What capabilities should we expect from the F-104?

[303_Kermit]

On 1/6/2025 at 11:01 AM, ThePops said:

Not really. This is more about $ than most other things. There's only one reason to build a dedicated fighter bomber/attack aircraft, and that is to get the cost per boom down. For this to pay off, you have to drop a huge number of bombs. It also demands that you are able to do it without getting shot down, impossible without air superiority in a sitting duck like the A-10 for instance. In the cold war, if it should turn hot, there was no such thing as air superiority. The only way to do it was with speed. Get there fast, release some bombs/rockets/missiles, get out even faster. A fighter bomber and an interceptor therefore essentially had to operate with the same parameters, at least initially, which was the only thing that counted. Today we have long range Air to Air, SAMs and cruise missiles instead. And of course (suicide) drones which has created a new set of logics entirely.

In most ways, the F-104 was the perfect fighter bomber in it's time and in the environment it should operate IMO. More like a manned cruise missile.

Any plane armed with bombs is a sitting duck. Best example here is F-4 Phantom, and it's Vietnam battle experiences. USAF invested huge money in development of F-4E with wide A2G capabilities. Very soon they discovered:
1. A2G armed Phantom needs escort anyway (in fact USAF doctrine theoretic's never expected that fighter bomber will be able to defend by himself. Air domination is must have either way.)
2. Survival ability of A-10, A-4, A-7, A-6 on battlefield is many times higher than F-104, F-4, F-100 and others.
3. Suicide drones don't exist in '50-'60-'70 - don't mix modern warfare and F-104G

Building Fighter - Bomber was economically questionable from the very beginning. In a peace time - It's cheaper solution. In war time, it's surely more expensive. Ground attack plane don't need radar, expensive A2A weapon systems. Can be stripped from everything what is not absolutely necessary. F-105, A-4, A-7 were the examples of such solutions. They - not the F-104 took the role of delivering heavy punch.

[Bremspropeller]

45 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

Ground attack plane don't need radar, expensive A2A weapon systems. Can be stripped from everything what is not absolutely necessary. F-105, A-4, A-7 were the examples of such solutions. They - not the F-104 took the role of delivering heavy punch.

The F-105 had pretty much the same radar as the 104G.

The A-4 (starting with the Charlie) had a pretty capable radar and starting with the E a rather capable doppler nav set.

The A-7 was even moe advanced with it's (though ridimentary) TFR and it's later (Delta and Echo variants) advanced avionics package.

 

The major shortcoming of the 104 in the conventional role was the lack of payload-range (one word). Clean and with a bucket of sunshine (no matter how many tanks), it's range was actually quite good. Together with a good cruise capability (fast and smoot d/t high wing loading) it was quite capable unless you asked it to carry a lot. It also had a rather low RCS for shipping attacks.

[TLTeo]

Also, the A-10 had the highest loss rate out of all types deployed in Desert Storm, to the point where it was very very heavily restricted in where it operated, so I wouldn't exactly call it survivable.

edit: oh and of course, the Viggen had an extremely capable nav/attack system. In fact basically anything from that era tasked with all weather strike used onboard avionics to actually navigate to their target.

Edited January 9 by TLTeo

[303_Kermit]

23 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The F-105 had pretty much the same radar as the 104G.

The A-4 (starting with the Charlie) had a pretty capable radar and starting with the E a rather capable doppler nav set.

The A-7 was even moe advanced with it's (though ridimentary) TFR and it's later (Delta and Echo variants) advanced avionics package.

 

The major shortcoming of the 104 in the conventional role was the lack of payload-range (one word). Clean and with a bucket of sunshine (no matter how many tanks), it's range was actually quite good. Together with a good cruise capability (fast and smoot d/t high wing loading) it was quite capable unless you asked it to carry a lot. It also had a rather low RCS for shipping attacks.

It's really worth to compare. Payload and range with that payload.
-F-104 Plane with tiny wings, taking tiny payload , able to deliver it very inaccurately, really hard to take off with any A2G payload, unable to dodge any SAM with full payload, maneuverable like a train, and fragile for any hit.
There is probably a reason why even F-100 conducted more A2G missions over north and south Vietnam.

The question is not how much better in A2G than F-104 are those mentioned aircrafts, but if there's actually any aircraft worse in that role? I doubt. F-104 proved being capable fighter in 1958 during Taiwan Strait Crisis, but never performed well as Ground Attack. In fact, during Vietnam War even F-105/F-100 were considered too fast, and too inaccurate for that role. It was  later learned especially by Luftwaffe in very hard way, that it's a very bad idea...

[ThePops]

On 1/9/2025 at 7:09 PM, 303_Kermit said:

3. Suicide drones don't exist in '50-'60-'70 - don't mix modern warfare and F-104G

I didn't. What I said was that the F-104 was the "cruise missile" of the 60s/70s and that suicide drones have created an entire new logics.

What Luftwaffe learned was that Luftwaffe needed to re-structure everything starting with basic training. Operating the F-104 as if it was some kind of IL-2 or later incarnation, is obviously stupid on several levels. That's what Luftwaffe learned (the hard way) amongst other things. The F-104 was very good at the things it was good at, but it was no multirole fighter, like the F-5 or F-4 or later the F-16 which pretty much has re-defined the term to another level.

We have to look at the F-104 for what it was, not for what it never was. What it was good at was interception and fast pin-point strike missions, especially at sea. Both are very difficult operations and are today done exclusively by missiles, launched from air, sea or ground. It never helped that the F-104 was a handful to fly either.

Again, it really is back to economics. What an air force needs is a fleet of multirole fighters that do everything well. The few things that the F-104 did well, can be done better with any 4th gen fighter due to cruise missiles and BVR, not because they are better aircraft for those particular roles. Even though the F-104 in principle could be modernized with modern radar, modern avionics, modern weapon systems etc, this would make zero sense because you would still need another sort of very complex and expensive aircraft for all the other roles. There's no economic incentive to have an F-104 (or similar aircraft for that matter). At the end of the 70s, the F-104 was already a dead end, economically speaking. 

It's an interesting matter IMO. Looking at the F-104 and F-5. Norway got both in the early 60s. The F-5 was the multirole fighter that it is. Very economical and does the job well, especially CAS. The bang for the buck is almost impossible to surpass. They doubled the number of F-104 in the early 70s. 2 squadrons, one for interception, one for strike attack at sea primarily. Both are tasks for which the F-5 is ill suited (I mean they simply won't work in that role). When the F-16 came in the early 80s, all F-104s were retired immediately. Now, one would naturally believe that this would also lead to retirement of the F-5s, since the number of F-16s almost doubled the number of F-104s, and the F-16 is a much better fighter-bomber than the F-5. This did not happen. The humble F-5s were kept another 25 years, but of course gradually decreasing in numbers due to age/fatigue and cut backs. They were even modernized, at least 2 times. There's only one reason for that, and that is economics. In the CAS role, bang for the buck is king. Today Norway got F-35 exclusively. Economically it must be the most expensive thing ever for the CAS role, but perhaps survivability makes up for it? Who knows. IMO it's a bit odd that no modern "F-5" exists; simple, cheap and does the job well. 

[bfr]

On 1/9/2025 at 8:26 PM, TLTeo said:

Also, the A-10 had the highest loss rate out of all types deployed in Desert Storm, to the point where it was very very heavily restricted in where it operated, so I wouldn't exactly call it survivable.

edit: oh and of course, the Viggen had an extremely capable nav/attack system. In fact basically anything from that era tasked with all weather strike used onboard avionics to actually navigate to their target.

There were also a few cases of A-10s making it back to base with pretty epic amounts of battle damage, so in that sense it was survivable.  The Tornado also suffered losses until they changed tactics from the initial 'low and fast'. If you're a platform that is flying tactics that are the equivalent of sticking your head in the lions mouth then you're probably going to get bit occasionally.

[Bremspropeller]

18 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

It's really worth to compare. Payload and range with that payload.
-F-104 Plane with tiny wings, taking tiny payload , able to deliver it very inaccurately, really hard to take off with any A2G payload, unable to dodge any SAM with full payload, maneuverable like a train, and fragile for any hit.
There is probably a reason why even F-100 conducted more A2G missions over north and south Vietnam.

The question is not how much better in A2G than F-104 are those mentioned aircrafts, but if there's actually any aircraft worse in that role? I doubt. F-104 proved being capable fighter in 1958 during Taiwan Strait Crisis, but never performed well as Ground Attack. In fact, during Vietnam War even F-105/F-100 were considered too fast, and too inaccurate for that role. It was  later learned especially by Luftwaffe in very hard way, that it's a very bad idea...

Why would the 104 be able to deliver inaccurately only? The jet had the same limitations as the others mentioned. Manual bombing was the norm back then.

The reason why the F-100 conducted more missions was that there were a good deal more of them around, which is mostly down to political reasons in the USAF internal power struggle between SAC and the other commands, which SAC won. By 1965 (first 104 deployment to SEA), only one active fighter wing of 104Cs was around.

What exactly did the Luftwaffe learn? During NATO meets, F-104 squadrons would often come out on top in both recce and bombing. Not just Luftwaffe, but also RCAF and other NATO air forces' 104s.

[TLTeo]

16 minutes ago, bfr said:

There were also a few cases of A-10s making it back to base with pretty epic amounts of battle damage, so in that sense it was survivable.  The Tornado also suffered losses until they changed tactics from the initial 'low and fast'. If you're a platform that is flying tactics that are the equivalent of sticking your head in the lions mouth then you're probably going to get bit occasionally.

This is survivor bias at its best. The Tornado contingents were tasked with some of the most dangerous missions of the war into the thickest air defenses. The A-10 was not. And yet only one of the airframes was forced to fly into zones with effectively no air defenses, despite "making it back to base with epic amounts of battle damage".

Quote

The reason why the F-100 conducted more missions was that there were a good deal more of them around

Bro is really ignoring the fact that the TAC had 70 F-104Cs vs hundreds of F-100s and F-105s. And also, funnily enough, that the F-100 barely flew North because its performance and avionics weren't up to the deep strike mission (guess what the F-104G has in spades compared to the Super Sabre...).

Quote

Operating the F-104 as if it was some kind of IL-2 or later incarnation

edit: literally nobody flew the F-104 this way, that mission was mostly taken up by the G-91/F-84F/F-5/Hunter depending on the operator. The main tasking of a2g F-104s was to make small suns in Eastern Europe, not to plink tanks like it's a War Thunder match. Its secondary a2g missions were recce/interdiction/deep conventional strike/anti shipping. CAS (which people think is the only a2g mission for whatever reason) was much farther down the priority list. And on a related note, all the above (and interception) are missions that the F-5 is thoroughly mediocre at.

Edited January 11 by TLTeo

[Bremspropeller]

The 104G is basicly 105D avionics (with an INS instead of a doppler*) shoehorned into a smaller airframe.

The 105 scored a 1:1 kill ratio against MiG-17s. Now imagine what a jet with roundabout the same Ps at 5g as the 105D at 0g (SL) could possibly have achieved.

 

 

*INS was only available starting with the "Thunderstick II" modification in the late 60s.

[Smyth]

Speed is life -> Starfighter is fast as **** -> Starfighter is life

I don't know where the idea comes from that the F104G struggled to carry its payload as a fighter-bomber. It was designed to carry a 2000lb B28, and only carried ~2000lb of iron on a typical conventional mission. Unimpressive for its empty mass, but also not a problem to fly. That's single-digit percent increase in takeoff weight compared to a clean intercept mission with the same fuel.

Long-term operational issues in specific peacetime context are important but not directly related to combat capability.

[303_Kermit]

On 1/11/2025 at 1:54 PM, TLTeo said:

Bro is really ignoring the fact that the TAC had 70 F-104Cs vs hundreds of F-100s and F-105s. And also, funnily enough, that the F-100 barely flew North because its performance and avionics weren't up to the deep strike mission (guess what the F-104G has in spades compared to the Super Sabre...).

I would appreciate if you don't call me a "bro". That's first. 
if there were only 70 F-104 that is probably a reason for it. If plane is capable - he's ordered in numbers, and deployed in numbers. If it's not working as expected - it makes little sense. That's second.

as for F-100... young man. Please check before you type something. Otherwise you bring confusion to the topic. We may disagree, but we all try to stick to the facts:
yes over north Vietnam it wasn't used in biggest mission numbers - if we take into account whole war, but at the beginning of war F-100 conducted 5 000 missions over North Vietnam. It was used massively in most important task this war. Bombing Ho-Chi -Minh trail. There- where finding a target under dense jungle cover was very important. And if it's not a deep strike mission than check your definitions. I'd like also to remember you, that famous Wild Weasels started from these very plane. Famous "first in last out" came from it. Sure - it was than replaced by better planes, but he wasn't replaced by F-104. They both were replaced by F-105, F-4, A-6 etc. F-100 marks a beginning of Vietnam War. And being in service in the same time as F-104 he was always first choice over F-104 to air strike role. F-100 Remained long time active in combat duty over North Vietnam unlike F-104. F-100 was used in abut 360 000 combat missions over Ch-Chi Minh trail and South Vietnam (I count together Tiger Hound, Steel Tiger, "Praire Fire" and CAS over South Vietnam and Laos). 
For Tiger Hound and Steel Tiger US used AFAIK such planes:

1. F-100 Super Sabre (CAS and Misty FAC).
2. A-1 Skyraider (low-altitude precision strikes).
3. B-52 Stratofortress (strategic bombing under Operation Arc Light).
4. F-4 Phantom II (air superiority and strike missions).
5. OV-10 Bronco, Cessna (Super)Skymaster, and other FAC aircraft.

That's third.
null

Thank you.

PS. I don't mention F-104 contribution to A2G missions, but it's very easy to check. Wasn't good in deep strike, wasn't good in precise strike, and wasn't good in CAS missions. After modifying F-104 to be capable of A2G he was moved back to air superiority missions and other operation areas / theaters.

 

Edited January 12 by 303_Kermit

[ThePops]

This is a bit like saying that VHS is better than Betamax because VHS "won". All by gone history now, and everyone knows that the "best" format didn't win

Anyway, back to topic. The F-104 (G) was used primary as interceptor and in the deep/precise strike role, particularly naval role the last 10-20 years of operation. With INS, suitable radar, RWR and the Bullpup or Kormoran missile + rockets/bombs, as well as being small and fast, it was pretty much state of the art in air to sea until the late 70s/early 80s as far as fighter-bomber/attack aircraft go.

In many ways the Mirage F-1 is the next logical step after the F-104. A direction in fighter development largely abandoned today, replaced by the more cost effective 4th gen aircraft, and now 5th gen.

A German FB version of some kind could easily work as any f-104 FB version. But we must also have an interceptor variant IMO.    

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

If plane is capable - he's ordered in numbers, and deployed in numbers. If it's not working as expected - it makes little sense. That's second.

No. The reason why the 104 wasn't bought in great numbers was stated above: USAF internal political games, where SAC came out on top and everything else kind of had to fall in line. That's mostly a nuclear primary role and no light dual role aircraft for the air superirity mission with the secondary ground attack mission - literally what the 104 was designed to do, which was in essence take a Sabre, install a large-a$$ motor, take most of the wings off and go vertical. Contrary to popular belief, the Super Sabre wasn't all that super and quickly was handed down to TAC as a fighter-bomber with the C and D versions. On top, most Super Sabres were on the way out, when the war got interesting in terms of electronical warfare or they had their stage shifted into the South. Late in the game, besides Misty, it was mostly an ANG show of Hun deployment into SEA. The Hun was a cool jet for 1957, but it was out of place a decade later. It was there, in numbers, however.

Most ANG squadrons in the F-104 community flew the A model, which had been a stopgap for the F-102A fiasco during the late 50s. When the taylor-made-for-ADC Dagger and later the Dart (which also underperformed at first) came about in greater numbers, the 104A was handed down to ANG and out of there quickly. It also had no AG capability other than the gun (if installed).

The lack of 104s in country was mostly for reasons other than the aircraft's capability, which included a fast reaction time to station for CAS work.

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

It was used massively in most important task this war. Bombing Ho-Chi -Minh trail. There- where finding a target under dense jungle cover was very important.

And it mostly failed, just like all the other jets and whizz-bang gadgetry did.

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

And being in service in the same time as F-104 he was always first choice over F-104 to air strike role. F-100 Remained long time active in combat duty over North Vietnam unlike F-104.

Because they were there. If there's only one fighter wing of 104Cs about, they'll get rotated in and out of country quickly, while the Hun community had more wings and squadrons to rotate into action. Including ANG squadrons.
If there's only one wing operating the jet in country, you'll run into logistics (parts) issues quickly. Also, you'd want to rotate personnel in and out of country on regular basis, which is kinda hard when there's a small pool to draw from in the first place.

Here's what Tom Delashaw had to say about it - he kinda had to know as he had been there:

https://www.i-f-s.nl/vietnam/

2 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

PS. I don't mention F-104 contribution to A2G missions, but it's very easy to check. Wasn't good in deep strike, wasn't good in precise strike, and wasn't good in CAS missions. After modifying F-104 to be capable of A2G he was moved back to air superiority missions and other operation areas / theaters.

Most european based NATO Air Forces disagree with your assessment. WARPAC countries (namely the EGAF) found themselves very challenged at intercepting aircraft in the 104G's projected role - low, fast and deep in any weather.

Edited January 12 by Bremspropeller

[TLTeo]

It's also worth mentioning that ~1000-2000lbs worth of payload is in line with loadouts used by plenty of other aircraft - e.g. during Desert Storm the A-4, A-7, AV-8B, Mirage F1, Jaguar, A-4, F-16, F-18 and Tornado IDS all carried loadouts in that range (e.g. 4x Mk 82s, or a single LGB, or 4x rockeyes). The F-104 was slightly on the lower end for sure, but it was in no way, shape or form crippling.

[303_Kermit]

I both posts above there's not a single sensible, logical, based on some fact and data argument. A lot of words but lack of content and facts, or numbers. It's like discussion with some flat earth society members. They also talk a lot, avoiding any sense as hard as they can. 

Keep things simple, use Occam's razor.

I'd like to see how any of you will perform in any PvP server in F-104 proving your point.

Edited January 12 by 303_Kermit

[fausete]

Please, discussions are great, but remember to keep things civil.

[ThePops]

9 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

I'd like to see how any of you will perform in any PvP server in F-104 proving your point.

That will perhaps be a thing with the F-104. There has to be an environment where it will work well. It's no F-16/F-18 that anyone can jump into and do an OK "job". It's probably better suited for well crafted campaigns or dedicated servers focusing on the 60s/70s era. 

[ThePops]

On 1/12/2025 at 5:19 PM, ThePops said:

and the Bullpup

Need to comment on this, since I found another source (a book I didn't remember I had)  which I find a tad more trustworthy.

The image is from testing of the Bullpup missile. The red pod is camera/measurement equipment for the testing. The Bullpup missile was produced (amongst others) by Kongsberg (Norway) and they had a test range for it. The aircraft in the picture is a (R)F-104G from Lockheed used as a test bed. The first source mentioned that the CF-104s which they got in the early 70s was modified to be equipped with this missile. This is apparently not so according to the other source. The Bullpup was only tested on the F-104, but the CF-104 was never equipped with the bullpup in active service. It was only the F-5 which had the Bullpup, and I believe that was standard equipment from Northrop?

Tests with the Bullpup on the F-104 was obviously done in the late 60s though. I guess the results were too suicidal ?   

[303_Kermit]

On 1/13/2025 at 10:00 AM, ThePops said:

That will perhaps be a thing with the F-104. There has to be an environment where it will work well. It's no F-16/F-18 that anyone can jump into and do an OK "job". It's probably better suited for well crafted campaigns or dedicated servers focusing on the 60s/70s era. 

I am going to check how far F-104G will bring me... Or rather my squadron.
We had no problem hunting Tomcats with MiG-21bis, we have no problem hunting Phantoms in Mirage F1CE. And I'm going to check what can we hunt down in F-104

How about some challenge between gentleman? Who's going to hunt down bigger prey in F-104 on PvP public server? I would suggest maybe a separate thread for it.

Sometimes I forget, that "having right" in discussion is not that important. Maybe I'm bit old for internet. Thank god I'm not to old to fly :-) 

Have a nice day gent's. Can't wait to take Starfighter in the air... Not that I'm bored with F1. God forbid

Edited January 14 by 303_Kermit

[NytHawk]

On 1/13/2025 at 7:30 PM, ThePops said:

That will perhaps be a thing with the F-104. There has to be an environment where it will work well. It's no F-16/F-18 that anyone can jump into and do an OK "job". It's probably better suited for well crafted campaigns or dedicated servers focusing on the 60s/70s era. 

The great thing about a 1960s setting (in my opinion), is that basically everything has a chance. Most fights are determined purely by who spots the other first. The speed alone of the F104 will allow it to choose when it engages, and let it GTFO instead of dogfighting.

[303_Kermit]

3 minutes ago, NytHawk said:

The great thing about a 1960s setting (in my opinion), is that basically everything has a chance

Thank god I'm not alone who thinks that! My point in every discussion when someone asks: "Why don't you fly F-16" ?
No period in history of aerial warfare when pilot was more important than 50-60-70. MiG-17 could kill F-4 and that was the beauty of it. The pilot was more important than plane

Edited January 14 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

On 1/13/2025 at 12:20 AM, 303_Kermit said:

I both posts above there's not a single sensible, logical, based on some fact and data argument. A lot of words but lack of content and facts, or numbers. It's like discussion with some flat earth society members. They also talk a lot, avoiding any sense as hard as they can. 

Keep things simple, use Occam's razor.

So what kind of facts and data are we talking about here?

Jet X flew Y amount of missions, so it must be better than jet Z. That argument breaks right down, on your very own graph, comparing F-100 and A-7 sorties, where the A-7 outdoes the F-100 by every single metric other than max achievable Mach number. But the A-7 must have sucked, as they bought less than they bought Huns and hence flew less missions.

Occam's Razor. More like Gillette Mach Feierabend.

On 1/13/2025 at 12:20 AM, 303_Kermit said:

I'd like to see how any of you will perform in any PvP server in F-104 proving your point.

You mean the same servers on which people rack up ace-in-a-flight tallies at noon in severe clear weather, smashing their jets beacause they can't land it properly?

Yeah, Occam's Razor 5000, dude!

Edited January 14 by Bremspropeller

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

So what kind of facts and data are we talking about here?

Jet X flew Y amount of missions, so it must be better than jet Z. That argument breaks right down, on your very own graph, comparing F-100 and A-7 sorties, where the A-7 outdoes the F-100 by every single metric other than max achievable Mach number. But the A-7 must have sucked, as they bought less than they bought Huns and hence flew less missions.

Occam's Razor. More like Gillette Mach Feierabend.

You mean the same servers on which people rack up ace-in-a-flight tallies at noon in severe clear weather, smashing their jets beacause they can't land it properly?

Yeah, Occam's Razor 5000, dude!

If you're truly interested in my explanation, and subject is for you interesting, I suggest don't mess the thread. Please write me in private. I'll respond starting from"errors in the thought process" like: "false lead", "false universality", "confirmation bias" and few others

Edited January 14 by 303_Kermit

[ThePops]

17 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

I'll respond starting from"errors in the thought process" like: "false lead", "false universality", "confirmation bias" and few others

I think perhaps you are mixing different things together. Looking at how fighter planes have developed and changed after WWII, it's obvious that at some point in the 50s/60s/70s they became too hard to fly and operate to be used effectively by an average pilot (with some exceptions). That didn't change until the 4th gen fighters came. Then the interaction of human-machine was put in the front seat together with the technology to make it happen for real.

The efficiency of a 4th gen fighter in the hands of an average pilot is really high. The same cannot be said for the F-104. The definition of a "good" fighter is in many ways an aircraft that has a high efficiency in a combat scenario, even with an average pilot. The F-104 didn't score high on that chart. The F-5 on the other hand, and the F-4 did. Especially the F-5. The F-5 is still in wide spread operation, more than 65 years later. If it wasn't for politics, there would also be a 4th gen F-5 in wide spread operation today, the F-20.

The F-104 was exceptional in a few things, but it wasn't what the air forces wanted or needed in general. What was wanted and needed was a more capable F-5, and this they got in the F-16. The USSR counterparts were the MiG-21 and the MiG-29, in some ways at least.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 1/14/2025 at 1:22 PM, 303_Kermit said:

Thank god I'm not alone who thinks that! My point in every discussion when someone asks: "Why don't you fly F-16" ?
No period in history of aerial warfare when pilot was more important than 50-60-70. MiG-17 could kill F-4 and that was the beauty of it. The pilot was more important than plane

Yep!! I told so many time ago, but people back then didn't pay attention to that. IMHO those early jet aeroplanes with limited radar and electronics equipment were the most interesting to fly from a simulation point of view, the most challenging for sure, and since they are now way outdated, the easier to find and get information about in order to make proper modules with almost a 100% accuracy since they all are now pretty much out of service (MiG-21 aside...). From a simulation fan perspective, to me that's one of the most interesting eras to simulate and fly in. But when I said so back in time people were asking for Hornets, Vipers, Eagles, Tomcats, and so on, which in the end are nice but since they're all still in service it's not possible to fully simulate them without shortcomings. And after all those appeared, apparently only now people realize those modules are limited by military secret so they aren't fully modelled at all, not even the long gone Tomcat . Then again they're nice to have, Ok, but flying a computer isn't as interesting as those early jets which were mostly a WWII prop plane with a jet engine and the pilot still counts.

 

About the other subject spoken here, mates I'll say a very, very unpopular opinion, but Starfighter was what it was, an stratospheric Mach 2 interceptor with amazing climb abilities, and that was a cold war scenery imagined by people in their offices but IRL it never happened… then they realized it wasn't a very realistic scenery, but the money it cost were very real... , they tried to turn Starfighter into what it was not, just see F-104C doing CAS, so low level and slow flying trying to bring bombs into ground targets, and that wasn't what a wingless rocket aircraft was designed for… Starfighter is a really beautiful rocket with amazing performances, but it was designed for what it was designed and all of the other stuff it was used for were just stopgaps.

Don't get me wrong, I want this module as many just because the amazing performances and the challenge to fly with it, it could be really interesting to master, but historically it was what it was and only people flying in a computer 50-60 years later will find out things it could be used for... from the comfort of their homes and without the risk of not coming back home mates.

Edited January 17 by Ala13_ManOWar