What if it the Luftwaffe didn't buy the F-104G?

[swerve]

Originally posted by DwightPruitt:

He would be the one.  Also, I remember reading that Erich Hartmann was a vocal critic of the Starfighter and that was a major reason he never was promoted to General.

 

 

He was vehemently opposed to it. IIRC, he said that the F-104 had too steep a learning curve: he thought it a good interceptor in the hands of experienced pilots, but unsuitable as a fighter-bomber for a rapidly expanding air force with many inexperienced pilots & no supersonic experience. Suggested a staged modernisation, starting with some F-100s for ground attack & maybe a separate interceptor type, with a higher performance fighter-bomber in a follow-up purchase. Not what his bosses wanted to hear. Ended up being sidelined & retiring.

 

Hartmann preferred flying the Bf109 to other WW2 German fighters, despite its ergonomic drawbacks & unforgiving nature, (IIRC 98% of his kills were while flying Bf109s) so if he said a plane was too hard to fly for inexperienced pilots, I'd listen.

[swerve]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

I'd have chosen the Mirage with RATO and hook for STOL.

 

The Draken had two significant disadvantages;

1. Large 'wing' area - bad for low level attacks with nukes.

2. Draken was generally not prepared for the assault role - it was an interceptor. As such, no pylon could carry more than 1000lbs.

 

Another advantage of the Mirage III (which was not initially visible) was that it lead to the Mirage F.1, one of the best NATO fighters/fighter-bombers in the 70's (with regard to fleet efficiency probably even a match for the F-15 since it was much cheaper and with less personnel to operate).

 

Agreed, but the pylon limits on the Draken could be & later were changed, as were the early load limits on the Mirage III. Danish Drakens could carry up to 4500 kg of external stores (twice the F-104G & early model Draken load of 2200kg), including 2000lb bombs.

[GdG]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

Another advantage of the Mirage III (which was not initially visible) was that it lead to the Mirage F.1, one of the best NATO fighters/fighter-bombers in the 70's (with regard to fleet efficiency probably even a match for the F-15 since it was much cheaper and with less personnel to operate).

Nah, the III didn't lead to the F1, Dassault wanted to get rid of the delta wing (that gave the F1, G8, etc...). The Mirage 2000, is, OTOH, the son of the Mirage III. Same for the Mirage 4000 (in fact, of the Mirage 5), wich gave the Rafale.

[LucaJJ]

1. Even as an interceptor, the only thing going for it was sheer speed/acceleration but load, range and manoeuvrability sucked. As a strike aircraft it was useless and dangerous. And no, Italy didn't have just one accident with it; they had quite a few.

 

2. Lockheed bribed up ad down. Eventually it all came out, even brought an Italian administration down (though in those days it did not take much to do so).

 

3. Italy was stuck with the starfighter into the 1990s (last one officially retired a few weeks ago) because, having built a domestic production/upgrade base for it, it effectively became an indigenous project and the pols were beholden to it. Scandalous.

 

 

4. Considering that European air forces also saddled themselves with dogs like the G91, etc. I am surprised no one mentioned the A4 Skyhawk. Great plane, great development potential, not too expensive or large.

 

5. Germany did get a bunch of Phantoms later, Italy never did and got stuck with those F104. A lot of people are nostalgic these days but in their heyday they were considered dogs.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Rod:

Regarding F-104s in Spanish service, what years were they operational? Was there a problem selling weapons to a country led by Francisco Franco?

 

From Joe Baughter's:

 

"Eighteen Lockheed-built F-104Gs and three Lockheed-built TF-104Gs were delivered under MAP to Spain's Ejercito del Aire in 1965. They replaced the F-86F Sabres of 61 Escuadron in Ala 6 at Torrejon. In Spanish service, they were designated C.8 (serials C.8-1 to C.8-18) and CE.8 (serials CE.8-1 to CE.8-3). The Ala 6 wing was later renumbered Ala 16 and the squadron 61 became 161 Esc and later 104 Esc. The EdA Starfighters had the distinction of operating without a single accident during their seven years of service. They were formally retired from EdA service in May of 1972, when they were replaced by the F-4C Phantom. All of the EdA Starfighters were returned to the USAF for transfer to Greece and Turkey. "

 

Now, that tells only part of the story. The F-104s were part of the usual arms package negotiated every time the lease of the US bases came up.

