Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "PHANTOM MENACE: Should The F104 Starfighter Have Been The USAF's Air Superiority Fighter In Vietnam?" video.

The MiGs were not smaller and "more agile" than the F-86, the planes were roughly comparable there. The MiG had superior ceiling and rate of climb. The Korean War pilots interviewed by Kelly Johnson asked for a plane with superior speed, climb and ceiling in a lightweight package, and that drove the design of the F-104. It also limited its range and load carrying ability as a fighter bomber, which is why USAF brass was not that fond of the airplane.
143
The point about the combat formation and tactics used is important. F-8 pilots were superior at air-to-air because it was in their culture and what they trained for. Same for the F-104, which started life and inculcated its community as a pure day fighter. F-104 pilots used superior tactics to other USAF fighters because it was what they focused on to maximize their air-to-air capability. In terms of pure aircraft performance, the F-104 and F-4 were about even at low and medium altitudes and the F104 was superior at high altitudes. The F-4 was superior overall due to its avionics, range, and loadout. But too much is made of turn radius and dogfighting, which is not as large a part of air combat as most think. The Korean war pilots interviewed by Kelly Johnson did not ask him for an airplane that would turn tighter than the enemy. They asked for superior speed, climb, and ceiling, because those are the factors that convey advantage in air combat. Bleeding speed in tight turns squandered the advantage such an airplane had and was not considered an advisable tactic even in WWII.
22
The F-105 didn't have to shoot at aircraft with its gunsight in "ground strafing mode". It was an air to air gunsight when not depressed for ground attack. The F-105 shot down more Migs with its gun than any other fighter in the war.
14
@marcusott5054 Had Germany used the F-105 in that way it would have also suffered a high accident rate. The problem was not the F-104, it was the type of inherently risky operation coupled with Germany's lack of experience with high-strung Mach 2 aircraft.
8
@wesleyworley8982 "Unlike the F-104, the F-8 had the range to get to North Vietnam where the air war was fought." The F-8 didn't have more range than the F-104, but it only had to travel from carriers off the coast.
7
@robertmaybeth3434 It was obviously suitable, or Germany and Canada would not have bought it specifically to fulfill their NATO obligations to perform that role. You can't see this because you do not understand the role or the history of combat aircraft in general. Here are some facts that may help you understand more: Number of engines is irrelevant. All the aircraft that performed that role in that theater prior to the F-104, such as the F-84, were also single-engine. The F-104 was an improvement due to is speed, which improved its ability to reach its assigned targets, and do so more quickly. All these single engine fighter-bombers had relatively short legs. It was not a long-range strategic bombing mission. The mission was to deliver a tactical nuclear weapon against an enemy airfield, troop concentration, or supply dump. Strike fighters carried external fuel to extend their range, but even so in many cases it was expected to be a one-way mission. Pilots with insufficient fuel to return to a friendly base expected to bail out over a designated safe area for evasion and maybe have a chance to survive the war. People who did not serve during the cold war may not understand such plans, or the commitment it takes to perform them. The weapon loadout was a single tactical nuclear bomb, so how much payload do you need. The F-104 could carry four external fuel tanks in addition to the weapon, so it had sufficient range to reach its assigned targets. Hope that helps you understand the realities.
5
@robertmaybeth3434 I served as a pilot who was prepared to bail out above the arctic circle and become a popsicle. Hope your silo was warm with plenty of snack food.
5
@feedingravens "he said it was to a large part simply the giant jump from jets like the Fiat G-91 to this Mach 2 interceptor without intensive training that caused the issues. He said that after the pilots were sent into the USA to train there the number of accidents went down drastically. " That is the true story.
5
@slowpoke3102 "It also had horrible handling characteristics" Such as what, it stalls and sinks if you fly too slow? Welcome to manned flight.
5
Disregarding other facts of the F-104, the fleet was simply too small to be viable for sustained combat operations over North Vietnam. The F-105 fleet also became too small and it was the first U.S. aircraft ever withdrawn from combat due to an unsustainable loss rate. The F-4 was in production and could fulfill both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.
