>>64148136
>>64148184
Please, please, PLEASE do not defend the F-104. It is a horrific disgusting blemish on an otherwise *beautiful* lineup of American jets. Was it good as a visual-range bomber interceptor? Yes. In an era where bombers were rapidly being replaced by ICBM's, and BVR was in it's infancy. Note: The absence of the F-104 from this chart because it NEVER GOT A SINGLE A2A KILL EVER AND WAS USED AS A STUPID GOD DAMN STRIKE AIRCRAFT, EVEN BY THE U.S. AFTER THEY REALIZED IT WAS USELESS AS A FIGHTER
We did NOT optimize it for German interception doctrine. Germany did NOT use it as an interceptor, they used it as a fucking low-level strike fighter, which is the exact role this stupid thing was least suited to.
>Oh but then why did Germany order them then?
Look up the "Starfighter-Affäre". The F-11F or Mirage III should've won that contract, *they* could've fulfilled the role of a multi-role fighter, the F-104 shouldn't have been accepted for the role they wanted to give it, but were aggressively lobbied and bribed by lockheed to accept it, and the result was an accident record of THIRTY FUCKING TWO PERCENT.
>B-But muh Japan and Italy
They were so completely covered by the U.S. defense umbrella that they could get away using this stupid thing as a """fighter""" without issue, which is also why they didn't have issues with accidents as much as the Germans.
The only people that defend the F-104's are terminal contrarians. Do not be a terminal contrarian, Anon, you are better than that.
