Now that the dust has settled, was the F-104 bad?

>>63954616 (OP)
F-104 =/= F-104G
The 104 was crap, like the early MiG-21
The F-104G was pure locksneedismus

>>63954616 (OP)
yes but not as bad as mems suggest

still a nicer airplane than slvavshit

>>63954624
I desire to know more.

>Hello Burger, I am going into WW3 and I want your fastest jet.
>My jets are too fast for you, Kraut
>Burger, I am going to intercept commie bombers, and I want only your fastest jets.

>>63954616 (OP)
yes

>>63954747
You forgot the part about the burger slipping a briefcase of money under the table.

>>63954616 (OP)
The design has some drawbacks and the aircraft was frequently misused, but overall, it was a successful and capable design that was competitive with its contemporaries.

>>63954616 (OP)
No. There were shittier design even from America

>F100
>F105

>>63954768
>some drawbacks
it was competent in the air but it killed shittons of pilots at unacceptable levels, even for the era.

>>63954779
Wrong.

>>63954789
Tell thet to the hundreds of families who've lost their sons, fathers, husbands flying F105

>>63954818
Not the Thud's fault air command was batshit retarded and treasonous.

>>63954616 (OP)
>>63954747
why tf are fighter jets not that fast anymore?
F-35s max speed is almsot 50% of the F-104

I tried to find a quality answer on this but all I could find was AI slop on 'tube that mentioned maneuverability but surely you can make a plane that is maneuverable and fast? Like I get that maneuverability at high speed is harder to pull off but you could make a "speed mode" and "maneuver mode"

and yes you don't have to intercept as many bombers anymore but just recently I saw a video of some (either ukie or russian) jets doing an incursion into enemy territory at very low altitude and I couldn't help but think that you probably would want as much speed as possbile in this case

>>63954616 (OP)
The F-104 is the benchmark for bad.

>>63954624
>F-104G
I have only flown the A and the C

>>63954828
no real need to go that fast, and optimizing a design to go sanic speeds makes you lose effectiveness elsewhere
most of the problems the f-104 had in service is because they had to sacrifice low speed capabilities for super speed

>>63954818
What he >>63954824 said.

>>63954828
>why tf are fighter jets not that fast anymore?
The meta was to intercept enemy bombers with your own.

Now the meta is versatility and deadlines.

>>63954818
+80% were shootdowns

>>63954850
why does the f-8 have such a crummy record

>>63954855
1/3rd were combat losses, mainly due to AAA and SAM. Similarly for the F-4

>>63954616 (OP)
FUCK YOU

a SkyCeptor has a range of 180 km and a speed of 1,887 m/s
so 95 seconds of flight time to max range

if a plane with mach 1 gets to 343 meters per second
that means it can make (under ideal conditions) an incursion of 343 * 95 meters (about 32.5 km) and still get out

for a plane with Mach 3.36 this would equal to 95 * 1.1434 aka. about 108.6 km
(someone correct my math if I am wrong, some of this doesn't feel right)

>>63954907
meant for
>>63954849
>>63954828
>>63954845

>>63954828
F-22 and F-35 are thermally limited, the stealth coating tarnishes at higher speeds. F-35 in particular has stricter limits due to the temperature limits of its composite parts.

>>63954949
hm
i guess that makes sense

sad

>>63954949
>of its composite parts.
Afaik both use similar composites with higher continuous operation temperature than duralumin

>>63954616 (OP)
It was a great high altitude interceptor. Not lockheed's fault it was misused for CAS.

>>63954990
Lockheed created F-104G as response to fighter-bomber contract of Germans, retard.
Frogs proposed their Mirage 5 (attacker/FB)

>>63954779
How can one person have such shit taste

>>63955015
Bet you the kind of man who gonna shoot your own leg just to dodge the draft

>>63954616 (OP)
>was the F-104 bad?
pic related for a tl;dr

The fighter versions did what it was built to do, and using any plane from that timeframe in Germany as a low-level ground attacker would result in higher than ussual accident rate. Do note that the accident rate is not massivelly higher than usual at the time given the conditions, and it dropped in llater years because shockingly enoough there were lessonss learned and applied.
Did Lockheeed bribe a German minister to get the sales going in Europe? Yes. Should Germany have bought someething else, like the Phantom? Fuck yes, in hindsight this is obvious.

And if a guy called Hartmann, who happens to be your highest air force officer at that time, tells you that a single engine high performance fighter which is kinda hard to land due to high approach speeed and narrow landinig gear gauge is maybe not the best option and hands in his commission over the decision, maybe just maybe listen to the guy and not to fucking Lockheed's marketing bullshit.
Because if there was one guy on the planet who could rightfullly state that he was an expert on single engine, hard to land, narrow landing gear fighters it was that dude.

>>63954780
The memes exaggerate the loss rate, it really was not worse than to be expected. In those cicumstancees, any simillar plane would have suffered comoparable attrition rates. Real sticking points were single engine, downward firing seat, and low level operations. That combo did cost airframes and lives.

>>63954616 (OP)
At the rate these things crash I don't think the dust will ever settle!!

>>63955042
>Should Germany have bought someething else, like the Phantom?
West Germany eventually adopted the Phantom but in the late 50s it wasn't fully available. The alternatives were the Mirage III and F11F.

>>63954779
>>63954779
It could have been worse

>There might be biplanes here he thought....

>>63954973
F-35 had issues in its developmental phase with the horizontal stabs and prolonged afterburner usage (like you'd need to achieve M 1.6) this was eventually rectified but likely still remains a limiting factor when you try to push above M 1.6 because nobody in their right mind engineers a solution to a problem that exceeds the requirements by that much. Either way, contract said 1.6 so they delivered 1.6, AFAIK neither is thrust limited, though the F-35 takes some time to get up to speed.

>>63954896
Technological dead end, looked stupid, and the result of a retarded photographer forgetting wing vortexes exist. Of all the stories of the F104 fucking up, this is one where it unironcally did nothing wrong. Moreover looking at the Hustler and the Lancer it'd end up being used as a shitty low-level conventional bomber where they'd crash like mad because they weren't designed to do that. Either that or they'd sit around in inventory for a decade doing fuck all

>>63955042
>And if a guy called Hartmann, who happens to be your highest air force officer at that time, tells you that a single engine high performance fighter which is kinda hard to land due to high approach speeed and narrow landinig gear gauge is maybe not the best option and hands in his commission over the decision, maybe just maybe listen to the guy and not to fucking Lockheed's marketing bullshit.

It wasn't just Hartmann. Eric Brown (legendary 5'2 short king and German speaking naval test pilot) was head of the British mission to help Germany reform the Marineflieger at the time. He failed to convince the German government not to make the even stupider choice of adopting the F-104G instead of the Blackburn Buccaneer as a naval strike aircraft.

Aviation enjoyers missed the possibility of having German flagged Buccaneers (Likedeelers?) soaring over the Baltic and the Marineflieger was left with an incapable meme aircraft until the Tornado IDS was adopted in 1981.

>>63955225
Didn't buccaneers suffer nearly a 50% crash rate or am I confusing it for a different British plane?

>>63955231

The S1 buccaneer had a really high loss rate due to the shitty engine but the S2 which had the same ludicrously overpowered and reliable Spey engine from the F4K (and also that supersonic land speed car) was a fairly safe and reliable aircraft. Except in South African service for some reason where it had a 60% loss rate.

Based on the time scale Germany would have gotten the S2.

>>63954747
>I am going to intercept commie bombers
>intercept bombers
>they start strapping nukes to the plane
Sure...

>>63955225
>Erich Hartmann AND Eric Brown say that the F-104 is a bad choice for the role
In aviation matters this is like Jesus and Thor tapping you on the shoulder and telling you 'Dude just stop'
Probably Apollo in the background shaking his head, too.

>>63955307
We, uh, intercept the Soviet bombers on the ground?

>>63954616 (OP)
F-107 would have been better
It was bad because there were more capable designs in the works that Lockheeb bribed out of business.

>Contracts? Orders? Sales? It's all yours my friend, as long as you have enough bribes.

>>63955396
I really don't like the super succ above your head

>>63954835
>he never experienced the F-104S ASA
You missed out. Nothing gave me more satisfaction than teleporting to space, posturing, clapping high altitude retards with the Aspide, and then boom and zoom at Mach 2.2 to clap the rest of the retards on the deck from up above with 9L.

...just for 21bis outperform me in climb and speed because )))))) (and I checked both flight manuals and no, it shouldn't have been possible)

>>63955470
>F-104S ASA
Kinda wild Italy flew them till 2004.

>>63954616 (OP)
It could have had more wing area and gone a little slower. Help with hardpoints and low level turns and runways among many things.

>>63955208
It looks cool and is based

>>63954828
There's an old powerpoint or pre-powerpoint slide that basically gave fighter jet speed statistics over Vietnam. Of all the flight hours logged basically none of them went above Mach 1.6 even if they were M>2 capable platforms and only a few jets ever had a few minutes at or above Mach 1.4.

>>63955307
Nothing wrong with nukes on a F-104.

>>63955165
>>There might be biplanes here he thought....
lmao

I'm waiting for this piece of shit to arrive in DCS World, I want more planes that actively try to kill you.

>>63955836
Aerges are so fucking based I'm going to buy it even though I don't think the aircraft itself has that much to offer me. Weapon failures sound like they've got the potential to be interesting

>>63955840
I love the Mirage F1 from them, even though it's ridiculously cumbersome to actually hit something with it, whether air or ground. And also there are moves in the F1 too, where it just decides to kill you.

My theory is that when (((Dassault))) decided to sell their domestic interceptor as a strike aircraft to turdworlders, they've barely made an effort to convert the avionics for ground-attack.

>>63955033
>can't even defend his shit taste
lol. lmao.

>>63954850
Navy seem to be doing a lot better than the chair force.

>>63955884
I adore the F1, it's my favourite plane in DCS by far, and they've done such a fucking good job of it. It's dead sexy, carries an unholy amount of bombs, fast as fuck, and totally has a personality. I'm lucky enough to have a FFB stick and it absolutely feels alive. And as you say, out of nowhere, it'll occasionally decide to have a try at killing you which is a trait it shares with another (much slower) French aircraft I used to fly years ago.

It's not the greatest thing air to air but it can get the job done if you're lucky but it's just so fucking goddamned enjoyable to fly that I can't bring myself to choose anything more suitable most of the time. I love it.

>even though it's ridiculously cumbersome to actually hit something with it, whether air or ground.
SAMP 250s or 400s, 150 on the depression dial, come in at 15,000ft, about 30 degress offset to your target. Roll inverted and pull through and aim to have the aircraft pointed about 40 degrees nose down, fly along that 40 degree line on your HUD until you're lined up with your target and then raise the nose to 30 degrees and chop the throttle, hopefully by this point you're at about 9,000ft and about 3NM away, 30 degrees dive and the aircraft marker in the HUD "flying" toward the target at around 350-400kts. Drop as the reticle passes through the target, pull up and full power, and roll away from the target area. Wash, rinse, repeat.

>>63954640
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xTXPo4gIys
Well they ironed out all the problems.

>>63955470
The Bis have better area rule, better engine and "Super Afterburner", TWC better than 1.1 at MTOW
>with that afterburner fuel consumption is absurd and engine life is reduced to minutes.
>soviets developed it after knowing about the F-16 and its flight performance

>>63955165
https://youtu.be/mJmBdeDuVmo?si=hRq8aGU1g5_vg4B2

>>63956246
Unless they redisgned the wings landing this thing was probably still a bitch as well as steering too hard
Granted experienced pilots were fine but for whatever reason west germany wouldn't train their guys properly

>>63956246
>ironed out all the problems.
That's what locksneed said while *passing a heavy suitcase under the table*.
Improved for the original role of the 104, still a death trap as a fighter bomber that Germany wanted.

