Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-104 rethink for Luftwaffe
YelliChink    5/24/2011 4:48:37 PM
Seriously, who came up with this idea to buy Mach 2 fighters? There is only two jobs that F-104 does marginally well: one is high-altitude, high-speed interception; the other is high-speed ambush of enemy formation. As fighters, this is the worst design you can get. It can't turn well. The low speed response is beyond horrible without BLC. Even with BLC, it relies on reliability of J79 and other mechanical components. And there are problems with roll balancing of unequal BLC performance.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
MK       5/24/2011 4:58:14 PM
The main reason for buying the F-104 was the US agreement to allow Luftwaffe F-104s to carry nuclear bombs. The French were reluctant to allow this with their Mirage 3, thus the F-104 got selected and was used as a jack of all trades as interceptor, fighter-bomber and reconnaissance plane.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/24/2011 5:03:44 PM
Kelly Johnson is undoubtedly a genius aircraft engineer, but he is not in charge of making specs for government projects. His records show us he and his team's ability to come up with genius design to fulfill ridiculous USAAF and USAF demand.
 
And the problem is the guy who come up with the spec of F-104. It seems that he just dropped: 1800km ferry range, Mach 2, point defense fighter. It is actually pretty good if you consider the primary mission for F-104 would be to deal with things such as IL-28, Tu-16, Tu-22 and Yak-28 from mid to high altitude.
 
At low altitude, F-104 is a horrible platform. High Alpha performance is suicidal, and the stick shaker is simply bad idea from the beginning. It also require long take-off run and thus unsuitable as front line fighters.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/24/2011 5:28:46 PM
The situation of Luftwaffe in 1960 would require them to get multifunctional figters specifically aiming at low level strike. The scenario is to stop Soviet OMG from marching over Northern German Plain or through Fulda Gap. Fiat G.91 fills this roll very well in late 50s to early 60s as defensive fighter bomber.
 
Tac nuke capability seems not to be the original reason for the adoption of F-104G by the Luftwaffe. If the emphasis is on tac nukes, then the US can simply sell or transfer F-105D to the Luftwaffe. As general fighter-bomber, F-100D was up in the shelf, and F-4C/D was only a few years away. However, F-100D is not all-weather fighter and F-4C/D was still years away, so the option is limited to Mirage III and F-104G.
 
Clearly both are lame for Luftwaffe. The drawbacks of F-104 is described above, but Mirage comes with very lame engine. The other solution being further developing F11F-1F. However, the Supertiger wasn't anywhere near finish or production by 1960, even though the performance seems promising. So they went with F-104G without thinking hard on what type of missions for those aircrafts. After all, the Luftwaffe must have Mach 2 fighters.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/24/2011 5:49:37 PM
Thus, the adoption of F-104G is classical example of everything wrong to a military acquisition program. It is not to say that the Luftwaffe have no use of F-104G. Quite on the contracy, if they use F-104G the way Spanish and Italians use them, or even fund upgrades to equip the Starfighters with Sparrow or even AMRAAM in the late 70s and 80s, they would have flown them into mid-90s. But, they bought the fighters without studying which missions to do with those, and without tactical evaluation on technology at execution level of tactical and strategic scenario.
 
In short, they got the wrong weapons system for the job they eventually were doing. They didn't have much choice since the following things didn't happen:
 
1. F11F developed with J79 from spec.
2. F8U re-designed with J79 and F-104 avionics.
3. Mirage with J79 (sounds familiar?)
4. Further development of F-102 with J79 into multi-role fighter.
5. North American didn't screw up YF-107A.
6. Kelly Johnson redesigned F-104 with new wings and low horizontal stab.
 
Or, they could have bought many hundreds of F-5A/B and later F-5E.....
 