5
@robjohnson8522 When people comment about MiGs being smaller and lighter they are usually parroting the line from the movie Top Gun, which was comparing the MiG-21 to the F-4. I don't think the difference between the Mig-17 and F-86 was as significant, meaning they were roughly comparable, as do most aviation scholars who write on the subject. The MiG was a bit lighter with a better thrust to weight ratio, so it accelerated and climbed better. The F-86 had more wing area to compensate for its weight, so agility was roughly comparable. In fact, the Sabre had an edge at high AOA and high speed due to handling deficiencies of the MiG. Most scholars of the Korean air war write that what made the difference between these two in combat was pilot training and tactics rather than the differences between the aircraft. That to me is roughly comparable.
4
@alandavis6429 "a Mig fuselage can fit under the wing of an F86 and it is about 1/2 as long" You are clearly delusional.
4
@robertmaybeth3434 Hey, we were on the same team.
3
@oreticeric8730 Huh?
3
No, it was not designed as a point defense interceptor. It was designed as an air superiority fighter. Read the history.
3
Wrong. It was designed as an air superiority fighter, not an "interceptor".
3
@DonPatrono Your opinion on what makes an air superiority plane is uninformed. Your focus on turn radius is mistaken. Every generation of fighter that was faster than the previous generation could not turn as tightly as the previous generation, yet they still kept making faster fighters. This is because speed, climb, and height were the factors that conferred advantage in that era of air combat. Pilots of the faster fighter knew not to get into a slow turning fight with tight turning fighter, but they didn't want to switch places with its pilot. People who think air combat was about tight turning dogfights get their assumptions from video games instead of history books. All that said, a properly handled F-104 could hold its own in a fight with an F-4 and beat it at high altitudes, because it did not turn as poorly in real life as it does in video games. At any rate, your claim that the F-104 was designed as BVR bomber interceptor is false.
3
@DonPatrono You are the one with bias, I just gave you the facts you can't accept. Fact: The F-104 was designed to be a simple air superiority fighter. Your biased opinions on how bad it was do not alter the facts and are of no interest. Fact: The F-104 was never intended to be BVR capable in USAF service. I could go on but why waste my time. You don't know what you are talking about, so please stop trying to spread misinformation.
3
@robertmaybeth3434 If you were an aerospace engineer you would realize that the F-104 was inherently suitable for the high-speed low-level nuclear strike role. But instead, you assume the actual experts who selected the airplane for the role were the idiots.
2
Turning is much less important than you think it is. And it actually could turn with an F-4.
2
Your view out of focus, because the F-104 was not meant to be a bomber interceptor. Read the history. TAC did not have many of them but did use the F-104 in Vietnam. It served in escort, defensive CAP, and ground support roles. It was not well suited to penetrate heavily defend North Vietnamese airspace and was replaced by the F-4 in that role.
2
@douglasgabrielle6623 The F-104 was used for a time by ADC as a stopgap bomber interceptor when the F-102 and F-106 suffered developmental delays, but it was not an excellent bomber interceptor. The F-104 wasn't equipped to operate under the SAGE system, and didn't even have radar homing missiles. It was a clear air day fighter, not an all weather bomber interceptor. The premise of this video faulty because there was no choice between the F-104 and the F-4. They both served well in Vietnam, but the 104 had a much smaller role. F-4 was certainly the better airplane for penetration of heavily defended areas of North Vietnam.
2
The F-5 was inferior to the F-104. The F-4 was the best USAF had for the job.
2
The F-104 was absolutely not designed as a BVR bomber interceptor. It was designed as an air superiority fighter. It never had BVR capability in USAF service. Read the history.
2
@DonPatrono Unable to see any logic in that incoherent rant, which you probably think is clever. The fact remains that the F-104 was designed as an air superiority fighter, not a BVR bomber interceptor. Your uninformed opinion of its effectiveness has no effect on the facts.
2
@patrickgriffitt6551 And a smart pilot doesn't let things get tight in the first place. Robin Olds, much worshipped by as the archetypical fighter pilot, once derided what he called "rat racing", or fighters chasing each other around in circles. Most people here seem to think maneuverability means a tight turns circle. For a fighter pilot maneuverability means being able to convert a position of advantage, which was achieved by virtue of superior performance, into a shot. Bleeding airspeed in tight turns with slower opponents is something fighter pilots were told to avoid.
2
@IgnoredAdviceProductions You're damning the very first Mach 2 fighter because it is a couple of tenths of a Mach slower than aircraft that came along later? That's some perspective you have there. The F-106 came along years later and was much more modern and expensive. Although faster, the 106 couldn't do what the 104 was designed to do because in its heyday it didn't have a gun and a gunsight, or provision for a pilot G suit.
2
@IgnoredAdviceProductions Oh, I can read. You didn't explain crap, but you did spew a bunch of it. I’ve already addressed your dumb comment about how more recent planes were slightly faster. And so what if other aircraft that followed it could do what the F-104 could? That about a dumb argument—nobody said the F-104 remained the best when other fighters came along later to match or exceed it. Your comment about maneuverability is ignorant. Tight turning radius was not as important as you think it was, and in any case the F-104 could turn better than internet keyboard aviators like you think it could. It could turn with an F-4, but nobody who designed it or bought it thought it would turn as tight as an F-86 or a MiG 17. They built it because it would dominate those aircraft in air combat. More ignorance on the “safety issues”. All single-engine fighters were risky to fly. Even though the F-104 was a lightweight fighter with minimal backup systems, when used in its design role did not have an extraordinarily high accident rate, especially after the reliability of the new J-79 was improved. The high accident rate of the F-104 in German service was well above the norm for the airplane. Pretending for a moment that the F-106 could bomb and strafe, If Germany had flown the F-106 in the same high-speed low-level role in European weather they would probably have crashed it at the same rate as the F-104. And the F-104 was just as safe as the F-106 on takeoff and landing, which is another thing internet keyboard aviators like you do not comprehend. You have explained nothing, literally.
2
@IgnoredAdviceProductions I'm not defending the F-104, which doesn't need defending from you. I'm just countering the misinformation and illogical arguments you are slinging around. You are the vehement one trying to make the case that it was an awful aircraft. Just give the airplane a break and accept it for what it was instead of what you like imagine it was and was not. And no, if you think the F-104 was un-maneuverable you are the one who doesn't understand maneuverability. But no sense arguing with someone who just wants to keep grinding the same old axe.
2
@nodirips_8537 The F-86H was a post Korean War development of the Sabre. I think the subject here is the contest between the Sabres and Fagots used in Korea.
1
@slowpoke3102 "it takes 3 states to let it turn 180 degrees" And you actually believe that crap? Of course, at Mach 2, “ANY” airplane could make a turn around the corner where 3 states come together and fly over all of them, but an F-104 trying to turn tightly would certainly not take require the space of 3 average states. Use your head before you spew such nonsense. It also seems you have no specific claims as to exactly what the “horrible handling characteristics” of the F-104 are. I assume you have no actual concept of what good or bad handling characteristics of a would be. And I have no intention of even reading your irrelevant BS about the F-22 and F-35, because I can see it is more fantasy. I bet you watch “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel when you are not watching YouTube.
1
@rossmum If you are talking about the F-104, there is no question the high wing loading was a considerable benefit in high-speed low-level flight. All jets designed for that have high wing loading, which is why the F-104 was completely suitable for the role.
1
The F-104 was not designed at the request of the Air Force for a bomber interceptor. It was designed as a speculative venture by Kelly Johnson, who wanted to create a lightweight high performance air superiority fighter. He then presented the design to the right general in the Air Force, who was very impressed and said "build it". Not all USAF generals were as fond of it as the one who greenlighted, so it was only built in small numbers.
1
Huh? It is small in all dimension other than length, and even that still 10 feet shorter than an F-4. This is not "a really big plane".
1
@ReviveHF I commented on the F-5 vs F-104 but you want to confuse things with an unrelated comment about the F-4. Random thought generator at work, or did you mean the comment for someone else. But since you raised the subject, USAF had the F-106 as its strategic bomber interceptor. Although it was USAF's most capable tactical fighter the F-4 was nowhere near as suitable as the F-106, and hardly perfect for its role. The F-4 wasn't even equipped to operate under the SAGE system. Unlike the F4 and F-104, the F-106 was originally designed as a dedicated bomber interceptor and was not equipped to be a tactical fighter.
1
@IgnoredAdviceProductions The reason the F-105 had so many guns kills is that it had more exposure to MiGs than and other fighter, up close, where the gun was easier to employ in self-defense than the rarely carried missile. They didn't have to find MiGs because the MiGs found them.
1
It wouldn't have been superior. Lockheed explored using a delta wing for the F-104 but discarded it. They chose the small straight wing for its advantages over a delta wing.
1
Tell that to the F-4 pilots who were out fought by it at high altitude. Dogfighting in terms of tight turning is overrated and was not emphasized as a productive combat tacit in those days.
1