F-104 Air-To-Ground Capabilities

[Tony Williams]

Correct, and not at all surprising. A low wing loading is great at high altitude, but a serious disadvantage when travelling fast in the thick air at low level.

 

I've read that the F-15E is something of a bumpy ride down low, but not that it is a serious disadvantage.

 

Well, a bumpy ride is exactly what you don't want if you're trying to aim weapons with any precision. It will also increase crew fatigue if it goes on for long.

[baboon6]

Correct, and not at all surprising. A low wing loading is great at high altitude, but a serious disadvantage when travelling fast in the thick air at low level.

 

I've read that the F-15E is something of a bumpy ride down low, but not that it is a serious disadvantage.

 

Even if the F-104 wasn't effected much by turbulence down low, I think the accident rate of the aircraft heavily suggests that it wasn't cut out for the low level ground attack role.

 

Was any thought given by the Germans (or other F-104 customers) purchasing a variant of the F-101? I suppose that degree of range would be unnecessary for them however.

 

From what I've read it would seem the only other serious contenders for most customers were the Super Tiger and the Mirage III. The Super Tiger of course never entered service with anyone while the Mirage was a successful product; the Australians chose the Mirage III over the F-104 while Belgium at least ended using both the Mirage 5 and the F-104. This excerpt explains the German procurement decision, leaving out the dodgy bits:

 

http://www.airvector...t/avf104_2.html

 

 

A number of US manufacturers were offering proposals to meet the need. Grumman had a flying prototype of the "F11F-1F Super Tiger", a J79 powered version of the company's J65 powered F11F-1 Tiger shipboard fighter; North American was promoting the "F-100J", an improved version of the company's F-100 Super Sabre; and Northrop was promoting a lightweight fighter, the "N-156". Since the F11F-1F was flying while the F-100J and N-156 were both paper proposals, the Super Tiger was the F-104's only serious opponent in the competition.

 

The West German Luftwaffe was the main prospective customer, with a requirement for a multirole aircraft that could be used as an interceptor / air superiority fighter, fighter-bomber, and reconnaissance aircraft. Luftwaffe pilots evaluated both the Starfighter and Super Tiger, and on 6 November 1958 the West German government announced the Starfighter had won the competition, leading to award of the first procurement contract on 18 March 1959. Some authors wonder how the Germans were persuaded to obtain an aircraft that was already known to be accident-prone, but others reply that it was because the flight evaluations showed the Starfighter was the best aircraft. It should be noted that the flight evaluations were no doubt conducted by very experienced pilots who were capable of handling the hot F-104 without too much difficulty.

 

The Super Tiger wouldn't go into production, and the F-100J would never be built; the N-156 would emerge as the Northrop F-5A and prove a great success in the export market.

 

I think part of the problem was that some countries were trying to go to a "one-type" air force before it was really viable. Arguably it still isn't. The Germans of course replaced some of their F-104s with F-4s in the '70s and the rest with Tornados in the '80s. Many of the European users replaced them with F-16s in the '80s, Italy being a notable exception.

Edited November 13, 2012 by baboon6

[T19]

The CF5 was bought in 1969 as a fighter. It was to be used as a fighter in a ground role

 

I don't think we ever used it that way.

 

I still think its a sexy looking little jet

[DougRichards]

If you really wanted air to ground, and had to buy a US product, and as used by the USAF, you should not have gone past the next number in the century series - the F-105.

 

Would have cost more, but was a much more capable aircraft.

[baboon6]

Which is why the Buc was such a great aircraft, a nominal high wing loading but with blown wings for greater lift for carrier use.

 

The Marineflieger wanted Buccaneers to replace their Sea Hawks but commonality with the Luftwaffe was considered more important than their needs.

 

ETA:

 

The British govt didn't try very hard to sell it to the German govt either.

Edited November 13, 2012 by baboon6

[CaptLuke]

Even if the F-104 wasn't effected much by turbulence down low, I think the accident rate of the aircraft heavily suggests that it wasn't cut out for the low level ground attack role.

 

Was any thought given by the Germans (or other F-104 customers) purchasing a variant of the F-101? I suppose that degree of range would be unnecessary for them however.

 

The Luftwaffe was to some extent a special, and maybe worst, case for the F-104. Italy seemed quite happy with their F-104s, even producing the upgraded S model to keep it in production. IIRC NATO countries with better weather and more continuity in their air forces didn't have nearly the problems with the F-104 that the Luftwaffe did.

 

Also IIRC the whole point of the contest was for what we would now call a lightweight or low mix fighter, much the way it was later the F-16, not the F-15, that dominated European sales. That's why the F-101, F-105 were out of the picture.

 

Finally, I believe one version of the story is that it was the F-11F that won the competition and only Lockheed's bribes that got the F-104 into production, one of the great 'what ifs' in aviation of the time.

[RETAC21]

Bribes could explain German procurement, but the plane was used (and built) in Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Italy and other user included Spain (who got them from the US), Greece and Turkey (who were happy with their hand me downs AFAIK), plus of course, Jordan (who disposed of them rather quickly), Pakistan & Taiwan. The overall accident rate, I seem to recall, was comparable to other planes of its generation, with German attrition rates coming down through better training, and countries using them as interceptors having less attrition.

[baboon6]

Bribes could explain German procurement, but the plane was used (and built) in Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Italy and other user included Spain (who got them from the US), Greece and Turkey (who were happy with their hand me downs AFAIK), plus of course, Jordan (who disposed of them rather quickly), Pakistan & Taiwan.

 

Yeah but once Germany went for the F-104 most of the European countries were bound to follow suit. I believe there have been also been allegations about sweeteners in the Dutch and Japanese deals. Having said that, I think that happens with far more arms deals than we know about and may just be SOP in some ways.

 

The Swiss also apparently preferred the Super Tiger to any other candidate but went with the Mirage. This was strictly for an interceptor, they were happy with Hunters and Venoms as fighter-bombers.

 

The Spanish also got rid of theirs rather quickly in favour of F-4s but we're talking pretty small numbers here and they got them later than most of the other European countries

 

The overall accident rate, I seem to recall, was comparable to other planes of its generation, with German attrition rates coming down through better training, and countries using them as interceptors having less attrition.

 

I think that's very true. As CaptLuke pointed out better weather helped too.

[R011]

.I'm aware of that but I wanted to know how the Canadians planned on using them in action or if they were seen strictly as trainers in CF service?

As the CF-104 was then strictly a photo-reconnaissance aircraft and nuclear bomber, the RCAF decided it needed something that could use conventional weapons in the air-to-ground. The F-5 was the cheapest aircraft being offered and the then minister of defence, Paul Hellyer, told the RCAF that's what they were going to get.

 

They originally were going to operate six squadrons, and bought 118 aircraft to do it. They then decided to reduce the planned number of squadrons to two plus a lead-in-fighter training unit (but had already bought all 118 planes).

 

For most of their service, they were intended to be deployed to Norway along with an army brigade group.

[baboon6]

.I'm aware of that but I wanted to know how the Canadians planned on using them in action or if they were seen strictly as trainers in CF service?

As the CF-104 was then strictly a photo-reconnaissance aircraft and nuclear bomber, the RCAF decided it needed something that could use conventional weapons in the air-to-ground. The F-5 was the cheapest aircraft being offered and the then minister of defence, Paul Hellyer, told the RCAF that's what they were going to get.

 

They originally were going to operate six squadrons, and bought 118 aircraft to do it. They then decided to reduce the planned number of squadrons to two plus a lead-in-fighter training unit (but had already bought all 118 planes).

 

For most of their service, they were intended to be deployed to Norway along with an army brigade group.

 

Thanks mate.

 

ETA: Found this CMJ article all about the CF-5 procurement, very interesting:

 

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no3/stouffer-eng.asp

Edited November 14, 2012 by baboon6

[Tony Williams]

The F-5 was the cheapest aircraft being offered and the then minister of defence, Paul Hellyer, told the RCAF that's what they were going to get.

 

Sounds like a refreshingly straightforward, quick and simple procurement process

 

The alternative would no doubt have been a long-drawn-out and costly process, at the end of which some wunderplane would have been chosen of which the air force could only have afforded a very small number...

[baboon6]

The F-5 was the cheapest aircraft being offered and the then minister of defence, Paul Hellyer, told the RCAF that's what they were going to get.

 

Sounds like a refreshingly straightforward, quick and simple procurement process

 

The alternative would no doubt have been a long-drawn-out and costly process, at the end of which some wunderplane would have been chosen of which the air force could only have afforded a very small number...

 

If you read the article I linked to you will see it wasn't exactly like that. Hellyer did indeed get what he wanted but there were other viable options, especially the A-4 and A-7. Those might have been better but the F-5 was maybe under-rated by the air staff. One thing I didn't know about was the proposal for joint UK-Canadian production of the F-4; it's probably better that didn't happen looking at the massive cost of the RAF/RN Phantoms. The F-4 was really what the RCAF had wanted all along but after the F-101/F-104 purchase it was even less likely that they would get them.

 

Miller and the RCAF clearly favoured the F-4 as a replacement for the CF-104 Starfighter, and for the CF-101 Voodoo air defence interceptor, but the CDS knew he had to justify the choice based more upon national industrial benefits than upon operational needs.

 

By 8 December 1964, Cabinet had not reached a conclusion concerning the future aircraft needs of the RCAF, but they did agree that the F-4 did not fulfill aforementioned force requirements. The next day, Prime Minister Pearson informed his British counterpart, Harold Wilson, that a deal for the joint production of the F-4 was off. And with this action, the opportunity for the RCAF to buy what would turn out to be one of the most successful and versatile combat aircraft produced in the West during the Cold War era evaporated. It also opened the door for the eventual acquisition of the CF-5.

 

In another memorandum dated 7 January 1965, Hellyer informed Miller of the Cabinet decision not to buy the F-4, and, further, that Cabinet had agreed to pursue a less costly tactical fighter, limited to close support of ground forces and one of lower performance than the Phantom II. The MND confirmed the government’s allocation of $215 million for a light attack aircraft that would best meet the government’s policy of “more balanced forces for employment in limited conventional war situations.”²⁴ Furthermore, tactical fighters were no longer to be considered as replacements for the Starfighter and Voodoo fleets. Other than the now-eliminated F-4Phantom II, the remaining light attack aircraft contenders under consideration were all American-designed aircraft: the McDonnell Douglas A-4E Skyhawk, the Grumman A-6 Intruder,the Vought A-7A Corsair, and the Northrop F-5 Freedom Fighter. Since much of the preliminary evaluation of these aircraft had already been completed, the CDS was tasked to provide his final recommendation by 15 February 1965.

 

First time I've seen the A-6 put in the light attack category!

 

The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) was quite interested in the A-4E Skyhawk. Naval aviators had been looking at this aircraft as a replacement for their aging McDonnell Banshee fighters that had ceased flying off HMCS Bonaventure during the autumn of 1962.²⁶ Unfortunately for the navy, Hellyer had no intention of replacing its two fighter squadrons. The short, six-year Canadian service life of the Banshees was to mark the RCN’s first and last experience with carrier-launched jet fighters. In any event, on 15 February 1965, the Chief of Operational Readiness and a future CDS, Lieutenant-General Jean Victor Allard, sent his staff’s recommendations to the MND through the CDS. They had concluded that the A-7A Corsair was the best option, but, most interestingly, of all four options, only the F-5 was rated as not being suitable at all.

 

At this point, it was apparently clear to the uniformed staff that any subsequent recommendation other than the CF-5 was futile, and so, in a suppressed manner of protest, they simply submitted their final results to the Minister on 7 June 1965 without a recommendation.³³ The following month, on 15 July, following Cabinet approval, the MND announced that the government had approved the purchase of the CF-5. Hellyer had succeeded in getting his preferred fighter aircraft.

Edited November 14, 2012 by baboon6

[Koesj]

Yeah but once Germany went for the F-104 most of the European countries were bound to follow suit. I believe there have been also been allegations about sweeteners in the Dutch and Japanese deals. Having said that, I think that happens with far more arms deals than we know about and may just be SOP in some ways.

 

Not alleged sweeteners but real ones. Dutch prince consort Bernhard got stripped of all of his military titles for accepting a 1.1m bribe from Lockheed back in the seventies and in '08 it came out he had also received money from Northrop.

[John(txic)]

 

 

Catch a falling Star Fighter.....

 

 

 

 

Put it in the pocket of your jeans.....

[Ariete!]

Yeh, Lockheed bribed just aboute veryone (deffo in Italy). It was a huge pan-European case and one of the causes behind US legislation against bribing foreign officials AFAIK. Italy skipped a generation of aircraft, practically, and only kept the 104 going outta desperation, including the 104S on the basis that at least they could do some local build work (later upgraded to the 104ASA vesion) at which point we probably had the least capable intercept fleet in NATO.

The G91 and Etendard, as pointed out, were just miles elss capable than similarly priced A4s.

[Colin]

The CF5 was bought in 1969 as a fighter. It was to be used as a fighter in a ground role

 

I don't think we ever used it that way.

 

I still think its a sexy looking little jet

 

One of the guys in an OP in Suffield got strafed by one on a arty ex, does that count?

[T19]

The CF5 was bought in 1969 as a fighter. It was to be used as a fighter in a ground role

 

I don't think we ever used it that way.

 

I still think its a sexy looking little jet

 

One of the guys in an OP in Suffield got strafed by one on a arty ex, does that count?

 

Parts falling off a jet is not strafing lol

[MiloMorai]

I did R&O at Sperry of the 3 axis gyro unit (SYS825 iirc) for the autopilot system for the CF-5 and Sea King in the early '70s. Used a toothpick to adjust the tension on the 4 power feed strips to the gyro motor to eliminate gyro drift.

[Beitou]

The CF5 was bought in 1969 as a fighter. It was to be used as a fighter in a ground role

 

I don't think we ever used it that way.

 

I still think its a sexy looking little jet

 

One of the guys in an OP in Suffield got strafed by one on a arty ex, does that count?

 

Parts falling off a jet is not strafing lol

 

catch a falllllllling star fighter......!

[Colin]

The CF5 was bought in 1969 as a fighter. It was to be used as a fighter in a ground role

 

I don't think we ever used it that way.

 

I still think its a sexy looking little jet

 

One of the guys in an OP in Suffield got strafed by one on a arty ex, does that count?

 

Parts falling off a jet is not strafing lol

 

No they got strafed by a pilot that mistook the OP for the target, luckily his wingman noted that the target did not look right and held his fire.

[BansheeOne]

I just found an impressive story that's only very tangentially related to the F-104's A2G capabilities, but it's the best thread I found.

 

This was on 22 January 1982 when a three-year-old girl in Cagliari, Sardinia, developed a life-threatening condition which her doctor thought could only be treated inside 24 hours by a new anti-viral drug from Germany he had read about. Using the only contact he knew, he called the NATO airbase at Decimomannu where the Luftwaffe trains regularly. However, this was Friday evening, and only the German officer of the day was still in - who however called his command in Germany and reported the urgency of the case. An elaborate operation developed, mostly on the authority of mid-ranking officials on weekend duty.

 

The Bundeswehr Central Pharmacy checked availability of the drug and found it was only to be had directly from the maker, a Munich company. To make things worse, Germany was in the grip of a freezing rain on this day which was icing over roads, railway switches and runways. Police found the company's procurator at the opera, and delivered the drug over 130 km of icy roads to Memmingen Air Force Base by a relay of patrol cars. Snow clearing crews had been alerted, but only managed to clear a narrow strip of one runway of ice in the available time. A 1LT volunteered to pilot an F-104 which had to be pulled onto the runway along with the generator sets for startup. Meanwhile the German military attaché in Vienna was phoned out of bed to secure diplomatic clearance for an overflight of Austria.

 

At 0150 the drug was handed into the cockpit, and the pilot made a slippery take-off. Half a dozen Italian air bases along the route were held open as possible alternate landing sites in case of problems. Weather in Italy was also bad, and torrential rain at Decimomannu had damaged cables for the approach and runway lighting. A captain gathered military and civilian vehicles along the runway for provisional lighting, but approach relied mostly on radar guidance; the aircraft was talked down through stormy conditions at three in the morning by a controller who had been called in. A Carabineri vehicle delivered the drug to the pediatric hospital of Caligari. The girl survived.

[Panzermann]

Great Story.

+1

 

 

Sadly not possible anymore with todays defense bureaucrats and Flecktarn-THW. Somewhere along the chain would stain their pants.

[BansheeOne]

In fact I have personal evidence this wouldn't be possible today. A couple weeks ago I got a call by my boss who had been approached by a former colleague about some Syrian guy who had supposedly been wounded severely in the back while distributing aid in Kobane, and since been tended to in an orthodox monastery outside Beirut. I was directed to call our human rights workgroup who were trying to bring him to Germany for surgery, having already collected the money to pay for the treatment, but now looking for an inexpensive way to transport him. Their idea was "well, the Marine is part of UNIFIL in Lebanon, they should have aircraft going back and forth we might be able to stick him on".

 

The two immediate problems I saw was one, the Marine base for UNIFIL is Limassol, Cyprus, and much more seriously, I couldn't see anybody loading a severely injured person into less than a fully-equipped medevac aircraft in this day and age - even though the human right people's ultimate fallback plan was pumping him full of painkillers and putting him on a regular commercial flight. Still I thought somebody would see the PR angle and, lacking a better contact, started at the top by calling the defense minister's office. They directed me to a LTC who is coordinating flights for the ministry, and of course stated abovementioned obstacles, plus the fact that they would run into trouble with commercial medical flight operators if they infringed upon their business.

 

He said if it was up to him, he would personally fly out anybody in need, and I don't blame him - if this guy died or suffered permament effects from being transported under less-than-optimal conditions, of course they would never live down litigation, and if they used a full-blown MEDEVAC Airbus for a single guy, taxpayer watchdogs would jump down their throats. In fact the workgroup was also approaching commercial operators for a free or reduced flight, but I haven't heard anything about the issue afterwards. Things were much easier 30 years ago.

[Panzermann]

MEDEAVC is a different beast from a box with drugs. As you say.

 

Hm, dunno, ask the ADAC? They have a fleet of medevac Learjets. It is a beneficial club after all.

 

 

But in the sixties Bundeswehr the war was still in thebsoldjers minds and being adaptable and make decisions meant something. Today it is all cover your ass. Rule of lawyers.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Panzermann

[Perun]

On 11/12/2012 at 9:25 PM, baboon6 said:

This is what the Canadian ones carried after they switched from the nuclear to conventional role and were fitted with guns. The CF-104 like the F-104G had only pylon under each wing but the Canadians had twin ejector racks:

 

http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_LockheedF104Starfighter.pdf

 

 

 

a) Gun: M-61A1 Vulcan (a six-barrelled 20mm cannon, with a firing rate of 66 rounds

per second. Six seconds of ammunition were carried).

Rockets (Unguided, Air to Ground):

Mk 4 2.75" FFAR (folding fin aircraft rocket). Up to 76 could be carried in four

19-tube launch pods.

CRV-7 (Canadian Rocket Vehicle, as developed by the Defence Research

Establishment, in Valcartier, Quebec, with number, and launcher as above).

c) Bombs:

Mk 82 GP “Snakeye” (a general purpose, retarded fall, “iron” bomb).

CBU-2/B (cluster bomb).

Mk 20 “Rockeye” (cluster bomb).

BL 755 (high explosive cluster bomb).

BLU-1/B, later BLU-27/B (Up to four napalm firebombs could be carried).

 

And the Germans:

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_17.html

 

 

First link in webarchive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090205151727/http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/assets/pdf/e_LockheedF104Starfighter.pdf