Why did some countries have such a high accident rate with the F-104?

Lol all this (incinerated corpse) cope. The fact is Germans are terminally autistic as a race and blame other people for their problems. Even if that's true have you considered that lockheed would have tried bribing other air forces? The real truth though is that germs are just shitty pilots. The only time they did well was when they were up against even shittier pilots in vastly inferior planes.
>It's someone else's fault GERMAN politicians and GERMAN brass were corrupt.

>Sky-Chief Bubi say short-winged metal bird no good because get into air, go fast, lose control, and crash into teepee

Attached: erich_hartmann_in_usa_by_wolfenkrieger-d4lzlcx.jpg (440x638, 35K)

he opposed it because of a future change in use that hadn't occurred?
that makes no sense

Lockheed did bribe other airforces and some did have problems with it, even in the USAF it had a much higher accident rate than other aircraft: 30/100,000

>Even if that's true have you considered that lockheed would have tried bribing other air forces?
Well they did and still do, there have been corruption scandals related to Lockheed since the late 50s.

lockheed did bribe other air forces

>And he got yeeted out of the air force because of it
How could lockheed do this to Bubi, they should have been shut down.

>we want a plane that does x, y, z
>this plane only does x, so i don't think we should get it
how does this not make sense

Pure lies.

Nobody else bought a plane that killed half their pilots. Only the Germans.

I wonder who could be behind this post...?

Attached: 1526522184064.jpg (970x545, 96K)

Are you payed by Lockheed or something?
All air forces have had disproportional issues with the the F-104 compared to other airframes.
It might have to do with the shit design.

belgians lost 37% of their aircraft to accidents
canadians lost 46% of their aircraft to accidents
dutch lost 36%
italians lost 37%
germans lost 30%
the germans just get the most shit because they happened to operate the more aircraft than the other countries
f-104 had a high accident rate in american service too, though the numbers i can find aren't really comparable to the above ones, it does have an accident rate roughly twice of rate of other american fighters around this period
it's just not a very good plane at not-crashing

>pure lies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
>The scandal caused considerable political controversy in West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Japan.

>Nobody else bought a plane that killed half their pilots. Only the Germans.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter#Safety_record
>and Canada lost 46% of its F-104s (110 of 235).
>The Class A mishap rate (write off) of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977
>the highest accident rate of any USAF Century Series fighter. By comparison, the mishap rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 14.2/100,000
>and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25/100,000

What is your source for Belgium, Dutch, and Italian service? The Wikipedia page only says Canada and Germany

>Are you payed by Lockheed or something?
>All air forces have had disproportional issues with the the F-104 compared to other airframes.
>It might have to do with the shit design.
It's very good for what it was designed to do but mostly useless for practical military roles. There is still civilian F-104s being flown for high altitude tests. Apparently it can supercruise at sea level while clean among other things.

A video of a US veteran talking about his 104 experience.
It's worth the full 30 min. Always interesting to hear these old guys talk about their history.
youtu.be/eB8l_fCKDSw

Attached: 1432703702441.jpg (1800x1090, 167K)

extremely high performance and yuropoors can't afford to train

American school kids feel lucky when they get a chance to visit the airforce.
In Italy once we had the airforce visiting a class, bringing a f104
it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strage_dell'Istituto_Salvemini

Attached: 260px-Strage_Casalecchio_di_Reno_istituto_Salvemini.jpg (260x194, 19K)

>and yuropoors can't afford to train
>The Class A mishap rate (write off) of the F-104 in USAF service was 26.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977 the highest accident rate of any USAF Century Series fighter.
>By comparison, the mishap rate of the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger was 14.2/100,000, and the mishap rate for the North American F-100 Super Sabre was 16.25/100,000

If it was a strictly a matter of training why was Hartmann critical before they even acquired it? Why was he criticising the aircraft and not criticising the training?

Why do these fags never mention Spain, who never had a single accident? Or other countries with very low accident rates with it?
It's almost like the fact that using it properly and training your pilots well BTFOs their entire non-argument.
Germs are just shit at everything, no news there.

>When a US plane is so shit not even american pilots can fly it, but apparently fucking Spain could

>Germs Germs Germs
How do you explain Canada, Italy, Netherlands, and Americas own accident rate?

why does merkel import 1 billion muslims daily?
why do germs do anything but get their asses stomped for a century?

the plane that crahed in that school was an Aermacchi MB-326, not an f104 tho

Attached: D_Nbak-U8AAFXfs.jpg (874x697, 40K)

What did the Krauts do to you, personally, in your lifetime, user?

The fact that killed so many civilians of the country it was supposed to defend makes it an honorary f104.

Canada had a high loss rate because they were using them as low altitude attack aircraft meant to drop nukes while remaining under radar coverage, a suicidal mission to begin with. A lot of it was you look down for a second and suddenly you're right in front of a mountain going supersonic. Reaction time just wasn't fast enough. They also had a really bad glide ratio when they lose an engine because it's a fucking lawn dart so there was really no chance in safely landing with an engine failure unless you're right over a runway. Also they were not very reliable aircraft.

In Spain they were only given to the most experienced pilots.

Attached: 43689192815_b881525b39_b.jpg (999x353, 110K)

This makes no sense. Canada already had the CF-5 as a designated ground attack plane, why the fuck would they use the CF-104 (the only interceptor they had) for that role?

Norway lost 13 out of 45 starfighters to accidents

He thought the German airforce at the time did not have good enough fast jet training or experienced pilots, and he was right.

And operated as interceptors.

Did you miss the nuke part? Providing close air support and dropping tactical nukes are entirely different roles.

They never used the CF-104 as a interceptor, their main mission was supersonic nuclear strike in Europe, later changed to just conventional weapons.
Most of them never even carried the cannon and other air-to-air weapons almost only as a afterthought.

Spain had no accidents cuz they could never afford to fly

The aircraft was pressed into service in roles it was ill suited for.

Also, I do believe Lockheed was part of the problem here. They sold the aircraft telling people it could do things no other aircraft could do, and on top of being an interceptor it could do all these OTHER things.

That was factually inaccurate on the part of Lockheed. The F-104 makes a piss poor ground attack aircraft. The F-104 is basically only good for one thing, intercepting, and yet it was sold to all these euro countries with the claim it could do everything they needed.

I think with any platform you have to analyze it from the point of view of its original mission, vs how it was actually used.

The bottom line is that as a multi-role all purpose air superiority ground attack interceptor the F-104 was a complete piece of shit. It wasn't designed to be multi role. It could barely accomplish the mission. It was designed to do one thing exceptionally and then people tacked on all these other things it could supposedly do and it couldn't do them. The result was a lot of dead pilots.

My favorite aircraft from this era is the F-5 Freedom Fighter. And it's pretty much the exact opposite of the F-104. It is genuinely multi-role, easy to maintain, easy to pilot, well loved by everyone that's ever used one. It's just not that fast.

The F-5 was the perfect aircraft to sell to all our allies. In my opinion it's one of the most overlooked and underappreciated fighter aircraft ever made. It's a testament to the design that so many air forces are STILL flying them. It's because they LIKE them. It's because they're cheap to operate, easy to work on, dependable. Everything the F-104 never was.

He's from a place that 'won' WW2, but still has their women work as prostitutes in germany.

underrated

god i wish that were me

> they could never afford to fly
>17,000 flight hours logged in

There has already been a lot debate about it and the overall conclusion simply is that every nation that used it as a fighter bomber had high accident rates, while planes used as interceptors had way less problems.
desuarchive.org/k/thread/41688150/#q41696412
desuarchive.org/k/thread/41688150/#q41695768