What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?

[Bremspropeller]

The Starfighter sucked so bad at air to ground, it accidentally won the 1962 WiIlliam Tell tactical fighter weapons meet.

[MAXsenna]

The Starfighter sucked so bad at air to ground, it accidentally won the 1962 WiIlliam Tell tactical fighter weapons meet.

"Accidentally"...

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[TLTeo]

33 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Starfighter sucked so bad at air to ground, it accidentally won the 1962 WiIlliam Tell tactical fighter weapons meet.

it is known that strike aircraft that flew mission similar to the F-104 should be slow, low wing-loaded jets, like the F-105, F-111 and Tornado. Wait a second....

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

The Starfighter sucked so bad at air to ground, it accidentally won the 1962 WiIlliam Tell tactical fighter weapons meet.

I swear the god. Flat Earth society.
1962 W. T. Competition:
1. Planes that took part:
F-104C, F-101, F-106, F-100

2. The competition tested various aspects of aerial combat proficiency, including:
Air-to-Air Missile Engagements: Pilots engaged unmanned target drones to demonstrate missile accuracy.
Gunnery Exercises: Involved shooting at towed banner targets to assess gun accuracy.
Team Coordination: Evaluated the effectiveness of crew coordination during intercept missions. 

3. Air to Ground Attacks were also tested - but they play a marginal role and scoring system was created so, that it was interceptor competitions. A2G points weren't crucial (otherwise F-104C would lost since he scored 0 points in one of A2G competitions).
4. Only USAF Pilots took part. no USMC, no US navy. Only TAC, and ADF.
5. In first air to ground competition - iron bomb drop F-104C scored best, but in another - napalm strike pilot completely missed the target, (10:43) lost orientation over shooting range, and scored 0 points. Mainly because F-104 lack of maneuverability, and too big approach speed for such task. Pilot saw the target for very short time period.
6. However it was USAF Interceptor competition There are no source to confirm, that F-104C truly won. Films were made in time , when US tried to massively sell F-104 overboard, and there's strong suspicion, that it's just a marketing statement. What's more It's worth to mention that F-104 was piloted by TAC pilots, when F-106 and F-100 was piloted by ADF pilots - and that makes also the difference.

@Bremspropeller
Your posts are kind of nasty manipulation and somehow remind me old soviet joke:
Radio Erevan: -"Is it true, that Ivan Vladimirovitsch won a car Volga on a lottery in Moscow"
Party spokesman: -"yes, it's true. However.... Not Ivan Vladimirovitsch, but Vladimir  Ivanovitsch... Also... not in Moscow, but in Petresburg...and not on lotery, but on the "Red Square"... and not a Volga, but a bicycle...and not won, but was stolen..."

You're wasting my time sir.

 

Edited January 17 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

40 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

1. Planes that took part:
F-104C, F-101, F-106, F-100

Nope.
 

 

40 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

3. Air to Ground Attacks were also tested - but they play a marginal role and scoring system was created so, that it was interceptor competitions.

 

As indicated by the fact that four F-100D squadrons and one F-105D squadron participated. All of them top notch interceptors.

40 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

4. Only USAF Pilots took part. no USMC, no US navy. Only TAC, and ADF.

Nope. No ADC at all, since interceptor meetings happened in the odd years, which 1962 wasn't.

40 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

5. In first air to ground competition - iron bomb drop F-104C scored best, but in another - napalm strike pilot completely missed the target, (10:43) lost orientation over shooting range, and scored 0 points. Mainly because F-104 lack of maneuverability, and too big approach speed for such task. Pilot saw the target for very short time period.

That's not what the video says.

40 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

6. However it was USAF Interceptor competition There are no source to confirm, that F-104C truly won. Films were made in time , when US tried to massively sell F-104 overboard, and there's strong suspicion, that it's just a marketing statement. What's more It's worth to mention that F-104 was piloted by TAC pilots, when F-106 and F-100 was piloted by ADF pilots - and that makes also the difference.

So the pilot fudging up multiple times was a marketing thing - clearly done on purpose to sell jets.

