Your Nation's Air Force [MKI]

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

I would love to have a modern version of the F-104 Starfighter in my airforce. I love the sleek look of that aircraft, and the fact that it pushed the envelope of fighter design.

[Virana]

I would love to have a modern version of the F-104 Starfighter in my airforce. I love the sleek look of that aircraft.

I wouldn't recommend it. The trend of fighters from the 4th generation onward is maneuverable aircraft with very low wing loading. The F-104 is literally the opposite - its tiny wings give it very high wing loading (high weight per unit surface area), which means that it needs a high airspeed to maintain lift or else it will stall. It's optimized as a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor, not really a main fighter (although if that high speed interceptor role is your objective, it could work).

The F-104 also has a really poor safety record, but I think with more modern relaxed stability avionics, you could help remedy its poor flight stability and, with proper training, mitigate the flight safety issues.

[Riysa]

My Air Force organization for fighter and attack wings is as follows:

3 aircraft per flight.
10 aircraft per squadron - 3 flights, one jet for squadron commander.
31 aircraft per group - 3 squadrons, one jet for group commander.
93 aircraft per wing - 3 groups.

[Anacasppia]

I would love to have a modern version of the F-104 Starfighter in my airforce. I love the sleek look of that aircraft.

I wouldn't recommend it. The trend of fighters from the 4th generation onward is maneuverable aircraft with very low wing loading. The F-104 is literally the opposite - its tiny wings give it very high wing loading (high weight per unit surface area), which means that it needs a high airspeed to maintain lift or else it will stall. It's optimized as a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor, not really a main fighter (although if that high speed interceptor role is your objective, it could work).

The F-104 also has a really poor safety record, but I think with more modern relaxed stability avionics, you could help remedy its poor flight stability and, with proper training, mitigate the flight safety issues.

afaik F-104 safety record would've been comparable to other aircraft of its time if not for the silly F-104G fighter-bomber re-roling

that p much amounted to using an interceptor for low-altitude penetration bombing...no prizes for guessing what will come of that

in Wesi times this led to the joke that the easiest way to get a starfighter was to buy a plot of land and wait for one to fall on it

[Virana]

I wouldn't recommend it. The trend of fighters from the 4th generation onward is maneuverable aircraft with very low wing loading. The F-104 is literally the opposite - its tiny wings give it very high wing loading (high weight per unit surface area), which means that it needs a high airspeed to maintain lift or else it will stall. It's optimized as a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor, not really a main fighter (although if that high speed interceptor role is your objective, it could work).

The F-104 also has a really poor safety record, but I think with more modern relaxed stability avionics, you could help remedy its poor flight stability and, with proper training, mitigate the flight safety issues.

afaik F-104 safety record would've been comparable to other aircraft of its time if not for the silly F-104G fighter-bomber re-roling

that p much amounted to using an interceptor for low-altitude penetration bombing...no prizes for guessing what will come of that

in Wesi times this led to the joke that the easiest way to get a starfighter was to buy a plot of land and wait for one to fall on it

The USAF's F-104As had a higher rate of accidents per 10,000 flight hours than any other aircraft in the century series.

Its later variants had issues as well. As you mentioned, the G version was used as a fighter-bomber, which just doesn't make sense given its high wing loading and extensive optimization for high speed, high altitude applications.

[Triplebaconation]

Doesn't make sense given it's "enormous" wing loading? That doesn't make sense.

[Virana]

Doesn't make sense given it's "enormous" wing loading? That doesn't make sense.

Sorry. Its high wing loading. Minor semantics issue really—I'd think my point would be pretty clear—but I'll edit the post nonetheless.

[Triplebaconation]

Is it? High wing loading is a good thing for the role.

