hckrnws
I think there might be something missing in the title of this post. Like a verb maybe? "Did Germany's Lockheed F-104"... Did it what? exist?
It accidentally a whole scandal
The little plane that did.
... deserve its bad name?
yeah I saw that after clicking the link, but why not put the whole title in the HN news post then? "The first 5 words should be enough for everybody"? ;-)
Yeah, especially with 31 characters still available before hitting HN's 80 char limit!
Comment was deleted :(
They were quite early supersonic fighter jets, designed for very high speeds and high altitudes and made long before many of the most important lessons had been learned. That they were deadly, even to highly trained pilots, seems a logical consequence.
What I would be interested in is a comparison to it's Rival, the MiG-21, which outlasted the F-104. Did the Russians struggle just as much?
Also, these things are absolutely awesome to see in real life. If you ever get the chance, you should take it.
Like Germany did from the US for the F-104, India too got nearly full tech transfer to assemble the MiG-21 from Russia. The Indian Air Force has operated around 1200+ MiG-21's (some of them with indian customisations) and has recorded 400 crashes, 200 pilot and 50 civilians deaths due to it.
> Danvir Singh, a military veteran and defence expert, points out that the Russians had designed the MiG-21 in order to intercept American surveillance aircraft. “They are basically manned missiles; their wingspan is narrow, and landing and take-off speeds are very high,” says the retired colonel. “We had no intermediate trainers initially, so our pilots had to jump into a supersonic aircraft. A majority of the accidents earlier happened because of lack of training. They’re still happening because of high speed, low manoeuvrability, and an old platform the maintenance of which has been a big issue.”
(Chequered history: Why the MIG-21 came to be called 'the flying coffin' - https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/chequered-histo... ).
> Did the Russians struggle just as much?
It will be hard to get reliable numbers from behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, this seems to be an attempt to list the known incidents of just one (out of 6) "Jagdfliegergeschwader" in the East German airforce: https://home.snafu.de/veith/verluste1.htm, after 1966 most crashes are Mig-21.
Here's the list of airplane types and numbers in the East German airforce (all in all East Germany operated 567 Mig-21, more than any other type): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Luftfahrzeugen_der_N...
The Indian air force apparently lost over half of their Mig-21 built between 1966 and 1984 to crashes, but maybe because of poor maintenance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21).
Make of it what you will, but Mig-21s used to be nicknamed "flying coffins" in some places behind the Iron Curtain. They were notoriously unsafe.
Yes, but was the Mig-21 better, worse or roughly the same as the F-104? That's surprisingly hard to figure out because crashes in socialist countries were usually swept under the rug.
Oh, I know. I took the "did the Russians struggle just as much?" question qualitatively, as in, yes, the Mig-21 was also notoriously unsafe and the Russians struggled with it, too.
Their track records would be very difficult to compare even if detailed operational history were available.
Figures from some external operators are comparable. For instance, slightly less than half of the CF-104s operated by the Canadian Air Force ended up in some accident or another, slightly more than half of the Indian Air Force's Mig-21s were lost in crashes. I'm specifically mentioning the Canadian Air Force's experience because their CF-104s flew longer hours than just about any other F-104 variant. However, that's almost twice as bad as the figures Federal Germany got (just south of 300 out of their 900-something aircraft).
Thing is, Mig-21s were definitely flown to smithereens (hence the relevance of the CF-104s operational history, because CF-104s were also flown to smithereens). Money was tight beyond the Iron Curtain so most airplanes stayed in service forever, planned economy (even in the carefully-regulated defense industry) frequently resulted in supply shortages so maintenance was difficult, maintenance wasn't always top-notch due to personnel and supply management issues, so it's not always easy to say which side of the neglect border each incident was.
It's hard to decouple these things from the design, too, maintenance complexity is itself a design trade-off. The F-117 has a better safety track record than the Mig-21, but if they'd been handed a squadron of F-117s, the vast majority of the Mig-21's (former) operators would've ran them into the ground in a matter of weeks.
The main difference was that MiG-21 wasn't pushed as low-altitude aircraft with strike mission, like what was involved with F-104G.
It had quite explicit history related to the Uragan project (networked interception system with ground control against US bombers), but while it could be pushed into low-altitude attack role, it wasn't really sold as one.
A lot of the remaining issues were essentially shared across both sides due to how early the technology base was, not just on the fighter jet, but for example because you might have to land a high approach speed plane in low visibility using only 2xNDB system (which essentially just gives you correct heading, you have to use dead reckoning for altitude adjustment - an ex-21 pilot said that landing without visibility often involved prayers till you felt tires hit the runway).
It may be worth noting that there was more than a "whiff of corruption", as the article states. The Dutch prince-consort was found guilty, and only escaped prosecution because the queen threatened to abdicate. It's more than likely that other parties were bribed too.
Really? Threatening to abdicate? And that worked?
Comment was deleted :(
As if it's not bad enough, the Starfighter's radar system also caused cancer and other damages to maintenance personnel due to X-ray radiation.[1]
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesundheitssch%C3%A4den_durch_...
How do you get a Starfighter? Just buy some Land and wait a bit.
The famous "widowmaker"... I remember these from childhood, looking through a book about fighter jets. Always thought they had a wicked shape, instantly caught my youthful eye.
Also called Erdnagel (ground nail)
I believe it was nicknamed The Flying Coffin here in Italy.
> "[...] When I fly a roll and hold a glass of water in my hand, not a drop falls out.”
I assumed this was hyperbole, but it seems possible [0], [1] - although they both seem to fly a barrel roll [2]. Would this be possible with just a roll in a fighter jet?
[0] "Airplane Drink Trick-Pouring a Beverage While Rolling the Plane" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjHD1U-QWv4
[1] "Pilot successfully performs barrel roll without spilling water" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LP-YXfmgGM
Even Newton knew that party trick. The centrifugal force has to at least equal gravity when the glass is upside down, so F/m=w^2r=g. If r (the distance from the axis of revolution is about a metre, then w (the angular velocity) is roughly sqrt(10)/second. In more familiar terms that's about 30 rpm. Anything rotating that fast will be able to keep all its water in the glass.
Thanks! It seems to be possible:
some roll rates I found (not very good sources, though): F/A-18E Super Hornet 120 deg/s [0], F-16 240 deg/s [0], Eurofighter 250 deg/s [0]. For the Starfighter I found up to 720 deg/s in some discussions, though I go with 360 deg/s [1].
Min. distance (r) from the glass of water to the roll axis to achieve 1g:
120 deg/s (20rpm): 245cm (you'd have to put that glass on the landing gear)
180 deg/s (30rpm): 100cm
240 deg/s (40rpm): 55cm
250 deg/s (42rpm): 51cm
360 deg/s (60rpm): 25cm
720 deg/s (120rpm): 6cm
[0] https://theaviationist.com/2015/05/01/aileron-roll-in-t-346a...
[1] https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/106866-r...
The classic example of this was Bob Hoover, who poured iced tea in his Rockwell Shrike Commander twin-engine propeller airplane while completing a barrel roll with both engines shut down (gliding).
There were even albums about the plane: "Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters," by Robert Calvin the frontman for Hawkwind.
And one of my favorite songs, "Starfighter F-104G" by Welle:Erdball
Excellent song, came here to post it.
The German navy bought starfighters? Did Germany already have an aircraft carrier in the late 50s? And the star fighter could land on a carrier?
Germany never had an aircraft carrier, but the Navy still had land-based fighter squadrons:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinefliegergeschwader_1
...not anymore though:
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/marine/ausruestung...
[dead]
TLDR: it did
They old Hanse-Aristocrats did Stop Franz Josef Strauss from acquiring nukes and now all of europe is secretly scrambling to buy the materials and techniques from every country willing to sell.
Somewhere in some swedish/finish/isaeli nuclear powerplant, some eastern european/ russian-chinese border countries delegations are sharing a waiting room, whistling tunelessly embarrassed by this generation of politicans ability to perceive and shape the world.
The peaceniks just don't get that in this game they do not make the rules. The one defector that starts the war does. War by definition is societys end- and thus society has no say there, try as it might. It can allow its own version of the "devil" to put up bullwarks. Or it doesn't
It is extremely doubtful any of the allies would have allowed Germany nukes. Back then, Germany (East or West) was not a fully sovereign country.
France and the UK have nukes, is that not sufficient? It seems to be getting the job done.
France precisely has nukes because de Gaulle did not believe that the U.S. would actually retaliate in case Paris was nuked.
In turn, I highly doubt that France would retaliate for Germany if Berlin was nuked.
This may seem outrageous for people reading this for the first time, but it is perfectly historical.
I think if your country doesn't have nukes, it is merely a gametheoritic poker chip for those who do.
Will it help Poland, Latvia, Finland, Ukraine, Estonia, Georgia, if Europe and its values, are that easy deterred? Those security guarantees are almost worthless now, that two defectors have started a new great game.
> that two defectors have started a new great game
There was never the "Great Game". Look into Russian archives, they never played something like that. There was no great plan to capture India. It was all self inflicted paranoia and projection of UK colonial elites!
The competitive, zero-sum conquests of two empires were very real, as were the sphere of influence negotiations.
But that’s not the point either way. As I’m reading gp, the point is that if the leaders of the international order want to prevent nuclear proliferation (a worthy goal), they’ll have to do better to protect Russia and China’s neighbors from their territorial aggression. Else, the border states won’t have a better choice than deterrence if they want to survive.
How many Ukraines and Taiwans will it take before a dozen new hands hold their own red buttons?
> The competitive, zero-sum conquests
Controlling country like Afghanistan is not zerosum game. It is a blackhole that burns money, resources and men! There was never great plan to conquer India (as British believed).
> leaders of the international order want to prevent nuclear proliferation
"Leaders" are happy if they find their way from podium.
Current situation is more similar to Cuban missile crisis, not some great chess game. Sadly we do not have anyone like Kennedy!
It’s true there was no game. The power-mad expansion and conquest was not motivated by anything like fun.
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code