 

Edited January 17 by Bremspropeller

[irisono]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb 303_Kermit:

....
@Bremspropeller
Your posts are kind of nasty manipulation and somehow remind me old soviet joke:
Radio Erevan: -"Is it true, that Ivan Vladimirovitsch won a car Volga on a lottery in Moscow"
Party spokesman: -"yes, it's true. However.... Not Ivan Vladimirovitsch, but Vladimir  Ivanovitsch... Also... not in Moscow, but in Petresburg...and not on lotery, but on the "Red Square"... and not a Volga, but a bicycle...and not won, but was stolen..."

You're wasting my time sir.
 

Kermit, your statements don't seem to resonate in this thread. Maybe it's because of your sources or problems interpreting them correctly. I understand that this annoys you. But have you asked yourself whether you are annoying us with your way of communicating?

[303_Kermit]

On 1/17/2025 at 11:37 PM, irisono said:

Kermit, your statements don't seem to resonate in this thread. Maybe it's because of your sources or problems interpreting them correctly. I understand that this annoys you. But have you asked yourself whether you are annoying us with your way of communicating?

I truly don't care if you like what I like or not. I check what I see, I check sources and post what I found.

-If you check my facts, see them correct / or not correct, and provide some sources for your statements - It makes me ( and probably not only me) smarter. Logical discussion based on facts leads to greater knowledge.

but...

-If you're limited to like / dislike what I wrote - you're presenting not a point of view but a believe. Such discussion is pointless.

For me the case is interesting. Statement, that F-104 is in any way useful in A2G means, that somehow plane with lack of maneuverability on high AoA, difficulty in control by low airspeed, without any significant advantage by A2G over A-6, A-4, F-105, F-4, or F-9F is somehow better than them in A2G. Either It's just bollocks and F-104 is useless in A2G compared to any plane from 1960, or I am not aware of something important in air to ground attack, so I may learn something.

Let's put it more clearly. I just wonder... if F-104 with A2G payload isn't more agile than F-105, isn't faster than A-6 or A7, has no better range, carry less payload, isn't more accurate ... where's the advantage?
-it can't provide precise bombing, can't provide CAS, can't perform deep strike - so he's not better as a bomber.
-during attack run over target isn't faster, isn't more robust, isn't more agile - so in any way provides better survival chance. 

I see all your argument. I see a lot of emotions in them, there are even some facts - however all completely irrelevant to the discussion topic: 

What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?
I say - I expect him to be interesting Fighter, with interesting advantages, like speed, acceleration, climb, probably very capable Interceptor in good hands. And I expect him to be totally rubbish in A2G compared to anything in DCS. I will love him anyway. And you all somehow are offended by that. I find it funny

Edited January 19 by 303_Kermit

[TLTeo]

I'm going to try one last time, and I'm going to try to address your points explicitely.

Quote

somehow plane with lack of maneuverability on high AoA

Not relevant to deep strike. You do one high speed pass and then leave - think the way the Viggen flies in DCS. You do not, ever, ever want to be maneuvering slowly at low AoA over a strategic target because AA will blow you up in seconds. You're not loitering over a target like an A-10 does. You run in as fast as you possibly can and deliver your weapons at 400+ knots. At high speeds high wing loading is an advantage because it makes for a more stable weapons platform, which again is why so many strike aircraft of the era are very, very highly wing loaded (more than the 104 in fact - look up the Jaguar for instance).

Quote

if F-104 with A2G payload isn't more agile than F-105, isn't faster than A-6 or A7, has no better range, carry less payload, isn't more accurate ... where's the advantage?

F-105: the 104 *is* more agile. If you look at its EM diagram it can hold up to a Mig21bis in a rate fight (meaning it will also outrate all the older, less powerful variants). Meanwhile, per Feather Duster/Constant Peg, the F-105 had no choice but to run against *any* Soviet fighter. The 104 will lose the angles fight for sure, but that's not different than, say, a fight between a Viper and Su-27. It also carries the same avionics (which, per the discussion above, are extremely important to the strike mission) as the F-105D while costing a fraction of the money, which is extremely important for a lightweight export jet.

A-6/A-7: please argue in good faith, those aircraft are subsonic and the F-104 is one of the fastest aircraft ever built, its top speed at sea level is 750 knots. It is also not a naval aircraft which makes it more appealing to export customers since it didn't demand a bunch of compromises in its design in order to land on a carrier. And finally, it's much cheaper and more versatile than either because good luck using an A-6 or A-7 as an interceptor.

The payload does not matter when the primary wartime loadout is as many fuel tanks as you can carry and a nuke. In that configuration, the 104 actually has the same range as a Phantom. A ~1000-2000lb payload is also in the ballpark of (or equal to) many lightweight fighters that flew into the late 90s per my post above. It also does not make a difference in naval strike (because whether you're carrying Exocets, RB-04s or Kormorans most aircraft only bring two missiles) or in photo recce (because all you need is the recce pod).

If you really want a DCS comparison, the capabilities you should expect from the F-104 in the strike mission are an older, slightly less capable mix of the Mirage F1 and Viggen. Flight performance will be similar-ish (all 3 are really, really fast at low level and turn well enough), avionics and payload will be somewhat worse. It will also be one of the best Cold War interceptors in the game (if not the best). Not bad for something 15-20 years older than those two aircraft.

edit: added a bit extra info/reworded bits.

Edited January 19 by TLTeo

[303_Kermit]

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Not relevant to deep strike.

F-104 isn't capable of performing one. Either drop tanks or bombs.
 

 

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

F-105: the 104 *is* more agile.

See... I mentioned "With A2G payload" and diagram surely is charted for A2A payload. Having next to no wing - with supersonic airfoil, that produces marginal Lift coefficient, F-104 needs a lot of speed and a lot of AoA to produce some similar Lift to F-105. F-105 poses subsonic airfoil and swept wings, that actually produce some lift. The more bombs - the bigger advantage F-105 has.

 

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

A-6/A-7: please argue in good faith, those aircraft are subsonic and the F-104 is one of the fastest aircraft ever built,

Again - I with A2G payload A-6 and A-4 are faster. F-104 can of course use AB , but can't fly supersonic with bombs. Carrying bombs, and keeping some descent altitude without occasional use of AB won't be an easy task. Forget about Hi-Lo-Hi mission profile. F-104 is faster in clean configuration - sure, but  taking into account all limitations of A2G payload? He can't compete against A-6. The latter one will be faster and more economical.
 

 

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

The payload does not matter when the primary wartime loadout is as many fuel tanks as you can carry and a nuke.

What conflict of 1960 did you meant? I missed that nuclear one. How many Nukes were dropped from F-104? Can you provide some stats? But I see your point. F-104 will be unstoppable on every nuclear campaign / mission played in DCS... If it becomes a nuke of course.
 

 

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

If you really want a DCS comparison, the capabilities you should expect from the F-104 in the strike mission are an older, slightly less capable mix of the Mirage F1 and Viggen.

Fantasy. Mirage F1 is 1970 gen III fighter, one may say even fighter bomber. Swept wing, modern aerodynamics, Viggen is also Gen III Fighter bomber with Double delta wings. They both produce more lift than F-104 may dream of. Range of Mirage is beyond competition even for much better F-4 Phantom. Last Reforger mission I was able to perform 1:50 min flight that included interception of MiG-25 with only one drop tank , and without any airborne refueling. After I land there was still enough fuel for another 30 minutes of flight. I can reach every destination on every DCS CW public server with any bombload and without single droptank. Neither MiG-21 nor F-104 can compare. 

If we consider bombload, range, speed and agility with full payload - not the avionics. MRF1 looks comparable even against F-16 and F/A-18. Dramatic difference is visible especially whem one fly next to F-5E. MRF1 carrying 2x as many bombs is 2x fast over target, without use of AB. Don't expect that from F-104. These plane won't fly without AB.

Viggen is other case. I won't say much since I'm Mirage F-1 pilot, but he posess some serious set up of missiles. I doubt if F-104 can carry some comparable setup of those. As for bombload - everyone know that Viggen isn't very impressive here, but it's also not his task. His capable in anti shipping strikes, and on that field F-104 can't compare.

I expect rather something similar to MiG-21 in terms of A2G, but MiG-21 is much easier to fly on high AoA, while F-104 is really not built for that. We shall have plane with just as little range with bombs, struggling to climb with bombs in any other way than on full AB - just like MiG-21, easy to stall in 10 possible way during A2G strike by every speed , when pulled up rapidly.

You may expect widow maker. 

PS. The beauty of CW 50-60-70 planes is, that good pilot will perform even in "Widow Maker". In CW duel, pilot is more important than plane, and it's visible in F-104 career, if somebody care to learn about it. Amazing story.

