What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?

[303_Kermit]

TBH I see only one true problem with F-104G Starfighter.

Looks cool in every single one livery ... How shall I choose one? Throw coins?

 

[Vee.A]

Just now, 303_Kermit said:

TBH I see only one true problem with F-104G Starfighter.

Looks cool in every single one livery ... How shall I choose one? Throw coins?

 

Canada always makes the best liveries.

[BalkanBattler]

On 1/25/2025 at 8:05 AM, fausete said:

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

Have we mentioned recently how much we love you guys? Seriously thank you for the multiple versions of the Mirage F-1. This is the bar to which all other DCS modules should be compared. Love that you are considering multiple variants for the 104!

[Kalasnkova74]

On 1/25/2025 at 5:55 PM, 303_Kermit said:

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.

 

Stats can be misleading without context.

USAF strike crews of the time were based in Thailand, which was approximately a 700 mile flight one way. When the round trip from base to target and back is 2,240 kilometers fuel and payload become primary metrics.
 

One of the lesser known reasons USAF Phantom II crews couldn’t match their Navy equivalents in MiG kills was fuel range. Naval fighters were based near the coast, and could surprise North Vietnamese air defense teams with unpredictable arrival vectors. USAF crews had an exponentially longer trip and were identified hours before entering North Vietnam. A consistent refrain you see in the Red Baron reports on MiG engagements that didn’t end in a kill was fuel concerns, which makes sense given the distances. 

The F-104 was not designed for that kind of long-range aerial campaign. It was built on the lessons of Korea, which was a much smaller battlespace. Further its refueling system - probe/drogue- was incompatible with the boom system established by SAC to refuel their bombers.

The final nail in the F-104s air to air career in Vietnam was the North Vietnamese. They had radar and ELINT SA on US aircraft movements and knew to steer well clear of the Starfighters. While this was to the advantage of the EC-121s , Operation Bolo F-4Cs and EB-66s those Starfighters escorted, it meant their odds of fighting a MiG were very low no matter how competent the aircraft and crew.

The one engagement on record between an F-104 flight and a single MiG-21 ended with the Fishbed-D pilot punching tanks and running away. A wise decision by the MiG pilot , but hardly the stuff of MiG killer books and movies. 

 

 

 

[303_Kermit]

On 4/11/2025 at 3:41 PM, Kalasnkova74 said:

Stats can be misleading without context.

Yes, but assuming all you said, does it make F-105 "Wholly inadequate for Air to Air combat" As someone tried to convince us? Because that was the whole point.

Edited April 13 by 303_Kermit

[Saguanay]

On 1/20/2025 at 11:24 AM, yewls said:

 

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.

That is a SUU-21 Practice dispenser. In the RCAF, we called it the MN-1A.   It is not a napalm cannister.

 

[Tengah]

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, you have all given me an interesting balance of opinions and facts.

Now, please forgive my sense of humour for a brief moment...

At the risk of being something of a troll:  You see... Aerges missed a trick here...  Instead of the F-104 they should have gone with the E.E Lightning, starting with the F2a, the F3, then the F6, culminating in the F.Mk 53... maybe as a bonus, the T5.  That way, certain people, for all their verbosity, would feel vindicated with their arguments in this thread.

 

 

 

Longevity of flight... Oooh about 30 to 40 mins with max fuel and sparing the use of reheat...  Mind you, a stonking thrust-to-weight ratio greater than the F-104G (cue the hate)... 

Now, was the Lightning a capable A2G platform?  Ask the Kuwait and Saudi Air Forces.

A flying instructor on 1FTS Linton-on-Ouse (1980-something or other.  I am that old for the people in the know) once informed me that:  You can take a fighter and strap bombs on it, you cannot take a bomber and make a fighter of the bloody thing.

As a side note to my previous memoir, the 105 was no slouch as an air-to-air opponent in its day.  On several occasions, I consider myself lucky to have enjoyed the company of a perhaps lesser known, but accomplished Thud driver (F-105 - Vietnam - 1 Mig-17 Kill confirmed, 2nd Mig-17 unconfirmed due to gun camera malfunction).  Whilst the proverbial hangar doors were open, much to the irritation of wives & sweethearts, the conversation would always turn to his time on the 105, especially his "kills".  Whenever discussing the A2A ability of the F-105, he was always vehement that the mighty Thud could hold its own in the hands of the right-minded individual.  He would often say that if a 105 driver found himself in a situation not to his liking, then hit the deck and run out at 800+ knots, as he would say, they were limited (in terms of airspeed) by the amount of heat the canopy seals could take.

My two cents...  This is DCS, we all come here to fly in a virtual medium, whether single or multiplayer.  Aerges has picked up a wonderful project, and we should all be grateful that when it is released, we will be able to fly (virtually) this incredible aircraft, in whatever manner we choose, hopefully in all the roles the aircraft was capable of. 

The F-104 in whatever guise was an A2G platform at some point; the Canadians used them mostly, if not solely, in the A2G role. 

I couldn't give a fig about the F-104's survivability in a PvP server as I won't be taking it there.  I like to fly in DCS in a PvE multiplayer setting as accurately to the real world as I can, together with like-minded people, even if we are flying relatively poor performing aircraft against a superior opposition.  This is what makes the challenge, the sense of accomplishment when you succeed, after all, the likes of the Lightning, Buccaneer, F-100, F-105, and F-104 performed admirably in combat settings (maybe not as well as expected or hoped) whilst being mentally & physically "impressive" to fly and operate, otherwise they would not have stayed in service for so long and loved by the people who flew them.  At the end of the day, it is down to the individual to do with the aircraft what he or she chooses, with no consideration required as to its actual operating capabilities; no one has the right to judge.

For the sake of argument, I will acquiesce to the anti-F-104 A2G debate by making an arrogant statement of fact... If I were flying the 104 in a public server, it would be in low-level A2G.  The simple reason is that OPFOR would have a devil of a time trying to catch me.  I would be in and out at 500ft or less whilst driving at the speed of heat with one hand on the wheel, dropping accurately, making pork chops of Miss Piggy, before any opposing force knew what hittem and most definitely running away bravely.  This the F-104 could do, and by golly, if Aerges and DCS are going to allow me the opportunity to do it... Well? 

Now, with that said, if I do not get a reaction, there is no justice.  

To settle the BS'ery here:  The 104 was used as an air-to-air, reconnaissance, anti-shipping, and air-to-ground platform.  Whether it was good or bad in any regime, I don't care, it was/is one heck of an aircraft, and if modelled correctly (model the BLC, Aerges, the BLC!) it will be one of the best aircraft to hit our beloved simulation, overshadowed by the F-105 of course ... If we ever get so lucky.

Let's not forget we are a community; we all need to play nice to support developers such as Aerges, who bring us the nice toys we are all so desperate for.  With this said, I will touch my forelock to Kermit, et al, in acknowledgement of the ongoing debate; there was a lot of good reading, even if I was chuckling to myself at times.

I, for one, cannot wait for the Silver Sliver, I will fly it in whatever role I choose, as and when and according to what the Devs at Aerges provide.   

Anyone got any Beemans?  Loan me a stick, I'll pay you back later...  

Edited for clarification.

Edited April 22 by Tengah

[MAXsenna]

20 hours ago, Tengah said:

At the risk of being something of a troll:  You see... Aerges missed a trick here...  Instead of the F-104 they should have gone with the E.E Lightning,

 

20 hours ago, Tengah said:

Now, was the Lightning a capable A2G platform?  Ask the Kuwait and Saudi Air Forces.

Here's your answer. It wasn't used by Spain.  

[Tengah]

4 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Here's your answer. It wasn't used by Spain.  

