No F-104 Starfighter for Europe! Alternate designs instead.

SCOUT 5249

Lockheed and the F-104 starfighter, supposed to be the cheap alternative to beat the dreaded MIG 15/17 in combat.

In reality the F-104 wasn't really good from the get go, it had the speed but, from the poor turning radius due to its stubby wings, it's landing speed being it's stalling speed requiring intense control and judgement to not die-it was a widow maker something not even the G model could shake off.

It turns out, Lockheed had shelled out tons of money so European countries would buy the star fighter wholesale resulting in the company facing intense financial struggles from the scandal for years until the F-117 was borne from skunk works. Worse the F-105 killed of a number of native European designs that had tons of promise.

Now what if this wasn't the case and countries rejected the F-104? Or the bribes had been discovered and widely publicised

What alternate aircraft could have mede and used both native and foreign designs?
What kind of Impact there be for Lockheed
 

Finbarr the Fair

Hmm

Competitors from Europe included the Mirage III, Draken, EE Lightning, Saunders Roe 177. From the US I’d think a development of the F-8 Crusader and maybe a derivative of the aborted F-107?. Given the ambitious specifications I’m not sure that any contender offered what Lockheed promised (very speculatively) to provide with the F104G. I think the roles might have needed to be split.

IMHO the best option would have been to use the Buccaneer or Grumman A-6 Intruder for the tactical nuclear strike role. (Maybe the F105 too depending on range requirements and cost.) And probably the Draken as the Interceptor, though any of the Lightning, SR-1777 or Mirage III would do also and possibly also provide a ground attack and reconnaissance capability.

In the longer run the F-4 Phantom II would have been ideal. And indeed West Germany operated them too.
 

BlueTrousers

SCOUT 5249 said:
In reality the F-104 wasn't really good from the get go, it had the speed but, from the poor turning radius due to its stubby wings, it's landing speed being it's stalling speed requiring intense control and judgement to not die-it was a widow maker something not even the G model could shake off.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, not this again. The F-104G didn't have a notably different accident rate than any of its contemporaries. It wasn't obviously unsuitable for the role it was procured for. And you can't bribe your way to a winning contract with a losing proposition.

The leading alternative to the F-104G was the Mirage III. Most of the other fantasy options that aviation enthusiasts like to advocate are 'paper planes', which weren't in service anywhere. NATO wasn't going to be footing the bill for developing a completely new aircraft whose home country wasn't interested. So, realistically, if it's not the Starfighter, it's the Mirage.
 

Gudestein

BlueTrousers said:
Oh dear, not this again. The F-104G didn't have a notably different accident rate than any of its contemporaries. It wasn't obviously unsuitable for the role it was procured for. And you can't bribe your way to a winning contract with a losing proposition.

The leading alternative to the F-104G was the Mirage III. Most of the other fantasy options that aviation enthusiasts like to advocate are 'paper planes', which weren't in service anywhere. NATO wasn't going to be footing the bill for developing a completely new aircraft whose home country wasn't interested. So, realistically, if it's not the Starfighter, it's the Mirage.
Click to expand...
Denmark had the starfighter and the Draken. Kept the Draken much longer
 
Lascaris

Lascaris

BlueTrousers said:
Oh dear, not this again. The F-104G didn't have a notably different accident rate than any of its contemporaries. It wasn't obviously unsuitable for the role it was procured for. And you can't bribe your way to a winning contract with a losing proposition.

The leading alternative to the F-104G was the Mirage III. Most of the other fantasy options that aviation enthusiasts like to advocate are 'paper planes', which weren't in service anywhere. NATO wasn't going to be footing the bill for developing a completely new aircraft whose home country wasn't interested. So, realistically, if it's not the Starfighter, it's the Mirage.
Click to expand...
Realistically political considerations are favoring an American design over everyone else which why Draken for example would have no chance. If F-104G is out of the equation then the leading US candidates are Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger and F8U Crusader neither of which is a paper design both have variants in service with the USN. So at a guess you have Mirage III competing with F11F-1F and I'm inclined to believe said political considerations would had favored the Grumman plane... unless the Lockheed scandal has poisoned the well for all American candidates which I find somewhat unlikely.

NoMommsen said:
Actually ... did happen ... had at least quite some political "fall out".

Had it any considerable effects on Lockheed to speak of? ... mid- to longterm?
Click to expand...
Actually Lockheed came one step from bankruptcy in 1971 and had to ask for a government bailout which was given by the Nixon administration. If TTL the bribery scandals come early and it losses the F-104G contracts that's 1,992 aircraft and roughly 3 billion dollars in revenue at 1960 prices. May well be enough to tip Lockheed over the cliff particularly since it will also losing some C-130 contracts as well and there is a worse political climate for Lockheed over the development problems of C-5.

If you want to get funny giving Lockheed the American SST program instead of Boeing to prop it up seems to me likely in a scenario it has lost the F-104G contract... which likely means the US gets a working SST in Lockheed 2000... but the technical success may be an economic disaster for Lockheed.
 

arctic warrior

"The Widowmaker" -" Flying Coffin" - yes in Germany can't remember if in other places.

Danish Airforce flew 51 F-104G for 24 years of service - accident rate of 21,6%, 6 pilots killed - never attained the nick.
Also flew 51 F-35 Draken for 23 years of service - 17,6% accident rate, 3 pilots killed.
Flew F-100D/F for 29 years of service - 50% accident rate, 18 pilots killed.
F-16 flown for 44 years of service - 12,9% accident rate, 2 pilots killed.

One of my friends flew F-104G during his time as an Airforce Pilot - termed it a great plane but needing an alert pilot! Still alive and kicking.

Flying the F-35 Draken was for Scandinavian considerations. Besides this since 1961 its been US aircraft flying with the Danish Airforce even if European considerations have popped up at times but its mainly for being certain that replacements and spareparts would be available.

Edit: the first 29 aircraft was part of MAP which would anyway be a serious considering factor in procuring new aircraft - which of course was a strong incentive to buy US aircraft.
 
Last edited:

Finbarr the Fair

Lascaris said:
Realistically political considerations are favoring an American design over everyone else which why Draken for example would have no chance. If F-104G is out of the equation then the leading US candidates are Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger and F8U Crusader neither of which is a paper design both have variants in service with the USN. So at a guess you have Mirage III competing with F11F-1F and I'm inclined to believe said political considerations would had favored the Grumman plane... unless the Lockheed scandal has poisoned the well for all American candidates which I find somewhat unlikely.
Click to expand...
Probably correct, thanks for including the F11 Super Tiger, I'd forgotten about it.
Lascaris said:
Actually Lockheed came one step from bankruptcy in 1971 and had to ask for a government bailout which was given by the Nixon administration. If TTL the bribery scandals come early and it losses the F-104G contracts that's 1,992 aircraft and roughly 3 billion dollars in revenue at 1960 prices. May well be enough to tip Lockheed over the cliff particularly since it will also losing some C-130 contracts as well and there is a worse political climate for Lockheed over the development problems of C-5.

If you want to get funny giving Lockheed the American SST program instead of Boeing to prop it up seems to me likely in a scenario it has lost the F-104G contract... which likely means the US gets a working SST in Lockheed 2000... but the technical success may be an economic disaster for Lockheed.
Click to expand...
Interesting
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Lascaris said:
Actually Lockheed came one step from bankruptcy in 1971 and had to ask for a government bailout which was given by the Nixon administration. If TTL the bribery scandals come early and it losses the F-104G contracts that's 1,992 aircraft and roughly 3 billion dollars in revenue at 1960 prices. May well be enough to tip Lockheed over the cliff particularly since it will also losing some C-130 contracts as well and there is a worse political climate for Lockheed over the development problems of C-5.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten about the Lockheed bailout, but not the bribery scandals. What IF Lockheed functionally goes under, with the useful bits being bought out by competitors? Or, is that a TL unto itself?
 

BlueTrousers

Lascaris said:
Realistically political considerations are favoring an American design over everyone else which why Draken for example would have no chance. If F-104G is out of the equation then the leading US candidates are Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger and F8U Crusader neither of which is a paper design both have variants in service with the USN.
Click to expand...
The F11F-1F does seem like the likely front runner on the US side. Some sources say it was between that and the F-104, others that it was between the Mirage and the F-104, still others that it was a three-way contest. It was still risky compared to the others - what was being proposed was substantially different from the F11F-1 in USN service, and from the F11F-1F prototype. On top of that, the USN was cancelling contracts and withdrawing the type from front-line service. When the domestic customer is abandoning an aircraft with indecent haste, it's quite difficult to convince an export customer to buy it.

Ultimately, I think the political requirement (driven by nuclear weapons carriage) would relegate that to a secondary issue. I don't believe that buying the Grumman product would result in markedly lower accident rates.
I lurk therefore I am said:
The Hawker P.1121 gets saved from the infamous 1957 Defence review?
Click to expand...
The P.1121 was totally unaffected by the 1957 defence review. It was a Hawker private venture that the RAF was never particularly interested in, and which never had any official support.
 

Gannt the chartist

BlueTrousers said:
Ultimately, I think the political requirement (driven by nuclear weapons carriage) would relegate that to a secondary issue. I don't believe that buying the Grumman product would result in markedly lower accident rates.
Click to expand...

There are actually two political requirements, one is the nuclear role the second is the establishment of aircraft industries in Benelux, Italy and Germany. If you want a Mirage III - which is in no way proven at the time and has limited capability you also want France to help establish those industries and the US to accept mating their nukes with a French platform. Same issue with the Draaken but more so.

Lockheed has a massive advantage in terms of its marketing team ( and the Bribery does not hurt) but its basically desperate to make the sale. The USAF has dropped the 104, its losing in the airliner market and basically the whole US aircraft industry is imploding after the fat years of the 40s and 50s.
 

ivanotter

I have heard the story that the German F104 pilots were very 'aggressive'. They (apparently) wanted to prove that they were great and should never have been defeated in WWII (which was after all recent).
 

duckie

ivanotter said:
I have heard the story that the German F104 pilots were very 'aggressive'. They (apparently) wanted to prove that they were great and should never have been defeated in WWII (which was after all recent).
Click to expand...
Yep, but they trained as they would fight. I lived in the 60's/70's in an German Low Flying Area. And the Low was Low. Flying beneath 15 meters (about 45 feet) was allowed in those areas. Factor in hills / fog / rain etc. even an hiccup could be fatal. Nb. Driving along an small road and being past on the left and right by jet fighters, does wonders for your heart rate.
 

Cryhavoc101

One of the issues with Starfighter was for many users it was the first supersonic fighter they had operated and was more difficult to fly than the aircraft it replaced.

So IMO regardless of the supersonic fighter chosen instead, the accident rate is likely to remain the same.
 
SealTheRealDeal

SealTheRealDeal

The F-105 tends to go underrated in these discussions. It's vastly superior in the strike role that people kept trying to stuff the 104 into, and a very capable fighter to boot.
 

arctic warrior

Cryhavoc101 said:
One of the issues with Starfighter was for many users it was the first supersonic fighter they had operated and was more difficult to fly than the aircraft it replaced.

So IMO regardless of the supersonic fighter chosen instead, the accident rate is likely to remain the same.
Click to expand...
Which actually ties in nicely with the Danish experience. F-100D its first Supersonic Jet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top