>>63955884
>>63956008
We need a movie/series about Iranian Tomcats vs Iraqi F1s.

there really needs to be a vatnik equivalent for "special" americans
>obvious flawed design and shit performance
>"yeah but we learned from the turd and improved upon it with new hardware"
>instead you get "noooo america can do not wrong, its weapons are all best of the best with no equivalents in the world ususususus"

>>63955810
A genie. The unguided A2A nuclear armed rocket. What a time to be alive.

>>63954828
The F-15EX can do Mach 2, it's just that we decided on stealth at the meeting and the F-15EX isn't stealthy enough.

>>63956681
Let's see you make a better interceptors than Kelly Johnson

>>63955884
>>63956008
The funny thing is that if you squint the F1 is basically the F104 but fixed; longer, area ruled fuselage for more fuel and range, computer controlled automatic leading edge slats to get suficient maneuverabilty, trailing edge fowler flaps to get short field takeoff and landing without having to depend on engine powered blown flaps, conventional tail that won't superstall.

Compare it to the early design of the cl-1200 lancer...

>>63955165
"Polikarpovs could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this patrol sector before. There could be PO-2s anywhere." The cool wind felt good against his bare chest. "I HATE POLIKARPOVS" he thought. Nat King Cole reverberated his entire YF-97s airframe, making it pulsate even as the 10 cent PX beer circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of biplanes after dark. "With a Starfire, you can go anywhere you want in a 805 mile operational" he said to himself, out loud.

>>63956852
>walks in
>defeats F-16s in dogfights - thrice
>leaves

>>63956532
Even against the ASA? It's been years and at the time I was brimming with rage for obvious reasons, so I might misremember, but remember that the F-104S had the more powerful F-4 Phantom engine
>>63957917
>but fixed
Well, it better be: it had a dozen years of rapidly advancing knowledge to build upon. Remember that the F-104S first flew in the mid '50s, and its role and mission were functionally the same as the Me-163 one. Again, I remember of one mission profile example in the F-104S manual as being take-off, max performance climb to 10 km altitude, loiter waiting for directions/clearances, then full AB up to service ceiling and Mach 2+, lock radar and shoot Aspide, then engine back to idle and glide down to base. The issue was turning it into the multirole it wasn't, although the insane wing loading is beneficial for stability making it somewhat decent at low level penetration runs.

>>63958012
>Even against the ASA? It's been years and at the time I was brimming with rage for obvious reasons, so I might misremember, but remember that the F-104S had the more powerful F-4 Phantom engine
30 kN more thrust (nearly 100kN with double afterburner) and 1-2 tons lighter compared to an F-104, both in fighter configuration. Of course, it's "self-destruction mode"

>>63955002
>customer demands you turn your flying pencil into a CAS aircraft
>sigh, roll your eyes and comply, knowing what will happen as the knuckledraggers misuse your precision instrument

Not lockheed's fault they wanted to cheap out and use the wrong tool for the job, or try to fly terrain following missions in an aircraft ill-suited to them.

>>63958295
The customer filled a requirement for a CAS aircraft
Locksneed approached with a proposal and a few million dollars under the table. They had far better alternatives from Sweden, France and other American companies.

>>63956555
>>63956604
Italians upgraded them and used until 2004.

>>63958643
35 in service? and? the G.91 lasted 37 years in service, and what, tell me.

>>63955807
Can you find it?

>>63955365

Another thing they both agreed on was loving the F-86.

When Hartmann joined JG 71 they still used the Canadair Sabre and Hartmann praised the flight characteristics and low speed handling of the Sabre during his very public resignation over the F-104G. Brown flew several types of Sabre while posted to NAS Patuxent and called the F-86E that had a hydraulically boosted stabilator the best handling jet he ever flew and the "spitfire of the jet age".

And of course they met at one point because Eric Brown met basically every German aviation figure during his post VE day quest to track down German experimental aircraft or his 1950s/60s diplomatic postings to Germany.

>>63960627
>ww2 Naziwaffe fighter pilot shittalks new multirole interceptor while praising a manueverability fighter from a decade ago

Boomer Reformer before boomers or reformers were a thing. If he was alive today, he'd be REEEEE'ing about the f35 and giving TEDx talks on how the su-57 is superior.

>>63954828
Breaking the sound barrier requires afterburner. Until the F-22, maintaining supersonic speeds required afterburner.
Afterburners empty your tanks in minutes. So, the amount of time that you can spend at supersonic speeds during a given sortie is very, very small. Thus, supersonic flight is generally limited to intercepts, where it becomes a time/distance problem: Train A has to achieve a certain speed in order to get within weapons range of Train B.
And in practice, M2.0+ just isn't used all that much. It's nice to have for the one-in-a-million chance that you'll need it, but it isn't strictly necessary. Supercruise, which allows you to maintain supersonic speeds without afterburner, changes that equation somewhat and allows the F-22 to do some cool tricks like extending its missiles' ranges or attacking from unexpected angles. For everything else, however, they'll spend 99%+ of any combat sorties they see underneath the sound barrier, and this has been proven out in air-to-air engagements ever since the X-1 first flew.

>>63960943
>maintaining supersonic speeds required afterburner.
No, with the proper intake and rule area a turbojet with cooled turbine can achieve supercruise, in fact it's easier to supercruise with a turbojet than a turbofan. The merit of the F119 is being a turbofan while maintaining supersonic performance close to a turbojet.
The Concorde and Tu-144 (2) weren't a gimmick.

>>63954907
You aim at where he's going to be, not where he is. In this case, you'd launch while he's still out of range, expecting him to maintain course. Stuff like that is why TWS is so handy; the bandit never knows that he's under attack until the last second, so he doesn't know whether or when to maneuver.

