USAF procures Aeritalia F-104S for Vietnam ?

A

Archibald

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
6 June 2006
Messages
12,659
Reaction score
15,535
Simple whatif. What if the F-104C had more success in Vietnam, and USAF see it as a solution to their LWF issues ?

Unfortunately F-104C procurement has long been canned, hence USAF turns toward the most powerful and last Starfighter production line in the world: Fiat in Torino.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter

A batch of F-104S is procured to replace the F-104C and complete Phantoms in the skies of Vietnam. Could the Starfighter reprieve itself in the eyes of USAF ?
 
I think the F-104J upgraded with a J79-GE-19 seems like the "ideal" fighter as it retains the Vulcan; as the F-104S sacrificed the gun for AIM-7s. At one point, the USAF was set to acquire 700 Starfighters and Project Featherduster showed that A and C models fought well in the right conditions.

theaviationgeekclub.com

Project Featherduster: the exercise that proved the F-104 could have been a better MiG killer than the F-4C, F-105D and F-100D - The Aviation Geek Club

Project Featherduster: the exercise that proved the F-104 could have been a better MiG killer than the F-4C, F-105D and F-100D
theaviationgeekclub.com theaviationgeekclub.com
 
@datafuser : GREEEEAAAAT !!! Thank you, didn't thought (or knew) about that one.
So CL-901 is kind the answer then. F-104S returned from Italy to Lockheed. Makes some limited sense. Except for the lack of gun. Would the Phantom gun pod be adaptable to the CL-901 ?
 
D'oh, silly me - I've just realized that the CL-901 & F-104S were one and the same aircraft, at least for Lockheed. They tweaked a RF-104G first, and then sold the licence to Italy.
 
Archibald said:
@datafuser : GREEEEAAAAT !!! Thank you, didn't thought (or knew) about that one.
So CL-901 is kind the answer then. F-104S returned from Italy to Lockheed. Makes some limited sense. Except for the lack of gun. Would the Phantom gun pod be adaptable to the CL-901 ?
Click to expand...

I guess it would have been an easy job for Lockheed to put the gun back in and get rid of equipment for the AIM-7, if the USAF had demanded.
 
Depends whether the Sparrow capability on Starfighters is desirable or left to the Phantoms. A second Sparrow platform with a bit more agility might be welcome. As you noted however, it is either "internal gun" or "Sparrow" but not both. Unless the gun goes in a pod, as done on Phantoms early on. But it wasn't very efficient, from memory - nothing beats an internal gun.
Still, a F-104S with a Vulcan gun, two Sidewinders and two Sparrows would have the full and entire Vietnam era air combat weapons inventory. Drag and range might be an issue however. The F-104C refueling probe was kind of optional and bulky contraption.
Basically the wings are too small to get Sparrows and Sidewinders and fuel tanks, altogether. Maybe it would better to sacrifice the Sidewinders and go for a combination of gun pod + 2*Sparrows + drop tanks on the wingtips ?
 
Archibald said:
Depends whether the Sparrow capability on Starfighters is desirable or left to the Phantoms. A second Sparrow platform with a bit more agility might be welcome. As you noted however, it is either "internal gun" or "Sparrow" but not both. Unless the gun goes in a pod, as done on Phantoms early on. But it wasn't very efficient, from memory - nothing beats an internal gun.
Still, a F-104S with a Vulcan gun, two Sidewinders and two Sparrows would have the full and entire Vietnam era air combat weapons inventory. Drag and range might be an issue however. The F-104C refueling probe was kind of optional and bulky contraption.
Basically the wings are too small to get Sparrows and Sidewinders and fuel tanks, altogether. Maybe it would better to sacrifice the Sidewinders and go for a combination of gun pod + 2*Sparrows + drop tanks on the wingtips ?
Click to expand...

The radar on the F-104S was not a pulse-Doppler one capable of look-down/shoot-down, so the F-104S would have had to fly low and looking up. If flying high and looking down, the radar scope of the F-104S would have been filled with unwanted returns from the ground.

Also, since the F-104S was a single-seater, the pilot would have had to fight head down, to shoot and guide the AIM-7 to its target. For an interceptor dealing with lumbering bombers at high altitude, it could have been no problem - at least bombers don't shoot back.

The book "Lockheed: The People Behind the Story" mentions 'Looker-Shooter' tactics where a gun-armed CL-901 might have been useful.

20583C5A4DC8B2B618.jpg

21564D485676C9B202.png
 
Interesting what-if!
The F-104S (S for Sparrow) or CL-901 was realized in two versions:

Fighter Interceptor: without M-61 and Sparrows
Fighter Bomber: with M-61 and no Sparrow but only Sidewinders.

Later, during 80's, Aeritalia (later Alenia Aeronautica and now Leonardo) realized the F-104 ASA (Aggiornamento Sistemi d'Arma - "Weapon Systems Update") through conversion of the existing F-104S specificly aimed to interception, with FIAR look/shoot down radar and AIM-9L where Sparrows were replaced by Aspide. Aeritalia F 104S-ASA.jpg
 
Looker-shooter tactics (1)

Very enlightening. So the F-104 would quite literally finish the Phantom / Sparrow job if "botched". Whatever target escaped the Phantom at medium range, would be ambushed by the more agile Starfighter with Sidewinders and guns. Now that's interesting.
Clearly the F-104S Sparrow capability would be of little use
- because Phantoms can do the job better, with a RIO in the back and more Sparrows carried (4 instead of 2)
Okay, so indeed, the F-104S own Sparrow capability was not really needed. Contrary to its agility, acceleration, gun and Sidewinders.

More looker-shooter tactics (2)
There is a limited risk however that a dumb Phantom pilot in the heat of the moment lock his Sparrow on the Starfighter ahead, rather than the MiG to be killed.
I mean, the Starfighter was waiting ahead of the Phantom as quite literally a backup to the (dumbarse) Sparrow: if the Sparrow fails, the Starfighter moves in to kill the Mig in its place. Well, that's a rather interesting "theory" but imagine if the Phantom pilot mistook the Starfighter for the MiG. Ooops !
 
Last edited:
Was the F-104S really more maneuverable than the F-4 ? Even against the nimble MiG-17/19 ? :)
 
Won't better training and tactics for the existing F-4s make much more difference than swapping to F-104s? e.g. F-4s also standing off and using hit and run tactics
 
red admiral said:
Won't better training and tactics for the existing F-4s make much more difference than swapping to F-104s? e.g. F-4s also standing off and using hit and run tactics
Click to expand...

Here is the example of the F-4's hit and run tactics. From the book "One Day in a Long War". This engagement occurred on 10 May 1972.

88F058FE-660E-4B83-B93C-D0CF541ED17B.png

3B47C774-970C-4642-9048-550D5257BCE5.png

C4147F3E-2C78-4AAF-8744-44E38224C967.png

4EB8F175-0874-464D-B20E-273FFFD0D3CD.png
 
You have to remember in all of this the politics and missions the USAF saw as important. For the USAF, Vietnam was something of a sideshow. Sure, they put a lot of planes and effort in, but the money and mission that was at the top of the list insofar as fighter / interceptor aircraft went was air defense of the continental US. That was where the money from Congress was going.

For that mission, the USAF wanted the F-106. The F-104 was considered nothing but a stopgap that ADC really never wanted. The 104 couldn't use SAGE and that made it marginal as an interceptor in ADC's eyes. The F-102 was accepted as the interim all-weather interceptor until Convair could get the 106 into production. Ground attack and TAC were way down the USAF's priority list for funding. After all, that mission tied them to their rival, the US Army and that didn't go down well.

The 104 was pretty much a day air superiority fighter and that mission wasn't selling to the money people in the Capitol building or at the top of the USAF's food chain. So, regardless of how good or whatever the 104 might be at something, it was going to be a 'no sale' to the people that made funding decisions. They wanted all-weather interceptors working with SAGE, and the stuff going to Vietnam were really the leftovers.
 
F.L. said:
Was the F-104S really more maneuverable than the F-4 ? Even against the nimble MiG-17/19 ? :)
Click to expand...
Definitely not against MiG-17/19.
Typical Italian F-104S interception profile was the very same "hit and run" of the F-4.

The little wings with high wingloads wasn't exactly ideal to achieve high maneuverability.

This was a big issue especially for Italian pilots who were accustomed to highly maneuverable fighters since early 30's.
During 50's and 60's the Italian Air Force enjoyed both F-86 and G-91 in air combat, rather than the F-84 or worse the F-104.

Such issue remained for the whole 80's and 90's and was (partially) resolved with the introduction in service of the F-16 ADF (program Peace Caesar) and most of all the Eurofighter Typhoon in early 2000s.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You have to remember in all of this the politics and missions the USAF saw as important. For the USAF, Vietnam was something of a sideshow. Sure, they put a lot of planes and effort in, but the money and mission that was at the top of the list insofar as fighter / interceptor aircraft went was air defense of the continental US. That was where the money from Congress was going.

For that mission, the USAF wanted the F-106. The F-104 was considered nothing but a stopgap that ADC really never wanted. The 104 couldn't use SAGE and that made it marginal as an interceptor in ADC's eyes. The F-102 was accepted as the interim all-weather interceptor until Convair could get the 106 into production. Ground attack and TAC were way down the USAF's priority list for funding. After all, that mission tied them to their rival, the US Army and that didn't go down well.

The 104 was pretty much a day air superiority fighter and that mission wasn't selling to the money people in the Capitol building or at the top of the USAF's food chain. So, regardless of how good or whatever the 104 might be at something, it was going to be a 'no sale' to the people that made funding decisions. They wanted all-weather interceptors working with SAGE, and the stuff going to Vietnam were really the leftovers.
Click to expand...

Those interceptors were bought before the Vietnam War.

Two snapshots below show what the USAF were buying in Fiscal Years 1967 and 1970.

FY1970.PNG

FY1967.PNG
 
@datafuser I see that you have fallen in the same rabbit hole as myself... Google Books has unearthed all those military (and NASA) hearings from the 1960's. The damn things are plentiful and enormous, but packed full with very interesting details. For any aerospace nerd (like me) this is a bit like turning into a kid in a chocolate shop on Christmas day.

Some weeks ago I found the exact moment when they stopped procurement of B-58s and B-52H altogether - early 1961 and something. There were some very detailed cost numbers about procuring a mixed fleet - beyond OTL well known final numbers of 116 Hustlers & 744 BUFFs - respectively.
The last B-58 and the very last B-52H rolled out the very same day, and it was one hell of a day in human history: October 26, 1962. Gasp - the day before the worst day in the Cuban missile crisis: October 27, 1962. The day a U-2 was blown out of the sky only one hour after the B-59 submarine almost send a nuclear torpedo into an ASW carrier group chasing it to enforce JFK blocade on the islands. Yikes ! Talk about a day to roll your last bombers. It was almost not only the end of B-58 and B-52, but of the entire world around them !
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
@datafuser I see that you have fallen in the same rabbit hole as myself... Google Books has unearthed all those military (and NASA) hearings from the 1960's. The damn things are plentiful and enormous, but packed full with very interesting details. For any aerospace nerd (like me) this is a bit like turning into a kid in a chocolate shop on Christmas day.

Some weeks ago I found the exact moment when they stopped procurement of B-58s and B-52H altogether - early 1961 and something. There were some very detailed cost numbers about procuring a mixed fleet - beyond OTL well known final numbers of 116 Hustlers & 744 BUFFs - respectively.
The last B-58 and the very last B-52H rolled out the very same day, and it was one hell of a day in human history: October 26, 1962. Gasp - the day before the worst day in the Cuban missile crisis: October 27, 1962. The day a U-2 was blown out of the sky only one hour after the B-59 submarine almost send a nuclear torpedo into an ASW carrier group chasing it to enforce JFK blocade on the islands. Yikes ! Talk about a day to roll your last bombers. It was almost not only the end of B-58 and B-52, but of the entire world around them !
Click to expand...

Yep, I have fallen in that hole about 10 years ago 2012-2013 and am still trapped there. ;)
 
Archibald said:
Basically the wings are too small to get Sparrows and Sidewinders and fuel tanks, altogether. Maybe it would better to sacrifice the Sidewinders and go for a combination of gun pod + 2*Sparrows + drop tanks on the wingtips ?
Click to expand...
F-104S can carries AIM-9, AIM-7 and drop tank under the wings. They are not too small.
 

Attachments

  • Italian F-104S ASA-M (1074) at Gioia del Colle AFB (30 June 1981).jpg
    Italian F-104S ASA-M (1074) at Gioia del Colle AFB (30 June 1981).jpg
    487.9 KB · Views: 50
Didn't we already cover this in a previous thread? The f-104 is worse in all the ways that gave the f-4 trouble in vetnam, not that it particularly matters sense the f-4 was fine it was how the usaf fought in vetnam that was pants on head stupid. But if your not going to change how the usaf fought then the f-104 is going to do way worse then the f-4 did, if your going to fight the same war the cursader 3 or f11f-1 would be far better, and if you do change how the war is fought then the f-4 is fine.
T. A. Gardner said:
You have to remember in all of this the politics and missions the USAF saw as important. For the USAF, Vietnam was something of a sideshow. Sure, they put a lot of planes and effort in, but the money and mission that was at the top of the list insofar as fighter / interceptor aircraft went was air defense of the continental US. That was where the money from Congress was going.

For that mission, the USAF wanted the F-106. The F-104 was considered nothing but a stopgap that ADC really never wanted. The 104 couldn't use SAGE and that made it marginal as an interceptor in ADC's eyes. The F-102 was accepted as the interim all-weather interceptor until Convair could get the 106 into production. Ground attack and TAC were way down the USAF's priority list for funding. After all, that mission tied them to their rival, the US Army and that didn't go down well.

The 104 was pretty much a day air superiority fighter and that mission wasn't selling to the money people in the Capitol building or at the top of the USAF's food chain. So, regardless of how good or whatever the 104 might be at something, it was going to be a 'no sale' to the people that made funding decisions. They wanted all-weather interceptors working with SAGE, and the stuff going to Vietnam were really the leftovers.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? If the interceptor mission was what got congress excited then why were only 350 f-106 biult instead of the 1000 planed? Or why was the f-108 canceled.
 
F.L. said:
Archibald said:
Basically the wings are too small to get Sparrows and Sidewinders and fuel tanks, altogether. Maybe it would better to sacrifice the Sidewinders and go for a combination of gun pod + 2*Sparrows + drop tanks on the wingtips ?
Click to expand...
F-104S can carries AIM-9, AIM-7 and drop tank under the wings. They are not too small.
Click to expand...
And another 104S showing its three points of armement on the wing.
 

Attachments

  • Italian F-104S (51-23, MM6827, 783-1127) of 22Gr, 51St at Treviso - Istrana (11 November 1981).jpg
    Italian F-104S (51-23, MM6827, 783-1127) of 22Gr, 51St at Treviso - Istrana (11 November 1981).jpg
    165.1 KB · Views: 37
Yet another thread haunted by the F4. The Italian Air Force was one of the NATO air forces that did not operate the F4 in any role.
Others were Canada, the Benelux countries, Denmark and Norway, and France.
France of course had the Mirage family. But the others (except Luxembourg!) were F104 operators until F18 and F16 arrived. Even then they only had Sidewinders (it took Amraam to do the Sparrow role).
Only Italy operated the F104S until Turkey acquired them much later.
If the US had purchased upgraded F104s in the late 60s early 70s some interesting NATO options might have followed.
 
If USAF is into buying an advanced F104 variant why not the CL-1200 Lancer instead? Of course Lancer's prospects just notably improved I suspect.
 
If the F-104S had been used successfully against MiGs in Vietnam, it could have cleared the way for more exports. :)
In particular in South America. Perhaps it would have been a serious competitor to the Mirage III, which was highly popular at the time. It would have given interesting local modifications: R-550, Shafrirs and Python, canards (?), Exocet, and maybe a service until 2010.
 
Lascaris said:
If USAF is into buying an advanced F104 variant why not the CL-1200 Lancer instead? Of course Lancer's prospects just notably improved I suspect.
Click to expand...
Because the F-104S was available immediately and at a moderate cost. Whereas the Lancer was only in the planning stages and the Vietnam war would have been over before it was available.
 
F.L. said:
F.L. said:
Archibald said:
Basically the wings are too small to get Sparrows and Sidewinders and fuel tanks, altogether. Maybe it would better to sacrifice the Sidewinders and go for a combination of gun pod + 2*Sparrows + drop tanks on the wingtips ?
Click to expand...
F-104S can carries AIM-9, AIM-7 and drop tank under the wings. They are not too small.
Click to expand...
And another 104S showing its three points of armement on the wing.
Click to expand...
Well if you had Aspide then an F-104S would have been highly desirable!
 
Too late for Vietnam, unfortunately (AFAIK). Stand corrected about the Starfighter ability to carry plenty of things even under tiny wings.
 
Another problem was that the F-104S lacked of air refuelling capabilities, and it was a big issue taking into account the thirsty nature of the J-79.

Of course the F-104C got a fixed refuelling probe and the F-104S ASA got it also at the end of the 80's when, finally, Italian goverment decided to by 4 Boeing KC-707 for the Italian air force.

But at the end of 60's air refuelling was out of question for Italy, so Aeritalia delivered the F-104S without such capability.
Anyway the fixed probe affected signicatively the F-104's maximum speed.
 
archipeppe said:
Of course the F-104C got a fixed refuelling probe and the F-104S ASA got it also at the end of the 80's when, finally, Italian goverment decided to by 4 Boeing KC-707 for the Italian air force.
Click to expand...
Do you have pictures of an Italian 104S with a refueling probe ?
 
archipeppe said:
Another problem was that the F-104S lacked of air refuelling capabilities, and it was a big issue taking into account the thirsty nature of the J-79.

Of course the F-104C got a fixed refuelling probe and the F-104S ASA got it also at the end of the 80's when, finally, Italian goverment decided to by 4 Boeing KC-707 for the Italian air force.

But at the end of 60's air refuelling was out of question for Italy, so Aeritalia delivered the F-104S without such capability.
Anyway the fixed probe affected signicatively the F-104's maximum speed.
Click to expand...

Lots of good points there. Spot on for the F-104C, that's what I had in mind, but since you say the fixed probe was kind of draggy... not good for range too. And in Vietnam, you needed a lot of range.

I'd note that F-104 nose was not much different from a Mirage F1, so a similar probe may be feasible (Mirage III just like the 104 never had refueling probe, only much later did the Kfir and Panteras and other south american upgrades got one).
 
F.L. said:
archipeppe said:
Of course the F-104C got a fixed refuelling probe and the F-104S ASA got it also at the end of the 80's when, finally, Italian goverment decided to by 4 Boeing KC-707 for the Italian air force.
Click to expand...
Do you have pictures of an Italian 104S with a refueling probe ?
Click to expand...

I second that question ! The Internet and Google staunchly refuse to cooperate (for once).
 
The F-4E entered US airforce service in late 1967. The F-104S entered Italian airforce service in 1969.

The F-4E was much the better aircraft for US airforce needs and for air combat combat in Vietnam as the US airforce experienced it.

There isn’t really a topic here.
 
This is the alternate history section, dude. Either read the above posts or don't post if you don't like the idea.
There is interesting stuff in that discussion.
For example: the Air Force had that peculiar idea of using CL-901s as backups to Phantom's Sparrows. In case the AIM-7s failed at medium range (as they often did) a pack of CL-901s flying ahead of the F-4s would step in to kills the MiGs with either Sidewinders or gun fire.

I started the thread with the idea of Sparrow-armed Starfighters fighting in Vietnam. I learned that Starfighters were considered as AIM-7 backups.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I can see why that thing was draggy. And it is very similar indeed to the F-104C 's own probe (how surprising - why reinvent the wheel three decades after ?)

Something I never quite understood (also applies to the upgraded Mirage Vs that got similar ugly & draggy probes) is - why not copy the Mirage F1 setup ? As far as the pointy nose, windshield and air intakes are concerned, the 104, Mirage V and F1 are very similar.


I have this suspicion the 1950's aircraft fuel tanks or fuel lines were in the wrong place to get a F1 boom.


Why did upgraded Mirage V and F-104S got a boom on the air intake shoulder ? when F1 had it planted near the windshield ?
 
Archibald said:
This is the alternate history section, dude. Either read the above posts or don't post if you don't like the idea.
There is interesting stuff in that discussion.
For example: the Air Force had that peculiar idea of using CL-901s as backups to Phantom's Sparrows. In case the AIM-7s failed at medium range (as they often did) a pack of CL-901s flying ahead of the F-4s would step in to kills the MiGs with either Sidewinders or gun fire.

I started the thread with the idea of Sparrow-armed Starfighters fighting in Vietnam. I learned that Starfighters were considered as AIM-7 backups.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the f-104 is worse in all they ways that gave the f-4 issues in vetnam, you want quick turns and rolls to deal with mig garilla tactics, straight line speeds arnt going to help. You want something like the cursader 3 (that flow circles around the f-4 in testing)for that. Or change how the usaf fights the war (sense mig ambushes should never have been able to happen if the usaf wasn't incompetent but that's gust the vetnam war in a nutshell)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom