Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Times change Gents, no offense intended. Slightly off the Subject but Saab and the Gripen keep getting into trouble with bribery, not because Saab is more prone to that, but the nations that are buying and leasing Gripens are. When in Rome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quoted F-104 loss rate is USAF accidents only, not including other countries. I might be wrong, but I don't think USAF F-104 jocks did a lot of low-level, bad weather flying.

True. The F-104 was by and large only used in the air defense role in the USAF after the early 1960s, and even then only in *very* limited numbers compared to foreign users. TAC hated the airplane and got rid of it as fast as ever they could.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent two years in the a/c and in my opinion your statements about the bird are flawed. It was much more than just an interceptor. One of the missions we trained for all the time was nuclear strike, and that is what most of the NATO countries bought it for. Where did the "not very maneuverable" come from? it had a better roll rate than anything other than the T-38, a better thrust to weight ratio than everything else. Granted, it was not a "turn and burn" a/c, but we regularly engaged anybody that would stick around and usually did very well. And with tanks it had about the same range as any other contemporary fighter. Add air refueling and it could go where ever needed. We did none stop from east coast to Europe. How much range do you want?

The aircraft was not any more dangerous to fly that other jet of the time. We flew F-100s prior to the F-104 and our accident rate wasn't any different.

Low level penetration/nuclear strike is a very hazardous mission. Add European poor weather, mountains and conflicting traffic and it get even worse. Any distraction, even just a glance away from what you're doing can and will result it surface contact. Most of the losses had nothing to do with the aircraft being flown. High speeds, very low altitudes and lousy weather tend to make for very bad days. The type of a/c being flown has nothing to do with it.

As to why they bought it, they did it for one very important reason. It was by far the best available for the mission.

Thanks so much for your input. It's always an honor to be able to speak with those privileged enough to live our dreams. If you don't mind, would you look at these questions and provide feedback?

How would the F-104 been used best over North Vietnam had the United States deployed more of them?

Which country do you think had the best Starfighter pilots?

Was the Starfighter truly the multi-role aircraft it has become known to have been?

Was the Starfighter ever a candidate for South Vietnamese service?

How would you summarize the list of Starfighter victories and losses?

If you had the choice, which aircraft would you have given up flying the Starfighter for?

What was the most pleasantly surprising feature you learned about flying the Starfighter?

What would you have done to improve the Starfighter, if you had the final say and all the resources you needed?

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for bribery U.S. vs Europe, depends what parts of Europe you're talking, it's not one country (newsflash). Germany and Netherlands both score better than the U.S. on the corporate bribary as well as the corruption perception indexes (Transparency.org), the nordic countries are generally way less corrupt than the U.S., while the Mediteranian country with beautiful beaches and great food that I am vacationing in right now is unfortunately way down the list.

:cheers:/>/>

Marcel

Edited by Marcel111
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not the F-105 have been a much better choice strike aircraft for the Euro theatre? It certainly had the speed, possibly the range and I would imagine a higher load capacity as that is what it was designed for from its conception. Also while not being a dogfighter, it probably was better able to turn and burn better than the 104. I also realize the 105 was being deployed to SE Asia so availability would have been an issue but assembly lines for the 104 were established in Europe so there's no reason the same couldn't have been done for the 105.

Edited by jpk
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think F-105 was marketed for export at the same time. The F-104's main competition was the F-102, F-11, F-5 and Mirage III. The F-11 was to be upgraded and made much faster. Another factor to consider is the cost of long-term maintenance. IIRC the F-105 wasn't on the less expensive end of the spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for bribery U.S. vs Europe, depends what parts of Europe you're talking, it's not one country (newsflash). Germany and Netherlands both score better than the U.S. on the corporate bribary as well as the corruption perception indexes (Transparency.org), the nordic countries are generally way less corrupt than the U.S., while the Mediteranian country with beautiful beaches and great food that I am vacationing in right now is unfortunately way down the list.

:cheers:/>/>/>

Marcel

There really is no surprise there. If you're arguing that bribery is largely responsible for various countries selecting the F-104, you're the winner. That fact is incontestable. I think the question becomes whether or not the F-104 was the best selection for the job. Ultimately, WWIII never erupted and the F-104's spotty record under largely peace time flying can't be compared against a record of high intensity nuclear fighting that was never made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was definitely a jinxed a/c. The only one I ever built was in my hospital bed aged 10 after an appendectomy (back in the days they kept you in hospital for a week, didn't boot you out after a night).

I spilled a full bottle of Testors Silver enamel all over the bed sheets. The nurses were not happy :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the Starfighter ever a candidate for South Vietnamese service?

I can't imagine so considering the other aircraft the South Vietnamese were provided. The F-104 was quite advanced from both a servicing and piloting standpoint compared to the A-1 Skyraider, A-37 Dragonfly and F-5 and T-28 that they did get.

Giving the South Vietnamese the F-104 would have been like when the Saudis and Kuwaitis got the English Electric Lightning. They never would have got a single one off the ground without foreign contracted help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the 238 CF-104's that flew with the RCAF/CAF 112 were lost with 37 Fatalities* Given the (rather silly) role the CF-104 was put in I'm not sure if that's a high number or not.

*CF-104 Starfighter in Profile: Robert McIntyre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the (rather silly) role the CF-104 was put in I'm not sure if that's a high number or not.

I thought the -104 was used by the CAF in the strike role? If so, by all accounts, it was a pretty good fit. Fast and stable at low level, good radar (by the standards of the time) and decent range. Maybe not such a good fit in other roles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the -104 was used by the CAF in the strike role? If so, by all accounts, it was a pretty good fit. Fast and stable at low level, good radar (by the standards of the time) and decent range. Maybe not such a good fit in other roles.

Its "primary role" was nuclear strike, but really, it was just a mud mover fitted mostly with conventional bombs. They were never even wired for air-2-air missiles, which, considering the aircraft was designed first and foremost to be an interceptor, that was pretty silly. For what Canada was doing with it, I don't understand why we were not using F-4's like everyone else. Heck, F-4's would have done the job of both the Starfighter AND the Voodoo.

Edited by RiderFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its "primary role" was nuclear strike, but really, it was just a mud mover fitted mostly with conventional bombs. They were never even wired for air-2-air missiles, which, considering the aircraft was designed first and foremost to be an interceptor, that was pretty silly. For what Canada was doing with it, I don't understand why we were not using F-4's like everyone else. Heck, F-4's would have done the job of both the Starfighter AND the Voodoo.

Quick, somebody bribe this man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its "primary role" was nuclear strike, but really, it was just a mud mover fitted mostly with conventional bombs. They were never even wired for air-2-air missiles, which, considering the aircraft was designed first and foremost to be an interceptor, that was pretty silly. For what Canada was doing with it, I don't understand why we were not using F-4's like everyone else. Heck, F-4's would have done the job of both the Starfighter AND the Voodoo.

The great procurement mysteries of the great white North...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly Canada's first choice was the F-105 which would have been a better choice considering the mission Canada wanted to use the aircraft for. But the costs involved in producing the THUD in Canada killed that plan. The Buccaneer, Super Tiger, Mirage IIIc, and F-5 were also considered but subsequently rejected for various reasons (although the F-5 was eventually purchased and produced in Canada). The F-104 was selected as it could be produced in Canada for cheaper which in turn gave the RCAF more airframes. I don't think the F-4 was ever considered by Canada in the late 1950's when the RCAF was looking to replace the Sabres. Considering its low level mission and the generally lousy weathered that it operated in, which included reconnaissance using the Vicon pod, I think it did "o.k." for Canada. Still one of my favorite aircraft and as I posted earlier...AWESOME sounding machine!

Regards,

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada's Cat A rate was 27 incidents per 100,000 Hours.

Its "primary role" was nuclear strike, but really, it was just a mud mover fitted mostly with conventional bombs. They were never even wired for air-2-air missiles, which, considering the aircraft was designed first and foremost to be an interceptor, that was pretty silly. For what Canada was doing with it, I don't understand why we were not using F-4's like everyone else. Heck, F-4's would have done the job of both the Starfighter AND the Voodoo.

It had to do with timing. You have to remember that in the late 1950s and early 1960s, NATO's primary focus for deterring the Soviet Aggression was New Look and Massive Retaliation. Basically, it meant meeting any Soviet aggression with an overwhelming nuclear response. Even though Kennedy moved away from Eisenhower's very binary formulation of Massive Retaliation to "flexible response", the concept had already made an indelible impression on Western Strategy. The CF-104 was part of that view: Canada needed a fast, effective low level nuclear strike bomber, On top of that there were cost considerations, which had sunk the CF-105 a few years earlier. Canada had a strong nuclear role up until the 1972 denuclearization decision, but Trudeau ended the practice and refused to spend further money until the early 1980s when the gov't procured the CF-18

The F-4 was considered in the mid 1960s when the government looked at a new fighter for the RCAF. The military bureaucracy wanted to go with the F-4, and replace both the 101 and 104 wholesale. Due to the influence of Paul Hellyer and (again) budgetary imperatives, we got the F-5 and retained the 101 and 104 for another 20 years.

If I remember correctly Canada's first choice was the F-105 which would have been a better choice considering the mission Canada wanted to use the aircraft for. But the costs involved in producing the THUD in Canada killed that plan. The Buccaneer, Super Tiger, Mirage IIIc, and F-5 were also considered but subsequently rejected for various reasons (although the F-5 was eventually purchased and produced in Canada). The F-104 was selected as it could be produced in Canada for cheaper which in turn gave the RCAF more airframes. I don't think the F-4 was ever considered by Canada in the late 1950's when the RCAF was looking to replace the Sabres. Considering its low level mission and the generally lousy weathered that it operated in, which included reconnaissance using the Vicon pod, I think it did "o.k." for Canada. Still one of my favorite aircraft and as I posted earlier...AWESOME sounding machine!

Regards,

Don

In early 1958 an evaluation put the F-105 as the best option for Canada, purely on a technical basis, in part because it presented the lowest risk (since it was entering service) and its good performance. It did not look at cost either. During a more formal evaluation in 1959, the Air Force had altered its preferences to the F11-1F super tiger and the F-104. The F-4 was also ranked high, but it was seen to be too expensive and perhaps too advanced. With the cancellation of the Tiger, the 104 was selected. There were other reasons (the highest production sharing opportunities and the German selection of the aircraft), and a lower price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That really does a great job of summing it up. I like that you included the New Look and Flexible Response because I've been studying those lately. I'm doing a nice sized research project on how American strategic bombing advocates designed a flawed response (Rolling Thunder) in bombing North Vietnam. Your synopsis seems to be the most leveled so far.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

That really does a great job of summing it up. I like that you included the New Look and Flexible Response because I've been studying those lately. I'm doing a nice sized research project on how American strategic bombing advocates designed a flawed response (Rolling Thunder) in bombing North Vietnam. Your synopsis seems to be the most leveled so far.

perhaps you should start your research with multi interviews with the secondary end users of Rolling Thunder if any survived. A better way to say it is that virtually nothing lives in the box two hundred forty seconds after the first bang.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps you should start your research with multi interviews with the secondary end users of Rolling Thunder if any survived. A better way to say it is that virtually nothing lives in the box two hundred forty seconds after the first bang.

gary

All that being said, the "end users" are still there and we are long gone.

By most accounts, Rolling Thunder was a case study on how NOT to apply air power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps you should start your research with multi interviews with the secondary end users of Rolling Thunder if any survived. A better way to say it is that virtually nothing lives in the box two hundred forty seconds after the first bang.

gary

Assuming there was anything in the box in the first place...Rolling Thunder was an exercise in wasting ordnance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the -104 was used by the CAF in the strike role? If so, by all accounts, it was a pretty good fit. Fast and stable at low level, good radar (by the standards of the time) and decent range. Maybe not such a good fit in other roles.

Low level at close to Mach 2 is not a good fit.

I was lucky to get a back seat ride in one before they were retired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its "primary role" was nuclear strike, but really, it was just a mud mover fitted mostly with conventional bombs. They were never even wired for air-2-air missiles, which, considering the aircraft was designed first and foremost to be an interceptor, that was pretty silly. For what Canada was doing with it, I don't understand why we were not using F-4's like everyone else. Heck, F-4's would have done the job of both the Starfighter AND the Voodoo.

The RCAF wanted the F-4 Phantom but wound up with the CF-5 instead.

http://www.canadianwings.com/Archives/archivesDetail.php?The-CF-5-for-CANADA-12

I read the U.S. had some low-time F-4s that they tried hard to sell to us,

Edited by Scooby
Link to post
Share on other sites

All that being said, the "end users" are still there and we are long gone.

By most accounts, Rolling Thunder was a case study on how NOT to apply air power.

I sat right there and watch Rolling Thunder 4000 yards out. Nothing survives! Been inside the box (thirty minutes after), and there's nothing left. That box is a half mile wide and a mile and a half long. Three B52's visiting a box is the end of the world as we know it.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...