[Vitaphone Racing]

afaik F-104 safety record would've been comparable to other aircraft of its time if not for the silly F-104G fighter-bomber re-roling

that p much amounted to using an interceptor for low-altitude penetration bombing...no prizes for guessing what will come of that

in Wesi times this led to the joke that the easiest way to get a starfighter was to buy a plot of land and wait for one to fall on it

The USAF's F-104As had a higher rate of accidents per 10,000 flight hours than any other aircraft in the century series.

This, however, was due to pilot inexperience. The F-104 was completely unlike any other fighter that had ever been in service with the USAF before; the landing speed was much higher, the stall angle was much lower, it was very stiff at low speeds etc. Not just limited to the F-104A either, the G model had one of the most appalling casualty rates of any post-war fighter aircraft entirely due to the pilots who were flying them.

Its later variants had issues as well. As you mentioned, the G version was used as a fighter-bomber, which just doesn't make sense given its enormous wing loading and extensive optimization for high speed, high altitude applications.

An interesting assessment, particularly given that the G model was the world's premier low level strike aircraft at least until the late 1960's.

[The Corparation]

I've read somewhere that one of the reasons Germany crashed so many of theirs was due to them using them as fighter bombers and flying missions that were the opposite of what it was designed for. Low level strike versus High altitude interception. As VR mentioned training was also a factor for many of the accidents.

[Vitaphone Racing]

A more detailed look at the Starfighter's german-centric history

As elaborated in the link above, the fact they were flying low had little to do with it. The primary cause was that they were flying low in terrible weather which they didn't actually train in.

[Southern Arkansas]

How much maintenance would be required on small propeller driven aircraft? Cessna Turbo Stationair for example?


Thinking about a small troop transport for high ranking Generals etc.

[The Corparation]

How much maintenance would be required on small propeller driven aircraft? Cessna Turbo Stationair for example?


Thinking about a small troop transport for high ranking Generals etc.

Not much. Well not much compared to the other aircraft your military would be flying.

[Anikatia]

I would love to have a modern version of the F-104 Starfighter in my airforce. I love the sleek look of that aircraft, and the fact that it pushed the envelope of fighter design.

Almost happened with Lockheed's CL-1200 they even submitted it for the Lightweight Fighter Competition so it would of been filling the role of F-16 had it been accepted.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

My Air Force organization for fighter and attack wings is as follows:

3 aircraft per flight.
10 aircraft per squadron - 3 flights, one jet for squadron commander.
31 aircraft per group - 3 squadrons, one jet for group commander.
93 aircraft per wing - 3 groups.

Loose four plane formations give much better situational awareness and cover than a three plane equivalent, and why do your air force get organized like a tank corps?

[Imperializt Russia]

In other news, the only thing worse than a Russian carrier fighter is a Russian carrier bomber. A navalized Su-34 simply isn't feasible.

Are you implying some sort of failing in the Su-34's capabilities or are you just saying the Russians never built a good carrier bomber?

[Lamoni]

My Air Force organization for fighter and attack wings is as follows:

3 aircraft per flight.
10 aircraft per squadron - 3 flights, one jet for squadron commander.
31 aircraft per group - 3 squadrons, one jet for group commander.
93 aircraft per wing - 3 groups.

Loose four plane formations give much better situational awareness and cover than a three plane equivalent, and why do your air force get organized like a tank corps?

Possibly because this...

Lamonian Air Force
Personnel: 58,500,000 (30% of total military personnel)
Divisions: 730 Divisions (14,600,000 personnel, 24.96% [~1/4] of total Air Force personnel)

Unit Types:

• Aerospace Division

o Frontal Air Brigade, Aerospace Division
 Frontal Fighter Group (CFFN-16B)
 Frontal Strike Group (CFA-15A)
 Frontal Specialist Group (CFQ-31A,-B,-C)

o Tactical Air Brigade, Aerospace Division
 Tactical Fighter Group (LY910)
 Tactical Strike Group (LY908)
 Tactical Specialist Group (E-LY908, CFU-17D, CFUK-17B)

o Strategic Air Brigade, Aerospace Division
 Medium Bomb Group (CFB-8A)
 Heavy Bomb Group (B-7A)
 Strategic Specialist Group (E-55B, E-9A, KC-747)

o Air Defense Brigade, Aerospace Division
 Fighter-Intercept Group (LY908)
 Fighter-Support Group (LY909)
 Air Defense Specialist Group (E-LY908, CFU-17D, CFUK-17B)

o Air Mobility Brigade, Aerospace Division
 Tactical Airlift Group (CFU-17A)
 Tactical Airlift Group (CFU-17A)
 Tactical Airlift Specialist Group (E-LY908, CFU-17D, CFUK-17B)

o Air Logistics Brigade, Aerospace Division
 Strategic Airlift Group (C-10)
 Strategic Airlift Group (C-10)
 Strategic Airlift Specialist Group (E-55B, E-9A, KC-747)

o Aerospace Division Support Command
 Aerospace Support Battalion [DS Brigade]
 Aerospace Support Battalion [DS Brigade]
 Aerospace Support Battalion [DS Brigade]
 Aerospace Support Battalion [DS Brigade]
 Aerospace Support Battalion [DS Brigade]
 Aerospace Support Battalion [DS Brigade]
 Air Defence Battalion (LY471)
 NBCD Company (LY219)
 Engineer Battalion (LY219)
 Military Intelligence Battalion
 Military Police Company
 Signal Battalion (LY219)
 Personnel Administration Company

Sub-unit Types:

• Aviation Group
o 3 Aviation Squadrons
o 1 Aerospace Support Squadron
 Group HQ (4 LY83 Foxes, 2 LY219 Command variants)
 Communications and EW Platoon (EW Section, Communications (Ground) Section, IT Support Section)
 Air Traffic Control Platoon (CTRL TWR Section, ATC Radar Section, ATC Operations Section)
 Engineer Platoon (Flightline Support Section, Airfield Maintenance Section, Technical Support Section)
 Anti-aircraft Platoon (3 LY220 Shepherds)
 Anti-armor Platoon (2 LY219 ATGM variants, 1 LY219 APC + 12 person AT section)
 Medical Platoon (3 LY219 Ambulances, 3 LY83 Fox Ambulances, 1 Mobile Level 2 treatment facility)
 Battalion Transport platoon (12 LY83 Foxes, 4 LA-214 Molior Tactical Transport Helicopters)
 Petroleum Operations (PETOPS) platoon (Storage Section, Pump Section, Maintenance Section, Repair Section, Mobility Section)
o 1 Mechanized Security Company
 3 Mechanized Security Platoons
 CHQ (2 LY219 Command variants)
 Mortar platoon (3 LY516/219 Stormdrake, 1 LY219 IFV)
 DFS platoon (3 LY219 MGS, 1 LY219 IFV)

