What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?

[Smyth]

10 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

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 A-4C was outdated already in 1965...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?

3000lb is heavy for both the F-104G and its direct competitors. The normal load for a single-seat supersonic fighter-bomber in the mid 60s was 2000lb or sometimes less. Not only the F104:

• MiG-21 2x500kg (people should call it a fighter bomber because that was one of its important missions)
• Su-7B also 2x500kg originally, option for slightly more later
• Mirage IIIE just 2x 400kg
• RNLAF NF-5A 4x 500lb
• F100D could and did take 4x750lb often, but 2x1000lb was also common.

As for the massive F-105D, it had an exceptional payload but that still meant just 6x750lb normally in SEA.

Mirage F1 and AJ37 are obviously more advanced airframes. They ought to be, after over a decade of rapid technological progress. F104G speed and avionics stayed impressively relevant though, and if DCS missions are only built around 1970s-80s capability, that is the mission makers' problem.

The key is that 1 ton of bombs was just fine for some very important missions. The F104 was expected to handle the kind of target that is given to stealthy cruise missiles today (with 1000lb warheads). That means easy to damage but extremely heavily defended. If it was good at that mission (and it was very very good), the F104G cannot be called 'bad' at air-to-ground in general. Only unsuitable for some specific roles.

To answer your other specific questions:

1. A-4F will do 556kt at sea level with single centerline bomb per its SAC.
2. Flight manual charts show the F104G with 3x bombs does around M0.92 = 587kt TAS at 10000ft. A6A with only a centerline Mk28 can do 545kts per SAC. A4F is doing about 560kts (there is no exact chart).
   1. F104 with this loading stays very fast up to 20000ft, until above its optimal cruising altitude of 24000ft performance really starts to fall off. However at 25000ft the F104G is still slightly faster (525kts vs 512kts) versus the lightly loaded A6. Conclusion: an F104 without afterburner is always faster than subsonic attackers within its own flight envelope, however it is stuck cruising at FL240 while the slower airframes can cruise much higher for efficiency.

 

Edited January 21 by Smyth

[Bremspropeller]

18 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

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...

The 104G IIRC was the first INS application with all the associated troubles with new tech.

The Mirage III and 5 never carried INS until the later upgrades. The IIIE (and derivatives) out of the factory carried doppler sets. Earliest application of an INS in a Mirage seems to be the Mirage IIIRS upgrade in 1967 with the LN-33, which is the next gen INS to the LN-3 in the 104G. IIRC, the Canadians also upgraded their LN-3 equipped CFs to the LN-33 later.

[Caldero]

En 3/1/2025 a las 12:11, ThePops dijo:

No (ish). Norway had F-104G from 1963 at the 331 sqd at Bodø. These came directly from Lockheed as RF-104G, but modified during production, having the "R" equipment removed and cannon installed. These, some 20, were used as fighter bombers the first 3-4 years, then as interceptors from 1967 when the USSR abruptly increased their activity with heavy Tupolevs coming from Kola (just love the Kola map  ) Anyway, from 1963 to 1970, not a single accident happened with the F-104 (lots with the F-5 though, which Norway also had at that time). The 331 sq had F-104 until 1981-82 when they received the F-16.

In 1972 the 334 sqd at Bodø switched from F-5 to CF-104G (built in Canada). They were used largely as fighter bombers (naval mainly), while the 331 sqd was intercepting only. In 82-84 they were all replaced with F-16. From 1972 to about 1982, Bodø was all F-104, while squadrons further south had F-5. The Starfighters at 331 sqd had typical "interceptor colors", white and metal, while the 334 sqd was olive. (Don't know which one looks coolest actually, I mean blond vs brunette  impossible choice)

I think more F-16s were lost the first 10 years than F-104 during 20 years. But, there were more F-16s than F-104 also (90 vs 40 approximately). The only flying Starfighter in Europe today is at Bodø. It is owned by this group : https://starfighter.no/

I don't care what kind of "G" variant we get, as long as it is a G. Anything else would be silly and pretty useless. The G variant was built by Lockheed, Canadair, Fiat, Fokker, MBB, Messerschmitt, SABCA and Mitsubishi, and in many different versions, and they were modified throughout their lives, but still pretty much the same. A Messerschmitt ? why not  

Hi 

According this source, 5 norwegian F-104 (1 trainer & 4 single seat) were sadly lost from 1970 onwards:

https://starfighter.no/hist-en2.html

I'm pretty sure AERGES will make a G & TG variants so many european people will be happy 

And we will drop dumb bombs too, Spanish AF did

Regards 

Edited January 21 by Caldero

[Bigskill]

Il 21/1/2025 at 12:36, Caldero ha scritto:

Hi 

According this source, 5 norwegian F-104 (1 trainer & 4 single seat) were sadly lost from 1970 onwards:

https://starfighter.no/hist-en2.html

I'm pretty sure AERGES will make a G & TG variants so many european people will be happy 

And we will drop dumb bombs too, Spanish AF did

Regards 

Hopefully yeah. I wonder if we will be gifted also the Aspide missiles

[TLTeo]

The -G never carried the Aspide (or Sparrow), only the -S which is not anywhere in the announcements.

Edited January 23 by TLTeo

[Bigskill]

17 ore fa, TLTeo ha scritto:

The -G never carried the Aspide (or Sparrow), only the -S which is not anywhere in the announcements.

Maybe if we dream enough...

[303_Kermit]

On 1/21/2025 at 11:18 AM, Smyth said:

• MiG-21 2x500kg (people should call it a fighter bomber because that was one of its important missions)
• Su-7B also 2x500kg originally, option for slightly more later
• Mirage IIIE just 2x 400kg
• RNLAF NF-5A 4x 500lb
• F100D could and did take 4x750lb often, but 2x1000lb was also common.

MiG-21bis / MF - 2x 500kg + 2x250kg 
MiG 21 has 3 generations, and none of them is considered a Fighter bomber. However some versions were capable of carrying even nuclear warheads, plane itself posess no true ground Attack possibilities. During 1972 war of attrition Egypt used those plane in that role - evaluated as useless in A2G, in opinion of both sides. In whole Warsaw pact there was a term of "Training ground weather" - 0m/s wind no clouds etc. In other weather conditions it wasn't even practiced. Practical use of MiG-21 in CAS missions was never seriously taken into account. Other types of A2G missions (deep strike etc.) were not even considered. saying that it's "One of his important missions" is a wishful thinking and bending facts into own opinion. no. MiG-21 isn't a fighter bomber. Almost every fighter since WW1 can carry some bomb ordnance. A6M Zero, F4F-3 Wildcat, Bf-109 F/G/K, FW-190A (however his F and G mods are fighter bombers), F-86 Sabre, and many others. Not every Fighter with capabilities of carrying some bombs is considered a fighter bomber.

Su-7bkl - a modification of Su-7 which originally by design was planned to use as nuclear warheads only. Without capabilities of carrying conventional payload.
Adaptation to classical A2G role came later, and was rather improvised one. But... 4x500kg - is for Su-7bkl a fully operational payload

Mirage III isn't a fighter bomber, it was rather a role of Mirage 5 isn't it?

In Russian doctrine in 1950 a role of ground attack plane CAS - fulfilled IL-10. Later , there were modifications of MiG-17, even later main role of ground support took Mi-24. 
A role of tactical bomber played IL-28 (way too long IMO), later Su-7 (later almost all modified to BKL standard), and from mid 1970 - Su-17. 

And again... why you consider F-105 as not direct competitor for F-104 ? Aren't they both fighter bombers? Why not F-4 Phantom ? they all both served in  '60, and they all are fighter bombers.

In DCS - his competitors are F-4 Phantom, Mirage F-1CE, and AJS -37. Every one of them outclass F-104G dramatically. So considering the main topic: "What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?" my answer is correct, and any arguing is just throwing dust into the air, because facts are simple:

1. F-104 is capable of flying fast, however combination of range - speed - payload forces you to choose between them. He's either fast or maneuverable or posses necessary range. never all of it in the same time.
2. Even in best case his payload is tiny. Mk83 is heaviest bomb that he can carry, and he may take maximum 3 of them. No 2000lb bombs.
3. It's pure fighter made for aggressive and skilled pilot. It posses some A2G possibilities, but any WW2 late US fighter bomber can easily compare with him in terms of range and payload. In any conventional doctrine of use aerial forces, these plane may not be taken seriously as ground attack plane. 

Ah... one more thing. Almost every CW scenario involves a use of various AAA / SAM / SHORAD /MANPAD systems.... What kind of RWR posses F-104? Isn't it AN/APR-25 RWR? The one who highlights only when an aircraft is being locked onto or is targeted by semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles? AFAIK it provides no directional input? Even as little as F1 or MiG? Does it warn about missile Launch? As for passive countermeasures, is it AN/ALE -40?

[Silver_Dragon]

On 1/24/2025 at 3:34 AM, Bigskill said:

Maybe if we dream enough...

No with Aerges. There are more possibilities of an S version, with the 3rd party IndiaFoxtEcho, which has more at hand the data of an F-104S, being Italian.

[fausete]

We've only publicly confirmed the G Consortium version. That doesn't mean it's the only version we're planning on making.

Edited January 26 by fausete

[TLTeo]

Best I can tell (source here http://www.ww2.dk/new/air force/regiment/shap/apib.htm), 13/31 Soviet fighter-bomber regiments flew the Mig-21 at some point in the Cold War (18th, 66th, 129th, 136th, 136th, 224th, 236th, 266th, 296th, 300th, 760th, 899th, 911th). That seems like a very large fraction for an aircraft not considered in any way for a2g missions. Granted, many of those regiments also flew e.g. the Mig 15 and 19 so the Soviets were definitely pretty cavalier with what types they tasked to those regiments

Quote

why you consider F-105 as not direct competitor for F-104? Why not F-4 Phantom?

Because a) neither was available for export when the 104 orders were signed (or ever, in the case of the Thud) b) both were significantly more expensive both to purchase and operate and c) the 105 was wholly inadequate for air to air so it didn't meet the 104 requirements anyway. And also I don't care about "muh capabilities in DCS", if I did I'd be throwing out JDAMS from 40 thousand feet in a Viper anyway.

Quote

What kind of RWR posses F-104? As for passive countermeasures, is it AN/ALE -40?

Depends on the version. Some had better RWRs (e.g the Canadian and USAF ones, which then passed on to a bunch of operators), on-board jammers (some Italian ones did at least), etc. The consortium one we're getting is likely to be those two systems, yes. It's not great by any stretch of the imagination, but it's misleading to compare it to e.g. the AL-300 of the F1EE given that that was a 90s upgrade.

Plenty of other NATO flew with very barebones EW suits at the time - off the top of my head, every G91, every F84, most MAP F-100, most (all?) first gen F-5s, even the Harrier Gr1/AV8A. It definitely wasn't survivable. It also was not limited to the F-104. And it's not like the SPO-10 is some masterpiece of self protection either.

Edited January 25 by TLTeo

[303_Kermit]

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Because a) neither was available for export when the 104 orders were signed

And that's and argument for.... ?
 

 

4 hours ago, TLTeo said:

105 was wholly inadequate for air to air so it didn't meet the 104 requirements anyway.

Well... check stats of Vietnam war. F-105 performed more missions than F-104, killed more MiG's than F-104 (27,5 A2A kills, 24,5 of them by M61/A1 Gun, at a cost of 17 planes lost in A2A combat. I say it's nice statistics), and dropped more bombs than F-104. I think it makes him quite capable. I know... F-104 wasn't popular during Vietnam war, and later send to secondary tasks etc... TBH I am  sure that in capable hands F-104C would show in Vietnam war it's true valor. All these plane demands is very experienced pilot, unfortunately that was not the case in Vietnam.

Anyway don't you think guys that it's not the point? The point of flying F-104 is to ride an ultimate "bad**s" To perform A2G is one thing, but making it in F-104 - that's the skill level. 
You can land in any weather conditions? great! Do it in F-104... You can kill MiG-19 ? good... Do it in F-104. You can always find better plane than F-104, but you can't be more cool if you ride it, and you can't show more skill than winning a fight in Starfighter. That's whole point IMO. I will fly F-104 since day 1 hour 1, but not because I think it's that great. I think it's ultimate challenge. Mastering a plane take me about a year of training. VFR, IFR, A2G, Memory Items and Emergency situations, etc. etc... I wonder how much care needs F-104 to master him. If F-4 is such a challenge... What can one expect from F-104? I have goosebumps. 

Edited January 26 by 303_Kermit

[Smyth]

12 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

MiG-21bis / MF - 2x 500kg + 2x250kg 
MiG 21 has 3 generations, and none of them is considered a Fighter bomber. However some versions were capable of carrying even nuclear warheads, plane itself posess no true ground Attack possibilities. During 1972 war of attrition Egypt used those plane in that role - evaluated as useless in A2G, in opinion of both sides. In whole Warsaw pact there was a term of "Training ground weather" - 0m/s wind no clouds etc. In other weather conditions it wasn't even practiced. Practical use of MiG-21 in CAS missions was never seriously taken into account. Other types of A2G missions (deep strike etc.) were not even considered. saying that it's "One of his important missions" is a wishful thinking and bending facts into own opinion. no. MiG-21 isn't a fighter bomber. Almost every fighter since WW1 can carry some bomb ordnance. A6M Zero, F4F-3 Wildcat, Bf-109 F/G/K, FW-190A (however his F and G mods are fighter bombers), F-86 Sabre, and many others. Not every Fighter with capabilities of carrying some bombs is considered a fighter bomber.

Su-7bkl - a modification of Su-7 which originally by design was planned to use as nuclear warheads only. Without capabilities of carrying conventional payload.
Adaptation to classical A2G role came later, and was rather improvised one. But... 4x500kg - is for Su-7bkl a fully operational payload

Mirage III isn't a fighter bomber, it was rather a role of Mirage 5 isn't it?

• It is not up to us on this forum to decide if the MiG-21 can be a fighter-bomber, but rather the Soviet VVS who equipped many Fighter-Bomber Regiments with them. Take it up with the USSR. As for your other examples:
  • A6M had a dedicated dive-bomber version - the A6M7. Argue that one with the Imperial Japanese Empire.
  • There are entire books written on the Bf-109 as a Jagdbomber, so there is no need for me to write an essay about it here.
  • According the the 1956 USAF F86F SAC "The principal mission of the F-86F airplane is Fighter-Bomber."
• Su7B of any version, BKL or otherwise, can take 4x 500kg bombs only without external fuel, which is not normal.
• Dassault on their history page say: "The Mirage III E, ordered on April 6, 1960, was designed for low-altitude air strikes." At least Dassault still exists, so you really could argue with them about this if you wanted.

I do not wish to derail this thread any further arguing with one person over the definition of a fighter-bomber. Instead I will patiently wait to enjoy the DCS module flying the specific missions (both A-A and A-G) for which it is suitable, and not the ones (both A-A and A-G) for which it is not suitable.

[303_Kermit]

13 hours ago, Smyth said:

• It is not up to us on this forum to decide if the MiG-21 can be a fighter-bomber, but rather the Soviet VVS who equipped many Fighter-Bomber Regiments with them. Take it up with the USSR. As for your other examples:
  • A6M had a dedicated dive-bomber version - the A6M7. Argue that one with the Imperial Japanese Empire.
  • There are entire books written on the Bf-109 as a Jagdbomber, so there is no need for me to write an essay about it here.
  • According the the 1956 USAF F86F SAC "The principal mission of the F-86F airplane is Fighter-Bomber."
• Su7B of any version, BKL or otherwise, can take 4x 500kg bombs only without external fuel, which is not normal.
• Dassault on their history page say: "The Mirage III E, ordered on April 6, 1960, was designed for low-altitude air strikes." At least Dassault still exists, so you really could argue with them about this if you wanted.