Edited January 20 by 303_Kermit

[Bigskill]

21 minuti fa, 303_Kermit ha scritto:

F-104 isn't capable of performing one. Either drop tanks or bombs.
 

 

See... I mentioned "With A2G payload" and diagram surely is charted for A2A payload. Having next to no wing - with supersonic airfoil, that produces marginal Lift coefficient you need a lot of speed and a lot of AoA. F-105 poses subsonic airfoil and swept wings, that actually produce some lift. The more bombs - the bigger advantage F-105 has.

Wrong in every statement.

 

Again - I with A2G payload A-6 and A-4 are faster. You can of course use AB , but you can't fly supersonic with bombs. And it won't be an easy task. F-104 is faster in clean configuration. Taking into account all limitations of A2G payload - A-6 will be faster and more economical.
 

 

What conflict of 1960 did you meant? I missed that nuclear one. How many Nukes were dropped from F-104? Can you provide some stats? But I see your point. F-104 will be unstoppable on every nuclear campaign / mission played in DCS... If it becomes a nuke of course.
 

 

Fantasy. Mirage F1 is 1970 gen III fighter, one may say even fighter bomber. Swept wing, modern aerodynamics, Viggen is also Gen III Fighter bomber with Double delta wings. They both produce more lift than F-104 may dream of. Range of Mirage is beyond competition even for much better F-4 Phantom. Last Reforger mission I was able to perform 1:50 min flight that included interception of MiG-25 with only one drop tank , and without any airborne refueling. After I land there was still enough fuel for another 30 minutes of flight. I can reach every destination on every DCS CW public server with any bombload and without any droptank. Neither MiG-21 nor F-104 can compare. 

If we consider bombload, range, speed and agility with full payload - not the avionics. MRF1 looks comparable even against F-16 and F/A-18. Dramatic difference is visible especially whem one fly next to F-5E. MRF1 carrying 2x as many bombs is 2x fast over target, without use of AB. Don't expect that from F-104. These plane won't fly without AB.

Viggen is other case. I won't say much since I'm Mirage F-1 pilot, but he posess some serious set up of missiles. I doubt if F-104 can carry some comparable setup of those. As for bombload - everyone know that Viggen isn't very impressive here, but it's also not his task. His capable in anti shipping strikes, and on that field F-104 can't compare.

I expect rather something similar to MiG-21 in terms of A2G, but MiG-21 is much easier to fly on high AoA, while F-104 is really not built for that. We shall have plane with just as little range with bombs, struggling to climb with bombs in any other way than on full AB - just like MiG-21, easy to stall in 10 possible way during A2G strike by every speed , when pulled up rapidly.

You may expect widow maker. 

PS. The beauty of CW 50-60-70 planes is, that good pilot will perform even in "Widow Maker". In CW duel, pilot is more important than plane, and it's visible in F-104 career, if somebody care to learn about it. Amazing story.

Been reading for a while, I dont see the point to argue, pacifically, but argue. F104 qasnt a great platform form bombing or do AG strike, but it was equipped with weapons and countries trained for it. Also Canada was also trained to do nuke strike with it. So i dont see the point to say it wasnt capable.

[Bremspropeller]

That's a CF, but it's not really making any difference. Should be enough to prove the jet can only carry either - bombs or tanks.

Here's proof it can't carry comparable missiles to the Viggen. It also can't carry missiles and tanks at the same time.

 

 

[TLTeo]

Yea fine,it is not possible to have a conversation with someone claiming that the F-104 of all aircraft can either carry weapons or fuel tanks, but not both.

Edited January 20 by TLTeo

[303_Kermit]

10 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

That's a CF, but it's not really making any difference. Should be enough to prove the jet can only carry either - bombs or tanks.

I wasn't as precise as I shall, but also I expect that people here know their stuff. I shall explain myself. 
Being a F-104 freak as some of you - I am aware , that of course it posess wet pylons on the wing tip. Cool stuff. My F-104 an the desk in Job is exactly in those payload presented. 2x Fuel tanks on the tip, and 2 x AiM-9 Sidewinder under belly.

So... you may ask "what's my point?"

There is a logic behind it. As you know - drop tanks have their limitations. Biggest problem is, that dropping them is a bit unpredictable, and there were accidents during that procedure in F-104. Especially if there are bombs on. So standard procedure is, that while carrying bombs under wings, one can not drop tanks until bombs are gone. We all know - every plane has G limitations when fuel tanks are on. That was the reason why I wrote what I wrote.

You may theoretically take 2x additional fuel tanks, but would you actually do it in real combat flight? Would you make your survival chances over target even smaller than they are already? I mean... Flying Mirage or Phantom, you may just fly slower and limit your "G", but F-104 can't fly slower. These kind of plane fly on full AB or not at all. I imagine myself in such situation - having to be extremely precise with controls under gunfire by 450-500kt, low over ground during bombing run. Hair raising stuff.

In DCS or in Peace time practice flight - A2G payload of F-104 looks impressive. In real life mission over Vietnam it looks like that: 2x fuel tanks and no bombs. Light, and able to drop tanks in any given moment, in case of emergency.

It's a bit like F-16 in DCS. I see him plenty of times with 3x Fuel tanks , on every DCS milsim mission. But did anyone ever see F-16 in RL with such payload? 
 

 

Edited January 20 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

Here's F-104s in Vietnam (Da Nang) in 1965. Note that they don't carry bombs.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wU892A.htm

Edited January 20 by Bremspropeller

[303_Kermit]

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Here's F-104s in Vietnam (Da Nang) in 1965. Note that don't carry bombs.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wU892A.htm

I see... plenty of them. You need a squadron of F-104 to deliver a payload of single A-1H. Care to learn what SOG teams or USArmy soldiers thought about A2G performance of that plane?

I imagine those "Danger close" bomb delivery. Too little but at least miles from target. I' just reading "SOG Kontum: Secret missions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia 1968-1969." There are stories about ground support there. In short - SOG were not impressed.

Edited January 20 by 303_Kermit

[TLTeo]

Here's another one carrying both wing and centerline tanks. It clearly shows you can't carry bombs with this loadout. That is because it's carrying rockets instead.

Seriously Kermit, please please please argue in good faith or stop wasting time.

Edited January 20 by TLTeo

[Bremspropeller]

 

Quote

I see... plenty of them

Well, it's not me being wrong 100% of the time and shifting goalposts to make a false narrative fit. I guess it's up to you to

- start being responsive to arguments by people who know more about this subject than you,

- stop the personal attacks,

- provide actual beneficial content to the discussion.

If you can't, well, "ignore list" it is for you.

 

The 104 could carry about half as much as the F-100D (not counting MER, TER or double racks which weren't designed for the 104 yet), but itcould reach the CAS area quicker and hence had a shorter response time, which is a quality in itself. I suggest you take the time and read Sharkbait Delashaw's thoughts on the 104 in SEA, which was linked some time before. I also suggest to read a couple of other testimonies of pilots who have experience in the 104 vs F-4 to give you a better idea of what the strengths and weaknesses of either airplane were.

The 104 was mainly bought to drop a nuke onto the Soviet Union from airbases in central Europe, which itcould perform well and better than most other jets in the early-mid 60s. It had about a 50% greater mission radius than the F-4 in that role. When the decision was made to procure the 104G for the WGAF, the F-4 was still a paper aircraft.

Edited January 20 by Bremspropeller

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

Here's another one carrying both wing and centerline tanks. It clearly shows you can't carry bombs with this loadout. That is because it's carrying rockets instead.

Seriously Kermit, please please please argue in good faith or stop wasting time.

My point exactly, would you like to have "that"  as support? Or one of those?



Again: What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?

Answer is - A2A - a lot
A2G - a joke (pictures provided by @TLTeo and @Bremspropeller of Vietnam era F-104 shows it clearly)

I will be cruel when finally F-104 shows up in DCS. I won't allow you all to forget about those topic, as soon as anyone appears on forum with question like these: "Air to ground in F-104. Help! Any tips?"

Can you please explain @Bremspropeller where did I personally attacked you? And please notice the difference - pointing out someones mistake, not sharing his point of view, isn't equal with offending him. I never said any offensive word against you. To make it clear; if one say: 
-"Kermit you're an imbecile" - that is abusive and personally offensive.
but if you say:
-"Kermit the thing you said about fuel tanks is stupid" -it is actual critic, and can't be taken as an abuse. It doesn't imply that Kermit is stupid, but only, that those particular sentence you find stupid. 

Please see the difference.

PS.. In times of Internet it's real shame, that Rhetoric isn't one of basic lessons in school anymore.

