Lockheed F-104A Starfighter - Into The Mach 2 Era

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is a legendary 20th century supersonic interceptor. Many believe it was horrible because of the German accident records in it. However:

 

1- West German pilots decided to use a dedicated interceptor as a close air support jet

2- West German pilots were trained in clean weather conditions in the U.S, whereas in Germany the weather is unsettling

3- West German pilots had just learned how to fly their F-84 Thunderjets and were quickly transferred to vastly different planes (F-104s)

 

There's more to as to why they had a bad service record with the Germans. The Canadians and Americans were perfectly fine when they used it.

 

It's also a pretty jet!

 

The variant in question is the F-104A, the first production F-104 that could perfectly counter the MiG-21F and bis on equal speed terms.

 

Let's start.

 

 

Quick overview:

 

 

Spoiler

 

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is a single-engine, supersonic interceptor aircraft which later became widely used as an attack aircraft. It was originally developed by Lockheed for the United States Air Force (USAF), but became widely used by US allies around the world, and produced by several other NATO nations. One of the Century Series of fighter aircraft, it was operated by the air forces of more than a dozen nations from 1958 to 2004. Its design team was led by Kelly Johnson, who contributed to the development of the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed U-2, Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird and other Lockheed aircraft.

 

The F-104 set numerous world records, including both airspeed and altitude records. Its success was marred by the Lockheed bribery scandals, in which Lockheed had given bribes to a considerable number of political and military figures in various nations to influence their judgment and secure several purchase contracts; this caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan.

 

 

 

 

 

History, design and development:

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

The Lockheed F-104 was in many ways an engineering marvel whose legacy suffered terribly due to several internal and external circumstances, so much so, in fact, that the aircraft was dubbed the unflattering name of "Widowmaker". Despite its setbacks, the aircraft was a record-setter and found a home with many an air force around the globe. The Starfighter was conceived of by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, fabled Lockheed engineer at its "Skunk Works" facility. From the outset, the F-104 was designed as a daytime supersonic air superiority fighter.

 

The F-104 Starfighter came about after discussions Johnson had with United States Air Force pilots and their experiences in the Korean Air War. At the time, the Soviet Union had unveiled their feisty little jet-powered fighter - the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 "Fagot" - while the USAF and its NATO allies had to make do with early and outclassed jet-powered forms until the introduction of the North American F-86 Sabre. Though air superiority eventually found its way back into NATO control, the USAF was still left without a capable and dedicated intercepting platform to combat the new Soviet fighter types effectively. As a result, Johnson set to work in 1952 to design a new aircraft based wholly on performance. This aircraft would mate the smallest (and therefore lightest) airframe to the most technologically advanced and powerful engine available. The resulting creation became the basis for the F-104 Starfighter.

 

An early proposal netted the liking of the USAF, which introduced several other aircraft firms into an open competition. The Lockheed design won USAF approval and a contract to product two prototypes, no labeled as "XF-104A", was signed in 1953. The first of these two prototypes was made available for its first flight in February of 1954. Despite being designed for the General Electric J79 turbojet engine, availability of the GE powerplant forced these prototypes to fit with a license-production versions of the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engine (as the Wright XJ65-W-6 series) of 10,200lbs thrust until the General Electric J79's were made available to the F-104.

 

The new jet-powered, post-war design was not without its issues however, and four years of development for the program would follow. At least 17 pre-production YF-104A aircraft were generated for the USAF to fulfill testing roles of the various problematic systems aboard the F-104 and iron out some resolutions before production would commence. By 1958, the first F-104A was made available for deliveries. These systems differed somewhat from their original design in that they sported a longer fuselage and were fitted with their General Electric J79-GE-3 series engines of 14,800lbs of thrust.

 

Upon its induction into operational service, the Starfighter set about to cement a few "firsts" in its career. The aircraft became the first operational fighter platform capable of sustained flight at speeds past Mach 2 - twice the speed of sound. It eventually went on to become the first aircraft to simultaneously hold the world speed and altitude records in its F-104A and F-104C forms. Major Howard C. Johnson, in his F-104A, broke the altitude record by setting the new bar at 91,243 feet on May 7th, 1958. An F-104 Starfighter followed suit and set the new world air speed record on May 18th, 1958. The aircraft recorded a top speed of 1,404.19 miles per hour. The altitude record was then again bested - this time by an F-104C model - with a new ceiling of 103,389 feet. In this record setting endeavor, the Starfighter also became the first aircraft to break the 100,000 foot barrier under its own power (no rocket-assisted propulsion was needed). In this way, the Starfighter's legacy was enriched with accolades than any fighter would aspire to reach.