I do not wish to derail this thread any further arguing with one person over the definition of a fighter-bomber. Instead I will patiently wait to enjoy the DCS module flying the specific missions (both A-A and A-G) for which it is suitable, and not the ones (both A-A and A-G) for which it is not suitable.

Rubbish. If you don't want to argue then don't   nobody forces you.

As for your arguments... They are weaker and weaker. You may call a working girl "A Lady", and she's still going to charge you before the night is over. In both cases - it's just wishful thinking. 

[TLTeo]

That is certainly one of the analogies ever.

Kermit, what do you think the role of VVS fighter bomber regiments flying the Mig21 was?

[Stratos]

On 1/25/2025 at 2:05 PM, fausete said:

We've only publicly confirmed the G Consortium version. That doesn't it's the only version we're planning on making.

Maybe is a problem with the translation, but does that mean Aerges plans to release at least another variant apart of the F-104G?

[fausete]

There was a word missing, corrected now.

[Stratos]

34 minutes ago, fausete said:

There was a word missing, corrected now.

Really interesting!

[TLTeo]

Yep! I wonder what else they're considering. I think if I could choose any other variant on top of the consortium G, I'd go with a Vietnam deployments-era C.

[Bremspropeller]

I'm game for a TF, the Charlie or the Sierra - or the Alpha with the -19.

Aerges will make a good choice, I'm sure.

[yewls]

G, TF-G, C, and big block A would be my ideal variants

[kontiuka]

7 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Aerges will make a good choice, I'm sure.

And people will crap on them for it, lol

[303_Kermit]

On 1/26/2025 at 5:03 PM, TLTeo said:

Kermit, what do you think the role of VVS fighter bomber regiments flying the Mig21 was?

Here is an answer:
https://www.16va.be/3.3_appui_tactique_part3_eng.html

In short: PF, PFM, PFS, SMT were transition plane between Fighter bomber variants of MiG-17 and SU-7B/BM, later replaced by MiG-27 / Su-17. When MF and bis came into service, there were no place for MiG-21 in frontline fighter - bomber units. From second half of '70 MiG-27 and Su-17 came to replace them. 

 

On 1/27/2025 at 5:27 AM, kontiuka said:

And people will crap on them for it, lol

Why? MRF1 is best DCS module. Nobody complains. F-104"G" is excellent choice. "Der Witwenmacher". Can't wait.

[Bigskill]

Il 25/01/2025 at 06:00, Silver_Dragon ha scritto:

No with Aerges. There are more possibilities of an S version, with the 3rd party IndiaFoxtEcho, which has more at hand the data of an F-104S, being Italian.

Never happened before, what will happen if the other company has more success than Aerges? There will be an internal argue. Same reason why none will be clear to make An Apache A, an F16 A etc... it will most likely be Aerges to make different Variant.

[Vee.A]

On 1/21/2025 at 5:45 AM, Bremspropeller said:

The 104G IIRC was the first INS application with all the associated troubles with new tech.

The Mirage III and 5 never carried INS until the later upgrades. The IIIE (and derivatives) out of the factory carried doppler sets. Earliest application of an INS in a Mirage seems to be the Mirage IIIRS upgrade in 1967 with the LN-33, which is the next gen INS to the LN-3 in the 104G. IIRC, the Canadians also upgraded their LN-3 equipped CFs to the LN-33 later.

On a similar note, the LN-33 is the one Nineline was looking into for the F-5E.

[Fitzcarraldo]

On 1/26/2025 at 7:51 PM, TLTeo said:

Yep! I wonder what else they're considering. I think if I could choose any other variant on top of the consortium G, I'd go with a Vietnam deployments-era C.

I'd be happy with anything that can Fox 1.