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

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by swerve:

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 Replaced by Mirage F.1, which are now stored, I think, having been replaced by F-16.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.

 

Jordan's F-104As ended up in Pakistan.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by 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

 

 

Last post on this subject, then back to the air. There was a revolution going on in 1936 and there had been a first attempt in 1934. Blood spillage was about equal for both sides, but with the cave-at that the Republicans only controlled half of the country during 3 years, make the math. So it's not a question of dictatorship vs. democracy, but of the flavor of the dictatorship, left or right. Both are equally despicable, but the fact is that right-wing dictators have tended to be less destructive overall. With hindsight, OK?

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo:

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

 

No, the nukes were US and there were detachments of US servicemen to control and activate them. Only the launching vectors were indigenous, and the decision to use them had to be taken both by the US and the owner of the vector.

[Hans Strelow]

Originally posted by swerve:

I don't know if Taiwanese F-104s ever engaged any Chinese aircraft.

 

Two 104's with AIM 9b downed each one J6 (Mig 19) the 13th January 1967. Source ACIG.

 

Cheeers

 

Hans

[Mikel2]

RETAC21,

Thank you for enlightening me. I had never appreciated how Franco saved the nation from impending (red) doom and how much we owe to them. I think I'll go practice the Cara Al Sol now.

Regards,

Mikel

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Mikel2:

RETAC21,

  Thank you for enlightening me. I had never appreciated how Franco saved the nation from impending (red) doom and how much we owe to them. I think I'll go practice the Cara Al Sol now.

  Regards,

Mikel

 

 

Gee, thanks

 

You are being too radical. Both sides were bad enough to make you run, but I guess it was the only way we had to deal with our demons. Fortunately, it's all history now.

[Mikel2]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

  Fortunately, it's all history now.

 

At least we seem to forget/forgive more easily than certain people who inhabit the Balkans...

[GregShaw]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Lighting, I did read about the rocket pods for ground attack, but I assumed that they were the only ground attack weapon they actually had. Id never heard the claim about carrying bombs before. Damn shame the RAF Germany ones didnt get the equipment. It probably was ugly, but I gather it had climb to altitude performance that wasnt equalled by anyone in Nato till the F15. They only thing wrong with it was we didnt put money into developing it.

 

The Lightning was fairly impressive, but an AA configured F-104 with the later (-19?) engines could probably match it in climb. Plus the fact that by the time you had completed that rocket like climb to 50,000 ft you were just about out of gas and had to land, kind of limited the overall effectiveness of the plane. Best interceptor of the time, as long as the target was within the airfield boundaries.

 

Greg Shaw

[Old Bunyip]

The EE Lightning F.Mk.53 was able to carry:

 

 

Further, the Lightning's range versus the F-104s cannot be compared:

 

EE Lightning F.6 - 800 miles w/o drop tanks

Lockheed F104 Starfighter - 300 miles w/0 drop tanks

[GregShaw]

Originally posted by Old Bunyip:

The EE Lightning F.Mk.53 was able to carry:

 

Further, the Lightning's range versus the F-104s cannot be compared:

 

EE Lightning F.6 - 800 miles w/o drop tanks

Lockheed F104 Starfighter - 300 miles w/0 drop tanks

 

Uh, normal range for an F-104C was 850 miles on 897 US gal internal. 1500 miles with drop tanks (2 x 170 + 2 x 195 US gal). The F-104G bumped that up to 1080 & 1630 miles respectively.

 

Greg Shaw

(edited to remove the IMG link)

 

[Edited by GregShaw (19 Nov 2004).]

[Tomas Hoting]

Some more info on the armament:

 

The Lightning F.Mk53 had two overwing and two underwing pylons for a (in theory?) maximum payload of 2722kg of bombs and rockets.

 

The electronics pack for the two Firestreak or later Red Top missiles could be swapped for a Microcell rocket pod containing 44 50,8mm unguided rockets. The two overwing pylons could carry two Matra JL100 68mm unguided rocket pod and fuel tank combinations or even a single 454kg parachute-retarded bomb using some kind of explosive cartridge ejector mechanism. The two underwing pylons could carry 2 454kg bombs or two 68mm Matra SNEB unguided rocket pods each.

 

The two 30mm ADEN cannons in the front part of the belly tank could be swapped for a day or night reconnaissance pack.

 

I suppose, with the ADEN cannons, the Microcell and the over- and underwing rocket pods, the F.Mk53 had a lot of punch for the strike role. If this variant had come some years earlier than 1968, it could have made a bigger impact on the international market for sure.

 

BTW: I read somewhere that, while English Electric tried to install some interest for the Lightning in the German airforce, the British government kind of sabotaged the talks by telling the Germans not to buy the aircraft! It seems this had something to do with the cancellation of several aircraft projects in the late 1950s, the hype about guided missiles and the end of manned aircraft. The Lightning was seen only as an interim solution, and by cancelling the development of more advanced (multirole) variants of this aircraft they basically killed any prospects for selling this aircraft abroad.

[Guest Hans Engström]

Here's an excellentpage on the armaments options for the Draken;

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text...en.htm#armament

[lastdingo]

For the then-SecDef of Germany, the Starfighter was primarily a tool to deliver the nukes of other nations.

The plan was that Germany would deliver nukes with both Starfighter and Lance, even though it had no own ones.

 

I can't explain it, but it was probably the low-altitude flight characteristics that made the Starfighter a winner.

 

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.  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

[Arthur Hubers]

Some points:

 

-1-

There is a large difference between the ZELL F-104s as tested by the Luftwaffe (there were three, tests being done both in the US and at Erding in Germany) and the NF-104s with NASA. The ZELL machines had a single ejectable rocket bottle under the fuselage, which would have been dropped after being expended. The same system was tried on an F-100, and almost the same system was tested by the Soviets on a MiG-19.

The NF-104 had a rocket engine built into the lower part of the tailfin. Because it was used to boost the Staf when it was already flying high up, it was a permanent modification (hence the NF-104 designation) which was far less draggy, and didn't compromise normal flight as much.

 

-2-

Jordan used it's F-104As from 1966 to 1982, but were evacuated to Turkey during the 1967 war. They were replaced by Mirage F1's, some 104s survive in Jordan as monuments or as decoys (badly mutilated with low-set tails and stuff to look like Mirages).

 

-3-

The 104 deal to both Germany and the Netherlands involved quite a bit of bribes from Lockheed, and if i'm not mistaken the same was true for Italy. In the Netherlands it even caused a crisis in the monarchy, as the husband of the then-Queen (who also was inspector-general of the RNethAF) was deeply involved in this. Initially, the 104 was only to be tasked with nuclear strike (with US-owned but jointly operated weapons, a role which actually exists to this day), recce and interception. For these tasks, the 104 wasn't all that bad.

 

-4-

While Germany lost a lot of it's Starfighters, Canada lost even more - over 40%. The Canadian 104s were (apart from one or two training squadrons) all based in Europe.

 

-5-

The Lightning barely survived the 1957 MoD White Paper which decided manned combat aircraft were obsolete. However, it did mean that the Lightning would never get developed to be more than a gapfiller rather than a full-capability combat jet. Even the improved capabilities of the export machines was far less than could actually be made from the airframe. Even the range could be improved beyond that of the (still pitiful) F6, but that did have it's impact on the Lightning's acceleration which was appearantly at best with the F2A and F3.

 

-6-

My eyes would have wanted Drakens, but my ears tell me there's nothing like the sound of an F-104.

 

Regards,

 

Arthur

[swerve]

I find it hard to accept that Germany bought 700 F-104G just for dropping tactical nuclear weapons. For a while, they were most of the air force, the only other combat aircraft being CAS G-91R, of which there were far fewer.

[Arthur Hubers]

Originally posted by swerve:

I find it hard to accept that Germany bought 700 F-104G just for dropping tactical nuclear weapons. For a while, they were most of the air force, the only other combat aircraft being CAS G-91R, of which there were far fewer.

 

They got 915 Starfighters actually. Five fighter-bomber wings (initially almost 100% for nuclear strike), two fighter wings, two recce wings and two navy wings. About half of the frontline fleet was attack-tasked. The 104s were replaced quite quickly in the recce role (when the RF-4E's arrived in the early 1970s), and not too much later in the fighter role (when the F-4F's arrived from the mid-1970s on).

[Sven Arvidsson]

Does anyone know when the practice of US nukes carried by German vectors disappeared?

[Panzermann]

There still are Tornados ready to carry nukes.