Luftwaffe F-104G conventional ordnance

[Slater]

What type bombs, rockets, etc. did Luftwaffe F-104G's employ during their service? I would imagine that Mk 82's would have been part of their arsenal, but I don't recall any pictures documenting this.

[coneheadff]

Depending of the squadron it varied...fighter or fighter bomber.

 

Take a look over here...

 

F-104G weapons

 

It's in German, but I'm pretty sure you will find all the answers you're looking for.

 

Alex 

[Slater]

Good information, thanks. Looks like the F-104 was cleared for a wide range of munitions.

[coneheadff]

Well, that was one of the reasons for the many accidents the Starfighter had in Germany. 

They made a fighter bomber, a reconnaissance platform and a naval hunter out of a rocket which was developed to fight Russian bombers.

 

Not really the most "stable" platform for other tasks

[exdraken]

No Mk-82 back then, Luftwaffe used French Matra 250 kg bombs

 

There is a recent  thread somewhere here....

[Hook]

11 hours ago, exdraken said:

There is a recent  thread somewhere here....

 

This one, perchance?: 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre 

[CharlieGolf2009]

The Matra SAMP 25 500lbs/250kg bombs are hard to find in 1/72, if I'm not mistaken I've only seen them in Hobbyboss's Jaguar A and E model kits. And if you want to do a Luftwaffe F-104G or F-4F fighter bombers you'll certainly need them, unless you use the then ubiquitous BL-755 and be done with it. 

[Giorgio N]

On 2/27/2021 at 11:14 PM, coneheadff said:

Well, that was one of the reasons for the many accidents the Starfighter had in Germany. 

They made a fighter bomber, a reconnaissance platform and a naval hunter out of a rocket which was developed to fight Russian bombers.

 

Not really the most "stable" platform for other tasks

 

That the Starfighter was developed as an interceptor is a common myth that is however not correct: the F-104 was developed as a day fighter, not an interceptor ! Its intended targets were other fighters, not bombers and this is also shown by the fact that the armament and avionics were not the ones that Air Defence Command of the USAF were requesting on their interceptors in those years.

That the F-104 first entered service as an interceptor was only due to the delays and problems that were affecting other types but the lack of compatibility with the SAGE system meant this service was quite brief.

 

It should also be said that the F-104 was a very stable aircrat when used for ground attack missions. The real problem was it was also very unforgiving and this, coupled with a lack of training at the start of its Luftwaffe career, led to the high number of accidents

[coneheadff]

6 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

It should also be said that the F-104 was a very stable aircrat when used for ground attack missions. The real problem was it was also very unforgiving and this, coupled with a lack of training at the start of its Luftwaffe career, led to the high number of accidents

 

Absolutely and one should not forget that many countries flew the Starfighter without the problems the GAF experienced. 

 

[Starfighter]

 

4 minutes ago, coneheadff said:

 

Absolutely and one should not forget that many countries flew the Starfighter without the problems the GAF experienced. 

 

While on detachment at Decimomannu in the early 70's I got to " Socialising " with a Luftwaffe F - 104 pilot, and we discussed the differences between Phantom FGR 2's and F - 104G's, and I distinctly remember him saying what a good, stable platform the F - 104G was at low level, which surprised me. 🙂

[Giorgio N]

27 minutes ago, Starfighter said:

 

While on detachment at Decimomannu in the early 70's I got to " Socialising " with a Luftwaffe F - 104 pilot, and we discussed the differences between Phantom FGR 2's and F - 104G's, and I distinctly remember him saying what a good, stable platform the F - 104G was at low level, which surprised me. 🙂

 

It is not that surprising when considering the layout: high wing loading on a wing with small aspect ratio make for good stable behaviour at low level.

[rickshaw]

On 3/1/2021 at 9:38 PM, Giorgio N said:

 

It is not that surprising when considering the layout: high wing loading on a wing with small aspect ratio make for good stable behaviour at low level.

Many years ago, in a country, far, far, away, there was a book published whose name I have forgotten which compared the F-104 versus other current fighter-bombers.  The F-104 came out near the top because of it's lack of gust response at low altitude.  The other aircraft such as the Hunter and the Mirage had poor gust response because their wing area was considerably larger than the F-104s.  The pilots of the F-104 stated that they had a lot less windy of a time because of that.

[Smudge]

I have always wondered about the suitability of the Starfighter for ground attack. However, I believe they were used by USAF in Vietnam with some success against ground targets, using their guns (and what else? not too sure).

 

I guess it's just that successful ground attackers are generally straight winged (Skyraider, A-10) well armoured, slow'ish and can carry a wide range of ordanance. Not generally short little wings and a high stall-speed, low loiter time etc.

 

Very Cool aeroplane though.

[Rob de Bie]

On 3/4/2021 at 7:02 AM, rickshaw said:

Many years ago, in a country, far, far, away, there was a book published whose name I have forgotten which compared the F-104 versus other current fighter-bombers.  The F-104 came out near the top because of it's lack of gust response at low altitude.  The other aircraft such as the Hunter and the Mirage had poor gust response because their wing area was considerably larger than the F-104s.  The pilots of the F-104 stated that they had a lot less windy of a time because of that.

Ow, such a pity that you don't remember the title.. I've long wanted to know more how the F-104 compared to its contemporaries, and how it got selected by so many air forces. I think we often forget how lmuch lower the performance of the competitors was, and how spectacular the F-104's performance was for the time. Plus, the strike mission was all-important for NATO members, and the airframe was well-suited to that mission, only bettered by the F-105 I read. If you ever recall the book title, please let us know!

 

Rob

Edited March 6, 2021 by Rob de Bie

[Hook]

43 minutes ago, Smudge said:

I have always wondered about the suitability of the Starfighter for ground attack.

When selected, the main focus was not on ground attack, but rather on the nuclear Strike role - NATO policy at the time being the "tripwire" philosophy in which any Soviet / Warsaw Pact agression would be met with massive nuclear retaliation. 

 

Later on, this changed to the "flexible response" policy, with more emphasis on the conventional attack role. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[JohnT]

I recall reading in a Profile Publication (I think that right) that the loss rate for the F104 was comparable with many contemporary designs and no worse than the Lightning. Of course each one that came down attracted more publicity as it was a controversial acquisition all the more by the Lockheed bribes scandal. As if manufacturers did such things. 

[Slater]

From Wikipedia:

 

"The best accident rate was achieved by the Spanish Air Force, which ended its Starfighter era with a perfect safety record. The Ejército del Aire lost none of its 18 F-104Gs and 3 TF-104Gs over a total of seven years and 17,500 flight hours."

[Rob de Bie]

55 minutes ago, Slater said:

From Wikipedia:

 

"The best accident rate was achieved by the Spanish Air Force, which ended its Starfighter era with a perfect safety record. The Ejército del Aire lost none of its 18 F-104Gs and 3 TF-104Gs over a total of seven years and 17,500 flight hours."

For comparison, the RNLAF flew 335,311 hours in 22 years, and lost 44 aircraft (source: 'Lockheed F-104G Starfighter in Nederland' by Groeneveld, page 339).

 

That makes an overall average of 1.31 loss per 10,000 hours. For 17,500 hours the prediction would be 2.30 losses. So the SpAF did well 🙂

 

Rob

Edited March 6, 2021 by Rob de Bie

[exdraken]

1 hour ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

That makes an overall average of 1.31 loss per 10,000 hours. For 17,500 hours the prediction would be 2.30 losses. So the SpAF did well 🙂

I'd also imagine that the loss rate went down over the years, when training and  operational knowhow kicked in....

But then, the SpAF / EdA used it as interceptor, not as low level striker

[Hook]

In Dutch service, the loss rate of the Starfighter was lower than that of the F-84F it replaced.

 

Earlier, we lost about half of our Gloster Meteors.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre 

[Robertone139]

20 hours ago, Smudge said:

I have always wondered about the suitability of the Starfighter for ground attack. However, I believe they were used by USAF in Vietnam with some success against ground targets, using their guns (and what else? not too sure).

 

I guess it's just that successful ground attackers are generally straight winged (Skyraider, A-10) well armoured, slow'ish and can carry a wide range of ordanance. Not generally short little wings and a high stall-speed, low loiter time etc.

 

Very Cool aeroplane though.

577s   f-104 with bombs

[Rob de Bie]

2 hours ago, Hook said:

In Dutch service, the loss rate of the Starfighter was lower than that of the F-84F it replaced.

 

In 'Vliegend in Nederland: Thunderstreak', page 29, I found that close to 300,000 hours were flown, with the loss of 75 aircraft. That makes 2.5 aircraft per 10,000 hours, almost the double of the F-104 - wow..

 

Rob

[Coors54]

21 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

I've long wanted to know more how the F-104 compared to its contemporaries, and how it got selected by so many air forces.

Wasn't the exchange of brown paper bags containing quite a lot of cash something to do with it? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

 

Dave

[Rob de Bie]

1 minute ago, Coors54 said:

Wasn't the exchange of brown paper bags containing quite a lot of cash something to do with it? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

 

Maybe, yes, but I want to see the naked performance figures, to see how the 104 compared to the competition of the time.

 

Rob

[Giorgio N]

On 3/6/2021 at 4:41 PM, Smudge said:

I have always wondered about the suitability of the Starfighter for ground attack. However, I believe they were used by USAF in Vietnam with some success against ground targets, using their guns (and what else? not too sure).

 

I guess it's just that successful ground attackers are generally straight winged (Skyraider, A-10) well armoured, slow'ish and can carry a wide range of ordanance. Not generally short little wings and a high stall-speed, low loiter time etc.

 

Very Cool aeroplane though.

 

The 104s in Vietnam did not use their gun in attack missions, all attack missions saw the use of weapons under the wing pylons: M117 bombs were the most used, followed by napalm.

Said that, the majority of Starfighter missions in Vietnam were escort missions for a number of types.

 

Regarding ground attack missions, these come in many different flavours and one aircraft may be good at one while being less good at the other. Your view that succesful ground attackers were like the A-1 and the A-10 may be correct for a very small niche of ground attack missions, that is COunter INsurgency, but these aircraft are totally unsuitable for most other missions. If we follow the logic that a succesful ground attackers should be straight winged and slow would imply that types like the Jaguar, Harrier, A-7 and so on would not be good aircraft for ground attack, yet the results achieved by these types beg to differ. Following the same logic we should say that the RAF never had any good ground attack type, as they never fielded any slow type with large payload for this kind of missions... unless we consider the Lincolns used in Kenya, that would be stretching things quite a bit.