 

The Americans didn't have much problem negotiating with Franco's regime beyond a couple of points: MDAP weapons couldn't be used for "colonial" wars (so the best equipped units couldn't be used in 1957 in Spanish West Africa nor in W. Sahara in 1975) and the Yanks were particularly tigh handed with spare parts, which kept the F-104s unserviceable for long periods of time (to the point that in the yearly military parade, there were times when only one could fly), which was what decided the EA to finally dump them. Of course, replacing them with F-4Cs which weren't in production either didn't help, but at least, for a time the 401st TFW was also equipped with them and could lend a hand.

 

The only time Franco had troubles with democratic regimes after 1953 was when the Navy tried to acquire the license to build up Leander frigates from the UK, which was vetoed, forcing the Armada to buy Knox derivatives and switch from the RN to the USN as a role model. Needless to say, they didn't look back after that.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by LucaJJ:

1. Even as an interceptor, the only thing going for it was sheer speed/acceleration but load, range and manoeuvrability sucked. As a strike aircraft it was useless and dangerous. And no, Italy didn't have just one accident with it; they had quite a few.

 

The F-104 was supposed to be used in the vertical plane, not for horizontal manoeuvering.

 

Originally posted by LucaJJ:

2. Lockheed bribed up ad down. Eventually it all came out, even brought an Italian administration down (though in those days it did not take much to do so).

 

I think they also had problems in Japan and certainly with the L-1011

 

Originally posted by LucaJJ:

3. Italy was stuck with the starfighter into the 1990s (last one officially retired a few weeks ago) because, having built a domestic production/upgrade base for it, it effectively became an indigenous project and the pols were beholden to it. Scandalous.

 

4. Considering that European air forces also saddled themselves with dogs like the G91, etc. I am surprised no one mentioned the A4 Skyhawk. Great plane, great development potential, not too expensive or large.

 

5. Germany did get a bunch of Phantoms later, Italy never did and got stuck with those F104. A lot of people are nostalgic these days but in their heyday they were considered dogs.

 

Well, Italian F-104S were supposed to be BVR aircraft too, and mainly interceptors, weren't they?

[swerve]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

Well, Italian F-104S were supposed to be BVR aircraft too, and mainly interceptors, weren't they?

 

The F-104S had a better radar, AIM-7 (& later the Italian AAM - name slips my mind - based on Sparrow) & other improvements, giving it a BVR capability, but most Italian F-104G & some of the F-104S were fighter-bombers.

[shep854]

This is reaching back a LOOONG way, but I read an article in a aviation magazine which was a memoir of a CF-104 pilot. In this article, he referred to some European Starfighter jocks who tangled with WARPAC MiG-21s, and claimed to "beat" them (no shots fired-just Cold War hassling over the Barents Sea). Given that Pak F-104s generally got their heads handed to them by Indian MiG-21 pilots when they fought, how does pilot quality enter the equation?

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

The only time Franco had troubles with democratic regimes after 1953 was when the Navy tried to acquire the license to build up Leander frigates from the UK, which was vetoed, forcing the Armada to buy Knox derivatives and switch from the RN to the USN as a role model. Needless to say, they didn't look back after that.

 

Not only, that, we had to buy the AMX-30 in 1970 because the British government wouldn`t allow the sale of the L7 tank gun to Spain, so no M60 or Leopard 1 could have been bought (had Germany approved the sale, of course!). In an sense, in 1953 the US saved the Franco regime. At that time the country and the economy was in shambles and there was wide discontent acroos the country at all levesl, with economy about to collapse. The US stepped up and in exchange for basing rights for their nuclear forces (Torrejon and Zaragoza for SAC, later Rota for SSBNs) injected lots of money, equpment and international respect, finally breaking the ring of sanctions dictated by the UN soon after WWII, all in the name of saving "the free world". At that time my parents didn`t feel very "free"!

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by swerve:

The F-104S had a better radar, AIM-7 (& later the Italian AAM - name slips my mind - based on Sparrow) & other improvements, giving it a BVR capability, but most Italian F-104G & some of the F-104S were fighter-bombers.

 

The F-104S had an AtA oriented model of the NASARR radar and was capable of firing the AIM-7E Sparrow. In the 70s Selenia used the basic AIM-7E airframe and rocket motor to create a more modern missile with a new monopulse SARH seeker, which entered service in the 80s as Aspide. The missile was much more successful on sea and land based roles and latest variant is Aspide 2000 with a new engine and longer range. There were studies for an active Aspide in the late 80s (Hydra IIRC) but was cancelled as the Italian AF opted for AMRAAM. Given the fact the F-104ASA just retired, I assume the AtA Aspide must also be gone by now.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo:

Not only, that, we had to buy the AMX-30 in 1970 because the British government wouldn`t allow the sale of the L7 tank gun to Spain, so no M60 or Leopard 1 could have been bought (had Germany approved the sale, of course!). In an sense, in 1953 the US saved the Franco regime. At that time the country and the economy was in shambles and there was wide discontent acroos the country at all levesl, with economy about to collapse. The US stepped up and in exchange for basing rights for their nuclear forces (Torrejon and Zaragoza for SAC, later Rota for SSBNs) injected lots of money, equpment and international respect, finally breaking the ring of sanctions dictated by the UN soon after WWII, all in the name of saving "the free world". At that time my parents didn`t feel very "free"!

 

You forgot Moron, and then there were those "presents" dropped at Palomares, and the total and appalling lack of support in 1957 and 1975, but at the same time, it allowed several years of stability to develop a modern (more or less) economy and an stable political system which could evolve into democracy, so overall there are plenty of good and bad things.

 

OTOH, with hindsight, better Franco than Ceaucescu...

 

 

 

[Edited by RETAC21 (18 Nov 2004).]

[swerve]

Originally posted by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo:

Given the fact the F-104ASA just retired, I assume the AtA Aspide must also be gone by now.

 

 

Maybe not - has it ever been used on Tornados?

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

 OTOH, with hindsight, better Franco than Ceaucescu...

 

Mind you, I would have prefered Franco toppled over in 1945 and a democratic government being created, just like in Italy and Germany.....

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by swerve:

Maybe not - has it ever been used on Tornados?

 

Never in the IDS and, IIRC, the F3 leased from the UK came with Sky Flash and were returned with them. And I very much doubt the stop gap Fighting Falcons will receive it with AMRAAM at hand!

[Mikel2]

I guess the poor devils dying at the Miranda de Ebro camp or those who tried to escape from the San Cristobal fort and were hunted like rabbits by the Guardia Civil didn't enjoy the benefit of hindsight... We didn't invent the concept of the "concentration camp" for nothing

 

 

Originally posted by RETAC21:

 

 

OTOH, with hindsight, better Franco than Ceaucescu...

 

<font size=1>[Edited by RETAC21 (18 Nov 2004).]

 

 

 

[Edited by Mikel2 (18 Nov 2004).]

[Doug Kibbey]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

I think that was a different aircraft. Wasnt that created to allow potential X15 pilots some experience of very high altitude flying? I gather that was also the one that Yeager tried to get the world altitude record with, as shown in 'The right stuff'.

 

Ol Paint that was the one I was thinking of. When they had it as a feature in a modelmaking magazine, I first thought that it had to be a fictional model     Guess it really was a missile with a man in it.Thanks for the link.

 

There was a good discussion on a German forum, partly explaining why the F104 attrition was so bad. Turns out there was a training flight, I forget where, where the flight leader flew into a mountain. Unfortunately, 3 other aircraft following him VERY intently did exactly the same thing....

 

NF104A's were mixed jet and rocket engined aircraft to explore rocket, high altitude, and (I believe) thruster controlled flight. It was a purely experimental aircraft never deployed as a fighter/interceptor.

 

 

Great pics and story HERE: http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/nf104.html

 

 

BTW, do yourselves a favor and go see some of these great paint jobs on Italian F104's! http://www.aeroslides.com/portfolio/galler...spec/page1.html

 

 

[Edited by Doug Kibbey (18 Nov 2004).]

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

 I guess the poor devils dying at the Miranda de Ebro camp or those who tried to escape from the San Cristobal fort and were hunted like rabbits by the Guardia Civil didn't enjoy the benefit of hindsight...       We didn't invent the concept of the "concentration camp" for nothing    

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Mikel2 (18 Nov 2004).]

 

Damn right!, but the alternative were the comforts of the Gulag as enjoyed by the prisioners in Russia of the Blue division. Unfortunately, democracy wasn't in the cards of anyone in 1945, not the monarchists, not the socialist (much less the communists) and certainly, not the right.

 

BTW the concentration camp was invented in Cuba much, much earlier... ask Weyler.

[Mikel2]

I was refering to Weyler's "campos de reconcentracion". Although some think Kitchener shares some of the credit.

 

Democracy was in the cards in 1936, until some people decided they knew better. Franco was the one that gave us a good taste of the Gulag, including "dissappearing" many people. I know many people whose parents and grandparents were arrested and never to be seen again. Or maybe they were later found shot on the side of the road. Sure there were worse dictators, but that doesn't justify Franco. Una? Grande? Libre? I think not.

 

 

Originally posted by RETAC21:

Damn right!, but the alternative were the comforts of the Gulag as enjoyed by the prisioners in Russia of the Blue division. Unfortunately, democracy wasn't in the cards of anyone in 1945, not the monarchists, not the socialist (much less the communists) and certainly, not the right.

 

BTW the concentration camp was invented in Cuba much, much earlier... ask Weyler.

 

 

 

[Edited by Mikel2 (18 Nov 2004).]

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

 Democracy was in the cards in 1936, until some people decided they knew better. Franco was the one that gave us a good taste of the Gulag, including "dissappearing" many people. I know many people whose parents and grandparents were arrested and never to be seen again. Or maybe they were later found shot on the side of the road. Sure there were worse dictators, but that doesn't justify Franco. Una? Grande? Libre? I think not.

 

I completely agree. By 1945 there was an exiled government which could have been the base to create a completely new government. Not mentioning things had changed A LOT between 1936 and 1945 not only in Spain, but in the rest of the world.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by shep854:

This is reaching back a LOOONG way, but I read an article in a aviation magazine which was a memoir of a CF-104 pilot.  In this article, he referred to some European Starfighter jocks who tangled with WARPAC MiG-21s, and claimed to "beat" them (no shots fired-just Cold War hassling over the Barents Sea).  Given that Pak F-104s generally got their heads handed to them by Indian MiG-21 pilots when they fought, how does pilot quality enter the equation?

 

The pilot is VERY important and at those times even more important than today, as contending AFs were more on less equivalent (no fancy AWACS, RPVs, datalinks and so on). A Starfighter with a crack pilot could indeed beat anybody flying anything at the time. The F-104 wasn`t exactly what I would call a manuoverable plane, but flew right it could face MIGs and win, using its vertical plane abilities and keeping speed up against the nimbler MIG-17/19/21. The Mirage IIICJ flown by the Israelis in the 67 wasn`t a super performant AC and had several limitations (an engine not too performant and delta wing) but when flew "right" they could beat Arab MIGs.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

The pilot is VERY important and at those times even more important than today, as contending AFs were more on less equivalent (no fancy AWACS, RPVs, datalinks and so on). A Starfighter with a crack pilot could indeed beat anybody flying anything at the time. The F-104 wasn`t exactly what I would call a manuoverable plane, but flew right it could face MIGs and win, using its vertical plane abilities and keeping speed up against the nimbler MIG-17/19/21. The Mirage IIICJ flown by the Israelis in the 67 wasn`t a super performant AC and had several limitations (an engine not too performant and delta wing) but when flew "right" they could beat Arab MIGs.

 

The decision to buy the F-104 wasn`t itself that odd given the age and the perceived menace. The FRG was the first line of any new war in Europe and a performant climber was needed to engage the perceived menace from Pact high altitude bombers. The UK had a similar problem and the Lighting was developed. The SR177 was to be the definitive high altitude interceptor thanks to its composite propulsion and the Germans were VERY interested on it just because of that. Today we wouldn`t had been thas impressed: lacking any real visibility from the cabin and armed with a puny two Red Tops and a small nosecone for any radar. Just like the Lighting, too specialized. At that time a multirole F-104 had to sound really good: very good performer as high altitude interceptor (with very short legs, less a problem for the FRG than for the US) with valuable fighter bomber abilities. At that time I guess only the Mirage III was a viable alternative, but the basic Mirage IIIC was too basic and wasn`t completely developed till 1962 and wasn`t as lively as the Starfighter, not to mention the French aerospace industry at the time was quite behind the US and unable to lend similar levels of technical transfer and know how. The Germans did try it but IIRC after they had already decided on the 104. By the time the multirole IIIE appeared it was too late, but probably with some small changes (INS vs Doppler radar based nav/attack gear, more powerful engine and other small changes) would have been a perfect complement to the big F-4F.

 

[Edited by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo (18 Nov 2004).]

[Mikel2]

Spain could have used a good dose of "regime change" in 1945. There were many Spaniards who had fought with the Allies against the Germans, and many more in the Maquis, who were ready to go. Not to mention the Aran fiasco

I believe it was Churchill who spoke against Allied intervention in Spain, afraid that it would turn into some sort of left wing regime. Imagine that, the Iron Curtain going from Stettin to Irun...

 

[Edited by Mikel2 (18 Nov 2004).]

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

 Democracy was in the cards in 1936, until some people decided they knew better. Franco was the one that gave us a good taste of the Gulag, including "dissappearing" many people. I know many people whose parents and grandparents were arrested and never to be seen again. Or maybe they were later found shot on the side of the road. Sure there were worse dictators, but that doesn't justify Franco. Una? Grande? Libre? I think not.

 

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Mikel2 (18 Nov 2004).]

 

Care to illuminate me? on whose cards was democracy in 1936? the communists? me thinks not, the socialists? check Paracuellos and then come back, not enough? tell me why then were the Navy officers executed, even those that didn't take part in the uprising? Who else, the nationalists? yeah, right, which is why the first thing they didn't was have elections. What about the 1934 revolution, against a democratic government?

 

As for disappearing families, I guess it was because of democracy why mu greatgrandparent was executed at El Escorial, on the 18th. His crime? to be ex-military. I could tell about the 2 brothers of my grandmother executed by PNV militias in Portugalete, just because they weren't affiliated to them, so please spare me the dramatic talk and the cries of supposed "freedom fighters". There was nobody fighting for Democracy in 1936 and nobody wanting a Democracy in 1945, from the monarchists, who wanted a King propped up by the works of the regime to the Republicans, who wanted a regime akin to that of the Mexican PRI, to the communists who wanted a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

Spain could have used a good dose of "regime change" in 1945. There were many Spaniards who had fought with the Allies against the Germans, and many more in the Maquis, who were ready to go. Not to mention the Aran fiasco    

 I believe it was Churchill who spoke against Allied intervention in Spain, afraid that it would turn into some sort of left wing regime. Imagine that, the Iron Curtain going from Stettin to Irun...      

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Mikel2 (18 Nov 2004).]

 

And of those Spaniards, how many were communists? right, just about all of them. Are you saying that communism is a shining example of democratic prowess?

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

And of those Spaniards, how many were communists? right, just about all of them. Are you saying that communism is a shining example of democratic prowess?

 

Well, that`s the standard answer by Franco, Pinochet, Galtieri, Marcos (name your favorite Western dictator here).... apologists.

 

Weren`t the Italian Communists very powerful in the 1945 Italian scenario? I didn`t found a communist dictatorship in the 1945-89 timeframe when I check my Italian history books....

 

Very few seem to note how small was the Spanish Communist Party in 1936. If they rose to a very important position was due to the war itself and the fact only the Soviets dared to help the Republic. Had Western democracies been less hypocrital and helped the legally elected government to fight Fascism things would have been different for sure. Again, by 1945 things had changed a lot.