A Terrible Day For F-104s in Vietnam 

I read that book. Good to learn he is doing well.

He was lucky. In the USA they execute Baby Killers.

@@a.thomasfinneyii142 I'm having lunch with Colonel Smith for his birthday tomorrow.

I didn't find details but that's one possible way it happened. Then again, he might have wanted to fly fighters but he couldn't get them initially.

@@showtime112 There's a saying in the military before any difficult mission "Tomorrow is going to be a good day for medals and promotions"

They were not designed for it but they were fast enough to keep up with tbe Thuds. But to be fair, opportunities to shoot down MiGs hardly ever presented themselves.

The whiz kids including McNamara decided that dogfighting was over, and that the future would be interceptors firing unguided nuclear rockets. Then Vietnam happened and the starfighters where shoehorned into service.

@@showtime112 F-104s. In Vietnam. Could have been part of the sales promotion which wasn't successfull so Lockheed turned to dodgy practices and won many sales in Europe

@@Eric-kn4yn Wouldn't say so. Us deployed most of their types to Vietnam at some point.

@@showtime112 The F-104 was developed as a high speed, high altitude defensive interceptor for protecting and shooting down any Soviet bombers that posed a threat to domestic American targets. It was not intended to be a "dog-fighter" with enemy fighters and was not aerodynamically equipped to do so, so it was not surprising that it was not some sort of "ace-maker", much less noted for coming back with any MiG kills. It was totally out of place in Viet Nam.

Thanks for sharing. I wish I had known this before, I would have included it in the video.

@@showtime112 Perhaps a future video? I have a few stories I can relate. Regardless, I just appreciate you highlighting what these brave men endured. Keep up the good work!

@@richard4840 I heard that they might develop a high-fidelity F-104 for DCS. If we also get some tropical map, I might do a remake of this video someday and include the information about your father. Thanks for your support!

Proud of your Dad for sticking by my Dad's side that day. They were both heroes.

He should have got at least a DFC for that

Not the fiest time. And definitely not the last time it happened.

The USA never had a plan for Vietnam. Same for Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq……

Watch the episode on "Hush Hush" by Robert Barnes on how and why the USA entered Viet Nam. The German pilots found out the hard way why the Zipper was not designed for air-to-ground bombing. They called it "The Widow Maker".

@@uwekonnigsstaddt524 The Luftwaffe thought they could park their modern F-104G as they did with the BF-109: around the landing strips and without hangars or cover in the beautiful, sunny Germany and paid the price for their stupidity. After 1969 they decided to build shelters for these planes and the rate of accidents drastically decreased. Someone smartass in the German press thought it was cooler to blame the plane then the logistic and the "Widowmaker myth" was born. Another thing worth mentioning is that the F-104 was the best nuclear intruder in the world, bar the F-105, flying at Mach 1.25 at treetop height, but until the F-111A was introduced in 1970, TFRS able to fly the planes were not available; Germany, Canada and Italy had the worst accident rate among the F-104 users because they flew in exceedingly poor weather at 60m over the treetops and hitting a small hill became a matter of seconds among fog and low clouds. Might be brutal, but the presence of the f-104 fleet as a nuclear deterrent was necessary in central Europe and the F-104 was the best tool available until the Tornado took it place. Spain Greece and Turkey had much less attrition due to better weather across the year. With a BLU Nuke, a 104 was able to get farther and faster then any Phantom II version F-4 without need of an escort, as the F105 did. Nobody bought the Starfighter as a conventional bomber anyway, and even the Marine F-104 in German were using exclusively stand off missiles like the Kormoran. At the end of it's career the 104 was getting tired and the flying bodies were often kept operative by cannibalization of other planes: fatigued cells were often kept flying until the tornado become available in the eighties, further increasing the risk for the pilots. the same happened in Vietnam, where the overburden F104C cells were kept flying well beyond their intended retirement date as the number of Starfighters in the USAF was extremely low. the plane was an interceptor and was used as a CAS plane due to the Vulcan gun, not available on the Phantom. The lack of any rear warning radar system on the C model, which was present on the G and S, made the situation awareness of the pilots extremely problematic, as it happened during the Wild Weasel mission and over Hainan, where the US Pilot realized a chines plane had been guided to intercept him only after being hit by a missile.

