Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Mig-15 v. F-86
RockyMTNClimber    6/13/2010 10:40:31 AM
I think this is one of the more interesting historical aviation stories. At the conclusion of WWII the allies divied up the available German engineers and combined them with talent from their bench to create our first generation of jet powered combat aircraft. This happened just as Ole' Smokin Joe Stalin became frisky and decided he could take over the universe. The net Russian result was an airplane that was fastest in level flight, had the highest combat ceiling of any at the time, and could turn with anything the west had in a horizontal fight. Then, the Mig was produced in numbers that boggled the 1950 mind. When the whistle blew over Korea the US had very few assets in place to hold back the Red Tide. Initial combat fell on the F-80 and what WWII piston aircraft that were still stored in the region. The Mig quickly proved itself a vicious killer of B-29s and it could stay outside of any UN fighter pilot's weapons envelope he wanted to. In spite of this, the F-86 did finally arrive and with it some of the best pilots the world has ever seen. The Sabre Jet established itself as a heat shield against the communist "Faggot" (the NATO code name for the Mig-15) and ran up at least a six to one kill ratio. When we compare today's PAC-FX against western types it would be well that we consider we have not always had the pure performance advantages to keep our side safe. Sometimes we have actually had to settle for lower performance and other factors to prevail against our despotic enemies "inferior" equipment. I think the Mig-15 v. F-86 makes an interesting case study that remains relevant today. Check Six Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   7/17/2010 8:03:59 PM
I think we are less disagreeing now than debating different points.
You are saying that the F-104G was a technically sound aircraft that was at the leading edge of the performance envelope and was therefore challengeing to operate. Therefore it recieved an unfair rap on its losses because the airforces that did operate it weren't up to the task at that time or used it outside of its intended roles. As a consequence of this discussion I no longer consider the type to be a technical dog (though the earlier models were more problematic) and agree that this is why Hartmann argued against its purchase.
 
What I am saying is that F-104G had a specilised range of abilities that wasn't as suitable a purchase as multi-role with a strong air superiority capability, which is what NATO and the other US allies actually needed rather than a high-altitude interceptor, as other types such as the F-100D, the F-8 Crusader and (had the purchase been delayed with an interim type chosen) the Mirage 111 or the Saab Draken. I also consider that Hartmann's statements to the effect that the F-104 might have been a good purchase in a couple of years time were probably made without full knowledge of what else would be available at that time, because the Mirage and Draken weren't available for him to review.
 
However, this statement by Hartmann suggests to me that he did not consider the F-104 to be a "perfect fit" for Germany.
 
?The American F-104 Starfighter was a great plane, but it had problems, and I did not feel that Germany needed, or that our pilots could even handle this machine without a lot more experience. Many higher up felt that I was out of line, but I stated what I thought was accurate, and I was proven correct, but this made me enemies."
 
 
The fact that he was pushing for the F-100 also suggests to me that a less specialised type was more appropriate.
 
Anyway, if you still don't agree with me I am also happy to agree to disagree agreeably.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Erich Hartman and other fun facts cont'd...   7/18/2010 3:14:19 PM

I think we are less disagreeing now than debating different points.  -I'm going to pick a couple of extra nits here...


You are saying that the F-104G was a technically sound aircraft that was at the leading edge of the performance envelope and was therefore challengeing to operate. Therefore it recieved an unfair rap on its losses because the airforces that did operate it weren't up to the task at that time or used it outside of its intended roles. As a consequence of this discussion I no longer consider the type to be a technical dog (though the earlier models were more problematic) and agree that this is why Hartmann argued against its purchase.

What I am saying is that F-104G had a specilised range of abilities that wasn't as suitable a purchase as multi-role with a strong air superiority capability, (NATO alone bought some 2,400 of them and operated them for up to 50 years. They certainly thought they had a winner worth investing treasure and blood into)  which is what NATO and the other US allies actually needed rather than a high-altitude interceptor, as other types such as the F-100D, the F-8 Crusader and (had the purchase been delayed with an interim type chosen) the Mirage 111 or the Saab Draken. I also consider that Hartmann's statements to the effect that the F-104 might have been a good purchase in a couple of years time were probably made without full knowledge of what else would be available at that time, because the Mirage and Draken weren't available for him to review. Actually he was sent to the NATO partner countries including UK and France after being freed from Russian prisons so he could be the national resource for fighter technology. That is how he ended up at Groom Lake (aka: "area 51) and Luke AFB in 1957-58 and flew the F-100 & F-104 to begin with. He never mentions in his biography that the Germans ever considered other nation's types. That is left to speculation at this point but I have no problem saying the Germans could have used another nation's type to achieve their goals. This was only limited to the practicalities and politics of the day.

However, this statement by Hartmann suggests to me that he did not consider the F-104 to be a "perfect fit" for Germany. -see below

 

?The American F-104 Starfighter was a great plane, but it had problems, and I did not feel that Germany needed, or that our pilots could even handle this machine without a lot more experience. Many higher up felt that I was out of line, but I stated what I thought was accurate, and I was proven correct, but this made me enemies."  Hartmann qualified his opinion accurately- RMC
 
The fact that he was pushing for the F-100 also suggests to me that a less specialised type was more appropriate.

 

Anyway, if you still don't agree with me I am also happy to agree to disagree agreeably. 
 
 
We agree that Col. Hartmann had plenty of admiration for the new generation of mach plus fighters, including the F-104. We also must agree that experience was the key to integrating these weapons into the new NATO air forces. This is a direct quote of Harmann's also: "I did not believe the F 104 was a bad weapons system, but rather that a human problem on our side would cause us grave problems". Remember that the USAF had actually experienced a greater loss rate with the F-100 than the  F-104 (because prior to the F-100 we had no experience in operating such high performance aircraft). Germany may have seen very little improvement in operational losses with the F-100, who really knows for sure? To reconnect US with this thread's origins, I'd say the fact that the F-86 was such a darling to fly was a problem for all of US because it failed to prepare the west's air forces for the next generation of f
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   7/20/2010 7:42:31 AM
Me too, ta.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics