F-104 Air-To-Ground Capabilities

[bojan]

OK, since it was multi-role (at least in sales brochures), what were it's real AtG capabilities? Pics that could be found are either airshow "hang everything that you have, never mind the take-off" or training pics with most showing only a pair of Mk82 or those 7-rounds 70mm rocket pods. Which is sort of disappointing, considering that it was not that small plane and that it had plenty of power available...

So anyone has any data what was a standard load or even better load plan?

[shep854]

Mud mover? Not much, especially if you wanted a particular spot of mud moved. With that tiny wing, it was just too fast and unmaneuverable for any sort of real precision, let alone CAS. The aforementioned wing plus a very thirsty J-79 engine meant loiter time was nil as well. That said, ISTR seeing a photo of a USAF F-104C messing around near the ground during the Vietnam War.

I gather the G-model with its advanced bombing system was a satisfactory N-bomber.

Edited November 12, 2012 by shep854

[BP]

An F-104 had outstanding air-to-ground capabilities. Once.

[shep854]

An F-104 had outstanding air-to-ground capabilities. Once.

Banzai!

[RETAC21]

Actual capabilities were límíted to dumb bombs, including rockets and cluster bombs plus che kormoran ASM in German and Italian service.

[Rickard N]

An F-104 had outstanding air-to-ground capabilities. Once.

 

Made my day, unfortunately my screens are too far away to be tainted in sephia

 

/R

[baboon6]

This is what the Canadian ones carried after they switched from the nuclear to conventional role and were fitted with guns. The CF-104 like the F-104G had only pylon under each wing but the Canadians had twin ejector racks:

 

http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_LockheedF104Starfighter.pdf

 

 

 

a) Gun: M-61A1 Vulcan (a six-barrelled 20mm cannon, with a firing rate of 66 rounds

per second. Six seconds of ammunition were carried).

Rockets (Unguided, Air to Ground):

Mk 4 2.75" FFAR (folding fin aircraft rocket). Up to 76 could be carried in four

19-tube launch pods.

CRV-7 (Canadian Rocket Vehicle, as developed by the Defence Research

Establishment, in Valcartier, Quebec, with number, and launcher as above).

c) Bombs:

Mk 82 GP “Snakeye” (a general purpose, retarded fall, “iron” bomb).

CBU-2/B (cluster bomb).

Mk 20 “Rockeye” (cluster bomb).

BL 755 (high explosive cluster bomb).

BLU-1/B, later BLU-27/B (Up to four napalm firebombs could be carried).

 

And the Germans:

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_17.html

 

In the nuclear role, the Luftwaffe F-104Gs could carry a single 1-Mt B-43 nuclear store underneath the fuselage on the centerline. A maximum of 250 Luftwaffe Starfighters were committed to NATO's nuclear forces. At the height of the Cold War, each of the fighter-bomber wings maintained a 24-hour force of six nuclear-armed Starfighters on Quick Reaction Alert, fueled and ready to take off within 17 minutes of authorization. I remember some concern being expressed at the time about a German finger being on the nuclear trigger. However, although these nuclear weapons were carried underneath German aircraft, these bombs remained under American control at all times, and could be released for delivery only under a direct order passed down the chain of command from the President of the United States.A typical load of conventional weapons for ground attack included Lepus flare bombs, CBU-33 cluster bombs, various iron bombs and LAU-3A unguided rocket packs.

 

The F-104Gs of the Bundesmarine usually carried a MBB Kormoran antiship missile on each of the inner underwing stores pylons. The Kormoran missile had a range of up to 23 miles. The missile had a 350 pound warhead with 16 radially-mounted projectile charges and fuse delays designed for penetration of ship armor. After launch, the Kormoran used an inertial midcourse guidance in conjunction with a radio altimeter to hold an altitude of less than 100 feet off the wavetops during the approach to the target. The radar seeker in the nose could operate either as an active radar seeker or as a passive receiver. When it found a target it locked onto it, and the impact point was intended to be just above the waterline of the enemy ship in order to ensure maximum damage.

Edited November 12, 2012 by baboon6

[JW Collins]

I've never understood why the Germans and others ever used the F-104 in the ground-attack role. It seems a pretty terrible choice for that role, especially if it was performing that mission at low-altitude like I imagine it was in Germany at least. Surely there were other aircraft on the market that cought have been bought for this role.

[Ariete!]

I believe it is generally recognized that F104s were, like several items of US military assistance of that period, stuff that wasn't quite good enough for the US but good enough for NATO (like the M47s). Unlike the M47s, I'm not sure anyione got the 104s cheap, though... It was also involved in the Lockheed scandal (albeit, so was the C130 which was a great plane).

 

No one could think that a high-acceleration, quick-climb, massive wing loading, (almost) winged rocket would be a good mud mover either in terms of survivability, maneuvrability and performance at low altitude, range or load. I suppose as a one-way, tactital nuke deliverer it was prob. ok for its time but as the main strike aircraft for many years for decent-sized air foces like the Luftwaffe and Aeronautica Militare Italiana it was a joke. When the Tornado entered service, those air forces made a 'quantum leap' ahead. At least the Brits had perfectly decent Bucs and Jaguars before Tornado.

[Ariete!]

The right aircraft, if we wanted to go US, in terms of load/range/cost/logistics mix would have been the A4, IMHO.

[JW Collins]

I think some countries were still buying them by the time the A-7 Corsair II was up for sale too. That was a pretty good successor to the A-4.

[bojan]

What sparked question is that somewhat downgraded version of F-104G was offered to Yugoslavia in '60s, but it was (wisely) rejected, one of reasons was that secondary fighter requirement also included good AtG capability, and F-104 was not judged to be enough of improvement over F-84G... Also it was judged to be worse then MiG-21 in actual fighter duties so could not replace/suplement those as pure fighter.

[Colin]

Budgets were tight and interest in supporting the mission was waning. I think it was a case of we have this aircraft we can't replace and no mission, what work do you have?

[Andrew Jaremkow]

According to some books that cover the F-104 in Canadian service, the F-104 had some surprising advantages in the low-level air-to-ground role. It was found that the very high wing loading prevented the aircraft from being battered and buffeted around by low level turbulence, making low-level ingress and egress more practical, and making the F-104 a very smooth and accurate weapons delivery platform. It's low drag and high power also gave it excellent speed on the deck, making it a very difficult target to catch. This would have made it very effective for slashing in to deliver nuclear weapons, and for conventional engagements of operational-type targets, whose location was essentially fixed, allowing routes to be planned in advance. It certainly wouldn't be fluttering around trying to spot small targets and make multiple engagements, but as a survivable in-attack-out delivery system it might have been surprisingly effective.

[T19]

That's how I remember it

 

Trudeau had to be shamed into getting the f18 and the deal was sweetened by retiring the f104 the voodoo the Canuck and the cf5.

[baboon6]

That's how I remember it

 

Trudeau had to be shamed into getting the f18 and the deal was sweetened by retiring the f104 the voodoo the Canuck and the cf5.

 

The CF-100 had already been replaced as a fighter by the Voodoo in the '60s, a few remained in the EW role. New aircraft are generally procured to replace old ones, could the CF have continued manning all those older types and how useful would they have been? The Hornet added a great deal of capability- IMHO the best choice Canada could have made at the time if they wanted a swing-role aircraft to replace both the CF-101 and CF-104.

 

AIUI the RCAF had actually originally wanted the F-4 instead of the F-104 but it was deemed too expensive and would have taken too long to deliver anyway. Their second choice was an improved version of the Grumman F11F Tiger but when that was cancelled they were left with the F-104. At least it had a specific role (nuclear, later conventional, strike) as did the Voodoo (NORAD). But what was the role of the CF-5? Just a lead-in fighter trainer? Did it ever have an actual war role?

Edited November 12, 2012 by baboon6

[bojan]

F-5 could haul decent load for it's size, 4x Mk82/4x 19 round rocket pods/2x mk83/4x Mk20 was standard Iranian CS load,

It was also quite good dogfighter, Soviet evaluation of ex-Vietnam ones say F-5A and E saz A was equal and E was better then MiG-21bis, and about equal to early MiG-23.

Edited November 12, 2012 by bojan

[Beitou]

G for Germany Herr Minister, G for Germany.

 

HMMMMMMMMMM we want an interceptor a plane for photo reconissaince, air support, assault and battery not JUST A FAIR WEATHER Fighter.

 

Very good Herr Minister, we will make a few modifications, it will cost a little extra but it will be worth it it, and we will call it ...... the F104, F104G Herr Minister, the F104G for Germany,........ on a dark night you will see it shining like a star...

 

Just sign here Herr Minister

 

Development costs, development costs, suerly you can't forecast development costs!!

 

G for Germany Herr Minister G for Germany

 

Just here and one more down here....

 

Catch a falling Star Fighter.....

[CaptLuke]

The right aircraft, if we wanted to go US, in terms of load/range/cost/logistics mix would have been the A4, IMHO.

 

The A-4 equivalent "NATO LIght Strike Fighter" was the G91. French Étendard came out of the same competition.

[bojan]

G91 had way smaller bomb load however. Etendard ditto.

[Tony Williams]

According to some books that cover the F-104 in Canadian service, the F-104 had some surprising advantages in the low-level air-to-ground role. It was found that the very high wing loading prevented the aircraft from being battered and buffeted around by low level turbulence, making low-level ingress and egress more practical, and making the F-104 a very smooth and accurate weapons delivery platform.

 

Correct, and not at all surprising. A low wing loading is great at high altitude, but a serious disadvantage when travelling fast in the thick air at low level.

[Burncycle360]

The S retired in 2004... if you wanted to sparky it up, you could Re-engine it with the F404 (smaller in all respects and lighter than J79) or PW1120 (meant as a drop in replacement), integrate LANTIRN Nav/Attack pods on the cheek stations, wire it for LGB/JDAM and then add your favorite high off boresight missile with Helmet mounted display. That'd give almost anything today a run for it's money as a point defense fighter with light strike secondary role.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Burncycle360

[baboon6]

F-5 could haul decent load for it's size, 4x Mk82/4x 19 round rocket pods/2x mk83/4x Mk20 was standard Iranian CS load,

It was also quite good dogfighter, Soviet evaluation of ex-Vietnam ones say F-5A and E saz A was equal and E was better then MiG-21bis, and about equal to early MiG-23.

 

I'm aware of that but I wanted to know how the Canadians planned on using them in action or if they were seen strictly as trainers in CF service?

[DougRichards]

According to some books that cover the F-104 in Canadian service, the F-104 had some surprising advantages in the low-level air-to-ground role. It was found that the very high wing loading prevented the aircraft from being battered and buffeted around by low level turbulence, making low-level ingress and egress more practical, and making the F-104 a very smooth and accurate weapons delivery platform.

 

Correct, and not at all surprising. A low wing loading is great at high altitude, but a serious disadvantage when travelling fast in the thick air at low level.

 

Which is why the Buc was such a great aircraft, a nominal high wing loading but with blown wings for greater lift for carrier use.

[JW Collins]

Correct, and not at all surprising. A low wing loading is great at high altitude, but a serious disadvantage when travelling fast in the thick air at low level.

 

I've read that the F-15E is something of a bumpy ride down low, but not that it is a serious disadvantage.

 

Even if the F-104 wasn't effected much by turbulence down low, I think the accident rate of the aircraft heavily suggests that it wasn't cut out for the low level ground attack role.

 

Was any thought given by the Germans (or other F-104 customers) purchasing a variant of the F-101? I suppose that degree of range would be unnecessary for them however.