Oh yeah, F-104 is coming! Which one we are going to have?

[GUFA]

23 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Coccarde Tricolori Speciale 2 "F-104S" pg.52/53 - memories of Col. Luigi Piccolo

"The Aspide could have been a truly great missile if it could have been supported by a truly capable radar. In reality, it would be the 18° Gruppo that was the best off in the second half of the eighties, as - having CBO-configured aircraft - it could fly with the Vulcan cannon and four AIM-9L."

Might be a misunderstanding - it doesn't actually say they were flying air-defence, just their fighter-bombers had a better setup for the real-world air defence with the radar being lacking in performance. and therefore the Aspide not being able to perform up to it's capabilities.

Would be interesting to find out how Fire Setter on the ASA perfomed relative to the stock model.

Edited August 31, 2023 by GUFA

[Bozon]

@GUFA,

Indeed it seems that Missiles became the main weapon since the 1980’s. Initially the IR missiles and then the latest FOX1 and FOX3 since the 1990’s.

The reliability of the missiles and number carried per plane are what made the gun less needed.

However, we have not yet faced the next stage of the evolution - the counter measures. Since the 2000’s counter measures technology has leapt forward. We now have sophisticated active jammers against fox1 & 3, and active laser counter measures against fox2. There could be other means in the future. How will this play out in the next conflict? Will these counter measures reduce missiles effectiveness to the point where guns will be required again?

[bies]

6 minutes ago, Bozon said:

Indeed it seems that Missiles became the main weapon since the 1980’s. Initially the IR missiles and then the latest FOX1 and FOX3 since the 1990’s.

The reliability of the missiles and number carried per plane are what made the gun less needed.

However, we have not yet faced the next stage of the evolution - the counter measures. Since the 2000’s counter measures technology has leapt forward. We now have sophisticated active jammers against fox1 & 3, and active laser counter measures against fox2. There could be other means in the future. How will this play out in the next conflict? Will these counter measures reduce missiles effectiveness to the point where guns will be required again?

Gun surely will dissapear, 100nm+ missiles are already leading trend most advanced militaries invest in. In a long term directed energy weapon.

Starfighter obviously became outdated in the middle of 1970s when F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle became operational, but Starfighter was all about late 1950s and 1960s. When it was used in combat in the Vietnam war, in India-Pakistani wars, other flashpoints like Taiwan Strait, Berlin crisis. This was an era gun was still one of the main weapons, missiles were short range, limited sensor guidance, limited G-loads, limited engagement envelope etc. And those times Starfighter was one of the top fighters in the world.

[algherghezghez]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Coccarde Tricolori Speciale 2 "F-104S" pg.52/53 - memories of Col. Luigi Piccolo

"The Aspide could have been a truly great missile if it could have been supported by a truly capable radar. In reality, it would be the 18° Gruppo that was the best off in the second half of the eighties, as - having CBO-configured aircraft - it could fly with the Vulcan cannon and four AIM-9L."

Might be a misunderstanding - it doesn't actually say they were flying air-defence, just their fighter-bombers had a better setup for the real-world air defence with the radar being lacking in performance. and therefore the Aspide not being able to perform up to it's capabilities.

Awesome find mate! In the 84 they were reformed as a fighter group, so if he talks about second half of the 80s it’s definitely from the fighter times. Also I’ve just found pictures of their S/ASA with the cannon installed. Thanks!

[Ramstein]

On 8/31/2023 at 2:04 AM, GUFA said:

Is that before or after they RUD

they backfired,,, very loud on run up... not sure if they will model it... I have some photos I took back then, but really not worth bringing, out, you can see all of them online in info about them..

update, photo of one I serviced. I don't seem to have the photos of the German ones at our Airfield. I probably have them in other files and slides. around 1980.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Ramstein
update and photo added

[TLTeo]

 

This is the best pic I can find of jets from the 37th fighter wing (you can tell from the symbol on the tail) that are in the fighter bomber configuration (see the gun plus the antennae for the jammer), but are carrying wingtip AIM-9Ls (and all those point to these being ASA jets). The 37th fighter wing included the 18th Fighter Interceptor group (whose logo you can see on the intake), which indeed were/are (they fly the Typhoon now i strictly air to air.

