PHANTOM MENACE: Should The F104 Starfighter Have Been The USAF's Air Superiority Fighter In Vietnam? 

As a Navy Air Intercept Controller, I controlled Italian F-104S model during Nato operations. The biggest detracting factor I found with the F-104 was its limited range. Even with drop tanks, the F-104 had half the range/time on station as any of the other fighters I controlled during my career (21 yrs as an AIC/AICS). These include F-4, F-5, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 in various models and all services.

I can assure you from having been a Vulcan gunner and knowing that gun very well that the F104 wasn't limited to 3 second bursts to keep the barrels from overheating, you could literally unload it's entire ammo compliment in one long continuous burst and the barrels would not overheat. The version I was on had 2 firing rates, low at 1,000 per and high rate at 3,000 per with the 3,000 setting limited to 10, 30, 60 and 100 round bursts via the switch setting, the 1,000 per setting was a single position on the switch with no burst limit hence it being called "Lo-No". Our ammo drums had a 1,200 round capacity, they were essentially the same drum just a little longer to give the capacity we had, if you switched the gun to the high setting of 3,000 per at 100 round burst as soon as the burst was over a good gunner could release the trigger and hit it again fast enough that it almost sounded like a continuous burst, more than once I myself unloaded an entire 1,200 round ammo drum using that technique, however if you switched the setting to Lo-No, just 1,000 rounds per minute, and held the trigger down to unload an entire drum in one long burst when it was done and if it was night time you could see the barrels glowing red, however when you'd unload an entire drum on the 3,000 rounds per minute setting using the fast trigger technique mentioned earlier making it pretty much like a continuous burst the barrels wouldn't be glowing red in the dark, that's because the faster you spin the barrels the better it cools even though it's a higher rate of fire, we were told that when we were trained on the gun and saw it to be true through practical application, so i know this to be a fact beyond all doubt. Knowing this and knowing that when the General Electric M61 Vulcan cannon is placed in aircraft they're set up to fire 6,000 rounds per minute, along with streaking at high speed through the super cold air at altitude, there's no way you'd overheat the barrels in one of them by firing bursts longer 3 seconds, it's not gonna happen, the reason they had a burst limit would have been the same reason ours did on it's high rate, to keep an excited shooter from burning through his ammo due to lack of awareness, in an F104 in aerial combat and with a 6,000 round per minute firing rate with only 750 rounds in an ammo drum it'd be real easy to let things get away from you and burn through all your ammo before you knew what you were doing, by making a gunner fire in bursts he's going to have better control over the situation instead of just spraying 20mm ammo all through the sky in a highly excited state.

"When you are out of F8s, you are out of fighters."

As I recall, the F-104 was designed to be an air superiority fighter, but often served as point defense interceptor. With such short legs, limited payload, and few missile options, I don't think it would have made a very practical escort fighter. The F-102 and F-106 were designed as ground radar guided strategic interceptors to shoot down the Russian Bears and would have made poor escort fighters. The F-105 was really a tactical nuclear bomber pressed into the fighter-bomber role. My own boss flew F-100s in Vietnam on fighter-bomber missions, a role it was not originally designed for. He considered it the last true Air Force fighter until the advent of the F-15. The F-4 did excellent yeoman service in whatever role it was pressed into. It had to be galling for the USAF to accept this Navy fighter because we didn't have anything comparable at the time (we did soon develop the F-4E with an internal gun and leading edge slats for greater maneuverability). This was largely blamed on the "bomber mafia" that had forever ruled the Air Force until about the time we left Vietnam. Once the "fighter mafia" completed their takeover, they pushed hard for the F-15 and F-16. I came on active duty in the middle of all this in 1978, almost a decade after the F-104 was retired from the USAF. I was initially stationed next to a Texas Air Guard unit that was flying the last of the F-100s. Within a year these were retired and replaced by F4D Phantoms. Five year later I watched as the very last F-105s, all Wild Weasels, landed at Kelly AFB to be turned into static displays and training aides for our Air Base Ground Defense program. Now they're all gone , these century series fighters, and much of the romance seems to have disappeared with them.