Edited January 20 by 303_Kermit

[Smyth]

11 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Again - I with A2G payload A-6 and A-4 are faster. F-104 can of course use AB , but can't fly supersonic with bombs. Carrying bombs, and keeping some descent altitude without occasional use of AB won't be an easy task. Forget about Hi-Lo-Hi mission profile. F-104 is faster in clean configuration - sure, but  taking into account all limitations of A2G payload? He can't compete against A-6. The latter one will be faster and more economical.
 

You know, I was trying to stay out of this argument.

An abnormally heavy conventional bomb load of 3x 1000lb Mk83, along with full internal fuel and empty wingtip tanks, works out to a drag index of 45 and gross weight of 24600lb for the F-104G. From the flight manual charts this gives a top speed in military (non-afterburning) power of M0.89 = 589kts at sea level. A contemporary A-6A can reach no more than 561kts at SL per its S.A.C., even with the lightest payload (single centerline bomb). A contemporary A-4C with one centerline Mk28 is even slower than the A6 (545kts).

Navy subsonic attack aircraft can fly higher and further, with more bombs (it would be insane if they couldn't) but during their final run-in to the target, they physically cannot go faster than a badly overloaded F104G in mil power. Then after the F104G drops its bombs, it can easily out-pace any interceptor from the 1960s at low level.

The poor A-6 can't even out-run a MiG-15.

Also, while it is not usually practical, an F-104G most certainly can carry and release some bombs supersonic. This is specifically and clearly approved by the flight manual.

P.S.: Why would an F-104G pilot forget the Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi mission profile he has been taught by the F-104 Fighter Weapons School, after all that effort to learn and practice it?
 

[yewls]

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Here's another one carrying both wing and centerline tanks. It clearly shows you can't carry bombs with this loadout. That is because it's carrying rockets instead.

Seriously Kermit, please please please argue in good faith or stop wasting time.

 

Not trying to wade into the fight here but in the spirit of correctness that jet is actually carrying a napalm bomb on its centerline - there were no centerline fuel tanks on the Zipper.

[TLTeo]

Uh, TIL. I could swear I'd read on some F-104C manual that the centerline carried tanks.

[303_Kermit]

10 hours ago, Smyth said:

An abnormally heavy conventional bomb load of 3x 1000lb Mk83, along with full internal fuel and empty wingtip tanks, works out to a drag index of 45 and gross weight of 24600lb for the F-104G. From the flight manual charts this gives a top speed in military (non-afterburning) power of M0.89 = 589kts at sea level. A contemporary A-6A can reach no more than 561kts at SL per its S.A.C., even with the lightest payload (single centerline bomb). A contemporary A-4C with one centerline Mk28 is even slower than the A6 (545kts).

That's kind of answer that actually I was hoping for. 590kt on 0 lvl is really impressive. However... 3x 1000lb... abnormally heavy? You mean for a F-104? I would say ... it's tiny. It's impressive  if we compare to P-47, but 2x 500kg + 2x250kg is a payload available even for MiG-21bis, and no one calls MiG-21 a fighter-bomber. I hope we agree that MiG-21 is comparable plane? F-1CE, A-6, A-7 and other planes named in these topic, I find far outside the range of comparison. 
It's difficult to even compare such tiny payload with anything.
F-105D carry 16x750lb bombs, A-6 13x1000lb or 5x2000 lb... but F-104? is 3x 1000lb bombload enough to even call a plane fighter-bomber?

Sorry for off topic... back to question:
1. If you use to comparison F-104G it would be better to compare it at least against A-4F. A-4C was outdated already in 1965... And for a plane that costs 50% of F-104 it would be fair, right? (correct me if I'm wrong F-104C was 1,5mln $ , and A-4E about 860 000$ right? What was the price of single F-104G - does anyone know?)

2. What about higher altitudes? MiG-21 with 2x500kg+2x250kg (there's no 3x bomb payload on it), couldn't climb effectively without AB. My guess is, that F-104 can't do that either. Flying all mission profile low over ground would reduce the mission range. How about FL100 - 120? I'm interested in performance on optimum altitude. For subsonic wing of A-6 FL100-120 will be more effective, for F-104 with his supersonic airfoil a low altitude, and dense air will be advantageous, but not for A-6, not for A-7, and not for A-4. Can you provide some data how does it look like on higher altitude? Is F-104 still faster with his tiny payload? What's the transition speed of compared planes on such altitude?

Regards.
 

[TLTeo]

I don't have the full performance manual of either so I have to do a bit of reverse engineering, however I do have the Standard Aircraft Characteristics of both:

1. The top speed of the A-4F with a single Mk-82 is listed as 561kt at 7500ft. The same document lists a top speed at sea level of 556kt. In this configuration, the combat range is listed as 780nm. Source: avialogs, document released in 1971 so compliant with forum rules.

2. The top speed of an F-104C with a centerline nuke (which the -1 shows as having a drag index of 40, so close enough to the loadout above) is listed as Mach 2 at FL 35. The combat speed is listed as 615kt at mill power at 20000 ft (which is a bit optimistic since that's exactly Mach 1, but eh, let's call it somewhere below). It probably goes down a bit with extra drag from the 3 bombs, but it's not going to lose over 50kt of top speed from 5 more drag index units. In this mission the combat range is listed as 750 nm. Source: avialogs, document from 1962.

3. From the standard aircraft characteristics of a variety of A-6 and A-4 versions, with an actual air to ground loadout their top speed is always less than 500kt at all altitudes. Also, the A-4F's range drops down to <700nm with actual stores.

You are correct on the price of an F-104G.

Edited January 21 by TLTeo

[Bremspropeller]

When the F-104G was procured, the contemporary A-4 was the A-4A and B. Neither had a radar, doppler or any kind of night or bad weather capability. Neither had they any impressive bomb capability, which only came up because some Marines remembered their job and found a way to put more bombs on the aircraft* - before that, you had the choice (conventional) between one bomb and two tanks or two bombs and one tank. A-4C (with a radar) deliveries started in 1960, which was basicly in parallel to the 104G. A-4E (dopper nav set, J52 motor, five hardpoints) deliveries started in 1963.

The 104G came out of the box with a radar (AA and AG modes), an IR sight, INS nav (a premiere in fast jets) and at the time unparalleled capabilities for such a small sized airframe. Plus Lockheed agreed to a sizeable amount of tech transfer, which was an important part of the decision for the 104.

*MERs were a development that in turn rooted in the work of a Marine Coprs officer at VX-5 at China Lake and it found it's way into Douglas in 1960

F-105s CAN carry 16 750lb bombs, but they never would in an actual war. This is indicative of what a wartime loadout looked like:

That's six 750lb bombs, two tanks and probs a tank in the bomb bay. Add Sidewinders or electronic warfare gear onto the outboard stations for flavor in the later years. The jet in this configuration would often take off with minimal gas and then tank up in the air because it would just eat up all the runway in hot/humid SEA.

The 104C would carry two bombs (no dual rack capability then), the 104G would carry four 500lb bombs. That's 67% of the 105 real world bombload in a much smaller, much more versatile aircraft.

The A-6 is a vastly larger airplane with two engines, two crew, lots of digital gear that wouldn't work and it was purpose-built for the job. It can't intercept a high and fast soviet bomber 250 miles from the airfield, which the 104 can.

I don't have the data for the bombloads aorund right now, since my 104G manual is a very early one, and I can't be arsed into looking any deeper into it for as it's gonna be spun around anyway, so let's just take the four tank configuration + centerline store as a proxy:

Here's three RNLAF F-104G and a TF struggling to maintain altitude with four tanks (and a camara pod):

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wK8273.htm

A RBAF jet with four tanks and a centerline store just doing fine at altude:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wFX96.htm

My F-104A/B/C/D (dated 1968) manual has a nice max achievable air miles graph, including step climbs in the "heavy" configuration. I may find some time and look up the initial altutude capabiliy at heavy loads, to put some actual numbers onto it.

Edited January 21 by Bremspropeller

[TLTeo]

Am I misremembering, or was the F-104G the first frontline fighter to carry an INS? The F-105 only got it in Vietnam iirc, the F-4 received also got it in the late 60s/early 70s, the A-6/A-7 weren't around in the late50s/early 60s, the Mirage 3/5 was barely coming online (and many didn't have an INS), the early F-5s had about the same avionics set as a Sabre, the Hun ended up carrying a Doppler set, the Voodoo never carried one...

Edited January 21 by TLTeo