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   NEXT
RockyMTNClimber       7/5/2010 3:06:01 PM
I don't think that the fact that the PAF was operating the F-104 in 1971 is a relevant point. They competantly operated their Sabres and F-104's against the Indians in 1965, the only thing that changed in 1971 was that the Indians now had Mig-21's instead of just Hunters and Gnats and achieved a 4 to 0 kill ratio against the F-104 in the type.- AG
 
I continue to assert that the F 104's performance can not be judged by the  Pakistan conflicts. If you review the specific losses, including the one shot down by a Mig 21, in each case the F 104 was either being used as a low level interdictor/strike aircraft or conducting an intercept at very low altitude and at low/slow dog fighting speeds. Something the "A" model was particularly unsuited for. On December 12 when the Mig 21 got it's now famous kill over the F 104, the fighter in question was strafing an airfield! The Mig pilot bounced him and he pulled into a horizontal turn in an attempt to out maneuver his attacker. Being already low and slow in an aircraft that defines Zoom and Boom the predictable outcome was his being shot down at close range by the cannon armed Mig. The only thing that proves is that bad tactics will always get you killed, no matter what you are flying. The F 104's wingman did the only sensible thing to do in that instance, he turned into the attack and stroked his burner to "let's get out of here" mode, and ran. If the dead Starfighter pilot had done the same, or better yet had he not been hanging out on the deck at all, the outcome could have certainly been different.
 
In the final analysis I am happy to disagree with those who think the F 104 should be judged by it's performance in Pakistan. In the context of this thread, F86 v. Mig15, I see an interesting comparison between the F104 and the Mig15. They were both very hot ships in their day.  Their very high performance sacrificed general handling and operational qualities. They were both acquired in very large numbers and had very long careers in service.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   7/6/2010 9:36:47 AM
I continue to assert that the F 104's performance can not be judged by the  Pakistan conflicts. If you review the specific losses, including the one shot down by a Mig 21, in each case the F 104 was either being used as a low level interdictor/strike aircraft or conducting an intercept at very low altitude and at low/slow dog fighting speeds. Something the "A" model was particularly unsuited for. On December 12 when the Mig 21 got it's now famous kill over the F 104, the fighter in question was strafing an airfield! The Mig pilot bounced him and he pulled into a horizontal turn in an attempt to out maneuver his attacker. Being already low and slow in an aircraft that defines Zoom and Boom the predictable outcome was his being shot down at close range by the cannon armed Mig. The only thing that proves is that bad tactics will always get you killed, no matter what you are flying. The F 104's wingman did the only sensible thing to do in that instance, he turned into the attack and stroked his burner to "let's get out of here" mode, and ran. If the dead Starfighter pilot had done the same, or better yet had he not been hanging out on the deck at all, the outcome could have certainly been different.
 
In the final analysis I am happy to disagree with those who think the F 104 should be judged by it's performance in Pakistan. In the context of this thread, F86 v. Mig15, I see an interesting comparison between the F104 and the Mig15. They were both very hot ships in their day.  Their very high performance sacrificed general handling and operational qualities. They were both acquired in very large numbers and had very long careers in service.
 
The ACIG records four confirmed instances where Mig-21s shot down F-104s rather than one, though I can only find a description of the incident that you describe. See links.
 
 
As you can see your description of the incident is not entirely accurate. The Starfighter was flying low but not slow, in fact it is described as exiting the area at high speed but the Mig-21 had no trouble overhauling it from altitude with afterburner to achieve the kill. The Starfighter only tried to out turn the Mig at the last minute when things were deperate. I don't see why the use of the type in the fighter bomber role at low level was such a travasty on behalf of the Paki's either. What else were they going to use it for other than low altitude work when that is where the battle was? It was fast and had a low visual signature so it would certainly be more survivable than any other Pakistani type of the time in that role, but it just wasn't fast enough to out run a Mig-21 and was an inadequate dogfighter, so it couldn't defend itself against it. The interesting question is what would have happenned had the tables been turned, my bet would be that the Mig would have turned circles around the Starfighter for the same end result, which is another indication of what was the better type.
 
I question your justification of it, that it was a "zoom and boom" type that should have been used where it was most suited. Lockheed did design it in response to a percieved need for stellar performance at high altitude, but the wars in the 1960's and 1970's proved that designing aircraft purely with this in mind was short sighted because combat occurred at low and medium altitudes. The fighters that did well in those environments such as the Phantom, the Mig-21 and the Mirage 111 could manouver well in both the vertical and the horizontal planes. At low altitude and at a poor fuel state especially a decent turning performance is vital, as the capacity to safely manouver in the vertical is severely limited by the proximity of the ground and the inability to use burners to gain altitude.
 
I also question whether the "zoom and boom" technique was really so relevant in the age of the proliferation of radar and SRAAM's anyway. This is because the technique is best performed by surprising the enemy with a high altitude approach, hard to do when every tinpot country has its own radar (not to mention SAM's in some cases, making operation at high altitude dangerous). Whats more the F-104s contemporaries such as the Mirage and the Mig-21 weren't so far behind in the speed and climb stakes that they could be safely "zoomed and boomed" because of the much greater range of IRAAM's compared to guns. All they would have needed to do against an F-104 attemptin
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky - ACIG link   7/6/2010 9:38:25 AM

>>

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    AG   7/6/2010 7:00:56 PM
 
I've read many versions of this and they all agree on the basic facts. first, the F104 driver, his name was Middlecoat, was strafing the airfield, not bombing and running mind you but pitching up and dipping down to fire a gun at well under sonic velocity. Now that is a patently stupid thing to do with two Mig-21s overhead. Second, you have to slow down to aim that gun and with the bad guys overhead you are setting yourself up. Again, no matter what you are driving. Finally he executed a 360 degree turn to avoid the attack. Now since he was already slow and low he had given up all of his ship's energy  potential before the attack the results are predictable, regardless of what you are flying but particularly the F104. It just wasn't suited for shooting up tarmacs. Some sources have the Mig 21 pilot  Flight Lt. Bharat Bhushan Soni firing an Atoll in order to force Middlecoat into the turn. Whatever the case my description is accurate.
 
Overall the F104 had a pretty good performance record. So much so that it was procurred in larger numbers than any other western/NATO type for most of a decade. It was never a low and slow dogfighteas has been described ad-nauseum on these pages.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Recommended source reading:
Air warfare in the Missile Age, by Lon Nordeen, 1985, Smithsonian Instituition, pg 92 chpt. IV
Aviation History Magazine, Jan, 2000, pg. 46-, Robert Guttman, Starfighter, "Missile with a man in it"
Military Avioation News, No. 124, p. 102; " An analysis of the Indio/Pakistan War"
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   7/8/2010 7:39:32 AM
Beyond noting that the large numbers of F-104's purchased had more to do with MAP funding and bribery of NATO officials than the merits of the type, I don't have anything else to add.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    beyond noting...   7/8/2010 9:34:09 AM

Beyond noting that the large numbers of F-104's purchased had more to do with MAP funding and bribery of NATO officials than the merits of the type, I don't have anything else to add.

It's hardly worth noting then when you compare the data that has been presented on the F104's career and the best anyone can argue is it wasn't flown at it's best by a third world country (while operating a very early variant) and the only evidence against it is from Indian Air Force friendly web sites who just might not get all of the facts straight. If you'd like to learn about this and other USAF/NATO types I've already posted some good sources for you!
 
Good luck with that AG.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Rocky   7/8/2010 4:01:16 PM

You really ought to look at the attrition rates for the F104 in Europe and Canada.

 

The Luftwaffe found the Starfighter a real handful, and the Germans would suffer a large number of accidents. A popular joke among Germans at the time was that anyone who wanted to get a Starfighter should just buy a farm and wait for one to crash onto it. Few were really laughing, however, since about 110 Luftwaffe pilots were killed in Starfighters; the accident rate would lead to a major public outcry and a long-running political crisis. Since many of the fatalities were from ejections at low level with the C2 ejection seat, beginning in 1967 the entire fleet was refitted with the Martin Baker Mark 7 zero-zero ejection seat.

 

Total losses were 270 aircraft, or about 30% of the force. Other air forces had higher loss rates, but the Luftwaffe was by far the biggest operator of the Starfighter and so had the highest absolute number of losses. After the F-104, the Germans would acquire a strong aversion to single-engine fighter aircraft.

 

The Netherlands was another major European Starfighter user, with the type going into service to replace the F-84 / RF-84, as well as Lockheed RT-33s. The Dutch acquired 95 F-104Gs, 25 RF-104Gs, and 18 TF-104Gs from Fokker, Fiat, and Lockheed production. This gave a total of 120 single-seaters and 18 two-seaters, or 135 aircraft in all. The Dutch lost a total of 43 Starfighters from accidents, a painful attrition rate of 35.8%.

 

Belgium obtained 101 F-104Gs from SABCA production and 12 TF-104Gs from Lockheed production, with deliveries from 1963 through 1965. The Belgians lost 41 of their Starfighters in accidents, an even more painful attrition rate of about 37%.

 

Despite the bad press of the F-104 in Luftwaffe service, it was the Canadians who had the worst attrition rate, with 110 destroyed in crashes, about 46% of the total.

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Heorot reply   7/10/2010 1:52:54 PM
 
We have already addressed the F 104 accident rate here at least briefly. First, understand that this airplane would still be considered today to be one of the world's most challenging aircraft to operate. In 1955 it was a full generation ( + ) ahead of anything anybody had ever flown. According to Eric Hartman, google that name if it does not ring a bell, in his biography: The Blond Knight of Germany, "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". Hartman's evaluation of  all USAF types in 1955-57 led him to the conclusion that the new Luftwaffe should request the F-102 or perhaps the F-100 (although the F-100 had a higher accident rate than the F-104 in US operations). At least until the Luftwaffe pilots and ground crews became familiar with the aircraft and its advanced J79 engine. The very new and very advanced J79 itself was a (maybe even the) major source of F-104 accidents. Up to that point the new Luftwaffe had already been saddled with high accident rates with it's F-84s and F-86s. Due to it's inexperienced pilots and the generally rough weather conditions that air forces operate under in central Europe. Hartmann wanted the Germans to adopt the F-104 after a few years of operating other advanced types with afterburners and super-mach performance.
 
He was right of course as history proves.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       7/10/2010 9:25:17 PM
Of course if they had done what Hartmann had said and waited a few more years before buying the F-104G they would have been able to select from the range of much more suitable tactical fighters that went into production during that time, such as the Mirage 111, the F-5A and the Saab Draken, and probably wouldn't have bought the F-104G (notwithstanding Lockheed Martin bribes).
 
More generally one thing that I can't for the life of me understand is why a denavalised F-8 was never marketed to US allies. The type was available to the USN from 1956, wasn't prohibitively complex and was by far the best tactical fighter available tactical fighter of the era. I wonder if was because everybody at that time was fixated on the high-altitude free-fall bombing threat which evaporated after the Powers shoot down, at the expense of having aircraft that could perform well in every other mission?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    AG reply   7/10/2010 10:32:15 PM
What is the big deal with the bribes? Everybody used them at that time, Lockheed only got in trouble because they were better at using them than the competition (or careless enough to get caught). You think Dasault won contracts solely on their product's performance? Please! You can't tell me that Hawker didn't grease indigenous palms to sell those lovely Hunters to their Middle East / Asian operators! I actually know a guy who had the contract to maintain their engines, negotiated through an Jordanian Princling who made his Monte Carlo bills good that way. Lockheed did nothing unusual there!
 
Re: Hartmann, he had the interests of the new Luftwaffe at heart and it isn't clear whether the Germany would have bought the F-104 anyway in 1960-61 having spent a few years maturing. We will never know.
 
Re: the F-8, the French loved the Crusader and flew it into the 1990s. It was a very hot kite in it's own right with an early accident rate to match. It certainly could have been a land based multi role fighter too.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics