Not just them but also the Swedes. Huge losses during Cold War because they had to fly as if in a war.
No F-104 Starfighter for Europe! Alternate designs instead.
- Thread starter SCOUT 5249
- Start date
Yep, but I suspect the considerably greater empty weight and engine thrust of the F105 might have translated into higher costs ? (Acquisition, maintenance, fuel etc..)
They are / were also both high performance single engine (and mostly single seat) aircraft that at least some (if not many ?
) operators would have flown in a low level strike role so attrition might have been similar for both air craft ?
In my view the benefits of the F105 might have been more apparent in the conventional strike role (vs the nuclear role ?)
Last edited:
The F-105 is a monster compared to the F-104 or Mirage III.
| Aircraft | Empty | MTOW (kg) |
| F-105 | 12 tons | 24 tons |
| F-104 | 6.4 tons | 13 tons |
| Mirage III | 7 tons | 14 tons |
The Thud was also not a fighter, and it was always escorted by real fighters during the strikes in Vietnam. The air-to-air victories were 90% gun kills on MiG-17s which were probably making head-on gun passes.
Don't forget we get ours some time later than other countries, so we know the problems other people had faced
How where they used?
Ie as an Interceptor?
The Germans I recall used theirs as strike aircraft and did he whole low level thing
Grumman wasn't in a much better position at the time, either. TBH I'm not convinced that the figures alleged to have received bribes from Lockheed (it still hasn't actually been proven!) didn't also receive inducements from Dassault, Grumman, or any other firm. No particular reason to think they did, either. But it would be odd if only one firm was slipping brown paper envelopes under the table.
If you're a smart bribee, you take the wad of cash from everyone, then make the decision you'd have made in the first place.
They also omitted the 'advanced training' thing, and put pilots straight out of basic flying training into high-performance jets and told them to fly demanding high-speed/low altitude profiles. The idea that you needed a step between 'big house/little house' and 'supersonic aerobatics with a nuclear weapon' hadn't fully sunk in anywhere yet, to be fair.
It was also a much larger, more complex, and more expensive aircraft. Republic tried to sell it to quite a few countries, but nobody was really very interested. It's fun to think of the Thunderchief as a real successor to the Thunderjet (Yugoslav F-105s, anyone?) but not terribly realistic.
classifying F1-5 as a 'figther' was a bit of a stretch. It was massive, internal bomb bay, etc. not what you expect of a 'fighter'
F104 was pressed into servicing a lot of roles. one of the top ones was (later in the day) to fly fast and low and deliver a nuclear bomb.
That it did well in Vietnam might be more due to the pilots.
F104 was pressed into servicing a lot of roles. one of the top ones was (later in the day) to fly fast and low and deliver a nuclear bomb.
That it did well in Vietnam might be more due to the pilots.
Grumman’s main advantage is its not shackled to a failing airliner manufacturer that’s now third in a two horse race like Lockheed. Lockheed’s big advantage is it has a working aircraft and staff who are bff with the Luftwaffe high ups. Also the USAF are not interested anymore so 104 specific items and or development plans are in Europe or nowhere.
105 is only a contender if you wait for the USAF to tool up, fix the problems with the B model, and the early F and allow tech transfer. So you can place an order in in 5 or years. Same for Mirage/Lightning especially if you want to do the ground attack with nukes thing.
105 is only a contender if you wait for the USAF to tool up, fix the problems with the B model, and the early F and allow tech transfer. So you can place an order in in 5 or years. Same for Mirage/Lightning especially if you want to do the ground attack with nukes thing.
Draken. Definetly the Draken. Get the same consortium that built the F-104G, Rolls Royce drooling over all the Avons it will sell/license. Considerably greater payload, greater range, better weapon harpoints, designed for ease of maintenance and can use roads. What's not to love?
The fact that it's still under development in 1957, and in fact would not surpass the F-104 until the J35D entered service in 1963 (the J35A and B were not capable of Mach 2, lacked the better hardpoints, and were stuck with Cyrano), with priority going to Swedish orders - the first export Drakens were not delivered until 1968.
The 1st F-104G flew in June 1960. If the 104 is out of the picture, then Saab can offer what they allready have in 56/57 for develpment in that timeframe.
At the same time as Lockheed was marketing the F-104, Avro Canada was desperately trying to sell the Canadian government on going back to their own C.104 project, a single-engine supersonic fighter which had actually started basic design work before their C.105 project, the (in)famous Avro Arrow. In OTL, no work had been done on the project for almost a decade, with Avro Canada's resources turned to the C.105, and there was no realistic chance of the Canadian government accepting the cost of trying to develop the C.104 rather than simply acquiring the F-104.
In an ATL where the RCAF's accepted the single-engine option for development in the early 1950s (meaning no effort to develop the C.105, and presumably the RCAF compromising on range and payload requirements which led to the Arrow OTL); that would neatly have an acceptable option flying to compete with the F-104, assuming that it took roughly the same amount of time to develop the C-104 as the C-105 (a much more ambitious program, which still had its first flight in 1959- after the F-104, but before sales to Europe started with West Germany in 1961). Since the C-104 was never developed (although drawings and supposed specs are easily found online) its hard to say how it would have compared to the F-104, but its delta planform and Orenda Iroquois engine (more powerful than the F-104's J79) should have given it a realistic chance of at least matching the American option. The C.104 should be much cheaper than the OTL Avro Arrow, although given the need to cover all design costs plus a less experienced workforce than Lockheed's it might still end up more expensive than the F-104, again depending on a wide variety of factors.
In an ATL where the RCAF's accepted the single-engine option for development in the early 1950s (meaning no effort to develop the C.105, and presumably the RCAF compromising on range and payload requirements which led to the Arrow OTL); that would neatly have an acceptable option flying to compete with the F-104, assuming that it took roughly the same amount of time to develop the C-104 as the C-105 (a much more ambitious program, which still had its first flight in 1959- after the F-104, but before sales to Europe started with West Germany in 1961). Since the C-104 was never developed (although drawings and supposed specs are easily found online) its hard to say how it would have compared to the F-104, but its delta planform and Orenda Iroquois engine (more powerful than the F-104's J79) should have given it a realistic chance of at least matching the American option. The C.104 should be much cheaper than the OTL Avro Arrow, although given the need to cover all design costs plus a less experienced workforce than Lockheed's it might still end up more expensive than the F-104, again depending on a wide variety of factors.
That amounts to the J35B, whose intended avionics and engines were so delayed they flew as test aircraft until the RM6C and Eriksson radar could be backfitted - in 1964.
I submit that this is an unacceptable delay, whether it's for a full-spec J35B or the J35D.
That seems to make some sense
IMHO For the low level nuclear strike role the F104G / CF104 seems like a reasonable choice at the time.
Great discussion, I just stumbled across this thread doing some research into F-104G alternatives, specifically the F-8. On another forum (secretprojects I think) there was mention that Vought offered a version of the F-8 (IF-8 or F-8I ???) that featured enhanced air-to-ground and using the J79. I know they proposed a similar idea in the early 70's (V-1000).
I haven't been able to find anymore on Vought's specific proposal to West Germany however it seems the F-8 would be the closest competitor to the F-104 assuming that MAP funding made it affordable and/or industry offsets were part of the package. Maybe even de-navalized a bit to make it possibly cheaper (ala F-18L vs F/A-18). The F-8 had been in production for a while by that point and it could replace not only the F-86 and F-84 (assuming adequate A2G was added) but even the RF-84. For the USNavy at least it proved to be a pretty capable jack-of-all-trades over southeast asia through most of the 60's.
I haven't been able to find anymore on Vought's specific proposal to West Germany however it seems the F-8 would be the closest competitor to the F-104 assuming that MAP funding made it affordable and/or industry offsets were part of the package. Maybe even de-navalized a bit to make it possibly cheaper (ala F-18L vs F/A-18). The F-8 had been in production for a while by that point and it could replace not only the F-86 and F-84 (assuming adequate A2G was added) but even the RF-84. For the USNavy at least it proved to be a pretty capable jack-of-all-trades over southeast asia through most of the 60's.