Could F-104 Starfighters Defend USA From 1960's Supersonic Nuclear Bombers? (WarGames 136) | DCS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- Retry with Genie Nuclear Rockets: • Could Starfighter With...
We simulate a 1960's Soviet nuclear strike on the US East Coast involving ten Tu-22 backfires flying at their maximum speed of mach 1.45. Could the USAF QRA F-104C Starfighters have intercepted the bombers? Or would one make it through?
Mod: filehorst.de/folder.php?key=d...
PATREON: / grimreapers
RUMBLE: rumble.com/c/c-2381990
ODYSEE: odysee.com/@grimreapers:e
0:00 Overview
1:06 Scenario Details
3:35 Predictions
4:36 ATTEMPT 1
20:54 ATTEMPT 2
31:50 Air To Air Refuelling
USEFUL LINKS
GRIM REAPERS (UA-cam): / @grimreapers
GRIM REAPERS 2 (UA-cam): / @grimreapers2
GR PODCASTS: anchor.fm/grim-reapers
DCS TUTORIALS: / @grimreapers
DCS BUYERS GUIDE: • DCS World Module Quick...
DONATE/SUPPORT GRIM REAPERS
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble.com/people/grme...
PATREON monthly donations: / grimreapers
PAYPAL one-off donations: www.paypal.me/GrimReapersDona...
SOCIAL MEDIA
WEBSITE: grimreapers.net/
STREAM(Cap): / grimreaperscap
FACEBOOK: / grimreapersgroup
TWITTER: / grimreapers_
DISCORD: / discord
THANK YOU TO: Mission Makers, Admin, Staff, Helpers, Donators & Viewers(without which, this could not happen) xx
#WarGames #GRWarGames #F104 #Starfighter #NuclearBomber #ColdWar #Aviation #AviationGaming #FlightSimulators #Military - Ігри
Retry with Genie Nuclear Rockets: ua-cam.com/video/RSe99PPuL5s/v-deo.html
I lived in BAOR at the time the Luftwaffe were losing these planes on a regular basis,there was a joke that to own a Starfighter you just had to buy a plot of land near an airbase and wait for delivery.
LoL.... Ok that was funny
I grew up in small town Canada. RCAF F-104's were fairly common overhead as we weren't far from the Cold Lake airbase. I remember visiting a huge hole in the ground that had scraps of metal around it. My dad said it was a bad F-104 landing, lol. The pilot had safely bailed out, apparently.
In Belgium, they were called "the widowmakers".
I think Canada bought 200 of them, lost 111 of them to accidents, they weren’t called “Lawn Darts” for nothing!
Funfact: Spain lost 0 planes in accidents. Must have done something right
That was exciting! I always wondered what an F-104 intercept mission would look like.
I came here to say that! I always enjoy these, but this had me on the edge of my seat.
@Karl with a K Considering Russian aviations current performance incompetence is quite accurate.
Their pilots dont have soviet communist superpowers anymore
@@lordllewellynofdarkdelight2613 lol
The USA was also defended by approximently 265 Nike Batteries in the 1950's through to the Salt treaty. These batteries had long range search capability as did the Air defence command posts. Each battery had twenty or more missiles with nuclear warheads as the last defence against aircraft and ICBM's.
Roger, will add Nike to game soon.
And Vulcans from the UK walked through the defences two years running.
@@charlestaylor9424 I was going to say 😂 - New York did not do well….
They used nukes to destroy the nukes
A lot of those old Nike sites are still around. There's one outside of Washington, DC that I have visited on several occasions.
Interestingly the English Electric high mach interception strategy wasnt to intercept the enemy aircraft head on but to steer a parallel intercept course of about 20/30 miles to the side then when you were a similar 20/30 miles parallel head on distance to the enemy you turned 90 degrees so your actual interception was made side on, that meant you had longer with them in your weapon sights and also you could then complete another 90 degree turn to pursue them without shedding as much energy as doing a 180 in a single turn.
Yes. Plus the English Electric Lightning's Firestreak IR missile was designed for rear aspect shots only. The later Red Top missile, also IR, had limited all-aspect capability.
Let's not forget the Lightning's obscenely quick climb rate...
And true period AIM-9s were also rear aspect too. IIRC the guys were using AIM-9L which is an all aspect version and wasn't produced until the 1970s.
