F-104 Starfighters

[DBII]

Nice collection.

DBII

 

[mikewint]

The F-104 is indeed a really sharp looking plane. I saw several in Vietnam and was very impressed with the leather wing covers used to protect ground crews from being cut by the very sharp wing leading edges. However, while looking like a killer aircraft, in truth, it saw little aerial combat and scored no air-to-air kills, but its very looks and presence did scare the s##t out of the MiG interceptors. Starfighter squadrons made two deployments to Vietnam, the first being from April 1965 to November 1965, flying 2,937 combat sorties. During that first deployment, two Starfighters were shot down by ground fire, one was shot down by a Chinese MiG-19, and two were lost to a mid-air collision. The 476th Tactical Fighter Squadron deployed to Vietnam in April 1965 through July 1965, losing one Starfighter; and the 436th Tactical Fighter Squadron deployed to Vietnam in July 1965 through October 1965, losing four.
Starfighters returned to Vietnam when the 435th Tactical Fighter Squadron deployed from June 1966 until July 1967, in which time they flew a further 2,269 combat sorties, for a total of 5,206 sorties. Nine more F-104s were lost: two F-104s to ground fire, three to surface-to-air missiles, and the final four losses were to engine failures. Their Vietnam score was 14 lost F-104s to zero air-to-air kills
The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, where in the mid-1960s the Luftwaffe lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s. Chuck Yeager was nearly killed when he lost control of an NF-104A during a high-altitude record-breaking attempt. He lost the tips of two fingers and was hospitalized for a long period with severe burns after ejecting from the aircraft.
The Class A mishap rate of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977

 

[michaelmaltby]

If WW3 had started in Europe, the sight of F-104's streaking in fast and low with nuclear payloads would have been impressive, no doubt, and the aircraft has a wide license-build and usage record within NATO, Pakistan and Japan .... but its design is just a little too 'refined' for my taste .... . I'll take the uglier F-105 Thud.

MM

 

[pbfoot]

Germany, where in the mid-1960s the Luftwaffe lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s. Chuck Yeager was nearly killed when he lost control of an NF-104A during a high-altitude record-breaking attempt. He lost the tips of two fingers and was hospitalized for a long period with severe burns after ejecting from the aircraft.
The Class A mishap rate of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977

it was a very safe aircraft that as tha pilots of the RCAF used to say worked in a very dangerous neighbourhood, lo level strike at 540 knots is not for the feint of heart. In another thread I posted an article about how they went through Red Flag excercises with no losses from opposing forces . IIRC the article stated as it was the 104's last appearence before retirement at Red Flag they told the opposition the exact time and direction of their attack and still pulled it off .

 

[mikewint]

The Starfighter was the first combat aircraft capable of sustained Mach 2 flight, and its speed and climb performance remain impressive even by modern standards. It was designed for optimum performance at Mach 1.4.
The F-104s had a very high wing loading (made even higher when carrying external stores), which demanded that sufficient airspeed be maintained at all times. The high angle of attack area of flight was protected by a stick shaker system to warn the pilot of an approaching stall, and if this was ignored a stick kicker system would pitch the aircraft's nose down to a safer angle of attack; this was often overridden by the pilot despite flight manual warnings against this practice. At extremely high angles of attack the F-104 was known to "pitch-up" and enter a spin, which in most cases was impossible to recover from. In addition, the F-104 with its single engine lacked any safety margin in the case of an engine failure, the short stubby wings gave it a very poor glide ratio.
The Class A rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 13.9/100,000, and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

 

[pbfoot]

The Starfighter was the first combat aircraft capable of sustained Mach 2 flight, and its speed and climb performance remain impressive even by modern standards. It was designed for optimum performance at Mach 1.4.
The F-104s had a very high wing loading (made even higher when carrying external stores), which demanded that sufficient airspeed be maintained at all times. The high angle of attack area of flight was protected by a stick shaker system to warn the pilot of an approaching stall, and if this was ignored a stick kicker system would pitch the aircraft's nose down to a safer angle of attack; this was often overridden by the pilot despite flight manual warnings against this practice. At extremely high angles of attack the F-104 was known to "pitch-up" and enter a spin, which in most cases was impossible to recover from. In addition, the F-104 with its single engine lacked any safety margin in the case of an engine failure, the short stubby wings gave it a very poor glide ratio.
The Class A rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 13.9/100,000, and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25 accidents per 100,000 flight hours.

Thats good you found rthat wiki blurb , ask any 104 pilot what they thought of it and it may surprise you. I cut this from F16.net


Having fought the "Zipper" fight now for 40 years, I can say without equivocation this wonderful machine, of Kelly's, has continually been the butt of political decisions; it was to far advanced for it's time, and now some "hacks" say it is obsolete. It will outrun them all. Our CF-104D at Edwards AFB pulling a decoy attached to one pylon rack and a camera pod on the other pylon equipped with tip tanks walked away from F-16 chase at mach 1.7. When asked to "push it up" the F-16 pilot responded "that is all I've got" I am tired of this "Zip" bashing. BJ and all TRUE "Zipper" drivers know what this machine will do. Ask your friendly F-14/F-15/F-16/ F-18/Mirage/etc./etc., driver if he can run level intercepts at 70,000+, the answer is, you got it, NO; ask them also if they can run mach 1.2+ on the deck or supersonic in mil. power "Supercruise", you got it the same answer, NO. Our 40 year old CFs will meet all the original performance specs, ask any staff weenie at ACC "Air Combat Command" how many of their current fighters can do that.

 

[mikewint]

Pb, I'll grant the impressive flat-out runs and supersonic abilities of the 104 and its ultra-cool "missile with a man in it" looks. But has serious problems brought about by those very features. I'm not a pilot but I spoke to 104 pilots in Vietnam and all mentioned how difficult it was to fly (it was often refered to as "The Widowmaker") and their 14 to zero record speaks for itself as does the Class A mishap rate especially in Germany and Canada (granted cold weather played havoc with the avionics). That so many of them were made and distributed by the US has more to do with the Lockheed Bribery Scandal than their superiority as fighters.
I recall a satirical '70s song: "Catch a falling Starfighter"

 

[pbfoot]

Pb, I'll grant the impressive flat-out runs and supersonic abilities of the 104 and its ultra-cool "missile with a man in it" looks. But has serious problems brought about by those very features. I'm not a pilot but I spoke to 104 pilots in Vietnam and all mentioned how difficult it was to fly and their 14 to zero record speaks for itself as does the Class A mishap rate especially in Germany and Canada (granted cold weather played havoc with the avionics). That so many of them were made and distributed by the US has more to do with the Lockheed Bribery Scandal than their superiority as fighters

Please elaborate about the problems most were pilot error which has nothing to do with aircraft, as for difficult to fly I think some one was pulling your pisser or they weren't all they could be

 

[mikewint]

Pb, again I am not a pilot nor a judge of what makes a good pilot. However it is an engineering truism that as you concentrate on one area you have to give up in other areas. I know that some aircraft are more "forgiving" of pilot error in others one error and your strawberry jelly. The short stubby wings leave little room for mounting armament. The slim pointed fuselage leaves little room for internally mounted weapons and when you hang them outside resistance increases and speed drops. So, my opinion, fantastic, ultra-cool looking aircraft but air-to-air: 14 to 0 tells the tale and if I'm looking for ground support Mach 1.4 does little good. The 7th AF did that to us more than once when all we wanted was the good old Skyraider

 

[pbfoot]

ultra-cool looking aircraft but air-to-air: 14 to 0 tells the tale and if I'm looking for ground support Mach 1.4 does little good. The 7th AF did that to us more than once when all we wanted was the good old Skyraider

Maybe better pilots are in order see how the PAF did using 104`s against Indian AF

 

[mikewint]

OKee, During the indo-Pak war of 1965 1 F-104 was shot down to 2 Indian planes. One a Jet similar to the Sabre and the second a French prop-job. Spectacular victory???
During the Indo-Pak war of 1971, 2 F-104s were shot down by MiG-21s to zero Starfighter kills. So once again she is a beautiful, sleek, fast girl but severely lacking in the combat arena

 

[pbfoot]

OKee, During the indo-Pak war of 1965 1 F-104 was shot down to 2 Indian planes. One a Jet similar to the Sabre and the second a French prop-job. Spectacular victory???
During the Indo-Pak war of 1971, 2 F-104s were shot down by MiG-21s to zero Starfighter kills. So once again she is a beautiful, sleek, fast girl but severely lacking in the combat arena

the fact every AF in Nato used them and some until the 2000's speak volumes about what other air arms thought , it out lived every other century fighter and some even some johnny come latelies . The fact is other airforces adapted the thing for what it excelled at low level strike when the pongoes were digging the holes . The USAF I do not believe ever used for that task... and remember you can`t hit what you cant see. and at 90ft a sec at under 60 ft aint no pongoes gonna hit that and better yet they are hard to carch from above

 

[F-104nut]

Thanks you all for the kind words. If i am correct I believe the Germans had the highest lost rate in the 104. To bad it lived a short life with the USAF. Wonder what she could have done if she would have never been plagued with issues in the beginning .

Cheers Brian(F-104nut)

 

[michaelmaltby]

@pbfoot:

In your view and from your experience were the CF-104s from Canadair any better than the F-104s from Lockheed ...?

MM

 

[pbfoot]

@pbfoot:

In your view and from your experience were the CF-104s from Canadair any better than the F-104s from Lockheed ...?

MM

They had a huge compass for lo level work

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks you all for the kind words. If i am correct I believe the Germans had the highest lost rate in the 104. To bad it lived a short life with the USAF. Wonder what she could have done if she would have never been plagued with issues in the beginning .

Cheers Brian(F-104nut)

The Germans had the highest loss rate with the -104 until they began an aggressive training program. The -104 did not have the highest loss rate in NATO, the F-100 did and the Danish AF had a loss rate of over 4 aircraft per 100,000 hours of flying. Spain never lost one F-104 when they operated it. The F-104 did not fare well in combat, I think it was more situation than the aircraft.

I can tell you that for the most part licence built F-104s varied little between contractors except for the Italians who were the last to build the Starfighter. They took responsibility for some engineering changes incorporated into their aircraft.

 

[mikewint]

In regular USAF service the 104 started out with problems. The first unit to become operational with the F-104A was the 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron on 20 February 1958, at Hamilton AFB, California. After just three months of service, the unit was grounded after a series of engine-related accidents. The aircraft were then fitted with the J79-3B engine and another three ADC units equipped with the F-104A. The USAF reduced their orders from 722 Starfighters to 155. After only one year of service these aircraft were handed over to ADC (Air/Aerospace Defense Command)-gained units of the Air National Guard.
Let's consider its wide-spread acceptance by many NATO countries. One would think that it had been chosen for its prowess as a fighter/bomber right?
NATO countries eventually received/produced a total of 2,578 of all variants of the F-104. Several countries received their aircraft under the U.S.-funded Military Aid Program (MAP). In 1971 the U.S. Government had bailed out Lockheed to the tune of $195 million by guaranteeing repayment of the $195 million in bank loans to the company. The Government Emergency Loan Guarantee Board, set up to oversee the program, investigated whether Lockheed violated its obligations by failing to tell the board about foreign payments.
In late 1975 and early 1976, a sub-committee of the U.S. Senate led by Senator Frank Church concluded that members of the Lockheed board had paid members of friendly governments to guarantee contracts for military aircraft. In 1976, it was publicly revealed that Lockheed had paid $22 million in bribes to foreign officials in the process of negotiating the sale of aircraft: the F-104 Starfighter.
This so-called "Deal of the Century" produced substantial income for Lockheed. However, the resulting Lockheed bribery scandals caused considerable political controversy in Europe and Japan. In Germany, the Minister of Defense Franz Josef Strauss was accused of having received at least $10 million for West Germany's purchase of the F-104 Starfighter in 1961. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands later confessed to having received more than $1 million in bribes to purchase the same aircraft. In Japan the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force wished to buy the Grumman F-11 Super Tiger to replace the F-86 Sabre then in service, but key LDP (Liberal Democratic Party) figures chose the F-104 instead. On February 6, 1976, the vice-chairman of Lockheed told the Senate subcommittee that Lockheed had paid approximately $3 million in bribes to the office of Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka for aid in the matter.
Obviously NATO chose the F-104 for its superior fighter characteristics

 

[pbfoot]

It was a toss up between the Grumman Tiger and the 104 up here for our assigned NATO role as lo level nuclear strike as we evolved into a non nuclear role oour task was changed to lo level interdiction . Did you ever think the USAF may have erred in not exploring different policies maybe they may have been shortsighted as to its use because it was a very well liked tool up here and we weren`t bribed .

 

[michaelmaltby]

 

[mikewint]

that's way cool Michael