was more or less: speed, acceleration, climb rate, zoom climb, ceiling, gun. Thus he created a fighter which overperformed every existing aircraft in this parameters, armed with newly designed powerfull Vulcan gun.

Not entirely accurate. 

It was to replace the F 100 in TAC, initially.  Due to long testing and construction, the Tactical Air Commandf lost it´s interest in the A. This was due to poor endurance and the lack of stores to hang on.

Therefore  all the A- Versions were going to the ADC. Acting als Stand In until the F 106 would be operational.

The ADC chose the A due to its superb climbing abilities. But Sidewinder only and the gun was reducing this bird to nice weather only. And the low range was the main problem for the A.

 

There are many reasons the USAF has´nt bought the A in large quantities.

The C Version was the second try to sell this bird to TAC. Originally 440 were projected, but only 77 deliverd and the rest was cancelled.

 

 

 

 

vor 17 Minuten schrieb splash:

I'm more than happy! Aerges has proposed to develop all the planes of the Spanish Air Force and it is going to achieve it.

 

Then it would be the G......

Edited August 25, 2023 by The-Dude

[303_Kermit]

I want that sound
https://youtu.be/wdUKeDyNT28?t=83

 

[Stackup]

Can't the G carry up to four sidewinders with two on the wingtips and then a dual rack under the fuselage?  The announcement clearly says it only gets 2 sidewinders so did the Spanish G not get the belly launcher rack?

[Vampyre]

3 minutes ago, Stackup said:

Can't the G carry up to four sidewinders with two on the wingtips and then a dual rack under the fuselage?  The announcement clearly says it only gets 2 sidewinders so did the Spanish G not get the belly launcher rack?

Probably not the Spanish zippers. Most other countries had them though. I'm hoping that they decide to expand the weapons selection a bit more to include air to ground ordnance.

[algherghezghez]

5 minutes ago, Stackup said:

Can't the G carry up to four sidewinders with two on the wingtips and then a dual rack under the fuselage?  The announcement clearly says it only gets 2 sidewinders so did the Spanish G not get the belly launcher rack?

I’m not sure if any air force extensively used the belly racks. Italian air force for example only tested them. If I remember correctly they created some problem and were deemed not worth it.

[snocc_]

aerges has gotten info on their previous 2 modules wrong before, i wouldnt be surprised if it was a G and they just got some stuff wrong again

[Bremspropeller]

11 minutes ago, Stackup said:

Can't the G carry up to four sidewinders with two on the wingtips and then a dual rack under the fuselage?  The announcement clearly says it only gets 2 sidewinders so did the Spanish G not get the belly launcher rack?

In theory, six would be possible on the G (tips, wing-stations and launchers below the fuselage). The S could bump that up to eight with two additional outboard wing-stations. Not sure if those configs were ever flight-tested at all, though. I certainly have never seen six or eight Sidewinders on the 104. Even four would normally be a stretch, though possible using the 195gal under-wing tanks and winders on the cat and tips.

Most users never used the underwing stations for Sidewinders, so it would be a toss between tip stations and the catamaran launcher. The cat-launcher was better for supersonic flight, but tip winders were better for flight performance.

RoNAF F-104G with underwing 'winder stations:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-T.htm

5 minutes ago, algherghezghez said:

I’m not sure if any air force extensively used the belly racks. Italian air force for example only tested them. If I remember correctly they created some problem and were deemed not worth it.

The belly/ catamaran racks were standard loadout. Italy didn't use them on the S, as they'd have additional stations on the wings for the AIM-7/ Aspide and AIM-9. They also never seem to have used the inboard wing-station with 'winders.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wA5-37.htm

RoNAF jet with 'winders on the cat:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-K.htm

Edited August 25, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[algherghezghez]

14 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

In theory, six would be possible on the G (tips, wing-stations and launchers below the fuselage). The S could bump that up to eight with two additional outboard wing-stations. Not sure if those configs were ever flight-tested at all, though. I certainly have never seen six or eight Sidewinders on the 104. Even four would normally be a stretch, though possible using the 195gal under-wing tanks and winders on the cat and tips.

Most users never used the underwing stations for Sidewinders, so it would be a toss between tip stations and the catamaran launcher. The cat-launcher was better for supersonic flight, but tip winders were better for flight performance.

RoNAF F-104G with underwing 'winder stations:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-T.htm

The belly/ catamaran racks were standard loadout. Italy didn't use them on the S, as they'd have additional stations on the wings for the AIM-7/ Aspide and AIM-9. They also never seem to have used the inboard wing-station with 'winders.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wA5-37.htm

RoNAF jet with 'winders on the cat:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-K.htm

 

I didn’t even know the underwing BL-75 could be wired for sidewinders. Italians surely weren’t, both G and S. 

As far as underbelly racks are concerned I remember something like that they created aerodynamic problems, but I’m not sure. Also being behind the landing gear the missiles would get dirty up to covering the seeker and rendering it inoperable.

But hey, if others used it as a standard load out cool.

Edited August 25, 2023 by algherghezghez

[Bremspropeller]

There's a good chance that RoNAF were the only users of this mod.

But after all, it's mostly just a bit of wiring modification, so not actually rocket science. Pun very much intended.

Edit 1:

Managed to find a pic with actual missiles installed:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-B.htm

 

Edit2:

So the RDAF also toyed around with that - a CF-104D with underwing Sidewinders:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wD664.htm

Edit3:

RDAF TF-104G with Sidewinder stations under the wing:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wD684.htm

Edit4:

ROCAF TF-104G:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wR179.htm

Edited August 25, 2023 by Bremspropeller

[Volator]

Best DCS news in a long time!

F-4, Tornado, F-104, G.91... I'm in Cold War GAF heaven.

[PLAAF]

Who is the guy in charge of this project? I want to kiss him.

[MAXsenna]

I want that sound
https://youtu.be/wdUKeDyNT28?t=83
 

To bad the video is ruined by that alarm bell or whatever it is in the background.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Backwards]

From what I've read from the Norwegian Starfighter operations the catamaran launchers were Mach 2 capable, while the wing pylons maxed you at Mach 1.6. And therefor the preferred way to carry the Sidewinders. At least on the QRA aircrafts.

I believe all (Nato at least) users did have the catamaran launchers.

[splash]

1 hour ago, snocc_ said:

Aerges ha obtenido información incorrecta sobre sus 2 módulos anteriores antes, no me sorprendería si fuera una G y simplemente se equivocaran en algunas cosas nuevamente.

 

Please, explain it a bit.