Cutlass and Tiger, why no kits

[Graham Boak]

Re the success or not of the Scimitar, I think it is best summed up by the quote attributed to a deckie on a US carrier.  "Only the British would build something with that much thrust just to go subsonic."

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello Giorgio

F-104 A was a light interceptor with significantly shorter range and half the AA missile armament of F11F-1. Unlike the Tiger, she also lacked provision to carry bombs and rockets. Much later F-104 S turned out to be a very cost-effective air defence aircraft, but F-104 G had never been more than adequate in a strike role and even less so as a conventional ground attacker. I have no idea how Tiger would have turned out if further development would have been forced upon her but she would, in comparison with Starfighter at least, certainly have had a head start. Cheers

Jure

[Giorgio N]

18 minutes ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello Giorgio

F-104 A was a light interceptor with significantly shorter range and half the AA missile armament of F11F-1. Unlike the Tiger, she also lacked provision to carry bombs and rockets. Much later F-104 S turned out to be a very cost-effective air defence aircraft, but F-104 G had never been more than adequate in a strike role and even less so as a conventional ground attacker. I have no idea how Tiger would have turned out if further development would have been forced upon her but she would, in comparison with Starfighter at least, certainly have had a head start. Cheers

Jure

 

The wing design of the Tiger was not optimised for low level penetration missions but was designed for manouverability at high altitude.

The F-104 wing on the other hand was perfect for this kind of mission, with a low aspect ratio and a relatively high wing load. and the Starfighter could operate well at what were in the days very low levels.

It is also not true that the F-104 was born as an interceptor, Kelly Johnson designed the type as an air superiority fighter. Yes, it may sound strange but the root of the Starfighter program was in the Korean War and the design was the result of ideas that Johnson developed after analysing reports from that conflict and interviewing many pilots then serving in Korea. The USAF introduced the type in service as an interceptor only because other types were having problems and were delayed from entering service.

[jpk]

The wing on the F11 was strong enough, even though it was thin, to carry a 500lb bomb on the outer pylon and 1000lb bomb on the inner one, perhaps not together. The Tiger was a much stronger aircraft than at first look. As with many USN designs in the 50's the engine was the thing that hindered the designs. The Tiger had pretty much the same engine as the FJ-3/3M Fury, the Wright J65 the difference being the Tiger's J65 had an afterburner.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello Giorgio

True, Tiger was not suitable for low level strike or ground attack role. Neither was Starfighter. F-104 G had had her entire structure beefed up, got increased vertical tail and had navigational and attack systems, fuel cells and hard points added. Increased weight and strain of low level high speed flying took their tool on both planes and pilots; no wonder literally hundreds of F-104 Gs had been lost on these training missions with many of their pilots killed.

Agreed, in 1953 Starfighter would have made short work of MiG-15, but by 1957 the only role she had been suitable for was a point interceptor. USAF had cut their F-104 A order by a three quarters and even so three squadrons equipped with the type passed their aircraft to ANG after only a year in service. I have always been amazed how such seemingly unpromising aircraft had been developed into a relatively sophisticated BVR weapon system as F-104 S. That said, I still think Tiger, and especially Super Tiger, would have made better basis for further development than Starfighter. Cheers

Jure

[jpk]

1 hour ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello Giorgio

True, Tiger was not suitable for low level strike or ground attack role. Neither was Starfighter. F-104 G had had her entire structure beefed up, got increased vertical tail and had navigational and attack systems, fuel cells and hard points added. Increased weight and strain of low level high speed flying took their tool on both planes and pilots; no wonder literally hundreds of F-104 Gs had been lost on these training missions with many of their pilots killed.

Agreed, in 1953 Starfighter would have made short work of MiG-15, but by 1957 the only role she had been suitable for was a point interceptor. USAF had cut their F-104 A order by a three quarters and even so three squadrons equipped with the type passed their aircraft to ANG after only a year in service. I have always been amazed how such seemingly unpromising aircraft had been developed into a relatively sophisticated BVR weapon system as F-104 S. That said, I still think Tiger, and especially Super Tiger, would have made better basis for further development than Starfighter. Cheers

Jure

The F-104 was an airforce exercise in sticking the engine with the most available thrust into the smallest possible airframe. It really was a jet powered airplane analog to the rocket powered X-15. It made for great publicity for the USAF, "The missile with a man in it". Great for recruiting no doubt. I remember it was a popular model when I was a kit. It looked like it was going fast while standing still. Had a great name too with the dawn of the space age, Starfighter"!  However it really wasn't even a decent point defense interceptor. I also remember them painting them in SEA camo, pretty much a waste of paint. 

[Giorgio N]

Jure, we should separate the operational issues of the Starfighter from its design, as the former do not descend directly from the latter...

Starting with the original F-104A, the USAF simply did not want a high performance day fighter as envisioned by Kelly Johnson. That was the main problem of the F-104 with the USAF, it was a type without a clear place in their structure and this was the main reason why they got rid of them quite quickly. The original F-104A was used as interceptor for a short time but the problem was that it could not be integrated within the SAGE system used by the ADC and NORAD. The USAF didn't care about the performance of the F-104, they preferred something much less performing like the F-102 because this was properly compatible with their air defence philosophy.

And yes, the G variant was internally redesigned for its mission, but this did the job without the need for large aerodynamic redesign. Apart from the larger tail that however had already been developed for the TF and so did not require further study. And the G was a great aircraft at very low level ! The operational issues and the high loss rates with this aircraft were mainly due to training problems and to the simple fact that flying at 300 ft over Europe with manual controls only was and still is a very dangerous job. The F-104 didn't suffer from particular structural problems in this environment and Starfighters kept flying low level missions til the day they were retired. As said before, low aspect ratio and high wing loading, the best when it comes to good high speed low level performance as makes for a smoother ride and gives less structural problems.

Now why was the F-104S succesful as an interceptor where the original F-104A was not ? Sure, the Sparrow capability was important but even more important was the fact that the F-104S was part of a defence system centred around this type and its capabilities. That is just the thousands example of the fact that it is not much the capabilities of an aircraft that matter but how much these are used to their best advantage as part of a system made of the aircraft, the tactics, the training syllabus and all the supporting infrastructure.

 

The Tiger was from certain points of view a better fighter than the F-104 as was manouverable (hence the success story with the Blue Angels) but really its configuration was not the right one for low level flight, The Super Tiger could have made a great fighter, at least if enough fuel could be squeezed in, but really with something like the Crusader and the Phantom already in service, there was little reason to go ahead with the project. And there was no place in the various NATO air forces for something like that

Edited March 31, 2020 by Giorgio N

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello Giorgio

Yes, by the late 50' USAF was bent on building a sophisticated long range missile carrying interceptor force but even if that would not have been the case, I doubt early F-104s were capable of much more than a point defense. During India - Pakistan wars Pakistan air force F-104 A scored between four and nine AA victories against four to seven aircraft lost in air-to-air combat with India air force aircraft. Pakistani Starfighters made no claims against, but nevertheless suffered three aircraft shot down to Indian MiG-21 fighters. In his book F-104 Starfighter units in combat (Osprey) Peter E. Davis mentions only one skirmish of four Republic of China Canadair F-104 Starfighters with eight Peoples republic of China J-6/MiG-19 fighters in which two J-6s had been claimed destroyed against one Starfighter lost and her pilot killed. Many aircraft types fared much worse, but nevertheless this is hardly a sterling record.

Low aspect ratio wing allows for lighter structure, no arguing about it. Due to its higher wing loading it is also less susceptible to turbulence, another advantage when flying at low level. The other side of that coin is plane's increased reaction time to pilot's commands. As a partial remedy F-104s wing anhedral, which helps to increase initial rate of roll, was set as high as 10°, four times the amount of anhedral on Tiger and Super Tiger. Still, manoeuvreability remained F-104's weak point and for Lockheed Lancer much larger wing had been considered.

High aspect ratio wing as such is not necessarily a disadvantage in low level operations. One only has to make wing stiffer (higher weight) or accept more frequent wing changes due to fatigue (higher cost). Sukhoi Su-7, a standard Warsaw pact low level ground attack and strike single-seater in 60' and 70' had much higher wing aspect ratio than F-104, but I do not recall reading about excessive loss ratio of this type. Egyptians routinely used Sukhois (and converted MiG-17 fighter-bombers) on SEAD missions against Israelis from as low as 20 m above ground. Admittedly, these missions had been flown over more suitable terrain and in better weather conditions than usually encountered over Central Europe. However, no German Starfighter on training mission ever ran into AAA fire, Hawk missiles or Israeli interceptors no matter how bad the weather may have been. And yet Germany lost slightly less than one third of their 900 or so F-104s in accidents. Apparently, Republic of China suffered even higher accident attrition rate with their early F-104s (58 of 163, according to Davis' book) despite their use of the type mainly as an interceptors and not as a ground attack aircraft.

Then there is a question of what some of the countries, that eventually purchased or license-built Starfighter, really wanted. Japanese wanted a modern air-defence fighter and Super Tiger was right down their alley. Some western Europe countries were far from enthusiastic about even more of their aircraft flying strike missions, as this would increase probability of themselves becoming a tactical nuclear battlefield. Even in BRD, always keen to please USA with weapon purchases, some palms had been greased to close a deal. Anyone interested in learning more can start with this Wikipedia page.

Sorry about the lengthy post. Anyway ... I am not a great fan of F-104 as a ground attacker, although a F-104 S version was, just like Soviet MiG-21 bis, a good example of very cost-efficient BVR fighter. In my opinion, had the type been developed further, Super Tiger would have done even better. Cheers

Jure

[Giorgio N]

Jure

this is an interesting discussion, although slightly off topic in regard to the thread.

I will just add a couple of general comments.

Low aspect ratio is not only useful at low level because results in stifffer wings, it also leads to less sensitivity to turbulence, that is not only another aspect contributing to a longer operational life but makes for a smoother ride. Yes, the Su-7 had a high  aspect ratio wing, but this type was not capable of flying at low lever and high speed for as long as the Starfighter.

When it comes to loss rates in general, it's important to look at the overall career of a type and the F-104 was really not worse than its contemporaries in this respect. Yes, Germany lost almost one third of their Starfighter fleet over the 27 years the type served in the Luftwaffe (and Marineflieger) but at the same time the USAF lost 20% of all their F-101Bs during a 10 year period and yet the USAF claimed that this type was the safest in their inventory. And we're talking of an aircraft that usually operated at high level, where pilot errors were easier to recover from compared to blasting at 300 ft at high speed. In the same 10 years, Spain lost zero Starfighter.

Similar accident rates were seen in other types: a couple years ago I got some data on the Lightning, and the accident rate was similar to the Starfighter, if not slightly higher. In particular the number of accidents due to failures was higher on the Lightning, while pilot errors were more prominent on the Starfighter.. again, high level flying is more forgiving.

I don't have accident rates data for the Su-7, I've read that the type had at some point a worrying accident rate in Soviet service but "worrying" is not a number and I prefer to compare numbers rather than hearsay.

I also don't have accident rates data for the Tiger, and maybe it's better not to have them... USN jets from the era suffered a huge number of accidents as flying off a carrier is maybe the least safe situation for any aircraft type. The slightly later F-8 had an accident rate of 46 per 100,000 hours and at some point the type suffered 234 accidents every 100,000 hours. Of the 1,200 Cursaders built for the Navy, around 510 were lost to accidents and the French Navy lost 64% of their Crusader fleet.

Of course the Tiger will always be remembered for the well known accident where one aircraft "shot itself down" by ingesting in the engine some bullets fired during a trial...

 

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello Giorgio

Interesting debate, yes, although we have drifted somewhat from original topic. Tiger, shooting down herself, makes for an amusing anecdote, especially as her pilot got of with only slight back injury and flew again withing half a year. Interestingly, the aircraft nearly made it back to the airport when one of four grenades, which she had ran into earlier, dislodged herself from an air intake lip and finished off already severely damaged engine. The aircraft's final approach ended in trees some 500 m from the runway threshold. Apparently, one of the USAF F-100 also managed to shot herself down in similar fashion sometime later.

US Navy and Marines Crusader's 39% accident loss rate is high, but surely over 13% losses to all causes during Vietnam war cruises and land based deployments should be taken into account? I understand Aeronavale lost 21 out of 42 Crusaders destroyed with another four written-off in accidents. 64% is very high attrition rate by any standards. As you said, deck operations are dangerous and not many naval aircraft anywhere in the world enjoyed low-accident rate service. Incidentally, one of such types was F11F-1 Tiger which by 1958 had flown over 13000 fatality free flight hours with US Navy. One of its squadrons, Advanced Training Unit 222 Griffins (renamed VT-23 Griffins in 1960), accumulated 6060 and 10163 accident free flight hours in 1959 and 1960 respectively , with 225 students graduating from unit's advanced supersonic flying course in the process. The unit had been awarded two consecutive annual Chief of Naval Operations Safety Awards for this effort.

Spain lost none of its 21 Starfighters in seven years' service and accumulated 17500 flight hours, which is about 10% more than above mentioned Griffins' Tigers accumulated in just two years. Another Starfighter operator with relatively low accident rate was Norway, which lost six of its 45 aircraft. Spain operated its F-104s as interceptors, as did Norway (along with a handful of RF-104 G interceptors/reconnaissance aircraft) up to 1973 when a second squadron had been formed as an anti-shipping unit. In contrast Canada lost 110 out of its 239 Canadair F-104 and F-104 D aircraft, an attrition rate of more than 46 %. A majority of Canadian Starfighters had been flown as either strike aircraft or as low level conventional ground attack aircraft since 1972. I believe these numbers, along with nearly one third of German Starfighters lost, mostly on low-level training missions, clearly show that F-104 had not been suitable for low level flying. Cheers

Jure

 

[Giorgio N]

Jure, the numbers I quoted for the Crusader are aircraft lost due to accidents only, combat losses in Vietnam are not included. If you add these into the mix, the number of lost aircraft gets even higher.

In any case the total number of aircraft lost is not really an indication of how dangerous an aircraft is if it's not related to the number of flight hours. Germany may have lost almost one third of their fleet but this happened in approximately 2 milion flight hours. Total accident rate for the 104 in Germany was around 14-15 per 100,000 hours. Other air forces in Europe had similar results. The previous generation of aircraft was much worse, the Sabre in European service generally had accident rates in the 20-25 range while the accident rate of the Thunderjet in some countries went over 40.

Really if we compare the overall accident rate of the Starfighter to the other conteporary fighters, we have similar figures, meaning that even with the continuous use at low level the Starfighter was just as dangerous as most figthers of the era. I see that you are convinced that the large number of accidents that occurred at low level should imply that the type was not adequate for this use, but the reality is that any aircraft at low level is in a more dangerous environment for many reasons. Canada lost 110 Starighters but for example 14 were due to bird strikes... any other aircraft would have been lost in the same situation. And the large number of pilot errors that led to losses in low level flight would have not been different in another aircraft.. at least not in another aircraft with no automatic ground following system as the ones employed by later designs.

 

A similar problem affects types like the Tiger: yes there were times when the Tiger enjoyed a small number of accidents but this was always with land based units. In carrier service things change a lot and changed even more with the early types as their engines were not as reliable as today's. Furthermore, most early USN fighters tended to be at the lower end of the power necessary to safely operate from carriers. I don't have statistics for contemporary FAA types, would be interesting to be able to compare them, I have a feeling that accident rates would be similar. Maybe with the exception of the Cutlass, that had an extremely high accident rate.

Now around 25% of all F7U built were lost in accidents. This sounds good compared to the 33% suffered by the Luftwaffe F-104 fleet, however the number of hours flown was much lower and the accident rate for the Cutlass during its brief service was an incredible 175 per 100,000 flight hours. Of these, around 50% were attributed to pilot error and the accident rate in less experienced pilots was found to be much higher. There's a reason why the Cutlass was known as the "ensign eater"