F-104

ryan1234 said:
I think Boyd is overplayed in the grand scheme of things. Air Combat is in a constant evolution of tactics and technology in such a dynamic environment that creating a one trick pony may be more of a liability than an advantage. The "jack of all trades, master of none" can integrate with existing airframes to systematically destroy multiple threats at once, not just the enemy fighter with an awesome E-M diagram carrying heaters to the merge. If it were up to Boyd, F-16s wouldn't have Radars, conduct SEAD, CAS, etc.
Click to expand...

Along with that development on things like he Eagle or AMRAAM wouldn't have happened either.

The Eagle was the example of what the fighter mafia stood against. Big radar, big cost, truck load of radar guided long range missiles... But then it went on to have the highest kill to loss ratio in history (though a lot of that was Israelis clubbing seals).

I feel if we had gone to the total swing of the pendulum people like Boyd and Sprey were advocating so hard for the Viper would have looked a lot like the early Fulcrum. It's a machine of thrust and energy conservation, it's has HOB helmet mounted sight capes and a scary good IR missile way earlie rin life, but it wouldn't be anywhere near where we are now in long range ability. And there just flat wouldn't be an Eagle.
 
bunk22 said:
It didn't excel in any theater/country it was used in for air combat, regardless if interceptor, fighter, etc. I get the ROE of Vietnam, I'm a student of history but it's difficult to say it's a great fighter when it wasn't great. By fighter, I think certain historians are covering a broad basis, maybe they mean interceptor and it was great in that role in peacetime. In actual combat, I'm not seeing its greatness, from the historical perspective of air-to-air combat. The MiG-21 beat up on it, like 4-0 against. The MiG-19, at least two kills...it has victories against less capable aircraft, MiG-19 included. I like the discussion, I'm a nerd and maybe I'm not giving a fair chance, the ROE and pilot's of Pakistan, Taiwan were probably not the most capable of aviators.
Click to expand...

I agree: it was not a great fighter. It was a relic of a time where top end speed was the leading requirement. The idea being that we could stop the hordes of Bears at range with fast interceptors and Nike missiles. Thin wings and coke-bottle fuselages were the design of the day, and can still be seen on the T-38.
 
hook_dupin said:
I agree: it was not a great fighter. It was a relic of a time where top end speed was the leading requirement. The idea being that we could stop the hordes of Bears at range with fast interceptors and Nike missiles. Thin wings and coke-bottle fuselages were the design of the day, and can still be seen on the T-38.
Click to expand...
The Air Force lost confidence in the 104 pretty early. After fielding a few squadrons they cut the initial order from 1000 to a couple of hundred, if I recall correctly. It only was operational eleven years before being handed off to ANG units. Eleven years!

A great fighter?
 
Last edited:
Convair_F-106A_Delta_Dart_1.jpg


The Genie was hilariously unsafe in terms of safeguards against unintended kaboom.

Fun Fact: Every time the missile flew on an W-mobile it violated the Two-Man Rule.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
The Air Force lost confidence in the 104 pretty early. After fielding a few squadrons they cut the initial order from 1000 to a couple of hundred, if I recall correctly. It only was operational eleven years before being handed off to ANG units. Eleven years!

A great fighter?
Click to expand...

I look back at the the mid 1950s through the 1960s and I shudder at how much we spent on airplanes that we just threw away after a few years. The F-101s and F-105s didn't spend much longer in active service. People hate the current acquisition system, but I feel we generally get it right. The Eagle's 40th came up a few years ago and is still getting it done.
 
Drag raced with one at 500' during an exercise in Cold Lake, Canada. His one J-79 against my two. I could just about stay with him but passing thru 630 IAS I backed off...too many birds. 104's were everywhere in Europe. I recall four Italian 104's crashing shortly after taking off from Bitburg AFB around '75.
 
MikeD said:
I remember one friend commenting how is the Genie effective, when its unguided (thinking its a conventional missile). :)
Click to expand...
While a 1000' lethal radius is damn impressive, I was surprised that it didn't have some kind of proximity or radar-controlled fusing.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I'm curious if the losses were of a Vietnam variety, intercepted on a predicted course after x number of identical sorties.

Also, the Soviet philosophy of ground-directed intercepts might have to be given some credit.

Was the effectiveness of Soviet technology underestimated?

Had its role as a fighter-bomber resulted in less ACM training (if much existed for an interceptor)?

Those questions aside, you can't ignore the combat record of a combat aircraft.
Click to expand...

I agree and I believe in the Vietnam shoot down, the F-104 pilot was having issues, radar or something and had accidentally drifted into Chinese airspace. The first time he knew of the MiG's was when the tip of his wing was blown off by MiG-19 fire. The stories I've read with the Paki 104's is one of turning with more agile planes. Regardless, the aircraft has a bad air to air record. I guess the same could be said of the MiG-29 for example, a known quantity, good aircraft in many respects but due to circumstances, has a really awful kill loss ratio.
 
hook_dupin said:
I agree: it was not a great fighter. It was a relic of a time where top end speed was the leading requirement. The idea being that we could stop the hordes of Bears at range with fast interceptors and Nike missiles. Thin wings and coke-bottle fuselages were the design of the day, and can still be seen on the T-38.
Click to expand...

bunk22 said:
I agree and I believe in the Vietnam shoot down, the F-104 pilot was having issues, radar or something and had accidentally drifted into Chinese airspace. The first time he knew of the MiG's was when the tip of his wing was blown off by MiG-19 fire. The stories I've read with the Paki 104's is one of turning with more agile planes. Regardless, the aircraft has a bad air to air record. I guess the same could be said of the MiG-29 for example, a known quantity, good aircraft in many respects but due to circumstances, has a really awful kill loss ratio.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's a bad fighter; but moreso that to fight using the F-104 air-air, you have to fight using it's strengths; not succumb to your own weaknesses. That means, you don't get into horizontal turning engagements with slower/agile planes like MiG-15/17/19, or even MiG-21 at some altitudes, when you yourself have no wing area. You use the vertical, and only stick your nose in to make a slashing attack at a time and place of your choosing, avoiding the knife fight at all costs; as you have the energy to extend and reenter the fight elsewhere, again at a time and place of your choosing. What you don't have, is an advantage in either the rate fight or the radius fight. I'm not certain if this played a factor in the F-104 losses specifically, or if something like surprise or something else were factors, but if you try to fight a nimble enemy plane on his terms, rather than on your own terms, of course you'll lose.

[this concludes your air-to-air tactics discussion.......from an air-to-mud guy] :D
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
I wouldn't say it's a bad fighter; but moreso that to fight using the F-104 air-air, you have to fight using it's strengths; not succumb to your own weaknesses. That means, you don't get into horizontal turning engagements with slower/agile planes like MiG-15/17/19, or even MiG-21 at some altitudes, when you yourself have no wing area. You use the vertical, and only stick your nose in to make a slashing attack at a time and place of your choosing, avoiding the knife fight at all costs; as you have the energy to extend and reenter the fight elsewhere, again at a time and place of your choosing. What you don't have, is an advantage in either the rate fight or the radius fight. I'm not certain if this played a factor in the F-104 losses specifically, or if something like surprise or something else were factors, but if you try to fight a nimble enemy plane on his terms, rather than on your own terms, of course you'll lose.

[this concludes your air-to-air tactics discussion.......from an air-to-mud guy] :D
Click to expand...

So when you read what the Paki's did with it, makes sense why they were good at getting blasted out of the air. Did the exact opposite what you explained, did not fight the 104 as it was designed. From what I read, Taiwan had one big engagement with the F-104 vs Chinese MiG-19's, got two, lost one but no details about the fight. Love reading about the stuff.
 
True story, the 1950s-era U-2 is a Starfighter fuselage (there have been some changes in the intervening 60 years).
 
hook_dupin said:
I tell young guys to go read Sierra Hotel. It is a good read that quickly goes through how the USAF changed in the decade after Vietnam. As a sign of the times, it also has the Dear Boss letter in the appendix.
Click to expand...

Great book, re-read it on cruise and it was still a good read
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top