The comparison started with you… lol
Where could European aviation be today had political agendas not prevented such an aviation industry arising in the 60's
- Thread starter Jagdflieger
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The comparison started with you… lol
- Thread starter
- #62
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Nope - it was my reply onto a post from Graugeist - see:
Was the TSR.2 or J-35 carrier capable?
Could they perform the in the spectrum that the F-35 does?
And yes aside from stealth - guaranteeing a higher survival rate - and posessing an inferior electronics package, the Saab 37 even today could perform basically the same attack/intercept/recon/mission as presently an F-35 on any country of this world aside those of NATO members and maybe China.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Last edited:
The Saab37 could not perform the job of the F-35. Why? You answered your own question above. It's avionics capabilities were not the same. It cannot link with other aircraft the way the 35 can. Generational differences between the two aircraft.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
A horse and carriage will take you to town as sure as a Toyota Camry, but that doesn't mean it will do the job with any kind of comparable ability.
- Thread starter
- #65
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
If the opposing side has only pedestrians - a horse and carriage is good enough.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Thumpalumpacus
Major
Wait, we were comparing the -35 and the Saab and BAe planes, weren't we?
The idea that either of the latter two could get close to what the Lightning II does is unrealistic in the extreme.
Having started in computing in the early 80's I know it was not possible to add similar systems to what we have now without massive
cost. This holds even into the 90's.
Size of equipment and power use are the main issues. Storage and access speed tie in with the first two.
Had a phone with the capabilities / power use of the original iPhone been built in the early nineties the cost would
have been in the millions.
cost. This holds even into the 90's.
Size of equipment and power use are the main issues. Storage and access speed tie in with the first two.
Had a phone with the capabilities / power use of the original iPhone been built in the early nineties the cost would
have been in the millions.
- Thread starter
- #68
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
No I am not - but I keep repeating if necessary that a Saab 37 in principle can do the job of a F-35. The efficiency of the job done is another issue.
If e.g. the Ukraine would presently have 60-80 Saab 37 (from the 90's) in it's inventory the Russian air-force wouldn't stand a chance.
Regards
Jagdflieger
- Thread starter
- #69
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
That is one of the reason why an F-22 developed from the 90' onward did cost approximately $300 million/ a piece in 2005.
Regards
Jagdflieger
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This is NOT true! There were issues with the engines at the front end of the F-104's career. The main reason why the Luftwaffe lost so many aircraft was because of the mission being flown. Low level, fast in IMC. At one point about a third of all LW F-104 accident were due to mechanical issues, and other third due to pilot error. And there were mainteance issues as well!!! Over all, engine failures resulted in about 25% of all accidents, 10% other mechanical failures, the rest was pilot error, all found here:
Here's a good clip that also breaks it down.
This was from another site and coincides with data I've seen over the years:
Below are the stats of F-104 fleet year by year (airframe loss)/(100k hour). The values are read from the column diagram above which shows the (airfrmae loss)/(10k hour) therfore can be little inaccuracy in values but clearly shows the history and debunks some urban legends.
1961 - 85
1963 - 165 (!!)
1963 - 30 (what a statistical deviation...!)
1964 - 63
1965 - 87
1966 - 30
1967 - 27
1968 - 29
1969 - 20
1970 - 29
1971 - 31
1972 - 11
1973 - 18
1974 - 16
1975 - 15
1976 - 16
1977 - 15
1978 - 20
1979 - 17
1980 - 19
1981 - 17
1982 - 24 (after being below 20 for 10+ years)
1983 - 7 (!!) Was as good as initially F-16A or F-15A
1984 - 23 (again higher the 7 was only "anomaly)
1985 - 18
The trendline goes below 20/100k but it does not reach because of the end of service and some very early bad years. The calculated average for the whole service is 33,28/100k hours but the introduction of F-104G was a bad idea the jumping from F-86 to F-104 (as Hartmann said) especially as a low level strike fighter...
Average is 20/100k hours if we delete the first 5 years which was the very painful transitional period. In case only the first 3 years is deleted 25/100k is the avarge. So comparing to an F-4 and 4th gen fighters is maybe a widowmaker but comparing to Su-9 or early MiG-21s and other Soviet fighters in the era F-104G was not so a bad as many poeple think. The Soviet fighters rarely flew low level strike and they had similar or worse stat comparing to F-104G. The stats of Starfighter was acceptable after the first 10 years and was better what HUN had with MiG-21s even the best version. Germany acquired 914 F-104s and lost 292 of them. As fleet loss percentage this is also not bad comparing to Soviet jets. For ex. 1/3 or Su-9s were destroyed by engine fire and 1/3 crashed and they were not used for 20+ years in massive scale...
This is true, the USAF used the F-104 in the mission it was designed for, an interceptor! But the F-104s was being flown by the Luftwaffe were being flown as a low level strike aircraft, mission it WAS NOT originally designed for!
To further prove all this, the Spanish Air Force received F-104s under the Military Assistance Program: 18 Canadair-built F-104Gs and three Lockheed-built TF-104Gs were delivered under MAP to Spain's Ejército del Aire in 1965. It is notable that no aircraft were lost through accidents during 17,000 hours of operational use in Spain although the aircraft was used only in its intended role of an interceptor and mainly in very good flying weather
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Very informative. I had long thought the F-104 was a gorgeous P.O.S. Fortunately, I'm accustomed to being wrong.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Some native European single engine fighters from the F-104's era:
Dassault Mirage family
SAAB J-35, J-37, J-39
Aero L-29, L-39
Hawker Harrier
AMX A-11
Fiat G.91
Then there's the USN single-engine fighters:
A4D
F4D
F11F
F3H
etc, etc, etc...
- Thread starter
- #74
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Engine fires and stalls were the cause for most of the inflight accidents as already mentioned in regards to the F-104 issue.
There are charts that explain every single Luftwaffe F-104 accident - I don't suck this out of my fingers. Can't find it right now, but will. In the meantime maybe this site will suffice.
Accidents - Incidents 1961 - International F-104 Society
23 January 1961 F-104C 56-931 435TFS USAF incident pilot ok It encountered an accident at Moron AFB while being stationed there. It happened 21:08 Local
www.i-f-s.nl
The site you quoted, analyses Seventy-one German F-104 accidents between 1978 and 1986 - basically irrelevant to the initial engine issue.
Okay - found it - however in German - check for the word Triebwerksausfall engine stall - more the 57% of the inflight crashes are attributed to this issue.
F-104 Verluste
www.cactus-starfighter-staffel.de
Hartman's opinions were not at all shared by the majority of the Luftwaffe pilots who flew the F-104 - however the main reason why he was forced to leave the Luftwaffe.
That less pilot experience and maintenance issues played a big part in the overall accident rate is understood. The drop in losses after 1966 was due to flight-hours being drastically reduced and until 1972 low level attack flights were not allowed, respectively reduced to insignificant numbers under the inspection and chief-investigator Steinhoff who insisted
on overhauling the engines and the avionics.
The Canadians had the same mission parameters for the F-104 as the Luftwaffe after 1970 and they had even higher losses then the Luftwaffe. Also inflight accidents mostly due to engine fires and engine stalls. About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239 delivered - a loss rate of no less than 46 percent.
That the Canadians flew the most hours on the F-104 can't be used to justify inflight crashes (that is what maintenance protocols are for) unless something was inherently wrong
withe the F-104 engine and afterburner.
It is interesting though to compare these above losses with those sustained by those who flew the Saab 37.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #75
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Not NATO European
Not NATO European
Not NATO European
Not NATO European - Brazil and Italy
Developed before 1960 the Italian version G-91Y developed in 1966? two engines
I think we can agree that it wasn't a traditional fighter plane
A4D
Developed way before 1960
F4D
Developed way before 1960
F11F
Developed way before 1960
F3H
Developed way before 1960
etc, etc, etc...
which ones? etc. etc.....
Regards
Jagdflieger
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The F-104 started development in 1952, first flew in 1954 - so define "way before".
France = NATO
Italy = NATO (regardless of Brazil's involvement)
Sweden = European
Czechoslovakia = European
Hawker Harrier = Naval Fighter, single engine, traditional or not (and included under NATO and European).
All aircraft listed were (as I stated) contemporaries of the F-104.
France = NATO
Italy = NATO (regardless of Brazil's involvement)
Sweden = European
Czechoslovakia = European
Hawker Harrier = Naval Fighter, single engine, traditional or not (and included under NATO and European).
All aircraft listed were (as I stated) contemporaries of the F-104.
- Thread starter
- #77
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
You misunderstood - I was referring to NATO European developments after purchasing the F-104 - which implies aircraft's developed after the 70's in order to replace or complement
the F-104. E.g. as in the Luftwaffe by the F-4 and Tornado.
France wasn't in the NATO after 1966
The Harrier was designed in the 60's
If Italy and Brazil develop an aircraft, then this has nothing much to do with NATO European joint aircraft developments.
NATO European refers to European NATO members - therefore not the US. (in order to exclude US aircraft's e.g. the F-16 with a single engine)
Czechoslovakia wasn't a NATO member when they produced the Aero L-29, L-39
And Sweden is not a NATO member, even today it still is just an applicant.
NATO member countries
At present, NATO has 31 member countries. These countries, called NATO Allies, are sovereign states that come together through NATO to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus.
Regards
Jagdflieger
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And why? Many were maintenance related!!!
Maintenance related!Accidents - Incidents 1961 - International F-104 Society
23 January 1961 F-104C 56-931 435TFS USAF incident pilot ok It encountered an accident at Moron AFB while being stationed there. It happened 21:08 Local
The site you quoted, analyses Seventy-one German F-104 accidents between 1978 and 1986 - basically irrelevant to the initial engine issue.
Okay - found it - however in German - check for the word Triebwerksausfall engine stall - more the 57% of the inflight crashes are attributed to this issue.
F-104 Verluste
www.cactus-starfighter-staffel.de
And again - Maintenance related!!!
So let's talk engine overhaul - this is something that is done routinely anyway. All you can do is tighten time intervals or replace items that would normally be replaced "on condition." There was no smoking gun there. I believe by 1966/67 many of the issues with the J79 were addressed.
There was an issue with the J79 engine, no doubt and this was well documented, but and the end of the day it still remains that over 1/3 of F-104G crashes were due to pilot error, but in the bigger picture attributed to the mission being flown by the Luftwaffe!
And the Viggen wasn't flown in the same numbers and in the same amount of flight hours as the F-104. For that matter refer back to the Spanish AF. What did they do that no one else did? Fly the aircraft in the mission it was designed for!
- Thread starter
- #79
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
I think you make it a bit easy to push these engine issues just on maintenance related.
There is as you know a procedure before taking an aircraft out of a Hangar, and even before rolling towards the runway - these engine related issues occurred way into the flight time.
As for the Luftwaffe stats from the list I pasted:
114 Engine-stalls and engine fires (including 11 caused by bird-strikes)
31 Avionics related
94 pilot error (75) and other technical issues (19)
52 non-inflight related or flown by US pilots (7) in Arizona
1 non - active Luftwaffe at WTD 61
Total 292 destroyed F-104's according to my Father and his F-104 pilots friends list.
BTW, that's me in 1982 recognize the instruments? or aircraft?
Regards
Jagdflieger
Attachments
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Because many of the issues were maintenance related, this was an admittance by the Luftwaffe in the various sources I reported.
Yes, and sometimes that's when "some" maintenance related issues may occur - at the same time there were issues with the J79 that eventually got fixed
The birdstrikes shouldn't even be counted in this as they are more an act of god and are capable in bringing down many different aircraft
Sorry to hear that - 116 brave pilots lost their lives.
C-5
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