Oh geez, I just died!  Excellent retort, Max

 

[303_Kermit]

On 4/22/2025 at 3:17 PM, Tengah said:

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, you have all given me an interesting balance of opinions and facts.

Now, please forgive my sense of humour for a brief moment...

At the risk of being something of a troll:  You see... Aerges missed a trick here...  Instead of the F-104 they should have gone with the E.E Lightning, starting with the F2a, the F3, then the F6, culminating in the F.Mk 53... maybe as a bonus, the T5.  That way, certain people, for all their verbosity, would feel vindicated with their arguments in this thread.

 

 

 

Longevity of flight... Oooh about 30 to 40 mins with max fuel and sparing the use of reheat...  Mind you, a stonking thrust-to-weight ratio greater than the F-104G (cue the hate)... 

Now, was the Lightning a capable A2G platform?  Ask the Kuwait and Saudi Air Forces.

A flying instructor on 1FTS Linton-on-Ouse (1980-something or other.  I am that old for the people in the know) once informed me that:  You can take a fighter and strap bombs on it, you cannot take a bomber and make a fighter of the bloody thing.

As a side note to my previous memoir, the 105 was no slouch as an air-to-air opponent in its day.  On several occasions, I consider myself lucky to have enjoyed the company of a perhaps lesser known, but accomplished Thud driver (F-105 - Vietnam - 1 Mig-17 Kill confirmed, 2nd Mig-17 unconfirmed due to gun camera malfunction).  Whilst the proverbial hangar doors were open, much to the irritation of wives & sweethearts, the conversation would always turn to his time on the 105, especially his "kills".  Whenever discussing the A2A ability of the F-105, he was always vehement that the mighty Thud could hold its own in the hands of the right-minded individual.  He would often say that if a 105 driver found himself in a situation not to his liking, then hit the deck and run out at 800+ knots, as he would say, they were limited (in terms of airspeed) by the amount of heat the canopy seals could take.

My two cents...  This is DCS, we all come here to fly in a virtual medium, whether single or multiplayer.  Aerges has picked up a wonderful project, and we should all be grateful that when it is released, we will be able to fly (virtually) this incredible aircraft, in whatever manner we choose, hopefully in all the roles the aircraft was capable of. 

The F-104 in whatever guise was an A2G platform at some point; the Canadians used them mostly, if not solely, in the A2G role. 

I couldn't give a fig about the F-104's survivability in a PvP server as I won't be taking it there.  I like to fly in DCS in a PvE multiplayer setting as accurately to the real world as I can, together with like-minded people, even if we are flying relatively poor performing aircraft against a superior opposition.  This is what makes the challenge, the sense of accomplishment when you succeed, after all, the likes of the Lightning, Buccaneer, F-100, F-105, and F-104 performed admirably in combat settings (maybe not as well as expected or hoped) whilst being mentally & physically "impressive" to fly and operate, otherwise they would not have stayed in service for so long and loved by the people who flew them.  At the end of the day, it is down to the individual to do with the aircraft what he or she chooses, with no consideration required as to its actual operating capabilities; no one has the right to judge.

For the sake of argument, I will acquiesce to the anti-F-104 A2G debate by making an arrogant statement of fact... If I were flying the 104 in a public server, it would be in low-level A2G.  The simple reason is that OPFOR would have a devil of a time trying to catch me.  I would be in and out at 500ft or less whilst driving at the speed of heat with one hand on the wheel, dropping accurately, making pork chops of Miss Piggy, before any opposing force knew what hittem and most definitely running away bravely.  This the F-104 could do, and by golly, if Aerges and DCS are going to allow me the opportunity to do it... Well? 

Now, with that said, if I do not get a reaction, there is no justice.  

To settle the BS'ery here:  The 104 was used as an air-to-air, reconnaissance, anti-shipping, and air-to-ground platform.  Whether it was good or bad in any regime, I don't care, it was/is one heck of an aircraft, and if modelled correctly (model the BLC, Aerges, the BLC!) it will be one of the best aircraft to hit our beloved simulation, overshadowed by the F-105 of course ... If we ever get so lucky.

Let's not forget we are a community; we all need to play nice to support developers such as Aerges, who bring us the nice toys we are all so desperate for.  With this said, I will touch my forelock to Kermit, et al, in acknowledgement of the ongoing debate; there was a lot of good reading, even if I was chuckling to myself at times.

I, for one, cannot wait for the Silver Sliver, I will fly it in whatever role I choose, as and when and according to what the Devs at Aerges provide.   

Anyone got any Beemans?  Loan me a stick, I'll pay you back later...  

Edited for clarification.

 Only Mother can love that Quasimodo...

[MAXsenna]

 Only Mother can love that Quasimodo...

Or a speed devil.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Tengah]

As Max said...

[303_Kermit]

13 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Or a speed devil.
 

Not that much... I mean... F-104 combat range - 420nm vs EEL combat range 135nm. Is it even worth to take off??

Purely defensive plane. Not a fighter - just Interceptor. Not very capable one, since there is no place for bigger radar antenna, and no serious Fox 1 missiles could be used on it.
Unable to perform any mission behind the front line not A2A nor A2G (well... Kuwait is exception, but it isn't a very big country - they could ignore massive thirst of Lightning and his non existing range, since they sleep on Oil, and they country is so small, that you may see both ends from one tower in between them)
No CAP, just GAI missions like MiG-21F-13 or MiG-21 PF/PFM (SPS). Very limited usage. You would be bored flying it after 5 days. 

It's actually very funny if one think:
Adm. Yamamoto was killed during first known purposely performed Interception mission - thanks to huge range of P-38. British Lightning in spite of his speed would be unable to perform that interception. But if you live on an Island you can built fighters that can't reach speed of sound - pretending that they do, or build very fast interceptor, that is unable to utilize his great speed/climb anywhere except well prepared exercises.

As for armament... a photo pasted by @Tengah shows one big nothing. Not Impressive even for modest F-104G capabilities. 

Many guys will gladly Ignore limitations of F-104 - because it's thrilling to fly , insanely pretty, and it's a legend known all over the world. 
EEL is nowhere near to that. It's ugly from every possible angle, and seem to be a one trick pony.

Edited 14 hours ago by 303_Kermit

[TheBiggerBass]

vor einer Stunde schrieb 303_Kermit:

Not that much... I mean... F-104 combat range - 420nm vs EEL combat range 135nm. Is it even worth to take off??

Purely defensive plane. Not a fighter - just Interceptor. Not very capable one, since there is no place for bigger radar antenna, and no serious Fox 1 missiles could be used on it.
Unable to perform any mission behind the front line not A2A nor A2G (well... Kuwait is exception, but it isn't a very big country - they could ignore massive thirst of Lightning and his non existing range, since they sleep on Oil, and they country is so small, that you may see both ends from one tower in between them)
No CAP, just GAI missions like MiG-21F-13 or MiG-21 PF/PFM (SPS). Very limited usage. You would be bored flying it after 5 days.

Reading all these limitations - I'm surprised that any foreign airforce ever decided to buy the F-104. I live in Germany, where the F-104 was "famous" - or should I say notorious - in the 60ies for it's spectacular crashes and insane sonic booms. They were all substituted with Phantoms which turned out to be way better operable and useable.

Edited 13 hours ago by TheBiggerBass

[Stratos]

I will wait for someone to make a Toss bombing tutorial for big targets like rail yards or airfields. Even without nukes it will be fun as hell!

[Bremspropeller]

10 hours ago, TheBiggerBass said:

Reading all these limitations - I'm surprised that any foreign airforce ever decided to buy the F-104. I live in Germany, where the F-104 was "famous" - or should I say notorious - in the 60ies for it's spectacular crashes and insane sonic booms. They were all substituted with Phantoms which turned out to be way better operable and useable.

They decided to buy it for several reasons:

- one-size-fits-all "multirole" aircraft, which on paper the 104 did rather well

- best performance available at the point of contract-signing out of any aircraft "available" (the F-104G specs were just a paper plane at this time)

- customization by Lockheed into the specs that the Euro Air Forces wanted; no hand-me-down USAF (SAC-heavy at this point) aircraft

- liberal contracting of local construction of airframes and engines (tech transfer)

- INS, NASARR (F-105 radar), IRST

- high speed and good range at low level (about 1.5 times the range of an F-4 for a nuke profile)

- when the contract was signed, it was assumed that conflicts were going to be nuclear; conventional capability was not considered to be overly important

 

The following F-4 replacements came in:

- RF-4E replacing the RF-104G (in GAF service a useless jet without radar) in AG 51 and AG 52

- F-4F replacing 104Gs in JG 71 and JG 74

- F-4F replacing 104Gs in JaboG 36

 

The F-4s that replaced the 104 in the GAF were F-4Fs without Sparrow capability. The GAF didn't have use for Sparrows due to their limited air defense mission. JaboG 36 was a conventional-only unit, which made sense due to the Phantom's better conventional attack capabilty (which was even limited in the F-4F vs the F-4E).

The other conventional-only unit (JaboG 32) wasn't converted to F-4s and later converted to Tornados (like the nuke-Geschwader 104s and the Marineflieger), which came roundabout a decade later.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Bremspropeller

[TheBiggerBass]

@BremspropellerThanks for the info. Seems as it was/is part of your profession.

[Bremspropeller]

I wasn't, but at some time I became interested in the whole 104 affair and it soon showed that lots of strong opinins on the jet aren't based on proper understanding. That in large part is due to the smear campaigns by the press, wanting to hit back at FJ Strauss who had a news-magazine raided earlier. And because journos like to copy each other instead of actually going for a story. The story should not have been based on the "$h1tty jet", but on the fact that the whole organisation was incapable of technically and logistically supporting it, while other, smaller nations did a much better job. That was in part due to the 10-year post war hiatus of operting any kind of aeroplanes, but that's also a convenient excuse for organisational blunder.

Parallels to current events are purely coincidental...

 

For people that are actually interested in the 104G/ CF, get a copy of this book. It does a good job of explaining the strenghts and weaknesses of the 104 in it's recce and strike mission in the RCAF (mostly OPS'ing over Germany) and the general state of mind of 1960s and '70s Starfighter pilots. It helps understanding why so many jets crashed, flying an inherently dangerous mission - all weather low level strike and reconnaissance.

I can't recommend this book highly enough - if you can only own one book on the 104, it should be this one. It's been out of print for a long time, but it should surface in the bay every once in a while:

null

Edited 2 hours ago by Bremspropeller

[Rifter]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

They decided to buy it for several reasons:

[...]

Nice summary.

This particular point had great significance far beyond the decision-making processes and political sensitivities of the time:

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

- liberal contracting of local construction of airframes and engines (tech transfer)

 

This meant a far-reaching implication practically only made possible by the decision to go with the F-104: it enabled the West German aviation industry to return to world standards, since the F-104G could be built under license. FJS was planning to build a German defense industry so as to no longer be dependent on foreign deliveries in the long term. Until then, a lot of armaments had to be procured from abroad. For the Mirage III, which had been the favoured option for FJS for some time, the French (more precisely de Gaulle) had a clear opinion on licenses or nuclear weapons options.
From a longer-term perspective, as cynical as it may sound in view of the many pilots who died in accidents, it almost didn't matter how good or bad the Starfighter was. In the long run, it was a win for the german aerospace industry far beyond the operational period of the "Witwenmacher". It paved the way for Airbus, Tornado and Eurofighter.

[Bremspropeller]

Agree 100%

 

Btw, if you can read Dutch (which is sorta "drunk German"), this book is also worth looking into:

null