The F-104 with a big wing?

[GrauGeist]

Canada used it as a low level strike bomber. That had to be a stretch.

Several countries, like Germany for example, used the F-104 outside of it's intended mission profile.
Fortunately, Canada did not have serious mishaps on the level of West Germany.

 

[ThomasP]

While USAF F-104s were initially assigned as escort for the various strike aircraft in Vietnam, a significant number (the majority?) of their missions were ground attack and CAS sorties.

Incidentally, the original specification that resulted in the F-104 acquisition was for a daytime air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack capability.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Several countries, like Germany for example, used the F-104 outside of it's intended mission profile.
Fortunately, Canada did not have serious mishaps on the level of West Germany.

It's too bad Canada didn't get F-4 Phantoms instead of F-101s and F-104s to replace their Canucks and Sabres. Of course had we got Phantoms we'd likely have never got the Hornets, as we'd run those Phantoms into the early 2000s like the Germans, Greeks, Japanese and others, replacing them eventually with Super Hornets or equivalent.

 

[GrauGeist]

Didn't the Canadian MoD prefer the F-5 over the F-4?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Didn't the Canadian MoD prefer the F-5 over the F-4?

The accountants, certainly. But the time to get the F-4 was in the early 70s when we were introducing the CF-101 and CF-104.

 

[Zipper730]

While USAF F-104s were initially assigned as escort for the various strike aircraft in Vietnam, a significant number (the majority?) of their missions were ground attack and CAS sorties.

It is ironic that the aircraft ended up being used outside the role it was intended for. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the first however. F-102A's were sometimes used to attack vehicle movements along the Ho Chi Minh trail (a role nobody would have probably ever envisioned an all-weather interceptor to be doing).

Incidentally, the original specification that resulted in the F-104 acquisition was for a daytime air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack capability.

The exact role of the F-104 was kind of interesting.

When conceptualized by interviewing fighter pilots in late 1951, they wanted a plane that would be able to outrun, outclimb, and get higher up than anything the enemy would offer. Many were willing to sacrifice almost anything to this effect including getting rid of hydraulics, a radar-directed gunsight, even a gyro-sight in general. The idea of ditching the hydraulics would have produced a plane that would have have probably had serious control issues at high speeds, and the removal of the gyro-sight was positively insane save for a few very good shots; the radar-directed sight was predominantly a reliability issue (it worked very well but malfunctioned often and was a maintenance intensive item). While I'm not sure if maneuverability was explicitly stated, I'm pretty sure all pilots involved assumed this to be something that went without saying.

The USAF's specification called for an aircraft that was a fighter/interceptor design. Admittedly, they didn't seem to pursue this to the degree they pursued most interceptor designs like the F-102A and F-101B (massive radar, all missiles, no gun), the speed/acceleration/rate of climb seemed highly based on the interceptor mission (while speed, acceleration, and rate of climb were desired in the basic conceptualization, it seems that this was taken up to 11). The desire for light-weight did result in the ability to dispense of certain systems in the interest in weight reduction, which might have been the reason the aircraft didn't end up carrying 4-6 missiles like the F-102/F-101B.

As light-weight nuclear weapons arrived on the scene, the aircraft wasn't really equipped to carry them, and that started to become part of our nation's policy (The "New Look"), the aircraft was almost cancelled, though the F-104C would take care of this problem.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Many were willing to sacrifice almost anything to this effect including getting rid of hydraulics, a radar-directed gunsight, even a gyro-sight in general.

Would that integral 20 mm gun have been any use in a dogfight? Could the Starfighter turn? Good video of a Canadair Starfighter from 2018.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EbU2cIsvZo

 

[Zipper730]

Would that integral 20 mm gun have been any use in a dogfight?

At that point in time the aircraft's design hadn't been established, this was just fighter pilots talking to representatives from Lockheed and North American. It was a remarkably foolish idea.