If low hour airframes were available (hypothetically) would modernization make the F-104 a viable platform? Not for the US, but potentially one of the smaller countries.
Specifically, the addition of helmet mounted displays and high off-boresight missiles (AIM-9X or similar), Aim-120 and JDAM integration, perhaps re-engineing to F404 or F414 engines (ala A-4 skyhawk) and a modern radar help make up for the drawbacks of the design (lower maneuverability), Or would it really not be worth the expense?
I know modernization has done wonders for F-5’s as a basic point defense fighter, though it has the advantage of being cheaper to operate and more forgiving.
By: Marcellogo - 27th April 2017 at 15:41
Look that the last upgrade was made in the 1998, and the previous one was from 1986, so that these last items are probably at the same technological level of an ANG F-16 block 25/30.
In reality those upgrades ended up to been even redundant: they spended a lot to integrate Aspide missiles and a modern radar (FIAR Setter R21G) only to discover that the latter limited range doesn’t allowed to take advantage of the excellent performance of the former.
We went to the absurd to lease some Tornado ADV for their big radars but still with Skyflash missiles only, so we ended up with a plane with a long range missile and a short range radar and another with a long range radar (when it worked) and (relatively) short range missiles.
Not one of the proposed upgrade you propose would improve in any way the Spillone’s performances a.t.c. they would probably spoil its several good points (and the F-104S got many of them) without resolving its own shortcomings (almost the remaining ones that were not resolved with introducing it at first, when compared to Americans and F-104G models).
J79-GE-19 engine was practically perfect for its flight pattern: blazing velocity and climb rate in scramble but so powerful even in mil mode to afford it a good cruise range and with such an acceleration that allowed it to regain velocity fast without using afterburner.
By: Sintra - 27th April 2017 at 14:29
Worthwhile trade-off? Maybe – but it cost too much.
Exactly
By: swerve - 27th April 2017 at 14:02
F-4K had a worse high altitude performance, but longer range, & better performance at low altitude, including better take-off performance. Worthwhile trade-off? Maybe – but it cost too much.
By: Sintra - 27th April 2017 at 13:30
A) Why would anyone throw money at an aircraft that was retired thirteen years ago when there are an awfull lot Viper airframes at AMARC?
B) Re-engining a fighter jet is tricky business, for every sucess story there´s a F-4K out there
C) To stick an HDM and integrate the weapons you´ve listed, the entire avionic suite of whatever version of the F-104 would have to be entirely guted and replaced, expensive…
In the end, might has well order some Gripen C´s from Sweden, or if the budget doesnt get there, a call to KAI will do the trick (called “F/A-50”)…
Cheers
By: MSphere - 27th April 2017 at 11:29
Nothing on the F-104 is worth the expense, IMHO.. I would not touch it with a meter long stick, let alone fly it..
Sign In
April 27, 2017 at 3:54 am