Riain
Banned
Yes, but what was the Luftwaffe interceptor requirement met by once the SR177 was cancelled?
Alternates to F-104 Starfighter for U.S. allies
- Thread starter hasdrubal barca
- Start date
Yes, but what was the Luftwaffe interceptor requirement met by once the SR177 was cancelled?
Saunders-Roe SR.177, if continued.
English Electric Lightning
Mirage III.
Republic F105 Thunderchief.
Avro Arrow, if continued.
Saab 35 Draken.
English Electric Lightning
Mirage III.
Republic F105 Thunderchief.
Avro Arrow, if continued.
Saab 35 Draken.
Barry Bull
Donor
Canadair Sabre until 1964, F-84 until 1967 and double-tasking part of the F-104 force. The first F-4 arrived in 1971.
Riain
Banned
That's a pretty crappy state of affairs, the F84 was well and truly obsolete as a fighter by 1967 but the Canadair Sabre is ok until 1964, although its a bit long in the tooth for Europe. Did the F104G have a reasonable air to air radar?
Barry Bull
Donor
Yes, F-104G received well-round avionics upgrade and gained full all-weather capability. Also, the F-4 would came online soon.
I added a poll, look forward to your votes.
Erich Hartmann votes no
"Hartmann considered the F-104 a fundamentally flawed and unsafe aircraft and strongly opposed its adoption by the Luftwaffe. Although events subsequently validated his low opinion of the aircraft (282 crashes and 115 German pilots killed on the F-104 in non-combat missions, along with allegations of bribes culminating in the Lockheed scandal), Hartmann's outspoken criticism proved unpopular with his superiors. General Werner Panitzki, successor to General Josef Kammhuber as Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, said, "Erich is a good pilot, but not a good officer." Hartmann was forced into early retirement in 1970."
Erich Hartmann votes no
"Hartmann considered the F-104 a fundamentally flawed and unsafe aircraft and strongly opposed its adoption by the Luftwaffe. Although events subsequently validated his low opinion of the aircraft (282 crashes and 115 German pilots killed on the F-104 in non-combat missions, along with allegations of bribes culminating in the Lockheed scandal), Hartmann's outspoken criticism proved unpopular with his superiors. General Werner Panitzki, successor to General Josef Kammhuber as Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, said, "Erich is a good pilot, but not a good officer." Hartmann was forced into early retirement in 1970."
The Bundesluftwaffe had a lot of problems with it, but it worked well for the Norwegians and the Spanish. However, the Luftwaffe was a relatively young airforce with many young pilots, and ground crew. Some of the crashes were due to pilot error, and some were due to bad maintenance.
The Spanish and Norwegian air forces were smaller and had more continuity, along with more experienced pilots. I think the F104 was a reasonable choice for most NATO countries, but there were better options for Germany. Changing the mission from day fighter to all-weather nuclear strike caused problems.
The Spanish and Norwegian air forces were smaller and had more continuity, along with more experienced pilots. I think the F104 was a reasonable choice for most NATO countries, but there were better options for Germany. Changing the mission from day fighter to all-weather nuclear strike caused problems.
I think for NATO at that time the Mirage series was the best all round multi role fighter. Maybe the Draken would be a good choice too if Dassault was reluctant to sell to some countries. The Super Tiger is another good one. The F104 never made any sense to me at all. I don't think the BAC Lightning could have been adapted to be a decent multi role type. It was too specialised and short legged, but I don't think it would have been any worse a choice than the Starfighter.
Riain
Banned
The F104G had about 3200 litre of fuel for its single engine, so certainly wasn't long ranged compared to the Lightning which had 5700 litres for its two engines. Also just because the Lightning wasn't developed into a multirole aircraft doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Indeed. The Lightning was perpetually just about to be replaced by something, so it never received the upgrades and modifications that other aircraft did. And when those replacements failed to enter service for one reason or another, as inevitably always happened, the Lightning was left to soldier on with increasingly dated systems. Almost any effort at all put into serious upgrades or development of the airframe would have resulted in a more capable aircraft.
Edit: whoops, didn't look at the photo properly.
Delta Force
Banned
Didn't it eventually retire in the 1980s with vintage 1950s equipment? The same thing happened to the F-106.
Yep, look at the photo Riain posted. That's a Saudi Lightning, and off the top of my head they had additional fuel tankage and could carry bombs and rockets.
Riain
Banned
94 of the 216 single seat lightnings built for the RAF were built with or converted to the big belly fuel tank, which gave a flight endurance of 1 1/2 to 2 hours without the overwing ferry tanks. This endurance is similar to that of other fighters of the era, except the outlier Phantom. These big belly aircraft were the ones which served into the 70s and 80s.
Barry Bull
Donor
In the 1960-70 era, F-104G got the best avionics for low level air-ground strike missions (It has terrain avoidance tech) for US combat aircrafts that can be purchased by US Allies. The only other US combat aircrafts that, (i) had the same class of avionics; (ii) relatively affordable; (iii) and available for export was the A-4/7, but A-4/7 was of course not a true fighter despite being a good dogfighter.
Other light US fighters, like F-5 series just did not have the necessary avionics.
F-105 was designed for (nuclear) strike missions, but the USA did not want to export it.
As for other combat aircrafts produced by the West, Blackburn Buccaneer got good avionics for strike missions, but no one would be crazy enough to use it as a fighter.
The French Mirage III series, while arguable serving the same role as F-104 series, got poorer avionics and suffered from engine problems. The Mirage IIIE, which was the first variant of the series that received avionics upgrade and was used as in same role as F-104G, entered service in mid 60s while F-104G entered service with the Luftwaffe in July 1960.
Last edited:
Erich Hartmann votes no
"Hartmann considered the F-104 a fundamentally flawed and unsafe aircraft and strongly opposed its adoption by the Luftwaffe. Although events subsequently validated his low opinion of the aircraft (282 crashes and 115 German pilots killed on the F-104 in non-combat missions, along with allegations of bribes culminating in the Lockheed scandal), Hartmann's outspoken criticism proved unpopular with his superiors. General Werner Panitzki, successor to General Josef Kammhuber as Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, said, "Erich is a good pilot, but not a good officer." Hartmann was forced into early retirement in 1970."
Erich Hartmann voted no, but Steinhoff and Rall voted to look into the matter and indeed rectified it. Faulty training. Too many countries had too few problems with the Starfighter for it to be otherwise.
The Starfighter was very cheap and very available at that moment. It was also easy to maintain. Other aircraft couldn't meet as many criteria. The big belly Lightning wasn't there then, and couldn't fly fast and low, and carry anything, costed more, and had maintenance issues. The Thud was nice, but pricey. At the time, the 104 was the best deal in town.
Barry Bull
Donor
Hartmann's criticism is not completely meritless, but it is also a purely pilot-oriented perspective. One need to remember the mission specification of the Luftwaffe at that particular period of time to understand why the Luftwaffe chose F-104G. The bribery scandal probably had relatively little effect in the final choice.
Delta Force
Banned
If reliability was a concern, the Luftwaffe could have bought relatively off the shelf Skyhawk nuclear attack variants.