Another great aviation history/technology analysis. One key point is that sine the F4 and the F104 shared the same GE J79 engine, well known for being a smokey monster until much later versions came on line. Therefore both aircraft could be acquired, visually, from long distances thus negating the F104's small size advantage .

We can safely conclude the USAF made the right decision to employ the F-4C for the air superiority mission. We know because the USAF did exactly what some said to- deploying F-104s for air superiority missions during Operation Rolling Thunder. Yet, it’s easy to forget that when comparing MiG encounters to the overall sorties flown , the odds of a MiG engagement were VERY remote. While air to air kills are stories that sell books and movie tickets, the statistical reality is most Vietnam era USAF pilots served their tours without even seeing a MiG, much less engaging one. The rarity of MiG engagements was to the extent the F-104s in country ended up being used as on-call Close Air Support assets. Surprisingly the F-104s were adept at that mission, with their high speed and accurate 20mm cannon. But the small size of the F-104 precluded installation of SAM detection equipment, and soon the S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) rendered the Starfighter obsolete in Southeast Asian skies. By contrast the larger F-4C had space for critical SAM detection avionics, and could be used for strike missions which took up the large majority of Southeast Asian sorties.

The MiGs were not smaller and "more agile" than the F-86, the planes were roughly comparable there. The MiG had superior ceiling and rate of climb. The Korean War pilots interviewed by Kelly Johnson asked for a plane with superior speed, climb and ceiling in a lightweight package, and that drove the design of the F-104. It also limited its range and load carrying ability as a fighter bomber, which is why USAF brass was not that fond of the airplane.

I think the positive nickname/marketing tagline the 104 was given "missile with a man in it" is a more complete description of it than most account for. It was interpreted as having fantastic speed, but I think that was basically it for it, similar to the missiles of the day, which weren't particularly smart nor maneuverable. It no doubt was a great exercise technically, but the fact that it's greatest contribution could be debated as being a foundation for the U2 to be spawned off is kind of damning. It was a fabulous design, just came out at a time where there was a lot of politics meddling with requirements, and also technology was just evolving leaps and bounds. What's the point of having an F104 as a point defense weapon, when a few years later the F106 came out with even greater speed and more sophisticated electronics (plus a bit more initial maneuverability courtesy of the delta wing). My appreciation of the starfighter is similar to that of a classic sportscar: It looks awesome, it has good performance in a few areas but is very flawed in others and there's no safety net if you screw up.

FYI; the phot at 2:30 was an RF-4 being shot down by a SAM. Another excellent, informative video! Regarding the MiG-21, I once read an account (admittedly anecdotal in an aviation magazine) by a NATO F-104 pilot who had a friendly hassle with a WARPAC MiG-21 over the Baltic. He said he had an easy time with the MiG, though this was probably more to pilot skill than any great aircraft superiority.

Thanks! I too am emotionally in favor of the F-104, but its limitations just can't be denied. My uncle flew F-4Es out of Korat AB, Thailand, and he thought it was a great airplane.

The Italians operated the F-104S, which had an uprated engine, and sparrow capability. These remained in service through the 1970s, into the 80s, even beyond.

My father flew the 104 in Europe and during exercises he often "shot down" F-4's by getting them on gun camera. One day he was happy to have recorded 3. I've heard that the 104 was difficult to see and could often bounce the interceptors with little warning. Their role was ground attack but they would attempt to shoot down other aircraft that got in their way. The 104 was a very stable gun platform. My father once did 10 passes at a gun range with 100 rounds total and recorded hits on all 10 passes.

Nice one! The F104's primary flaw was it's orientation on speed beyond anything else, which turned it a bit into a rocket with an airbrathing engine. Both the Crusader and te MIG 21 where closer to the mark, albeit from opposite sides of the spectrum. The F104's lack of dog fighting agility would largely have offset the advantages of the inbuilt Vulcan canon. Also have a look at the Lockheed CL1200 Lancer. It was basically a big winged F104 with high commonality which would have corrected the F104's weaknesses. Kelly Johnson was even whiley enough to get it an inapropriate X-27 designation. One could say the F16 was the ultimate answer, although thst one started off as a Generla Dynamics product and was thus a royal pain to Lockheed for years. Ah well. If you cant win from em in a honest fight just buy em out!

Regarding export modells, it should be mentioned that the german ones had been "worseimproved" for air to ground and all weather missions, thus gaining a reputation as "widow makers".

I'm a F104 lover but I think you did well in your analysis! I did work for the WW program of the F-4G and in that time (and talking to pilots) the shear weapon carrying capacity was of paramount concern given missile reliability and being able to successfully set-up on an opponent (i.e. with the F104, you would not risk taking 'luck'-shots like you would in an F-4 with extra ordinance). As a result, the F-104 is at a capacity disadvantage, even though is is the sexyist bird in the sky!!!

A terrific factual video. Thank you! I was a crew chief on the F-105 Thunderchief until early 1967 stationed at George AFB, Victorville, Ca. We had F-104’s, F-105’s and F-106’s. My first deployment was a surprise O.R.I. Deployment to Incerlick AB, Adana, Turkey. An entire squadron of the 355th Tactical Fighter Wing was deployed there to remind the Russians that we had 8 nuclear capable aircraft located 11 minutes from their boarder capable of delivering a nuclear warhead at just under Mach 2 and flown at 150’ above ground level, well under their radar. They’d never know it was coming! Then transferred to McConnell AFB, Wichita, Ks. my squadron of the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing in 1965 was deployed to Korat, Thailand. Now our nuclear delivery aircraft was deployed dropping dumb bombs and using its M-61 gun to attack ground targets. Our beloved “Thud” was being shot at by ground fire, SAM’s and intercepted by Mig 17’s and eventually Mig 19’s. And we learned quickly that a fully loaded 105 (capable of carrying more bomb load than a WWII B-17 heavy bomber) was no match for either MiGs! My point in all of this was the 105 was almost completely ignored in your video. And yet it did virtually ALL the “heavy lifting” in early Vietnam. We eventually learned to fly each mission with 6 aircraft carrying ordinance and 2 aircraft flying “high cover”. Equipped with only side winders and the gun fully armed ….. a 105 was more than a match for a Mig17 and we were learning how to compete with the 19! Great video again! But before the F4 earned it’s spot and it’s roll in Vietnam the Thunderchief, with heavy losses, was hard at work, with some of the bravest pilots I’ve ever met, keeping the N. Vietnamese busy defending the north!

Great analysis, you earned my sub. I grew up in the era an Air Force 'brat', as my Father worked his way through his service as an Aviation Electrician/Electronics Repair Technician, eventually clocking out after 20 years USAF and 5 years NJANG as a Teacher/Trainer. He served a tour at Phu Cat AFB in Viet Nam 1969-70 working on everything from Bird Dogs to Starlifters and everything in between. He even had time to build me an AM radio into a cigar box that he sent home. I listened to that radio 24/7 from 4 years old until I shelved it for posterity. I heard all the 'classic rock' when it was brand-spankin' new, and that started me on my way to the music career I have today. But I digress. Dad worked on those very planes you outlined in this video. I bet he could tell some things about them in this context. But he's unfortunately no longer with us. But great video! Cheers!

F-8 was the answer over both the F-104 and the F-4 until the Phantom pilots improved their tactics. Long legs and excellent combat performance against the MiGs. From Korea until the teen-series fighters came online after Vietnam, US Navy tactical aviation had better planes and weapons to an embarrassing degree. USAF had focused so intently on strategic bombing and intercepting strategic bombing, that they had to adopt both their primary air superiority fighter AND their Fox 2 missile from Navy programs. An absolutely shameful embarrassment.

The decision had been made long before the F-4 or Vietnam came along. The USAF bought fewer than 300 F-104's. Too many things were sacrificed on the 104 in favor of performance. And, with the general lack of emphasis on air to air training in the Big Air Force negated its' high performace...

Very in depth analysis. I love the F-104, but the F-4 could just carry more of everything, see further, had a second crewman, and had a heck of lot more growth potential. The Air Force made the correct decision, and they actually got the benefit of what McNamara was hoping for when he wanted more commonality between Air force and Navy fighters. There are a lot of Air Forces in the world that opted for the Rhino. It was a really good multi-role aircraft with a huge payload and awesome avionics and radar. Many countries bought the F-104, but I am not sure the aircraft was as beloved as the F-4.

This channel is going places, it's got me as excited as when I first stumbled across Paper Skies!

The point about the combat formation and tactics used is important. F-8 pilots were superior at air-to-air because it was in their culture and what they trained for. Same for the F-104, which started life and inculcated its community as a pure day fighter. F-104 pilots used superior tactics to other USAF fighters because it was what they focused on to maximize their air-to-air capability. In terms of pure aircraft performance, the F-104 and F-4 were about even at low and medium altitudes and the F104 was superior at high altitudes. The F-4 was superior overall due to its avionics, range, and loadout. But too much is made of turn radius and dogfighting, which is not as large a part of air combat as most think. The Korean war pilots interviewed by Kelly Johnson did not ask him for an airplane that would turn tighter than the enemy. They asked for superior speed, climb, and ceiling, because those are the factors that convey advantage in air combat. Bleeding speed in tight turns squandered the advantage such an airplane had and was not considered an advisable tactic even in WWII.

Incredible channel. Thanks for putting the these out. Have binged most videos already

I appreciate very much your style of presentation, I feel you're clear, concise and knowledgeable. Nice to be able to sit back and just enjoy listening to your perspective!

Another factor that seriously mitigated against the F-104's widespread deployment as major player, was that the USAF simply didn't have very many of them. Not counting the few 2 seat trainer versions, the USAF only received only 153 F-104A models and 77 of the more capable F-104C models. Of these, many F-104s had already been lost in accidents, and in reality the F-104 C model was the only USAF F-104 was suitable for combat. So, even IF the F-104 was the best air superiority on the planet, the USAF had far too few of them to render them operationally useful for any length of time. Had the USAF purchased the F-104C in far greater numbers, the story may have been much different, but even they the range of the F-104 would have required more aerial tanker assets due to it's more restricted range as opposed to the F-4.

I just wanted to thank you for producing these videos. It's nice having videos that cover topics off the beaten path. Not that I don't enjoy a Spitfire vs Mustang vid but there's only so much to say about such topics.

Amazing video! Thank you for your research and diligence!

A refreshing take on EVERY subject you present. Thanks a lot. Congratulations.

The largest problem with the F-104 in USAF service was the Air Force's lack of flexibility in tactics - they saw it as a "fighter" and tried to force it into the same tactics "box" as all their other fighters, which didn't really suit it.

I want to compliment your conclusion. Nuanced and explained well as opposed to a simple yes or no without further explanation.

Very nice job with this video, really enjoyed it!

GREAT video! Very intelligent comments as well. Bravo.

Very well done. Thank you for making this video

Brilliantly done. Can never watch an F-104 doc too often.

Also to note... It's important to remember the Cold war was still on and WW3 could break out at any moment so having F-104s in reserve to escort B-52s across the north pole was most likely the better tasking then doing anything in the knockdown drag out brawl of Veitmam's air war.

I was deployed to Taiwan in 1973-1974. The Nationalist Chinese Air Force had a fair number of F-104s. We were flying F-4Ds. If we played with them and caught them below 20,000 ft we ate their lunch. If we tried to mess with them at a higher altitude we got hammered. In 1973 the Nationalist Chinese Air Force flew combat patrol over Main Land China and often engaged against MiG 19s. The kill ration was 33 to zero in favor of the F-104. However, in Vietnam, things would have been different. The F-104 was a neat but niche aircraft.

The SUU-23 gun pod fitted to our F-4D Phantoms was fairly heavy, and much less accurate than the F-4E's nose gun. Both used the M-61 Vulcan cannon and the gun pod had almost twice the ammunition load, but it hung much farther off the aircraft centerline, and was not as consistently stable. It was less valuable in the A2A role, and was used more for strafing ground targets. The SUU-23's weight and location made it hard to fire accurately during a high-G turn, and also restricted the aircraft's G limit.

Just discovered this channel, very very impressed 👍

Great channel. I've enjoyed watching many of your vids since the alghorithm first suggested them. you can draw a parallel between the F-104 and the EE Lightning. They were both designed as short range missile armed fast climbers, to intercept bomber formations. Which severely limited their capability in any extended role. Which didn't stop air forces attempting to put them in those roles. Luftwaffe tasking them for ground attack? Hello? Anyway, the takeaway I got is that the F-4 truly was a fantastically versatile aircraft.

Really appreciate the video, thank you!

Great vid as always ❤. Where is that mig v thud movie footage from? Looked cool.

Really good analysis. Thanks

I absolutely hate this mission creep thing that happened to every aircraft back in the day. The F-104 was designed as a short-range "interceptor". An interceptor is NOT a fighter. It CAN be a fighter,, but an Interceptor is optimized for getting to altitude, getting to the target, shooting the target down, and going home and doing it all over again. The F-104 EXCELLED at this. Climb rate was excellent. Speed at altitude was excellent. It turned out later that maneuverability was actually pretty good too (enough to surprise F-15's!). Ground attack, long range patrol, bomber escort, combat air patrol, nuclear bomb delivery were all jobs the 104 Was Not Designed For. The Germans tried to use the 104 as a multi-role fighter (which the 104 IS NOT) and paid the price. The Phantom WAS a multi-role fighter-bomber and was the platform that was needed in Vietnam. Comparing the 104 to the Phantom is like comparing an F150 pickup truck to a Mustang.

Just another great comparison type product that cuts thru myth and widely held beliefs without showing any subjective favoritism. Keep it up, I will I'll just keep reading and thumbs upping. I and I am sure many others who believed they "new a bit" are getting a crash course in military jet aircraft of all persuasions and origin. No one presentation is better than another. All are very good. Thank you for the time and effort you take to do the spade work. Keep um coming, Cheers Ken

Great vid, I wonder if you’ll do a vid on the F5 Tigers that fought in Vietnam. It’d be a killer vid given your attention to detail. Thanks

Best analysis on this topic I've ever seen.

How is your channel so small?! This is amazing!!

Excellent video, As far as I know the starfighter actually had AA combats over Pakistan, it would be cool if you can talk about its operational combat record in Vietnam.

Thank you, good informative video.

After watching this video this excellent video ignored one huge aircraft that bore nearly all the early Vietnam conflict. An aircraft that served with distinction even though never designed for these types of missions. The F-105D was pushed into service as the need for a fast fighter bomber capable of carrying huge bomb loads into extremely hostile territory. The Thunderchief was designed to be a 1300 mph nuclear delivery weapon, not dropping “dumb” bombs from wing pillions! As a “Thud” crew chief I watched these aircraft performed unbelievable missions, returning shot up, leaking hydraulic fluid, engine issues ( mostly from exceeding J-75 afterburner limits) even resulting in pilots wounded from ground fire. But, with pilot skills their “Thuds” got them home. I was deployed twice in my 4 years in the Air Force. From George AFB, Victorville, CA. to Incerlick, AFB, Adana, Turkey. With our squadron of F-105’s we were 11 minutes from the Russian boarder. In late 1964 the Russian’s knew about these aircraft that could fly nearly Mach 2 at 150’ above the terrain, well below their radar, deliver a nuclear bomb and be gone in seconds. Then in late 1965 from McConnell AFB, Wichita, Ks. deployed to Korat AB, Thailand. Here we forced this marvelous aircraft to do what it was never designed to do. Carry more external bomb load than a WWII B-17 heavy bomber over the most heavily defended air space in the world, defend itself from SAM’s, ground fire and Mig 17’s & 19’s! Approximately 735 F-105D’s, F’s & G’s were built by Republic. Half were lost, along with dozens of the bravest pilots I was ever blessed to know. There was a mission that needed to be done and this great aircraft and these brave men performed those missions!

Its all tax water under the MIC bridge... its so great to see this rapid succession of technology as expressed through air superiority. And then you realize how much they spent the future out from under successive generations to statistically fight no one. And how much of it are we still paying off? That being said, great video.

The F-104 was designed for "point defense": scramble and shoot to intercept altitude. It didn't have the range to patrol at a distance or long range intercepts.

Excellent video. Much appreciated by an aviation geek like me. Can't add much that wasn't said by you or in the comments so I'm commenting to help you in the algorithms.

The question should've been asked about the F-106 with its legendary speed and manuverability

Thank you for sharing this.

A really interesting review. Many thanks. I miss a comparison of the relative security of these two aircrafts. Wasn’t the accident rate if the F104 particularly high? In some air forces that purchased the F104 (e.g. the German air force), it did not become extremely popular.

I read somewhere the USAF did send a squadron of F-104s to Vietnam. Didn't hit anything, and managed to get one shotdown by Chinese J-6 (MiG-19), when one lost its bearings and ended entering China.

Great video...👍

Just how many F104s did the USAF have left in its inventory by the time of Rolling Thunder for it to even be a viable option? Even including ANG/AFRES units, wasn’t it just a handful of squadrons? I guess they could’ve commandeered overseas production orders for G models if desperate but it’s unlikely that Lockheed had any spare capacity to restart production of the C model …

I appreciate the fact you attempt to look at crew workload. Most historical analyses don't, even tho it's absolutely critical. (Looks at P-51)

Sorry for the wall of text. If I where to add something, I think the issue in Vietnam wasn't so much about which aircraft was better but mostly weapons and training. I've heard accounts of TAC pilots having not been, for the most part, trained in air combat to an extent where the mastery or institutional knowledge of Korea had been virtually lost, with some newer pilots being surprised to hear casually about BFM stuff from Korean War veterans, despite several schools and training programs being available within the USAF. Regarding missiles, the USN did better with their Sidewinders (D,G,H) than the USAF did with theirs, yet USAF pilots had to replace Bs with Falcons and later E and J models. I'm not sure I can dive deep into what it entailed, but basically Navy variants were as a whole much better than USAF ones. Israeli F-4Es had been "wired" to use these and performed very well, so the Sidewinder kill per launch ratio could have been much better. And while I can't speak much about the Sparrow either, it does seem like much of their issues, besides their electronics needing much care, or their range being limited by the need to identify their targets visually, was that they had a delay from launch to track that could have meant that, in a turn, the target angular velocity would put them away from their field of view, so to speak, an issue solved with the E2, or "Dogfight Sparrow" The F-104 had issues partly because the USAF had not invested in them so much. Combat flaps able to work up to about 500 knots and better engines had been fitted to A models and apparently were absolute beasts compared to pretty much any other USAF or allied Starfighter. Still, I think most of the issue in Vietnam was about situational awareness as a whole. Vietnamese MiG-21 pilots didn't have much in the way of training available, and could have been trained for GCI mostly like, say, Arab pilots pitted against Israel, but the environment fits like a glove, having radar coverage and working as part of a system that worked well. Meanwhile, Phantoms couldn't take advantage of their radars and Sparrows range because chances were contacts were other US aircraft they didn't know about. FF to the Gulf War. With all the lessons learnt from Vietnam, air superiority was gained by knocking out radar and comms, while F-15s had AWACS, onboard electronics better able to detect and identify enemy aircraft and more reliable missiles. The Fighter Mafia might have been wrong about what kind of fighter the USAF would need, but were right with all the OODA loop stuff. Around 1990, even if Iraq wasn't as "hard" of a fight as the USSR would have been in any way, MiG-29s being able to use R73s and helmet mounted sights wouldn't have meant that much if they could be put down by Sparrows, not just before being in range but possibly before even getting to locate their enemies.

You simply verified my own conclusions, good video, thanks..

WTF? You tried to be unbiased? Man, your tactical and survivability analysis of both the aircraft is superior! Bravo Bravo!

It would be interesting to see that same thought experiment done with the F-106. Bruce Gordon, an F-106 pilot is convinced that it ws the best air to air fighter the USAF had at that time.

I love your videos so much.

I particularly liked the picture with the old Gatling gun and the 104's rotary cannon.

The F-106 was probably the best air-to-air fighter the USAF had, but like the F-104 it’s lack of versatility kept it out of the war.

Always liked the F-104, and if memory recalls as far as the Phantom goes, it was said it was living proof that with enough thrust a rock could fly!

Excellent analysis, as always! I would also add this: During development, the F-104's principal "fighter mission" role was to operate as an interceptor. As such, high speed was the overarching consideration. Those primary developmental considerations, at that time, being: speed, firepower, & maneuverability. Stealth would later be added as part of these design considerations. Detection; both, detecting the enemy & being detected by the enemy, while important was not a primary design consideration as it was part of the "systems design considerations," until later when stealth became part of the design of the aircraft; think F-117A. As an "Interceptor," the F-104 proved itself quite capable, in the "air superiority" role it could have likely held its own, but in that role, the F-104 has a major issue with its ability to engage in 1 on 1 ACM (Air Combat Maneuvers): its T-Tail. The T-Tail of the F-104 Star Fighter seriously limited its ability to maneuver at high AoA (Angle of Attack). No matter what "plane" the aircraft is maneuvering in, in relation to the ground, above a certain AoA, the wings effectively block the air flowing over the control surfaces of that T-Tail, thus hampering its agility. Maybe, @Not a Pound for Air to Ground, could touch on that in a future video.

I was a kid during the 60 and had model airplanes hanging from the ceiling in my room and the F-104c was my favorite , I Think it looked great and had a cool name.

The Vietnam conflict history would have been far different if the USAF took delivery of the awesome F-8 Crusader...

Cunningham and Driscoll in an a Starfighter is an alternate universe I’d like to explore!(if you could fit them both of course)

I did not realize how few f105 we had. My dad was working at George AFB in Victorville CA when they were based there. It was always his fav He told a story how a 104 pilot shot himself down on a gun run.

I love this flying death trap! It did surprisingly well in a multitude of roles, up to 2004.

Great video! Love your work! What I want to know was how did Kelly Johnson believe that the upgraded F-104 (Lancer) would've "flown rings around the F-15". I like Kelly Johnson but that seems like a ludicrous claim to me

Newly subbed! Enjoy your analysis and agree concerning the F-4C. If I were on a MIGCAP and had to have one of these under me, it would be the F-4C. The extra set of eyes and brute force of the Phantom weighs heavy in its favour against flying alone in a fighter with limited offensive weapons load and range. This makes me wonder if the Starfighter could have mounted Sidewinders above the wings as the Jaguar did.

In its attempt, the 104 did an admirable job, considering its diminutive size and half the engine of the F4.

Speaking with a retired RAF pilot(25 years in mostly the Phantom/Spey engined) he relished the Phantom. "It's what you wanted to go to war with." His only regret was never getting a flight in a F-16. And as am I, he's not too keen on the F-22 or 35 ... "doesn't like the looks of them."

Very good history and analysis as standard. Test range dogfights, with both sides are aware and within visual range, and short sorties, did highlight the strengths of the F-104. But the bigger picture is that a) Hanoi and Haiphong were a long ways from airfields the USAF could employ and maintaining tactical situational awareness with minimal to no off-board support was highly challenging, b) the core missions over North Vietnam were bombing and reconnaissance and c) the USAF was already trying to concentrate on fewer (multi-role) types. Range, payload and navigation aids mattered for mission success. If there was a significant MIGCAP requirement over South Vietnam or Laos then the F-104 might have been a workable choice. Indeed some were used in this role (along with F-102s as you are clearly aware), but going to North Vietnam was another matter. The F-4 could be used for strike (the laser-guided bombs used effectively and extensively during Linebacker required a 2-seater) and SAM-suppression (or laying chaff corridors, etc) when not engaged as a MIGCAP, missions for which the F-104 was not suited, assuming it could even get to the mission area and back. F-104s were sent to Vietnam and made the contribution that they were capable of making in that demanding environment - minimal. The F-4 was far from optimal, but was the best of the available options, even in hindsight.

The F-104 and F-4E formed a Hi-Low mix in Europe. The NATO Starfighters were Low, the Phantoms were the High Radar equipped over-watch mission aircraft.

Very complete and still within the RU-vid limited attention span length. Started a long question midway through, but it was answered later on so deleted it.

The QRC160 would only have to displace one Sidewinder assuming they didn't find/build an alternative place to mount it. The F-104G had more hardpoints so it could carry the QRC160 and at least 4 Sidewinders.

It's simply that the F-104 was a second gen fighter (Mach 2 version of a F-86) while the Phantom was a proper third gen fighter.

9:04 I drove by that F-4 on display at Langley AFB everyday, but I never noticed it had an ECM pod.

The F-105 didn't have to shoot at aircraft with its gunsight in "ground strafing mode". It was an air to air gunsight when not depressed for ground attack. The F-105 shot down more Migs with its gun than any other fighter in the war.

I have a strong affinity for the F-104. It was one hell of a short-range fighter. Even today, the performance stats it puts up are impressive and are more or less negated by the maturation of BVR AAMs and truly monster planes like the F-15 or Su-27. A Mach-2 class interceptor that is designed to boom and zoom that, in competent hands, still can be a lethal threat if you are complacent.

Fascinating!!!

Unfortunately, the F-104's only air to air battle with the MiG resulted in the F-104 being shot down and its Pilot being captured and placed in solitary confinement for over 7 years. The American Pilot had lost his DG and wandered over Chinese held Hainan Island where he was shot down by a Chinese Mig-19.

I always felt as though the F-104 was execellent for what it was designed to do, run scramble defence on the pine tree line like the F-102s. It was all about being able to get airborne in the shortest time possible to intercept a mass of soviet bombers. You don't need superior visibility/maneuvrabilty to spot a big old Tu-95. I question that the USAF considered they would use them in the offensive air power role overseas. They were set up for speed and lightweight fast climbing sacrificing range which sounds like a better match for defensive duties where you know the enemy will come to you, much like their soviet counterparts.

It is rare that an aircraft is replaced with an inferior one. The F18 being one example...

One big reason the USAF didn’t want to use F-104s in Vietnam was that the main Cold War was still happening with the USSR. They needed the F-104s in the US and Canada to be ready to shoot down approaching Tu-95s. Same reason the USAF was not thrilled about losing B-52s in Rolling Thunder. It was bad enough to lose an aircraft and probably crew, but the B-52s hurt extra bad because each bomber lost was impacting nuclear readiness. Even having the B-52s in Vietnam was not great; at the time the nuclear triangle hadn’t skewed towards SLBMs.

Also with 104's flying cap the F-4 could do the strikes and been able to defend themselves better and forced more engagements from Vietnam.

Can you do a video on ROE in vietnam (or in general)? I have heard a lot of conflicting info on the topic.

From what I have gathered the F-106 may have been our best performing fighter of this era.

I would say the F-4 also had better survivability because it did have 2 engines over the F-104s single engine on top of that the F-4 could take more damage than the F-104 on top of everything else.

In warfare, the defense has the advantage. American fighters had to carry the war from the Pacific Ocean or Thailand to Hanoi. The NVAF was flying over their own air fields. So the MiGs were small, light, and maneuverable.

The narrator got to the point at the end. The USAF completely de-emphasized air to air combat training after Korea. Robin Olds said “they couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.” Most of the experienced pilots from Korea and WWIi were gone. The Navy never gave up on air combat and tactics training. If your pilots don’t have the skill set, the choice of airplanes is moot.

Thanks.question is answered.

Thank you

The Lancer version of the F-104 would've been awesome.