AHC: Improve the F-104 Starfighter

[La Rouge Beret]

The F-104 starfighter seemed to be plagued by operational issues and a high accident rate for its entire military career. I also note the impact of operating the aircraft in a completely different role from its original role played in the accident rate.

Is there a way to amend the original design or is the aircraft doomed from the start.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The F-104 starfighter seemed to be plagued by operational issues and a high accident rate for its entire military career. I also note the impact of operating the aircraft in a completely different role from its original role played in the accident rate.

Is there a way to amend the original design or is the aircraft doomed from the start.

The biggest, easiest practical course would have simply been not using the F-104 beyond its originally designed use as an interceptor.

 

[Delta Force]

The Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger seems to have been a more solid design. It was also carrier capable by virtue of its USN origins, so it could have replaced early jet aircraft in both air force and naval roles. It also uses the same engine as the F-4, the General Electric J79 (the F-104 also used it), so that synergy could help sales of both aircraft.

Rather than improving the Starfighter, it might be better to get the USN or USAF to order the Super Tiger.

 

[Zheng He]

I'm not sure you really can improve the Starfighter as it was built at a time when technology was changing rapidly and the airframe was too small for long term growth potential.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I guess I have always wondered was its performance a result of being used outside of its parameters i.e. as a fighter bomber when it was designed as an interceptor or as an inherently flawed design.

I ask as I am tossing up between the F - 104 for my Vietnam series or the Mirage III.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I guess I have always wondered was its performance a result of being used outside of its parameters i.e. as a fighter bomber when it was designed as an interceptor or as an inherently flawed design.

I ask as I am tossing up between the F - 104 for my Vietnam series or the Mirage III.

I'd certainly favor the Mirage III. More growth and role expansion potential. One of the great 2nd+ generation designs.
The F-104 was at the bleeding edge of purposed-design for interception. As a fighter-bomber, it was woefully lacking.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger seems to have been a more solid design. It was also carrier capable by virtue of its USN origins, so it could have replaced early jet aircraft in both air force and naval roles. It also uses the same engine as the F-4, the General Electric J79 (the F-104 also used it), so that synergy could help sales of both aircraft.

Rather than improving the Starfighter, it might be better to get the USN or USAF to order the Super Tiger.

That was one of the great misses of US armed forces acquisition and development...
It was robbed in the overseas marketing department, as well.

 

[SactoMan101]

The Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger seems to have been a more solid design. It was also carrier capable by virtue of its USN origins, so it could have replaced early jet aircraft in both air force and naval roles. It also uses the same engine as the F-4, the General Electric J79 (the F-104 also used it), so that synergy could help sales of both aircraft.

Rather than improving the Starfighter, it might be better to get the USN or USAF to order the Super Tiger.

Pity NATO didn't adopt the F11F Super Tiger instead of the troublesome F-104. The F11F probably had way more stable handling at the limits, could probably carry a reasonable bomb load without affecting handling, and probably could have been modernized by swapping out the original GE J79 engine with the P&W F100 engine and a new radar that could have made it still a viable fighter well into the 1990's.

 

[Delta Force]

I guess I have always wondered was its performance a result of being used outside of its parameters i.e. as a fighter bomber when it was designed as an interceptor or as an inherently flawed design.

It's a high altitude interceptor, so low level tactical nuclear attack isn't exactly its design niche. Low altitude flight is also dangerous due to the risks of controlled flight into terrain, collisions with birds and power lines, and mechanical failure. It didn't have the avionics or structural features (impact resistant cockpit and intakes/engines) for such flight.

I ask as I am tossing up between the F - 104 for my Vietnam series or the Mirage III.

What country and branch are they for, and what's the timeframe?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I'd certainly favor the Mirage III. More growth and role expansion potential. One of the great 2nd+ generation designs.
The F-104 was at the bleeding edge of purposed-design for interception. As a fighter-bomber, it was woefully lacking.

My original plan was to have a USAF Starfighter squadron have a deployment to the North of Vietnam similar to the Quemoy crisis in 1958. My thoughts are the Air Force originally selects the Starfighter, but after a bribery scandal emerges the position is reversed and the Mirage III selected.

What country and branch are they for, and what's the timeframe?

This is for my Vietnamese TL, which is part of my signature block and for the Vietnamese Air Force in the mid 1960's.

 

[Delta Force]

My original plan was to have a USAF Starfighter squadron have a deployment to the North of Vietnam similar to the Quemoy crisis in 1958. My thoughts are the Air Force originally selects the Starfighter, but after a bribery scandal emerges the position is reversed and the Mirage III selected.

This is for my Vietnamese TL, which is part of my signature block and for the Vietnamese Air Force in the mid 1960's.

If the PoD is around the late 1950s, it's possible to get the Super Tiger in service. I don't see the USAF going for the Mirage III. The United States government rarely adopts foreign designs and always Americanizes and license produces the few it does.

I'm not sure what role you are looking at having a Mirage III type aircraft fulfill, but I assume it's intended for multirole operations? The F-104 isn't really multirole though, more of a light interceptor/attack aircraft. If we're looking at aircraft with USAF origins (as opposed to USN aircraft) there are a few options. Republic proposed an interceptor variant of the F-105 to Canada, including the possibility of using the Orenda Iroquois. Convair proposed multirole F-106 variants to (IIRC) West Germany and Japan. The F-106 was a development of the F-102, which was used for attack missions in Vietnam. There's also the USN F-4, but the USAF was firmly behind the F-105 until McNamara made them procure F-4s instead.

As light aircraft go, there aren't too many USAF options. The Northrop F-5 was foreign aid for developing air forces and lacks radar and other features. Something like the F-20 might be possible, but at that point it's essentially a totally new aircraft due to the state of 1960s engine and avionics technology. It was only easy to implement modern equipment on a 1950s design because 1980s technology had developed so much. Once again, if the USAF is willing to go with a USN aircraft the Vought F-8 and Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger are options. I think the Super Tiger is the best choice for a light fighter, but the USAF might have problems with it not originating within the USAF structure (that's part of what led to the failure of the F-20 in the 1980s, it was going up against the F-16 which had institutional support in the USAF).

If you can get the Super Tiger in service it (and/or variants of it) would likely still be in service to the present day. It started with the General Electric J79, so fuselage changes will be minimal if new engines are added later should it become part of a light fighter or new foreign aid fighter program in the 1970s.

 

[Zheng He]

How about A-4 Skyhawks? Simple, easy to fly and maintain and a good light attack aircraft that can hold its own air-to-air when asked to.

 

[Delta Force]

How about A-4 Skyhawks? Simple, easy to fly and maintain and a good light attack aircraft that can hold its own air-to-air when asked to.

I don't see the USAF adopting that, as its performance leaves it rather vulnerable in a tactical nuclear role. Toss bombing was USN, not USAF. Don't get me wrong, the A-4 is a great aircraft, I just don't think it's USAF material, and that's before getting into the A-4's USN origins.

If you mean A-4s for Vietnam, that's something I can definitely see happening.

 

[Zheng He]

I don't see the USAF adopting that, as its performance leaves it rather vulnerable in a tactical nuclear role. Toss bombing was USN, not USAF. Don't get me wrong, the A-4 is a great aircraft, I just don't think it's USAF material, and that's before getting into the A-4's USN origins.

If you mean A-4s for Vietnam, that's something I can definitely see happening.

Yeah I meant A-4s for Vietnam not the USAF. A-4s would be far more useful to the Vietnamese than the F-104 or the Mirage III.

BTW, the USAF F-4 community did develop dive toss bombing tactics in the 1970s. They were first developed at Nellis by a young F-4 Weapons School student named John Jumper (he later became CSAF).

 

[Delta Force]

Yeah I meant A-4s for Vietnam not the USAF. A-4s would be far more useful to the Vietnamese than the F-104 or the Mirage III.

Looks like they received USN surplus Douglas A-1 Skyraiders, and new Cessna A-37 Dragonflies (a light attack variant of the T-37). Perhaps they could get USN and USMC surplus A-4s as newer variants enter service.

 

[Zheng He]

Looks like they received USN surplus Douglas A-1 Skyraiders, and new Cessna A-37 Dragonflies (a light attack variant of the T-37). Perhaps they could get USN and USMC surplus A-4s as newer variants enter service.

Good thought, something along the same lines but higher performance.

 

[viewcode]

Where the streets have no name...

The F-104 starfighter seemed to be plagued by operational issues and a high accident rate for its entire military career. I also note the impact of operating the aircraft in a completely different role from its original role played in the accident rate.

Is there a way to amend the original design or is the aircraft doomed from the start.

Yup. You can do what they did IOTL: chop the wings off, fit glider wings to it, move the tailplane down near the exhaust, fit a rounded nose, and call it the U2

OK, that's an oversimplification, but it's not that far off...

 

[Simon]

The F-104 starfighter seemed to be plagued by operational issues and a high accident rate for its entire military career.

Did it though? I'll have to dig it out but I'd swear I remember reading somewhere that its accident rate wasn't so much worse than several other aircraft of the time. Air forces in the late 50s or early 60s generally had accident and death rates that nowadays seem almost obscene thanks to the rapidly developing and changing technology and aircraft. As Herzen's Love-Child said using it in a role it was never designed for and not really suited didn't help either.

The Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger seems to have been a more solid design.

Considering how much the US liked to use Fs and numbers in their designation system that aircraft is like the apotheosis of it. It's like someone spilt something sticky on the F and 1 keys and they kept sticking.

 

[viewcode]

A silver brick

Did it though? I'll have to dig it out but I'd swear I remember reading somewhere that its accident rate wasn't so much worse than several other aircraft of the time. Air forces in the late 50s or early 60s generally had accident and death rates that nowadays seem almost obscene thanks to the rapidly developing and changing technology and aircraft. As Herzen's Love-Child said using it in a role it was never designed for and not really suited didn't help either.

Unfortunately, yes it was unusually dangerous, even for its time. It was designed to go very fast in a straight line and everything else (manouverability, the ability to land easily, the ability to not kill the pilot) went straight out the window. Even Chuck Yeager couldn't fly it...literally. It was difficult to turn, difficult to land, and it had "Finding Nemo" wings. "Flying it near the ground" was almost synonymous with "flying it into the ground". The Wiki article waxes lyrical about how many hull losses it had in peacetime: saying "it killed more German pilots than Hurricanes" is an exaggeration, but you get the point. It was a bad aircraft to fly, both in absolute terms and in comparison with its contemporaries.

 

[andys]

To answer the OP, CL-1200 Lancer.