Dear Jack,

the Starfighter flew in 1954, was operational in 1958. One key factor in its success on European markets was availability. Another consideration was industrial participation. For many companies it was the first possibility to get hands on current technology, like the J79 (which was a very competitive engine design through the entire 1960ies period, the Russians didn’t match its performance before late 1960ies when USA and UK had first low-bypass turbofans in service). ……

Dear Schorsch,

Thanks for giving about the best reply that I have ever heard in my 63 years on the F-104G. Again, thanks.

I don’t know your nationality, but when the F-104 first came out, some USAF crewmen (ie not F-104) like to tell the tale that the main wing of the F-104 was sharp and had to have covers put on the leading edge to keep the aircraft crews from being harmed. Serious! And to this day it is still printed as fact. And when I am asked, I just state I don’t know.

I hope our one member who has a lot of hours on the F-104 will answer that question.

Finally, ever USAF fighter and small strike combat aircraft that came out after the end of WW2 till even now, was offered in a naval version (eg the F-100 was offered against the F-8 Crusader) in a paper study. Everyone wonders if Lockheed had ever offered a naval version of the F-104. Been a many thread trying to figure out how much modification would have been needed. For sure it would have made the F-8 the most forgiving carrier fighter in history! The problem would have been like the F-84H Thundershreik — getting a test pilot you would not have to threaten with a pistol to his head to get in the cockpit to make the first carrier landing.

Jack E. Hammond

PS> From all I have read, Republic never offered a naval version of the F-105: ie that would have given the deck crews fits!!!!

.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Much superior to the Viggen?

Why did the Swedes bother building the Viggen then?

Dear Alfakilo,

The Swedes were looking for a fighter to replace the Draken and Lansen mainly in the reconn, strike role and anti-shipping. The Draken was just to small for some of the anti-shipping missiles the Swedes had and the Lansen to slow. The Swedes also want extremely good short take off and landing ability from their wartime highway airfields. And the Viggen with its canard system (ie unlike other canard systems today it did not help with maneuverability) and one very unique thrust reverser (ie there was always the joke about the Swedes if they had a Mig-21 on their tail could suddenly de-accelerate fast in flight without notice as speed brakes give — but I think that would probably result in a fatal stall) it could operate out of runways most aircraft could not with a full weapons and fuel load. The fighter version was developed last. But it was basically a sovereignty patrol aircraft (ie a heavily armed one with the most vicious air to air/ground cannon ever put on an aircraft designed to intercept other aircraft – ie line of sight firing at extreme ranges) and would have had no business in a fur ball.

Jack E. Hammond

.

What other reason could there be for dragging out a competition for years and years and years and years?

Dear Djcross,

Actually, it was a very short time period from making the decision (1958) to production in the early 1960s and termination about 1965(?). And it was extremely cost effective because the nations involved decided to adopt one aircraft type, with just the changes the Germans made, and massive production within a short time. What ever is said, the production cost of the F-104G were kept within bounds. One of the reasons the Canadians adopted it with minor changes for strike-reconn that they made after delivery.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Prince Bernhards admissions weren’t published until after his death.

Dear Swerve,

The decision by Holland and the other countries to follow German’s pick was made before hand. And I think the Berhard bribe was a helicopter contract if I remember correctly from the BBC report????

Jack E. Hammond

.

Folks,

In this discussion, no one strangely has mentioned some of the other aircraft that was seriously considered: The English Electric Lightening being one. Serious it was one of the aircraft considered. The F-8 was according to the article never considered. It was basically the German’s who made the decision according to the June 1964 issue of Flying Review International (ie what was The RAF Flying Review before 1964 and then eventually became Air Enthusiasts and then Air International)

Jack E. Hammond

The German Luftwaffe High Command (with the support of the Federal Government through the Defence Ministry) initiated the evalution of fourteen fighter designs to meet the requirements for a a single aircraft — capable of performing all-weather interception, reconnaissance, and ground attack duties. The Convair F-102 and F-106, the Republic F-105 and English Electric were rejected on account of high costs; the Saunders-Roe S.R. 117 and Saab Draken were unable to meet the requirements and the Grumman Super Tiger was considered to have insufficient development time. The G.A.M.D. Mirage III was, at the time (1958), incompletely developed as a weapon system, and, by elimination, the choice fell upon the Lockheed F-104 — then entering service with the U.S. A.D.C. —- “Super Starfighter – F-104German Initiative”, Flying Review International, Vol. 19, No. 9 page 21-25

Note> I would say I am pretty safe (if not someone speak up), but if it is interesting enough I can scan the article along with the another one about the CF-104F. It pretty well covers the early F-104G program before German pilots started crashing them. But either way, I am lucky I have the bound volume of late 1963 (after when I think if memory is right the RAF demanded its name come off) and the last volume before the change. Very interesting article and it gets you in the mind set of that era. I bought them when I first graduated and at that time it cost some money — ie the shipping cost were horrible.

.

.

Really? Iranians?

I’ll put my money on the USN TOPGUN pilots as well as the USAF F-5 Fighter Weapons School and Aggressor pilots that flew the jet. I’ve flown with all three groups and don’t recall anyone making such comments.

Dear Alfakilo,

Only the Iranians have extensively used the F-5 in which it was use both as a fighter-bomber and a fighter. TOPGUN uses it to imitate the Mig-15/17 and sometimes the Mig-21. And while it is as realistic as possible, only getting shot at will truely tell. And the Iranian F-5 pilots got shot at a lot and a lot and a lot.

As to the F-104 in Vietnam. I am actually wanting to know. Just how far up North did the F-104s fly during the Vietnam War.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Dear Members,

Ah, this thread is to be politically correct I see. What since WW2 has actually dragged the Muslim world backwards more than anything else. And don’t forget the word “Nazi” in your reply.

Yes, I know about Malaysia. Malaysia is one of those strange birds in the Muslim world. Some in Somalia area do not even know they are Muslim. But when the US and other countries went into Somalia, Malaysia sent forces that meant business. Pakistan was already their staying out of harms way and Saudi Arabia sent its only parachute unit and when told they were needed in city south of Mogadishu they refused and went to a safe area. But that Malaysian Army unit with APCs pulled out all stops when the Rangers got trapped in that famous battle in Mogadishu, while Pakistan with the needed heavy tanks refused to help. But I am not a true believer (true believers are dead to reality).

Also, in Malaysia history they had a horrible time with Moro Pirates (ie some ignored the rule on leaving Muslim vessels alone, but the usually did not make them slaves or rowers, only held them for ransom) in the 1800s. Then came along James Brooke with his small steam vessel, the Chinese, head hunters and assorted people you would not invited home for supper. The headhunters especially which the Moros thought was not cricket. Brooke had his supporters in England and then he had others in England similar to today who thought me was a tad rough, ignoring the fact that in past decades the Moro pirates when being chased by a British or Dutch Navy warships, just started slitting throats of the rowers one at a time and throwing the bodies one at a time over board. But one member of the House of Commons put it perfect: “James Brooke’s sympathies are with the victims, Gladstone’s with the pirates.”

The reality is very, very few large Muslim flagged vessel are held. And when the pirates seized that one large Saudi tanker, it was soon released without payment and I am sorry about that. And I do not have access to the rates, but I would bet good money that the maritime insurance rates for Muslim flagged tankers and merchants (ie small ones don’t carry insurance) are a lot lower than other merchant vessel. Also, no Muslim country in the region — even though it is their back yard — will establish laws so they can be tried in their nations. Only Kenya will do it. And Kenya is probably doing it for the foreign aid. And always remember why piracy which was rampant in that same area was at last stopped. It was not the various Muslim countries that stopped it (ie they did the exact opposite) but the same item that put a stop to the black (oops another PC button) slave trade at considerable cost in money and lives which the world basically has ignored: The BRITISH ROYAL NAVY. The Sultans were not to happy about how the British Navy ignored the unwritten rules of the area and rubbed their noses in it. Some of the British RN ship captains (most of them were young ensigns — eg who were as one newspaper reporter stated “The most bloody minded bunch in the world.”) hired some of the freed slaves from the slaver dowels as crew members like the RN did on the west coast of Africa). They did not think that was proper at all. None at all. But strangely when the British Navy put a stop to both piracy and slavery, the economy of all the nations, etc increased dramatically. Something many historians ignore today — like they ignore the actual reason piracy came to an end in the Mediterranean (talk about a PC button that is a big one).

As to the small vessels, the money is in the big ones. Last count the Somalis hold six small vessels, mostly dowels. And I suspect they are going to be used as mother ships. Yes, sometimes they take a mother ship on the high seas and then kill the crew, but they are business men first and foremost. Many of them willingly act as a mother ship actually being paid and sail on their merry way afterwords.

As to the solution, if the UN Security council passes a Pirate Manual, the various nations patrolling in that area can set up Q-ships. Small vessels looking like Korean or Taiwanese fishing ships. But hidden with guns, etc. And when the pirates attack the intention is not to capture the pirates either.

Finally, but the serious problem even if the UN Security Council passes a resolution with teeth and a Pirates Manual, is the vessels and the crews the pirates are holding now. And today the pirates are holding one LNG tanker. And that is one huge bomb.

Jack E. Hammond

PS> Now is the world wanted to be really mean, it could enforce a no-flying zone over Somalia and force down and strafe those small aircraft flying in from Yemen. About a week with the pirates going without Kat….nope forget that one they would start executing — or worst before killing them — the crews they hold. As I stated a tough problem. But eventually something horrible will happen. I mean more horrible than the deaths of those four. Then something will be done. Cry’s of racists, barbarians, etc withstanding.

.

T
For most smaller AFs the F-5 was the most cost effective solution compared to the Crusader or Starfighter.

Dear Sens,

One Canadian pilot told me that with the F-5 all you could do was take off with enough fuel to bomb the end of the runway and then land as soon as possible. The Canadians really wanted the F-4 but the US for what ever reason killed that idea, so it was the F-5.

The pilots that know the truth about the F-5s real ability are in Iran. And they ain’t talking.

Jack E. Hammond

.