 

Externally, the F-104 Starfighter was really a distinct aircraft design. The platform showcased an aerodynamic streamlined fuselage design that held all of the vital components (weapons, avionics, undercarriage, engine, etc...) in a cramped internal layout. The powerplant made up most of the internal space, as did the fuel, and covered about half of the tubular form. The front end was tapered to a sharp point while the cockpit tub was well-positioned in the forward part of the design, offering up exceedingly good visibility when in flight or taxiing. The canopy consisted of three major components- a framed forward section, a center section opening to portside, and a rearward section. The single engine was fed by two small half-circle intakes along the sides of the fuselage, just aft of the cockpit. The intake openings were fixed and not variable and were fitted with cones to regulate the turbojet airflow at high speeds. The undercarriage was completely allocated to the fuselage with the two main gears retracting into the fuselage portion near the wing roots and the nose wheel retracting into the fuselage portion under and behind the cockpit.

 

Perhaps the most distinct element of the Starfighters design lay in the use of its straight, stubby wings that were only 4 inches at its thickest. Sweepback was only utilized on the leading edges and a slight anhedral was present to help combat "Dutch Roll", an aerial phenomenon that forces the aircraft sway or rock from side-to-side. Flaps were fitted to both leading and trailing edges and all internal mechanics had to conform into this confined space - hence the placement of vital and oversized systems in the fuselage. The wings made up a big component of the aircraft's supersonic capabilities and were found with edges so sharp that they presented dangers to the ground crews servicing the aircraft to the point that special protectors had to be issued to these areas.

 

The empennage completed the design and sported its stabilator towards the top-most edge of the vertical fin. The horizontal surfaces were a smidgeon in size smaller than that of the main wings themselves, forcing engineers to make add anhedral to the main wings. The top-mounted horizontal surfaces also combated inertia coupling, another dangerous aerial phenomena consistent with high-speed flight.

 

The bread and butter of the Starfighter platform lay in its selection of the General Electric J79 series of axial-flow turbojet engine. It relied solely on the single engine for propulsion and the powerplant was originally designed for sustained Mach 2.0 flight. The engine would end up proving so successful that it would power a quantity of Cold War aircraft including the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, North American A-5 Vigilante and the Convair B-58 Hustler programs including the F-104 itself. The J79 series of turbojet was an evolution of the General Electric J73 series powering the F-86H Sabres. This powerplant, coupled with the lightweight and streamlined shape of the Starfighter's airframe, ensured proper high performance from the get-go. Operational service of this marriage would eventually be the deciding factor as to its success - or failure. Among other additions to the aircraft were a drag chute for lower landing speeds. An arrestor hook was also featured in the event of a landing emergency. Needless to say, this Mach 2-capable aircraft exhibited quite high landing speeds.

 

In terms of armament, the Starfighter was designed with a single standard option in the form of the M61 Vulcan multi-barrel 20mm cannon. The weapon was located along the lower port-side fuselage near the cockpit and was fed by a 535-round ammunition drum. The weapon became expendable as the decade rolled on to the point that it was deemed unessential. In dedicated variants it was nixed altogether in favor of extra fuel, saving weight or replacing the space with reconnaissance cameras. Two-seat Starfighters seldom carried the weapon system if at all.

 

Despite the relative thinness and size of the wings, the structures were designed to carry external stores. The wingtip positions could mount a single AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile for interception or fuel tanks for extended range. Later models sported more hardpoint positions, particularly along the fuselage centerline and under the wings. Up to nine hardpoints could be generated for the aircraft, increasing its combat load significantly and branching the aircraft out from its air superiority roots to a more conventional fighter-bomber platform. Other munition types showcased on the Starfighters throughout their operational lives included AIM-7 Sparrow and Selenia Aspide medium-range air-to-air missiles, rocket pods, conventional bombs and even nuclear-tipped weaponry (the latter restricted to placement along the centerline hardpoint).

