The worst fighter...

[Flying Penguin]

In the fairness to the F-104G a lot of the accidents it was involved in were the result of poor training of the pilots. Many german pilots at the beginning of the Starfighter career in the luftwaffe found themselves in a machine that was very unforgiving without knowing well what expected them.

You could probably say the same of the poor sods that flew the Me-163...

Over such a long career it's not surprising that many were lost. IIRC the F-101B also saw the loss of more than 30% of its fleet in USAF service, so nothing new here.

My point was more that the myth of the Luftwaffe suffering massive losses is a bit overblown by comparison to other users who used it over a similar time frame.

Cheers

Jamie

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Was the Javelin that bad? I think it met the Air Ministry spec didn't it by the time the later marks came out (albeit it had taken some 10 years to get there!)?

Thats is standard practice for a British fighter. Even the Typhoon was released to service long before it was fully capable of fulfilling its mission.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

The terrible accident rate suffered by the Germans was down to them using it in a role and environment it was totally unsuited for - a *very* fast aeroplane, which was notorious for biting pilots on the bum if they didn't keep on top of it.... used as a low level strike fighter in a part of the world which frequently experiences inclement weather. Recipe for disaster.

I've read that the accident rate improved drastically once a proper training regime was implemented.

[Giorgio N]

The only people that kept them for long were those nations that since WW2 haven't exactly shown their willingness to spend the money needed to stay on the bleeding edge of military tech...

Sorry, it's not true. It was kept in service by most NATO forces for many years (more than 20) because it was found to be an effective low level strike machine. The high wing loading made it very comfortable to fly, it small size and small frontal area made it very difficult for the radars to track and the small drag and high thrust made it very fast. During the 60's and 70's the F-104 contributed more than any other tactical plane to the nuclear retaliation capability in Europe. And among the same countries that in your opinion had no willingness to spend were those that bought hundreds of F-16s when these became available. Those that didn't buy the hundreds of F-16 had no problem in co-developing the Tornado, that then went on to replace the F-104 in the same strike roles. Other forces had again no problem in buying phantoms for the air defence role while keeping the starfighter as a striker. Had these countries been so unwilling to spend money, they wouldn't have bought these. Not to mention that the same countries kept buying thousands of tanks during the same years.

It's true that in the mid 80s the F-104 was no longer modern enough. Yet the lightning wasn't any more modern yet it was still serving and so were other oldies.

[The Velociweiler]

The inception of most of today's Air Forces (or assocated Air Arms) naturally form by evolution from either an Army or Navy requirement - occasionally both - respective to the requirements of that original Nation. The settled culture being of 'top down' establishment of tactical and strategic requirements, reply to threat posed from the potential enemy by the Senior Staff of those Armed Forces. That culture stood in diametric opposition to the establishment of the Air Arms - the requirements and tactics, and the equipment and industrial needs of which frequently brushed badly against the various Navies and Armies because the requirements were almost exclusively being identified by quite junior personnel, who frequently had few sympathetic advocates among the Senior or Political levels . Even quite latterly the equipment, tactics and strategy of Air Forces have been dictated by Political requirements, rather than observed Military need or developed requirement (Tornado F3 was a fighter born of Politics, as - essentially was the Eurofighter Typhoon).

It's probably a bit too easy to define a poor fighter with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight and a century of associated Political and Inter-Service pitfalls and obstacles to negotiate - the Turret-armed fighter a good point in fact. Seemed a solid enough concept on paper and even the performance through parts of the Battle of Britain demonstrated the Defiant could hold its own using developed tactics to the satisfaction of its own pilots. You also have to remember that the RAF itself was extremely resistant to the development of effective high-performance Fighters during the inter-war period again for Political reasons. At the start, they had no particular fondness for the aircraft that became the Spitfire, the Mosquito and even the Harrier. If you see a fighter that was considerably less than it should have been, there are frequently historical, Political and industrial compexities associated with the story that need to be taken into account.

[Flying Penguin]

It was kept in service by most NATO forces for many years (more than 20) because it was found to be an effective low level strike machine.

But either way, the question was about fighters, not strike aircraft.

The high wing loading made it very comfortable to fly, it small size and small frontal area made it very difficult for the radars to track and the small drag and high thrust made it very fast. During the 60's and 70's the F-104 contributed more than any other tactical plane to the nuclear retaliation capability in Europe. And among the same countries that in your opinion had no willingness to spend were those that bought hundreds of F-16s when these became available.

Yes, but most didn't go through the iterations to get there, therefore, at some point, they must have been a generation behind, ergo, not on the bleeding edge, which was my point. And Italy in particular, F-16A's weren't exactly cutting edge in 2003 when they got them were they?

Those that didn't buy the hundreds of F-16 had no problem in co-developing the Tornado, that then went on to replace the F-104 in the same strike roles. Other forces had again no problem in buying phantoms for the air defence role while keeping the starfighter as a striker.

So it wasn't a terrible fighter because it was long lived in the strike role?

Had these countries been so unwilling to spend money, they wouldn't have bought these. Not to mention that the same countries kept buying thousands of tanks during the same years.

Everything wears out, my point was that they were happy to be a bit "behind the curve", not that they were still flying Fokker Triplanes!

It's true that in the mid 80s the F-104 was no longer modern enough. Yet the lightning wasn't any more modern yet it was still serving and so were other oldies.

But the Lightning was still in its primary role. Does that mean it was better or worse or just that we were even further behind the curve? I'm not going to speculate, but then again it did get a longer career "in the air defence role" than the F-104 in most operators hands.

Cheers

Jamie

Edited January 17, 2011 by Flying Penguin

[Flying Penguin]

The inception of most of today's Air Forces (or assocated Air Arms) naturally form by evolution from either an Army or Navy requirement - occasionally both - respective to the requirements of that original Nation. The settled culture being of 'top down' establishment of tactical and strategic requirements, reply to threat posed from the potential enemy by the Senior Staff of those Armed Forces. That culture stood in diametric opposition to the establishment of the Air Arms - the requirements and tactics, and the equipment and industrial needs of which frequently brushed badly against the various Navies and Armies because the requirements were almost exclusively being identified by quite junior personnel, who frequently had few sympathetic advocates among the Senior or Political levels . Even quite latterly the equipment, tactics and strategy of Air Forces have been dictated by Political requirements, rather than observed Military need or developed requirement (Tornado F3 was a fighter born of Politics, as - essentially was the Eurofighter Typhoon).

It's probably a bit too easy to define a poor fighter with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight and a century of associated Political and Inter-Service pitfalls and obstacles to negotiate - the Turret-armed fighter a good point in fact. Seemed a solid enough concept on paper and even the performance through parts of the Battle of Britain demonstrated the Defiant could hold its own using developed tactics to the satisfaction of its own pilots. You also have to remember that the RAF itself was extremely resistant to the development of effective high-performance Fighters during the inter-war period again for Political reasons. At the start, they had no particular fondness for the aircraft that became the Spitfire, the Mosquito and even the Harrier. If you see a fighter that was considerably less than it should have been, there are frequently historical, Political and industrial compexities associated with the story that need to be taken into account.

Can't argue with any of that, it's all 20:20 hindsight, but to be regarded as the best fighter, you have to combine design genius, clear focus on and massive over capability in intended role, superiority over opponents encountered, being the right fighter for the situation, some charisma, some pilot skill and quite honestly a heap of luck... Same the other way, which was the worst suited for the context it found itself in?

Cheers

Jamie

[Giorgio N]

But either way, the question was about fighters, not strike aircraft.

Yes, you're right from this point of view, it served well as a strike plane but didn't do great as a pure fighter. Mind, each version is also a different story: The F-104A didn't do well, the C did ok in Vietnam as an attack plane, and the G was a very good striker. The proved to be a valid interceptor, expecially with the more modern Aspide missiles. So much that when the Tornado F-3 was leased to replace some of the Starfighters, it was found lacking in some aspects compared to the older plane. The italian F-16s are easily explained: they are not cutting edge but they are just intended as a stopgap before the EF-2000 enters full service. And the same Italy was one of the initial partner of this project, so the intention of being at the edge was there, then the post cold war events have had the impact we all know.

It's interesting to compare the F-104S and the Lightning: as a dogfighter the lightning was much better than the F-104S, as demonstrated plenty of times at the Decimomannu range, but as a defence system the F-104S was way better than the Red Top armed lightning. The Starfighter showed overall a better growth... or maybe the growth capability of the lightning was never really exploited ( I believe this was the case)

Japan on the other hand kept the F-104 in service for 20 years as pure fighters. Now Japan is known for its pacifist approach, yet it's a country that spends a lot of money in defence systems and never had problems in buying advanced systems (F-15, Aegis ships). Guess that if they were happy enough with the zipper as a fighter it wasn't that bad ?

Mind, I'll never say that the F-104 was the best jet fighter ever, far from it. But it wasn't the worst, there have been much worse !

[Enzo the Magnificent]

or maybe the growth capability of the lightning was never really exploited ( I believe this was the case)

It certainly was from a range point of view. The Lightning F1 could just about defend the county it launched from. The F6 had a better range but even so it still needed Tansor support.

[Tashengurt]

Nimrod? TAXI!!!

[Flying Penguin]

Nimrod? TAXI!!!

Hawker or Hawker Siddeley?

If Hawker Siddeley, then I'd give it 10/10 for awesomeness in the fighter role, even if it would have been naff against anything but an Argie 707...

Cheers

Jamie

Edited January 17, 2011 by Flying Penguin

[Ingo Degenhardt]

On the accident rate for the Starfighter I read somewhere a very long time ago that the loss rate was not dissimilar to the much loved Lightning and that the F104 loss rate was highlightened for political reasons. Anyone know if there is substance to that?

Comparing flying hours the F-84 had an even higher loss rate with the Luftwaffe than the F-104, but that's seldom mentioned, let alone common knowledge over here.

You may be right - the so-called "Lockheed-affair" (suspected bribery etc.) and may be the hi-tech appearance of the F-104 plus the Luftwaffe going supersonic-hype in those days may have contributed to the extreme media interest in Starfighter crashes.

(I rembember this old joke...."how to get an F-104?" Buy a stretch of land, sit down and wait.)

[-Neu-]

Postwar there've been plenty of bad ones ! The Swft has been rightly mentioned, but a lot of the first jet fighters proved quite poor, expecially those intended for carrier use: the Attacker wasn't great, the Vought Pirate wasn't either, and the same applies to the FH Phantom, or the Fireball or even the Cutlass.

Woah woah woah.... lets not throw the baby out with the bath water! The Attacker wasn't great and the Pirate was terrible, but the FH-1 Phantom wasn't a bad plane at all. It (like the Cutlass) had less than satisfactory engine performance... but in the case of the Phantom it was pretty good for 1946/1947.. its just that in 1949 the first true second generation engines appeared and made everything look shabby by comparison. Everything else about the plane was pretty modern, much of which would live on in the Banshee.

[Speckled Jim]

Anything thats not a fighter.... like a Jumbo... heheh Imagine Air Force One with Machine guns on it!

I'll get my coat

[Vulcanicity]

I'd go with the Roc. And, for that matter, the Skua, which was of course designed as a dive-bomber/fighter.Maybe a hint of what was to come in terms of multi-role capability, but a singularly daft concept in the late 1930s when engines and other systems just couldn't make it manouevrable enough to be a fighter or carry a meaningful load as a bomber.

I know precious little about Russian hardware, but wasn't the LAGG.3 pretty much a death trap?

I guess a lot of what we see as "dreadful fighters" were simply dreadful at the time they came to be used in action. I mean, the Gladiator was a pretty awful fighter by the standards of 1940 and had a poor war record, but in 1936 was pretty cutting edge and could have dominated most opponents with the exception of the (then) handful of new-generation monplanes.

[Pielstick]

but wasn't the LAGG.3 pretty much a death trap?

It was perfectly capable of holding its own against the 109 and 190 at low level. The problem with the LaGG 3 was quality control - they were building them so fast because of the desperate situation a great many of them left the factories with serious manufacturing defects.

Put yourself in the shoes of a LaGG 3 factory manager in 1941. You are told you will produce 30 aircraft a day otherwise you and your family will be sent to the gulag - you can quite imagine quality control goes out the window.

[pigsty]

Red Bit

Canada: 62 - 87

Luftwaffe: 63 -87 (front line service)

So they are pretty comparable.

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I wasn't comparing Canada with Germany; I was suggesting that the true loss rate has to be measured against longevity. All aircraft fleets will, if they're used long enough, tend towards a loss rate of 100%. The real question is, how long does it take to lose a set percentage of your fleet? The figures seem to be:

F-104 (Germany): 30% over 24 years = 10% in 8 years

F-104 (Canada): 50% over 25 years = 10% in 5 years

A-4G (RAN): 50% over 16 years (1967 - 1983) = 10% in 3.2 years

So that makes the A-4G about 1.6 times as "deadly" as the F-104 in Canadian service, and 2.5 times as "deadly" as the F-104 in German service. Yet the A-4G doesn't have a reputation as a killer. Possibly this is because other air arms had better luck with the Skyhawk; or possibly it's because the F-104's record has passed into legend while other equally bad records have been overlooked. As always, context is everything.

Edited January 17, 2011 by pigsty

[Tony Whittingham]

Hi All,

There's a lot of history of countries passing their cast offs to their allies. Most of these were good fighters, but well past the "sell by" date when passed on. For example Brewster Corsairs (or Bermuda) My worst fighter selection might include (IMHO) Bell Airacuda, Bristol M1, re-engined (Jumo) Bf109. Basically, these were aeroplanes more dangerous to their crews than the enemy!

On the subject of Starfighters, I seem to remember that the Luftwaffe experience was corrected by more rigorous training, IIRC

[upnorth]

Interesting commentary so far.

With regards to the US Navy jets of the early/mid 50s, one really must be careful in criticising the aircraft design. It is said that Westinghouse engines crippled an entire generation of US Navy fighter aircraft.

The F-104, EE Lightning, Javelin, F-102 and F-101 which have all been mentioned here were thouroughbred interceptors, not fighters proper. The fighter mission and the interceptor mission are rather different things. To measure an interceptor with the fighter's measuring stick, or vice versa, rather makes the whole point moot.

As for fighters, one that I can think of was the Avia S.199 Mezek. The Czechoslovak crossbreed of a Bf-109G with a Jumo bomber engine and prop. Unforgiving handling qualities, proned to ground looping on take offs and landings, a complete airframe/engine mismatch and required a VERY savvy and attentive pilot to operate it successfully.

It didn't really have too long a career in Czechoslovak hands and I understand they were more than happy to hand their fleet off to the Israelis.

[ssculptor]

The Starfighter? I know it was widely bought and generally long serving, but the terrible peacetime accident rate can't be simply written off as "teething issues"... For a fighter not built by people who were being bombed on a daily basis, that's gotta count as a screw up....

Jamie

The Starfighter was popular through the efforts of the US Government and the executives and salesmen of the manufacturer. It has been revealed that there was a great deal of hanky-panky (bribery) and arm twisting (by the government) in getting the F-104 accepted by the countries that adopted it. It was hard on the pilots who were killed but the politicians and company executives were pleased.

Ssculptor

[ssculptor]

Interesting commentary so far.

With regards to the US Navy jets of the early/mid 50s, one really must be careful in criticising the aircraft design. It is said that Westinghouse engines crippled an entire generation of US Navy fighter aircraft.

The F-104, EE Lightning, Javelin, F-102 and F-101 which have all been mentioned here were thouroughbred interceptors, not fighters proper. The fighter mission and the interceptor mission are rather different things. To measure an interceptor with the fighter's measuring stick, or vice versa, rather makes the whole point moot.

As for fighters, one that I can think of was the Avia S.199 Mezek. The Czechoslovak crossbreed of a Bf-109G with a Jumo bomber engine and prop. Unforgiving handling qualities, proned to ground looping on take offs and landings, a complete airframe/engine mismatch and required a VERY savvy and attentive pilot to operate it successfully.

It didn't really have too long a career in Czechoslovak hands and I understand they were more than happy to hand their fleet off to the Israelis.

And the Israeli's were happy to replace them with Spitfires and later, P-51D's. But when all one has is a plane like the Avia S.199 one does the best one can.

Stephen

[ssculptor]

Lets be a bit easy in the criticism we levy on the early jet planes of the 1940-50 era.

Jet engines were a new, very complex technology as was the development of the aircraft which were powered by these new powerplants.

The navy and the aircraft manufacturers were developing new missions for the airplanes as well as experimenting with the new jet engines and playing with swept wing designs. This explains how some of these designs were actually produced. After all, the only way to see if a plane will do what is expected of it is to produce some and then assign them to an aircraft carrier based squadron. At first, the Navy was leery of trusting their airplanes with new jet engines alone so they had planes powered by both piston and jet engines. Then they had to accept swept wing technology with great trepidation as the aircraft carrier has much more stringent landing parameters than a land based plane. That is why the Fury, the Navy version of the F-86 Saberjet, started out with a straight wing. Later versions had the swept wing of the Air Force fighter.

Another factor was the necessity of meeting the threats of the Russian jet fighters and bombers as soon as possible. Thus these new designs were rushed into production.

So let us be a bit light with our criticism of the aircraft of that era. The engineers, designers and military were really blazing new trails.

ssculptor

[Paul J]

The Starfighter was popular through the efforts of the US Government and the executives and salesmen of the manufacturer. It has been revealed that there was a great deal of hanky-panky (bribery) and arm twisting (by the government) in getting the F-104 accepted by the countries that adopted it. It was hard on the pilots who were killed but the politicians and company executives were pleased.

Ssculptor

Have you heard or have in possesion the 1970s album by Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters? It was the work of one of the guys from Hawkwind and was a parody on the F-104 being sold to Germany. Quite amusing but did illustarte an element of truth behind the dealings. Google it or see if you can get a copy. Its a good listen.

[darson]

A-4G (RAN): 50% over 16 years (1967 - 1983) = 10% in 3.2 years

So that makes the A-4G about 1.6 times as "deadly" as the F-104 in Canadian service, and 2.5 times as "deadly" as the F-104 in German service. Yet the A-4G doesn't have a reputation as a killer. Possibly this is because other air arms had better luck with the Skyhawk; or possibly it's because the F-104's record has passed into legend while other equally bad records have been overlooked. As always, context is everything.

Another factor to take into account there Sean is that the RAN only operated 18 A-4G and 2 TA-4G airframes in total. So 9 aircraft lost in carrier operations over a period 16 years is not bad going, this compares to the US Navy who lost 271 A-4s during the Vietnam (combat losses included) period alone. So a raw percentage doesn't give you the whole picture unless you know how many airframes that percentage is made up of.

Cheers

[Flying Penguin]

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I wasn't comparing Canada with Germany;

No, I think the misunderstanding is the other way around, I was comparing Canada with Germany, attempting to show that the much talked about "Luftwaffe issue" wasn't a Germany specific problem. Any comparison with the A-4 in any service is irrelevant, no matter how bad their loss rate. Anyhow, comparing a carrier based aircraft to a land based one isn't exactly a fair comparison given the hazards of carrier ops.

Regards,

Jamie