gregg wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Somewhere I've read a quote from Boyd (probably; otherwise, one of the other
members of the LWF Mafia) in a paper discussing energy maneuverability, in
which it is stated that there had been no increase in fighter Ps (in fact, a
decrease) since the F-104. The period of the report in question must have
been the late '60s or early '70s. Walt BJ flew the hottest F-104, the A model
retrofitted with the same J79-19 engine as in the Sparrow-armed F-104S, but
without all the avionics associated with the RHM capability. As Walt can tell
you, that bird was awesome. About the only fighter that was in the same
ballpark in that era performance-wise was the Lightning, but that had a pretty
poor weapon system for air combat (though better for interception than the
F-104A or C).

A now deceased friend of a friend flew virtually all models of the F-104,
including the G (he flew the C in combat), and liked the G the least. IIRC
(this is via my fading memory of what my friend said his friend had told him
whilediscussing the a/c), he said that it was relatively heavy and the Cg was
more forward (presumably owing to the more powerful radar and more complete
avionics), and he also didn't care for the bigger tail. Now, please note that
he was assessing it as a pure air superiority fighter, as opposed to the
multi-role fighter (nuke and conventional strike/recon/limited all-weather
interception/maritime strike) missions that the F-104G was required to
perform, where all the extra weight of avionics (and airframe beef-up) was
necessary.

Oh, one correction to a point Ed made in a post; the 104 usually had its
greatest Ps advantage fast and low, not fast and high. About the only time
F-8s (any other US fighter of the period was a grape against a smartly-flown
Zipper) could give them problems was at high altitude and low Mach, where
the104's skimpy wing was very unhappy.

Guy