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

[Mikel2]

In 1936 Spain had a working democratic regime. Of course not perfect, but it was a good start. Left and right wing gov'ts had alternated, and in 1936 it was the Popular Front's turn. Are you aware of some plot by the communists or the socialists to take over? The only plots that I know are Mola's, Sanjurjo's and Franco's. And we all know what happened and how democratic the resulting regime was. If you know something in that regard, how the country was about to be taken over by Stalin, please let me know.

 

No side had a monopoly on atrocities. I am sorry about your Grandparents and your grandmother's brothers. My family was relatively lucky in that I only had a great uncle in prison (he was a communist), my family ended up in exile in France, and my great-grandmother's sister died in a bombing in Barcelona. We were better off than many other families.

 

I think one must make the distinction that while much of what happened in the Republican side was the result of chaos and discontrol (and I am *not* excusing it), what happened in the Nationalist side was far more organized and deliberate. Let's keep in mind who was the aggressor and who was the attacked.

 

Regards,

 

Mikel

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by RETAC21:

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.

[Mikel2]

Considering that according to you, there was nobody giving a nickel for democracy in Spain, it makes you wonder how we ended up with a (short lived) democracy.

Mikel

 

 

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?

 

[Ken Estes]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

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?

 

 

About 1/3 of the navy officer executions were by the Nationalists, including an admiral or two [one commanded at El Ferrol] but the more well-known are the few killed on board ships and the c80 killed on the prison barge later at Cartagena by the Republic. Since the Navy was not clued to the revolt, many of their offocers wavered and not much time was taken to rehabilitate. It was the fury of the times, 'for us or against us...."

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo:

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.

 

In 1936 very small, yet by 1939 it was controlling the Republican government, to the point that Casado had to force a coup to end the war, or have you forgotten that? Moreover, so many things had changed by 1945, that in 1948 Czechoslovakia ended up behind the Iron Curtain, to be followed in 1949 by China, and South Korea was next on the list, Vietnam in 1954... Things had changed allright, but to the worse.

[Mikel2]

The communist party grew so much in importance because the Republic had became so dependent on Russian help, and that they then proceeded to elliminate any opposition afterwards, in the latest Moskow fashion.

 

 

Originally posted by RETAC21:

In 1936 very small, yet by 1939 it was controlling the Republican government, to the point that Casado had to force a coup to end the war, or have you forgotten that? Moreover, so many things had changed by 1945, that in 1948 Czechoslovakia ended up behind the Iron Curtain, to be followed in 1949 by China, and South Korea was next on the list, Vietnam in 1954... Things had changed allright, but to the worse.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

In 1936 Spain had a working democratic regime. Of course not perfect, but it was a good start. Left and right wing gov'ts had alternated, and in 1936 it was the Popular Front's turn. Are you aware of some plot by the communists or the socialists to take over? The only plots that I know are Mola's, Sanjurjo's and Franco's. And we all know what happened and how democratic the resulting regime was. If you know something in that regard, how the country was about to be taken over by Stalin, please let me know.

 

What about Asturias in 1934? a Revolution that was to ignite in all the country, but misfired and ended up starting only in Asturias and Catalonia. You think the Left had learned in 1936? sure, they use the Police forces to execute the minority leader in Congress... which was only the spark, there was plenty of LIC previosuly.

 

Originally posted by Mikel2:

 No side had a monopoly on atrocities. I am sorry about your Grandparents and your grandmother's brothers. My family was relatively lucky in that I only had a great uncle in prison (he was a communist), my family ended up in exile in France, and my great-grandmother's sister died in a bombing in Barcelona. We were better off than many other families.

 

Sure, and both sides were as cruel as possible, agree completely.

 

Originally posted by Mikel2:

 I think one must make the distinction that while much of what happened in the Republican side was the result of chaos and discontrol (and I am *not* excusing it), what happened in the Nationalist side was far more organized and deliberate. Let's keep in mind who was the aggressor and who was the attacked.

Regards,

 

 Mikel

 

Sorry, Mikel, but that doesn't wash. Paracuellos was ordered by Carrillo and excuted using the scurity forces. The elimination of the POUM was carried out using the security forces and the NKVD-like SIM, and in fact, most of the executions and tortures in the Republican zone were done by the SIM.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

Considering that according to you, there was nobody giving a nickel for democracy in Spain, it makes you wonder how we ended up with a (short lived) democracy.

Mikel

 

 

 

Mikel, I said in 1945 and 1936. From 1931 until 1934 there was a real chance of establishing an estable democracy, but mostly leftitst elements conspired against it, most notably the Anarchists (who opposed the first Republican govt.) and the Socialist (who, when ousted from the govt. decided to resort to a revolution).

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Ken Estes:

About 1/3 of the navy officer executions were by the Nationalists, including an admiral or two [one commanded at El Ferrol] but the more well-known are the few killed on board ships and the c80 killed on the prison barge later at Cartagena by the Republic. Since the Navy was not clued to the revolt, many of their offocers wavered and not much time was taken to rehabilitate. It was the fury of the times, 'for us or against us...."

 

And a large number killed in Madrid. IIRC the Nationalist executed 2 admirals, Azarola for opposing the uprising in Ferrol and Camills for wavering at Cartagena and doing nothing about the execution of most of his officers.

[swerve]

Originally posted by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo:

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.

 

What you say about the SR.177 is true, but one of the reasons why the Germans dropped it was because they changed their priorities from an interceptor to a fighter-bomber, & the SR.177 was totally unsuited to that role. An attempt was made to modify the design, but it was too late. So performance as an interceptor was not, officially, important in the choice. I think the Luftwaffe didn't expect or plan to fight Soviet bombers. It was a tactical force, tasked mainly with supporting the army.

[Colin]

Canada used these as ground attack aircraft near the end of their life. Used to watch them fly out of Lahr when on exercise there. They would rattle every window in our barracks when they fired up the afterburners.

[lastdingo]

Originally posted by 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.

 

 

Mirage F.1 is a Mirage III with a different wing/control layout. I think that says it all.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by swerve:

What you say about the SR.177 is true, but one of the reasons why the Germans dropped it was because they changed their priorities from an interceptor to a fighter-bomber, & the SR.177 was totally unsuited to that role. An attempt was made to modify the design, but it was too late. So performance as an interceptor was not, officially, important in the choice. I think the Luftwaffe didn't expect or plan to fight Soviet bombers. It was a tactical force, tasked mainly with supporting the army.

 

Now you put me in doubt! In any case, by the late 50s the high altitude menace still existed and maybe the huge WarPac fleet of Il28 Beagles was an asset to keep an eye into. No idea about what tactics those would had used (would Camberra had changed to low level attack by 1959?). Not till the mid 60s after the experience with SA2 over Cuba and the Soviet Union did NATO changed to low level for good, including the V Force which shortly after lost the Valiant fleet due to structural fatigue at low level.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

Mirage F.1 is a Mirage III with a different wing/control layout. I think that says it all.

 

Mirage F-1 was the result of a breaking with the Mirage III main concept, the delta wing. The replacement for the Mirage III fleet would have been a big turbofan powered plane which evolved into something smaller and more affordable, the Mirage F2. Unfortunately it was still too big and expensive and when Dassault offered its own smaller version as the F1 the offer was duly taken by the AdA.

 

The F-1 was an important step over the III having a modern wing design although as lastdingo said it shares a lot of details with Mirage III, although I consider it a completely new plane, and quite more advanced (when all the electronics worked, as tuning the Cyrano IV radar took almost as much time as to tune the troublesome Cyrano Ibis fitted to the orignal Mirage IIIC!)

[shep854]

Now that we're back on the F-104, does anyone have any insight into the thinking that led to its design? I have read that it was a "lessons learned" fighter post-Korean War, or was it an interceptor from the get-go, a kind of American version of the MiG-21?

[hojutsuka]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

I was watching an interesting documentary on the discovery channel on the Saunders Roe design. Apparently it was favored at the time, before interest switched to the F104. Bear in mind there was still some latent interest in rocket power in the luftwaffe from ww2, remember the Me262 with a secondary rocket engine for better performance? Interestingly there WAS an F104 with a strapon rocket pack that could be fitted to fixed launch pylons. No idea if it ever flew, but it shows that Rocket power at the time didnt necessarily looked the dead end it looks now. Ive even see a piece of artwork that proposed launching F15s into the air on rocket sleds  

 

Much as I like the lightning, it was too specialised as an air defence fighter to be a truly multi mission machine the Germans needed. I think the Mirage would have been a better buy. As a matter of interest, was the F105 never considered?

 

 

Actually, there were two differnt threads of interest. Zero Length Launch (ZELL) was a proposal to attach a huge solid rocket booster to a fighter-bomber and launch it off a rail framework like a missile. This was actually tested with various aircraft including the F104 IIRC. The idea was that everyone felt at the time that a general war in Europe would go nuclear very quickly, so airfields would become useless, and the USAF wanted a way to launch nuke-armed fighter-bombers without runways. The other place where rockets were of interest was in high altitude intercept, where rocket engine could make a huge difference as jet engines lost power in the low pressure air of high altitudes. This was what the SR-177 design was about. And by the way. Mirage IIIC was also a mixed-power (jet+rocket) interceptor. If you look at a photo of a Mirage IIIC from underneath, you will see a cylindrical fairing under the rear fuselage. That's the rocket fuel tanks, with the rocket at the rear end. As the Atar engine was powerful enough to get the Mirage III to Mach 2 and as the high altitude intercept mission became less critical (due to air-to-ground missiles and appearance of ICBMs) most users chose to dispense with the rocket system and use the space to carry more fuel.

 

Hojutsuka

[swerve]

Originally posted by lastdingo:

Mirage F.1 is a Mirage III with a different wing/control layout. I think that says it all.

 

Just about. Same fuselage, same engine. When the F.1 got a better engine, it was offered as a refit option for the Mirage III/V, as were radar upgrades.

[Mikel2]

I see, so it was the left that ruined Spain's last chance for democracy and an imminent revolution by them *had* to be preemted.

 

If a communist regime had been imposed with the same blood spillage, I would be equally critical about it as I am about Franco's. I make no distinction between left and right wing dictatorships (much to the dismay of many of my Castro-worshipping friends).

Mikel

 

Originally posted by RETAC21:

Mikel, I said in 1945 and 1936. From 1931 until 1934 there was a real chance of establishing an estable democracy, but mostly leftitst elements conspired against it, most notably the Anarchists (who opposed the first Republican govt.) and the Socialist (who, when ousted from the govt. decided to resort to a revolution).

[hojutsuka]

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.

 

1. Germany has never had nukes. The only NATO nations with nukes were USA, Britain, and France, and they had their own aircraft for nuclear delivery. Besides, the Draken is not bad for low level. The wing area is large, but the wing has a very sharply swept leading edge (72 degrees IIRC) for much of its span, so is much less sensitive to gusts than an aircraft with higher wing loading but less swept wing, like the F-100D.

 

2. The Mirage wasn't much at carrying bombs either when it was first introduced. It was an interceptor. It was later modified to carry bombs for air-to-ground (Israelis had a bit of input leading to this), but as others have pointed out, Draken was also later modified to carry lots of bombs (Saab 35X for Denmark, for example).

 

Hojutsuka

[Old Bunyip]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Much as I like the lightning, it was too specialised as an air defence fighter to be a truly multi mission machine the Germans needed. I think the Mirage would have been a better buy. As a matter of interest, was the F105 never considered?

 

 

The EE Lightning was developed into a quite successful fighter-bomber aircraft when it was exported to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It had extra pylons added to the wingtips for the carriage of bombs/rockets, while it had a removable bellypack which could optionally carry Firestreak/Redtop AAM, rockets or (I think, not sure) bombs. The Saudis used their's operationally against rebels in the "Empty Quarter" of the Kingdom with some success. It was IMO perhaps the best looking of the contenders.

 

However, the best multirole aircraft out of those considered without a doubt was the Mirage III. It was an extremely successful design and even despite its loss in the major NATO competition was able to have a truly massive export drive outside of Europe. It was highly successful in combat in the hands of Israeli pilots and successful in other minor conflicts. Its bad showing in the Falklands came really at the end of its career and at the extreme limits of its range, so that cannot be considered IMO as being illustrative of the aircraft's performance. It ruled the Middle-East skies for 10 years and was able to beat all its Soviet competitors.

 

The F104, on the otherhand, put in a pretty poor showing where ever it was employed, in Asia (Taiwan vs PRC, India vs Pakistan) and the Middle-East (Israel vs Jordan).

 

The F105 was simply too big and complex and expensive for what the FRG wanted. While the F1-11 was at the end of its development cycle without much "stretch". The SR-177 had massive potential, although I believe its mixed powerplant would have been horrendious to operate in reality.

 

This, by the way is what the Germans should have been buying, if they were to stick with a Lockheed product. It fixed most of the worst problems with the Starfighter design, which wasn't one of Kelly Johnson's best:

 

 

 

[Edited by Old Bunyip (18 Nov 2004).]

[gewing]

I don't remember any serious advantage of the Mirage II over the F-8, though the mirage was definately not a bad plane. More manueverable? the Drakken imo ruled that roost, unless in a primarily strike role the F-105.

 

Drakken and Viggen are two of my personal favorite aircraft, for some strange reason.

 

 

Originally posted by Hans Engstrom:

One large sale of the Draken could have convinced SAAB to put counterpressure on the Swedish government come the next generation of aircraft (due to political considerations aas well as financial ones, the Viggen came into service too early and too overly defined for Swedish use). Another NATO deal (Denmark being the other NATO country) would have helped no end.

 

Politically in the time frame I think the Mirage III would have been likelier thogh.

[gewing]

I still wonder whether something like Jato units on a STOL aircraft to gain near v/stol wouldn't avoid some of the compromises that are inherent in true V/stol aircraft.

 

Does this make any sense to anyone else? It might be possible for a plane to make a vertical takeoff or landing when lightly loaded, then the Rocket boosters would let it take off vertically with a reasonable payload.

 

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

I was watching an interesting documentary on the discovery channel on the Saunders Roe design. Apparently it was favored at the time, before interest switched to the F104. Bear in mind there was still some latent interest in rocket power in the luftwaffe from ww2, remember the Me262 with a secondary rocket engine for better performance? Interestingly there WAS an F104 with a strapon rocket pack that could be fitted to fixed launch pylons. No idea if it ever flew, but it shows that Rocket power at the time didnt necessarily looked the dead end it looks now. Ive even see a piece of artwork that proposed launching F15s into the air on rocket sleds  

 

Much as I like the lightning, it was too specialised as an air defence fighter to be a truly multi mission machine the Germans needed. I think the Mirage would have been a better buy. As a matter of interest, was the F105 never considered?

 

[R011]

The only NATO nations with nukes were USA, Britain, and France, and they had their own aircraft for nuclear delivery.

 

The RCAF's CF-104's were purchased primarily for the nuclear strike role to meet a NATO tasking. They used American controlled nukes, as did the Army's Honest John battery in Europe and the RCAF CF-101's and Bomarcs in Canada.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Old Bunyip:

 The EE Lightning was developed into a quite successful fighter-bomber aircraft when it was exported to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  It had extra pylons added to the wingtips for the carriage of bombs/rockets, while it had a removable bellypack which could optionally carry Firestreak/Redtop AAM, rockets or (I think, not sure) bombs.  The Saudis used their's operationally against rebels in the "Empty Quarter" of the Kingdom with some success.  It was IMO perhaps the best looking of the contenders.

 

I think that the EE Lightning was one of the uglies aircraft of the modern era (IMHO).

 

Originally posted by Old Bunyip:

The F104, on the otherhand, put in a pretty poor showing where ever it was employed, in Asia (Taiwan vs PRC, India vs Pakistan) and the Middle-East (Israel vs Jordan).

 

Did Jordan get F-104s? It must have had a short duration with their Air Force. But also, I was not aware of any combat between Israeli planes and Jordanians F-104s. AFAIK the Jordanians preferred to use the Hawker Hunter which was a fabulois maneuverable aircraft at low altitude and slow speed.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

Originally posted by hojutsuka:

1. Germany has never had nukes. The only NATO nations with nukes were USA, Britain, and France, and they had their own aircraft for nuclear delivery.

 

Germany HAD nukes, US controlled but nukes after all, as did other NATO countries at the time. Nuclear delivery was one of the main roles of the F-104 during the 60s within NATO. Besides, the Germans at the time also had Pershing I SRBM, also with dual control nuclear watheads

[/i]

[swerve]

Originally posted by Rod:

Did Jordan get F-104s? It must have had a short duration with their Air Force. But also, I was not aware of any combat between Israeli planes and Jordanians F-104s. AFAIK the Jordanians preferred to use the Hawker Hunter which was a fabulois maneuverable aircraft at low altitude and slow speed.

 

Yes. But not until after 1967, & there has been no air combat between Jordan & Israel since the 1967 war. I don't think they were in service long. Replaced by Mirage F.1, which are now stored, I think, having been replaced by F-16.

 

I don't know if Taiwanese F-104s ever engaged any Chinese aircraft. Pakistani F-104s fought Indian aircraft in 1971. There was one encounter between them & Indian MiG-21s I know of, score 2-0 to the MiGs. Reports I've read suggest the Pakistanis let themselves get sucked into a dogfight, which was not exactly recommended tactics for an F-104 against anything.