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