So yes, operating jets in the a2g configuration for a2a would be perfectly realistic actually.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TLTeo

[Gunfreak]

15 hours ago, bies said:

Gun surely will dissapear, 100nm+ missiles are already leading trend most advanced militaries invest in. In a long term directed energy weapon.

Starfighter obviously became outdated in the middle of 1970s when F-14 Tomcat and F-15 Eagle became operational, but Starfighter was all about late 1950s and 1960s. When it was used in combat in the Vietnam war, in India-Pakistani wars, other flashpoints like Taiwan Strait, Berlin crisis. This was an era gun was still one of the main weapons, missiles were short range, limited sensor guidance, limited G-loads, limited engagement envelope etc. And those times Starfighter was one of the top fighters in the world.

Yes 100 even 150nm missiles and then stealth. Which means with current radar technology the plans won't see each other until about 15nm and suddenly we're back to vietnam war engagement ranges. 

[bies]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes 100 even 150nm missiles and then stealth. Which means with current radar technology the plans won't see each other until about 15nm and suddenly we're back to vietnam war engagement ranges. 

Last trend is withdrawal from physical stealts as it's impossible to hide from modern IRST which are able to detect even a heated air around flying aircraft from dezens of miles. AESA radars using GaN technology also offer fantastic performance.

That's why the most sophisticated militaries like US or Chinese are all in designing very long range weapon and wingman drones, as they came into conclusion (considering plethora of parameters, technology advances and trends) manned aircraft going anywher near the enemy will be lost immediately.

What is more AI systems are replacing more and more human inputs - and they are advancing rapidly. US pilot involved in the program stated the best human pilot doesn't stand the slightest chance against similar AI piloted fighter in close air combat as his movements and judgements are basically perfect and faultless to the tiniest move, making dozens of perfect imputs every second. Way beyound any human capabilities.

He also stated close air combat is more of an excercise or demonstration and it is considered basically the least important part of the program, but he is not allowed to reveal other, way more important fields and combat acitvities AI is replacing human right now. According to him progress is so unbelievably rapid every few moths revolitionize AI capabilities to the poin it's even hard do understand the new parameters or rules perfectly valid just few months ago.

This will relegate human from military aviation actual combar activities very quickly, making it completely unattractive from PC simulator point of view. That's why WW1, WW2, Cold War etc., when human pilots, with all their flaws, mistakes, emotions and imprefections, were still crucial element in air combat, will always be popular in PC smulators and games. Like Starfighters fighting MiGs over Vietnam in 1960s.

 

[303_Kermit]

On 8/30/2023 at 5:53 PM, GUFA said:

So how many A to A gun kills have been recorded since Vietnam? From Gulf of Sidra,El Dorado Canyon, The Iraq and Yugoslavic conflicts???

Answer: Bugger All: 2 credited to A10s in 91, And in Desert Storm  F-15 Eagles absolutley reaped with AIM 7 Sparrows over Sidewinders & guns.

I did not find any data to support widespread gun kill statistics in 1982 Bekaa Valley. The only comment stated that most kills went to F-15 and F-16s. (sure as hell does not support the Gun kill argument now does it?)

Looked at the 1979 Sino-Vietnam war in hopes of finding significant "gun kills", but found no data what so ever on any of the A to A that occured.

The only Data I could find to support  decent "Gun Kill  numbers" was the 1980 Iran-Iraq war. Even then Numbers show that Gun kills were mainly recorded against helicopter and other slow moving & manoever poor aircraft.

IRIAF F-14 Kill Data of the conflict records 1 Gun Kill. And that 1 kill is statically insignificant against the list of (possibly) 50+ kills credited to the Tomcat's missiles.

So your whole argument that the the Gun is neccesary (for A to A) becomes quite shaky post Vietnam and completely unsupportable after El Dorado Canyon. I dont know about you but I would like my Starfighter to remain useful into later life not just a 60s gunfighter!

BTW all these people Bitching about a gunless F-104's, How are you going to handle flying RAF/USN F4s?

 

 

1. Watch out please. If you use correct data, and choose only the one who support your thesis it's called manipulation. You want significant number of kills made by gun after Vietnam? Here you go sir.
6 day war, the time before and after that. Particular example? Giora Epstein Kheil HaAvir. 17 kills 5 made by missiles. All others made by gun.

2. I also ask why actually do you ask about gun kills made after Vietnam war? F-104 is plane made in '50 F-4 is made in '60... Another manipulation? During Vietnam War (and both F-4 and F-104 are planes of these conflict) almost the same number of kills are made by guns as by AiM-9. Considering, that F-4B/C/D had no gun, it makes these statistic proving my point. Most F-4 attacks were ineffective, because missile effectiveness, because lack of gun. (it won't change my love for these big fighter).

3. Please consider, that Fox3 engagement isn't quite a Dogfight. It's BVR engagement. Your statistic is a manipulation since most tomcat kills in Iran-Iraq are BVR. When someone make F-104 armed with AiM-120B/C/D or AiM-54 one can consider these statistic. AiM-7 kills most targets well below visual range. If it misses a target, gun may be necessary.
So to make it clear: BVR are not counted into statistic.
It's like comparing SA-2 vs 57mm AAA. both are part of the same system. 57mm AAA are placed just there were USAF planes are expected to make evasive maneuvers - Split "S". about 10-15nm from SAM site. Without SA-2 there would be no shoot opportunity for 57mm. The same is with aerial gunnery. If there's a missile with 60-80nm range - gun may be not needed.

4. Even most modern US fighter F-35 has a gun . why? simple. In modern warfare any range missile may quickly become useless due to a modern ECM. It was surely the case with 1991 desert storm AiM-54 use and AiM-7 use. The first one hit no target, the second one reached it's highest peak of effectivness ... ~13%

F-104 without gun makes no sense

Edited September 2, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[GUFA]

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Watch out please. If you use correct data, and choose only the one who support your thesis it's called manipulation

No its called living in REALITY, Read the report that Bozon Provided. The author points out in cold hard numbers that after Vietnam March 29, 1973 & the end of Yom Kippur 25 October 1973 Gun Kills as a proportion of total numbers fell to stastically insignicant levels, period. No BS Fantasy, no manipulation, Just FACTS.

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Here you go sir.
6 day war, the time before and after that. Particular example? Giora Epstein Kheil HaAvir. 17 kills 5 made by missiles. All others made by gun

Again How many after 73?, Now tell the TRUTH LOLZ.

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

AiM-7 kills most targets well below visual range

Really how completely incapable are you at understanding that the AIM 7 Sparrow Missile is a BVR class weapon, IE they can hit target beyond what human eyes can see (about 9000 metres).

 

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

F-4B/C/D had no gun

Yeah not like any other factor like the FACT that they were UNWEILDY PIGS IN A TURNING FIGHT, THAT LOST ENERGY FAR TOO EASILY+ REGAINED ENERGY WAY TOO SLOWLY + the fact that they had poor situational awareness even though they carried a second set of eyes...

+ The POLITICAL requirement to PID the targets was manner from heaven for VPAF.

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

F-104 without gun makes no sense

Really??? the Italian Government and the Aeronautica Militare didn't seem to think so...

 

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

F-104 is plane made in '50 F-4 is made in '60.

F-104 first flight: 4/4/54

F-4 First Flight:27/4/58

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

It's like comparing SA-2 vs 57mm AAA. both are part of the same system. 57mm AAA are placed just there were USAF planes are expected to make evasive maneuvers

So what Iraqi insurgent used hide 14.7mm Kords in the back of Technicals, wait for US Apaches and when they had the helis dead to rights, gave a few Army Aviators a very bad day. But Army adapted & Prevailed...

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Even most modern US fighter F-35 has a gun . why? simple. In modern warfare any range missile may quickly become useless due to a modern ECM. It was surely the case with 1991 desert storm AiM-54 use and AiM-7 use. The first one hit no target, the second one reached it's highest peak of effectivness ... ~13%

The 25mm GAU 12 Equilizer, as apposed Vulcan is a compromise solution to bridge between Vulcan & the 30mm Avenger and is only installed  permanently on 'A' model Lightnings. And if a Gun is to remain a air to air weapon, it sure as hell is not going to be chemical.

Look up.

Laser Advancements for Next-generation Compact Environments.

Self-protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator.

[Bremspropeller]

null

[Sarge55]

Good post 303_Kermit. 
 

He’s got nothing but yelling and bluster…

[GUFA]

He he he

 

[bies]

What is this gun argument about?

In late 1950s and in 1960s when Starfighter took part in combat a gun was still crucial, widely used by Starfighters in both A/A and A/G role.

In 1970s a gun was relegated to secondary role by more reliable and higher performance missiles, but Starfighter was outdated in mid 1970s when F-14s and F-15s, and soon F-16s were flying around. What is haracteristic - all this 4th generation fighters still featured internal guns.

[algherghezghez]

45 minutes ago, bies said:

What is this gun argument about?

In late 1950s and in 1960s when Starfighter took part in combat a gun was still crucial, widely used by Starfighters in both A/A and A/G role.

In 1970s a gun was relegated to secondary role by more reliable and higher performance missiles, but Starfighter was outdated in mid 1970s when F-14s and F-15s, and soon F-16s were flying around. What is haracteristic - all this 4th generation fighters still featured internal guns.

But we are not getting a 50s 104, we are getting the G variant (you can see the Martin baker in the 3d render, and it’s what makes most sense being aerges Spanish).

the last star fighters operated until the early 2000s without a gun 

[Stackup]

58 minutes ago, algherghezghez said:

But we are not getting a 50s 104, we are getting the G variant (you can see the Martin baker in the 3d render, and it’s what makes most sense being aerges Spanish).

the last star fighters operated until the early 2000s without a gun 

You can also see the gun port shroud/bulge in the 3d render and it's been stated to have the gun, so I don't see why it matters that the last operated Starfighters didn't use a gun since the one we are getting will.

[algherghezghez]

1 hour ago, Stackup said:

You can also see the gun port shroud/bulge in the 3d render and it's been stated to have the gun, so I don't see why it matters that the last operated Starfighters didn't use a gun since the one we are getting will.

Of course our G is gonna have a gun, I’m saying something else.

A. We are not getting a 50s starfighter so it’s pointless to discuss about that.

B. The peak starfighter interceptor didn’t have a gun, so it’s a bit arrogant to say that a gunless starfighter is useless.

 

[Bozon]

7 hours ago, algherghezghez said:

…

B. The peak starfighter interceptor didn’t have a gun, so it’s a bit arrogant to say that a gunless starfighter is useless.

 

The Starfighter was perfectly capable of killing its pilot without a gun, which seems to be the main purpose of this fighter 

[303_Kermit]

8 hours ago, algherghezghez said:

Of course our G is gonna have a gun, I’m saying something else.

A. We are not getting a 50s starfighter so it’s pointless to discuss about that.

B. The peak starfighter interceptor didn’t have a gun, so it’s a bit arrogant to say that a gunless starfighter is useless.

 

B. I would argue on that. 
- 1st argument: Even Aeronautica Militare Italiana pilots acknowledged that variants with M61A1 are more suitable to real combat, and current radar does not give possibility to use Aspide missiles at full capabilities.
- 2nd one: Since there's not much combat reports about F-104S, one can use a MiG-21PF/FL/PFM combat reports to check effectiveness of gunless fighter. In Egypt , India, and Vietnam they were extensively used, and there is a multiple reports how desperately its pilots needed a gun. In multiple occasions pilots were forced to ram their opponents.
- 3rd one: It's hard to name a F-104S a "peak". It was by then very very old plane. In spite of these modification, loss rate were very high. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter). It was rather a try to save money by extending a use of the same old plane couple years longer. All other countries possess gen 4 and 4+ fighters by then. If I search a "peak" it must be something competitive to compared fighters in the time. In case of F-104 I would say it's F-104 A/C/G. Being Light was extremely important for 104. Kelly Johnson had an Idea of very light, very fast, and very simple, cheap plane. With such small wing every later modification made plane heavier, made turn performance more ridiculous. F-104A was really competitive, since his opponents were MiG-17 / 19 / 21F-13. And they all performed worse than he did. Later modifications seem to forget the main point. Simple, cheap, light. 

Latest is not always the best.

Edited September 3, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[algherghezghez]

9 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

B. I would argue on that. 
- 1st argument: Even regia aeronautica pilots acknowledged that variants with M61A1 are more suitable to real combat, and current radar does not give possibility to use Aspide missiles at full capabilities.
- 2nd one: Since there's not much combat reports about F-104S, one can use a MiG-21PF/FL/PFM combat reports to check effectiveness of gunless fighter. In Egypt , India, and Vietnam they were extensively used, and there is a multiple reports how desperately its pilots needed a gun. In multiple occasions pilots were forced to ram their opponents.
- 3rd one: It's hard to name a F-104S a "peak". It was by then very very old plane. In spite of these modification, loss rate were very high. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter). It was rather a try to save money by extending a use of the same old plane couple years longer. All other countries possess gen 4 and 4+ fighters by then. If I search a "peak" it must be something competitive to compared fighters in the time. In case of F-104 I would say it's F-104 A/C/G. Being Light was extremely important for 104. Kelly Johnson had an Idea of very light, very fast, and very simple, cheap plane. With such small wing every later modification made plane heavier, made turn performance more ridiculous. F-104A was really competitive, since his opponents were MiG-17 / 19 / 21F-13. And they all performed worse than he did. Later modifications seem to forget the main point. Simple, cheap, light. 

Latest is not always the best.
 

1.man be careful about names! It’s Aeronautica Militare Italiana, regia aeronautica was the old fascist air force during in the interwar period and ww2.

Anyways that plane wasn’t for real combat, it was a border control plane. Take off, intercept fast (and at that it was an unrivalled beast), throw at it whatever you got and hopefully run away.

3. they also missed the speed when they transitioned to the tornadoes and f-16s. and rather than saving money it was more favouritism towards certain industries.

[303_Kermit]

4 minutes ago, algherghezghez said:

1.man be careful about names! It’s Aeronautica Militare Italiana, regia aeronautica was the old fascist air force during in the interwar period and ww2.

 

I meant nothing bad. In history books regia aeronautica wrote a story which bring Italy no shame. Unlike a Luftwaffe.

[algherghezghez]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

I meant nothing bad. In history books regia aeronautica wrote a story which bring Italy no shame. Unlike a Luftwaffe.

The men did, not the institution, but let’s not get political.

Edited September 3, 2023 by algherghezghez

[SOLIDKREATE]

Can we get this version too?

 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

In spite of these modification, loss rate were very high. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter)

Check the loss-rates of indian MiG-21s then.

Loss rates say absolutely nothing without consideration of the circumstances.

The RAN lost 50% of their Skyhawks, the SAAF lost 50% of their Buccaneers.

[GUFA]

3 hours ago, algherghezghez said:

Anyways that plane wasn’t for real combat, it was a border control plane. Take off, intercept fast (and at that it was an unrivalled beast), throw at it whatever you got and hopefully run away.

Dont be ridiculous, you dont hang weapons off a aircraft to not destroy the enemy. Italy simply had different CONOPs to Germany unsuprising  given the geographical and political differences of the 2.

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

1st argument: Even Aeronautica Militare Italiana pilots acknowledged that variants with M61A1 are more suitable to real combat, and current radar does not give possibility to use Aspide missiles at full capabilities.

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

one can use a MiG-21PF/FL/PFM combat reports to check effectiveness of gunless fighter. In Egypt , India, and Vietnam they were extensively used, and there is a multiple reports how desperately its pilots needed a gun.

You dont need a gun if you are hunting Bombers, Missiles, Recon, Electronic Warfare or Transport aircraft. I'd say you are also mis-interpreting or misrepresenting what some have said regarding what (some pilots) have reported (pre 73). And BTW the Autotecnics F15 NASARR radar was a far  cry from the 'Fabbrica Italiana Apparecchiatture Radoielettriche' (FIAR)  R21G/M1  updates that were PD with Lookdown ShootDown capabilities, quite capable of guiding Aspide. Infact FIAR developed this base radar into the "Grifo", 'Small nosed fighter Radars' So again tell the truth.

I can think of nothing better than using Gunless Starfighters in theItalian Alps to Mask my movements and ambushing REDFOR in Hit and Run attacks, Using ground clutter to escape. Or Interdicting Anti Ship missile strikes on Italian Navy units operating in the Adriatic/ Mediterranean south of Malta. Or just just using Starfighter "S" to defend Italian Homeland assets against Land Attack Cruise Missiles...

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by GUFA