Aeritalia F104S Aggiornato

[Il_Signor_Regio]

[Would you like to see this in-game?]

• Yes
• No

Description: The Aeritalia F104S Aggiornato was an Italian F104S that was upgraded before the ASA upgrade to use the Aim9L sidewinder missile (this was one of the few to receive this upgrade). The F104S was the last and most powerful version of the F104 ever made. It was selected by the Italian Air Force in 1966 and produced a total of 205 units. The F104S entered service in the Italian Air Force in 1968, and it remained operative with various major upgrades until 2004. This unit, with the specific serial number MM6849, was a former F104S upgraded, as said before, to carry the AIM9L missile. This aircraft was selected in 1988/89 and used as a testbed to test a part of the ASA upgrade armaments. For some years, it remained an S, and it was upgraded to the ASA standard later in the eighties. In the nineties, it was one of the 49 F104S ASAs to be upgraded to the ASA-M standard. It’s fate is unknown; very likely it was dismantled or abandoned. Compared to the other F104S, the only difference were the missiles, as the avionics and radar were identical to an S without any benefit from the other upgrade from the ASA version.

Why it should be in the game: Since the Normal F104S was uptiered to 11.0 were it suffer a lot from 12.0 uptiers, this one could help the situation since it will have the same number of Aim9 but in a better version. And it will also be unique since it won’t have any other ASA missiles or improvment like the Aspide MK1. It doesn’t necessary need to be Tech tree, it could be also used as a squadron or an event since it will basically offer a better performing F104S at the same BR.

Statistics

Spoiler

Length: 16.69 m
Wingspan: 6.68 m without wing-tip stores / tanks
Height: 4.11 m
Wing area: 18.22 m²
Empty weight: 6750 kg
Gross weight: 9840 kg
Max takeoff weight: 14060 kg
Powerplant: 1 x General Electric J79-GE-19 afterburning turbojet engine with a max of 11870 pounds without afterburner and with afterburner 17500 pounds of trhust
Maximum speed: 2470 km/h
Max Altitude: 17700 m

Weapons

Spoiler

Air To Air Missiles
6x AIM9B
6x AIM9J
4x AIM9L
2x AIM7E
Bombs
6x BLU1
6x M117
6x MK81
6x MK82
6x MK82 Snakeye
3x MK83
1x MK84
1x B61 (Nuclear)
1x B43 (Nuclear)
6x BL755
6x MK20 Rokeye
Rokets
8x MK32 Zuni
76x Mighty Mouse
4x LR25 Orione Roket launcher

Sources

Spoiler

Redirecting...
F-104S ASA-M MM6849 4-10, 4º Stormo / 9° Gruppo caccia - A… | Flickr
Aviation Photo Search | Airliners.net
https://www.planepictures.net/v3/show_en.php?id=684631
F-104 records - International F-104 Society International F-104 Society
Guida pratica (modellistica) agli F-104 italiani. AGG. 06/05/2020.. - ModelingTime.com

Pictures

Spoiler

[Kingtiez]

+1

[Ollysbuddy]

Possibly the perfect squadron vehicle

[OpusAudereSemper]

+1 yeees great suggestion

[MeAn_BeaN]

I agree, main tech tree already has a few F-104’s

[LoSpilotoITA]

+1. “The complaint of the taxpayer” is becoming “the complain of the Gaijin player”

[Miki_Hoshii]

The F-104S/ASA never could carry 6x AIM-9L’s. The BL 22 pylons were never modified to accept the new rails required for the AIM-9L. So therefore the payload would be 6x AIM-9B’s (AIM-9J), 4x AIM-9L, 2x AIM-7E based on your original air-to-air missile specification posted above. Other than that note, I would like to see it added to the game.

[Il_Signor_Regio]

First of all, this is not an ASA. I don’t see why it should be able to carry them, they are not different from an aim9J/B (in therm of rail capability). Also, posting normal F104S/ASA manuals is useless as these tests were made a lot of times before manuals were even made.

[Miki_Hoshii]

I know this isn’t an ASA, but as you say in your original post:

“This unit, with the specific serial number MM6849, was a former F104S upgraded, as said before, to carry the AIM9L missile. This aircraft was selected in 1988/89 and used as a testbed to test a part of the ASA upgrade armaments. For some years, it remained an S, and it was upgraded to the ASA standard later in the eighties.”

This is an upgrade in-between the standard F-104S, to the F-104S/ASA

So then your follow on statement of stating “don’t see why it shouldn’t be able to carry them” is put into context.

If you’re upgrading a vehicle to carry AIM-9L’s, which is what you stated in the original post; the word “upgrading” implies you need to modify something to accommodate the AIM-9L (Which you do). So then why would the final product which was applied to the same airframe downgrade once it reached the ASA standard? Why would you take MM6849, modify it to carry 6x AIM-9L’s, but then once it becomes an ASA, remove a feature? This doesn’t make much sense.

The AIM-9L is in fact, different than the AIM-9B and J. The AIM-9L uses Argon to cool its seeker, while the older USAF AIM-9 Sidewinders were Peltier cooled. The Argon required additional wiring and mechanisms to cool as is a gas held in a bottle. In addition to this, the older USAF AIM-9’s used an 18-pin connector, while the AIM-9L uses a 32-pin connector. Because of this, they also needed to be modified to accommodate newer missile rails.

Below is an AERO-3B rail on the F-104S, which is compatible with AIM-9B through to AIM-9P missiles:

Here is your new rails on the F-104S Aggiornato:

Note how much rounder the shape is.

Without modifications, you cannot put an AIM-9L on the same location as an AIM-9B. This is why the F-104S/ASA carried older Sidewinders on the fuselage, instead of the AIM-9L. Because it wasn’t modified to accept them. The ASA-M on the other hand removed those pylons completely.

Also, depending on the unit, if it isn’t an Test and Evaluation unit, then there would be some sort of manual or documentation at the time as for what they could or couldn’t do in an official capacity. I don’t know what kind of unit operated this aircraft. I won’t speak for things that I don’t know.

Finally you have not shown any proof. Nothing is mentioned in any of your sources for any capability of a 6x AIM-9L Sidewinder configuration, or modifications to the BL 22 pylons to accommodate AIM-9L’s, nor has any subsequent variant been able to carry such a config. The onus is on you to prove your claim, not me.

[Il_Signor_Regio]

fair enought, You have proved Your point. I will change that statement.

[Death_to_October]

f104s are cool and sexy, so more is always welcome. plus i agree with ollysbuddy that it’d make a good high rank squadron vehicle since italy doesn’t have any yet. +1