WI: American MIG-21 and Russian F-104

The F-104 turned out to be more dangerous to its own pilots than any enemy aircraft
As much as, being Canadian with a hatred for the CF104 Widowmaker, I hate defending the F104, when used in its intended role, it was a good aircraft. The problem was that Lockheed bribes led the Germans to buy it (and then Canadians, since it was now NATO standard), and our two countries used it in roles that were totally inappropriate for the aircraft (e.g. ground support), because it's what we had, and at that price there wasn't money left for planes more appropriate to those roles.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
As much as, being Canadian with a hatred for the CF104 Widowmaker, I hate defending the F104, when used in its intended role, it was a good aircraft. The problem was that Lockheed bribes led the Germans to buy it (and then Canadians, since it was now NATO standard), and our two countries used it in roles that were totally inappropriate for the aircraft (e.g. ground support), because it's what we had, and at that price there wasn't money left for planes more appropriate to those roles.
In CAS ( not low level tactical nuclear strike role) wasn't the F-84F just as effective as the F-104 ?
 
As much as, being Canadian with a hatred for the CF104 Widowmaker, I hate defending the F104, when used in its intended role, it was a good aircraft. The problem was that Lockheed bribes led the Germans to buy it (and then Canadians, since it was now NATO standard), and our two countries used it in roles that were totally inappropriate for the aircraft (e.g. ground support), because it's what we had, and at that price there wasn't money left for planes more appropriate to those roles.

There was a similar bribery scandal with the Japanese that went all the way up the Commander of the JASDF Minoru Genda (yeah, him) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
 
was it second tier in terms of performance? Or inventory ?
Very few of them were left by 1971 and PAF hoarded their mirages in 71
There was a single squadron plus (3 training craft ), They were used for Air Defence. They did fine in that role. As high altitude bombers, not so much.
It was retired right after the war.
 
Last edited:
Both aircraft were seriously flawed.
The F-104 could still prove useful today.
It had a very small frontal cross section design for maximum speed ,inadvertently shrinking its radar signature.
The best tactics for an F-104 in today's combat environment would be to go in at high speed fire it's missiles then try not to die.
The best tactics for a Mig-21 today is stay in touch with ground control and act as a flying missile battery and pray the enemy doesn't see you.
The fact that North Vietnam's leading ace Colonel Tomb preferred the MiG 17 over the Mig-21 says something about the aircraft.
1):F104 would’ve killed its pilot long before the enemy had a chance.
2) MiG-21 derivatives are still useful. For point defence. Not so much aid superiority.
 
The F104 was designed for one thing only. Speed. Until the end it was a fast machine. What it couldn't do was turn. Since the only variant with BVR AAM was the Italian F104S, all other had the problem that they could catch opponents, but couldn't dogfight them, and were limited to early gen sidewinders. This made them useful only for interception of large, non manouvrable targets, like Tu-95s.
As a fighter (rather than an interceptor) it was useless.
Since it could fly fast and low, it was a decente tactical strike aircraft, but not a good CAS aircraft

It is one of the few US produced and available for export fighters equipped with avionics needed for tactical low altitude strikes.
 
As much as, being Canadian with a hatred for the CF104 Widowmaker, I hate defending the F104, when used in its intended role, it was a good aircraft. The problem was that Lockheed bribes led the Germans to buy it (and then Canadians, since it was now NATO standard), and our two countries used it in roles that were totally inappropriate for the aircraft (e.g. ground support), because it's what we had, and at that price there wasn't money left for planes more appropriate to those roles.

F-104 is not use for ground support. It should be use for low altitude tactical (nuclear) ground strikes, which is a different mission from CAS.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Only F-104 has the avionics needed for low altitude tactical (nuclear) ground strikes.
right , but questions were if f-104
a-intended for CAS with luftwaffe and CAF ?
2-and if so how was it much better than F-84F in CAS ?
 
