China's new aircraft and no one here talks about it ?

[MigBuster 2,875]

You'll never hear me saying that.

I'm aware of the a/c's limitations - I'm just trying to shed a bit of light on issues that have been written about the 104 that are plain wrong.

 

Well it looks like you are not aware of its limitations looking at your posts - your last one seems to be an attempt at a pissing match/argument for the hell of it - and then you claim to shed some light to people on this site about the F-104(n)- thats quite an insult.

[MigBuster 2,875]

In the air !!!!!!!!!!!! (3:00)

 

 

Now thats Interesting progress!

[MigBuster 2,875]

All the talk about either the end of days or that this is nothing but a tech demonstrator with no practical use is obviously off the mark. The truth as always lies in the middle.

 

The only question is "is this the first?" The F-117 was the first stealth plane publicly revealed, but it was years after it entered service and even then it took quite some time before it was shown publicly to people with cameras. Only many years afterwards did we finally see the prototypes and the Tacit Rainbow and other demonstrators that led to it.

 

On the one hand, it's quite likely China built their own demonstrators first and kept them secret and who knows when or if we'll ever see them. On the other, in an attempt to appear "not far behind" there's a good chance they simply started with this as all the early work has already been done on scale models. Besides, one thing you can't tell from a photo is how it appears on radar. There are times where you can see an obvious mistake that will mess with stealth, but just because something LOOKS stealthy doesn't mean it really is. That info, of course, they'll want to keep to themselves.

 

Who knows what else they have up their sleeves - obviously this makes for good publicity regardless of its capabilities.

Now you will start to see posts regarding claims that western radars can detect stealth jets etc

[FastCargo 412]

These pictures are too far away to determine fit and finish. You pretty much have to be standing next to the aircraft to determine that.

 

Secondly, they are obviously VERY early in the test program being that there is one aircraft, its preflights take forever, and its flying pictures all show it with gear down.

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

That's the part that gets me...a lot of so-called "stealth defeating schemes" that are floated depend on a few very unlikely factors.

First, and most important, they require the detectors to know where and when the planes will be coming to have their "net" up and running because few if any seem to be 24/7 360 degree detection nets. So all the stealth fliers have to do is go when you don't expect from a direction you don't expect!

Many of them also require planes in the air when the forces enter their airspace, and there aren't many countries who can manage a continuous BARCAP waiting for these planes.

Then, unlike conventional planes where most of the time "if you can see it you can hit it", with stealth planes just knowing where they are is insufficient. If your radar says "the plane is there" but none of your SAMs can track it, what good is it? Most won't be as obliging as the F-117 over Bosnia that flew at low level over the same spot multiple nights. That means you're limited to getting a fighter up there within range to use guns or IR missiles. You'll need a good GCI or datalink to provide that fighter with a vector as until they're right on top of it they won't see the stealth plane either. Then you'll have to hope it's the B-2 when you get there, because if it's not that means it's a plane capable of turning and shooting YOU down with the difference that they have the range advantage and can fire on you before you can fire on them.

 

Now someday in the future will be the next historical milestone...the first stealth vs stealth fighter combat, and like the first jet vs jet combat in Korea it will get remembered. However, when jets first entered service in WWII, no one would've predicted the first jets would fight each other over Korea in less than 10 yrs.

With both China and Russia now making them and then selling them to other countries, who knows where or when or who? My guess is you won't see F-35 vs F-35 or J-20 vs J-20, but beyond that it could be anything. If China sells J-20s to Pakistan, we could have J-20s vs T-50s over Kashmir be the first.

[MigBuster 2,875]

With both China and Russia now making them and then selling them to other countries, who knows where or when or who? My guess is you won't see F-35 vs F-35 or J-20 vs J-20, but beyond that it could be anything. If China sells J-20s to Pakistan, we could have J-20s vs T-50s over Kashmir be the first.

 

It highly possible that it could happen - might even be just a border engagement without any war actually going on.

Amazing to think that it wasnt long ago the J-20 and T-50 were paper airplanes that wouldnt see the light of day....ever - and there was no point having 5th gen jets etc - at least I think thats how some of the really good arguments went - pah :yes:

[PraetorH 166]

Since we know next to nothing about it, we can only judge its looks - and it looks very nice to me! MiG-31 Firefox gone stealthy.

 

However there is no reason to consider it superior just because its looks are similar to current stealth aircrafts. If it should be a true 5th-gen aircraft we would not need to worry anyway as none of our (i.e. NATO) potential enemies could ever afford it. Also aircrafts in this price range are only useful for symetric warfare, i.e. when the enemy has noteworthy air defence and is not ludicrously outnumbered...

 

Since even the disregarded Typhoon does not seem to do too badly against Raptors... ... I am all the more skeptical calling the J-20 superior yet.

 

 

PS: god, Toryu... you never miss a chance talking about the Zipper ;)

Edited January 21, 2011 by PraetorHonoris

[Toryu 156]

Well it looks like you are not aware of its limitations looking at your posts - your last one seems to be an attempt at a pissing match/argument for the hell of it - and then you claim to shed some light to people on this site about the F-104(n)- thats quite an insult.

 

Which limitations?

 

The ones you already brougt up? I don't see how those are of any signifigance - especially when comparing the bird against the F-5, which was the initial argumentation.

Despite some shortcomings in the total payload-area, I've already pointed out while time-till-bombs-on-the-ground can be more signifigant than the actual payload-figure.

I've also pointed out that using twice the number of aircraft for the same job may actually do the job just as well or better than using less but larger and heavier aircraft. This hasn't been dreamt-up by me during a feverish night, but it actually has been suggested by people like Boyd and others before me.

 

Why the issue of being able to carry a heavy and most of the time unreliable missile that could easily be substituted by lighter and slightly more reliable one should be of any major signifigance is also beyond me:

SEA didn't see the BVR-engagements that would have made a difference you claim to be there. It was see-identify-shoot in about 99% of all engagements.

By those standards the F-8 is also quite a limited bird - it strangely racked up an impressive A-A record - despite the lack of AIM-7 compatibility.

ROE can mix your cards quite a bit. Also, a lot of fighters did great without BVR-capability - fighters downing each other in BVR is just a relatively recent devellopment (Iran vs Iraq had the first widespread use of BVR-missiles in fighter-fighter engagements).

 

Did I mention the 104 had a gun right from the start (well, not quite, but almost)? So did the F-5, the Mirage III and the Draken! Quite a limitation on the F-4's side, wouldn't you think?

Where is the advantage of being able to strap both, A-A and A-G ordnance to the airframe at the same time?

Should the fighter be engaged before reching the target, the A-G ordnance is going to be jettisined anyway.

The M61 was enough of an asset for self-defence on a 104, clearly being shown by the F-105 that managed to squezze a positive kill-ratio out of an airframe that was, after all, anything but a fighter.

 

 

BTW: I'm not finding the "insulting"-part you're claiming to be hidden in my posts/ argumentation.

Maybe you can point me out the stuff that's insulting to you.

So far, the only thing I recognize is that my opinion is different from yours.

 

 

However there is no reason to consider it superior just because its looks are similar to current stealth aircrafts

 

Exactly.

Those dehedral-canads and ventral-fins aren't exactly proposing a groundbreaking design in terms of stealthyness.

Given the chinese experience on high-performance engines and the use of composite (or even RAM) material, we won't see any one of these things in operational use in the near future.

So far, nothing indicates the J-20 of being the new edge in technology.

The most obvious reason for pulling out a shiny new "fighter" duringthe visit of US representatives is propaganda - everybody likes showing their newest toys, especially when it makes you look goo.

And boy, have you seen the press-coverage?

 

The Chinese have had a very hard time developing their WS-10 engine - there were a couple of J-11 (chinese Su-27) pictures that showed at least one WS-10 (shorter nozzle than on the AL-31) installed.

The nozzles on the J-20 look similar to those of the WS-20 on the J-11 demo-bird.

This suggests they have gotten at least most of the bugs out of the engine - they wouldn't install it on their single-engined J-10, despite indications that the engine was designed with the J-10 in mind.

 

This is not intended as a blow to the chinese aircraft-industry - their J-10 seems to be quite a capable design (despite obvious links to the IAI Lavi which was sold to China).

But one shouldn't forget that the PLAAF still has large quantities of MIG-19 and MiG-21 derviatives in use, which is not going to change for another couple of years - be that with or without the J-20 going operational in it's current form.

 

The conclusion would be the J-20 is a tech-demonstrator, showing what China is curently able of building in limited quantity (which is gonna change, no question).

In the end, China is another country with the same problems and challanges as everybody elese's country.

If there's a neccesity for a high-tech-fighter (this includes industry, logistics and tech-support beind the aircraft) other than scaring Taiwan and showing off, we'll propably see a couple of new-shiny J-20 descendants in a couple of years, however, I'm not completely sold on that:

China still has quite a mixture of aircraft in their inventory. Incorporating an entirely new one is costly (especially when operating it in a low-quantity oddball-role such a high-tech, high-price fighter usually gets thrown into) and thus ineficient.

 

That leaves the question of which role this aircraft is supposed to serve in. It's rather big for a fighter and it's wing-area is quite small by today's standards.

So maybe it's layed-out for the stike-role, which is already taken-up by the Su-30MK within the PLAAF.

Another option would be naval-strike against carrier-groups (that one stealthy first-strike wave to knock out the air-defence assets, or maybe even going for the carrier itself with a newly-developed missile) in the Taiwan-Strait.

 

So far, nothing has proven or disproven any of this.

The J-20 is just a black jet with a funny shape, having shown it could fly. It surely won't skip the years of stealth-fighter experience amassed by the US and other countries in a couple of months.

Neither will there be any experience-breakthrough with composite materials, RAM or engine-thenology in that time-frame.

Building new fighters is a process of many years and a lot of projects do get cancelled or short-funded - that's not different in China.

We only haven't had quite that much insight and interest in their projects before (I don't remember the press going wild over the J-10 despite it being a major leap from the J-7 and J-8 family).

 

While certainly having a more healthy budgt than the Russians, we haven't heard much of the T-50 lately, let alone the MiG 1.44 that used to be called the next rusian super-fighter a couple of years ago.

Chances are, the J-20 is just going to share their destiny.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Toryu

[MigBuster 2,875]

 

The ones you already brougt up? I don't see how those are of any signifigance - especially when comparing the bird against the F-5, which was the initial argumentation.

I can certainly see why you dont understand the significance.

Despite the initial argument - the argument it went on to was the F-4 V F-104 over SEA.

 

Despite some shortcomings in the total payload-area, I've already pointed out while time-till-bombs-on-the-ground can be more signifigant than the actual payload-figure.

Dont agree - 2 JDAMs are fine yes - you stand a chance of hitting the target - 2 M117s/Mk8x unguided bombs is not. More bombs means potentially more targets and bigger targets also back then

 

I've also pointed out that using twice the number of aircraft for the same job may actually do the job just as well or better than using less but larger and heavier aircraft. This hasn't been dreamt-up by me during a feverish night, but it actually has been suggested by people like Boyd and others before me.

Really - where?? - I am a big fan of his and have read a lot about him - his main concern was A-A combat until he moved onto his manoeuvre warfare thinking etc.

 

Why the issue of being able to carry a heavy and most of the time unreliable missile that could easily be substituted by lighter and slightly more reliable one should be of any major signifigance is also beyond me:

SEA didn't see the BVR-engagements that would have made a difference you claim to be there. It was see-identify-shoot in about 99% of all engagements.

Where the **** did I claim that???? - I said the AIM-7 was a useful option - and it was mostly used in visual engagement due to ROE etc.

Figures show the AIM-9 wasnt all that more reliable in reality - and the AIM-7 was all aspect.

 

By those standards the F-8 is also quite a limited bird - it strangely racked up an impressive A-A record - despite the lack of AIM-7 compatibility.

I wouldnt compare the F-8 with the F-104 - different fighters and circumstances which we wont discuss here

 

 

Did I mention the 104 had a gun right from the start (well, not quite, but almost)? So did the F-5, the Mirage III and the Draken! Quite a limitation on the F-4's side, wouldn't you think?

I know and I agree - however despite the F-4 not having a gun it just was not the complete disaster I used to think it was (like you do now)

 

 

Where is the advantage of being able to strap both, A-A and A-G ordnance to the airframe at the same time?

WTF!!! over North Vietnam - pretty useful - I give up!!!

 

Should the fighter be engaged before reching the target, the A-G ordnance is going to be jettisined anyway.

Yes - just like one engaged with only A-G ordinance unless Escorts help you out. Where do you get this impression North Vietnam was swarming with MiGs?? - plenty of F-4s bombed targets then stayed on CAPs

 

The M61 was enough of an asset for self-defence on a 104, clearly being shown by the F-105 that managed to squezze a positive kill-ratio out of an airframe that was, after all, anything but a fighter.

Yes I know - do you want the figures - So where did I say I was against having a gun???

 

BTW: I'm not finding the "insulting"-part you're claiming to be hidden in my posts/ argumentation.

Maybe you can point me out the stuff that's insulting to you.

 

Thats because you dont want to - funny that - there are plenty of people on here who have more knowledge on the subject than you assume you do:

Quote you:

 

I'm just trying to shed a bit of light on issues that have been written about the 104 that are plain wrong.

Edited January 22, 2011 by MigBuster

[Toryu 156]

Dont agree - 2 JDAMs are fine yes - you stand a chance of hitting the target - 2 M117s/Mk8x unguided bombs is not. More bombs means potentially more targets and bigger targets also back then

 

More bombs first and foremost means more drag/ weight and thus less stellar cruise-performance and loiter-time once on-stage.

I guess GI-Joe pretty much likes the idea you could have bombed the other guy into submission, hadn't you failed to be on the scene in-time and Joe was already dead.

 

BTW: More fighters also means more targets, more play-time and more pressure on the enemy/ AAA. More fighters will also be able setting up a better protection against enemy CAS.

 

Figures show the AIM-9 wasnt all that more reliable in reality - and the AIM-7 was all aspect.

 

The AIM-7D/E wasn't only less reliant than the initial AIM-9B, but it was also harder to employ (switchology, unclear minimum release-parameters).

The chances of hitting the target in a dogfight are a wholly lot higher when employing a simpler, less gadget-filled, less maintenance-intensive, less heavy and better performing missile.

The "useful option" meanwhile is nothing but added weight.

I'll agree on two Sparrow in the rear recesses being a nice asset for an illusion of "self defence" when all bombed-up and being sneaked up by a fly-by shooting Fishbed.

 

and the AIM-7 was all aspect.

 

...so is a gun...

 

I wouldnt compare the F-8 with the F-104 - different fighters and circumstances which we wont discuss here

 

I would - for obvious reasons:

Both fighters were built for about the same role and were relatively similar in A-A and A-G performance (omitting the 104G, which was an entirely different machine).

Both A/C suffered from the newly-arisen political-incorrectness about dogfighting.

 

I know and I agree - however despite the F-4 not having a gun it just was not the complete disaster I used to think it was (like you do now)

 

I guess we can agree on "useful option", can't we?

But then again, it wasn't the 104 that needed a band-aid in shape of an SUU-16 or SUU-23 for plinking - until the F-4E was around.

 

WTF!!! over North Vietnam - pretty useful - I give up!!!

 

Obviously not - as the place wasn't exactly swarming with MiGs, putting it in your words.

The gun is enough for A-A (the 104 was initially designed around this weapon and had a formidable gun/ sight combo in the Charlie).

The Thud was able to hold it's own (mostly with guns only, there are a cuple of Sidewinder-kills as well) against MiG-17s.

The better accelerating/ climbing 104 wouldn't have had any problems doing the same against either MiG-21 or MiG-17.

The AIM-9 was only deemed useful in a sneak-up deep-six engagemant, which most-likely never occurde because NVAF a/c flew under GCI-surveillance.

 

Yes - just like one engaged with only A-G ordinance unless Escorts help you out. Where do you get this impression North Vietnam was swarming with MiGs?? - plenty of F-4s bombed targets then stayed on CAPs

 

See above.

 

Yes I know - do you want the figures - So where did I say I was against having a gun???

 

I have the figures on my own, thanks for asksing, though.

You never said anything against having a gun, I'm just pointing out how a gun is useful in more circumstances than an AIM-7.

 

Thats because you dont want to - funny that - there are plenty of people who have more knowledge on the subject than you assume you do:

 

That's why I quoted Thomas Delashaw, who actually flew the 104 in Vietnam and said pretty much the same as I do.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Toryu

[MigBuster 2,875]

More bombs first and foremost means more drag/ weight and thus less stellar cruise-performance and loiter-time once on-stage.

And more A-A refueling assets needed for more jets ...etc

F-104s payload - maybe okay for CAS - but not for targets up North. The F-104 could strafe with guns even if its bombs miss.

 

F-4s cruise speed was still adequate.

 

The AIM-7D/E wasn't only less reliant than the initial AIM-9B, but it was also harder to employ (switchology, unclear minimum release-parameters).

The chances of hitting the target in a dogfight are a wholly lot higher when employing a simpler, less gadget-filled, less maintenance-intensive, less heavy and better performing missile.

 

Neither missile was designed for Dogfighting - the Later AIM-7E-2 was improved for this - as Ive already said. AIM-9B was only useful in a straight 6 sneak situation as you have said - but its reliability really wasnt that much better than the AIM-7. The 2nd man really helped with employing the AIM-7 (have said this before!)

 

The "useful option" meanwhile is nothing but added weight.

 

The AIM-7 is a useful option because it gave the enemy something else to think about - they knew an F-4 did not have to get very close or on its 6 to kill them - this shaped their tactics - without a good RWR (that could detect the F-4s radar) there was always a possibility of them being fired upon. Imagine being a MiG pilot with that feeling!

 

But then again, it wasn't the 104 that needed a band-aid in shape of an SUU-16 or SUU-23 for plinking - until the F-4E was around.

Hardly - only a few squadrons actually flew with the pod - the Navy never bothered (after a very brief trial )actually - even in 72

 

The gun is enough for A-A (the 104 was initially designed around this weapon and had a formidable gun/ sight combo in the Charlie).

The better accelerating/ climbing 104 wouldn't have had any problems doing the same against either MiG-21 or MiG-17.

 

This romantic notion you have of the F-104 dogfighting over the North is nice - but wrong at this range.

Over the North with limited fuel - any thoughts of prolonged period in afterburner going after things with guns as a primary weapon is off. What so you think you have the whole sky to play with at any altitude - like at a test range! Like the F-105 it could have hosed down MiGs that didnt know it was coming - but trying to get parameters against something that knows you are there with those weapons is not practical in an F-104 with those fuel limits and that manoeuvrability. The effort and energy spent compared to firing a missile is enormous - not to mention the diminished SA that ensues while you go gallivanting around the country.

Yes there were dogfights with F-4s and F-8s (mostly AIM-9 kills) - but you would want to avoid knife fights if possible in that environment (ask any pilot if they prefer knife fights!!) - particularly if you are supposed to be Escorting others.

.

 

The AIM-9 was only deemed useful in a sneak-up deep-six engagemant, which most-likely never occurde because NVAF a/c flew under GCI-surveillance.

VPAF jets were caught unaware in a lot of the Kills actually

 

That's why I quoted Thomas Delashaw, who actually flew the 104 in Vietnam and said pretty much the same as I do.

 

Whatever....

 

You have still not provided anything new or any valid reasons for using the F-104 over the F-4 (after the period it was withdrawn )in North Vietnam. On Paper the F-104 should have been a better A-A fighter in the early period - however A-A was only a very limited part of the SEA conflict - and I have seen nothing to make me think it would have faired better at long range escort. MiGs would still have shot it up the 6 and zoomed past it to shoot F-105s up the 6 in slashing attacks as they did with the F-4s.

I still feel the F-4 was better suited to the many other areas of combat required in this environment - and when the VPAF gained strength, better missiles and tactics (i.e TopGun) and an F-4E helped improve things for 1972. The F-4 should have been designed with a gun - but wasnt.

 

The F-104 would have no doubt been more suitable in some other types of conflicts.

 

 

This is the last post from me on the subject - apologies for going OT - adios

Edited January 23, 2011 by MigBuster

[Slartibartfast 153]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12266973

 

ooo bad Chinese...

[+Dave 2,319]

LOL Doesnt surpise me on one bit. They are using old tech, on a plane we dont use anymore. As usual, a day late and a dollor short.

[xclusiv8 35]

The article says, MAY HAVE. I doubt it. Nothing on that jet looks to have been inspried by the F117.

[Slartibartfast 153]

The article says, MAY HAVE. I doubt it. Nothing on that jet looks to have been inspried by the F117.

 

The design of the composite material will be of great interest or of the Radar Absorbant Paint etc... means they copy the design of the material... and its application

[+Dave 2,319]

The article says, MAY HAVE. I doubt it. Nothing on that jet looks to have been inspried by the F117.

 

Oh knowing the Chinese they used technology from it and not parts from it. I dont take much stock in what they say they developed on their own. They copy everything with no regards to laws.

[Toryu 156]

Hardly - only a few squadrons actually flew with the pod - the Navy never bothered (after a very brief trial )actually - even in 72

 

A couple of squadrons in the AF and MC flew the pod - mostly for missions in South-Vietnam.

 

Over the North with limited fuel - any thoughts of prolonged period in afterburner going after things with guns as a primary weapon is off. What so you think you have the whole sky to play with at any altitude - like at a test range! Like the F-105 it could have hosed down MiGs that didnt know it was coming - but trying to get parameters against something that knows you are there with those weapons is not practical in an F-104 with those fuel limits and that manoeuvrability. The effort and energy spent compared to firing a missile is enormous - not to mention the diminished SA that ensues while you go gallivanting around the country.

 

Most engagements are over in 30 seconds. It's all about getting the first shot and either kill or not kill the bogey - anything else is playing chances, especially when engaged in a multi-aircraft engagement.

Thinking that maneuvering into a tight cone of favourable perimeters for missile-launch is excessively less energy-reliant than getting a clean gun-lineup is what I'd call "romantic".

Even more when talking about low altitude-engagements, where missiles are limited by ground-clutter, reflections (AIM-9 issue) and q-limits.

The ensueing engagement-parametres are anything but "fire and forget" or "SA-friendly".

 

Neither missile was designed for Dogfighting - the Later AIM-7E-2 was improved for this - as Ive already said. AIM-9B was only useful in a straight 6 sneak situation as you have said - but its reliability really wasnt that much better than the AIM-7. The 2nd man really helped with employing the AIM-7 (have said this before!)

 

The stand-off capability is exactly what was not an issue - in most cases.

It only worked when Combat-Tree equipped aircraft had a clean shot (no other blue a/c between target and the shooter) on a bogey or Red Crown was absolutely sure about red and blue air.

Meanwhile, the VPAF was anyhing but stupid and they'd cleverly vector their fighters around that "threat" or not take any chances and go for SAM-defense and AAA before scrambling the fighters.

 

You have still not provided anything new or any valid reasons for using the F-104 over the F-4 (after the period it was withdrawn )in North Vietnam.

 

I never said it should have been used "over" the F-4 - I said there were a couple of missions the 104 was better suited for. One of them being WW-escort.

 

I still feel the F-4 was better suited to the many other areas of combat required in this environment - and when the VPAF gained strength, better missiles and tactics (i.e TopGun) and an F-4E helped improve things for 1972. The F-4 should have been designed with a gun - but wasnt.

 

The F-4D was actually preferred over the F-4E because of it's greater radar-dish and ensueing greater detection-range.

It didn't help much, though, except when being equipped with Combat-Tree boxes...

 

 

--------------------

 

The design of the composite material will be of great interest or of the Radar Absorbant Paint etc... means they copy the design of the material... and its application

 

They may do that, but that leaves them with pretty much outdated material.

It's going to take them a couple of years do develop anything comparable as what has evolved out of the F-117 during the course of 25 years and more.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Toryu

[+Dave 2,319]

I never said it should have been used "over" the F-4 - I said there were a couple of missions the 104 was better suited for. One of them being WW-escort.

 

Where is the world did you get that information? Many publications state that the F-104 was not suited for the war SEA. It made a good accouting for itself but was way outclassed by that kind of war. The one thing the F-104 only managed to do was keep Migs on the ground because of its fear factor. When the F-104 was in escort role the NVAF wouldnt launch a plane against. They were scared of it. It never got to prove itself in air combat like the F-4 did. I'm a huge fan of the F-104A/C and my studies and teaching USAF history centers around the USAF in Vietnam, and the F-104 was at the wrong place at the wrong time. It was in even a worse catagory than the F-105 and F-4 being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Teras 67]

ho la la la!!!!

nice job and congratulation to the red dragon

keep on the good work , asia now have 2 kind of 5th fighters... and thy are great!

and again i congrat chines ppl for this great job

[+Gepard 10,675]

Dave, i would not call it a fear factor. The vietnamese MiG's had the task to stop the bombers, not to fight the fighters. Their philosophy: "Let the fighters fly. Let them waste their fuel and energy. They are harmless for the people on the ground.

And if the bombers are coming strike fast and hard and then runaway. Avoid the fighters, stop the bombers. A mission kill is already enough."

For the vietnamese MiG's it was senseless to fight the Starfighter. With the Phantom it was different. This plane was used as strikeplane too. If Phantoms were on sky the vietnamese were not sure which role the F-4 was playing. A Starfighter in contray was always a fighter. Also no need to come out of the chair.

[Toryu 156]

Dave:

 

http://web.tiscali.it/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm

 

The article also helps to clear the myth about the 104 having "short legs".

Edited January 24, 2011 by Toryu

[JediMaster 451]

Other than its odd shape and the RAM coating, there was nothing spectacular about the 117. It was basically an F/A-18A without radar when it came to the avionics I think.

 

Of course, getting a sample of RAM and making it yourself are two different things. The bigger deal is getting a piece of it makes it easier to learn how to defeat it than to replicate it. However, since the 117 is out of service and I don't think any of the stealthy trio we'll have now (B-2, F-22, F-35) will use the same RAM, that info will prove rather low in value.

 

If anything, the interior of the 117 probably simply showed the Chinese how easy it is to make a stealth plane as long as you have no radar, low agility, and good RAM.

[+Dave 2,319]

Dave, i would not call it a fear factor. The vietnamese MiG's had the task to stop the bombers, not to fight the fighters. Their philosophy: "Let the fighters fly. Let them waste their fuel and energy. They are harmless for the people on the ground.

And if the bombers are coming strike fast and hard and then runaway. Avoid the fighters, stop the bombers. A mission kill is already enough."

For the vietnamese MiG's it was senseless to fight the Starfighter. With the Phantom it was different. This plane was used as strikeplane too. If Phantoms were on sky the vietnamese were not sure which role the F-4 was playing. A Starfighter in contray was always a fighter. Also no need to come out of the chair.

 

Actually Gepard, its a fact, the NVAF were just plain scared of the F-104C because of its reputation for speed. The NVAF also liked to hit strike packages on the way out and when they found out the F-104's were covering the egress, they wouldn't launch. Instead of having the 104's go in with the packages they would launch later to cover the egress which didn't require loiter time.

 

Toryu

 

I am going to have to disagree with you about the long legs, It had extremely short legs and when the 104's would head back due to low fuel from escorting then strikers, the NVAF would launch against the strikers. To remedy that see above on how they got by that little short leg problem. I can site resources that are much more accurate than that website if you like.

[Toryu 156]

I'd appreciate that.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the shorter loiter-time was a product of the chosen mission-profile, though.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Toryu

[+Dave 2,319]

Airtime publishing's "Century Fighters" is one of my resources. Also Joe Baughers website in which all his resources he used are listed. I have most of the books he lists. Also the archives of the USAF Museum are loaded with info. Write them a letter with what you specifically need and they should honor your request. It just takes a long long time....

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104.html