Disclaimer: many facts maybe wrong. This is primarily a thought-provoling post on a dead issue raised by Erich Hartmann.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/24/2011 7:52:43 PM
It was a good low level nuker.  It was also simple enough for an air force to bring in and use without having o upgrade the supporting cast on the ground.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       5/25/2011 9:11:32 AM
@Yellithink,
the Luftwaffe actually required a strike, recce plane and interceptor. Remember it was just reformed in 1955/56 and its initial combat aircraft were the F-84F for strike and F-86K for interception. The F-104G replaced both types in both roles. The G.91 was very much a light ground-attack aircraft used for CAS/BAI, not for strike. There weren't many choices at this time and the F-104 was more or less one of the best aircraft available and allowed the Luftwaffe to use nukes with it, albeit the nukes were kept under control by the US. The F-4 was later introduced replacing the F-104 together with the Tornado, whereas the G.91 was replaced by the Alpha Jet.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/26/2011 3:53:56 PM

@Yellithink,

the Luftwaffe actually required a strike, recce plane and interceptor. Remember it was just reformed in 1955/56 and its initial combat aircraft were the F-84F for strike and F-86K for interception. The F-104G replaced both types in both roles. The G.91 was very much a light ground-attack aircraft used for CAS/BAI, not for strike. There weren't many choices at this time and the F-104 was more or less one of the best aircraft available and allowed the Luftwaffe to use nukes with it, albeit the nukes were kept under control by the US. The F-4 was later introduced replacing the F-104 together with the Tornado, whereas the G.91 was replaced by the Alpha Jet.



And that is the problem. The spec was unrealistic, so the end product was impractical. The aviation tech in late 50s and early 60s weren't matured enough to put a the package of striker-fighter-interceptor in a small and compact airframe. Early models of MiG-21F-13 and PF/M can't do strike, and even BIS isn't a reasonable striker.
 
The truth is that F-104G simply doesn't do well in terms of low level strike missions. Also I question the logic of using F-104G as nuke striker. F-105D is much better platform for that role, and since: 1. USAF did stationed F-105 in Germany; and 2. tac nukes are still controlled by USAF, the whole rationale sounds like a farce to me.
 
Mirage III would be better choice if you must have a Mach 2 striker-fighter-interceptor, even though it doesn't do much better than F-104G due to crappy engine and some other issues.
 
Thus, I would argue that it is unrealistic for the Luftwaffe to combine all the requirement into one program, but to buy two to three types of aircrafts best fitting their designated roles.
 
For interceptor-fighter to counter commie bombers: F-104G.
For low level strike missions: A-4E (which can do tac nuking as well)
 
All-weather fighter-bomber would be a problem at that time. F-101 would fit that role but the handling characteristic is nearly as horrible as F-104. F-8D/E would be good choice if fighter role is emphasized over bomber, since many of the bad reps about the Crusaders are carrier-related.
 
The theory of supersonic low level penetration remains fantasy unless one can get F-111 or TSR2.
 
However, the real deciding factor is rather political than operational/tactical. The US would allow F-104G to be assembled and built, but probably not every other option.
 
Quote    Reply

Privateer       5/26/2011 6:13:15 PM
The EE Lightning as an interceptor, the Hawker Hunter as a CAS/BAI fighter and the Blackburnburn Buccaneer as a striker (including the ASuW role). ;-)
 
The Luftwaffe and the Marineflieger showed some interest in the Lightning and Buccaneer, but ultimately nothing came of these talks.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       5/28/2011 10:58:03 PM
The only reason that the F-104G got purchased for the Luftwaffe was that West German (and other US allied) officials had their snouts in the Lockmart trough during the "Deal of the Century". As Hartman argued, the type was inappropriate for the inexperienced West German air force. In general it was mis-specified, even Kelly Johnson later said that it didn't really require all that speed at the expense of everything else.
 
By the time The F-104 was ordered North American had sorted out the worst of the F-100's problems with the D model, which was a better ground attacker than the F-104 and which was adequate as a fighter and a nuclear striker against the threat of the day. The West Germans might also have considered the Super Mystere as a reliable transitional option for its first supersonic fighter, or the outstanding F-8 if they wanted to take the risk and buy something more capable.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       5/28/2011 11:34:41 PM


By the time The F-104 was ordered North American had sorted out the worst of the F-100's problems with the D model, which was a better ground attacker than the F-104 and which was adequate as a fighter and a nuclear striker against the threat of the day. The West Germans might also have considered the Super Mystere as a reliable transitional option for its first supersonic fighter, or the outstanding F-8 if they wanted to take the risk and buy something more capable.


The problem with F-100D is that it still doesn't have a real radar, only range finder for gun. That is a no-no for low level, ALL-WEATHER ground attacker.
 
The problem with F-8 is that, in late 50s, the D/E models did not have under-wing pylon.
 
Had Kelly Johnson design F-104 like Mirage F1, many German pilots would have been still living today.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics