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
Aussiegunneragain       7/10/2010 11:04:31 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 


The difference between the LM bribes for the F-104 and the other examples you give is that LM was doing so to sell an aicraft that was patently unsuitable for 90% of the needs of the users and which probably at most wouldn't have won any the big orders that it did without the extra assistance. The same can't be said for the Mirage and the Hunter, they were just excellent planes that would have won on a level playing field.
 
Re the F-8's early loss rate, my understanding is that this generally occurred during carrier landings. I wonder if it would have faced the same problems as a land based type?
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       7/11/2010 1:24:54 AM

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).
 
1. I am not a fan of the Mirage III. That was a pilots made the plane myth and not the other way around. It got lucky in that it was used by a couple oif superb air forces that knew exactly what they were doing. In the hands of tyros it was a clay pidgeon.  

Of the choices named, I LIKE the Draken for the Luftwaffe. It was designed for local flight weather conditions.
 
The F-5 would have been a good starter aircraft, but on the central front where air superiority was as important as bombing I would use it as part of a two plane mission solution if I could afford it. The LW could not afford it, so we look again at Draken.
   
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?

 U would have looked at the F-11 Tiger instead as a US choice.. Even at that I would have bought Draken., except I would wire that bird for SPARROW instead of FALCON. FALCON was a terrible missile, simply terrible.
 
The F-8, now, could be that two bird LW solution but only with the A-7 which was not ready yet.. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       7/11/2010 2:00:35 AM
I'm not going to go over the Mirage III discussion again as we have already had it here so anybody who wants to read it can look at the previous thread (link below).
 
>>
 
I'll agree that the Draken along would have been a "fit-for-purpose" choice for the Western European countries though, unsurprising given that it was built for essentially the same conditions that they faced.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber       7/11/2010 12:12:44 PM
The difference between the LM bribes for the F-104 and the other examples you give is that LM was doing so to sell an aircraft that was patently unsuitable for 90% of the needs of the users and which probably at most wouldn't have won any the big orders that it did without the extra assistance. The same can't be said for the Mirage and the Hunter, they were just excellent planes that would have won on a level playing field.
 
Re the F-8's early loss rate, my understanding is that this generally occurred during carrier landings. I wonder if it would have faced the same problems as a land based type?

AG, what you are missing here is that NATO felt the F-104 was particularly well suited to the needs of the NATO countries. They didn't need nor could they afford, F-105s. They needed a very high performance aircraft that could react fast and operate within about 100 miles of the front while integrating with USAF. Further the Germans required an aircraft that was Nuke qualified which the Star Fighter was starting with the "C" model. Remember they only needed to go a few parishes to see the enemy so a typical big, expensive, uber sophisticated, over built US type wasn't required. Further, Lockheed's aircraft could be fabricated using local industry and technology with Lockheed delivering some sub-sets pre-packaged. Later the European aircraft industry produced more and more of the aircraft under Lockheed franchise. The bribes were the same bribes everybody else had to give to do business and play on a level playing field since everybody else was happily bribing anybody they needed to in order to win contracts. You are naive if you think Lockheed invented this kind of bribery for the F-104. 
 
Re the F-8, it was a very hot bird for its day and the USN lost allot of them from land and at sea. Until they got a handel on the Crusader's systems. Same same with the F-105. A very good book that covers the F-8's career up through Viet Nam  is "On Yankee Station" by Cmdr. John Nichols.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Saab Draken & Mirage III   7/11/2010 12:32:02 PM
 
The Mirage III's combat record in the hands of a competent air force speaks for itself so there is no need to discuss that any further. The Germans/NATO  aren't likely I suppose to buy Mirages because of European Politics (the French pulled out of NATO rather than stand with their neighbors, what a suprise...) but it was capable of filling local needs for a multi role fighter. The Draken family of aircraft weren't available in a mach 1.8 platform until well after the F-104 was being produced in multiple variants and big numbers, bigger if needed. It was just too little and too late for Germany. Further, Sweden could have been dominated by Red forces in WWIII so ordering planes from Burbank, California made allot of sense.
 
As always, it helps to know the history before you wade into these conversations.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       7/11/2010 2:59:35 PM

 

The Mirage III's combat record in the hands of a competent air force speaks for itself so there is no need to discuss that any further. The Germans/NATO  aren't likely I suppose to buy Mirages because of European Politics (the French pulled out of NATO rather than stand with their neighbors, what a suprise...) but it was capable of filling local needs for a multi role fighter. The Draken family of aircraft weren't available in a mach 1.8 platform until well after the F-104 was being produced in multiple variants and big numbers, bigger if needed. It was just too little and too late for Germany. Further, Sweden could have been dominated by Red forces in WWIII so ordering planes from Burbank, California made allot of sense.

 

As always, it helps to know the history before you wade into these conversations.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

Yes it does, Rocky....How much American and British tech was in the SAAB?
 
The Mirage III in the hands of that air force had so many defects as delivered, that that very air force did a FORD on it and then did this.
 
   
The Mirage 5 had the same engine problems and later same solutions. They fixed the engines. Then for the Nesher, they fixed the cannons at last, and shoved an American engine into an Israeli redesigned aeroshell that looked like a Mirage.     
 
When you have lemons you squeeze very hard.  
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Herald reply   7/11/2010 3:55:16 PM
 
I'd agree that the French had their share of technical challenges but to be fair they had to start from scratch in 1946 and they did a good job getting to where they were with the Mirage III in the mid-late 1950's. It's combat record was unmatched in it's day and we have already discussed on this thread how much difficulty pilots, ground crews, & design teams were having transitioning from sub-sonic combat aircraft to trans-mach combat aircraft. This wasn't a problem for the French alone (one must concede that French quality control/assurance has not always been the best either). Saab was a little behind the time line for Germany's purchase decision in November of 1958 (with a certificated mach 1.5+ level flight design), and whether or not Swedes even wanted to provide hardware for the Luftwaffe is an open question. None of that takes away from the Saab company who has always built very solid combat aircraft IMV. The F-5 does not make it's appearance until 1962.
 
What makes a discussion of the Mirage series moot is the political fact that the French had just dropped NATO, actually kicking them out of France in 1957. There was a genuine open question whether the French would support the Mirage in WWIII against the Russians or whether or not they would just declare themselves neutral. The NATO countries weren't going to buy French.
 
Viewed in the context of the time, the F-104 might have just won the first "Euro-Fighter" competition by default.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       7/12/2010 9:11:27 AM

 

I'd agree that the French had their share of technical challenges but to be fair they had to start from scratch in 1946 and they did a good job getting to where they were with the Mirage III in the mid-late 1950's. It's combat record was unmatched in it's day and we have already discussed on this thread how much difficulty pilots, ground crews, & design teams were having transitioning from sub-sonic combat aircraft to trans-mach combat aircraft. This wasn't a problem for the French alone (one must concede that French quality control/assurance has not always been the best either). Saab was a little behind the time line for Germany's purchase decision in November of 1958 (with a certificated mach 1.5+ level flight design), and whether or not Swedes even wanted to provide hardware for the Luftwaffe is an open question. None of that takes away from the Saab company who has always built very solid combat aircraft IMV. The F-5 does not make it's appearance until 1962.

 

What makes a discussion of the Mirage series moot is the political fact that the French had just dropped NATO, actually kicking them out of France in 1957. There was a genuine open question whether the French would support the Mirage in WWIII against the Russians or whether or not they would just declare themselves neutral. The NATO countries weren't going to buy French.

 

Viewed in the context of the time, the F-104 might have just won the first "Euro-Fighter" competition by default.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

I could not disagree more. Like to know from where the ATAR engine that was such a problem childe for the early  Mirages came?

 
Not only was Marcel Bloch (Dassault) one of the great falsifiers of current history, but he was also a technology thief  of the first order.
 
 
So you see, it was Bloch who stole most of the critical tech from Germany that went into the family of Mirages.  It was his own government who arrested him, imprisoned him for most of the war and then at the end when it was reduced to a rump state turned him over to the Germans for refusing to work for Vichy.
 
Interesting the truth is. We had Paperclip, but by 1956, you see genuine (bungled like the F-104) All American designs that owed very little to German research (Phantom and Crusader to name two more such, but which are successful)   
 
By this time, Bloch was enamored of tailless deltas and the Hortens. We had moved on, with our own unique series of axial flow jet engines (the trouble plagued GE J-79 that took a decade to fix and ever reliable, ever tough Pratt J-57)  and series of compound delta  and swept H planform aircraft to use them. The British were still a bit ahead of us when it came to aerodynamics in aircraft around 1952 (Lightning and V bomber series was  designed around then), and jet engine tech but by 1956 we caught them (Centuries and Boeing bombers/airliners) and have never looked back at them. They can still teach us a thing or two, as can the Russians, but not the French ever, not since WW II.
 
The Mirage III was just not that great a plane in service. In too many ways aerodynamically, it too closely resembled the Delta Dagger.
 
H.
 
   
 
 
       

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Rocky   7/12/2010 9:42:20 AM
What do you think those European F-104s would actually have been doing during a Central European war? Let me suggest that in that environment they principally would have been trying to destroy all those SU-7's and Yak-28's coming over from the East to bomb NATO ground forces and facilities and fighting the Migs that were trying to prevent the NATO strike fighters doing the same. Those, missions that would have principally been conducted at low level because that is where the strike fighters operate. They would also have been required to do fighter sweeps and strafing runs on airfields. You yourself have said that the F-104 is unsuited to low level air to air work, so what does that tell you? It tells me that one of NATOs principal and most numerous fighters was not going to be able to do the job of  defending the guys the strike aircraft and the NATO armies well enough, putting them at a severe tactical disadvantage.
 
The reality is that the three missions that the F-104 was good for, quick reaction intercept of high altitude threats, tactical recon and nuclear strike, were only ever going to be a minority of what it actually would have had to do, especially given the presence of Nike Hercules SAMs in Europe from around 1959 and given the size of the US tactical nuclear force in Europe. In the absence of a really good option like the Crusader, the Mirage or the Draken, I actually think that Hartmann was right and that the Europeans would have been better off buying the Super Sabre with a small force of F-104Gs for high altitude interception, night fighting (the F-100 didn't have a radar so this was needed) and nuclear strike. By 1958 the D model Super Sabre was two years into production and a lot of the directional stability problems had been sorted out, so it would probably have had a better accident rate than the German F-104's and it was more suitable for the low to medium altitude missions that were required in Central Europe. That way the F-104s could have been given to the best pilots who could actually fly them without crashing and making use of their capabilities in the vertical. Apart from the RF-104Gs I don't really think the Germans would have needed more than 10 or so F-104Gs, 50 to check that the incomings on the first day of the war are in fact TU-16's before the Nikes blow anything at high altitude them out of the sky and 50 to lob nukes at airbases.
 
Re the F-8, does your book break down the percentage of crashes during carrier landings and takeoffs versus other causes? I find it very hard to believe that it would do worse than the F-104 did in Germany given the slower landing speed and better manouverability of the type.
 
Re the Mirage, I don't see why the French pulling out of NATO in 1966 would have had on the Germans or the other European nations instead of the F-104 1960. It certainly didn't stop them selling the type to Spain when it became available. The notion that manufacture in France would have been a problem is a furphy as well, Australia licence produced Mirages so it is reasonable to expect that the Germans, Dutch, Italians etc would have as well.
 
Re the Draken, the J-35B was quite capable enough for the European countries and was available from 1962, while the D was available from 1963. I'm sure that the Europeans could have coped waiting with Crusaders or F-100's until then.
 
Re bribes and a level playing field, the F-104 was backed by MAP funding as well as bribes and nobody else could match that. The playing field was in no way level, it was loaded towards a fighter that otherwise didn't have much merit.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    We'll have to agree to disagree AG...   7/12/2010 6:25:24 PM

What do you think those European F-104s would actually have been doing during a Central European war? 

 The short answer to this is that the NATO powers in western Europe decided to buy the F-104. We have already discussed and explained why so we don't need to go back into that. As I have already introduced  at least one local expert, Erich Hartmann, disagreed with the decision to buy F-104s because the German Luftwaffe was not ready for that advanced an aircraft. I'd take his word over any internet rocketeer's any day. His word on the subject was that the F-104 would make a fine Luftwaffe fighter, when they were ready for them.

 

Re the F-8, does your book break down the percentage of crashes during carrier landings and takeoffs versus other causes? I find it very hard to believe that it would do worse than the F-104 did in Germany given the slower landing speed and better manouverability of the type.

 Commander Nichols discusses at length the reasons for the F-8's high loss rates. They were because it was so much more powerful, fast, had a higher approach speed than the Fury, the tilt wing had a tendency to break off if mis-managed, and it had very nasty stall characteristics. It was no dream boat easy fix for Europe but it might have been a good candidate as a "Euro-Fighter"  IMV. Particularly if the land based version didn't have the complex wing structure. I'd strongly suggest you read the book and find out for yourself.
 
Re the Mirage, I don't see why the French pulling out of NATO in 1966 would have had on the Germans or the other European nations instead of the F-104 1960. It certainly didn't stop them selling the type to Spain when it became available. The notion that manufacture in France would have been a problem is a furphy as well, Australia licence produced Mirages so it is reasonable to expect that the Germans, Dutch, Italians etc would have as well.

Thank you for correcting me on the date France withdrew from NATO's military cooperation. I don't know why I had 57' stuck in my head. Perhaps it was because that was about when De Gaulle was preaching for it (he won election as President of France in 1958). I've never said the Mirage III series couldn't do the job in fact I said it's combat record with Israel was nearly flawless. Despite Herald;s rantings the Mirage certainly could have fulfilled that role. There are political considerations to remember. Not everyone in NATO trusted the French, even in 1957 so it isn't a simple decision. It makes an interesting "what if" if France had allowed partners in Europe license build them in the late 50's maybe the French could have held more of the market. I always thought the decision to dump Israel was a very dumb one that they are still suffering for today.
Re the Draken, the J-35B was quite capable enough for the European countries and was available from 1962, while the D was available from 1963. I'm sure that the Europeans could have coped waiting with Crusaders or F-100's until then.

 Again, the decision to buy, at least for the Germans, was in the 1957-58 time frame. Lockheed was ahead of Saab. at that  point. Again, I have not said that the Saab series couldn't do the job. In a different universe these other choices might have worked better. Who knows?
 
Re bribes and a level playing field, the F-104 was backed by MAP funding as well as bribes and nobody else could match that. The playing field was in no way level, it was loaded towards a fighter that otherwise didn't have much merit.

 You are correct about the MAP funding. But that would not have stopped the Germans from buying another US type. Clearly the NATO group didn't agree with you. The fact that Lockheed was so forth coming with mfg rights was probably the clincher for the individual countries but it's  low base cost and incredible performance is undeniable. It is okay with me that you think the F-104 does not have merit. I can say that it would not have served at least 13 countries and in NATO from 1954 until 2004 unless it had some significant "merit".
 
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