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."

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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!!!

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!