I know very little about these planes, but it is nice to see discussions on something specific and (mostly) different like old planes.

 

Thanks!

BTW, I concur that the NV might have surmised that the fighters escorting force multipliers were F-104's from the methods that you suggest, but I seriously doubt that the decision not to attack was specifically because they were F-104s. There were no tankers or AWAC's escorted by any type shot down throughout the entire conflict. I suspect it was just too hard as they would have been at the edge of the range for the Migs and the Migs would have been seen coming from miles off. If I saw some first hand information from an NV that the F-104s were particularly feared I might be convinced otherwise.

The NV had proper respect for all US types. As we did for them. I'm not convinced that the average NVAF jet jock was any more intimidated by the Star fighters than he any other of our top fighters. The F 104 was probably there to satisfy Lockheed, who was trying to sell them to NATO at the time, and because that was about all that was available to fill in those slots. Using them as an  fighter escort was okay (not optimal) but the idea of using them as ground attack aircraft strafing or bombing the Viet Cong huddled under trees in the jungle is a bit mystifying for me.

 

Their pinnacle in that conflict was when they were used as the trap door on operation "Bolo". When Old's boys, the 8th TFW, lured the NVAF up to play with them, the F-4's back-up had to be so far away that they weren't detected by the NVAF radar net. When the Migs rose to the bait, the F 104s who were assigned top cover for those Phantoms went into afterburner and used their incredible high altitude speed to cut off any possible enemy reinforcement. The USAF had the Migs between a hammer and an anvil and spanked them pretty good.

 

In reality, the F 104 was an interceptor. Not a multi role fighter. In this it was very similar to the Mig 15 (in its hey-day). Very high performance and very tricky to fly, very fast, the highest combat ceiling of it's time, and specialized armament for its mission. Both of them were the absolute best at their job, for the mission they were designed for. Kill bombers.

 

Oh, the F 104 went on to be the backbone of NATO's air forces for over a decade, but it was never a perfect fit in that multi-role it was eventually evolved into. Now, if you want to climb up very, very fast, and sit up at the gossamer edge of space....... There was your dandy!

 

Check Six

 

Rocky 

Again and again you mis represent history and mis represent other's statements to keep your argument alive. I only said it had an enviable record in Vietnam and no USAF aircraft were lost to air to air in that conflict. The  historians don't count the plane shot down in China as a Vietnam War loss. Take it up with them and the USAF if you disagree. I also said the aircraft was 100% successful in it's minor air to air role in Vietnam.  All demonstrated true.

 

Now you bring in the Mig 21? Okay, we have already shown here on this thread that the type was chosen to close the trap on the Mig 21 in operation "Bolo". The type's honor remains solid. NATO went on to build more of this type than any other. You think the west's airforces would have faired poorly against the Red Mig-21s? Well the pilots I have talked to don't agree and neither did, Belguim, Germany, Norway, Italy,Turkey, Spain, Greece, and Netherlands. Japan and Canada built the type as well. Herald quite frankly you have not proved anything except you spend too much time with your opinion and not enough studying the subject matter at hand!

 

Now to your assertion that the type was a pilot killer. Be assured every aircraft ever built is a potential pilot killer! Kelly Johnson had a penchant for building extremely high performance aircraft. It was true of the U2, the P 38, and the B 26 was called widow maker as well. I have time in his "Aerostar" design. A mid-wing civilian twin that was very demanding and rewarded its pilot with superior performance v. other types. Johnson always assumed you were qualified when you got into one of his birds. He demanded you be properly trained when you used one of his designs and that was very true of the

F 104. Don't blame the design for the pilot's lack of preparedness. Yes some planes are easier to fly than others on a dark and stormy night but the Starfighter wasn't created to play nice. It was created to get up and go high, intercept an inbound and knock it down.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

My bad, Ted Smnith designed the Aerostar!

 

http://www.aerostaraircraft.com/tedmodels.jpg" width="241" height="168" />

The F-104 was not an interceptor, it was designed as an air superiority type and it was converted into a multi role.  It was selected by NATO mostly for its simplicity.

I'm not sure anybody who flew one in the USAF thought of it as an air superiority type (I know those who I have spoken to wouldn't have agreed with you). Kelly Johnson didn't refer to it that way either. It certainly was too specialized for climb and had way too short of an internal range to be called one at least early on in it's career. NATO certainly used it as an air superiority type and yes simplicity along with low cost were also reasons for its commercial success. There were many lower cost options available world wide though such as the very fine Mirage series or the US Super Sabre.

 

The Starfighter's performance was the main reason the west wanted it. Nothing could catch a clean F 104 in climb and high altitude dash speed. That's what they wanted & paid for.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

I read that and fell out of my chair with laughter. No wonder you like the Starfighter. Look at what planes you chose as its peerrs!

 

Coggins, Ed. Wings That Stay on. Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing Company, 2000, p131?

 

data 

 

data 

 

data. 

 

 

How the Starfighter actually did against the Mig 21. 2-0, in favor of the Migs. 

 

H.

 

1) Seems to be a lot of "lawyering" going on about it's Vietnam Service...Herald wants to credit too many A2A kills...A mid-air operational is NOT an A2A "kill."  If it is, then any DRVN a/c lost in take-off, flight, r landing to pilot error or maintenance issues is a US "kill."  And that's just silly.

2) BUT, claiming no one was shot down whilst escorted by F-104 is equally a lawyer argument...it seems NO ONE  was shot down, on those missions, or very few (because some B-66 ECM a/c were lost).  So whilst true no one was lost being escorted by F-104 is technically true, it is also, as the Vietnamese Colonel so eloquently put it, it is also IRRELEVANT as NO EC-131 was ever lost.

3) I said it before, the F-104 was withdrawn from Vietnam Service reasonably quickly, so I'd say the USAF didn't see it's value, relative to the F-105 and the F-4.  Only made two tours...and 14 F-104's were lost, 1 A2A.

4) It does seem safe to say that the F-104 was an INTERCEPTOR, and a rather poor one (in early versions), not an Air Superiority Fighter-type.  I'd think of it as a Spitfire, short-ranged and gun-armed...it flew quick, it climbed quick, it wasn't a turning a/c (so that's going to limit it v. the MiG-21, at least in so far that it wasn't going to be that much better than any other US a/c in a turning fight).  It took off, moved fast, climbed to altitude and made a kill, but having no BVR weapons made it in it's operational era, a limited platform.  An a/c with a 30 Km. Sparrow v. an F-104 with a 10 kilometre AIM-9 is going to cover 9 times the area of an F-104 (yes, I know that is VASTLY over-simplified).

5) Until the F-104S came along the F-104 is not a great interceptor, as compared to F-102/106 or the F-4.  The F-104's poor reputation seems to have come from putting into a multi-role mission and, in the Luftwaffe's case, over-loading it by a ton or more.  The F-104 is NOT a low-level a/c, is not a dog-fighter, or a A2G a/c and to use in such a role was to invite excessive losses.