>>63954828
These days it makes way more sense to make more fuel efficiënt and reliable engines and lob you fast missiles at very long distances.

>>63955983
>shit taste
>implying pilots choose plane based on taste

F-104 had abnormally high crash rate due to Germany being retarded. Major non-US F-104 operator like Turkey, Taiwan and Italy flew them just fine

F-100 and F-105 have no excuse
>muh retarded command
F-105 was supposed to be a fighter bomber and were tasked as such.

>>63961053
>F-105 was supposed to be a fighter bomber and were tasked as such.
For the 1950s.
Against SAM and modern MiGs their survival depended on their escorts not following a WWII doctrine...

>F-105G in 1965: ok, I'll do it myself

>>63954828
Tree hugging liberal communists care about stuff like fuel economy, combat radius, and engines that can fly more than once before needing a rebuild.

>>63955208
>it'd end up being used as a shitty low-level conventional bomber where they'd crash like mad because they weren't designed to do that
Based on nothing but vibes, I feel like it might actually work semi-well in ground effect.

>>63961019
>efficiënt

ë muddah

>>63956681
>>"yeah but we learned from the turd and improved upon it with new hardware"
>>instead you get "noooo america can do not wrong, its weapons are all best of the best with no equivalents in the world ususususus"
the second statement is true because of the first

>>63960943
>Until the F-22, maintaining supersonic speeds required afterburner.
KWAB

>>63954616 (OP)
the mig 21 was decent for the time , i see it as a failed attempt at copying it, yes it was bad.
the elevator control surface is ugly and lack of a nose air intake make it soulless. it also killed their pilots

>>63961053
>F-105 was supposed to be a fighter bomber and were tasked as such.
F-105 losses were entirely due to operational restrictions put in place by McNamara. Not any fault of the aircraft or the pilots. It was a fantastic aircraft and proved to be surprisingly adaptable in spite of being laser focused on the tactical nuclear strike mission. If you don't know about the political side of Vietnam then you don't understand the conflict at all. Every seemingly stupid thing the military did was because civilian leadership forced them to do it. Johnson fired generals until he got ones that went along with McNamara's plans and silenced opposition.

>>63964195
But according to our metrics we're winning the war! We've plugged the numbers into the UNIVAC and it told us we already killed 110% of the PAVN/VC, and we're on track to kill 500% of North Vietnam by 1980! Numbers don't lie!

>>63964294
Not far from the truth. McNamara has been quoted more than once saying something to the effect of, I don't trust qualitative assessments, only quantitative ones matter. Which might be fine for running a Ford assembly line but is absolutely insane in a struggle between wills.

>>63964313
>>63964294
>Time portal opens over McNamara's desk
>300 page proposal drops onto desk
>'The operational use of biplanes as cost effective, timely and scalable ground support in South East Asia'
>Co-Authors: M. Sparks and N.Tard

>>63964313
McNamara was the most 105 IQ person in history.
>Duh, sez here we killed a bunch of dem, and dey still keep coming. Something here don't make no sense.
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY CRYSTAL BALL OF METRICS WILL SURELY UNLOCK THE SECRET TO VICTORY, I JUST HAVE TO ADD MORE METRICS TO MY METRICS TILL I HAVE A 1:1 SIMULATION OF REALITY!!!!!
>Reports say we could build mountains out of their corpses, yet there's still no end to them. Something doesn't add up here.

>>63954616 (OP)
It wasn't bad.
It was the worst.

>>63955810
>nuclear AA missile
The only missile almost as dangerous to use than flying a F-104

>>63965796
The fact they blamed the XB-70 for this was disgusting. Justice for XB-70!

>>63964294
>>63964313
>>63964423
>>63964428
Isn't there some anecdote of a US Army colonel in Vietnam giving McNamara a briefing, and the colonel noticed that McNamara wasn't being receptive, and so he just started talking nonsense about numbers he knew, and McNamara later said "Colonel so-and-so is one of the brightest men in the Army"?

>>63954616 (OP)
Apparently some bathsalt eating floridamen are trying to use them and obsolete sidewinders to chuck small(<20lb) satellites into orbit.
https://starfightersspace.com/

Also beyond the fundumentally dangerous nature of the F-104 most of its widow-maker tendencies were due to retarded krauts trying to use them as tactical bombers or for wild weasel shit minus anti-radiation missiles. So they strapped the biggest bombs possible to them and over-stressed the fuselages.

>>63965818
>avoiding flash blindness in the corner
Truly a more based time

>>63959903
Not him but I had this saved. I thought I had more but I guess not.

>>63966667
Sort of. I am not a McNamara fan but i strongly suspect that his calculations were based on his managerial style. It was not wrong but it had flaws.

He wanted to match the likes of Stalin with production numbers but McNamara took the USSRs numbers as fact not propaganda. So he tried to exceed the numbers and game the system not knowing that the Soviets were full of shit.

Lockmart literally bribed everybody to buy their shit plane, even when there were better planes in contention

>>63967280
>>63955807
That's nice and all, but Vietnam is almost half a century ago - are there other good examples of more modern conflicts that show similar data? I get that stealth coatings and practical considerations limit top speed of aircraft, but in a peer vs peer situation wouldn't it still be better for your fighters to be able to outrun the enemy's, even briefly on afterburner?

>>63967306
>Sort of. I am not a McNamara fan but i strongly suspect that his calculations were based on his managerial style. It was not wrong but it had flaws.
He was strongly influenced by the (flawed) leadership style the US Army and USAAF/USAF employed in WW2 and Korea.
Which, in the cases he had encountered, came down to 'we do whatever MacArthur feels is correct'

Then he decided to just run eeverything as a spreadsheet excercise, which was obviously juust as bad.

>>63967518
The answer is 'it depends'.
You could make a very good argument that the platforrms that have this 'true' Mach 2 dash capability should be the UCAVs, while your manned platforms stay at longer ranges where a moderate supersonic capability will allow them to notch any long-range missiles fired at them.