 

Despite its association with a high accident rate and high pilot attrition, the Starfighter was designed with an ejection seat. However, as the aircraft was designed to travel at sustained speeds of Mach 2.0 and higher, it was believed that the selected ejection seat would not be allowed the time to clear chair and pilot free of the high-mounted tailplane. As such, early Starfighters were fitted with a downward-firing ejection seat known as the Stanley C-1. As may be expected, though this might have worked in theory, especially at the designed high speeds, this became a lethal issue when the pilot was forced to eject at lower altitudes and at lower speeds. Since combat dictated the need of when and where to eject, the system could not be left to chance. As such, Lockheed developed an upward firing ejection seat known as the C-2 but this new seat came with a minimum speed tied to it, still complicating the action. The entire situation was finally rectified with the inclusion of Martin-Baker ejection seats, particularly in foreign Starfighters. These seats had the capability to forcibly eject seat and pilot clear of the tail fin and had no altitude or speed restrictions tied to its design (hence the term "zero-zero"). Martin-Baker seats would go on to earn the respect of thousands of airmen after saving thousands of lives over the decades.

 

In terms of performance, the F-104 Starfighter did not disappoint. The definitive F-104G could reach top speeds of 1,328 miles per hour and a ceiling of 50,000 feet. Rate-of-climb was exceedingly exceptional in that the aircraft could hit 48,000 feet per minute. A ferry range of 1,630 miles was reported while a combat radius of 420 miles was possible. Thrust from the General Electric J79-GE-11A series turbojet with afterburning netted 15,600lbs of thrust.

 

Some 153 F-104A models were eventually produced along with its counterpart 26 F-104B tandem-seat trainers. The USAF Air Defense Command was the first to receive the type through the 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron in February of 1958. Of note was that these aircraft did not possess the capability for all-weather attack and were essentially limited from the start in terms of what the USAFADC could do with them. A-models spent a brief time in operational service before being shipped out to Air National Guard units (ANG used their Starfighters up until 1975). Some were shipped to foreign operators overseas who put them to good use in combat. At least 22 A-models were held in reserve and converted for use as radio-controlled drones for testing. Beyond their two-pilot seating arrangement, F-104B trainer models sported larger vertical tail surfaces, no internal gun and less fuel.

 

Seventy-seven F-104C tactical strike fighter models were produced, these being dedicated fighter-bombers for service with the USAF Tactical Air Command through the 479th Tactical Fighter Squadron in September of 1958. C-models featured an improved fire-control system and hardpoints set to a centerline and two underwing positions. Nuclear capability was officially introduced, expanding the lethality of the aircraft and the reach of USAF firepower. The F-104C also introduced in-flight refueling capability with its induction into service, increasing the operational range of the type somewhat. Like the A-models before them, C-models were quickly transferred to ANG units.

 

The F-104D was a tandem-seat, dual-control trainer based on the F-104C single-seat models and saw production reach only 21 examples. Likewise, the F-104F was also a two-seat model but based on the F-104D trainers. These Starfighters were fitted with the uprated powerplants of G-models but no radar system, thus making them non-combat ready. The German Luftwaffe produced F-models as interim designs for training purposes and only 30 or so were eventually produced.

 

As it happened, the F-104G (based on the F-104C series) became the definitive Starfighter model in terms of both numbers and acceptance into service. It was essentially billed as an "improved" Starfighter with all-weather and multi-role capabilities. The aircraft secured its future by the endorsement from NATO and became a stalwart in Europe for decades. Not only did this increase the use of Starfighters globally, it ensured some level of commercial success. In fact, the bribery-laden "Deal of the Century" was struck between Lockheed and the European Starfighter Consortium for quantitative sales of the aircraft to participating NATO nations. License production was handled y MBB, Messerschmitt, FIAT, Fokker and SABCA. 

 

F-104G models featured a reinforced airframe, enlarged vertical tail unit, uprated engines and a revised and improved electronics suite. Design of this model was initially set to German Luftwaffe specifications and first flew in October of 1960. It went on to become the most successful mark in the series. The model was also spawned into the TF-104 trainer and RF-104 reconnaissance platform.

 

Mitsubishi became a global operator and producer of the Starfighter. This was showcased in their F-104J series mark, a dedicated interceptor /air superiority variant stripped of its strike fighter capability and based on the universal F-104G. Standard armament included the 20mm cannon and up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Two Hundred Ten of this model existed with 177 handled by Mitsubishi and 29 produced by Lockheed. Several J-models became UF-104J radio-controlled target drones.

 

Italy produced the Starfighter under the FIAT label. At least 246 of these were produced as the F-104S and were improved or upgraded in the F-104S-ASA and F-104S-ASA/M marks. Italian Starfighters featured NASARR R-21G/H radar with AIM-7 Sparrow and Selenia Aspide missile compatibility as well as improved stability via ventral fins. The 20mm cannons were dropped from air superiority models in lieu of equipment for the missile systems.

 

Canadair produced the Starfighter in the CF-104 nuclear strike form while Lockheed handled production of the CF-104D tandem seat dual-control trainers for Canada. Engines were Canadian J79-OEL-7 series. 

 

A highly-modified form of the F-104 was envisioned and mocked up as the CL-1200 Lancer, though this design never materialized.

 

Production of all forms of F-104 Starfighters ran into 1983. Operational service by Starfighters lasted well into the late 1990's. Italy was one of the last remaining users of the aircraft and sent their Starfighters through a modernization program to increase their longevity. These became an interim design until the arrival of more capable Eurofighter Typhoons. With delays in the Eurofighter program and the last Starfighters retired in 2004, Italy inevitably settled on an interim solution in the solid Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon. In total, 2,578 Starfighters were procured by various air forces including the USAF. USAF received just 296 Starfighters in the various single and two-seat configurations. In fact, the USAF use accounted for only a third of all production Starfighters with global operators representing a majority of the owners. In USAF service, the F-104 made up just two fighter squadrons.

 

As a post-war, jet-powered, ground breaking Mach 2 design, the Starfighter's legacy would forever be tied to its high accident rate. Although the equally defining North American F-100 Super Sabre took the cake, the F-104 prone enough to accident that it is always mentioned in discussions of the aircraft. The aircraft proved a handful to fly and several built-in measures had to be introduced to protect the pilot and aircraft alike. Among these was a feature where the flightstick would shake to warn the pilot of insufficient airspeed. The J79 engine also proved temperamental at times and was the cause of many a flame out.

 

A notable accident concerning the F-104 occurred on June 8th, 1966, when an Starfighter chase plane collided with the North American XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber, killing pilot Joe Walker. Famed aviator Chuck Yeager nearly died in an NF-104A during an attempt at a new altitude record. The German Luftwaffe suffered an enormous amount of pilot losses during their tenure with the F-104, losing no less than 110 pilots. Canadian losses were also unacceptable. In many cases, however, accidents were deemed the fault of other things besides the aircraft itself, either through pilot error or outside forces damaging integral Starfighter components. Be that as it may, these accidents would forever be tied to the Starfighter name and legacy and duly reinforce upon itself the nickname of "Widowmaker".

 

The F-104 Starfighter saw its first combat action for America in the Vietnam War. The aircraft was selected to undergo a variety of sorties. As a fighter, the F-104 scored no kills but the aircraft did serve well in keeping MiG fighters at bay from intercepting "friendlies". Starfighters were deployed in the conflict in 1965 and then again from 1966 through 1967. By the end of their tenure, Starfighters accounted for 5,206 missions while losing just 14 aircraft. Starfighters were eventually replaced in whole by the more capable McDonnell F-4 Phantom II's.

Despite its limited combat forays in the Vietnam War, the Starfighter was showcased in other global foreign entanglements. F-104A's saw combat with Pakistan in the Indo-Pak war of 1965 recording the first reported Mach 2 aircraft kill. By the 1971 conflict, however, the Starfighter was wholly outclassed by Indian MiG-21 "Fishbed" fighters. In 1967, tensions between the island nation of Taiwan and mainland China ratchet up several notches leading to an engagement between four F-104G model fighters and 12 MiG-19 "Farmers". The ensuing action lead both sides to claim one kill.

 

Despite the learning curve inherent in this ground-breaking design, the F-104 had a lot going for it. Kelly Johnson's vision came together with the creation of this missile-inspired rocket ship. The aptly-named "Starfighter" certainly lived up to its namesake and recorded more than its propensity to test the most hardened pilot. Pilots found the aircraft to be a handful to fly but they by no means regretted the experience. The chance for man to fly sustained at Mach 2 in a Mach 1 world was a chance no pilot worth his weight would have passed up at the time. Where the system seemed to fail, it inevitably excelled in others. Performance was never an issue thanks to keen design philosophies from one of the best minds in aviation engineering and a powerplant that was seemingly born for the role. Despite its many misgivings, the "Widowmaker" was undoubtedly a special kind of aircraft with the last operational unit being displaced as recently as 2004 - encompassing some 50-plus years since its design was first being throttled about in the heads of Lockheed engineers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cockpit:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Internal Components:
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Camouflage:

 

 

 

Specifications

 

 

Spoiler

 

Lockheed F-104A Starfighter

 

 

General characteristics:

 

Introduction: 1958

Status: Production 

Role: Interceptor

Number built: 153

Crew: 1

Wingspan: 7.2 meters (21.9 ft)

Wing area: 18.22 m² (196 ft²)

Length: 16.7 meters (54.8 ft)

Height: 4.1 meters (3.5 ft)

Min. takeoff weight: 6,014 kg (13,260 lbs)

Basic weight: 6,627 kg (14,610 lbs)

Loaded weight: 7,212 kg (15,900 lbs)

Max. takeoff weight: 10,950 kg (24,141 lbs)

Max. landing weight: 7,181 kg (15,832 lbs)

Powerplant: General Electric J79-GE-3A:

• 4,354 kgf (42.7 kN, 9,600 lbf) w/o afterburner
• 6,713 kgf (65.8 kN, 14,800 lbf) with afterburner

Engine ratings: 

(I did not know how to copy this so I'm leaving a screenshot here)

Fuel and oil:

(same problem here)

 

Performance:

 

Maximum speed:

• At sea level: 1,481 km/h (920 mph, 799.6 knots) (full power)
• At altitude: 2,129 km/h (at 10,820 meters) (1,323 mph, 1,149.5 knots) (full power)

Rate of climb (full power):

• Area intercept: 207.7 m/s (681.6 ft/s)
• Point intercept: 208 m/s (683 ft/s)
• Long range intercept: 202.7 m/s (655 ft/s)
• Afterburner all the way: 208 m/s (683 ft/s)
• Ferry range: N/A

Rate of climb (at altitudes) (full power):

 

At sea level:

• Area intercept: 207.7 m/s (681.6 ft/s)
• Point intercept: 208 m/s (683 ft/s)
• Long range intercept: 202.7 m/s (655 ft/s)
• Afterburner all the way: 208 m/s (683 ft/s)
• Ferry range: N/A

At 6,096 m (20,000 ft):

• Area intercept: 112.88 m/s (370.34 ft/s)
• Point intercept: 50.8 m/s (166.66 ft/s)
• Long range intercept: 31.75 m/s (104.1 ft/s)
• Afterburner all the way: 112.88 m/s (370.34 ft/s)
• Ferry range: N/A

At 9,144 m (30,000 ft):

• Area intercept: 98.3 m/s (322.5 ft/s)
• Point intercept: 56.4 m/s (185 ft/s)
• Long range intercept: 23.1 m/s (75.78 ft/s)
• Afterburner all the way: 98.3 m/s (322.5 ft/s)
• Ferry range: N/A

Time to (full power):

SL to 6,096 m (20,000 ft):

• Area intercept: 0.9 minutes
• Point intercept: 2.0 minutes
• Long range intercept: 3.2 minutes 
• Afterburner all the way: 0.9 minutes
• Ferry range: 3.8 minutes

SL to 9,144 m (30,000 ft):

• Area intercept: 1.55 minutes
• Point intercept: 2.7 minutes
• Long range intercept: 6.6 minutes
• Afterburner all the way: 1.55 minutes
• Ferry range: 8.8 minutes

Service area: 16,154 meters (53,000 ft)

Wing loading:

• Min. takeoff weight: 330 kg/m2 (67.59 lb. sqft2)
• Basic weight: 363.72 kg/m2 (74.5 lb. sqft2)
• Loaded weight: 395.82 kg/m2 (81.07 lb. sqft2)
• Max. takeoff weight: 600.98 kg/m2 (123.09 lb. sqft2)
• Max. landing weight: 394 kg/m2 (80.7 lb. sqft2)

 

Stall speed: 318 km/h (197 mph, 172 knts)

Thrust/weight:

• Min. takeoff weight: 0.72 (w/o afterburner), 1.12 (with afterburner)
• Basic weight: 0.66 (w/o afterburner), 1.01 (with afterburner)
• Loaded weight: 0.60 (w/o afterburner), 0.93 (with afterburner)
• Max. takeoff weight: 0.40 (w/o afterburner), 0.61 (with afterburner)
• Max. landing weight: 0.61 (w/o afterburner), 0.93 (with afterburner)

 

Armament:

 

Guns: 1 x 20mm M61A1 Vulcan gattling cannon (535 rounds in total)

Missiles: 2 x air-to-air AIM-9B Sidewinders heat-seeking missiles

Electronics:

• AN/ARC-66 UHF Command
• AN/ARN-56 Navigation Receiver
• AN/APX-35 IFF
• AN/ARN-57 ILS
• AN/AIC-10 Interphone
• AN/ASG-14T-1 Fire Control System (FCS)

 

 

 

 

Sources/References:

 

 

Spoiler

 

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=113 (quick overview)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter (history, design and development)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by EpicBlitzkrieg87

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[Mivux 348]

definitely, I'd love to see this thing in game - imagine the turn time tho 

[mrparty1 950]

Here's a speed chart for the F-104C (SAC is difficult to find for the A series Starfighter).

After ~7,500ft, you'd risk destroying your engine inlets (and your engine, I suppose) if you go too quickly in a straight line, and that lasts all the way up to just under 60,000ft. Also it looks like you would need to be doubly careful about the structural limit of 800kt indicated from ~7,500-15,000ft.

 

Definitely (very) high altitude is where the Starfighter shines.

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

In all probability I see at least four trees in-game having some variant of the F-104 eventually, the others besides the US being literally all three of the former Axis powers.  If you wonder why this is, well...a lot of it has to do with some really shady stuff Lockheed pulled under the table (mostly bribery of high-level government and military officials in many different countries, which might be how it beat the Mirage III in NATO trials), which eventually came to light and got a bunch of people thrown in prison and costed many others their careers.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Z3r0_

[Insanous-player@psn 10]

i vote AYE

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

10 hours ago, mrparty1 said:

Here's a speed chart for the F-104C (SAC is difficult to find for the A series Starfighter).

After ~7,500ft, you'd risk destroying your engine inlets (and your engine, I suppose) if you go too quickly in a straight line, and that lasts all the way up to just under 60,000ft. Also it looks like you would need to be doubly careful about the structural limit of 800kt indicated from ~7,500-15,000ft.

 

Definitely (very) high altitude is where the Starfighter shines.

 

The F-104C was the ground-attack version, I suppose that chart was done in accordance to an F-104C being tested with secondary ordnance.

 

I used the F-104B's SAC, since I think it's the most accurate for the F-104A. 

[mrparty1 950]

13 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The F-104C was the ground-attack version, I suppose that chart was done in accordance to an F-104C being tested with secondary ordnance.

 

I used the F-104B's SAC, since I think it's the most accurate for the F-104A. 

I'm not so sure that that's the case, since the F-104B is basically a trainer aircraft that only has two AIM-9s as weapons. The two-place cockpit I'm sure makes a difference in the aerodynamics.

 

Either way, the speed charts in both SACs are very similar and the point of my comment still stands.

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

8 hours ago, mrparty1 said:

I'm not so sure that that's the case, since the F-104B is basically a trainer aircraft that only has two AIM-9s as weapons. The two-place cockpit I'm sure makes a difference in the aerodynamics.

 

 

The same as the F-104A, but with the Vulcan and without the extra seat. The F-104B is closer to the F-104A.

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 09/12/2018 at 09:44, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

The same as the F-104A, but with the Vulcan and without the extra seat. The F-104B is closer to the F-104A.

 

F104C is really just F104A with secondary ground attack role and A2A refuleing capability ,and a new Fire control radar. on the clean  or A2A load outs its others wise basically the same thing.

 

From a gameplay perspective the F104C would make more sense due to being more versatile. One should also take into consideration that the Mig21F13 you are comparing it to, can use its 2 pylons for pair of bombs or rocket pods instead of just K13's.

 

Depending on whether or not gajin models aircraft radars in  the future i would think that from a balancing point of view the Mig21PFM would make more sense due to search radar. like the F104's whereas the Mig21F is a day fighter with only a radar ranging gun-sight.

Edited December 13, 2018 by RanchSauce39

[eleks12 1,079]

F-104 Starfighter Howl sound video!  

 

[Gavin_Mactavish 943]

Anyone else think its going to turn worse than an F-84 with full bombs + rockets+ fuel?.

[Functor 230]

This is one of the most obvious and necessary additions, and is an aircraft with over 2000 kph max speed and over 200 ms climbrate. This would be the true new era of tier 6 jet fights. Hoping to see it soon.

 

Some interesting stuff is revealed at https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-the-F-104-Starfighter-be-in-an-aerial-engagement-against-a-Mig-21-Mig-23-and-Mig-19 , the answers contradict themselves a bit but basically there is a statement that the F-104 was very nice in a high-speed high-g turn. There seems also to be an agreement that the weakspot of the plane has been the lack of countermeasures, as the more advanced AAMs were capable of giving it a hard time as it was zooming out. 

 

There are four nations indeed that can profit from it, but the question arises, what to add to the Soviet and the French tree? Go straight ahead and give Mirages and Mig 21s, there is no other way I guess.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Functor

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

On 07/12/2018 at 17:18, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is a legendary 20th century supersonic interceptor. Many believe it was horrible because of the German accident records in it. However:

 

1- West German pilots decided to use a dedicated interceptor as a close air support jet

2- West German pilots were trained in clean weather conditions in the U.S, whereas in Germany the weather is unsettling

3- West German pilots had just learned how to fly their F-84 Thunderjets and were quickly transferred to vastly different planes (F-104s)

 

There's more to as to why they had a bad service record with the Germans. The Canadians and Americans were perfectly fine when they used it.

uhm what?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_ServiceHistory.htm
Canada lost 46 percent of their F-104's, Belgium 37 percent, Denmark ~24 percent, Germany ~35 percent, Italy ~38%, Japan 15%, Netherlands ~36% and  Norway 26%

100% german pilot faults....
wanna see the cause of the accidents?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm
tl;dr: Engine! and a Ejection Seat which was not working at 0-0

Sure... not the aircrafts fault... theres a reason why Lockheed Martin bribed the potential buyers of that deathtrap to buy that thing.... we ditched the Mirage for this thing.... not because it was worse, no. The Mirage won the competition... but the F-104 was bought.

Edited January 4, 2019 by dotEXCEL

[Functor 230]

25 minutes ago, dotEXCEL said:

uhm what?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_ServiceHistory.htm
Canada lost 46 percent of their F-104's, Belgium 37 percent, Denmark ~24 percent, Germany ~35 percent, Italy ~38%, Japan 15%, Netherlands ~36% and  Norway 26%

100% german pilot faults....
wanna see the cause of the accidents?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm
tl;dr: Engine! and a Ejection Seat which was not working at 0-0

Sure... not the aircrafts fault... theres a reason why Lockheed Martin bribed the potential buyers of that deathtrap to buy that thing.... we ditched the Mirage for this thing.... not because it was worse, no. The Mirage won the competition... but the F-104 was bought.

 

To be honest I am not sure why the OP started this discussion, I guess War Thunder won't be emulating faulty mechanisation anyway, and we will have plenty of runway crashes as usual.

 

This sort of thing happens all over the history of war machines. For example T-90 (1992) is really a marketing move by the post-Soviet government and a worse tank than the T-80U(D), but I am confident we will see them (all) in game. And we should also see the F-104 in spite of all the controversy.

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

7 minutes ago, Functor said:

 

To be honest I am not sure why the OP started this discussion, I guess War Thunder won't be emulating faulty mechanisation anyway, and we will have plenty of runway crashes as usual.

 

This sort of thing happens all over the history of war machines. For example T-90 (1992) is really a marketing move by the post-Soviet government and a worse tank than the T-80U(D), but I am confident we will see them (all) in game. And we should also see the F-104 in spite of all the controversy.

im not saying the F-104 shouldnt be in the game... im trying to educate ppl that the OP was not telling the truth and blaming other nations pilots than the plane itself.
If Warthunder would emulate ''faulty mechanisation'' then 50% of all chieftains should spawn with a broken engine....

Edited January 4, 2019 by dotEXCEL

[RanchSauce39 397]

 

F104 360 degree cockpit

 

 

http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-22.html

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

On 13/12/2018 at 03:49, RanchSauce39 said:

F104C is really just F104A with secondary ground attack role and A2A refuleing capability ,and a new Fire control radar. on the clean  or A2A load outs its others wise basically the same thing.

 

 

Yes I know, but I picked the F-104B's manual because it seems to be more accurate towards the F-104A. Because I imagine the F-104C's combat mission weight was different to the F-104A since the C was modified for ground attack role. 

On 04/01/2019 at 19:42, dotEXCEL said:

uhm what?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_ServiceHistory.htm
Canada lost 46 percent of their F-104's, Belgium 37 percent, Denmark ~24 percent, Germany ~35 percent, Italy ~38%, Japan 15%, Netherlands ~36% and  Norway 26%

100% german pilot faults....
wanna see the cause of the accidents?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm

 

Lots of those seem to be piloting faults  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ besides engine malfunction 

 

On 04/01/2019 at 20:14, Functor said:

To be honest I am not sure why the OP started this discussion, I guess War Thunder won't be emulating faulty mechanisation anyway, and we will have plenty of runway crashes as usual.

 

I was expecting many to come here and mindlessly say "hurr durr widowmaker"

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 08/01/2019 at 17:14, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

Yes I know, but I picked the F-104B's manual because it seems to be more accurate towards the F-104A. Because I imagine the F-104C's combat mission weight was different to the F104A

 

 

 

Its not necessary, there is a manual  that covers F104A/B/C/D variants combined and has performance charts for all of them.

 

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=16009

 

 

as manual shows F104B is actually lighter than F104A.  So if anything the Stats would be skewed at it could give marginally better T/W ratio given the lesser weight.

 

F104C is heavier than the A ( 1540 lbs lighter ) but has a more powerful engine to compensate for the added weight.

 

Either way the F-104C despite its heavier weight can climb  ( initial) at 254 M/S , The F104A best  climb rate is  only 203 M/S. because it is fitted with the weaker J79 GE 3 engine compared to the F104C's J79 GE 7A.

 

Its only when looking a the   313th squadron  ( 1 out of the entire AF) had F104A's  modified with J79 Ge 19 engines ( what Italian F104S had) has that you see a superior performance with a 277 M/S climb rate, however seeing the "specifications" your obvious suggesting the  regular F104A.

 

Quote

 since the C was modified for ground attack role. 

 

Its not a purely ground attack aircraft. Consider it a secondary added ability.  The capability was fore Nuclear Strike, but was further adapted for conventional strike as show by its use in Vietnam.  F104C can still be used in A2A, Theres nothing that takes away from that role, as it still carries the Gun, Sidewinders, and has a A2A search radar.

 

As an analogy the F86F is still an fighter first and foremost, but were technically " Fighter/bomber" due to the ability of using ordinance for A/G purposes as an additional mission. F86F was considered the  definitive version of the "mig killer".

 

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[swpixy 1,220]

Don´t mind seeing it.That said:

 

Claiming that Germany ruined the Starfighter´s name because their Pilots didn´t know what they were doing is rather unfair-because while it is true that Germany lost more starfighters overall than anyone else,they also operated more (916,to be exact-of which a total of 298 were lost or damaged beyond repair).

 

Percentage wise,the losses were actually pretty average (with Canada topping the chart by far,losing nearly half of their Starfighters to crashes and various other accidents),and the vast majority was due to technical failures (especially the engine) rather than pilot error-amplified by terrible design choices like the tiny wings (which did allow it to go pretty fast,but made it suck at basically everything else-especially takeoff and landing) and a ejection seat that often failed to do its job (this is where the Widowmaker nickname came from-Germany ended up replacing those with ones built by Martin-Baker when Steinhoff became Airforce Inspector,drastically improving pilot survival rates).

 

Though it certainly IS true that Germany is where the plane got the largest amount of negative publicity,again largely due to the amount they operated (and the associated large amount of fatalities,particulary in the early days-a total of 116 dead pilots,8 of which weren´t even german but rather USAF),along with other things such as i.e. the Widows of the pilots sueing Lockheed, and the bribery scandal-the whole reason why the F-104 even entered german service to begin with (instead of the Mirage III,which most people involved in that procurement considered to be much better).

 

 

 

 

[TerikG2014 1,389]

1 minute ago, swpixy said:

F-104 even entered german service to begin with (instead of the Mirage III,which most people involved in that procurement considered to be much better).

actually the German government were looking more towards the British SR.177 project to meet there interception needs (prior to bribery incident)

[swpixy 1,220]

10 minutes ago, TerikG2014 said:

actually the German government were looking more towards the British SR.177 project to meet there interception needs (prior to bribery incident)

They were very interrested in that one indeed,but dropped that idea because it wasn´t going to be ready in time,leaving the F-104 and the Mirage III to compete against each other.

Edited January 11, 2019 by swpixy

[TerikG2014 1,389]

well it was on time we had the SR.53 flying by 1957 and the first SR.177 was meant to meant be finished not long afterwards yet thanks to a combination of budget cuts and  Lockheed being extraordinarily underhanded the 177 never flew this is a rather good video on it.(one of the people featured in it Eric Brown is very significant as he is the most successful test pilot ever look him up)

 

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by TerikG2014

[Jamaroo 246]

I vote yes to this!

 

Fit in beautifully as a mid range tier 6, I imagine this thing turning like a brick, but as an interceptor role it fits in nicely!

[Ska_King_Felix 1,450]

Want it, but not now.  It’s a little too fast.