Interesting hypothetical, but never would've been possible. The 104s were only used as interceptors as a stopgap measure from 1958 to 1960, and it was not designed as an interceptor. It was considered as a stop gap interceptor only because of it's impressive time to climb reputation, despite its very short range and lack of a fire control radar that could be used by the SAGE system as the F-101 Voodoo and F-102/106 had. F-101s and F-102s performed the stopgap from 1960 until the F-106 was operational in 1962, so the 104 had a very short service life in the USAF. That life was well before the TU-22 was operational in 1962. Methinks a better comparison would be the F-106 Delta Dart V the TU-22.
Not quite accurate. The 104 was intended as a quick reaction interceptor, especially during a sudden and very hot conflict. It certainly was not designed as turning dogfighter! The wing at George AFB in particular was tasked with acting as the cavalry, deploying quickly in the interceptor and air superiority roles wherever needed all over the world when and where airpower was suddenly required. Yes, they'd be supplanted by F-4s or whatever was in the pipeline over time, as the larger and slower mainline airpower deployed to the conflict zone, but they were doctrinally intended to be used in that role at the very start of a conflict. Remember, Kelly Johnson designed the 104 to be simple and easy to maintain and support for that era, so the perfect quick reaction interceptor. They'd hold the line, intercepting intruding enemy aircraft until the regular fighter-bomber wings could arrive, like F-4s, F-100s, F-102s, or whatever the Air Force deemed necessary. The wing at George was quickly deployed all over the world at times, and 104s were deployed to South Vietnam fairly early in the conflict in the interceptor/air superiority role.
The 104's range is misunderstood. It actually featured a very early form of supercruise, and could get on station extremely quickly. In other words, the alleged lack of range was offset by its exceptionally fast cruise to the combat zone which is also a hallmark of most interceptors, by the way, like the E.E.Lightning and others. The addition of an aerial refueling probe helped matters somewhat.
In terms of the scenario in this video, you are correct - Delta Darts and Daggers would have been more apt, but the Starfighter could have been used in the role quite easily.
Fuck me fella, just enjoy the video.
@Jeffrey Wall Voodoos as well, yes they were kind of a stopgap but they served for a long time with interceptor sqaudrons.
Outside of the USAF it was absolutely intended for and used as an interceptor a long time after 1960.
Anyone who’d like to see some cool 60’s footage (quite a lot actually) of F-104’s in action, or at least training, along with way too much refueling from a KC-135 , you should definitely check out the Mystery Science Theater version of the 60’s movie “The Starfighters”. The movie was originally made in collaboration with the USAF & used A/C variants of the F-104 from the 479th Tactical Fighter Wing at George AFB. I believe squadrons from the 479th were actually the only ones who flew the F-104 in Vietnam (to protect the Thunderchiefs), in addition to having the absolute honor of being in this fine film.
It might seem like you’re watching an infomercial for F-104’s, but there’s also government provided amphetamines, creepy double make-out sessions in the same car, lame prank phone calls, nepotism, anti-communist messaging & then some more refueling. I believe there was even a Kaman HH-43 Huskie: a very interesting helicopter with intermeshing rotors. Anyway I highly recommend it if you want some laughs along with your Starfighters. Especially if you’re in a state with legalized cannabis 😁 Great video & a really good update btw, that cockpit interior looks amazing
I was hoping I wasn't the only old person who remembered MST3K. I can't get the movie's music out of my head now.
Poopie Suit!
@@steamr0ll Lol. Came to remind about that. :)
@@susanmontgomery7121 Well I don’t remember saying I was an old person lol, but that’s ok 😉. I 💯 agree on the music: all I’ve heard in my head all day was the 🎶”Baaaahm, bum bum, baaahm…”🎶 theme that was played on the many occasions they showed F-104 stock footage. I don’t think I’ll ever get that out of my head 😂
@@steamr0ll I still don’t know why they called them that 😆
Hey Cap, when flying these speed critical intercepts it may be best to hold a constant IAS instead of climbing into thin air at low Mach. When you pulled up the flaps at 25,800ft you were at 370KIAS and 0.95M and about 0.25 on the AoA gauge. When you asked if anyone got past 1.2M you were down to 280KIAS at 47,600ft and 1 on the AoA gauge. You were being hampered by lift induced drag not form drag or wave drag. You should never climb past 36,000 in the transonic region unless you are going to bunt over for more speed. Sometimes lowering the nose can help you climb faster by increasing your speed.
I would see this a lot with the F-14, people complaining that it's subsonic if you have Phoenixes onboard yet doing a .9M climb to 50,000 then a bunt to 1.4M at 36,000 then climbing at a constant KIAS I could get 4 Phoenixes, 2 Sparrows, and 2 Sidewinders to 1.6M and above 50,000ft.
Perhaps a video suggestion? Have three people in the same plane and same configuration, one climbs to 45,000+ft at .85-.95M then bunts to ~36,000ft to break past 1.2M then climbs at constant KIAS, one person climbs to 36,000ft then just accelerates, one person accelerates down low to 400-450KIAS then holds that KIAS for the climb adjusting nose position as needed. See who reaches a distance first, how fast they are going, and how much fuel they have left.
thx
remember to use your flaps to turn - they can be deployed at a ridiculous speed and give you and additional 1.5 g of turn
This was the fighter that made an appearance in an OG Star Trek episode.
Yepp.... Seen it as a boy about 50 years ago and thought it was a space rocket....😂😂😂😂
Of course! The F-104 was the coolest Cold War fighter of all.
Tomorrow Is Yesterday Season 1 Ep 19
@@jyralnadreth4442 that's it, bro
A great Revell bundle kit
I think as in the real aircraft you have to dive from e.g. 30k in order to go through the transonic speed area. Once the F-104 reaches more than M 1.3/ 1.4 it will continue to accellarate (even while climbing to 45k). The real F-104 depending on the version had intakes which worked best around M 1.6.
A clean F-104A/B/C/D/G could slip through M1 easier, but with tanks and/or AIM-9 it needed the climb/dive profile at least for most efficient accelleration. That's what I read at least, not a real F-104 pilot 🙂
An F-104 even successfully intercepted the NCC-1701 in 1969....
I recall Spock saying that the plane had nuclear tipped missiles, I wonder if that would have been possibly true?
@@LonesomeTroubadour If it was running AIR-2A Genies or a variant of the Falcon, I believe it could have done just that
Not the F-104 as far as I know. F-89 and F-106 I believe could fire the nuclear Air-2 Genie missiles.
@@slowhornet4802 Thanks for the clarification on that, I appreciate it 👍
@@arthurhucksake2665 I guess the writers of Star Trek were clueless about the typical armament of the Starfighter. Perhaps they were thinking, it has missiles? They must be nuclear. lol
As a rule of thumb, you should not try to break the mach above your best cruising altitude. You're not going to have the thrust you need because there's not enough air flowing into the engine. Get past 500 around 33,000 and keep it that way (climb with IAS). That mod liked 550 the last time I tried.
My first experience with the RCAF was in the late 70’s. I lived in Calgary Canada and watched a RCAF ‘Starfighter’ blast overhead…it was spectacular. 🇨🇦 Army Veteran
Worked with some Danish F-104s back in the day, high alt three ship bomber and we reduced power and started slight descent to stop making contrails... The 104s were in a stern chase above us and you would not believe the contrails off those jets. Well over twice the wing span of them wide and SOLID. Saw them and wait for them to come into radar coverage, and waited, and waited while they arched toward us, rapidly - kinda like a bullet coming across the sky. Getting out and engaging before bombers got close, they did that very well.
Love these Cold War scenarios! However an early 1960's scenario is rather spoilt by using the AIM-9L, which is a considerably more capable late 1970's all-aspect missile. A 1960's scenario really should have used the AIM-9B, AIM-9J or the AIM-9P (depending on how strictly one wants to try to adhere to the timeline).
The tail guns on bombers of that period become more of a factor with era-appropriate AAM's, which will necessitate a close-range launch from astern of a M 1.4 bomber.
Ah yes I didn;t think of that...
Loved seeing the F-104 used in the role it was designed for. Thanks, Reapers!
38:15 Cap is now an honorary Luftwaffe fighter pilot.
This isn’t the role it was designed for, but a role it could fill if needed.
You should have tried that mission with AIM-9B Sidewinders loaded. That's what the USAF had in the early 1960's.
AIM-9D was also produced in limited numbers 1000 or so, AIM 9C was SARH too
@@jyralnadreth4442 : Neither of those are in DCS though
To be fair a lot of the starfighters went down because the militaries who used them were idiots and said oh let’s use this purpose built interceptor for close air support lmao
I read that recently. Defies logic.....
Curious, the Me-262 was also primarily used for ground attack...maybe because against the Russians, high speed interceptors weren't really needed against the Soviet Union on a daily basis.
“Purpose built interceptor” no
well if you look at the competetion for the contract for germany for example it was for multirole fighter ,they were sold as multirole fighters so they were uswd as such
Not only that, Lockheed bribed and politicians, scum that they are, accepted. A shame because it seems like a really good interceptor.
There’s a reason one of its nicknames was “Earth Nail” or “Lawn Dart”
I prefer Tent Peg, it doesn’t sound quite a fatalistic:-)
This one was really fun!! Thanks!! I understand the massive engine with wings glued on better now, they had to get within Fox 2 and gun range to intercept. Cool video!, Thanks Grims.
The climb probably would have been smoother if you guys got to mach 1 on the deck, flaps raised, then zoom climb at about 15-20 degrees. You also get much better thrust, at a low IAS its not going to be a very efficient afterburner, alot of thrust left on the table so to speak.
Beautiful mission!! It was nice to see how incredibly efficiently you guys mopped them up on the second run. The lessons learned on the first flight were IMMEDIATELY put to use!! Great flying as always Grim Reapers!!!
So glad to see the F-104 again!
Yes! The F104 Star Fighter, as featured in the classic animated series, "Roger Ramjet". It's simply the best interceptor of its time.
The aircraft with its weak radar and loadout could not do much except climb like a rocket. 😂
There were other and better interceptors
Super fun video...Keep doing what GR does best!!!
My favorite model as a kid in the 70's.
YES!
@@vanguard9067 I well remember my Matchbox toy Starfighter. Not a model of course, but I played with it over and over.
One of my favorite jets of all time. Thanks for the video guys.
Greetings from Sweden!
I kust love your channel!
Keep up the great work and thank you guys for all the time tou spend preparing all this greatness! 😊
Bit of an "oops!" at the end, Cap! Great mission, thoroughly enjoyed that.
Best content always, thank you Capt and Crew.
I thought Cap was going to trim it out when he got into the spin. lol
Hi Cap and crew. Ive been gone for a while and need to catch up. But this was cool to see. Keep the great vids coming
Welcome back!
Great work by GCI. That was fun to see.
I, as a viewer of this channel indeed feel valued.
This was the mission of the 48th Fighter Interceptor Squadron based at Langley AFB in Virginia. They used F106 until being one of the last units to transition to the F15 in 1982. Based at Langley they had detachment units in several locations along the east coast, all on 24 hour alert, pilots sleeping at the alert hangars, etc. And at least once a week, usually more, they'd be taking off to intercept Russian planes nearing US airspace. When Langley had it's runways repaired/repaved circa '83 the task was assigned to NAS Oceana.
Interesting video GR, thanks.
The unit was deactivated around 1992 unfortunately, long before the events of 9/11 and was designated redundant after the fall of the Soviet Union. I retired at NAS Oceana, one of 7 military bases in the area around Langley.
Excellent GCI work! Not to be underestimated.
On the second flight, that shot mid split-S dropping through the hostile formation was incredible. Really top notch flying this vid.
The -104 had the J79, the same engine as the F-4 Phantom II. I wished they had more of the USAF Century series fighters, specifically the F-102 and F-106. At the Warhawk Air Museum there is a static display F-104 Starfighter. It reminds me of a top fuel dragster (good for straight line acceleration). Whereas the F-16 reminds me of a Formula One racer, fast and maneuverable!!
I fell in love with the 'Century' Series birds. I read how the 363rd Tac Recon Wing in F101-Voodoos flew so low in the Cuban Missile Crisis that one pilot reported a Soviet Tech almost hitting his plane with a volley ball. The Voodoo was my favorite closely followed by the F104. Thanks GR, made my day by 'Doing a Thing'!
Another problem with the F-104 as used by the Luftwaffe was their attempting to use it as a ground attack aircraft. That took out quite a number of them. Also, as a point of interest, the F-104 had "safety boots" that were installed on the leading edge of the wings when parked to protect ground crews as there were some severe injuries inflected on them if they walked into the wing. An F-104 made a really neat boundry layer "Howl" under certain flight conditions. At Ramstein, you knew, without looking, that the Italians were dropping in for a visit.
And they trained the German pilots in the sunny clear desert Southwest USA. Then deployed them in Northern European weather.
@@lordllewellynofdarkdelight2613 : Plus, the quality of German fighter pilot training wasn't up to USAF standards in the 1960's. Simply put, the German pilots couldn't handle such a high performance aircraft at the time.
The USAF required Starfighter pilots to have at least 1,500 flight hours of experience prior to flying the F-104. West German pilots had around 400 hours.
The Luftwaffe would IMO have been better off going for the Vought F-8E Crusader (as used in relatively small numbers by the French Navy). The F-8E was actually a competitor for the F-104G in the Luftwaffe competition. It had much more lift, and much slower landing speed than the F-104.
@@timonsolus I am pretty sure Lockheed had better political connections than Vought or bribed better. The Starfighter contracts were numerous. Luftwaffe F-8s would have been interesting. The Crusader served the French for a long time. I'm curious if the Italian Air Force had as much trouble. From what I've read the Italians love the 104 and basically built a super 104.
My father was an F-104G pilot in a different country than Germany in the 1960's. He told me the plane wasn't particularly difficult to fly or land. The crashes they had in his squadron were mostly due to bad weather / low visibility. He said the mechanics at his squadron were top-notch and always did an outstanding job making their planes as safe as could be. The German F-104 situation is an outlier, probably caused by a plethora of different factors: Build quality, maintenance quality, training, mission profiles, etc. I am not sure about the US, but the earliest F-104 they used like the F-104A were much more dangerous to fly as it had an ejection seat that fired downwards. My father only flew F-104's with Zero-Zero ejection seats, meaning you can survive ejections at zero altitude and zero speed.
When you mentioned how this plane had crashes on takeoff and touchy landings, and how military planes from the 1950s were beasts to fly, it reminded me of Chuck Yaeger's quote from that time period: (Read More)
"If you can walk away from a landing, it's a good landing. If you use the airplane the next day, it's an outstanding landing."
I found this very interesting, I have been curious about this aircraft since I read about it in the 80's, and it was cool to see the whole mission brought together. Including the crashes, I knew it was considered dangerous.
When I thought through this, it seems like the best strategy might be to split into two groups and the first group go for head-on intercept while the second group goes for a U-intercept so they can trail the bombers all the way to the coast.
Awesome job, we in the colony salute you!
In case anyone is playing the role of the Moldovan Judge :
- that was a 147-tuple flip with 38 twists that cap pulled off before entering the pool with an inordinate amount of splash.
I envy you guys having the equipment and skill to fly these simulations.
Haven't finished the vid yet but right off, in 1965 those F-104 almost certainly been carrying the Genie nuke air-air missiles. Bye bye formation of 10 Tu-22s. Very enjoyable video guys thank you.
Surrounding Washington DC was a network of 13 Nike ABM sites tucked into wooded areas around the city in a 20 to 30 mile perimeter. When I was younger back in the late 70s we would crawl around the ruins and do teenage things in and around the underground spaces at the Fairfax Virginia site. At a site in Prince William County a few miles south are the remains of several squat concrete and steel structures that supported the radar antennas. At least there were. That was the largest Nike site, in Lorton Virginia with 24 Nike Ajax launchers in six sets of four. They were scattered cross country guarding strategic assets. Interestingly there were a few sites in the middle of the desert in New Mexico around Whites Sands Missile Range guarding all kinds of hocus pocus arms technology.
Cap went trigger happy on that second run 😂 awesome flying lads ✈
Nice vid Cap :-)
It's nice to see cold war stuff again
I did tree work for a colonel for years, he said he flew the 104 and 102 I'm pretty sure he said 106 also. But anyway I asked him what missles they carried and I'm sure they carried more but he said they had nuclear tipped missles and I hope I remember this right they were big enough to knock out a formation with one missle. He said they'd of rammed them if they were out of ammo.
Great shooting Drop!
I guess the mission would be even more difficult. If im not mistaken the Sidewinders at that time was rear aspect only.
Loves this, can’t wait for some NF-104 high altitude attempts should you find your blessed little cotton socks yearn to make such a video
Excellent!
Good coverage between the Zipper and the One-oh-Wonder.
One of my many USA fighters. Again . I made a airfix model of one , when I was a kid. Looks good on screen. ✌👾
These videos are great!
Loved it!
Amazing plane...saw one at an airshow. Standing next to an F4 pilot who kept saying "He's gotta be running out of fuel" over and over.
Cool video. I love the Starfighter. It was the sexiest jet fighter/interceptor ever designed.
It was a better aircraft at being a high speed day intercepter than its detractors say.
Canada built over 200 for the RCAF and flew them from 1961 till 1984. We used ours ironically for nuclear strike role with our European squadrons until 1968. The tactical nukes ours carried were USAF nukes handled by USAF personnel.
After 1968 Canada changed our European based CF-104's to conventional low level strike role. The M-61 cannon that was removed during our nuclear strike role was put back into all CF-104's both in Europe and in Canada where our Canadian based CF-104's were used for mostly training but also as day intercepters in our NORAD role.
Back to our European based Starfighters besides the strike role we had some squadrons using them as tactical recon using the Canadian developed Vinton camera recon pod slung on the center line pylon.
A note on our pre camouflaged era CF-104's, the silver ones. Tactical fighter ones had the horizontal stabilizer painted a light grey and our tactical training ones painted red.
Your DCS here would be cool if you could do it with F-101B Voodoos. This was another underappreciated century series fighter. Canada flew 65 of these in our NORAD role as all weather interceptors. We used both radar guided and infrared Falcon air to air missiles, but also the notable nuclear 1.5 Kiloton armed Genie rocket, 2 per aircraft.
Your DCS if possible one day doing using Genie's would be very interesting.
Canada flew CF-101B Voodoo 's from 1959 to 1986. When the CF-18A Hornet replaced both the CF-101B and CF-104D/F aircraft.😎
Growling Sidewinder did a vid with F104s at low altitude and I was amazed at the maneuvers he pulled off. I like these cold war what if wargames the best.
I worked at vets house and he was building a model of this plane. He said that the Germans didn't know how to fly it and kept getting killed. He may be right, I wasn't there or alive. But, I said didn't they call them the Widow maker? He seemed offended. I believe he either flew or worked on them. But he seemed to love the plane, probably out of a sense of nostalgia. You know how some will love shit planes if it was the one they worked on or flew.
15:42 Cap gave me hope!
The starfighter does look like something from Star Wars. I can see where George Lucas got his inspiration from.
Catch a falling Starfighter and put it in your pocket!
Well, The Widowmaker never disappoints. For good and for bad.
Very fun! Challenging (and sexy!) aircraft and a very exciting mission! Was like ready a Clancy novel!
Shouldn't use use the Bravo Aim-9? It would make interception almost impossible, but that's what the 104 had when it was used as an interceptor.
Lots of doing a thing in this one. Great flying gents.
Impressive!
Excellent mod
minor nit pick: if you are scrambling at first radar contact, you would be scrambling from the parking deck not the runway. Otherwise very interesting concept / setting !
Roger noted.
Ya this was a good video!
ATC guy was amazing!
Grim Reapers if its ok i would like your group to try scramble from a cold start or at-list
hot start but from taxi and not waiting on the runway for the scramble order,
other then that loved this video!
Great video. Do you guys use joystick and pedals and/or VR? Or maybe just a joystick?
Joystick and Pedals for me.
It would be interesting to see what an F-104 upgraded with modern radar and Fox-3 missiles could do. One of the biggest handicaps for the F-104 was the poor radar and inability to carry effective Fox-1 missiles until late in its life.
The F104S had the Italian Sparrow equivalent( can't remember what it was called). Italian 104 interceptors were kicking ass against later aircraft during NATO exercises until replacement.
@@rodneypayne4827 Aspide.
@@rodneypayne4827 - Yes, they carried the ASPIDE which was a much improved Sparrow variant but that showed up late in the F-104S service life. The F-104G could technically carry the Sparrow but few thought it was worth the trouble due to poor reliability. Early F-104 models could also carry the AIM-4 but it was a poor match.
There was an "Super Starfighter" designed by the codename CL-1200 Lancer that fixed most of Starfighter's issues by giving it a more of a delta wing design that was over 50% larger, also moving the wings higher on the fuselage and ailerons lower right next to the engine to eliminate downwash problems, plus the plane was made considerably longer to allow it to carry about 30% more fuel but it wasn't greenlit because it wasn't an enough of a generational leap that the airforce wanted and it lost out to F-5.
@@Laerei - The Lancer never went beyond the mockup stage so how much of an upgrade it was is debatable. In reality, the F-104 never lived up to its full potential because without microprocessor technology its avionics couldn't match its performance. An F-104 with the F-16s avionics would have been a world-beater but there were twenty years in between the two.
so glad to see the starfighter =)
Would love to see the same scenario with F-102s and again with F-106s
Two fictional scenarios from this era that I would love to see would be:
1. The B-52 attack from the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove.
2. The B-58 attack from the 1964 move Fail Safe.
6:22 for the curious, that angle is the exact same angle needed to land it. Have fun with that Cap.
Depending on the max deployment speed, maybe it might be worth making the refueling with stage 1 flaps, like when the flight was doing initial climbout. Bring the AoA down, and maybe get the tanker reference points above the canopy frame.
Great video.. Sorry if I missed it but did the 104 have radar guided missiles? Would love to see this if they had MB-1/AIR-2 ‘Genie’ rockets
I know the Italian model carried Sparrow, unsure about the USAF version.
god i love the earlier cold war gone hot type stuff, something about the tubular aerodynamics, analogue guages and primitive displays hits me in just the right way
Quite Fascinating to think about the Fact that the Starfighter and the SAAB Draken was built for the same role Mach 2+ interception of high flying bombers yet their Design philosophy beeing so extreamly diffrent.
Hopefully well see a Draken in DCS sooner or later.
One thing you guys don’t have accurately is, inflight refuelling. The F-104 only got retrofitted with probes for the Vietnam war. Hence the reason your planes had SE Asia camo. There lies the true nature of the interceptor role of the 104. The likelihood of returning was very slim, if not completely laughable. Couple that with nuclear tipped sidewinders, which the US did not press forward with and that was the stop-gap reality of the Starfighter.
The year of you're scenario the USA had large numbers of destroyers and destroyer escort being used as radar picket ships. Their positions were to extend the range of detection farther than the ground radar
35:16 you could try to look at the gap in between the inner engine and the body of the plane (position like at 35:33)
Here's the thing about the Luftwaffe's crashes: most of those were CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain. Basically, we took pilots who maybe had some time in an Me 262 or F-80 and then threw them into an F-104 and then they wanted to fly it on the deck as a fast strike bomber.
You are aware that in the 1960s and 70s in two separate exercises the British (then world leaders in electronic warfare) were invited to test the US's much vaunted all-encompassing air defence system, they proceeded to fly a bunch of Vulcan bombers into US airspace and parked them at various military bases undetected. After two servings of humiliation the US never invited the RAF back for a third try!
You should try a take off, aileron roll and land in the same pass in the f104 (& maybe other aircraft) there is a video of it being done
What I'd most love to see you guys do is this same intercept but with a Saunders Roe SR.53 or SR.177, the hybrid turbojet/HTP rocket interceptor. If it wasn't for bribery of various European politicians by Lockheed, which came out years later, we would likely have seen those fulfilling this role in several European air forces instead of the Starfighter. It would be a bit of a niche mod to make though, so I don't expect to ever see it. Sadly so many really cool British aircraft from that period are conspicuously absent in DCS.
Most of the continental defense was to be done by the F-106. Once the target was acquired, the onboard systems would fly the plane to the best location, fire missiles, then return to base. The pilot was there to take-off and land. The F-104 was just a Mach 2 interceptor. Sure, it could handle bombers and there was no way for Soviet fighters to escort their bombers on the entire mission. So yes, the 104's would have been pressed into service as well. But the 106 was the continental defense platform from its inception.
Seems like the worst thing the bombers could have done was go evasive - killed their kinetic advantage
Well, many of the early-day losses have now been attributed to the massive technological jump the pilots were asked to do as well as the fact that the training had to consolidate itself. After those initial years, the losses dropped significantly.
But what would you expect when you modify a daylight good weather interceptor into an all-weather fighter-bomber. Still, the aircraft was and is beloved by many of those who flew it. For me who grew up with the sounds of Starfighters flying by relatively low, it will always be one of the aircraft which define military jet.
The F-104 in that era would not have had Aim-9Ls because they wouldn't have been around for another 10 years. The only head-on weapon the F-104s would have had would've been the gun, which, making a head on pass with a closure rate of Mach 2 at least would've been a real challenge. It was estimated it would take 20 hits with the 20mm to bring a bomber down.
The tactics would've been to approach on an offset reciprocal course and turn in behind the bombers, doing a low pass (to get a better IR image against the clear sky) from within a 60-degree cone of the bombers' rear.
My bet was the possibility of a successful intercept was nil. Good work.