JEN722I know this is drifting a bit away from the original -104 weapons question,
but could someone point me out the differences between the F-104C and the F-104G ? (I’m more interested in the visible differences)Thanks in advance,
Frank
Frank,
The visible differences would the be larger vertical tail fin on the F-104G, the larger main wheels and bulged main wheel doors. Also, the shock cone and leading edge of the intakes would not be black as on most F-104Gs.
HTH,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722USAF did use the F-104C as a fighter-bomber as well as for CAP. The turn radius was not an advantage on the F-104 so it would probably not have done well against e.g. a MiG-17.
However, at least some F-104Cs were fitted with RHAW equipment during their second tour in Nam. The RHAW gear looks a bit like the equipment that was later installed on the CF-104s.
Regards,
Jens
JEN722JEN722Thanks PhantomII. I have put a lot of time and effort into studying the F-104. :rolleyes: That’s why I have decided to write about it on my website, but it has turned out to be a rather large project.
Did you know there were at least two version of the MB GQ-7 seat used in the F-104G/S? :p
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722Thanks Don Chan, I will include them in the update.
Do you know the serial numbers of the converted airframes?
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722Norway purchased the Penguin Mk3 for the F-16s only. (1987) 😉
Ah, that settles it. Thanks. 🙂
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722That would be new to me – at least from what i know (well, most is based on Dutch F-104G operations), no AG weapons were carried on the underfuselage hardpoint. You say it’s a drawing and not a photo (let alone an operational photo)…
The centerline pylon was also used for the practice bomb dispenser (SUU-20? Not really sure about those designations), i forgot to mention that. But a bulky BL755 under the centerline – doesn’t that leave awfully little ground clearance, let alone a totally worthless combat radius? It surely does not sound like a feasible loadout to me.
It was in fact possible to carry a bomb on the centreline. I have seen pictures of both the M117 and the BL755 mounted there. However, I don’t think it was used very often. On the other hand, the practise bomb dispenser (not an SUU-20 though) was fitted there rather often.
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722The only issue I have left to figure out is which if any F-104G’s and J’s got the new fuselage hardpoints that the S model had. I’ve seen it stated a few times that some G’s and J’s got these hardpoints. Some sources even went so far as to say that it allowed the centerline hardpoint to still be used, so that would make for seven hardpoints on the F-104G and J. I’ve never seen a picture of one fitted this way though.
No, the F-104G/J did not have the fuselage pylons of the F-104S. The confusion could have arised from Turkey’s use of the F-104S.
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722That’s kinda what I was thinking Sens. I do have another question though. Could the F-104 carry a dual bomb rack on the centerline like under the wings or are you referring to the two AIM-9’s when you list double carrier for the centerline.
I’m interesting also in finding out every single weapon/store type carried by the F-104G/CF-104.
That would be dual Sidewinders for the centreline. There was not room enough for the centreline pylon with the HER and weapons. One bomb, however, could be carried on the centreline.
I am currently working on a major update for my website, and a very large part of this is the F-104 section with all you need to know (and probably more). Also, I will mention some of the myths surrounding the F-104 (G models in particular).
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722I bought a Hasegawa F-104G/J model kit today, and I have it configured in the air-to-air role with German Marineflieger markings. It’s got wingtip tanks and the fuselage-mounted Sidewinders.
The Red Dog Sidewinder launchers provided by Hasegawa isn’t the type used by European F-104 users (apart from Italy). Germany etc. used the Aero-3B launchers which look different than the Red Dog ones.
They are mounted on a dual rack, which you can tell is fitted in place of the usual centerline hardpoint so from what I can tell the G variant doesn’t have the two extra fuselage positions of the S.
That is correct!
The question remains as to whether the aircraft had two hardpoints UNDER each wing or just one. It would seem that the answer is one because when the book refers to the CF-104 a caption on one of the pictures states that the Starfighter was hampered in air-to-ground operations. As a result the Canadians tended to use dual racks for both bombs (namely Mk-82, Mk-20 Rockeye, and BL.755) as well as rockets (6-shot and 19-shot pods with CRV-7 rockets). The reason I point this out is because to my knowledge the CF-104 is basically the same thing as the F-104G, at least for the most part.
Anyone have any thoughts on any of this?
Only one hardpoint under each wing. However, Canadian CF-104s were sometimes seen with the horizontal (i.e. dual) ejector rack. I cannot recall if the Germans also used it by there were trials carried out by the Royal Danish Air Force with this HER.
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722…naturally the only place you’d have room for a fuel tank would be on the centerline and with the F-104 that’s not much.
The F-104 did not carry a centreline fuel tank!
As far as anti-ship missiles go I believe only the inboard underwing pylons on the F-104S (and the ONLY underwing pylons on the G it would seem) are cleared for those, so two Penguins (in the case of Norwegian aircraft) or two Koromorans (in the case of German and Italian birds) would be your max load.
I wonder if Arthur knows anything about any of this.
I don’t think I have ever seen a Norwegian F-104G loaded with Penguin missiles. Are you sure they were capable of carrying there? I doubt it!
I’m also curious as to whether the A/B models had any hardpoints other than the wingtip stations.
Yes, they had the usual underwing hardpoints. At least the Jordanian F-104As used these for fuel tanks with the tips being accupied by AIM-9Bs.
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722nice to see talk on the pylons on the starfighter. what interests me is could it carry four antiship missiles, two under each wing like komoran or penguin? plus two underfuselage sidewinders and 2 on the wingtips? and for air to air the 4 sidewinders and four radar guided missile sunder the wings? the maximum air to air loadout. get that bird loaded up for bear! has anyone got any good pics on the starfighter with a maximum air to air loadout, not the couple of missiles that the italians used? have they retired this nice jet yet? lovely planes…:)
No, the maximum of missiles (antiship and others) were two – one under each wing. The usual Marineflieger loadout was 2 Kormoran (wings), 2 AIM-9 (fuselage on AERO-3B lanuchers) and tiptanks.
I doubt the Penguin missile was used on F-104s!
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN722Gs had 9 hardpoints like the S models:
2 wing tips
4 wing pylons (2 under each wing)
1 centerline pylon
2 fuselage pylons
No, only the S version had two hardpoints under each wing.
JEN722I’m been reading the F-104 section of my new Century The F-104G confuses me because some sources say it had the same pylons as the F-104C, but state that the G had TWO hardpoints under each wing, and then other sources say it had one hardpoint under each wing plus the centerline and a pair of missile rails next to the centerline hardpoint.
Then of course the S model had the full 9 hardpoint loadout.
So what is the truth with the G and the C/D series? I’ve got an F-104C kit and I have it configured with a tank under each wing, a wingtip Sidewinder and a pair of separate Sidewinder rails on either side of the centerline hardpoint (not the duel Sidewinder carried you sometimes see on the F-104 centerline). So what’s the truth here?
The F-104G had one hardpoint underneath each wing. Only the S model had two.
Both types of belly Sidewinder launchers (Red Dog and Aero 3B) were of the dual type. The F-104S had special pylons on the belly but these seem to not have been used very often on Italian S models. Turkish S models seem to have carry them more often.
Regards,
Jens Jensen
http://www.amarc.dk
JEN72278-0788 is a strange serial and there is some confusion about it. It is definately a cancelled serial number, but what it exactly is is conflicting. It was either a cancelled Iranian RF-4E as i mentioned above, but it is also reported as a cancelled F-5F. This also makes sense, South Korea recieved a bunch of F-5F’s as 78-0774/0787, while 78-0789/0798 were F-5E’s for Jordan. This Phantom serial definately is an odd one in this Tiger-dedicated block of Foreign Military Sales-issued serial numbers.
It could well be that the serial is now confirmed not to be an Iranian RF-4E, but then i’d like to see confirmed if it was an F-5E.
The IIAF site (http://www.iiaf.net) lists these serial numbers for the cancelled F-4s:
75-0222/0257 McDonnell F- 4E-63-MC Phantom Order cancelled in 1979
78-0751/0754 McDonnell RF- 4E Phantom Order cancelled in 1979, planes reduced to components.
78-0788 McDonnell RF- 4E Phantom Order cancelled in 1979, plane reduced to components.
78-0854/0864 McDonnell RF- 4E Phantom Order cancelled in 1979.
Note that 78-0788 is mentioned.
One thing I find particularly interesting is the so-called Unknown Iranians (UKI) – RF-4Es with unknown identity. I have seen a few pictures of Iranian RF-4Es with the earlier, more angular nose profile, and these could very well be UKIs. This raises the question: Are the new-built RF-4Es (or simply the cancelled ones), attrition RF-4Es received from a non-US country, or RF-4Cs from USAF stocks? I believe all ‘official’ RF-4Es delivered to Iran has the later, more rounded nose profile.
Sign In