>>63968117
My view on him is that he had the same strengths and flaws as Stalin or Mao: All he cared about were numbers and could not see the fact that 1=a human life.

The fact that Stalin, Mao nor McNamara didn't view their opponents as people was a big factor.

The people we are talking about are for all practical purposes genocidal psychopaths.

>>63968211
Just me having fun rephrasing things:

My view on him is that he had the same strengths and flaws as Stalin or Mao¶ all he cared about were numbers and could not see the fact that 1=a human life¶ the fact that Stalin ¶ Mao nor McNamara didn't view their opponents as people was a big factor¶ the people we are talking about are for all practical purposes genocidal psychopaths¶ pilcrows=the anti reddit spacing¶ fuck punctuation periods paragraphs or even capitalization because you are using pilcrows¶ pilcrows are so archaic that you can use them for anything like this bullshit i'm doing right now

>>63964428

>The American historian Charles Neu who was present at the McNamara-Giáp meeting observed the differences in the style of the two men with McNamara repeatedly interrupting Giáp to ask questions, usually related to something numerical, while Giáp gave a long leisurely monologue, quoting various Vietnamese cultural figures such as poets, that began with Vietnamese revolts against China during the years 111 BC–938 AD when Vietnam was a Chinese province.

Operations research itself is not a bad method.
Don't get overwhelmed by the amount of data by focusing too much on factors that are difficult to quantify.

>>63968226
Reminder.
one block of text without line breas is not easy to read.

Use line breaks.
Only redditors and zoomies do not use line breaks.

>>63968304
from a coo who worked their way up. better
to have the data and not need it than not have
the data at all. It is how you use the data that is
the deciding factor.

using numbers, algorithms, true math and
projections to come to conclusions will give the
organization short term benefits in things that
"matter" in this current climate. Namely more numbers. e.g. Boeing passenger aircraft division post McDonnel Douglas merger.

Now, using the numbers while utlizing a proper
feedback loop with the people on the ground -
that trust you enough to give you the full
picture. That is a recipe for success. e.g. Boeing passenger aircraft division pre McDonnel Douglas merger.

>>63968606
Doing it wrrong on purpose makes you look stupid.
Like Boeing post the MDD merger.

>>63955208
You have a dead soul.

>>63956681
Keep seething, loser.

>>63968414

Was always under the impression that an inital double space is the true giveaway.

>>63954616 (OP)
I think the F-104 is großartig jawohl, so let me put more F-104 in my F-104.

>>63968414
>pic
Is only half true. It depends which version of reddit, old reddit will not create a line break if you only use a single return, that's a new reddit change, which is several years old now.

>>63954828
war thunder stats are for retarded people and russians

>>63970693
It's a shitty bird and I'm tired of pretending it's not. We had way cooler shit like armed blackbirds that got canned, why should I continue to simp for a plane that looks like an inbred Concorde?

>>63954616 (OP)
It wasn't a bad aircraft. It was just shoehorned into roles it was never intended for. High attrition rates in the Luftwaffe are more a result of a lack of training and experience with high-performance, supersonic jet fighters (They had only adopted the F-86 three years prior to receiving their first F-104s, that's a pretty big leap).

>>63968226
>>63968414
>>63970766
>>63973209
The only people who bring up r*ddit are r*dditors themselves.
I never go there, I hate its dogshit, unreadable layout, and few things are further from my mind than a site I never use.
But if some tourist whips it out first thing, then there is absolutely no way he's not a r*ddit election nigger projecting his "sins" onto others.

In a group of people, who is the most likely to accuse someone of being a snitch? The snitch himself, of course.
Who is most likely to accuse another of a crime or misdeed from the onset, barring any incriminating evidence or history? The perpetrator will very often be the first accuser.
Why does R*ssia always accuse others of doing something days before they themselves are recorded doing it? You get the idea.
We humans are such simple creatures. We long to blurt out that which torments us, that which we loathe about ourselves and long to banish even the outward appearance of possessing in the eyes of our fellow apes with big brains. Even something as trivial as derping on le r*ddit (a phrase I have read thousands of times on this site as an accusation towards other Anons) can result in this. So infantile, so meaningless... and yet, so very, very human.


>t. 06fag who has always doublespaced because it is easier to read

>>63973749
kys you fag redditor

>>63973749
Redditor

>>63973753
>>63973754

It was a transitional aircraft, and it still had a better loss/accident rate than the F86 that preceded it.

In Canada there were twice as many F86 losses in roughly have the service life (ten years vs 25 years for the CF-104), and this is without the F86 doing a low-level ground attack profile that the CF-104 did.

>>63973749
>06fag
You again?

>>63974027
There's actually a few of us, I'm as surprised as anyone else.

>>63973858
>loss/accident rate than the F86 that preceded it.
Using the same method and ASN for accident data

>>63974225

F86 was significantly worse in the RCAF.
But interesting that USAF has a different experience.

>>63974247
4.2% (+0.7%) in the RCAF (1183 Sabres, and ASN reports total 50+8 fatalities)
>a limitation of that comparison old aircraft with the Teen series and F-4 is the limited duration of their service

>>63954828
Since no one else has answered
>jets doing an incursion into enemy territory at very low altitude and I couldn't help but think that you probably would want as much speed as possbile in this case
The jets they're using for that already have a top speed well above mach 2. The thing is, if you're flying at such a low altitude, you physically can't go that fast. After a certain point your jet is just going to break apart due to the drag. A jet whose top speed is mach 2.5 would hit like 1.3 at most on the deck. You're only hitting your max speed if you're way high up, and if you're way high up and not a stealth jet you're gonna get shot down by AA, and if you're a stealth jet you don't need to worry about going that fast because you have far better countermeasures against being shot down than pure speed. We used to make our spy planes fast as fuck so they could outrun missiles. Don't need to do that anymore because of stealth and it's way less expensive.

>>63960730
Good Lord, anon. Get a real personality instead of regurgitating cliché hyperbolic memes.

>>63960943
> Breaking the sound barrier requires afterburner.
> Until the F-22, maintaining supersonic speeds required afterburner.

EE Lightning, Am I a joke to you?

>>63974225
the fuck were the F-8s doing

I swear that aircraft must have been concocted after a bad trip.
>over-under engine layout, never done before, never again after, must have been a joy for the maintenance crew
>missile hardpoints on the side of the fuselage
>ferry tanks on top of the wings
>landing gear retracting into the wings
>notched delta wing, for some reason
>additional fuel makes it pregnant
I don't even

>>63976110
>Get a real personality
I'm not here to try to attract you with my personality. That's for tripfags.

>Regurgitate memes

Find the lie.

>>63964294
>But according to our metrics we're winning the war! We've plugged the numbers into the UNIVAC and it told us we already killed 110% of the PAVN/VC, and we're on track to kill 500% of North Vietnam by 1980! Numbers don't lie!
Unironically, that was true. The objectives for the war was to stop the invasion from the north, an insurgency in the South, and to get the South Vietnamese people supporting their government. Fighting the unconventional war against the insurgency was the hardest thing the American forces faced and when the entire insurgency decided to rise up all at once and play their hand they got killed. That insurgency also managed to do a bunch of killings which got the South Vietnamese people on board with the government for once. Your two hardest objectives during the war pretty much right then was completed. Fighting a conventional war coming in from the North was the easy task.

What lost us the war was Walter Cronkite telling the American people that the war was unwinnable right as the enemy decided to get themselves all killed.

I'm not saying that McNamara was right, and him and the top military brass being too focused on the numbers game hurt the war, but in this instance the numbers were right.

>>63979293
I've been meaning to read Dereliction of Duty sometime this summer. Have you read it?

>>63954616 (OP)

Wasn't this the plane that was so unsafe that Erich "the Ghost of Kiev is a fucking amateur lmao" Hartmann refused to fly in it?

Couldn't a risk assessment of troops and supplies delivered from safe zones have been done after the Korean War?

>>63981133
no, he just thought it was completely unsuited for the low-level attack mission that the the luftwaffe wanted to buy it for, and he wasn't wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XCYUEzrQd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYdQA9maxWk

Posting this glorious prog-rock shitpost about the Starfighter since noone else will. Also I'm surprised no one has mentioned one of the silliest things

>Using an aircraft with a downward firing ejection seat as a low level strike fighter.

>>63982064
Amazing.

>>63956008
>Description on how to hit things in the plane
I understood maybe a third of it but your enjoyment made it worth reading twice. Thanks anon

>>63967518
AFAIK should be similar for air wars since Vietnam like any of the shitflings that happened in the ME (Israel to Iraq). Basically you don't see too much Mach >1 combat due to a variety of factors, like a 9g turning circle being wideasfuck and not being that useful for missile defeat.

>>63955042
The phantom wasn’t available at the time and a contributing factor to the accident rate was a lack of skilled technicians. Doubling the amount of engines is going to make some problems worse.

>>63954616 (OP)
Pakistan flew both Mig-19/J-6 and F-104 and concluded that whilst J-6 has arguably better kinematic performance, F-104 has better cockpit layout and has better response time that asked the chinese about making another batch of improved J-6 based on what they liked about F-104, like a machine that helped decrease spool time

how does it even fly with such stubby little wings

>>63986560
The ground rejects it for being so ugly.

>>63986560
Engine go fast

>>63986564
Nothing in the sky is ugly. Ugly things cannot fly.

>>63986611
ya mum went pretty far when I punted her

>>63986615
Every day must be leg day for you if you're capable of breaking gravity's hold on her.

>>63986607
oh ok so every plane should have small wings then?

>>63973749
>oldfag
>greentexts a self-referential t.
Pick one.

>>63958011
Didn’t two come from a single engagement using a nuclear missile at extreme range?

>>63986717
Only if you want the plane to mostly go forward fast.

>>63967306
McNamara was a very good manager in his industry. He was CEO of Ford before Kennedy named him SecDef. He was driven by quantitative analysis. That served him well at Ford but didn't work well as SecDef. He assumed, incorrectly that everything about war could be understood quantitatively. He must never had read Clausewitz because he didn't understand that war was simply a continuation of politics and pesky things like arms production and casualty rates were secondary considerations to political will. He thought the North could be deterred by simply killing enough of them. That was never going to happen. He had a terrible relationship with the joint chiefs and senior officers in the services. He made many unpopular decisions aside form Vietnam. Some of them, like making the Air Force and Navy have a fly off between the F-4 and F-106 and pick one actually worked out in the long run. Others, like making the Navy adopt the F-111 for the F-4s successor did not. Because he had a bad relationship with generals, he didn't consult with them on what the services actually needed and instead had a civilian's poor understanding of the requirements. The navy always knew the F-111b wouldn't work but McNamara forced them to try regardless.

>>63987685
>flyoff between f4 and f106 worked out in the long run

Now that i disagree with. The f4 had terrible results at first and needed a lot of updates to do the job required, and ended up being the most important aircraft out of sheer production numbers. The 106 would have needed upgrades as well and wouldn't have been suitable for sheer bombing, but would have done better in air combat and escort based on the results of the "have doughnut" tests, it still being a threat in top gun training to f14a and f15a, and the sucess of the mirage III which shared it's wing planform.

The F-111b could have actually have worked for the Navy, but they deliberatly undermined the project since the start because they wouldn't be caught dead using an airforce plane. Even when they were forced to use F-35 they still only managed to accept it after more than half the plane used different parts from all the other versions.

>>63987762
I didn't say it was ideal. I said it worked out in the long run. The F-4 put in decades of good service with the airforce. I agree a TAC oriented model of the F-106 probably would have been better. Give it a bubble canopy and rework the missile bay to accept sparrows and sidewinders. Give it underwing pylons and the space saved from removing the MA-1 system would give you a lot of room for radar and ECM equipment.
>The F-111b could have actually have worked for the Navy
No way in hell. It could carry the missiles but it would never be an air superiority fighter.
>more than half the plane used different parts from all the other versions.
You're thinking of the B model for the USMC. The Naval C model isn't as big of a departure and is an acceptable super hornet replacement.

>>63954616 (OP)
Yes, it was bad. About a third of all German F-104s crashed.

>>63986746
He doesn't have to.

>t. not that anon

>>63967329
THIS! Remember what they took from us.

>>63987869
no, the C model is the one with the least parts in common, to the point it uses different wings.

>>63954779
>f105
How are you this stupid?

F-104 also killed picrel.

>>63989137
>how can I disregard data?

>>63990373
The data that says that the f105 strike bomber got more gun kills than the aircraft that was supposedly escorting them?

>>63954616 (OP)
Starfighter was pure sex. Anyone who disagrees is a homosexual or a communist. Most likely both.

>>63992827

I'm not sure getting more gun kills than an aircraft with no gun is an accomplishment.

>>63955167
F-35 takes time to get to speed?
Space now
Did not watch the F35 performance at the Indian airshow? Mf goes to land and dabs out twice. Incredible throttle response from a jet engine.

>>63955660
Still flying
Want use em to launch rockets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfighters_Inc

>>63955884

I adore the F1E in DCS. It's really fun flying aircraft with serious flight envelope restrictions compared with the F/A-18 or something where you would have to be literally braindead to crash.

If you granny fly the F1 your electronics bay will catch fire from too little airflow and if you fly too fast your shockcone will decide it doesn't want to throttle down anymore and will compressor stall your engine to pieces if you try. Although it isn't as bad as the Mig-23 which had a hydraulic lock on the throttle to stop your from throttling down and destroying your engine leaving you on a ride that never ends.

>>63993318
>Starfighter was pure sex
yeah, if you are into guro

>>63988928
IDK where that image comes from but that can't be accurate. The C has a new wing but the B has a different fuselage and engine.

>>63995013
You underestimate the internal bickering between services. The A, B and C versions each have a different gun.

https://www.twz.com/air/f-35b-and-f-35c-use-different-25mm-gun-pods-unique-to-each-variant

https://raafdocumentary.com/comparing-the-variants-of-the-lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/

>>63995127
Only USA has Air Force. Navy Air Force. Ground Air Force. Marine Air Force.

>>63995127
They all use the same gun, but the way its installed is different.

>>63977818
The fact that the F-104 was never designed or intended to be operated as a multirole?

>>63977433
Probably trying to use their near useless guns because of "the last gunfighter" nickname. Or exploding themselves if the internal rocket launchers got jammed. Or crashing down the aircraft carrier because the variable incidence wings made it easier for the pilot to see the runway, but more difficult for the landing signal officer to check if the plane is doing the approach correctly.

>>63995327
The 104G is an F-104 modified to be a fighter bomber, it was an idea of lockheed.
Germans had the F-104G.

>>63995144
You've got the Army and the Navy in the sky, and the Marines fighting in the desert.

>>63961106
Ground effect is not the same as flying at low level

>>63996138
Actually ground effect is the more extreme version of low level flight, since you need to be closer to the ground than half the wingspan.

>>63955208
The b1 lancer is actually derived from the xb-70 but redesigned for low level conventional bombing, so it got less engines, bigger bomb bay, variable geometry wings and the canards move up and down to decrease structural fatigue. And neither "crash like mad" because they weren´t designed to do that, the b-1 had 11 crashes(out of a total of 100 planes) in 40 years of service, while the b-58 did have a 21% loss rate in 10 years, but that has more to do with the cutting edge technology put in place and the very high landing speeds; it was unrelated to low level flying.

>>63995594
I just want space force to do space force things :( i wanna kill moon commies and reds on the red planet :,'(

>>63954855
Because you cannot ensure real life encounters fit the intended role.
Also short life cycle due to rapid technological advance.

>>63987528
DARTS vs VIPERS Two Air Defense Interceptor Pilots vs Two Tactical Fighter Pilots By S. Michael Townsend, LTC, USAF (Ret.) “Viper 1, Pierre, Bucko, Genie, FMO, Rafsob” Circa 1984

I was a Captain stationed at Tyndall AFB as an F-106 Instructor. This day my wingman, a fellow Captain and Instructor, and I were scheduled for Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) with two F-16s from Shaw AFB. I was to be the Instructor for the training on the Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation Range (ACMI) over the Gulf of Mexico, a highly accurate tracking system that would record all maneuvers in the airspace by the aircraft, score all shots taken and simulate any kills. None of us had ever fought against the other type fighter. Tactical Air Command pilots considered Air Defense pilots a lesser breed.

I started the preflight briefing after introductions with the Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) and his wingman a Lieutenant (LT). The LTC immediately interrupted and informed me that he had no idea why they were scheduled for DACT with aircraft that were far inferior to the F-16 and that it would not be much of a challenge for them resulting in very little effective training. He stated that we should engage with full up all weapons capability for both fighter types even stating that though they only had heaters (heat seeking missiles) and guns he saw no disadvantage for them. I hid the fact that he had pissed us off and verified that he meant for us to use the full weapons capability of the F-106. He replied, of course you can! Obviously he had no idea what we carried between our legs, a clueless state of mind! I smiled as I looked at my wingman while stroking the inside of my thigh; this pecker checker was going to get hammered when the Genie popped up!

>>63999483
I briefed the LTC to take his flight to the farthest most southern point of the airspace and be prepared to attack the coastline that we would defend. We would place ourselves on “Five” (five minute alert) and scramble when we saw him takeoff giving him the advantage of being ready when we arrived. I told him to be sure to look at the F-106 ramp on takeoff to verify that we there on “Five” and this would be important during the debrief. We briefed two engagements followed by join up for 1v1 basic fighter maneuvers (BFM), him versus me and the wingmen against each other.

The fun began as they lifted off and saw us on the edge of the ramp, “communicating”, with a raised finger over two rising moons! We had a hard time getting our crew chiefs to stop laughing so we could launch. A gate (full afterburner) climb to 41,000 feet put us in the airspace in 6 minutes when I called “fight’s on”! I felt sorry for my wingman because he would not get a shot on this first engagement. One minute later I called “Fox 3, KILL, two F-16s north bound at 18,000 feet. Nock- it off, nock-it off, fights over, return to your safe area,” was immediately passed to the Viper pilots. The LTC was so confused that the ground control intercept (GCI) controller had to tell him he had been shot by a “NUC” (Genie nuclear tipped rocket) and that him and his wingman were DEAD so return to your point! I told GCI to inform him that we had one more Genie but that we wouldn’t use it on the next engagement.

Score: Darts 2, Vipers 0

>>63999489
I put my wingman in four mile trail as we began the next engagement from 41,000 feet at 1.2 MACH racing down to their altitude of 18,000 feet, dumb a - - he didn’t even change his altitude to make it harder on us. Since they had face heaters (firing heat seekers in our face), we cooled our jets by retarding the engines to idle power to cool them off and denying the face shot while maintaining supersonic on our downhill slide. They took the bait, the leader rolled out behind me, the wingman behind mine. We had them right where we wanted them! Not even an F-16 can sustain a climb followed by a 9 G turn and roll out 2 miles behind a supersonic target and chase them down so the missile will make the kill. The leader found himself in front of my wingman who easily “Doe popped” him with two missiles while outrunning the F-16 wingman.

Score: Darts 1, Vipers 0

After a fuel check we split for 1v1 BFM. Starting from line abreast each fighter turns 45 degrees away from the other to gain spacing. At the fight’s on call the fighters turn toward each other passing canopy to canopy with no advantage. The knife fight begins in earnest as they turn to gain six o’clock on the other for a guns kill. Hands are helpful in explaining what happens next. Obviously the Viper can out turn a Dart and the LTC was behind me closing for guns! My next maneuver required exact timing or it would turn out all bad. As he closed for the shot I presented him with the infamous “F-106 Barn Door”. This is a frightening experience for anyone who has never seen the Dart act in such an unbelievable aerodynamic manner. Never attempt this maneuver at home as it should only be done by a highly trained and experienced Dart driver!

>>63999502
With him captured solidly at my six, in a hard four G turn, closing for the kill, fangs out and dripping, I held the G while applying full opposite rudder. The Dart responds beautifully with an opposite direction roll through the vertical to a full nose down dive where I apply full afterburner and dash for the deck. From the Viper’s cockpit it looked just like someone opened a barn door in his face, nowhere to go and no idea what to do. Suddenly the Dart disappears. His only option was to call nock-it off because he lost sight having never squeezed the trigger. Meanwhile our wingman had to nock-it off because the LT was low on fuel.

Score: Darts 0, Vipers 0

I sent the Vipers home and my wingman and I played for a while. My debriefing was short and sweet. The Fighter pilots had to fly again to get some real training. It went something like this: Know your enemy. Never underestimate your enemy. Never enter a gun fight with a knife. Never engage an enemy when you don’t have a clue. Lose sight lose the fight. Pecker checkers should be well endowed. When the Genie pops up, you’re goanna die! Nothing was ever said about the moons, I believe we “communicated” effectively!

Final Score: Darts 3, Vipers 0 America remained safe from attack!!

S. Michael Townsend, LTC, USAF Ret. “Viper 1, Pierre, Bucko, Genie, FMO, Rafsob”

>>63999506
Perhaps more relevant to this thread, f106 vs f104:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNjfGdyg7xk

>>63982064
I like the monster magnet covers off this album. Plus ejection is a great song in general

>>63999558

Bruce gordon had some extra comments on the F104:

People are drawing some incorrect conclusions about my battle with the F-104 over in this video. The F-104 was OUTSTANDING in its design role - supersonic dogfighting. In this battle, I won by making my turn when I was SUBSONIC, getting behind him and using my radar to track him as he ran away from me. My F-106 won with a subsonic turn and then using radar. In other engagements, I mixed with F-104s in supersonic turns, and the F-106 could not beat the F-104 in supersonic turns.

In actual combat, VERY FEW hard turns are made supersonic. This series of engagements over the Gulf of Mexico was set up to test supersonic dogfights. It showed me that RADAR is critical, but nobody can beat the F-104 in supersonic turns.

HAVE DONUT showed that the MiG-21 was very poor at turning when supersonic, especially at moderate to low altitudes with high Q forces. Tactics is the art of fighting the battle on your terms, and into the flight realm where the enemy is at a disadvantage.
...

I expect there were two main problems: 1) The F-104 had no radar, and the battle was over North Vietnam where our own radar was limited; 2) The North Vietnamese MiGs would not fight with planes that were hunting for them. They would only attack the strike forces loaded down with bombs. If the enemy wouldn't fight, there was nothing for the F-104 to do except be a target for AAA and SAMs. The F-104 was a lot better than current Web stories indicate. Most of the high accident rates happened to Germans in Germany and were due to pilot errors. The German Air Force was using a lot of former East German pilots, and they did not follow the training and procedures that we were teaching. Other nations had much lower accident rates, but it was politically incorrect to blame the German pilots.

>>64000033
>The F-104 had no radar
They had radar but it didn't work with the sparrow or falcon.

>>64000046
Given he is talking about north vietnam and US Airforce, I assume he is refering to F104 A or C, which had a very basic range finding radar with a 10km tracking range. The f104G and S had better radars, and only sacrificed the gun to be able to fire Aim-7 sparrows.

>>63976992
Supercruise for 7 minutes before your bongaloid interceptor runs out of fuel isn't a flex, Nigel