Last edited:

Khanzeer

Banned
There was a single squadron plus (3 training craft ), They were used for Air Defence. They did fine in that role. As high altitude bombers, not so much.
It was retired right after the war.
Right so numbers were too small to have a big impact on the 71 war and even then 2 were lost to fishbeds w/o shooting down any in return

in 65 , f-104 bagged a mystair but was mortally hit in the process

when did PAF use F-104 as high altitude bombers ? I thought even the low level strike missions it flew which resulted in the loss of HF-24s in 71 were basically strafing runs with its vulcan cannon

As a nightfighter the F-104 was probably most useful , otherwise as a day fighter I think the F-86 and F-6 scored more kills

so was it retired due to inability to get spares for the existing fleet and unable to acquire more improved models ? or because it was so much inferior to other types in PAF at the time

IF PAF had access to upgraded G models in larger quantities arguably it would have seen service till 80s

Since Turkey /Japan airforces with almost 100+ F-4s in 70s/80s kept even the F-104G/J operational till mid to late 80s , not to mention the S version which obviously was far superior to other versions
 
Right so numbers were too small to have a big impact on the 71 war and even then 2 were lost to fishbeds w/o shooting down any in return

in 65 , f-104 bagged a mystair but was mortally hit in the process

when did PAF use F-104 as high altitude bombers ? I thought even the low level strike missions it flew which resulted in the loss of HF-24s in 71 were basically strafing runs with its vulcan cannon

As a nightfighter the F-104 was probably most useful , otherwise as a day fighter I think the F-86 and F-6 scored more kills

so was it retired due to inability to get spares for the existing fleet and unable to acquire more improved models ? or because it was so much inferior to other types in PAF at the time

IF PAF had access to upgraded G models in larger quantities arguably it would have seen service till 80s
They did get two Su-7. And a Canberra. The reason for retirement ostensibly was trouble with spares, but certainly the rather limited role that the Starfighters could undertake was a bigger factor.
The reason PAF preferred F-6; and F86 in the air to air role was data from exercises and intel from the ‘67 war (Arab side directly, Israeli through the US and France). They concluded that GCI guided sidewinder launcher was far more effective than radar homing missile. The Matra 530 launches both failed in ‘71 (of the only two attempted, I think one Indian aircraft was later shot down over Kashmir post ceasefire and a Soviet plane during the Afghan war. Besides these, the use of AMRAAM in February is the only other use of BVR by PAF, ever)
 
Iran is and was a poor country. Do not be confused by its irresponsible use of oil income.
In the 70s?
Are you aware of the magnitude of the Sha weapons shopping spree?
They didn't buy F-5 because they were poor, but in a low/high mix with F4. They liked the formula and were in the process of repeating it in the 80 with a F16/F14 mix, but the revolution stoped that with only half the F14 and no F16 delivered.
And what about Canada and Norway, big F-5 users?
Are they por countries too?
 
It is one of the few US produced and available for export fighters equipped with avionics needed for tactical low altitude strikes.
The G version was specifically developed for that role. In the 60s F105 and F4 production was mainly for replacing losses in Viet Nam. But the F4 was widely exported and was a far more capable strike aircraft than the F104.
There is no reason why NATO countries could not buy any US aircraft they wanted. The F104 was sold mainly as a deal (with benefits for all parties) rather than as an aircraft.
Even the F111 was exported and at the time it was arguably the most advanced strike aircraft the USAF had.
 
And what about Canada and Norway, big F-5 users?
Are they por countries too?

Not poor, but they're also not looking purely at military effectiveness with their purchases. In the case of Canada, domestic politics and the need to buy support from the Quebecois vote had a big influence. As I understand it, the RCAF hated the F-5 due to its short range and lack of capability in general, and they never used half of the F-5s they had inflicted on them. Some ended up being sold to Venezuela and I think other places too, and they replaced it with something actually useful to them as fast as they could.
 
Top