Starfighter Scandal: Did Germany's Lockheed F-104
key.aero
key.aero
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.
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).
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.
> 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... ).
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).
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesundheitssch%C3%A4den_durch_...
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
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...
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinefliegergeschwader_1
...not anymore though:
https://www.bundeswehr.de/de/organisation/marine/ausruestung...
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
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!
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?
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!
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.