Why F 104 And Not F5 Tiger ?

[rmgill]

Difference in weather and flying conditions would surely affect how they were lost.

[BabyOlifant]

So, they crammed this clearly-designed-to-be-an-interceptor into the role of a low level strike aircraft and suffered consequences for it?

 

Gee...

[Ariete!]

So, they crammed this clearly-designed-to-be-an-interceptor into the role of a low level strike aircraft and suffered consequences for it?

Gee...

 

Somethign to that, asbolutely. The 'A' was a bit ahead of tis time and ahd to work out the kinks. By the time the 'G' coems around, it's a perfectly competent short-range interceptor (good climb / speed) but not an ideal stike, let alone CAS, aircraft.

 

The Mirage III/5 combiantion was arguably better. The F105/F4 were much heaviner, more expensive planes, not really within everyone's reach (obv. UK and Germany did get F4s...). I supose a combination of 104s and 5s would not be a bad mix at the time, but Mirage III and A4s would have been better IMHO. Wait... that's Israel!!!

[shep854]

With a good (for the time) attack radar suite, and strengthening for low-level turbulence, the F-104 was a 'hair on fire' low level strike platform. With the huge engine and tiny wings, it could maintain a very high speed down low. Given its low conventional bomb load, it was limited, but for depositing a tac nuke, the plane was a decent value.

Those tiny go-fast wings and spiffy T-tail made it tricky to land, though. Strictly a 'fly-the-numbers' bird...

[Steve Duncan]

In 1957 when the Germans were shopping for the next generation fighter there were only 2 pre-production aircraft that had demonstrated Mach 2+ performance. The Mirage IIA and Lightning didn't achieve Mach 2 till 1958, the Draken took till the 60's and the SR177 was only a design on paper. The 2 Mach 2 fighters were the Lockheed F-104 and the Grumman F11F-1F, both powered by the J79.

 

The F-104 was speed personified. Sitting still it looked like it was breaking Mach. Nothing until the F-15 could exceed it's climb rate and it's top speed was limited by inlet structure and not by engine thrust. Also the microscopic highly loaded wing offered good gust response at low level strike (one of the major roles envisioned by Germany.) Of course that same tiny wing meant that the F-104 had a turning radius at speed that went from border to border in West Germany. Lockheed also went all out in marketing the Starfighter (at the time Lockheed didn't have much else on it's plate to sell.)

 

The Grumman F11F-1F looked like just about any other mid 1950's aircraft. It started out as a pleasant to fly, marginally supersonic carrier aircraft, limited by the poor performance of it's engine. Encouraged by the Navy (wanting some flight experience with the J79 that was to go into their next big fighter the F-4) Grumman did some minor redesign and fit in the new engine. Expecting perhaps Mach 1.4 or 1.5 they found themselves with a Mach 2 hotrod. Limited to the same max speed at the 104, the SuperTiger wasn't quite as flashy as it's competition, managing only 35,000 ft/min compared to the 50+ of the F-104. The high aspect ratio of the wing gave it a maneuverability comparable to an F-8 Crusader and was a fairly easy aircraft to fly. Corporate interest wasn't very high, Grumman then having several types of aircraft on order from the Navy and didn't want to be bothered with pushing another aircraft.

 

The F-104 won the Germans for several reasons, even neglecting any bribery. The F-104 was a hotrod, it wasn't hard to handle for the test pilots trying it out (nobody gave any thought to how a newbie with 200 hours on Magisters might fare.) The Lockheed marketing team was plentiful and experienced, they knew the ins and outs of selling and how to get around any opposition. The sales team from Grumman were clueless, composed of the engineers, pilots and others working on the F11F-1F project.

 

In Japan the Military were sold on the SuperTiger but the politicians went for the Starfighter. Canada and the other NATO forces went with the F-104 because, well it must be best because the Germans and Japanese bought it.

 

The F-104 wasn't inherently dangerous (although low level flight with a downward ejecting seat had to make one pucker) but combining the low level training, central European weather, lack of maneuverability, speed and the sheer number of Starfighters in service (you couldn't just pick the best pilots to fly it) combined to make for lots of accidents.

 

Would the F11F-1F been a safer choice? Maybe. Would it have been a more effective choice? Don't know.

[Ivanhoe]

Those tiny go-fast wings and spiffy T-tail made it tricky to land, though. Strictly a 'fly-the-numbers' bird...

 

Not to mention those narrow-stance main gear. Like trying to dance with your shoelaces tied together.

[Panzermann]

Also the big jump from sub-sonic Sabre to the Mach 2 Starfighter posed many problems. Not only for the pilots, but the whole support infrastructure was not able to cope with the high tech starfighter in the beginning. The technicians and other ground personnel were not used to such a plane coming from the Sabre mostly. At least in Germany that was big part of the problems.

 

But I think other buyers had a similar step to take from sub sonic or barely super sonic planes to the literal hot rod F-104 Starfighter.

[bojan]

To compare, Yugolsavia lost almost ~35% (IIRC) of MiG-21s (first supersonic fighter we operated) in accidents.

[shep854]

Not to mention those narrow-stance main gear. Like trying to dance with your shoelaces tied together.

That.

Back in the early '70s, Lockheed proposed a redesigned followup called the 'Lancer'. It would have had a larger high wing and the tailplanes moved to below the jet exhaust, in order to address the Starfighter's shortcomings as a dogfighter/strike fighter.

http://www.globalsec...t/x-27-pics.htm

----

http://en.wikipedia....ockheed_CL-1200

Edited March 2, 2013 by shep854

[Arminius]

 

Those tiny go-fast wings and spiffy T-tail made it tricky to land, though. Strictly a 'fly-the-numbers' bird...

Not to mention those narrow-stance main gear. Like trying to dance with your shoelaces tied together.

 

+ 1

 

very well said!

[Arminius]

The wrong Ejection Seat killed the Pilots.

 

But the Starfighter was no match for a MIG 21 in a Dogfight ---> see Pakistan.

 

The Mirage would have been the better plane ... cheaper, simplier ... but the Germans THEN buying from the French???

 

Although the Mirage with it´s Delta Wing is ALSO no Dogfight Wonder ... ( see Mirage F 1, IMO one very underrated plane )

 

Hermann

[shep854]

Downward ejection seats was the best option with early-tech seats that used blank cannon cartridges to eject the seat. The charge needed to blow the pilot clear of the F-104's tail would have broken the pilot's back. Downward was the least-dangerous option. With reliable rocket-powered seats, the tail could be cleared with acceptable risk of injury, so the downward option was canned.

----

As far as F-104s vs MiGs, it depended on the pilots. NATO pilots were pretty confident, and got the advantage over MiG-21s more than once.

[RETAC21]

The wrong Ejection Seat killed the Pilots.

 

But the Starfighter was no match for a MIG 21 in a Dogfight ---> see Pakistan.

 

The Mirage would have been the better plane ... cheaper, simplier ... but the Germans THEN buying from the French???

 

Although the Mirage with it´s Delta Wing is ALSO no Dogfight Wonder ... ( see Mirage F 1, IMO one very underrated plane )

 

Hermann

Maneuvering combat in a F-104 would involve the use of the vertical rather than the horizontal, the Pakistanis tried to out turn a MiG-21 and out run it at low level, so they played to the MiG's strengths.

[buba]

To compare, Yugolsavia lost almost ~35% (IIRC) of MiG-21s (first supersonic fighter we operated) in accidents.

 

The MiG-21 had a markedly higher accident rate in Soviet/WarPac service than the F-104 had in NATO (Su-7 was even worse). The reason it did not get the "flying coffin" label was censorship. And the fact that it was safer than the MiG-19.

[DKTanker]

Set aside Israel, Israel was buying what it could get. I could be wrong, but I believe the US wasn't selling arms to Israel at that point. It wouldn't be until post-Six Day War that serious weapon tranfers took place from the US to Israel.

DougRichards, on 25 Feb 2013 - 04:25, said:

The other alternative airccraft was the Mirage III, which Israel and Australia chose over the F-104.

[shep854]

What Dave said. AIUI, the French embargoed the Israelis after the Six-Day War, so the US stepped up with support. Compared to the A-4 and F-4 for ground strike...well there was none for the F-104.

[T-44]

For those interested (and able to view): French-German channel Arte has a 2010 German documentary programmed this Tuesday on the F-104 accident rate, starting at 22h45.

[Arminius]

The MiG-21 had a markedly higher accident rate in Soviet/WarPac service than the F-104 had in NATO (Su-7 was even worse). The reason it did not get the "flying coffin" label was censorship. And the fact that it was safer than the MiG-19.

 

???

 

The MIG 19 had 2 engines and a generous wing ...

 

Problems with the Sound Barrier?

 

Hermann

[Paul Lakowski]

I thought the Starfighter was bought to intercept enemy bombers , not fight with other aircraft....but yes vertical combat can be more lethal than horizontal since its so easy to loose sight of the enemy... that was the real killer in aircombat of the time.

[shep854]

The Starfighter was a 'lessons learned from the Korean War' fighter. It seems that acceleration and climb was considered the most important characteristics for an air-superiority fighter. The F-100 was a fighter-bomber, the F-101, F-102 & F-106 were interceptors, and the F-105 a long-range nuclear interdictor (or, bomber-fighter).