I'm thinking the Buccaneer would be a bit pricey for that. More easy to buy some Canberra's, same engine as the Lighting, and there're tried and tested
WI West Germany buys the EE Lighting and not the F-104?
- Thread starter tallthinkev
- Start date
Quite
If a supersonic ground attack and nuclear strike aircraft was the prime mission then the F105 was the best answer.
It sould be noted that the f-12 dispite still Being in development was the choice of the evaluating team, the destion to choose the f-104 (which came in second place but i dont think the merage III was even tested) was made from above at the political level, something seval members of the group ended up regrating for the rest of there lives. (as a member of the grumman team said, "they were gust better at the game then us" 😉).
The f-12 was extremely unlucky, had the same thing happen in Japan (not helped by the usn not wanting grumman distracted from biulding praticly ever naval fighter at the time), the the French naval test pilot completely fail to fly the plane and brake his back. Honestly a shame for a plane that was much better at everything but straight line intersepting then the f-104.
The f-12 was extremely unlucky, had the same thing happen in Japan (not helped by the usn not wanting grumman distracted from biulding praticly ever naval fighter at the time), the the French naval test pilot completely fail to fly the plane and brake his back. Honestly a shame for a plane that was much better at everything but straight line intersepting then the f-104.
I believe you're referring to the Grumman F-11F-1f, correct?
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Yes that was the prototype designation (not a us project so grumman used internal markers) the actual construction version (if the usn bought some) was going to be f-12 and have a larger wing along with the bigger engine (even then I don't think that would have been as big a change as the f-104G was to the f-104C)I believe you're referring to the Grumman F-11F-1c, correct?
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Buccanneer and EE Lightning faced the problems of being large, complicated aircraft.
The Buccanneer was even bigger and heavier than the F-105. A loaded Buccanneer weighed around twice what a F-104G weighed. The Buccanneer may have been even more expensive, too, both to purchase and operate than F-105 given it was a twin-engined, two seater.
The same with the EE Lightning, too. It was large, complicated twin-engined aircraft, that was expensive to purchase and operate.
Further, operating two aircraft is inherently more expensive and complicated than operating a single type.
The F-104G also came with lots of economic incentives. E.g., Many of the airframes and engines were manufactured in Germany. Then there was US mutual aid/military assistance. Plus, availability of US bases for training in the Mojave and elsewhere. No doubt a deal for the F-11F1 would have included many of these incentives as well.
Beyond any purely performance matters, the logistics and economics of operating the aircraft werea major part of the decision.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The Buccanneer was even bigger and heavier than the F-105. A loaded Buccanneer weighed around twice what a F-104G weighed. The Buccanneer may have been even more expensive, too, both to purchase and operate than F-105 given it was a twin-engined, two seater.
The same with the EE Lightning, too. It was large, complicated twin-engined aircraft, that was expensive to purchase and operate.
Further, operating two aircraft is inherently more expensive and complicated than operating a single type.
The F-104G also came with lots of economic incentives. E.g., Many of the airframes and engines were manufactured in Germany. Then there was US mutual aid/military assistance. Plus, availability of US bases for training in the Mojave and elsewhere. No doubt a deal for the F-11F1 would have included many of these incentives as well.
Beyond any purely performance matters, the logistics and economics of operating the aircraft werea major part of the decision.
Blackburn Buccaneer - Wikipedia
English Electric Lightning - Wikipedia
Republic F-105 Thunderchief - Wikipedia
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - Wikipedia
Last edited:
yes they wanted the SR177, they even develop Rocket engine P.111 for it (wat became later HDTW/H20 and ended up inspiration for Shuttle Main engine)
The Luftwaffe look into the Lightning as alternative, but after five minute they realised this was bad idea.
So good the Lightning is as Fast interceptor, it not cover demands of Luftwaffe for:
Fast Interceptor, combat aircraft, reconnaissance plane, ground support aircraft, bomber and tactical nuclear bomber...
The Lockheed F-104G was taken as Multi-combat aircraft, despite it was Fast high altitude Interceptor unsuitable for that role.
i wonder what Lockheed pay who in Germany for that Deal...
From a story on the Lockheed bribery scandal in Time magazine September 13, 1976 issue according to the Wayback machine (emphasis added):
The newly opened election campaign heated up last week when the Bonn government announced that it would send a high Justice Ministry official to Washington in the next few weeks to make final arrangements for access to U.S. documents concerning the Lockheed scandals. This rekindled interest in the allegations that Lockheed bribes had gone to the right-of-center Christian Social Union, the Bavarian ally of the Christian Democrats, and its longtime leader, former Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss.
Late last year, former Lockheed Lobbyist Ernest Hauser, the man who first brought Prince Bernhard's name into the Lockheed scandals, told Senate investigators that Strauss and the C.S.U. had received at least $10 million for West Germany's purchase of 900 F-104 Starfighters in 1961. The party and its leader denied the allegations, and Strauss filed a slander suit against Hauser. The quarrel ended what was left of a longstanding friendship that went back to Mauser's days as a U.S. Army intelligence officer during the postwar occupation of Germany. Hauser had helped Strauss get his start in local Bavarian politics, and Strauss repaid him years later when, as Defense Minister, he asked Lockheed to put Hauser on the payroll. Since Hauser's allegations were not corroborated, the Lockheed issue was simply dropped in Bonn.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
A word on cost/price.
While I don't have a price for the Lightning I've read that it was 4/5 that of the Phantom, and given it's complexity and capability and the fact that it was British so would be 10-15% more expensive per unit than if it was American that sounds about right. The flyaway cost of an F4C was $1.9 million in 1965 according to Wiki, also according to Wiki the flyway cot of an F014G was $1.4 million. So the Lightning would be about $1.6-1.7 million per unit flyaway making it 14-21% more expensive per unit than the F104G. Of course flyaway price is likely a guess, and that guess has a rough bearing on the initial purchase price given it was setting up licence production, as well as keeping a fleet of at least 9 wings of aircraft in service for at least 2 decades.
The Plowden report of 1965, admittedly written about commercial airliners, stated that due to the fractured nature of the European airliner market British airliners never sold in enough numbers to get sufficient volume to get prices down. Thus British airliners, the VC10, Trident and BAC111 were some 10-15% more expensive than US aircraft from Boeing and Douglas. If the Marcel Dassault won't sell an aircraft to the Germans and the Mirage III isn't ready anyway, making the F104 and Lightning the only choices, a sale to the Luftwaffe will boost the volume of the Lightning so high that it would drive the unit price right down to as low as it could go, in the $1.6m range rather than $1.7m+.
I don't think that price alone would be a deciding factor if the British supported the Lightning and decided to push it head to head with the F104 back in 1958, by supporting the multi-role and nuclear weapons developments.
While I don't have a price for the Lightning I've read that it was 4/5 that of the Phantom, and given it's complexity and capability and the fact that it was British so would be 10-15% more expensive per unit than if it was American that sounds about right. The flyaway cost of an F4C was $1.9 million in 1965 according to Wiki, also according to Wiki the flyway cot of an F014G was $1.4 million. So the Lightning would be about $1.6-1.7 million per unit flyaway making it 14-21% more expensive per unit than the F104G. Of course flyaway price is likely a guess, and that guess has a rough bearing on the initial purchase price given it was setting up licence production, as well as keeping a fleet of at least 9 wings of aircraft in service for at least 2 decades.
The Plowden report of 1965, admittedly written about commercial airliners, stated that due to the fractured nature of the European airliner market British airliners never sold in enough numbers to get sufficient volume to get prices down. Thus British airliners, the VC10, Trident and BAC111 were some 10-15% more expensive than US aircraft from Boeing and Douglas. If the Marcel Dassault won't sell an aircraft to the Germans and the Mirage III isn't ready anyway, making the F104 and Lightning the only choices, a sale to the Luftwaffe will boost the volume of the Lightning so high that it would drive the unit price right down to as low as it could go, in the $1.6m range rather than $1.7m+.
I don't think that price alone would be a deciding factor if the British supported the Lightning and decided to push it head to head with the F104 back in 1958, by supporting the multi-role and nuclear weapons developments.
Riain
Banned
The USAF F104C was a multirole version of the F104, this is what the the USAF sent to Vietnam in 1965 and what the G version was developed from.
The Lightning sold to the Saudis and Kuwaitis were multirole, including recce camera packs in the removable front equipment bay instead of the Red Tops or rocket packs. The Lightning never got a fraction of the development that it had the potential for, it could have done everything that the F104 did and some things even better.
However, the Dassault Mirage III, the Lightning and the Starfighter weren't the only choices. Other choices included the Saunders-Roe SR.177, the SAAB J-35 Draken, the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, the Vought F8U Crusader, the Grumman F11F-1F Tiger, and (according to some sources I've seen) the Sud Trident III.
Also, I'm not certain why the fact the Mirage wasn't in service matters that much. When the decision was announced in November of1958 the Lightning wasn't ready. The first Lightning wouldn't enter service until July of 1960, over 4 months after the superb Saab Draken entered service. Conversely, versions of the F-104 had been in squadron service service since 20 Feb 1958, the F-8U in April 1957 (or December 1956, depending on how you figure), and the F11F since late 1956 (or early 1957, again depending on how you figure).
I really doubt that the large, twin engined Lightning price equipped would've been $1.7m (in 1960 $USD) if the F-104G was $1.42. I think it's probably be 2x times that given the Lightning's complexity and Lockheed's comparative advantage in economies of scales.
Also, there was also US mutual aid/military assistance money, and other US government largesse. Plus training aid, plus who knows what else.
A really big reason for the F-104 being chosen was the technology transfer package Lockheed . This included having F-104 airframes and engines made in Germany by German companies.
Frankly gust on forune assistance alone means an American plane was going to be chosen, didn't have to be the f-104 (like I mentioned previously the evaluating team chose the f-12, and grumman had no issues with setting up a factory in Germany).
Riain
Banned
I don't understand the love the F12 gets, it's a 'paper' plane, as in it didn't exist. Export customers hate being the lead customer for something they're not in control of. This sort of boring practical crap is what quickly eliminates aircraft that are not in squadron service with their home air force.
What we appear to be forgetting in the case of Saab 35 Drakon is that Sweden was neutral at this stage. It was loath to supply aircraft to anybody and was not a reliable arms manufacturer. So much so, it was doubtful that it would supply the aircraft to Germany. Australia found how unreliable Sweden was during the Vietnam War when Sweden forbade the use of the L35a1 Carl Gustav rcl during the conflict and stopped the export of ammunition of that calibre to Australia. Australia was forced to use tracker dogs instead. The US was forbidden to use Carl Gustav SMGs as well in the conflict and instead decided to copy it for use by their special forces. So that removes it from the list as far as most other nations are concerned.
It had an actual prototype flying since 1956, prior to the EE P1B prototype. So the choice of the F12 would have the same constraints as the Lightning and Mirage.
It must have been hard to fit them into the launch tube, I thought the Charlie G was 84mm. I guess they could have used dachsunds or something.
The sort of aircraft not in squadron service such as the EE Lightning? Aircraft that don't exist such as the ground attack and recon versions of the EE Lightning?
The F11F-1F/F12F was no more a paper airplane than the EE Lightning at the time of the competition.
The F11F was the basis for the F11F-1F/F12F. The F11F first flew in 1954, and the F11F-1 was in squadron service in 1956.
The F11F-1F was an up-engined F11F-1 and the demonstrator of the F12F. The changes in F11F-1 were fairly minimal. The F11-1F had a GE J-79 engine instead of the Wright J-65 engine of F11F. It also had a fuselage plug to hold the bigger engine, increasing it's length by 35 inches, plus other minor changes to fuselage, inlets, and windshield. From design initiation to finished F11F1-1F took Grumman just 9 months. The F11F-1F first flew onn 30 May of 1956, 10 months before the EE Lightning's first flight on 4 April 1957.
The F12F is what the F11F-1F production model would have been called F12F. It would have differed from F11F-1F in having a larger wing for more tankage for the larger, thirstier J-79 and different radar. (I believe that the F11F-1F had folding wing; the F12F wouldn't have this.)
Most of the F11/F11-1F/F12 history is set out in U.S. Naval Air Superiority: Development of Shipborne Jet Fighters 1943-1962
This tome does note that Grumman had an entirely different design for twin engined jet called Design 118, to compete for the contract that the McDonnell Phantom II won. Design 118 is sometimes incorrectly referred to as the F12F. That project didn't go very far forward. Is it possible that this what you think @cjc and others mean when they refer to the F12 rather than the F11F variant? The F11F variant is the one that Grumman proposed to sell to Germany. The other Grumman project was a paper airplane
Last edited: