AERGES announces the F-104

[splash]

22 hours ago, snocc_ said:

you can go check their facebook page and see stuff like 4 sidewinders on the F1 or see old posts on the 101 saying we'd get mavericks/laser designators/countermeasures, none of which are a thing on the versions of the planes we're getting/got

 

dont get me wrong im happier with what we've got, but they're still mistakes they've made and i wouldnt be surprised if they made similar mistakes again

 

 

OK Thanks! I just wanted to know what things have been promised and not implemented. I bought the module when it came out and haven't used it for months, so I don't follow the development.

I'd love to see 4 Sidewinders in F-104G, but I don't know if it was a valid payload.

[snocc_]

i think it was a valid payload for the G but afaik it wasnt done much, not very sure tbh

[Get_Lo]

On 8/25/2023 at 3:54 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

So you say ... meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter

 

Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a definitve source ... but it certainly beats a single word from an Internet unkkown 

Meanwhile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
Read literally the first sentence, its not that hard.

[Shmal]

Starfighter from Aerges is very exiting news for me!

[MAXsenna]

Meanwhile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
Read literally the first sentence, its not that hard.

Dude! You're about 36 hours or so too late.
"Literally" read the previous posts, it's not that hard.

Apologies! I'm kidding, but I just couldn't help myself.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Bremspropeller]

No whatter what you think it is, I think we can agree on one basic fact: It's sexy as duck!

 

[jaguara5]

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by jaguara5

[Get_Lo]

11 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Dude! You're about 36 hours or so too late.
"Literally" read the previous posts, it's not that hard.

Apologies! I'm kidding, but I just couldn't help myself.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I did read them. why?

[GUFA]

On 8/26/2023 at 6:26 AM, Bremspropeller said:

The german Navy seems to always have carried the Sidewinders on the catamaran

Brem was there any issues with scraping the catwinders? They always struck me has a dodgey setup

[Bremspropeller]

I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s.

[frumpy]

On 8/27/2023 at 1:13 PM, Bremspropeller said:

No whatter what you think it is, I think we can agree on one basic fact: It's sexy as duck!

 

At 3:34 a Starfighter flies through the turbulences caused by another Starfighter. Amazing!

 

 

There is also a quite weird Luftwaffe promotional video online... for German speakers only... die multiplizierte Flugprothese:

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

 

[Kalasnkova74]

On 8/27/2023 at 5:34 PM, Bremspropeller said:

I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s.

The U.S. used them briefly during the F-104s Vietnam deployment. The “catamaran” centerline pylons were draggy and limited the F-104s speed and range. The catamarans were ditched accordingly, especially once F-104s were used for close air support alert in Operation Linebacker.

Different operators used different configurations of A2A missiles & fuel tanks. The wing stations originally weren’t wired for missiles, but the Pakistanis field modded their Starfighters to use AIM-9s. This was to free up the wingtip stations for lower drag fuel tanks. The modification made its way to the F-104s other operators, if they saw value in it.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Kalasnkova74

[Mr_sukebe]

On 8/25/2023 at 9:54 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

So you say ... meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter

 

Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a definitve source ... but it certainly beats a single word from an Internet unkkown 

Wouldn’t the definition within the Wiki article be appropriate for say a P51 or Zero, both of which had massive ranges

[Rudel_chw]

2 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Wouldn’t the definition within the Wiki article be appropriate for say a P51 or Zero, both of which had massive ranges

 

That wiki article speaks also about the evolution of the "air superiority fighter" term, and how it really wasnt used before the 60s ... so, no, it wouldnt be appropiate for the P51 or Zero.

[303_Kermit]

On 8/26/2023 at 10:18 AM, Rudel_chw said:

that’s cheap talk, I was able to use the manual of the real aircraft to perform almost all the steps and checks of a full cold start … didn’t seem half fidelity to me

 

 

 

Here you go Sir:-)

here: 

and here: 

And finally here: 

MiG-21 is exception in DCS. In many terms.
RSBN - Low fidelity
Aiming sight - Low fidelity (explanation you can find in last post)
Flight model - Very low fidelity
ARU- it's a misunderstanding
SAU - same as above
Radar - joke.

Best regards.

[Xilon_x]

i ITALY WE CALL IT surname---------SPILLONE 

 

[Xilon_x]

italian pilot

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Xilon_x

[Kazansky222]

I hope they do kind of what they did with the F-1 and give us multiple variants A G and S would be awesome, especially the S/ASA some of that sweet Sparrow action.

[303_Kermit]

18 hours ago, Kazansky222 said:

I hope they do kind of what they did with the F-1 and give us multiple variants A G and S would be awesome, especially the S/ASA some of that sweet Sparrow action.

G & C you meant. Radar of F-104 was too small to fully exploit AiM-7. C is capable of air refueling, and it's most advanced version used by USAF. G- obvious reason

[Kazansky222]

17 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

G & C you meant. Radar of F-104 was too small to fully exploit AiM-7. C is capable of air refueling, and it's most advanced version used by USAF. G- obvious reason

I don't know about that, the Italian operated their version with aspides (italian aim-7) from 1986 when they put the R21G/M1 radar in it until 2004, they also put a little better version of the engine then the G as well the J-79-GE-19, better climb and acceleration. I think that one had the smokeless combustor as well.

Not sure what the radar range was with the Italian radar, but it must have been enough to justify mounting aspides on it and the early F-104 was 20nm so its got to be greater than that. It was a radar with look down capability, but they had to remove the cannon to make room for it.
 

[Kalasnkova74]

1 hour ago, Kazansky222 said:

I don't know about that, the Italian operated their version with aspides (italian aim-7) from 1986 when they put the R21G/M1 radar in it until 2004, they also put a little better version of the engine then the G as well the J-79-GE-19, better climb and acceleration. I think that one had the smokeless combustor as well.

Not sure what the radar range was with the Italian radar, but it must have been enough to justify mounting aspides on it and the early F-104 was 20nm so its got to be greater than that. It was a radar with look down capability, but they had to remove the cannon to make room for it.
 

This. 20nm is plenty for a valid AIM-7 shot - remember the Italians used them as point defense interceptors. So a long range radar isn’t needed for that application. 

[303_Kermit]

45 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

This. 20nm is plenty for a valid AIM-7 shot - remember the Italians used them as point defense interceptors. So a long range radar isn’t needed for that application. 

 

1 hour ago, Kazansky222 said:

I don't know about that, the Italian operated their version with aspides (italian aim-7) from 1986 when they put the R21G/M1 radar in it until 2004, they also put a little better version of the engine then the G as well the J-79-GE-19, better climb and acceleration. I think that one had the smokeless combustor as well.

Not sure what the radar range was with the Italian radar, but it must have been enough to justify mounting aspides on it and the early F-104 was 20nm so its got to be greater than that. It was a radar with look down capability, but they had to remove the cannon to make room for it.
 

really??
F-104S were delivered from 1969 to 1973 and were equipped with AiM-7E, AiM-9B/F missiles. NASARR R-21G/H  monopulse, non doppler radar. 29nm range for target size TU-95. For something MiG-21 like it's about 6nm.
It's rival is F-4E, MiG-21bis, MiG-23, MiG-17, Su-7, Mirage 3/5
There were many problems: In 4 missiles configuration it was a risk of hitting own carrier by AiM-7 since missile nose pointed outside leading edge of a wing. (they create a "own" shockwave placed before the wing shockwave, so it affects also stability)
Launching AiM-7 were performed only in subsonic flights. Acceleration of F-104 suffers also in these configuration considerably.

F-104S-ASA were delivered in early 1990. FIAR R21G/M1 radar, Pulse doppler Radar, RWR, modern navigation avionics, chaff-flare dispensers, APSIDE Missiles, AiM-9L, and M61 Vulcan refitted back since avionics shrinked back. 
(source: http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm)
Its rival would be F-15E/C, F-14A, F-16C, MiG-29A/S/G, Su-27, Mirage 2000C. 
Most modern variant S-ASA-M has very sad career story. I quote after:(http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm)
"Initial flight of the F-104S ASA-M was in 1995, with initial deliveries in 1997. These machines served in an operational role in 1999 during OPERATION ALLIED FORCE, the NATO air campaign against Serbia. The Starfighters were used for combat air patrols, being occasionally directed by airborne warning and control aircraft to check out presumably non-hostile bogeys.

Even the ASA-M project was unable to made the Starfighter to soldier on until the arrival of the Eurofighter. During the wars in the ex-Yugoslavia the ASA-M showed all its age and was unable to fly along others NATO fighters. It was relegated to air base protection and deemed unsuitable even for that mission."

other sources:
https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter

Sooo... witch one actually do you meant? For me its better to have F-104C - as a rival for MiG-19P. Don't you think? It's (early)Gen II fighter, and all Gen III updates seem to ... fail. Sadly

With my best regards.
Kermit

[SuperKermit]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:

NASARR R-21G/H  monopulse, non doppler radar. 29nm range for target size TU-95. For something MiG-21 like it's about 6nm.

Can you quote a source for that data?

[Bremspropeller]

13 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

There were many problems: In 4 missiles configuration it was a risk of hitting own carrier by AiM-7 since missile nose pointed outside leading edge of a wing. (they create a "own" shockwave placed before the wing shockwave, so it affects also stability)

There's always a shockwave in front of the wing. Either caused by the tip tanks or by the tip-rails, which also protude a good deal in front of the LE. I'm also quite sure they figured out how to launch the Sparrow supersonically. It's not quite rocket-surgery to design a launcher that can create enough separation.