Lightning fast interceptor turned nuclear strike bomber: the Canadair CF-104 Starfighter

Don't forget to like the video and subscribe to my channel!
Support me on Patreon - / polyusstudios
This is an UPDATED version of the video. It includes many changes and corrections to the original video. Many thanks to Gary Watson for all his contributions!
Starting in 1959 Canadair began building Canada’s fastest jet at their plant in Montreal. It was designed as a sleek high altitude and high speed interceptor, but was adapted for low level ground strike missions with conventional and nuclear weapons. It was the Canadair CF-104 Starfighter, Canada’s missile with a man in it.
0:00 Introduction
0:33 Historical Context
2:01 Design Choice
4:15 Canadair's Production Run
6:50 Configuration and Specifications
11:04 Nuclear Strike Role
12:13 Operational History
16:06 Conventional Role
17:53 Retirement and Replacement
19:28 Accidents, Controversy and Legacy
22:56 Conclusion
Music:
Denmark - Portland Cello Project
Research Sources:
Canadair CF-104 Starfighter by Harold A. Skaarup (silverhawkauthor.com/canadian-...)
Canadair CF-104 Starfighter by Canadian Starfighter Association (canadianstarfighterassociation...)
CF-104 Flight Operations by Air Force Museum of Alberta (www.rcaf.museum/history/rcaf-...)
Story of the F-104 Starfighter in Norwegian Service by Bjorn Hafsten (starfighter.no/hist-en3.html)
Starfighters with Turkey by Joe Baugher (www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighte...)
ASN Aviation Safety Database by Aviation Safety Network (aviation-safety.net/wikibase/d...)
Starfighter by David L. Bashow (Fortress Publication, 1990, ISBN: 0-919195-12-1)
Photography credit 6mins10sec: Gary Watson
Footage Sources:
Personal Footage - Gary Watson
Cold War Fighter Pilot - Ken Castle, CD, Flight-Lieutenant (ret'd) - Canada Aviation and Space Museum ( • Cold War Fighter Pilot... )
CF 104 Baden Soellingen 1965 - Gordon Price ( • CF 104 Baden Soellinge... )
CF104 Germany 1983/4 441 Squadron CAF - Tom Hammond ( • CF104 Germany 1983/4 4... )
Great Planes Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - Discovery Channel (1996)
Avro Canada CF 100 Canuck - Avro (1956)
#Starfighter #CanadianAerospace #PolyusStudios

[@paulrobbins4879]

I want to know who looked at that thing and thought “Yeah that looks like a great aircraft for low-level flights.”

[@jaybee9269]

It does look…dangerous in that role. To the pilot.

[@RedXlV]

What the people who made that decision (in multiple nations) were looking at were the big piles of cash Lockheed paid out to them in bribes. Though in Canada's case they might've just though "all these other countries are doing it, they must know what they're doing". If you look at the nations that used Starfighter *only* as an interceptor (like Spain and Japan), and you'll notice they had far better safety records than the nations that tried to make it a low-level ground attack plane. Spain in particular had zero losses in the 7 years they operated the CF-104 (they specifically bought Canadair-built ones) before replacing them with used F-4C Phantoms.

[@IgnoredAdviceProductions]

Germany

[@gort8203]

It was a good aircraft for low level flight. You want a small wing for high speed at low level. The only problem with a small wing is lifting a heavy load off a short runway, but a single nuclear store is not that heavy. Ability to lift more off the runway and still go fast is why the swing wing F-111, Tornado, and B-1 came along.

[@benlaskowski357]

One word: BUDGETS. Fools cut military budgets and planes had to be adapted for multiple roles.

[@CDN1975]

My father's cousin Capt Gerard Power was killed in a Starfighter crash in 1978 while training in C.F.B Lahr. My family lived there as well at that time but my father was in the army. The story goes that he could have ejected but his jet would have hit a town so he didn't eject and then it was too late. Whatever the truth, he was only 31 years old and we are proud of his service.

[@gordonprice9060]

I took the opening video in 1965 from the back seat of a dual. Al Seitz is in 896 . Like all CF-104 pilots..... Ioved the airplane and have fond memories

[@dodaexploda]

Hi Gordon, if you have any interseting stories I think we would all love to hear them.

[@omerashraf9357]

@@polyus_studios i have something of interest for you. it would be fun to add it in your upcoming Canadair sabre video.

[@omerashraf9357]

@@polyus_studios download the pdf to find out mate.

[@gort8203]

This video is far superior to the crap other channels like Dark Skies put out. I really appreciate the way you clearly presented facts and did not indulge in dramatic and misleading speculation and innuendo. I hope your product continues in this manner and draws viewers away from the dark side.

[@JessHull]

yeah dark skies is pretty bad, I'm surprised it's so popular. So much bad or outright wrong information in those dark skies videos. With no effort to correct them when mistakes are brought to his attention.

[@davidmok108]

I always loved the Dark Skies and most of the Dark series channels, i seriously have no idea they are this bad tho..

[@patsuttonottawa]

Canadian design .

[@REMIREZZ]

Dude dark skies is dog shit. He has a good presentation for the most part, but it’s littered with bad mistakes and he refuses to pronounce acronyms correctly across all of his videos.

[@squangan]

My ground school instructor at Victoria,BC in 1990 was a former F104 pilot and one day showed the class his ‘Mach 2 card’ given to him by Lockheed. It was very memorable both to see the card and to know that my instructor was one of this calibre of pilots from that earlier era.

[@brianmarak9689]

I remember first seeing the CF-104 fly at Cold Lake in 1977. Incredible! Piercing speed. The bang of the afterburner lighting. The climbs.That howling J-79. Super screaming loud.

[@kerrygraham3544]

Great production, professional and very informative. It's not often one finds Canadian military content. The Canadian pilots skill and nerve operating in such a difficult environment is very much appreciated by this Aussie.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Thank God for Allies, like Australia. With the USA on the rocks, Canada, Oz, Nz, UK and continental Europe stand together.

[@brentfellers9632]

Thanks for including the sound bites that sound like a "tie" fighter. I will never forget the sound of a 104 doing a high speed pass 50 ft overhead! The rcac was and probably is still a great experience for a a young lad!

[@wst8340]

Wow,those Sabres were beautiful.

[@johngrantham8024]

I've often wondered at the wisdom of taking an aircraft optimized for high speed high altitude interception, and putting it down in the weeds as a strike asset. But then, wisdom doesn't really apply to politicians! Kudos to the RCAF pilots for making it possible - the workload must have been horrendous. The Buccaneer, with two crew, two engines and built like the proverbial brick outhouse, would have been a better option.

[@RedXlV]

It especially doesn't apply when they're getting bribed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

[@gort8203]

It was a good aircraft for low level flight. You want a small wing for high speed at low level. The only problem with a small wing is lifting a heavy load off a short runway, but a single nuclear store is not that heavy. Ability to lift more off the runway and still go fast is why the swing wing F-111, Tornado, and B-1 came along.

[@johnearle1]

The same fate befell the Hustler and Vulcan.

[@charlesrousseau6837]

@@gort8203 That's correct. Also, the 104 in comparison with other century fighters had a relatively low fuel consumption, making it better suitable for longer flights.

[@irvan36mm]

Even though the CF-104 was capable of low level missions, they should have went with a much more suitable aircraft like the Buccaneer.

[@bradjames6748]

The machines are impressive but as a Canadian I can't say enough about the amazing soldiers, sailors and aircrews who have ALWAYS done our country proud, thank you to all of you living and dead ......

[@knight_flyer1199]

RCAF worked their pilots and planes really hard considering the role they have. I know this from a RAAF pilot who was on exchange with them. He was impressed to say the least compared to his own air force. It's reason also why Australia sold their Hornets to Canada bc they had significantly less flight hours on the airframe.

[@GrizzAxxemann]

Just a little tip: Even though Canada is metric, Aviation still uses Feet, Pounds, Knots, Miles. Especially military aviation.

[@Booyaka9000]

** Even though the **world** is metric...

[@GrizzAxxemann]

@@Booyaka9000 Use the trade standard.

[@GrizzAxxemann]

@@polyus_studios Bad reason. Newer generations of aspiring pilots will learn the old ways, because they won't change even in their lifetimes. It would make more sense, especially for a guy who survived ground school and didn't bust his first flight to hear the correct measurements and have the useless data tucked into the corner of the screen.

[@JonMartinYXD]

@@polyus_studios Thanks. Even some of us not so young anymore guys are much more comfortable with metric than imperial.

[@davemurphy3813]

Polyus Studios Aviation does not generally use the metric system, and that is not something changing generationally. It is much more as an exception, as follows: The only place you find meters and kilometers referenced as a rule are Russia and China. In Europe RVR values are in meters, but nautical miles and knots are used for speed and distance. Hectopascals are sometimes used for altimeter settings, but inches of mercury are the more common unit. Fuel is purchased in liters or gallons, but is referred to in pounds once on board. Air Canada uses kilograms, but we saw what happened with the gimli glider. Here in Canada you will ubiquitously encounter altitudes in feet, visibilities in statute miles, RVR in feet, distances in nautical miles, speeds in knots, fuel quantity in pounds or us/imperial gallons, consumption in those per hour, altimeter settings in inches of mercury, and runway dimensions and wingspan limitations in feet. Though temperature is in C, as it also is in the US. So what I’m getting at, is that switching everything to metric seems a bit awkward.

[@pal6636]

Hey, I'm trying to just enjoy this like a normal person :)... but with my background in television production and distribution I'm just blown away by how much work this is to get it to where you did and deliver this level of informative content with some goid relevant visuals . And it's not like Canadian aviation is still front page of the NY Times. Awesome, detailed, yet still interesting stuff. Thanks

[@Roddy556]

His production work is just phenomenal. From the music to the b roll footage to the interesting content. Top notch.

[@BattleManiac7]

I can only imagine how exciting it must have been to fly something as fast as the 104 at low altitude.

[@spurgear4]

I remember one parked in the hanger where I trained as an airframe technician in cfsate Borden. That was 1988, still a sexy machine.

[@davidkillens8143]

Before my time, all we had was a T-33. CFATS aero engine in summer of 1969.

[@stef_-dx5dp]

My father was born in 1961 just 2km from grostenquin, and my grandmother also used to work at the 2Wing airbase from 1961 to 1964 when the canadians left. She was serving meals there. I can’t imagine what it was like to live so close to an airbase so active and, allthought it was probably deemed as annoying at the time, what an incredible sight it must have been to see f-104’s just fly over your head on a daily basis. Unfortunately, my grandparents passed away a few years ago and I never had the chance to ask them about how was life like around the base I drive through grostenquin about 2 times a month, and the road just follow allong the now empty tarmac of the base, wich is still closed by the french air army. Sometimes I feel like I can feel the history of the place, like an old presence, like if the place almost has a soul of its own

[@bakhen]

Always happy to see a new Polyus Studios video. And, seeing one about the CF-104 was even better! I used to see CF-104s flying all the time. They were awesome! Thanks for the new vid!

[@pastorrich7436]

I have enjoyed each and everyone one of your videos as entertaining and engaging. A great mix of information, history, graphics and video. My thanks for a job very well done!

[@lindsay-richards]

Awesome video! I'm always super impressed by the production quality and hard work you put into these.

[@rossmum]

Probably the least known fact about the 104 is that it wasn't actually *designed* as an interceptor at all - it was an air superiority fighter, and even saw some use as such over Vietnam. Due to delays in Convair's F-102 program, ADC needed a stopgap and the F-104's performance was seen to make it the ideal choice, and so they were shoehorned into the role. It didn't take long for the reality to set in on the visit from the good idea fairy, though: the 104 was short-legged; it had absolutely no all-aspect engagement capability at all and no radar-guided missiles, so all intercepts relied on an approach from the rear and the whimsical performance of early Sidewinders, which were useless when shot towards the sun, or in cloud or other poor weather; and perhaps worst of all, there was no provision at all for any kind of datalink to SAGE on the ground, so all commands had to be passed by voice, which is untenable at speeds approaching Mach 2 - something the Soviets had learnt during the Powers shootdown. ADC rapidly soured on their new toy and got rid of it as soon as they could, but by this point the USAF proper was also beginning to lean towards larger aircraft with a heavier payload, more fuel, and more versatility. As a result, American 104s got pushed to the ANG and Lockheed quickly began to market the aircraft to NATO and other US allies as a multirole - most NATO partners and US-friendly regimes did not have something like SAGE anyway, so the 104's shortcomings as an interceptor were not enough of a problem to make them turn elsewhere. This progression of events somewhat mirrors the MiG-21, which was originally a light frontline fighter with no missiles, a radio-ranging gunsight, and no all-weather or night capability, but ended up often being used in the air defence role by Pact nations because the Soviets refused to export their true interceptors. Pinning down where exactly the misconception comes from is hard. It's possible that it's just because its best-known US service was with ADC, though it was in that role so briefly that it'd be like defining someone by the job they did one summer in their teens. The more likely candidate is that it stems from the idea the 104 couldn't turn (which is exaggerated, it could when flown at the right speeds - turning is about more than just pulling the stick to your lap) and the idea that anything that goes fast and climbs well is an interceptor, which is what gets most Mikoyan aircraft miscategorised in the same way. WWII, and then Korea in particular, had left pilots and strategists alike with the idea that everything else was secondary to speed and altitude. Whoever was higher, whoever had the most energy, had a huge advantage. It was their fight to lose. This theory of air combat can be seen throughout the entire second and third "generation" of fighters, almost all of them have phenomenal speed and climb performance but precious few of them were ever intended to serve in the highly-specialised air defence interception role. Eventually, it was realised that this could still be achieved without sacrificing turn performance and neither supersonic flight nor beyond visual range missiles had invalidated the idea of turning and engaging at close quarters, and so the following designs sought to balance both. The entire specialised interceptor role is nearly extinct now, as most modern multirole or air superiority fighters can fill the role just fine, having the requisite endurance, datalink capability, armament, and performance. Not many remain, and in the case of the MiG-31 it's partly due to Russia's unique requirements, and partly due to other capabilities the aircraft has which cannot be easily replaced.

[@James-is2dr]

Great vid, probably the most comprehensive I’ve seen. Brings memories of my time in Lahr early ‘80s as member of the RCD, still remember the 104s buzzing Flugplatz and that eerie growl they would make on certain manoeuvres. Grew up as RCAF brat Cold Lake and remember them there as well.

[@joeblow9657]

Great vid. I love this sort of content. Some days I wonder what Canadian military Cold War aerospace history would be if different aircraft had been adopted.

[@bradjames6748]

Paul Hellier the former defense minister could have told you, he was the one who chose the CF5 freedom fighters instead of the F4 phantoms we were supposed to be getting

[@MrMASSEYJONES]

Always well researched. I worked or flew on many of these over a 30-year career in the RCAF/CF; most of the time as crew. My aim is to view all of your videos. I saved some of them and, of course, subscribed.

[@TimmyBoyAZ]

OUTSTANDING video! Accurate and unemotional. Bravo...well done!

[@MsJfraser]

Canada's army, air force, and navy were merged into the Canadian Forces in 1968. That did not change until 2019 when the services adopted their former names. Collectively, they were called the Canadian Armed Forces.

[@g00gleminus96]

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is still the unified military of Canada. The RCAF, RCN and Canadian Army are just the main subcomponents of the CAF.

[@MsJfraser]

@@g00gleminus96 I'm not arguing that point. Why do people keep throwing it in my face? Anyway, I was in the CF when it was called the CF. The navy was called Canadian Forces Sea Element in the recruiting literature at the time circa 1975. Surely you remember reading that, too.

[@marcusaetius9309]

A mere shadow of its former self….

[@MsJfraser]

@Aoki Kun I am fully aware of what the Canadian Armed Forces is. I joined the Canadian Forces, Maritime Command, in 1975. It was still called the Canadian Forces when I retired in 1996. That had been its name because of Amalgamation in 1968. Collectively then as now, it was called the Canadian Armed Forces. The Wikipedia article bears an incorrect title which should read "Unification of Canada's armed forces".

[@brianmarak9689]

This documentary is outstanding. The footage, old and new... Nice! The sound effects... 🤔

[@killer1963daddy]

The 104 sounded like a tie fighter from starwars when it flew over low level, it was a little different than this however.

[@hotshot56371]

Unreal channel man. Loving your work, subscribed

[@MrLeewsee]

Very informative and factual in my estimation. Please make more vids in the future!

[@sblack48]

A great airplane, but whoever thought it was a conventional ground attack aircraft had rocks in their heat. This decision killed a lot of pilots.

[@gort8203]

Nuclear delivery was the critical misson, and it was fine for that.

[@sblack48]

@@gort8203 in the rcaf they used it for ground attack. It proved to be very effective. When you crashed you usually took out the target as well!

[@gort8203]

@@sblack48 So are you retracting your statement that it was unsuitable, or doubling down on it with sarcasm? The plane was procured for the high speed low level nuclear strike mission. The airplane as modified was inherently suitable for that role. The main difference between the nuclear and its later conventional strike role is the blast radius of the weapons. The airplane design did not kill a lot of pilots, the inherently dangerous high speed low level strike profile killed a lot of pilots.

[@sblack48]

@@gort8203 I don't think it was at all suitable for low level strike. The wing loading was so high that it was not sufficiently maneuverable at low level. For a nuke you don't have to be accurate. To hit a building you have to be and that requires maneuvering at low level. It needs half a continent to turn horizontally and to pull out. I have seen cockpit video of one that did not pull out. When I think ground attack I think A10. High aspect ratio, low wingloading, maneuverable. TThe luftwaffe lost something like 300 of them because in general their pilots were less experienced and the role was so hazardous. It was a very demanding unforgiving airplane. Note that the USAF did not operate it in any great numbers or for any significant period of time

[@gort8203]

@@sblack48 The Canadian military and NATO thought it was suitable for low level strike, but you think you known more than they did. Your first mistake is thinking of in the same terms as the low and slow CAS A-10, which was completely unsuitable for the role. Think more along the lines of the F-105, which they would have bought if it had been more more affordable or offered more manufacturing offsets. USAF never used the F-104 as a strike aircraft becuse it had the F-105 followed by the F-111, which were specially created for that role. USAF also did not much use those two aircraft in the CAS role, because they had more suitable aircraft available. And was the ground attack version of the Tornado bought for CAS like the A-10, or for low level strike against high value targets? Speaking of the Tornado, it had a wing loading of 157 lb/sq ft, compared to the 105 lb/sq of the F-104G (Wikipedia). So by your logic the Tornado was completely unsuitable for low level strike. You clearly misunderstand some basic concepts, one of which is that high wing loading is an asset rather than a liability at high speed.

[@RockyAllenLane]

Fond memories. Server on the flight line for 3 years in Cold Lake. Fabulous aircraft! Now I'm nearly deaf from those bloody engines.

[@Sportster20042001]

Very interesting, and very well presented. Thanks for posting.

[@redesert_boy8202]

The "missile with a man in it" was another moniker for the 104 Starfighter. Unless I am mistaken the early ones had a downward ejection seat due to the high tail before that was corrected with improved technology. Also, held altitude records with rocket assist and speed records at one time. I believe the first to have a minigun in it. I always think of it as a high performance fighter which became a bomber with a very unforgiving flight envelope. My thanks to all who flew and maintained them wherever they served. Always not just my favorite century series fighter, but favorite of all time.

[@PappyGunn]

I think the 104 still holds the Canadian altitude record (on a ballistic trajectory).

[@nfarnell1]

A fine no nonsense video, very well done.

[@sidefx996]

Fantastic stuff. Recently found your videos and love the quality content.

[@PappyGunn]

The 104 and the Voodoo were the only serious fighter aircraft we had for a while. I'm looking at you, F-5.

[@brianbell7941]

You forgot the F86 Sabre

[@RM-we7px]

F-5 was not bad as a trainer and reserve aircraft. South Vietnamese didn’t have issues in combat.

[@MD-fs6kv]

Another great video man. 👍

[@timmotel5804]

Very cool and educational. Thanks. Always been one of my favourite aircraft.

[@davidkillens8143]

In 1963 or 1964, while an air force brat living in Metz, we had a change of command ceremony. And since Metz was the HQ of the Canadian squadrons stationed in Europe, we had F-104's doing their thing. Put it in context, this was the height of the cold war, all of the pilots had been trained by ex-WW2 combat pilots, and their asses were on fire. They came in hard and low, and left loud and fast. Real low, real loud.

[@guarenchafa4912]

My ex-CO was trained by ex-WW2 and he always stated "that was, what made the difference".

[@davidkillens8143]

@@guarenchafa4912 Canada did not crank out movies or embark on any chest-thumping after WW2 and few understand how effective and competent our troops were in that era. But those with a true understanding of history will understand.

[@kauphaart0]

@@davidkillens8143 Only 5000 Jewish refugees were allowed to enter Canada during the 12-year period of the German Nazi regime. Most other Allied countries admitted tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants in an attempt to save them from the Holocaust. Not much to thump your chest over, Leaf.

[@alpearson9158]

@@kauphaart0 not that surely; but you obviously know nothing of Canada's ww2 contribution or you would have already apologised, but then again we don't need to thump as we just know!!

​@kauphaart0 well then maybe you need to do some reading about the death camps liberated in Holland and northwest Germany such as westerbork

[@dakohli]

Well done. Suggestion - The F2H3 Banshee, last fighter of the RCN, and first Canadian Fighter to be equipped with Air to Air Guided Weapons.

[@Bornintheseat]

What a great documentary!

[@theok4712]

Nice videos and impressive production quality! Must take you a lot of time to do these videos.

[@averygideon378]

Great stuff dude!

[@allansbullet]

One of my best friends in high school in Vancouver 1967, Dave Breen, joined the RCAF out of high school. I went on to UBC in geology, and ended up in New Zealand in 1973, where I have lived for nearly 50 years. I expected to see him at our 50th reunion of our high school graduating class in Vancouver in 2017 (the first reunion I had attended) but was informed that he was killed flying one of these bloody things at Cold Lake, Alberta in 1978, only 11 years after our graduation. This was the first news I had heard about it. He was raised by a single mother - she would have been devastated losing her only child. I wish I'd been there to tell her what a wonderful friend he was, but of course, I didn't know. Kelly Johnston and his Skunkworks team at Lockheed designed some incredible aircraft - THIS wasn't one of them!! "The Widowmaker" doesn't even begin to describe - more like the "FFC - Fucking Flying Coffin"!!

[@allansbullet]

Rest In Peace, Dave Breen. You were an incredible friend to a "newbie" in Vancouver.

[@polyus_studios]

Thanks for sharing this with us!

[@allansbullet]

@@polyus_studios Thank you mate. I'm 73 years old now but I can still pictue him and the fun we had. A wonderful gregarious guy that was one of the lifelines of our high school!

[@MikeSiemens88]

Nice work on the video. Politics & role aside, the CF-104 was a fine aircraft, built, flown & maintained by the best.

[@bobcarlsson4]

Sold to Venezuela. Was able to be all over these in hangers when I was a kid!

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

Very interesting video,great catch!Thank´s for sharing!Huge LIKE!Greetings!

[@frankhuber9912]

I was an army brat, my dad was a musician in the Canadian Forces... we were stationed in Germany from '65 to '68. Every now and then I'd hear a sonic boom, I swear I almost jumped off my bike a coupla times -- LOUD!... if we were lucky we'd catch a glimpse of the fighter plane as it went streaking by. I still have no idea whose fighters they were -- German, Canadian, American-- all I know is that they were bloody fast. You really have to see it with your own eyes to believe it. Of course, back then I didn't realize how dangerous it was to fly these things so close to the ground, I just thought that they were the coolest thing in the world. And we'd all say how great they were using the language of the sixties generation: keen, cool, spaz, nifty, groovy, profound... yeah, that's gone too now (thankfully!😀).

[@angrypandaification]

Love your stuff keep it up.

[@thamesmud]

I know. Let's take an airplane designed as a high altitude Mach 2 interceptor and use it for ground attack at Mach 0.9. What could possibly go wrong? Shame the Buckaneer wasn't selected as turned out great at low level ground attack. The US pressure and Lockheed bribery scandle killed so many pilots.

[@peterstickney7608]

Actually, a 104 was pretty much unbeatable in the low level Nuke Strike role. The high wing loading means that it is not as affected by turbulent air, and the INS and NASSARR systems and stick-steering autopilot allowed it to operate in European weather. The only contemporary equivalent was the F-105. Both could, for low level strike, range further than any other airplane - a Thus or Zipper could easily run a Phantom dry, while cruising at 600 kts at 500' or less. The Buccanner in 1959 was not a good candidate at all - The NA.139 (As it was at that time) was the Mk 1, an incredibly underpowered (2 DH Gyron Jr. turbojets), and its NAV/Attack systems were a generation behind. The effective Buccanneer was the Rolls Spey powered Mk 2, which didn't appear until the mid-1960s. As for the "presure and bribery scandals" in the NATO Interceptor/Strike competition - let's look at the players, then at the politics. The specification called for an Interceptor capable of reaching Mach 2 and 50,000', and the strike role required long range and endurance at Mach 0.9/500'. The candiates were: The English Electric Lightning F. Mk 1: No air/ground weapons, no Navication systems other than a TACAN system, armament of 2 1st generation AAMs, no air/ground weapons. Limited by stability isues to Mach 1.7, and, while it had a fantastic rate of climb for the day, it's range allowed it to defend the end of the runway, and not much else. Everything you wanted in a MiG-21, but with 2 engines and less gas. The Saunders-Roe SR.177 Mixed Propulsion Interceptor - Never actually built or flown, it's rocket engine peomised incredibly high altitude performance. Saddled with the same weapons and equipment as the Lightning F.1. SInce the British Government had repudiated any further manned fighter development in 1957, there was no future there. The Dassault Mirage IIIA - The IIIC hadn't happened yet. Small, short-ranged, with a primitive radar, weapons options being either s pair of 30mm cannon or a single Matra R.530 AAM - possibly the worst Air-Air Missile ever fielded. Marcel Dassault at that time had no interest in air-ground weapons for the Mirage III, and to ensure the interceptor performance, it required an add-on rocket pack, with its oxidizer tank taking the place of the guns and their ammo. The Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger. A beautiful little ship (The fuselage is smaller than an F-104s), with good handling. Performance was hit-or-miss - there was a lot of integration to work out. While weapon shapes had been carried on the airplane, no radar or nav systems had been installed, or release trials carried out. Flight testing showed severe issues with tail flutter. Grumman really wasn't interested in selling the airplane, but used the competition as a way to build up their interational sales force. The F-104G - Already in Squadron service in the USAF, it met or exceeded all the performance requirements. If you were evaluating the F-104, you'd get walked out to the flight line, strapped into a D model with an instructor in the back, and go fly the plane to every performance point required. The C model was qualified for both nuclear and conventional weapons, and you could gor to the range and watch a squadron of them drop bombs. The NASARR Radar and INS were flying in testbed aircraft. The _only_ airplane at the time that met the NATO requirements was the F-104. As to the Bribery Scandals - It comes as a surprise these days that in the 1950s and early 1960s, it was not illegal in most European nations for various "fixers" to accept money (and other considerations) to use their influence in the decision-making processes of the various governments. Nor was it illegal for such payments to be offered. In th Europe of the 1950s, that was how business was done. U.S. Law, implemeted as a fallout of the F-104 selection, prohibited US companies from offering this in the early 1960s. It became unlawful in the various European countries to accept such considerations in the mid-60s. It did not become illegal for French companies to offer such "gifts" until the mid-1970s, although the practice still continues in many parts of teh world. The question that has always puzzled me is why the RCAF went solely nuclear when building out the CF-104s. It would have been much more sensible to have just adopted straight F-104Gs, with the multimode radar and conventional weapons installations, rather than spending time and money re-engineering the plane to pull that stuff out - (The CF-104 originally didn't even have a gunsight), then expending large amounts of cash to bring the planes up to essentially the original F-104G standard in the late 1960s.

[@610Mungral]

@@peterstickney7608 you'll get no where bringing facts and common sense to KZbin comments! Interesting thoughts and well written!

[@gort8203]

@@peterstickney7608 Thank you for speaking up against the ignorant common narrative. The airframe was eminently suitable for the low level strike roll in all ways except range, and it had enough of that for the European theatre.

[@gort8203]

@Arthur Humphreys Amen.

[@PappyGunn]

@@gort8203 Yes. I also believe the low level role was assigned years after the 104 was bought; it was not initially going to be a low-level nuke delivery platform.

[@marks_sparks1]

Fantastic video

[@mikepie6988]

Yo just found and love your channel keep it up dude !!!

[@bushcraftnorthof6012]

I love this channel.

[@68orangecrate26]

Outstanding mini documentary about a beautiful aircraft.

[@robflange]

According to records Avro Arrow reached 2,104km/hr CF104 top speed 1,896KM/hr So looks like Arrow was the fastest Canadian built plane to have flown

[@alpearson9158]

except that as it didn't enter service that record is sadly irrelevant

Unofficially,......

[@bradjames6748]

I'd imagine that the CF104 program was approved by Lockheed to keep Canada from building anymore of her own fighter jets

[@donaldbarnes8487]

Great video ! Covers the first half my career as an airframe tech. ! 1955- 68.

[@TomCHall-ifm]

I like that at 11:49 you can see bug splats building up on the camera lens. Now imagine what a birdstrike would be like

[@dashcroft1892]

Used to see these at the Abbotsford Airshow back in the day, along with Voodos, Phantoms, Vulcans, and Victors.

[@bradjames6748]

I went to the 1970 abbotsford airshow and the fighters were parting our hair on their passes

[@motorrebell]

Brings back awesome memories ! Seen the Canadian f104s during an Airshow at Rhein Main Airbase at Frankfurt Germany 1980 , One crashed there too ! Salute from Germany !

[@jaybee9269]

I have to say that is the prettiest version of the -104.

[@dodaexploda]

YES!!! NEW Polyus Studios video!!!! tik tik tik tik tik tik dun dunnnnnnn dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Well done.

[@paddy1952]

Good video.

[@user-jt7qo8do9g]

I remember them taking off and landing in Lahr. Very cool aircraft!

[@AndreDemers1]

Loved that plane. I was in Val-Cartier Quebec in 1984 on the CF-104 target range. We had two towers to calculate the bullet ratio on target. Some time a old 2 1/2 ton truck or a target screen. It took the pilotes about 2 minutes from Bagotville to Val-Cartier once in the air. The pilots had fun passing between the two towers making them shake. I miss those times.

[@PappyGunn]

I don't remember any 104 squadron being stationed in Bagotville. Ever. You sure those weren't F-5s from 433 Sqn?

[@AndreDemers1]

@@PappyGunn I stand corrected. All these years I was sure they where CF-104 but there was none in Bagotville. I was part of the 5 QGET unit.

[@AgentJayZ]

Very interesting video. It's a shame that all of your flying footage is accompanied by sound of an idling J79, and not the actual sound that engine makes when really working. I have posted quite a few videos of J79 engines in our test cell, including afterburner runs. Some are of the OEL-7, and some are of the J79-19.

[@MicrophonicFool]

No doubt. You have every known jet sound one could want! Love your channel

[@hughculliton3174]

Love and subscribe to your channel. One of your vids got one of my students - a smart kid but with little direction - to now be pursuing a career in aeronautical tech. That's on you! LOL! I have a quick tech question, if you don't mind...why did they stick with the J-79 as the powerplant opposed to the Iroquois as with the F104 bid? I'm a history grad so explain it to me like I'm 5.

[@jamespowell7302]

@@hughculliton3174 Probably because the re-engineering to fit the quite a bit bigger Iroquois into the F104 would have cost too much, along with then having 1/2 the CF105 in the air...which might have been ugly from a political prospective. (39" vs 42" diameters)

[@PUBHEAD1]

Great to see some Canadian content

[@sinasiakay2575]

It was an excellent plane. The navigation system (LW-33) was the most perfect of all 104 models. The fire control system was also at a high level. If a shooting competition were held today, he would eliminate all his other competitors. This includes the F-16.

[@Booyaka9000]

Any chance we'll be seeing that F-5 video any time soon?? Loving these vids!!!

[@Booyaka9000]

@@polyus_studios You already had me a RCAF videos. Joining up as we speak. :)

[@gsmith4679]

I hate to bring it up AGAIN, but they cancelled the Arrow and bought the 104 and Voodoo. Great video by the way.

[@mikemill7115]

They would've bought the 104 anyway, the Arrow was not a low level ground attack aircraft. It would've been strictly an interceptor in the NORAD role and never deployed to Europe.

[@gsmith4679]

Mike Mill Yes that’s a possibility however the CF100 was deployed in Europe as an interceptor so it seems likely the Arrow would have been there as well. All supposition at this point either way....

[@erikgustafson9319]

In the case of the RCAF's transition from subsonic First Gen fighters to supersonic second and third-generation platform, Diefenbaker was right on cancelling the arrow: it couldn't hold a candle to new 3rd Gen heavy fighters of the coming decade. If it was ever able to compete with its contemporaries such as the F4C and the It should have been redesigned to increase its speed to Mach 2.3 at the least and expand its capacity from 4 bare bones am9Bs to 8 aims 9s and 4 Aim 7 sparrows plus 16.000 Tons of air to ground ordnance with a second crewmember with a fancy CCIP computer to go with it. Thus eliminating the need to use 2 different aircraft and 2 costly supply chains allowing the RCAF to streamline operations and give it export potential to not only Nato and commonwealth nations air forces but others such as Sweeden and Japan. The biggest foreign users would likely be the RAAF and RAF in particular to replace the RAAF's Canberras and RAF Hunters and Canberra's and the Gloster Javelin. Once that happens there would be a gap in the RCAF fleet for a single-engined attack aircraft with similarities greater than the CF5 but less than the Arrow wendigo (aka the redesigned arrow) then I could see a mirage 5/ Sepecat Jaguar like aircraft to fulfil this role with the CF5 being used as an advanced trainer. But we all know how the sad story goes with the Avro sulking away in defeat when in reality should have been a wake-up call to change from a 1950s First\Second-generation Mindset of every role gets a dedicated platform to more consolidated third-generation trends that emerged following the USAF adoption of the F4 phantom to replace such designed if it was ever to survive the sam craze of the late 50s and early 60s. Canada would have emerged to how the french aviation industry is today but instead buried themselves into the sand by sticking to what worked before and not embrace the consolation of platforms that would occur prior to the US involvement in Vietnam. .

[@gsmith4679]

@@erikgustafson9319 Disagree with a number of your points. You are comparing the Arrow which only flew as a proof of concept, the f4c was 3 rd gen and thus had around 600 aircraft built and flown prior to it, not to mention the airframe design and engine improvements. The arrow would have most likely benefitted from major improvements in range speed and payload had it not been cancelled. The Phantom was also designed as a fighter bomber where the Arrow was designed as a high speed interceptor, different roles.

[@erikgustafson9319]

@@gsmith4679I know what you were saying which is why I edited it to better explain why it flopped its big public appearance was at a horrible time during the start of the sam and ICBM craze of the late 50s and early 60s as such more conservative politicians who were interested in export sales that had been established with the CF100. The CL 13 would look at this a red herring of things to come that industry was burying its head into the sand of WW2 and early postwar mindset of everyone gets a platform. But I see your point that being a proof of concept much like the TSR2 was for the British Aviation industry which had similar problems and was only bailed out thanks to multinational design programs of the 70s and 90s. But I still support Defenbackers decision of cancelling in its initial role though he should have told Avro Canada to go to Mcdonnel Douglass and study what they were doing and then implement it on their (Arrow Wendigo a fighter bomber\interecptor to replace the CL13 and the CF100( with the B model to fulfill the tactical nuclear low level strike role for the RCAF and NATO nuclear sharing members ). Therefore guaranteeing its success as a platform on its own for home sales and the possibility of success on the export market as completion to the English Electric Lightnings export variants and the F4C Phantom its main export rival. But we will have to see what Canada's defense industry cooks up with the new fighter program taking shape it might just be what the doctor ordered.

[@smark1180]

*The F-104 was NOT designed as an interceptor.* It was designed as a fighter. It was moved to the interceptor role until issues with the F-102 and F-106 were resolved.

[@roijoi6963]

The Starfighter would make a great Fox-3 BVR platform even today. Use old Hornet F-404 engines, or if the customer could afford it, new F-414 engines which weight 1,500lbs less and provide 6,000lbs more thrust while being 54" shorter and 4" smaller in diameter. Add a modern AESA radar for targeting and tracking, and its speed and altitude would make the F-104 able to sling the AIM-120C ~ 60 statute miles with very high PKs, and able to defend well too, diving at high speeds to drag bandit's missiles into thick air, and if necessary, going defensive at high Mach close to the ground. If affordable, an all-new FBW flight control system would dramatically increase lift and control by making the tail a lifting body that adds to wing lift, instead of working against it. Also, like the F-16 the leading edge slats and flaps could be made part of the aircraft's flight control system to optimize aerodynamic performance in all flight attitudes. At supersonic speeds FBW would add ~ 15% to total lift, which added to the weight savings of the engine, and added space that frees up, would make the Starfighter much more capable. Six AIM-120s and a pair of Sidewinders, or additional fuel on the wings, should be possible. This would put it on par with the F-16 for BVR work. With used engines and affordable radar, sans the FBW, these repurposed F-104s could be had for ~ $5M US dollars by my estimation, and less than $10M with new engines and a FBW system. For small countries like Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines this would provide 5-10x the aircraft available for BVR defense of their territories vs new F-16s. Countries like Ukraine, Poland, Baltic States may also be interested. Israel would be a likely country to do the work of the new configuration as IMI and Rafale have many systems that would be of great benefit to such a program and the skill and labor force to complete the work. nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/taiwan-aesa-radar-challenge-international-market-share-36867

[@MillerVanDotTV]

Fantasy . Just build UAV’s

[@oceanhome2023]

OMG I love this stuff back when Canadians knew their history and they loved their Country !

[@alanfaulkner6329]

Well and truly been sold to the globalist cabal now mate. Just like the uk.

[@JonMartinYXD]

Canadians still know their history and still love their country.

[@alpearson9158]

note that for most of us no change!

[@12345fowler]

Very well researched piece of information. Well done

[@billwebb9643]

Apparently, the Soviets referred to the Mig-21 as 'The plane that couldn't go anywhere or do anything'; I think the F-104 similarly was able to perform only a few roles.

[@suryia6706]

I spent two years in Baden-Solingen from 1965-1967 as an air force brat. My parents had a home in Hugelshiem, a little village just north of the base where we had a perfect view of the CF-104's taking off and coming in for landing. They were awesome to watch. What is the different between your original CF-104 video and this one?

[@deggs1975]

My grandparents were there in the early sixties as well. With their 3 kids. I’ve inherited a lot of great pictures as my grandfather was an Air Force photographer. My dad taught me plenty of terrible German as a kid.

[@horrhiunioj507]

Ahh the good old days! How times have changed

[@wst8340]

Not for the better.

[@horrhiunioj507]

@@wst8340 sadly true

[@profpep]

German joke from the F104G era: "Anybody want to buy a cheap Starfighter?" "Then buy an acre of ground, and wait".

[@GaryCameron]

Some (re)assembly required...

[@iaingillies9342]

Imagine if the government had gone with the F-4, followed by those Iranian F-14's...

[@FallenPhoenix86]

Bloody expensive but the F-14 would have been near ideal for air defense over Canada, Tornado F.3 as well, both very long range airborne missile batteries designed to operate far from home base for long periods.

[@mikemill7115]

@@FallenPhoenix86 - the Tornado was early 80s and the CF-18 was chosen at the time to replace the 104s and Voodoos. Good choice, our operators overwhelmingly favored the 18 over the Tornado and the CF-18 far superior

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@mikemill7115 The F/A-18 is "far" superior? No, if what you want is a long range interceptor or interdictor it really isn't. The Hornet is only superior to the Tornado in the realm of WVR ACM, ie dogfighting. If your job is to patrol the North Atlantic/Arctic for Soviet ELINT/ASW incursions then the F.3 is the superior platform... so thats the case made for the Voodoo replacement. For replacing the CF-104, the IDS was purpose built to replace the F-104G for the Germans and (to a lesser extent) Italians. Both of whom were at the time operating 104's in the exact same roles and theatre as Canada. The downside with Tornado was that you would need a mixed ADV/IDS fleet to cover everything, Hornet could cover everything in one airframe but wasn't as capable in specific roles. You either need more Hornets in the fleet or more tankers vs an all Tornado force, IDS/ADV being closely enough related that you bassically retain the logistical benefits of a one type force either way. The Hornet was only "far superior" if the only thing you planned on doing was to get in close and dance with MiG's.

[@Booyaka9000]

@@FallenPhoenix86 This is 70s thinking trying to solve 1980s/90s problems. You're looking at replacing the capability the Canadian forces had at the time, and the Tornados would have been an improvement over both the Voodoo and the -104, no question. But Canada's future wasn't going to be in Europe facing Cold War threats, it was going to be in peacekeeping and joint task forces and needed aircraft more flexible to the roles those tasks would have required, and Canadian planners could already see this. It's a similar argument to the people in Australia who opposed the replacement of the F-111 with the Superbug and eventually, the F-35. Sure, those aircraft can't replace the F-111, or perform as well as the Pig in those roles, but the problem with that thinking is that (and it kills me a little to say this) it ignores the fact the roles the F-111 played were no longer relevant to the operational requirements of the RAAF, roles that the Superbug and the F-35 excel in.

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@Booyaka9000 You're looking back at this with perfect hindsight knowing what actually happened, I used 1970's arguments because that is when the decisions were being made. No one at the time knew the USSR was going to collapse in the early 90's. Canada's future in NATO from a 1970's to 1980's viewpoint was very much a continuation of what they were already doing, hence 3 Squadrons of Hornets being stationed at Baden.

[@briancavanagh7048]

Was Lockheed ever found offering “inducements” to Canadian authorities when selling the 104, like they did in Germany. Also one has to wonder what they were thinking when selecting the 104 and its lack of range.

[@PappyGunn]

Well, they were built under licence in Canada.

[@user-pp1ni2jy3f]

The F-104 is the ultimate '1 trick pony' it was only good at high, fast interception. But it looked so cool.

[@MicrophonicFool]

I'm sure it is by no means the only one, but CFB Trenton Air Museum has a memorial marker for the lost 104 pilots: i.imgur.com/hEp3DRB.jpg

[@jacquesauclair6280]

Jacques Auclair worked at Canadair plant no-2 - the company asked their top men and my father was one of them to come and work at the shop - there because of my father reputation they ask me to install fuel tanks on the CF-104 - I installed 89 - without one single error - but the syndicate found out about me and 6 months later had to leave Canadair - one year later one of my boss' father saw me on Ste-catherine st. doing the traffic when on the corner he ask me if i wanted to go to California at the Lockeed company - I said no - regrets - sometimes I think if I would went how my life would have being in California -

[@dmacpher]

May I ask who Garry Watson is? Also ty Garry! And ty Polyus

[@Doug_Morgan]

Gary was a CF-104 tech that served in the Canadian Forces. He also spent many years restoring the Cf-104 that is in Calgary. He is well know on FB etc. An extremely knowledgeable and helpful individual.

[@dmacpher]

Doug Morgan ohhh amazing - o7 to Gary!

[@knight_flyer1199]

I thought the CF-101 was the "replacement" for the Arrow being assigned an interceptor role. While the CF-104 was strike/recon.

[@GapBahnDirk]

A somewhat problematic single engined aircraft, but a lot faster in the low level nuclear strike role than the Canberra that the RAF was using at the same time. A well researched summary.

[@KanJonathan]

Not arming Sidewinders as self defense from beginning till the end was petty mental. And wasn't Blackburn Buccaneer a better choice in terms original missions profile requirement? What was Canadian MoD's rationale of choosing Starfighter?

[@jimminey-fooking-cricket4903]

RAF Lossiemouth had a nasty habit of breaking German Luftwaffe 104 wings so hearing about wings been part of build order for the Germans was a nice reminder.

[@matthewmoore5698]

The last star fighter, has a ring to it

[@marcleblanc9168]

All that space used up by vacuum tubes since it was still early days for semiconductor transistors, nevermind ICs! Amazing what could be achieved with the technology on hand!

[@MikeSiemens88]

Shortly before the CF retired them our 104's got a nav system upgrade from the original LN-3 to LW-33. The nav system was now digital vs the original analog & no doubt tubes were a thing of the past. Worth noting is that Soviet Bloc aircraft stayed with tube tech much longer, not sure if due to lagging behind or the fact that tubes are less prone to EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) which destroys transistorized systems in short order. EMP is one component of a nuclear blast.

[@MikeSiemens88]

@@polyus_studios Aside from tube tech, inertial nav system such as the LN-3 uses gyros for position/directional data. Sensitive bulky components. That said, it is self contained whereas nowadays we rely heavily on GPS. If something ever goes awry with the satellites, everything that relies on them today would be useless.

[@terrytytula]

Nice ,but I'd take the Arrow any day.

[@johnearle1]

I find it odd how we were talked out if building the Arrow and pawned off with Bomarc missiles. To rub more salt in the wound, the Americans give us Starfighters and Voodoos, the flying version of Chevy Vegas. Planes they largely passed on themselves.

[@hughculliton3174]

Why didn't they go with the Iroquois as with the Thud option.? Seems more powerful, but I could be wrong. Wouldn't fit the airframe? My brother was an "Air Command" (RCAF) electronics tech at Cold Lake working on 104s back in the '70s. He said the pilots who survived ground attack learned to trust that when the "What the..." alarm went off in their heads, they instantly and reflexively reefed hard back on the stick, lit the burner, and didn't open their eyes until they cleared 30,000 feet!.

[@jonathantarrant2449]

Innisfail Alberta has one of the cf104 on a peg, outside the legion hall

[@dabsafe]

As does the Canadian Warplane museum in Hamilton

[@LUCNUKEM]

There's one in downtown Cold Lake. In (I believe) 2014, the nose of it got banged up by an idiot operating an excavator. The same operator hit a - thankfully no longer in use - high pressure natural gas line. When returning from Bonnyville one day I caught a glimpse of the star fighter sans nose as I drove by, & for a second thought it was a mig 21.

[@sirridesalot6652]

@@dabsafe THE CWMH in Hamilton also has a silver one inside.

[@McRocket]

Great video. And your filming looked very professional to me. Thank you I must say. It seems incredibly stupid to me to pick an aircraft with tiny wings, only one engine and designed for high speed/high altitude interception...to be chosen for low level strike. The Buccaneer seems a MILES, better choice. Sadly, it appears obvious that it came down to which choice could they build in Canada for the right price. In other words - politics. Similar to the absolute mess that the choice of the new Canadian fighter has turned into. Peace.

[@irishtino1595]

Dark Skies has the best improvised conspiratorial deep voice of any channel.

[@benlaskowski357]

Nice museum. 😳

[@satori3000]

Great video, but I should mention, I watched am SR71 take off from Toronto. I had a child, my dad worked at the airport and he'd found out that it had to do and emergency landing here. The SR71 is faster than the cf104. ✌️

[@janetyeoman1544]

That flown in Canada comment was in reference to the Canadian Air Force types of planes I believe.