​@@TheBeingReal they had a plan for Iraq, just not a complete plan. when the Iraqis didn't welcome us as liberators, we had to go to plan B, which didn't exist. that said, it was still better than Nam or Afghanistan, but not by much.

Glad you liked the content!

Thank you for your feedback!

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Hi Donald. The name Ben MacAvoy may ring a bell. My dad has more hours in a 104 than any other US pilot and he said Ben could reassemble a 104 with his eyes closed. My dad's (Gary Blake) name is on the side of the Starfighter on static display at Luke. I live 2 miles south of Luke in Litchfield Park.

Sharp looking and useless. Another failure of the 100 series of fighter aircraft

That's a pretty good summary.

This is a good video. One suggestion for the future is the f 16 shot down over Baghdad on 1/19/91 by a pair of mig 29s, falsely claimed as a Sam.

@@showtime112 It's in fact a pretty poor summary. 104 was designed for one job and one job only, and it was not intercepting shit. It was going up and dealing with migs, for which it needed high speed and good rate of climb. The first batch being ordered by ADF for the lack of 102's and 106's is another matter entirely, in fact from their service in ADF we also have assesments confirming how bad of an idea it was. And no, the radar on the 104 was not powerful. It was unwieldy and incredibely shit on the A and C variants. :)

Unfortunately all I ever hear about the Starfighter is bad news. It bugs me because it and the F-86 are my two favorite jet fighters. Did they ever make any kills while in US service? And secondly did thecF-100 ever make any air to air kills?

@@markingraham4892 Of course it's good 😁 Any half reliable source on your suggestion?

Thanks for the comment!

Thank you for appreciating them! F-105 is another work from VSN. They do fill a blank in the (first) Cold War period.

@@showtime112 any superetendard mod?

@@narcos5598 There was one, I have to check it to see if it still works.

Thank you for this positive feedback! I hope you will like the rest of the content.

Thank you very much for providing historical details regarding this story. As for the precision of reenactment, I'm afraid it either can't be done to that degree, or it would take way too much time to produce. A flight simulation was used and it has its limitations in the availability of aircraft types (or helmet colors), damage model, behavior of AI which controls units such as SAM crews. So, the reenactment was done the best way it could be done with available resources but for those who want to know every little detail, comments such as yours certainly help.

Thanks for the comment, glad you liked it!

@@showtime112 Yes, for sure. I would like to see more such vids because the zipper is my all-time favourite. Coupled with The Thud just real speed-machines and pretty deadly ;-)

Thanks for the comment. This mod has a specific cockpit but it stil borrows heavily from F-15 (radar, HUD and RWR) so it doesn't look right .

@@showtime112 Roger That

Thank you very much, Fabricio!

F105 was a superb tactical bomber.

the F-104 was outdated so soon. i know, many ppl like it, but i do not think, that the starfighter was good at anything except intercepting slow bombers…and even that could be done by F4s with sparrows in em from much further away…

@@Siddich yes!

F 105 didnt do ok PAL heavy loses

@@Siddich Yeah, to me the 104 was an example of an aircraft that was designed for one purpose; catching and killing Nuke-armed Bombers, but was soon obsolete as ICBM technology superceded Bomber technology. However, insteading of retiring a weapons platform that was no longer needed, they tried to make it work in roles it wasn't designed for.

Thanka! Possibly yes. Perhaps. More likely with rhe A-4 because it's lot more complete mod.

Thank you for commenting!

My late Dad was the pilot of "Smoke II" when he was shot down on 8/1/'66.

​@@a.thomasfinneyii142 Smoke II is in a nice safe dust free spot.

Agreed. Sadly, it's copyrighted.

It was a US-SUicide war

Wild Weasel missions could qualify in that category. Providing air cover was actually considered even more dangerous.

Who doesn't love the Crusader? 😁

@@showtime112 Those Phantom phifghter types.......

@@jamesvandemark2086 They were just jealous 😆

Not the best turner, true 😁

In high q flight, the F104 could out turn an F15. Sub supersonic the 104 was not a fast turner due to wing size. The 104 test plane put forward late life with larger wings could out turn the F15 but was rejected because it was single engine. Turn characteristics verified to me personally by the F117 test pilot I had the pleasure of meeting.

Glad you liked it. Not many of the missions were remarkable though.

Yes very interesting

The pace of jet aircraft development was incredible in those days. Airplanes like F-100, MiG-19 and our Starfighter here were quickly surpassed by better models. But F-104 was a huge export success so its shortcomings became more obvious over time.

Another one of historical examples where the leadership believed they knew better than anyone and refused to listen.

@@showtime112 whoever think that dogfighing was over in the 1960s was not learning from the Taiwan Chinese air combats during the 1950s and 60s or the Israeli Arab conflicts at that time period too. I guess the US experts never regard there pilots lives as important in lack of training in dogfighting .

One thing that's often overlooked is that the highest attrition occurred in the early years of F-104 use in the Luftwaffe. Later, it dropped to levels comparable to other types of its generation.

Its original role was to use its speed advantage on subsonic Mig 15, 17s over a close range battlefield. With the arrival of Mig 21s and Mig23s, that speed advantage was lost.

It's a shame that many people who had really interesting lives never left a proper testimony of their experience.

I'm not really sure. But if that's the configuration you already own, the best thing is to just install the basic free game and try.

That would be very interesting but there's no F-102 currently available.

@@showtime112 that's too bad. The F-106 probably isn't available either.

Thanks. As for adding things, you can't just do such things. The model is what it is.

@@showtime112 hello mate it's dauphin. Check on Vietnam Air losses book. Story and F104 serial number are full identical. Good vidéo and comments👍 . Next have you decided to show a Mirage F1 at fight? Only South Africa Mirage F1 AZ or CZ fights Mig21 from Angola or Irakien F1EQ 3 or,4 against Iranien Tomcat or Phantom

F-5 absolutely crushed MiG-21 in the Ethiopian-Somali War. It did less well in the Iran-Iraq war but still pretty good so you might be right about it.

They can be dropped.

I didn't modify it. I think early versions of the mod couldn't carry the B model but later versions can carry it.

Glad to hear it!

Puerto Rico Air National Guard?

@@showtime112 yes

Yes, even when you study these airplanes for a while, it still seems strange that the Thud shot down so many small, agile MiG-17s.

It's not necessarily so easy. Also, Shrike had a shorter range than SA-2

It's got that 50'c charm alright!

Seems so. Damage model is one of the 'simplified' elements of the game. They might improve it someday.

True in most cases.

Stop worshiping Kelly Johnson, goddamnit just stop. He was a wonderful engineer but he made mistakes, and the F104 starfighter was his biggest mistake, amongst many. Still he was an astonishingly great engineer. Did you know that the SR 71 never ever flew over the Soviet union. The Russian missile threat I was too serious, and for all its beauty and hubris, it Played no important role in winning the Cold War.

​@@steveperreira5850 You are completely and utterly wrong regarding everything you claim. Just stop posting your utter nonsense. You know absolutely nothing of what you post.

No, it's the German pilots who called it the Zipper. It was the newspapers that came up with the Witwenmacher

@@19Koty96 You are probably right. Some of those Zipper wings suffered catastrophic failures during a pull up , killing the pilots in the process.

Ideal solution would NOT to fly there. Somehow I do not se any reason what the heck the US planes were doing there.

It earned the name in the Luftwaffe service. Mostly because it was asked to do something it was never designed to do. And even there, losses dropped to much lower levels later in the service. But the reputation stuck.

If this jet did not have the stamp of “perfection“ because of the designer Kelly Johnson, it would be known as a total piece of shit today. Please tell me what this plane could do right? No payload, no range, no maneuverability, no electronic warfare, not even a goddamn radar detector?

@@showtime112 : I will be patiently waiting for what this flying cigar was supposed to be able to do. Please, I am all ears!

@@steveperreira5850 So, you are in the 'I hate Starfighte Club'. We got it 🤣

He spent many years in Chinese prison. Most of that in solitary.

It's not.

This is actually the G version but we don't have the C model that they flew in Vietnam.

@@showtime112 A Terrible Day For F-104s in Vietnam, i mean there's a mistake into title, what fF-104s have was a proper avionics when upgraded

@@clamons9148 Oh, that is just plural, it doesn't mean it is the F-104S variant (which would be spelled with the capital S)

Nije nemoguće.

Oh, they did. But as technology advanced at a rapid pace, they were phased our relatively quickly.

DCS World - MiG-19 vs F-104 Starfighter - Vietnam 1965

No, F-104 never scored any air-to-air kills in Vietnam.

@@showtime112technically I think there were at least 2 kills scored during Vietnam, just not against Vietnam, but against the PRC scores by Taiwan

@@0Ploxx During Vietnam War yes, but completely unrelated.

@@showtime112 I know I just wanted to throw in a snarky reply 😎

@@0Ploxx It worked I guess 😁

It is still a very charismatic aircraft. I guess airplanes, just like people can often get by on looks alone 😁 Thank you for your support and appreciation of this content!

@@showtime112 She sure was pretty for something that had the aerodynamics of a lawn dart. She was very American. Like a true muscle car that goes straight for 1/4 mile like nothing else, then kill you in the first curve on a mountain road, the F104 would take off like a bat out of hell then auger in like the aforementioned lawn dart if you didn't fly her just right. My uncle Fred flew her for the Bundeswehr in the early 60s. He says his Starfighter was the only thing that he respected & feared more than his wife.

@@takaharatanaka8818 I can only say that people who flew aircraft from that era were very brave.

@@showtime112 Had you ever met tante Beate you would know onkel Fred was very brave! She was a dominating formidable woman!

Also a pretty good interdictor with the sea on sea level and I do love it since I discovered it in Strike fighter 2 a veitnam game... Also compaired to what exectly?

It was F-104C in Vietnam but those are not available. This one here is a G.

Ne. Ako ne računamo F-14 koji je letio patrole za vrijeme evakuacije Sajgona 1975 😁

@@showtime112 ja sam mislio da može nositi samo aim54, hvala na odgovoru

@@nekilik7165 Nosio je, AIM-54, AIM-7 I AIM-9 Najčešće kombinaciju sve tri. Mislim da su Iranski F-14 na samom početku rata imali samo 54 jer su trebali dobiti novije verzije Sparrowa i Sidewindera koje nisu isporučene do revolucije. Kasnije su ga uspjeli sami prilagoditi za starije modele koje su imali na zalihi. Ako replay track za F-14 u DCS-u ikad proradi, pozabavit ću se time.

Pardon, sve dobre smajlice

A ti si 👩‍🎨, napravi nove 😁

@@showtime112 istina. Trebala bi

F-104 was a civilian plane?

Could be. I couldn't find any photos from Vietnam with AIM-9s on the fuselage though. I did find several with missiles on the wingtips.

@@showtime112 they would use the fuselage pylon only in long range missions when all four wing tanks were needed, because they would cause excessive drag.

I appreciate your comment!

Plus the gun. He probably wasn't going for a full split-s on that altitude. It might be that he was trying to reduce the altitude without many negative g forces.

Popular with allies. friendly nations. Where they being sold a lemon Lockheed bribery dodgy tactics got those sales not the a,/c

@@Eric-kn4yn … That’s true. But bear in mind Lockheed was not alone in this corrupt practice. Officials in these countries expected bribes.

It was initially designed as an air superiority fighter (emphasis on speed and climb rate had appeared towards the end of WWII and only intensified after Korea, where MiG-15s could outclimb the Sabre and thus both perch above them and escape attack - this only got worse with the MiG-17's appearance after Korea, and was the exact reason ROCAF F-86s got Sidewinders, one of which was accidentally "donated" to the Chinese when it failed to go off). The aircraft had no range or endurance, a weak and unreliable radar, could only attack from astern with unreliable IR missiles (which could not be used effectively in poor weather or when the target was anywhere near the sun), and no GCI datalink to cue the aircraft onto a target (voice commands alone were not sufficient at Mach 2 speeds, as the Soviets had themselves discovered during the Powers shootdown debacle). It was shoehorned into an auxiliary interception role for about a year as ADC needed something with Mach 2 performance and the F-106 was experiencing delays, and neither F-101B nor F-102 had the speed. ADC absolutely despised the Starfighter and got rid of it as quickly as possible, with many ending up in ANG units and many more being used in the originally intended air superiority role or low level strike (Canadian Starfighters were purchased exclusively for this role - never air defence, which the CF-101B performed). Naturally, it didn't take long for actual combat experience against similarly speedy Soviet types to illustrate the reality of modern air combat: extremely few engagements happened above Mach 1 and practically none above Mach 1.5. This caused a shift back towards trading some of that speed performance for low speed handling in the upcoming designs of the 1960s and 1970s (F-14 was a 60s design, F-15 was a 60s design, F-16 and 18 were late 60s/very early 70s designs). This does not mean the Starfighter couldn't turn, it just wasn't especially amazing at it and took some attention on the part of the pilot. In reality, the F-104 did not compare particularly unfavourably with Schrödinger's MiG - given Western habits of claiming the MiG-21 was some supermanoeuvrable opponent, but at the same time couldn't turn - and indeed the SURE lecture series involved a direct comparison with a "hypothetical Soviet airplane X" allegedly theorised by Lockheed, which bore a suspiciously similar planform and performance to then-current Western knowledge of the MiG-21, whose exploitation by the Have Doughnut program was still heavily classified. The tactics taught to F-104 pilots further emphasised energy-manoeuvrability theory, using the F-104's great speed and power to its advantage by turning smarter rather than harder. The 104's success with good pilots and good tactics can be seen in US F-104 pilots' recounting of DACT exercises against other US contemporaries and even some more modern types: several such stories came out of Op Feather Duster and ex-104 pilot Andy Bush in particular has been a strong voice in trying to undo decades of media myths. Even the F-104's alleged reputation as unsafe is pretty much rubbish - the Luftwaffe loss rate was an anomaly that lasted less than a quarter of the jet's service life, and was down to a combination of factors including insufficient training, overconfident pilots with little supersonic experience, typically poor central European weather, and the Luftwaffe's emphasis on using the type for low-level strike in spite of all this. The RCAF lost more aircraft to accidents, but also operated the Starfighter exclusively in the same low-level strike role, with three times as many flying hours on type as the Germans. Other users experienced enormously lower loss rates and in the case of Spain's admittedly limited number of aircraft, none were ever lost. No aircrew ever called the jet "the Widowmaker" from any air force that operated it, it was variously known as "zipper", "104", or the more sarcastic "aluminium death tube" and "lawn dart" - mainly due to its appearance, because of course pilots were aware that the plane could kill them if they had a lapse in concentration, any high-performance jet can. If you like, you can even find a particularly nostalgic song from a German 104 pilot here on RU-vid... who was then later killed in a Tornado crash after the 104's retirement. Early US F-104s had a few compounding issues: poor (initially downwards-firing) ejection seats, a very small ejection window even with upwards-firing seats due to the aircraft's speed and pilots' natural hesitation to leave the aircraft (still a problem by the way, even with modern zero-zero seats), and the early J79 having a very unreliable afterburner which would frequently fail to ignite or would blow out, leaving the pilot with no thrust at all in the most critical stages of flight such as takeoff or an aborted landing. The very early examples also had issues with tail flutter, which Lockheed was able to fix quickly, and the F-104 was also one of the first aircraft where the hazard of inertial coupling from multiple successive rolls began to be understood (which still affects modern aircraft, and in one famous case, nearly caused an F-18 to be lost during testing of adjustments to the fly-by-wire system's control laws). Pretty much any information on the usual go-to sources is rubbish. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and so it simply parrots whatever popular public or "enthusiast" perception is. Mainstream/traditional media wouldn't know an interceptor from a maritime recce aircraft and directly profited from hyping up losses, because it sold more papers. If you want actually good info on the Starfighter, the International F-104 Society does a fantastic job trying to collect as much archival information as possible, along with photos, videos, and accounts from pilots. The SURE series of lectures quite literally explain to you how to use the F-104 effectively in an air superiority role and also dispel the myths about pitch-up and spins being sure killers - both were not only avoidable, but also consistently recoverable with prompt and correct action. There's a video here on RU-vid describing the issue of pitch-up and how to recover from it, for the F-101 - since it also suffered from the same issue. Along with all that, various military training, test/evaluation, or documentary films from the actual period the F-104 was in service will tell you what its role was and how it performed that role. If you want to see what an actual purpose-designed supersonic air defence interceptor looks like, look at the F-101B, F-102, F-104, Su-9/11/15, MiG-25/31, Yak-28P, Tu-128. Lightning is a bit of a weird case thanks to differing British requirements and Mirage was expected to perform multiple roles besides air defence, so for the purposes of illustration we'll skip the two of those. All of the above are large aircraft with long range, relatively powerful radar much beyond what F-104 ever carried, in the case of the US examples also had infra-red search and track systems, had heavily computerised fire control systems that would not fit in something like the F-104, carried radar-guided weaponry either exclusively or as their primary method of attack (opening up the option of intercept geometry beyond simple tail chases or stern conversions, which get harder to do the faster/higher your target is), and had extensive integration with sophisticated ground-controlled interception systems like SAGE in the US or Vozdukh in the USSR. The latter is particularly important and in the case of most of that list, the aircraft could be flown from the GCI's station via commands to the autopilot; in a time of war where no visual identification or shepherding was needed, the actual human pilot was there to take off, manage the throttle, pull the trigger, and land. Soviet tactical fighters (MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-29) were sometimes fitted out with a watered-down version of the same system as a way to better integrate with the air defence system if needed, but also as a means of providing some level of air defence capability to Warsaw Pact allies without exporting the highly sensitive and very expensive Soviet domestic interceptors - of which only MiG-25 was ever exported, and only after Belenko defected with one so the aircraft was compromised anyway. Bit of a dissertation and I'm sure nobody's going to actually read it, but if it gets even one person to stop perpetuating media myths that should have died long ago I'll consider it worth the time it took to type. The SURE lecture slides are available in full online, by the way.

@@rossmum …. What’s your take on the last version of the F-104, the Italian F-104S? Was it the pinnacle of the aircraft’s evolution? Or were the later refinements mostly “lipstick on a pig”?

Had C version been available it would have been used. Besides, this is G, not S.

It was designed to boom and zoom subsonic Mig 15/17s close to the front. It was based off of Korean War pilot testimonies. To your point, anything beyond that is really out of its envelope. So when faster Migs like the 21 & 23 arrived, the F-104 became outclassed.

@@DoBraveryFPS It doesn't matter what it was designed for. It was a fighter aircraft that had a very specific mission profile and was woefully inferior to the F-4. I don't think this kind of argument would move the widows of the pilots either. A terrible design, like most of the 100 series.

​@@PONTOCRITICO Too bad you are utterly incorrect. The F-104 was designed as an air superiority fighter, it was able to out run, out accelerate, and out climb anything flying. It did exactly what it was designed to do. It fought in the vertical, using those attributes. Used properly by a well trained pilot, it was effective in air to air combat. The Luftwaffe failed completely in selecting and training the vast majority of its pilots assigned to the F-104. That is absolutely not an indictment of the pilots, but of their branch of service. The pilots themselves had no choice in the matter. When they were later properly trained, and the aircraft properly equipped and maintained, the loss rate plummeted. The Italians used the F-104 with great success and an excellent safety record for around 40 years, the last units reluctantly surrendering their Starfighters around 2004.

@@AlanRoehrich9651 Not quite. The F-104 didn't have the nicknames "widow-maker", "flying coffin" and "piloted missile" (you can only imagine a pilot having to eject from a missile, can't you) for nothing. It was a fighter that the USAF, for example, never wanted to operate, giving obvious preference to the F-4. The Phantom wasn't a maneuverable fighter either, but the Starfighter never forgave faults. It also didn't have a good range, nor was it suitable for ground attack missions - in fact, what was the F-104 good at? At accelerating on the basis of specific aerodynamics? Interception missions have been more than that since the dawn of aviation.

​@@PONTOCRITICO Those nicknames were the result of poor training, poor tactics, poor maintenance, and terrible mission selection. The F-104 had very specific roles, and flown to its strengths in those roles, it performed well. The Germans and Canadians both had higher loss rates in other fighters, and their loss rates dropped exponentially once the proper training and procedures were adopted. The F-104 was designed to out accelerate, out run, and out climb the enemy. It was designed that way specifically for the men who were flying combat when it was designed. The proper use for the F-104 is to fight in the vertical. It's not designed to be a bomb truck, nor to fight slow in horizontal circles. You know nothing of what you speak.

I would prefer an earlier version myself.

True

Sounds ironic, I guess :)

It was never designed to be a low level bomber. But number of crashes dropped dramatically in the later years of its service.

Germany were "persuaded" to buy this pilot killer in return for not sufferings US sanctions

As explained at 1:28

Maybe but lesser known episodes can be very interesting too. Videos covering such topics often attract many more viewers than something that is well known.

Very few people ever complained. But in those cases, there are manually edited subtitles.

@@showtime112 I was just trying to help you by letting you know the background noise was a problem for me.

@@jamespence48 That's alright, I appreciate the input. I just think that the voice is mixed high enough. If I reduced the background noise further, it would probably lose something.

Thank you James, the narrator, his voice is weak to begin with, and with the accent, another tick mark against it, and then with the background noise it is almost unintelligible. I gave this video a thumbs down because you just can’t hear it. I had to rewind many times to hear the narrative.

You should see one on my 'Five Things You Didn't Know About F-104' video. Guy tells me to 'check my facts' because 'Luftwaffe was long gone by the time F-104 entered service' 🤣🤣🤣

Some good points there.

Following the Korean War the F-104 was specifically designed to hold air supremacy over subsonic Mig 15, 17.

True. But it's like a bad actor who becomes popular nevertheless 😁

@@showtime112 hello. Perhaps a YT. about an Australia RAAF. Canberra jet lost on bombing mission over north Vietnam under mysterious circumstances 2 crew never recovered.

@@showtime112 we can be thankful Warsaw Pact. Never invaded Western Europe. Do you think f-,104 would have bettered the Russian designed.a/c it's never discussed only the ground war and the need to destroy the torrent of soviet tanks

@@showtime112 over Taiwan f-104 had no drop tanks. did f-104s in Vietnam drop their tanks before combat ?

It didn't need any more than that 😁

It's a charmer alright 😁

um the J-79 an unreliable engine? you might want to do a tad more research. the same engine that powered the B-58, F-4, A-5 and non afterburner version the Convair 990 airliner. actually not too shabby for a so called " unreliable " engine..

@@wwclay86 Germany bought 915 F-104’s. They lost 292 planes. They lost 91 planes due to engine problems. The B-58, F-4 and A-5 had more than one engine, so if an engine failed the pilot had a back up. The F-104 turned into a lawn dart.

@@bollewillem1 you just proved that the -79 is a good engine. Just cause Germans don't know how to maintain shit, doesn't mean the engine is unreliable. How about piss poor maintenance by an allied country. Having worked on F-4 phantom fighters, there weren't too many engine issues. Just the usual overhaul and engine changes..

@@wwclay86 Saying that Germans don’t know how to maintain an F-104 engine or any mechanical device for that matter tells me that you have never been in Germany or never have worked with Germans. Germans are known for quality engineering, think of their cars, war industry, watches etc, and they are known for following procedures and being very meticulous when it comes to maintainance. The point is that a twin engine plane that comes home with one engine failing is not flagged in the statistics as a catastrophic failure because it isn’t. But the same failure in a single engine jet will show up in red in the statistics.

Yes. Just like in most cases, it was all about circumstances.

I don't think there was a single good day for Vietnam in all those decades.

Nah, I think it's your hearing aid that's the problem 🤣

Sure. But the same goes for the F-4.

Bullshit. The F-104 had excellent speed, acceleration, and climb. If fought extremely well in the vertical. A properly trained F-104 pilot fighting in the vertical was almost certain death for any Mig built before the seventies. The F-104 can go vertical, the Mig cannot follow, the F-104 can vector roll in any direction the Mig can turn, and be above and behind the Mig in a firing position for the Vulcan cannon or missiles, and the Mig is done, regardless of how he turns.

That's a pretty widespread opinion ☺️

Concerning the fact that F-104 operations in Vietnam were relatively limited, that 14 were lost altogether during the war and that there was only one single day for the Starfighter worse than this one, I'd say it was pretty terrible. Clickbait is a lie, this definitely isn't. Besides, unless your video titles are at least a bit bombastic, viewers simply ignore them and that is viewers fault, not mine.

Maybe. But Bruce Gordon who flew F-106s (and also F-100s in Vietnam) says they were best at high altitude but there was little fighting there going on in that conflict.

Now this is a great take.