Jump to content

Luftwaffe F-104G conventional ordnance


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Hook said:

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 

 

Slightly OT, but I believe the Meteor holds the negative safety record for all major postwar combat jets. That is not surprising in a sense, the Meteor was a first generation jet fighter and the reliability of jet engines in particular in those days was not great

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 6:07 PM, JohnT said:

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. :whistle:

 

I remember comparing F-104 Vs. Lightning accident rates a few years ago in this very forum and IIRC the number of accidents due to systems or engine failure was actually higher for the Lightning than for the 104. The number of fatal accidents due to pilot error was higher on the Starfighter and this was due mainly to the mission profile: with a large part of the NATO F-104 fleet dedicated to strike missions, a lot of flying was done at low (and sometimes very low) level. An error at low level is almost always fatal while an error at high level leaves more time for the pilot to recover to a correct flight attitude. Better training improved things considerably but really it was only with the advent of automatic terrain following systems on types like the F-111 and the Tornado that accidents in that kind of missions were reduced. Had such a system been available for the F-104 the accident rate would have been much lower but of course it was too early for the technology of the day to come with a reliable TFR system.

 

Regarding bribes, Lockheed was very active in those days but not only for the F-104: the C-130 was also heavily pushed with the same approach and for example here in Italy there was no controversy about the purchase of the Starfighter but there was plenty for the Hercules, with a few government officials found guilty of accepting money from Lockheed

Now it is interesting how the story of the bribes for the Hercules very rarely appear in printed material or discussion forums and yet this story should be well known, at least in the US, as it was unveiled by a Senate commission in 1975 (together with similat activity by Northrop to push sales of the F-5). I have my ideas on this of course...

Last but not least, we should remember that the sale of the Lightning to Saudi Arabia was also facilitated by giving money to people in positions of influence, that really was and likely still is a very common way of doing business in the sector. Funnily in some books the sale is just described as having been made possible through the "influence" of this or that person, that is a very understated way to say that someone knew who was the right person to bribe

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Regarding bribes, Lockheed was very active in those days but not only for the F-104:

Indeed. Our Dutch Lockheed bribes scandal was related to our P-3 Orion order, I recall. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hook said:

Indeed. Our Dutch Lockheed bribes scandal was related to our P-3 Orion order, I recall. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

Well, then Germany bought the Dutch airframes and the scandal continued over here 🤦🏻‍♂️

AFTER they bought the Orion they figured out that they had to rewing all of them. Now they won't even make it till the scheduled deadline of 2035...even with the new wings!!!!

New deadline is now 2025

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, coneheadff said:

Well, then Germany bought the Dutch airframes and the scandal continued over here 🤦🏻‍♂️

AFTER they bought the Orion they figured out that they had to rewing all of them. Now they won't even make it till the scheduled deadline of 2035...even with the new wings!!!!

New deadline is now 2025

And I thought it wasn't the best of options to sell them in the first place, because we just put our Orions through an expensive “Capability Upkeep Programme”(CUP)..!

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo

I followed your discussion. Actually I read about two prime reasons, for losses of this type. The writings from Steinhoff I read some years ago.

·        One point was the exhaust nozzle. I think it was a safety device, a control unit, which was deleted in the cockpit of German a/c.

·        The other reason was the electronic. The weather conditions in Europe are in strong opposition to the warm and dry weather in California. So, the unsheltered a/c had to stay outside. The rain and               condensate could culminate in the electronic bay. Behind the cockpit.

·        Contamination of the pilot’s liquid oxygen system for high altitude operation which led to loss of consciousness. This problem is still until today unsolved. As it was on the F-16I, F-22 and F-35                  until today it is unsafe!

·        The structural load and the necessary mathematical calculation was far away from this time. Decades later we knew more about it.

This is my resume. Whatever went wrong in flight operation is another issue.

Happy modelling

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2021 at 19:22, exdraken said:

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

 

The EdA Starfighter fleet did have a secondary ground-attack role, if I recall correctly.

 

(At Bardenas Range, dropping what seems to be retarded EXPAL BRP-500 1000lbs bombs)

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CharlieGolf2009 said:

 

The EdA Starfighter fleet did have a secondary ground-attack role, if I recall correctly.

 

(At Bardenas Range, dropping what seems to be retarded EXPAL BRP-500 1000lbs bombs)

 

 

 

thanks, I know they at least tested some free fall bombs, (EXPAL and probably also Mk.80 range)

here a color pic:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wS731.htm

I even did a model of one :)

39368260924_d466477e9d_b.jpg

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235033381-spanish-airforce-c8-f-104g-starfighter-148/&tab=comments#comment-2943639

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/1/2021 at 11:15 AM, Giorgio N said:

 

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

The recent Fighter Pilot Podcast about the F-104, a Canadian Starfighter pilot is interviwed, says this as well. Stable at low alt at high speeds iirc. I was surprised too (since I´ma  noob? ;) )

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2021 at 4:03 AM, CharlieGolf2009 said:

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. 

Hi there

 

Well French SAMP bombs can also found in old Revell Mirage IIIE/R in 1/72 scale

 

Now you can also find big SAMP bombs on Special Hobby Super Mystere SB2 sme wonderful scale

 

Regards

 

Armando 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 3/6/2021 at 4:04 PM, Rob de Bie said:

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!

Whilst I have no doubt that the F-104 was a very good airframe, the reason that it was adopted by a large number of air-forces is much more mundane..... the makers bribed the Defense Ministers of those countries to take it on. There was a major scandal when this fact was made public. 

 

Chris.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

 the makers bribed the Defense Ministers of those countries to take it on.

Lockheed was far from the only aerospace company involved in bribes...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Indian_helicopter_bribery_scandal

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/serge-dassault-fights-corruption-scandal

 

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

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/05/bae-systems-arms-deal-corruption

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm told (others may have better information) that it was quite 'acceptable' for US firms to offer bribes providing they were reported as such in Company Finances

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Denford said:

I'm told (others may have better information) that it was quite 'acceptable' for US firms to offer bribes providing they were reported as such in Company Finances

"was" you say....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/03/2021 at 11:15, 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

In Belgium it has such a reputation too
100 fighters and 12 two-seaters.
40 were lost ! With the loss of 21 lives.

Edited by Steben
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steben said:

In Belgium it has such a reputation too
100 fighters and 12 two-seaters.
40 were lost ! With the loss of 21 lives.

 

What are the numbers for the F-16 in Belgian service? I don't know these numbers, but I guess it's not a huge improvement. I think the Belgian Mirage 5BA/BD had similar loss numbers. Plus, in my opinion you should judge it on the basis of accidents per 10,000 flight hours.

 

Update: I checked this database: https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/BAF/1/  and found 41 written off, of 161 total.  So, 25% lost instead of 36% - not a big improvement.

 

Just for comparison: the loss rate for the F-35 is very, very low, at least an order of magnitude less than previous fighters. That's an amazing development if you ask me.


Rob

 

 

Edited by Rob de Bie
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

What are the numbers for the F-16 in Belgian service? I don't know these numbers, but I guess it's not a huge improvement. I think the Belgian Mirage 5BA/BD had similar loss numbers. Plus, in my opinion you should judge it on the basis of accidents per 10,000 flight hours.

 

Update: I checked this database: https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/BAF/1/  and found 41 written off, of 161 total.  So, 25% lost instead of 36% - not a big improvement.

 

Just for comparison: the loss rate for the F-35 is very, very low, at least an order of magnitude less than previous fighters. That's an amazing development if you ask me.


Rob

 

 

Yes. However the loss of lives matter just as much or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rob de Bie said:

Just for comparison: the loss rate for the F-35 is very, very low, at least an order of magnitude less than previous fighters. That's an amazing development if you ask me.

It better be lower!

There will be a magnitude fewer available, and they vost a magnitude more!

I hope they will be a magnitude more efficient as well ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, exdraken said:

It better be lower!

There will be a magnitude fewer available, and they vost a magnitude more!

I hope they will be a magnitude more efficient as well ;)

 

 

Haha! For the record: I wasn't reporting this as a F-35-fanboy - I avoid having an opinion on the subject of the F-35 🙂 But the safety record is an amazing development in the history of the fighter aircraft. Yet I haven't heard that this was a design driver, or any other reason how this happened. Does anyone know?

 

Rob

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

haven't heard that this was a design driver

That was a requirement, low pilot workload for flying tasks, coupled with high automation and self-testing ...

 

Let's see if maintenance costs can also be brought down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the number of aircraft in service and the flight hours accumulated (by multiple air forces), I would agree that the F-35's safety record is remarkable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slater said:

Considering the number of aircraft in service and the flight hours accumulated (by multiple air forces), I would agree that the F-35's safety record is remarkable.

I think it is 2 As and 2 Bs lost, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rob de Bie said:

 

What are the numbers for the F-16 in Belgian service? I don't know these numbers, but I guess it's not a huge improvement. I think the Belgian Mirage 5BA/BD had similar loss numbers. Plus, in my opinion you should judge it on the basis of accidents per 10,000 flight hours.

 

Update: I checked this database: https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F-16/serials-and-inventory/airforce/BAF/1/  and found 41 written off, of 161 total.  So, 25% lost instead of 36% - not a big improvement.

 

Just for comparison: the loss rate for the F-35 is very, very low, at least an order of magnitude less than previous fighters. That's an amazing development if you ask me.


Rob

 

 

 

The F-104 served in Belgium from 1963 to 1983, a total of 20 years. The F-16 entered service in 1979 and the type is still operational, making it over 40 years. I would expect the flight hours ratio to be similar.

The F-16 in US service has a much better accident rate compared to the Starfighter in most European air forces, that makes sense considering the very different technology level.

One advantage of the F-16 was also that the type was rarely used at such low level as the F-104. On the other hand F-16 pilots suffered similar training issues at the start of the type career, with many experiencing spatial disorientation that often led to fatal crashes during manouvers. As with the F-104, improved training sorted most problems but there were also some changes in the aircraft control system.

In general types of the F-15 and F-16 generation were a massive improvement in terms of safety compared to the fighters of the late '50s/early '60s like the Starfighter and Phantom. Engines reliability had improved a lot and today the situation has improved even further.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...