• Aviation Squadron
o 3 Aviation Flights
o 1 Command/Training Flight (Possible Examples Below)
 Frontal Fighter Training Flight: 8 CFFN-16B Terriers
 Frontal Strike Training Flight: 8 CFA-15A Piledrivers
 Frontal Specialist Training Flight: 2 CFQ-31A/B/C Greybolts
 Tactical Fighter Training Flight: 8 LY910B Shadowhawks
 Tactical Strike/Fighter-Intercept Training Flight: 2 LY908C Warhawks
 Tactical/Air-Defense Electronic-Warfare Training Flight: 8 E-LY908C Darkhawks
 Fighter-Support Training Flight: 8 LY909B Sparrowhawks
 Medium Bomb Training Flight: 4 CFB-8A Herms
 Heavy Bomb Training Flight: 4 B-7A Titans
 Patrol Bomb Training Flight: 4 CFNR-9H2 Long Eyes
 Tactical Airlift Flight: 4 CFU-17A Sky Riders
 Strategic Airlift Flight: 4 C-10A Minotaurs
 Tactical Tanker Flight: 4 CFUK-17B Sky Riders
 Strategic Tanker Flight: 4 KC-747A Galts
 Tactical Control Flight: 4 CFU-17D Sky Riders
 Strategic Control Flight: 4 E-55B AWACS-II
 Strategic Surveillance Flight 4 E-9A JSTARS-II
o 1 Mechanized Security Platoon
 3 Security Sections
• Number 1 Scout (LY21)
• Number 2 Scout (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• Section Commander (CPL) (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• Section 2IC (LCPL) (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• Gun (SX24A1 LMG)
• Number 2 gun (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• Number 1 Assault (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• Assault gunner (SX24A1 LMG)
• Number 3 Assault (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• Number 4 Assault (LY21 + Sh06 UBGL)
• LY219 Ironheart (Light IFV variant)
 1 Weapons Section
• Section Commander (CPL) (LY21)
• Section 2IC (LCPL) (LY21)
• First MG (LY21, Model 50 15×120 mm HMG)
• First MG assistant (LY21, Spare Model 50 Ammo, tripod, C2 sight)
• Second MG (LY21, Model 50 15×120 mm HMG)
• Second MG assistant (LY21, Spare Model 50 Ammo, tripod, C2 sight)
• AT Missileer (LA-419 Arcus, 4 missiles)
• AT Missileer (LA-419 Arcus, 4 missiles)
• AT Missileer (LA-419 Arcus, 4 missiles)
• AT Missileer (LA-419 Arcus, 4 missiles)
• LY219 Ironheart (APC variant)
 1 Platoon HQ (LT, SGT, CPL-SIG, Medic, Sniper) (LY219)

• Aviation Flight
o 3 Aviation Elements (Possible Examples Below)
 Frontal Fighter Element: 2 CFFN-16B Terriers
 Frontal Strike Element: 2 CFA-15A Piledrivers
 Frontal Specialist Element: 2 CFQ-31A/B/C Greybolts
 Tactical Fighter Element: 2 LY910A Shadowhawks
 Tactical Strike/Fighter-Intercept Element: 2 LY908C Warhawks
 Tactical/Air-Defense Electronic-Warfare Element: 2 E-LY908C Darkhawks
 Fighter-Support Element: 2 LY909A Sparrowhawks
 Medium Bomb Element: 1 CFB-8A Hermes
 Heavy Bomb Element: 1 B-7A Titan
 Patrol Bomb Element: 1 CFNR-9H2 Long Eyes
 Tactical Airlift Element: 1 CFU-17A Sky Rider
 Strategic Airlift Element: 1 C-10A Minotaur
 Tactical Tanker Element: 1 CFUK-17B Sky Rider
 Strategic Tanker Element: 1 KC-747A Galt
 Tactical Control Element: 1 CFU-17D Sky Rider
 Strategic Control Element: 1 E-55B AWACS-II
 Strategic Surveillance Element 1 E-9A JSTARS-II
o 1 Command Element (Possible Examples Below)
 Frontal Fighter Element: 2 CFFN-16B Terriers
 Frontal Strike Element: 2 CFA-15A Piledrivers
 Frontal Specialist Element: 2 CFQ-31A/B/C Greybolts (????)
 Tactical Fighter Element: 2 LY910A Shadowhawks
 Tactical Strike/Fighter-Intercept Element: 2 LY908C Warhawks
 Tactical/Air-Defense Electronic-Warfare Element: 2 E-LY908C Darkhawks
 Fighter-Support Element: 2 LY909A Sparrowhawks
 Medium Bomb Element: 1 CFB-8A Hermes
 Heavy Bomb Element: 1 B-7A Titan
 Patrol Bomb Element: 1 CFNR-9H2 Long Eyes
 Tactical Airlift Element: 1 CFU-17A Sky Rider
 Strategic Airlift Element: 1 C-10A Minotaur
 Tactical Tanker Element: 1 CFUK-17B Sky Rider
 Strategic Tanker Element: 1 KC-747A Galt
 Tactical Control Element: 1 CFU-17D Sky Rider
 Strategic Control Element: 1 E-55B AWACS-II
 Strategic Surveillance Element 1 E-9A JSTARS-II
o 1 Ground-crew Section
 2 Crew Teams (10 Crewmen ea.; 20 total)
 1 Command Team (1 LT, 1 SGT)

Special Forces: 25,000 (1/2,340 total Air Force personnel)

[Morrdh]

The USAF's F-104As had a higher rate of accidents per 10,000 flight hours than any other aircraft in the century series.

This, however, was due to pilot inexperience. The F-104 was completely unlike any other fighter that had ever been in service with the USAF before; the landing speed was much higher, the stall angle was much lower, it was very stiff at low speeds etc. Not just limited to the F-104A either, the G model had one of the most appalling casualty rates of any post-war fighter aircraft entirely due to the pilots who were flying them.

Its later variants had issues as well. As you mentioned, the G version was used as a fighter-bomber, which just doesn't make sense given its enormous wing loading and extensive optimization for high speed, high altitude applications.

An interesting assessment, particularly given that the G model was the world's premier low level strike aircraft at least until the late 1960's.

The F-104 had such poor service in the USAF that Lockheed had to bribe German officials to get them to buy it over a more capable British design.

[Oaledonia]

This, however, was due to pilot inexperience. The F-104 was completely unlike any other fighter that had ever been in service with the USAF before; the landing speed was much higher, the stall angle was much lower, it was very stiff at low speeds etc. Not just limited to the F-104A either, the G model had one of the most appalling casualty rates of any post-war fighter aircraft entirely due to the pilots who were flying them.


An interesting assessment, particularly given that the G model was the world's premier low level strike aircraft at least until the late 1960's.

The F-104 had such poor service in the USAF that Lockheed had to bribe German officials to get them to buy it over a more capable British design.

Is there evidence of this or are you just throwing baseless claims into an discussion because something not British was chosen? Geez, it's like the India shit with the Typhoons all over again.

[Morrdh]

The F-104 had such poor service in the USAF that Lockheed had to bribe German officials to get them to buy it over a more capable British design.

Is there evidence of this or are you just throwing baseless claims into an discussion because something not British was chosen? Geez, it's like the India shit with the Typhoons all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

[Oaledonia]

Is there evidence of this or are you just throwing baseless claims into an discussion because something not British was chosen? Geez, it's like the India shit with the Typhoons all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

Alright, I've just been a little edgy because of the sudden influx of "lolz Britain master race1!1!1!1" noobs pn NS. Half assed OPs that caters to the British (Which empire was the most economically efficient) and people saying "it's just better cuz it's British"

[Morrdh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

Alright, I've just been a little edgy because of the sudden influx of "lolz Britain master race1!1!1!1" noobs pn NS. Half assed OPs that caters to the British (Which empire was the most economically efficient) and people saying "it's just better cuz it's British"

Fair enough.

I admit us Brits had some bad designs, but we've also had few good ones...even if some of them fell prey to politics and American dominance of the market.

[Imperializt Russia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

Alright, I've just been a little edgy because of the sudden influx of "lolz Britain master race1!1!1!1" noobs pn NS. Half assed OPs that caters to the British (Which empire was the most economically efficient) and people saying "it's just better cuz it's British"

Britain's still a world leader in plenty of aspects.

[Oaledonia]

Alright, I've just been a little edgy because of the sudden influx of "lolz Britain master race1!1!1!1" noobs pn NS. Half assed OPs that caters to the British (Which empire was the most economically efficient) and people saying "it's just better cuz it's British"

Britain's still a world leader in plenty of aspects.

Please point out in my post where I said they weren't

I just don't like the new players, I mean there's nationalism and then there's claiming the the UK can simultaneously defeat the US, Russia, China, and Israel.

[Ea90]

tbf, Britain is objectively the best anything anywhere at doing anything