WI West Germany buys the EE Lighting and not the F-104?

[Riain]

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

Firstly, let me say that the political situation in Britain precludes the export of the Lightning to Germany, IOTL when the Luftwaffe looked at it they were told by British government people not to buy it. It wouldn't matter how good the plane was with the British government actively working against the aircraft no export customer in their right mind will buy it. However for the purpose of this exercise I do some mental gymnastics and assume Britain has some sense and supports the aircraft both for the RAF and exports.

As for the Lightning being a paper plane in 1958, that is simply incorrect. 20 P1B pre-production, development batch aircraft were ordered in Feb 54, 2 P11 trainer prototypes in May 56, 20 F1 and 30 F1A in Nov 56 and 30 T4 in June 58 and the RAF were farting around with the F2 order with 50 finally being ordered in Dec 59. So while the Lightning wasn't in sqn service when the Luftwaffe was looking at it the development batch production was well underway, as was the aircraft for the first 3 sqns and backup like 2 seaters were under construction and more on order. Britain had a lot more capacity to speed up Lightning production and churn out much greater numbers than OTL, making it much more of a contender than other non US manufacturers.

 

[Gillan1220]

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.

I learn something new everday.

The Swedish really had a rather ambiguous position in the Vietnam War. It even gave some diplomatic support to the Viet Cong.

The U.S. meanwhile used the Sten Gun with suppressors for their Special Forces.

 

[PhilKearny]

As for the Lightning being a paper plane in 1958, that is simply incorrect.

You apparently need to reread my post that you've quoted. You obviously misunderstood my post or you're trying to set up a strawman.

It's simply incorrect for you to suggest, imply, or claim that my post somehow claims or suggests the EE Lightning was a paper airplaine. I wrote, "The F11F-1F/F12F was no more a paper airplane than the EE Lightning at the time of the competition." That is, neither plane was a paper airplane as both planes were in existence at the time in question. I then offered evidence the F11F-1F/F12F existed at the time in question, giving a precis of the history of the F11F/F12F. I also had earlier provided links to sources of information on the F11F-1F/F12. Other participants in this thread, most notably @cjc, had also discussed the history of the F11F-1F/F12F.

I made the post about the existence and the history of F11F-1F/F12 to correct a "simply incorrect" and unsupported statement made earlier in this thread that incorrectly claimed that the F11F-1F/F12 the was a paper airplane and didn't exist.

I don't understand the love the F12 gets, it's a 'paper' plane, as in it didn't exist.

Let me make it clear:

• Yes, the F11F-1F/F12 existed, just as the EE Lightning exsisted, at the time in question

• The F11F-1F/F12 did not exist in the final form that the Germans might have bought at the time of the competition

• None of the other planes in the competition existed in the final form that Germans would have bought were, including the eventual winner of the competition, the F-104G

• Saying or implying my post said the EE Lightning was a paper airplane is simply incorrect, just as claiming that the F11-1F/F12 didn't exist is incorrect

 

[Riain]

You apparently need to reread my post that you've quoted.

I re-read the F11-f1 status, that's where I've gone wrong. It was a private venture to have a look at the J79 in the F11 that went much, MUCH better than expected. It wasn't developed to fit any operational requirement, to enter any competition against other fighters to fit a USN procurement or whatever, did it even undertake carrier trials for the USN?

Sure the F11-F1 was was fast and was zoom climbed to 79,000' but without the industrial backing of the USN bringing it into squadron service within a time-frame to match the Luftwaffe's 1960 time-frame it simply isn't going to happen. This is what make the Lightning a contender when so many other aircraft are not; it's in squadron service with it's home airforce in 1960 when the Luftwaffe needs it, not 1960 without a radar and gunsight like the Draken or 1963 like the Mirage IIIC. As I said earlier, and probably should have made clear, the export of the Lightning requires the mental gymnastics of Britain being sensible about the Lightning from the 1957 DWP and developing it as the RAF's tactical fighter for 16 of the RAF's 20 tactical fighter sqns of the 60s, but from a technical development standpoijt the Lightning is better placed to fit the Luftwaffe's post SR177 requirement than most other aircraft.

 

[cjc]

I re-read the F11-f1 status, that's where I've gone wrong. It was a private venture to have a look at the J79 in the F11 that went much, MUCH better than expected. It wasn't developed to fit any operational requirement, to enter any competition against other fighters to fit a USN procurement or whatever, did it even undertake carrier trials for the USN?

Sure the F11-F1 was was fast and was zoom climbed to 79,000' but without the industrial backing of the USN bringing it into squadron service within a time-frame to match the Luftwaffe's 1960 time-frame it simply isn't going to happen. This is what make the Lightning a contender when so many other aircraft are not; it's in squadron service with it's home airforce in 1960 when the Luftwaffe needs it, not 1960 without a radar and gunsight like the Draken or 1963 like the Mirage IIIC. As I said earlier, and probably should have made clear, the export of the Lightning requires the mental gymnastics of Britain being sensible about the Lightning from the 1957 DWP and developing it as the RAF's tactical fighter for 16 of the RAF's 20 tactical fighter sqns of the 60s, but from a technical development standpoijt the Lightning is better placed to fit the Luftwaffe's post SR177 requirement than most other aircraft.

Once more the evaluation team disagrees with you, wich makes sense, I don't think more then a dozen f-104g were built in the us (and were all test beds or trainers, not active service, something grumman can easily do as the f-11 factory was still open) , the rest were built at the german factory wich would take gust as long for grumman as it did for lockheed. The usn frankly never inters the picture here, although they did hevely consider the plane for anti snuper work on the hydraulic catapult Essex's.

Also the f-12 was a lot better (and more importantly stable) down low, with a much better bombing capacity, wale not being that much worse at intercepting.

 

[PhilKearny]

I re-read the F11-f1 status, that's where I've gone wrong. It was a private venture to have a look at the J79 in the F11 that went much, MUCH better than expected.

The F11F-F1 wasn't a private venture.

Grumman made a proposal to the Navy for a J-79 power . The Navy agreed to fund the production of two F11F-F1. to the extent of the converting two F11Fs to F11F-1Fs. Some testing was done. The Navy considered buying 23 Supertigers and the Navy issued two contract numbers at one point but the contract numbers were rescinded before the first flight took place.

 

[Riain]

I have an idea, but I'm on my phone and whacked out of my mind on post-op drugs atm.

Would it be possible to put together a list of production numbers and orders up to about mid-late 1958 for the contenders for this Luftwaffe requirement? Including prototype, pre-production/development batch and each production variant produced or on order.

I did one for the Lightning a few posts back, and the F104 should be pretty easy. I think it will make things look a bit different.

 

[BlueTrousers]

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)

F12F, not F-12 - US Navy designations don't include the hyphen, and the second 'F' denotes that it's a Grumman product, as distinct form the Curtiss F12C, which definitely wouldn't fit the Luftwaffe requirement:

Okay, not a terribly likely bit of confusion, but the USN did have the F4D and the F4H in service at the same time. The Grumman Model 98J2 may have formally received the F12F designation, but it's not entirely clear; Grumman also used A2F to refer to an attack derivative of the F11F, and that designation wound up actually being carried by the Intruder.

It certainly seems like the 98J2 - whatever its designation - had a very poor run of luck, not just with regard to Lockheed's behaviour but also not really fitting any USN requirement and having mishaps on test flights that weren't really the aircraft's fault. It does seem like it was a perfectly good aircraft, although probably not deserving the wonderplane reputation it seems to have built up online.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

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

Maybe the A7 Corsair?

 

[Hammerbolt]

Maybe the A7 Corsair?

Excelent choice.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The Corsair isn't even a concept in 1958.

 

[PhilKearny]

The Corsair isn't even a concept in 1958.

Yup. The A-7 Corsair II was a pretty good airplane, but it wouldn't have been available in time for the competition due to the state of technology when the competition occurred. A big reason that the A-7 had its combination range and payload was that it relied on the relatively new technology: the high bypass turbofan engine.

 

[Riain]

This is the status of the Mach 2 tactical aircraft aircraft programmes in mid-late 1958 when Germany made its decision to procure the F104G. This will give an idea of the maturity of the designs from a customer point of view, how much development work and risk they will have to undertake which is crucial given that such customers do not have any control over the actual designs.

F104 - delivering 77 F104C on order for USAF TAC, delivered 26 F104B, 153 F104A, 17 YF104A pre-production, 2 XF104 prototypes.
F105 - delivering 71 F105B on order, delivered 4 pre production and 2 prototypes
F106 - delivered 2 prototypes from order of 17, 350 ordered and deliveries began 1959
EE Lightning - delivering 20 pre-production order from Apr 1958, delivered 3 P1B and 2 P1A prototypes, 50 production fighters and 2 prototype 2 seaters on order
Mirage III - delivering 10 pre-production order from May 1958, delivered 1 prototype
Draken - Delivering 90 A model (including test airframes without avionics and armament) from Feb 1958 , delivered 3 prototypes
Grumman F11-F1 - delivered 2 prototypes

As can be easily seen the F104 was by far the most mature type, all Germany had to do was pick a list of stuff it wanted fitted and the type was good to go. The F105 was already in production while the Lightning and Draken were considerably more mature than the Mirage III while the Super Tiger didn't stand a chance in such a list.

 

[tallthinkev]

Could the Hawker Hunter be an option for ground attack?
If so this makes a three aircraft with the Avon engine
Lighting, Hunter and Buck
Also could be a bit of a discount when buying

 

[The Wooksta!]

Buccaneer never had Avon, the S1s had the frankly shite Gyron Junior, replaced in the S2 with the Spey.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Was there any hurry to acquire new aircrafts for the West German Airforce?

 

[Riain]

Could the Hawker Hunter be an option for ground attack?
If so this makes a three aircraft with the Avon engine
Lighting, Hunter and Buck
Also could be a bit of a discount when buying

The RAF updated Hunter F6 to FB9 and FR10 initially to replace 6 sqns of Venom fighter-bombers based in the Near and Far East plus two Meteor fighter-recce sqns, with the expectation that they would only serve until about 1969 when it would be replaced by missiles.

That is a fair enough appraisal of the value of a Hunter in a front line air force, 10 years of service before requiring replacement. This was a fairly cheap and easy process for the RAF, they already had everything in place to support the Hunter in service. However the Luftwaffe would have to acquire not only the planes but also all the supporting gear, expertise and infrastructure only to throw it all away again in 10 years. In contrast if they simply bought more of the main type such as Lightning they could buy a bit more supporting gear secure in the knowledge that they'd be using it for 20 years, which makes it better Value for Money despite perhaps a lower acquisition cost.

 

[Blue cat]

Was there any hurry to acquire new aircrafts for the West German Airforce?

Given historical events (the Berlin crisis ?) I would expect there would have been a certain sense of urgency (especially if the decision making process had been delayed) but I really don't know.

 

[Riain]

Was there any hurry to acquire new aircrafts for the West German Airforce?

The decision to equip the Luftwaffe with a Mach 2 fighter-bomber was made in mid-late 1958, a mere 3 years after West Germany gained full authority as a sovereign state and joined NATO, thereby ending the Allied Occupation and giving Germany responsibility for defending itself against the might of the Red Army for the first time in a decade.

Further afield the infamous British White paper that ended conscription and declared manned aircraft obsolescent happened in April 1957, and the US undertook some changes in light of the new nuclear deterrence/conventional tripwire security paradigm at about the same time.

The Luftwaffe was formed from scratch in 1955 with ex-US F84 Thunderstreaks, obsolescent at best in 1955-60.

So the question really answers itself; as newly minted Sovereign state and NATO member facing a new security environment where the US and UK are withdrawing conventional forces in favour of thermonuclear weapons and currently equipped with obsolescent aircraft West Germany was in a hurry to acquire new, and state of the art, aircraft for its new Luftwaffe.

 

[Blue cat]

The decision to equip the Luftwaffe with a Mach 2 fighter-bomber was made in mid-late 1958, a mere 3 years after West Germany gained full authority as a sovereign state and joined NATO, thereby ending the Allied Occupation and giving Germany responsibility for defending itself against the might of the Red Army for the first time in a decade.

Further afield the infamous British White paper that ended conscription and declared manned aircraft obsolescent happened in April 1957, and the US undertook some changes in light of the new nuclear deterrence/conventional tripwire security paradigm at about the same time.

The Luftwaffe was formed from scratch in 1955 with ex-US F84 Thunderstreaks, obsolescent at best in 1955-60.

So the question really answers itself; as newly minted Sovereign state and NATO member facing a new security environment where the US and UK are withdrawing conventional forces in favour of thermonuclear weapons and currently equipped with obsolescent aircraft West Germany was in a hurry to acquire new, and state of the art, aircraft for its new Luftwaffe.

This URL links to a document that provides a bit more information about the German F104 purchase (both in terms of back ground and subsequent events.)

http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_GAF_production_eng.pdf