Best naval fighter of the mid-1960s?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

The F-8 Crusader hard to land? There are several documented instances of the Crusader taking off and landing on a carrier with its wings in the folded position.

And your point is? Sorry, but each of your comments on this thread only serves to further highlight your lack of understanding of how fighters operate. The F-8 had a ton of landing issues, including poor lateral stability, high stall speed so low stall margin & poor wave-off characteristics, nose gear bounce etc. Check this report for part of the story:
www.aoe.vt.edu/~durham/2002-71.pdf

The thrust to weight ratios quoted for F-4, F-104 and Super Tiger are misleading because they use thrust at standard (sea level press and temp) conditions. as you gain height and speed, the more efficient multi shock intakes of the F-104 would give it a thrust advantage over the Super Tiger. Grumman was pleasantly surprised by the M2 capability of the two Super Tiger prototypes as they onlyexpected M1.4. See American Secret Projects: fighters and interceptors 1949 to 1975.

Right. Show me the evidence that the F-104's intake design gave it a thrust advantage in the Mach 1.5 to Mach 2.0 range. :p

The reality is that the F-104 intakes were temperature limited to Mach 2.0 (though one F-104C with modified intakes for a record attempt did reach Mach 2.37). By comparison, the Super Tiger was able to reach Mach 2.0 with 2 underwing Sidewinders, so pretty similar. Clean, it had earlier reached Mach 2.04 with the weaker J79-GE-3 engine (15,000lbs instead of 15,800lbs on the J79-GE-7 that would have been on production aircraft, which is a big difference). Its intakes had some interesting boundary layer devices that seem to have worked quite well.

As far as I know, and I'll admit it was a special stripped version, no other aircraft from that era, neither F-4, Lightning and certainly not the Super Tiger could zoom climb to 104,000ft like the F-104. That should imply something about its T/W ratio and its wing.

Agree that that's very impressive. However, the actual T/W ratios and climb performance give a more accurate picture of its operational capabilities than some super high altitude record attempt.

IMHO the F-104C had a slight raw performance edge over all other American jets of the time (don't know how it compared to the Lightning). I don't think that this edge carried over to the F-104G. And I certainly don't think it outweighed the F-104's numerous issues, including dangerous landing/engine flameout characteristics, poor maneuverability, and so-so tactical capability.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 630

Here's Grumman's internal assessment of the F-104. Shows how raw performance is only one of many drivers of combat effectiveness, something that a lot of people seem to forget (including some of the German test pilots who evaluated the F-104 at the time! :p)

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee106/OPEX-Afghanistan/F-104FlightTestReport.jpg

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

The F-104G had a much better radius of action & payload than F-104A. I don't know how well the other issues were addressed.

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 251

Shouldn't this be in 'historic' forum?
Best carrier based fighter of the period was the Phantom, second was the Sea Vixen.
The latter despite being batted back and forth for 12 years between the RN, RAF, and the Air Ministry was an extremely modern and capable aircraft sytems wise, even if airframe was getting on and strictly subsonic.

Since we seem to have opened this up to include British Naval fighters, what about the Scimitar? It started life as a day interceptor but was ultimately used as a strike fighter. Also wasn't there talk about a supersonic Sea Vixen?

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

Yeah, but we're talking about the F-104G and did you notice that it's T/W was 0.62 instead of 0.68 for the F-104C? (due to 1,500lbs higher gross weight for avionics & fuel, and 200lbs lower thrust. I wouldn't be surprised if it the F-104G's time to 30,000ft was closer to 2min, i.e. a lot more than an F-4.

The initial climb-rate of the F-104G fighter-bomber variant is 254 m/sec. It is about thrust versus drag and and the effectiveness of the propulsion system.
The 'G' does climb to 11 km in 2 minutes and has covered a distance of 17,5 nm by that under standard day conditions.
Despite a lower initial climb-rate the F-4 does surpass the F-104 above 9 km, because its propulsion system got ever better with height and speed.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

Here's Grumman's internal assessment of the F-104. Shows how raw performance is only one of many drivers of combat effectiveness, something that a lot of people seem to forget (including some of the German test pilots who evaluated the F-104 at the time! :p)

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee106/OPEX-Afghanistan/F-104FlightTestReport.jpg

That report in 1957 was from a time-scale with one of the first variants of the F-104 and the new J79.
At that time scale considerable improvements were achieved in month, because the knowledge-base and technology did progress in short notice. New items were forced into front-line use with much less testing than today. At that time-scale non did see a new fighter to be in first-line service more than 10 years and much higher accident-rates were accepted.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 523

And your point is? Sorry, but each of your comments on this thread only serves to further highlight your lack of understanding of how fighters operate.

In reading your comments about the F-104, may I ask what is the basis for your understanding of how fighters operate...and in particular, how the F-104 operated?

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 190

H_K
my understsnding of how the F-104 operates is undoubtedly superior to yours. I cannot say the same about the Super Tiger, all I know about it is what is on the pages of American Secret Projects: fighters and interceptors 1949 to 1975. But hey, at least I provide sources for what I spout.
I wonder what Lockheed's assessment of the Super Tiger would have said? No doubt it would have found it inferior to their own product. We do however know what independant par
ties thought of the F-104 and the Super Tiger. The starfighter was tested and bought by the U.S. airforce, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Belgium, Neatherlands and a few others I'm forgetting. The Super Tiger was bought by how many after at least three competitions with the F-104 that we know of? Oh yeah NONE!!!
The opinion of one of the two competitors means absolutely nothing since they will always say their product is superior, only independant opinions matter.

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 100

Hmmmm, should not this entire thread be in the historic section?

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

Since we seem to have opened this up to include British Naval fighters, what about the Scimitar? It started life as a day interceptor but was ultimately used as a strike fighter. Also wasn't there talk about a supersonic Sea Vixen?

The Scimitar F.1 seems to have ultimately been better as a fast strike/ground attack aircraft rather than a pure fighter, hence it having a very short front-line service career, effectively replaced by the Buccaneer S.1 strike / bomber. Even the larger and heavier Vixen could out manouver it.
There were various proposals for supersonic thin wing and reheat powered Sea Vixen developments, but all came to nought - maybe the mistake was not to order any of these.

One thing that also has to be remembered is that from the late 1950s the British had decided to go down the route of not having manned combat aircraft and relying on missile systems, this was a flawed idea which meant that the Lightning and Buccaneer were the only fast combat aircraft of the period to actually get ordered and put into service
, this might explain why there are few British naval jets to choose from, both Vixen and Scimitar being 1950s (even '40s) designs.

I disagree with the comment that America made brilliant fighters in the 1950s. The Sabre and Phantom were, but history tells us that the others were very fast, low-level nuke strike aircraft rather than good fighters. Combat manouverability and handling at altitude of most was traded for out and out speed, Don't get me wrong I love the century series aircraft, but they were overweight hotrods on tiny wings, something that makes the Thunderchiefs pilots results in air to air combat in Vietman even more impressive.

I still go with my original thoughts, Phantom was great, but the Crusader not so, Super Tiger not built so irrelevant.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

Hmmmm, should not this entire thread be in the historic section?

Why? Nothing did change about the related speed-envelope and the missions in general. At that time-scale several fighters or variants of that did show up every year. For some years we are eager to learn something about a new fighter at all, when most of the technology progress does advance "invisible" in the avionic and material sectors every year. The F-4 is still in some frontline service f.e.over 40 years later! ;)
A GAF example did just pass 7500 flying hours in service.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

It would be interesting to ask the same question again in Historic, just to see what differences there might be.

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 523


I disagree with the comment that America made brilliant fighters in the 1950s. The Sabre and Phantom were, but history tells us that the others were very fast, low-level nuke strike aircraft rather than good fighters. Combat manouverability and handling at altitude of most was traded for out and out speed, Don't get me wrong I love the century series aircraft, but they were overweight hotrods on tiny wings, something that makes the Thunderchiefs pilots results in air to air combat in Vietman even more impressive..

The US builds fighters for power projection where range and payload are the more important desired characteristics. Unlike its European allies, had the US felt the need for a point defense interceptor, it would have kept the F-104A...but it didn't. What it did need in the interception role was what it designed and employed...long range, all weather radar equipped interceptors. Similarly, when it came to conventional and nuclear weapon delivery, it built fighter-bombers (F-105, F-111 and A-7) or modified A2A designs to fit the fighter bomber role (F-84, F-100 and F-16).

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

It would be interesting to ask the same question again in Historic, just to see what differences there might be.

There you find the piston-engine fighters, the museum pieces and warbirds at first.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

The US had a cracking dog fighter with with the Sabre (lower range, more agile), as proved in Korea, then spent the next 20 or so years by not following the concept at all until the likes of the fantastic F-15 and F-16.
I can't agree with the F-104 being a good fighter either, very heavy workload and definately not agile.
I understand why they wanted fast nuke delivery trucks for TAC, but it was almost like the need for a small agile fighter was completely ignored for a long period, Korea and Vietnam seem to bookend that era quite nicely.
It seems the USN were more into the small fighter types, Fury, Skyray, Cougar, and Tiger all being in that class, but again they were 1950s designs.

Sens you might be surprised, if the same question were asked in Historic I don't think there would be many warbirds in the answer!
My answer would still be the same though!

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 3,718

The US had a cracking dog fighter with with the Sabre (lower range, more agile), as proved in Korea, then spent the next 20 or so years by not following the concept at all until the likes of the fantastic F-15 and F-16.
I can't agree with the F-104 being a good fighter either, very heavy workload and definately not agile.
I understand why they wanted fast nuke delivery trucks for TAC, but it was almost like the need for a small agile fighter was completely ignored for a long period, Korea and Vietnam seem to bookend that era quite nicely.
It seems the USN were more into the small fighter types, Fury, Skyray, Cougar, and Tiger all being in that class, but again they were 1950s designs.

Sens you might be surprised, if the same question were asked in Historic I don't think there would be many warbirds in the answer!
My answer would still be the same though!

I for my part did never claim that the F-104 was a particularly good fighter, but it was a very successful aircraft in its role. It was a very useful point-defence interceptor (compare to that the flawed Saunders-Roe SR.177) and became a useful and affordable strike aircraft. The F-104 could be deadly in the hands of an experienced pilot, but the skills required were apparently much higher and not all pilots mastered it (while even the F-4 or the F-8 lost simulated combats versus the MiG-17 on a regular basis).

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 11,742

The US had a cracking dog fighter with with the Sabre (lower range, more agile), as proved in Korea, then spent the next 20 or so years by not following the concept at all until the likes of the fantastic F-15 and F-16.
I can't agree with the F-104 being a good fighter either, very heavy workload and definately not agile.
I understand why they wanted fast nuke delivery trucks for TAC, but it was almost like the need for a small agile fighter was completely ignored for a long period, Korea and Vietnam seem to bookend that era quite nicely.
It seems the USN were more into the small fighter types, Fury, Skyray, Cougar, and Tiger all being in that class, but again they were 1950s designs.

Sens you might be surprised, if the same question were asked in Historic I don't think there would be many warbirds in the answer!
My answer would still be the same though!

How about a link about that?
The Russians did reveal that the F-5E was superior to their MiG-21s after evaluation. There was something available between the F-86 and F-16.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

But the F-5 seems very underused by the US in particular, even if SE Asia and European operators did enjoy it.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 190

Sorry if I was curt with my previous reply, H_K, I should have explained rather than snap. You are applying current operational doctrine to the different reality that was the 50s and 60s.
During that period of the cold war, the U.S. and certainly Germany which would be ground zero in any nuclear war, operated under the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine. This calls for massive nuclear retaliation to any attack. There are only two types of aircraft needed for this scenario, one type to prevent the enemy from delivering their nuclear ordinance to your position ( a point defence interceptor ), and a second type to deliver a single special weapon ( that's what nuclear was called in the 50s/60s ). Since the chance of intercepting their aircraft are slimmer and the hope is to prevent an attack in the first place with retaliation capability, you may as well have more delivery aircraft than interceptors. You'll note that even the U.S. didn't have any other types than interceptors and strikers until the 70s.
The F-104 fit the bill perfectly for smaller air forces, not so much for USAF which needed a long range interceptor ( quest for F-108 ) and long range delivery, read heavy and costly. For Germany and the other nations who bought the F-104, it provided a low level, stable and fast delivery vehicle as well as an excellent pint defence interceptor. Under their doctrine they had no need for a 'dog-fighter'. The only aircraft, if any, that did the job as well were a lot heavier and thus more costly.
Up until 1968-1970 Germany was developing F-104 replacements which were optimised for low level delivery, such as VJ-101 C/D/E, VAK-191B ( see the size of those wings, makes F-104 look huge ), and other developements leading to MRCA. The shift from MAD to graduated response finally dawned on the U.S. about 1965 when they drafted the requiremnt that led to the F-15, after hard learned lessons in Vietnam. A few years later Germany and the rest of Europe followed suit.
The F-104, designed by Clarence Johnson to the operational requirements of the time was the smallest airframe possible which met all performance requirements, and as such was cost a effective solution for many air forces ( although not so much for U.S. who wanted longer range ), and the reason so many were sold.