F-104 Starfighter Projects

Circa 1993, NASA (Edwards Air Force Base in California) modified a two-seater Starfighter by adding a TV camera under the nose. They wanted to test if a TV camera was a viable alternative to the tilting nose on the Concorde SST. One problem was that the TV monitor inside the rear cockpit risked hitting the rear-seater if he had to eject, so NASA contracted with Butler Parachute Systems to build a custom wedge-shaped pilot emergency parachute for this one-off Starfighter. The reverse wedge parachute container was 3 or 4 inches thick across the top, but tapered to zero at the bottom to allow the rear-seat pilot to slide his hips as far aft as possible ... to minimize the risk of his knees hitting the TV monitor.
The project was cancelled when NASA's sole remaining Starfighter developed engine troubles.

While packing for Mr. Butler, I assembled dozens of other custom wedge-shaped parachute containers to adapt a wide variety of second-owners to fit existing cockpits. Try to picture a "well-nourished Texan" trying to squeeze into a cockpit originally designed to accept a Yugoslav jockey.
Hah!
Hah!
 
riggerrob said:
While packing for Mr. Butler, I assembled dozens of other custom wedge-shaped parachute containers to adapt a wide variety of second-owners to fit existing cockpits. Try to picture a "well-nourished Texan" trying to squeeze into a cockpit originally designed to accept a Yugoslav jockey.
Hah!
Hah!
Click to expand...
Ground crew issued some large shoehorns?
 
kocovgoce said:
Lockheed CL-1200 Lancer derivative of f-104 for

Lightweight Fighter program View attachment 660421​

Click to expand...
The tail and nose look awesome. The rest looks like barf. A simple wing like the original and the original intakes would have been plausible. But this advancement in all aspects of the design was horrible. They could have had the F-16 of its day.

I know some will disagree but F-104S was the apex of Starfighter. Six AAMs and wingtip tanks. Pure bad ass. A raw interceptor in the prime of the 'multipurpose' fighters. Couldn't find it with wingtip tanks but here is underwing tanks and six AAM.
Lockheed_F-104S_ASA-M_Starfighter,_Italy_-_Air_Force_JP6990065.jpg

Just needed the CL-1200 tail, a bigger radar, and the Super Phantom's PW1120 to give it both thrust and electrical output as F-104S was maxxed out. Super Starlancer ftw.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-cl-1200-x-27-lancer.832/
 
Last edited:
Cost data for the austere F-104-17 proposed as Mutual Defence-funded fighter, from AvWeek 19 March 1962. A substantial saving:

"Northrop has said in the past that it can offer a day-fighter version of the N-156 for approximately $450,000 if assured of a production run for at least 1,000 aircraft.

Lockheed reportedly has placed a price tag of about $550,000 on the F-104-17. The F-104-17 is an F-104G with the all-weather fire control and navigation systems removed. These units, which cost $385,000 per aircraft, could be installed at a later date if the individual countries decided to build up their all-weather capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Also from AvWeek: the CL-521 VTOL variant mentioned up-thread was proposed to NATO in conjunction with Shorts, who by then had a reputation for VTOL that Lockheed lacked.
 

Attachments

  • Shorts_F-104_AvWeek_26_Jan_1962.jpeg
    Shorts_F-104_AvWeek_26_Jan_1962.jpeg
    47 KB · Views: 341
Kiltonge said:
Cost data for the austere F-104-17 proposed as Mutual Defence-funded fighter, from AvWeek 19 March 1962. A substantial saving:

"Northrop has said in the past that it can offer a day-fighter version of the N-156 for approximately $450,000 if assured of a production run for at least 1,000 aircraft.

Lockheed reportedly has placed a price tag of about $550,000 on the F-104-17. The F-104-17 is an F-104G with the all-weather fire control and navigation systems removed. These units, which cost $385,000 per aircraft, could be installed at a later date if the individual countries decided to build up their all-weather capabilities.
Click to expand...
Frack, even back in the day systems were 41% of airframe costs?!?
 
Just curious, was there any attempt to put a new pulse-Doppler radar in existing F-104Gs in the 1970's?
 
F-104S-ASA

The F-104ASA (Aggiornamento Sistemi d'Arma, Weapon Systems Update), developed in 1986, introduced a FIAR R21G/M1 Setter radar,[9] with 'look-down' capability and compatibility with the Selenia Aspide missile. AIM-9Ls were then used as the main armament, replacing the previous "B" and "F" version of this missile, while the older AIM-7s were retained. One AIM-7 was usually carried under each wing. In total, 147 of the F-104S airframes were converted to ASA standard at an expense of around 600 billion lire, the last ASA model was delivered in the early 1990s.
Click to expand...
View: https://youtu.be/OFJ-W7LcpYs?si=jb-lok9STGa2k-Qs


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter
 
The JF-104A with the ALSOR (Air Launched SOunding Rocket) experiment to launch a sounding rocket with a balloon payload that would deploy and descent allowing researchers to measure the density of the upper atmosphere. Test Pilot Milt Thompson piloted the aircraft that later experienced an asymmetrical flap deflection that resulted in the loss of the aircraft. A number of ALSOR flights were successfully flown.
 

Attachments

  • NASA ALSOR Rocket F-104.jpg
    NASA ALSOR Rocket F-104.jpg
    252 KB · Views: 294
Proposed RFT-104G that the German Air Force had considered a two seat G-model F-104 with a podded SLAR and camera under the aircraft centerline. This model is a 'what-if" it was built.
 

Attachments

  • RTF-104G Concept.jpg
    RTF-104G Concept.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 363
Last edited:
Some pages from a Lockheed report on the CL-1010-2 big wing -104.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    4.5 MB · Views: 344
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    354.4 KB · Views: 327
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 363
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    792.4 KB · Views: 326
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    4.4 MB · Views: 251
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    607.9 KB · Views: 283
Last edited:
Was there ever any consideration (on paper) given to the use of an F-104 or derivative as a parasite aircraft? In a vacuum it seems like a good fit for something like FICON, but I assume enough brain cells had grown that work on that was pretty much done by the time the F-104 was built in quantity. (Although the XF-104 *was* flying during the brief period FICON was operational.)
 
hesham said:
From Interavia 1967/12
Click to expand...
Image 8.png: The F-104S (upper left drawing) seems to have a more massive fuselage (from the front view) compared to the other versions. Was this really the case?
 
Last edited:
dy031101 said:
Was there any radar retrofit proposal to go with this? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Aoki Hideo, the author of that October 1966 article, argued that

- a 'parametric amplifier' should be added to the NASARR F15J
- an IRST should be integrated with the NASARR F15J and
- an all-aspect IR AAM should be bought to arm the F-104J

BTW he was an ex-JASDF officer.
 
datafuser said:
Aoki Hideo, the author of that October 1966 article, argued that...
Click to expand...

Hum...... would the F-104 be able to accommodate some variant of TARAN-18 in place of ASG-14 (F-104A/C) and NASARR (F-104G/J), giving up the Vulcan cannon as required?

And then is there anything that GCI have to offer beyond voice-based vectoring to make the HM-55 missile work well?
 
dy031101 said:
Hum...... would the F-104 be able to accommodate some variant of TARAN-18 in place of ASG-14 (F-104A/C) and NASARR (F-104G/J), giving up the Vulcan cannon as required?
Click to expand...
The F-104S did trade the Vulcan for the equipment to talk to Sparrows, so yes.

dy031101 said:
And then is there anything that GCI have to offer beyond voice-based vectoring to make the HM-55 missile work well?
Click to expand...
The US did have that whole Semi-Automatic Ground Environment system, though IIRC the F-104 wasn't set up for it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The US did have that whole Semi-Automatic Ground Environment system, though IIRC the F-104 wasn't set up for it.
Click to expand...
The 104 could not use SAGE. The F-89J, F-94, F 102 and F 106 were used with it while the F-101B and F-4 had a data link for manual GCI. The BOMARC SAM also was guided to a terminal intercept point by SAGE.

SAGE was the first wide-area computer network ever operated.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The 104 could not use SAGE. The F-89J, F-94, F 102 and F 106 were used with it while the F-101B and F-4 had a data link for manual GCI. The BOMARC SAM also was guided to a terminal intercept point by SAGE.

SAGE was the first wide-area computer network ever operated.
Click to expand...

...and F-86L.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The 104 could not use SAGE.
Click to expand...
"Could not", or "was not equipped to"? Because you can change equipment fits!

How much space did the SAGE gear take? You say it fit into F-89s, so it should be able to be stuffed into the space of the M61 cannon.

At the very least the F-101B/F-4D/E datalink should be able to fit into that space.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Wait till you see the swing-wing and three-engine/five-seater versions. Or the *really* big long range interceptor....
Click to expand...
I know we are 20 years later, but where could those swing-wing and other "F-104" projects be seen? In a paper APR issue (I own all of them)?
 
Scott Kenny said:
"Could not", or "was not equipped to"? Because you can change equipment fits!

How much space did the SAGE gear take? You say it fit into F-89s, so it should be able to be stuffed into the space of the M61 cannon.

At the very least the F-101B/F-4D/E datalink should be able to fit into that space.
Click to expand...
Could not. There was no room for even the data link that planes like the F-101 and F-4 were fitted with. ADC saw the F-104 as an interim aircraft 'better than nothing' sort of thing. Getting rid of the M61 on an early F-104 was to leave it virtually disarmed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
"Could not", or "was not equipped to"? Because you can change equipment fits!

How much space did the SAGE gear take? You say it fit into F-89s, so it should be able to be stuffed into the space of the M61 cannon.

At the very least the F-101B/F-4D/E datalink should be able to fit into that space.
Click to expand...

Basically -

1780778287561.png
1780778420331.png

- this whole space between the forward bulkhead and rear cabin bulkhead IS the MA-1 fire control gear of (slightly damaged) F-106 interceptor. All those black boxes are parts of it. It's big and complicated, and I honestly don't see how it could be fit on F-104.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom