What if Germany opted to import 4th gen fighters in 1979 or early 80s?

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
The West German Luftwaffe (and Marineflieger), for many years, went without a 4th generation fighter. (perhaps a bit surprisingly)
They soldiered on with the Starfighter and Phantom for quite some time, while Belgium, netherlands, spain, switzerland, finland, etc went ahead with a 4th gen (Italy is another one that held out for a while like Germany).

One could argue the Luftwaffe didn't get their 4th gen fighter until the re-unification, when they received the MiG-29s (although of limited role)
others would say it didnt come until the 4.5 gen Typhoon.

Lets say in this alternate time line. The Luftwaffe decided to buy a 4th gen fighter either in the very late 70s or early 80s
which would enter service in the early 80s or mid 80s.

Some candidates:
Mirage-2000: Operated by neighbor and I think Germany really did consider it at one point. Could carry exocet which would be welcomed by the Marineflieger. Later versions has Nuclear and strike options
Tornado ADV: not really a fighter, but Germany already had the IDS and could be an industrial move to add more jobs and also share spares
F-16: Maybe the least likely of the 4
F-18: Maybe the best US option, as it could be welcomed by both the Luftwaffe and Marineflieger

Assuming that in this timeline Germany (either hte Luftwaffe and/or Marineflieger) went ahead with a 4th gen aircraft how would this affect
- The Typhoon project? German interest started in 1979 and the Typhoon officially began around 83. But if Germany opted for one of the above aircraft
would the Typhoon still continue? Germany was a major partner
- The Rafale project? if Germany left the project due to being satisfied with its 4th gen acquisition. Would the UK and France continue together?
Rafale would become Jaguar 2 instead?
- East Germany? seeing some new Mirages, F-teens or more Tornadoes.. would East Germany alter their acquisitions to counter? perhaps more MiG-29s earlier? or even Su-27?

some what if eye candy
1.jpg

MFG_Formation.jpg

F-16C%20TaktLwg73%20S%2003.jpg
 

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
230
Reaction score
377
Would the Marinflieger need something with the Tornado on the way for maritime strike?

Of the options listed, the F-18 seems most likely, since what is really needed is something to replace the Phantoms in the air defense role. There are a couple wild cards though. One is the F-18L, the land based Hornet from Northrop. Another is the F-20. I think the F-18L is probably the best option for that role of the three, but perhaps less palatable since it's not in production. On the other hand Northrop and Dornier had a relationship (although that might have been later), so that might be appealing for local production. And it would give the F-18L a leg up.

I actually like the F-20 for FRG. It's quick into the air, a larger fleet could be purchased, and given the geography range isn't as much an issue as some other countries. Actually, since it carries about half the fuel of an F-18 but also has one rather than two F404 engines, range should be roughly comparable to the Hornet. It would also cost about half what an F-18A would in 1980, so twice as many could be bought. Unfortunately it wouldn't happen, due to the image the Tigershark had as a cut rate F-16. But a horde of F-20s flying quick air to air sorties would have done a job for NATO in the 80s.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,934
Northrop worked with Dornier and McDonnell-Douglas with MBB on early TKF-90 work.

It's nice to think of say 1977 Northrop co-production agreement for F-18L, maybe reengined with RB.199, leading to something like Northrop/Dornier ND.102 later on. would be hard to afford that and Tornados at the same time though.

Most likely though a bit boring is F-18 license production. In real life, Germany wavered on Eurofighter around 1987-88 and McDonnell-Douglas proposed a canard-delta Super Hornet 2000.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,815
Reaction score
2,856
There is another thread on the Mirage 4000 which I think could be included in the mix.
Germany was very sceptical about Tornado or as it was known in the 70s, the Multi Role Combat Aircraft 75 . The hostile magazine Der Spiegel called it the Milk giving egg laying woolly pig.
The Luftwaffe would happily have just ordered more F4s. It hung on to them long after the Cold War.
Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who had a close relationship with French President Giscard and a low opinion of the Brits and US might well have agreed to a Dassault Mirage 2000 and 4000 buy. Dornier was building Alpha Jets with France.
His successor, Helmut Kohl, had a similar relationship with Mitterand. With no Tornado, Dassault would have been able to get Germany to order Rafales.
Paradoxically the demise of Tornado would have led to an earlier partnership between BAe and McDD on F4s and F18s for the RAF. RAF F18s would still be in service, with F35s replacing Harriers. (Jaguars would have been sold to India as F18s arrived).
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
His successor, Helmut Kohl, had a similar relationship with Mitterand. With no Tornado, Dassault would have been able to get Germany to order Rafales.
Paradoxically the demise of Tornado would have led to an earlier partnership between BAe and McDD on F4s and F18s for the RAF. RAF F18s would still be in service, with F35s replacing Harriers. (Jaguars would have been sold to India as F18s arrived).
Francois and I were pretty cool.
i am sensing a trend in that Germans are reluctant to do multi-country collabs even as far as the 70s. (although in the end they always end up doing it).

RAF F-18s and RN F-18s would have been nice
Perhaps in another alternate timeline.. RN would have kept on making CATOBAR carriers
and the F-18 would have made a natural follow on to the F-4s
pic%201.PNG

20200302162130_1.jpg
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,232
It seems that the F-18L was a frontrunner and the most likely choice had they brought US.
Of course whether they would have received F-18Ls or F/A-18As is open to question depending on who built them and what production agreements were reached.
 

Siberia

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
48
Reaction score
25
F-16: Maybe the least likely of the 4.
Not being familiar with the period why would the F-16 be the least likely option? The dates don't quite line up, you'd have to move the decision forward a few years, but joining the European consortium might pay off depending on how the calculation of part of a larger number of aircraft versus all of a smaller number of aircraft worked out. Of course that's redundant if it's a capabilities problem.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,815
Reaction score
2,856
The F16 in the 70s was seen as a lightweight fighter with two Sidewinders on the wings. It was just the thing to replace single engine single seater aircraft in the Be, Dk, Nl and No air forces.
The Germans, however, moved away from single seater fighters when they dropped the Panavia 100 single seater MRCA and decided to have two seater F4s after a single seater F4 was developed for them.
They like the RAF prefered twin engines because of the awful weather in Germany.
I wrote in another thread that if Germany had cancelled the Eurofighter Typhoon F18s would have been the most likely substitute, licence built from Mdd like its F4s
 
Last edited:

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
The F16 in the 70s was seen as a lightweight fighter with two Sidewinders on the wings. It was just the thing to replace single engine single seater aircraft in the Be, Dk, Nl and No air forces.
The Germans, however, moved away from single seater fighters when they dropped the Panavia 100 single seater MRCA and decided to have two seater F4s after a single seater F4 was developed for them.
They like the RAF prefered twin engines because of the awful weather in Germany.
I wrote in another thread that if Germany had cancelled the Eurofighter Typhoon F18s would have been the most likely substitute, licence built from Mdd like its F4s
wow that single seat Tornado does look a bit off
254c1e4ae684a37a247d322987774cf9.jpg


btw since you are here, was there any CATOBAR UK carrier proposals that never made it? like how the soviets had Ulyanovosk, and other carrier ideas?
I'm wondering if there was a CATOBAR follow on after Ark Royal/Eagle, before they decided to go with invincible
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
85
If the light-weight F-16 was ruled out, the even lighter-weight F-20 would also have been ruled out, especially since it could not have the sort of upgrades as were applied to the F-16 starting with integration of AMRAAM.
 

Siberia

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
48
Reaction score
25
The F-16 in the '70s was seen as a lightweight fighter with two Sidewinders on the wings. It was just the thing to replace single engine single seater aircraft in the Belgian, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian air forces.
Yeah, I was thinking of the F-16 as it is now as opposed to its original "Not a pound for air-to-ground" design.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
6,259
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

I even recalled the French Navy wanted it at one point too!

Screen_200615_091323.png

003.jpg
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,722
Reaction score
3,682
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

003.jpg
Maybe because it was based on the aircraft that lost to the F-16? When I first saw an artist concept of the F-16 and the P530 mockup, as a kid in the 70s, I thought they both looked "space-age". (As did the XFV-12A.)
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
6,259
They wanted a batch of second-hand Hornet back in 1988 but Miterrand's PM Michel Rocard got a ride in the backseat of a Mirage 2000B and switfly changed his mind.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
1621596956240.png

Germany should had built and bought the ADV, it had german parts, offered commonality plus it was a good aircraft, Italy did it, Germany should had done it
But they got the MiG-29 one of my favorite aircraft

1621597292525.png
 
Last edited:

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

003.jpg
Maybe because it was based on the aircraft that lost to the F-16? When I first saw an artist concept of the F-16 and the P530 mockup, as a kid in the 70s, I thought they both looked "space-age". (As did the XFV-12A.)
you ever owned this book called Future Fighters.. or something like that..
it was a small book, green font on the title or something
it had the XFV-12A (or something like that) on the cover. it had all these cool designs, and most of them never made it in the end lol.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,453
Reaction score
2,653
you can rule out any single engine proposal for Luftwaffe
They got very allergic for any Single engine Fighter since 1960s

Because of this
luftwaffe-bundeswehr-f104-g-starfighter-trainigsversion-1960-picture-id542388331
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

003.jpg
Maybe because it was based on the aircraft that lost to the F-16? When I first saw an artist concept of the F-16 and the P530 mockup, as a kid in the 70s, I thought they both looked "space-age". (As did the XFV-12A.)
you ever owned this book called Future Fighters.. or something like that..
it was a small book, green font on the title or something
it had the XFV-12A (or something like that) on the cover. it had all these cool designs, and most of them never made it in the end lol.
wow i saw the book but i guess it was before the internet, i was just a kid, i owned one of that series of books but definitively it was a 1980s book, way before the internet and way before even the YF-22
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
Yes, I do have a copy of this book. :) (Pic not mine.)

View attachment 657653
I saw the book, I think i read it but never bought it, i bought this one though

View attachment 657663

they were lovely books before even the internet brought us nice websites or forums
Mike Spick and Bill Gunston were great authors! I think I had 4 or 5 of those illustrated guides!

This book was the most interesting and I loved looking at the art of the aircraft, especially with all their weapons spread out
back then, when I was young, I looked through it and was like
why are all the French jets delta wings?
and especially, why are all the Soviet jets ugly with few weapons? especially compared to the Tornado below, which had a great variety
later did I learn that the Soviets had their 4th gen aircraft..but it wasnt known yet
51hbaM5zDGL._SX366_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
Yes, I do have a copy of this book. :) (Pic not mine.)

View attachment 657653
I saw the book, I think i read it but never bought it, i bought this one though

View attachment 657663

they were lovely books before even the internet brought us nice websites or forums
Mike Spick and Bill Gunston were great authors! I think I had 4 or 5 of those illustrated guides!

This book was the most interesting and I loved looking at the art of the aircraft, especially with all their weapons spread out
back then, when I was young, I looked through it and was like
why are all the French jets delta wings?
and especially, why are all the Soviet jets ugly with few weapons? especially compared to the Tornado below, which had a great variety
later did I learn that the Soviets had their 4th gen aircraft..but it wasnt known yet
51hbaM5zDGL._SX366_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
I totally agree, it was a time when owning a single one of those books, was like a huge window into aviation, about Soviet aircraft was very hard to have good pictures, long long time ago my brother gave me as a present an issue of the then Soviet military magazine, a real Soviet printed magazine made in the then Soviet Union, where they had relatively good pictures of the MiG-23M, man i was very likely 10 or 11 years old, those books really made my happy and the soviet military magazine wow was like a treasure, the book you posted i saw it and read it in a mall but I never bought it it was too expensive for me and my parents had other economic priorities,, I think in my life what changed my liking of Felines to fighter aircraft was a book called -the Falcons of the third reich- it had really old pictures of Me-109s, that book made me a fan of German WWII aircraft, later i had another book that made me fan of MiG-23 and F-14, i have to say all those books really made me happy
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

I even recalled the French Navy wanted it at one point too!

Screen_200615_091323.png

003.jpg
I have seen in airshows the F-15, the Tornado, the F-18 and F-16, plus many others, but while I was a big fan of F-14. i had close to 40 models of F-14, from hobby masters to easy models brand models, i have to be honest the F-18 has been a really pretty aircraft, I saw the Tornado at an airshow in Canada in the 1990s, but when i climbed the USS Kitty Hawk and could see face to face F-14 i had to say i liked more the F-18.

in pictures F-14 looks better, in real life i liked more the F-18.

The Tornado was impressive, that is the reason I think Germany should had bought the ADV variant such nice aircraft
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
6,259
I saw a F-16 at a meeting back in 2007. One little kid was glued to the bareers watching it move... and then the pilot thundered in full afterburner, and the kid ran away screaming ! There were also Singapore Skyhawks - uniquely customized models.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

I even recalled the French Navy wanted it at one point too!

Screen_200615_091323.png

003.jpg
I have seen in airshows the F-15, the Tornado, the F-18 and F-16, plus many others, but while I was a big fan of F-14. i had close to 40 models of F-14, from hobby masters to easy models brand models, i have to be honest the F-18 has been a really pretty aircraft, I saw the Tornado at an airshow in Canada in the 1990s, but when i climbed the USS Kitty Hawk and could see face to face F-14 i had to say i liked more the F-18.

in pictures F-14 looks better, in real life i liked more the F-18.

The Tornado was impressive, that is the reason I think Germany should had bought the ADV variant such nice aircraft

Same here, I was also a big fan of the F-14. I remembered it was by far the most popular fighter jet among the regular people. I feel no other jet since then has really captured that level of public respect.. although the Harrier may come second simply because it was so novel to people.

A lot of it had to do with how often you saw the F-14 in media, such as Top Gun, or video games like Afterburner. Even in Japan where i also live, it was big in the 80s despite Japan not operating the F-14. Although some people wish Japan opted for the F-14 over the F-15 (but in retrospect the F-15 is the right choice).

I also think that all those 80s squadron markings also captured interests, because it looked so cool . I actually wish the USN or other countries would keep doing these unique markings. Sure it probably wouldnt help with stealth. but it could generate more public support and interest in aviation.
160141686_2284895721643846_1437875157720127703_n.jpg


I think for these reasons it made me and some other people to dislike the F-18, especially the F-18E, because it was threatening and eventually replaced the role of our beloved F-14.

But in the 90s and 00s, when internet provided more information, and we also hear more stories about the Hornet. One realizes that its done a good job.
the Malaysians really love it, despite having Flankers and Fulcrums. the Swiss and Finns hold it in high regards. the Australians did very well in their hornets during DACT. and US pilots who flew both the F-16 and F-18, often preferred the F-18 for war time use, while acknowledging the F-16 is funner to fly. So now in retrospect, my opinion of the hornet totally reversed and perhaps the government was right to retire the F-14 (maybe not as early as it should have).

as for Germany, i agree i think in the end
ADV made the most sense in this scenario. in fact it was the only Panavia developer to not fly the ADV since UK and Italy did.
F-18 made the second best choice.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
Francois and I were pretty cool.

Funnily enough it also happens to be my name. I got such a weird feeling reading your post ! :D:p:p

That FAA Hornet is a stunning beauty: Hornets really look better with a black radome.
are you saying you and I are not cool? I thought we were! we make the best leaders of Europe! lol

indeed the Hornet is a nice aircraft. one that always seem underrated tbh. ever since the internet became a thing.
I've always seen a lot of love for the F-16, a whole lot of love for the F-14, and respect for the F-15. But the F-18 was always treated like meh
despite being a very valuable aircraft in a lot of air forces

I even recalled the French Navy wanted it at one point too!

Screen_200615_091323.png

003.jpg
I have seen in airshows the F-15, the Tornado, the F-18 and F-16, plus many others, but while I was a big fan of F-14. i had close to 40 models of F-14, from hobby masters to easy models brand models, i have to be honest the F-18 has been a really pretty aircraft, I saw the Tornado at an airshow in Canada in the 1990s, but when i climbed the USS Kitty Hawk and could see face to face F-14 i had to say i liked more the F-18.

in pictures F-14 looks better, in real life i liked more the F-18.

The Tornado was impressive, that is the reason I think Germany should had bought the ADV variant such nice aircraft

Same here, I was also a big fan of the F-14. I remembered it was by far the most popular fighter jet among the regular people. I feel no other jet since then has really captured that level of public respect.. although the Harrier may come second simply because it was so novel to people.

A lot of it had to do with how often you saw the F-14 in media, such as Top Gun, or video games like Afterburner. Even in Japan where i also live, it was big in the 80s despite Japan not operating the F-14. Although some people wish Japan opted for the F-14 over the F-15 (but in retrospect the F-15 is the right choice).

I also think that all those 80s squadron markings also captured interests, because it looked so cool . I actually wish the USN or other countries would keep doing these unique markings. Sure it probably wouldnt help with stealth. but it could generate more public support and interest in aviation.
160141686_2284895721643846_1437875157720127703_n.jpg


I think for these reasons it made me and some other people to dislike the F-18, especially the F-18E, because it was threatening and eventually replaced the role of our beloved F-14.

But in the 90s and 00s, when internet provided more information, and we also hear more stories about the Hornet. One realizes that its done a good job.
the Malaysians really love it, despite having Flankers and Fulcrums. the Swiss and Finns hold it in high regards. the Australians did very well in their hornets during DACT. and US pilots who flew both the F-16 and F-18, often preferred the F-18 for war time use, while acknowledging the F-16 is funner to fly. So now in retrospect, my opinion of the hornet totally reversed and perhaps the government was right to retire the F-14 (maybe not as early as it should have).

as for Germany, i agree i think in the end
ADV made the most sense in this scenario. in fact it was the only Panavia developer to not fly the ADV since UK and Italy did.
F-18 made the second best choice.
I have always liked the F-18, but the F-14 appeals to me more for the intakes and twin seat arrangement, , but I love all the 1970s and 1980s aircraft, well I was a kid and playing with my models inprinted in me that generation of aircraft.

When I was a kid I had an F-15 model, i used to play with my friend and he had mirage IIIs, so we used to play while i was 10 or 11 years old.

I had a book where the only picture available of Tornado was a bottom view.

I think the Germans were very practical, Tornado ADV was as good as F-14, since it was very unlikely AIM-54 was going to be practical in central Europe. And to be honest I do not believe the Iranian claims about F-14 due to the American record of F-14.


The germans already had MiG-29s, so why to bother to make further Tornados ADVs since they had plenty of Tornados IDS and MiG-29 was very new in the 1990s.

When I saw the first pictures of T-10 Su-27 prototype I liked it because it remained me the Hornet a lot with its vertical tails set almost at the same position but with an F-15 type radome and its engines like F-14.

I like the series T-10S but i liked the early prototype too, well in a very irreal world a Luftwaffe or German democratic republic T-10 would have been really cool

1621648929769.png
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631
^ same! I really liked that angular intake that the F-14 had. the Flankers had a similar intake, which is also why I like the Flanker.
to me the Flanker looks like a fixed wing F-14 with the intakes moved downwards

its probably why I felt that a Jolly Roger Flanker just looked so..natural
Screen_210411_120000.jpg.6e2ed908b10898641a4315f96042192c.jpg

Screen_210411_134558.jpg.4ffe379aacb2c163035e541921bb146d.jpg
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,232
Same here, I was also a big fan of the F-14. I remembered it was by far the most popular fighter jet among the regular people. I feel no other jet since then has really captured that level of public respect.. although the Harrier may come second simply because it was so novel to people.

A lot of it had to do with how often you saw the F-14 in media, such as Top Gun, or video games like Afterburner. Even in Japan where i also live, it was big in the 80s despite Japan not operating the F-14. Although some people wish Japan opted for the F-14 over the F-15 (but in retrospect the F-15 is the right choice).
Yes, the F-14 captured the zeitgeist of the era more than any other type, they popped up in all kinds of films and TV shows.
Arguably the game Desert Strike made the Apache as famous as its starring role in the Gulf War for a whole generation of kids. Flying the Commanche in Jungle Strike three years before the prototype even flew was cool too.
Electronic Arts also did the F-22, LHX and F-117 series of games for the Genesis/Mega Drive in the early/mid-90s.
Nothing better than the co-pilot in LHX muttering "Let's waste em" as you took out an East German 'Gecko' battery with those pesky Shilkas trying to sieve you while some nutter in a 'Hip' hovering above is trying to shoot you down by firing 57mm rockets at you if you lingered in one spot too long.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,282
Reaction score
6,259
Nearly 20 years ago I bought second-hand Novalogic RAH-66 Comanche video game. It was part of a trilogy with Abrams tank (Armored fist) and also F-22 Raptor and these two had demos. Later I bought the complte F-22.

It drove me crazy for two years. I will forever remember my first air kill: I gunned down a Mi-24 with the Abrams 120 mm gun.

Comanche was harder: just as @Hood brilliantly described above. And i wasn't very good at it. The freakkin' massive Soviet AAA and missile always killed me very quickly; never had enough ammo to kill all the silly things.

And then I discovered the F-22, the demo then the full game. Because I'm a mischievous person, I decided to push it to its extreme limits.

Lessons learned
- it is not possible to fly across a B61 nuke mushroom cloud and survive
- when you are bored, kill the AWACS and pick a fight with its (dumb) F-16 escort
- A-5C are NOT Vigilante, but Chinese Mig-19 with a pointy nose. I killed the flight of three 1000 times, they always resurrected in the end.
- a F-22 can reach Mach 3 at 120 000 feet and fire an AMRAAM high there
- it is possible to wipe out an entire air base just with 10 000 Vulcan canon shells.
- it is possible to destroy a string of hangars fly straight through them provided one fire continuously the vulcan gun or the stock of AMRAAMs. Makes for some cool explosions. Landing restore the supply of gun ammo, but not missiles.
- a F-22 can fly only 20 ft from the ground, inverted, landing gear out at 100 kt.

Fun, fun, fun.
 
Last edited:

apparition13

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
230
Reaction score
377
you can rule out any single engine proposal for Luftwaffe
They got very allergic for any Single engine Fighter since 1960s

Because of this
Were engine failures really that much of an issue with the 104 losses? I thought it was handling and low level flight combined with inexperienced pilots, rather than engines. Which made the idea of "no more single engine aircraft" seem like learning the wrong lesson to me.


The F-16 in the '70s was seen as a lightweight fighter with two Sidewinders on the wings. It was just the thing to replace single engine single seater aircraft in the Belgian, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian air forces.
Yeah, I was thinking of the F-16 as it is now as opposed to its original "Not a pound for air-to-ground" design.
The fighter mafia dayfighter didn't last a second past the F-16 flyoff victory in 1975. It was immediately switched to multi-role. "Not a pound for air to ground" was the F-15, at least until the E came along.

If the light-weight F-16 was ruled out, the even lighter-weight F-20 would also have been ruled out, especially since it could not have the sort of upgrades as were applied to the F-16 starting with integration of AMRAAM.
It had Sparrow and was always intended to have AMRAAM. It was an F-16C before the F-16 was an F-16C. With less of a bomb load of a course, since in the end it was optimised more for the fighter mission than the attack one, unlike the production F-16.

View attachment 657651

Germany should had built and bought the ADV, it had german parts, offered commonality plus it was a good aircraft, Italy did it, Germany should had done it
But they got the MiG-29 one of my favorite aircraft

View attachment 657652
ADV was a fine aircraft for patroling the GIUK gap, but it couldn't dogfight. It would have been a sitting duck* in the crowded and chaotic airspace over Germany in the event of a WP invasion. Hence the dogfighting ability of the Typhoon, which can do the patrol mission too.

Which is why I think the F-20 could have done the job. Over Germany, not the GIUK patrol mission, it doesn't have the endurance for that.

*Given that the Soviets had helmet mounted sights and HOBS missiles, all the NATO aircraft would have been sitting ducks in a dogfight, so it wouldn't have really mattered whether they had the ADV or not. Which is why I'd call cancelling the high off boresight AIM-95 and its helmet mounted sight a monumental mistake that luckily came to nothing.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
942
Reaction score
1,631

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
84
Reaction score
124
you can rule out any single engine proposal for Luftwaffe
They got very allergic for any Single engine Fighter since 1960s

Because of this
Were engine failures really that much of an issue with the 104 losses? I thought it was handling and low level flight combined with inexperienced pilots, rather than engines. Which made the idea of "no more single engine aircraft" seem like learning the wrong lesson to me.


The F-16 in the '70s was seen as a lightweight fighter with two Sidewinders on the wings. It was just the thing to replace single engine single seater aircraft in the Belgian, Danish, Dutch, and Norwegian air forces.
Yeah, I was thinking of the F-16 as it is now as opposed to its original "Not a pound for air-to-ground" design.
The fighter mafia dayfighter didn't last a second past the F-16 flyoff victory in 1975. It was immediately switched to multi-role. "Not a pound for air to ground" was the F-15, at least until the E came along.

If the light-weight F-16 was ruled out, the even lighter-weight F-20 would also have been ruled out, especially since it could not have the sort of upgrades as were applied to the F-16 starting with integration of AMRAAM.
It had Sparrow and was always intended to have AMRAAM. It was an F-16C before the F-16 was an F-16C. With less of a bomb load of a course, since in the end it was optimised more for the fighter mission than the attack one, unlike the production F-16.

View attachment 657651

Germany should had built and bought the ADV, it had german parts, offered commonality plus it was a good aircraft, Italy did it, Germany should had done it
But they got the MiG-29 one of my favorite aircraft

View attachment 657652
ADV was a fine aircraft for patroling the GIUK gap, but it couldn't dogfight. It would have been a sitting duck* in the crowded and chaotic airspace over Germany in the event of a WP invasion. Hence the dogfighting ability of the Typhoon, which can do the patrol mission too.

Which is why I think the F-20 could have done the job. Over Germany, not the GIUK patrol mission, it doesn't have the endurance for that.

*Given that the Soviets had helmet mounted sights and HOBS missiles, all the NATO aircraft would have been sitting ducks in a dogfight, so it wouldn't have really mattered whether they had the ADV or not. Which is why I'd call cancelling the high off boresight AIM-95 and its helmet mounted sight a monumental mistake that luckily came to nothing.
I totally agree, the R-73 and the Shlem ot helmet mounted sight was excellent.

But in defense of the Tornado ADV, in the early 1980s, the MiG-29 in BVR was not as good as in close combat so from a long distance the Tornado ADV was not defenceless specially since the MiG-29 was not as good as BVR fighter and the Tornado was operated by a crew of 2 leaving the Fulcrum in disadvantage, only the MiG-31 was superior to the Tornado ADV as a BVR fighter.
1621694209475.png

I would say that for Germant the ADV Tornado variant offered a superior MiG-23 type aircraft.

Obviously not better than MiG-29 or Su-27 in WVR combat, but equal at long range where the Tornado ADV could had hid it self behind the F-15s of the USAF.

The Typhoon was a better fighter but I think what prevented Germany from getting the ADV variant was the fact east Germany operated MiG-29s, so once both Germanies united, they got a 4th generation fighter as good as the F-16, so they went for the cheapest way keep the Fulcrum and wait for the Typhoon.

But would had the cold war continued i think the Tornado ADV very likely would had been operated by the Luftwaffe.

The british got SRAAMs on their Tornadoes ADV so i guess the Tornado was not an easy pray, in fact i would say the ADV was not obsolete in the European theather until Russia got Su-57s and Su-35S.

Against early Su-27s and MiGs it was a good aircraft considering the USAF had plenty of F-16s and F-15s in Germany and no warsaw Pact nation got Su-27s except of course the Soviet Union
 
Last edited:

Michel Van

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
5,453
Reaction score
2,653
Were engine failures really that much of an issue with the 104 losses? I thought it was handling and low level flight combined with inexperienced pilots, rather than engines. Which made the idea of "no more single engine aircraft" seem like learning the wrong lesson to me.
Actually if the Engine fails on F-104G, it became almost uncontrollable, ( the boundary layer control need running Engine)
Next to that had J-79 a open nozzle failure problem during hydraulic failure, what let thrust lost and F-104G became almost uncontrollable.
This in combination with ejector seat Modell Lockheed „C2“ let to allot dead pilots at Belgian, Italien and German Air Force.

Next to that were Demands for Fast long-range supersonic interceptor for German Navy and Air Force,
They really thought to rivet two F-104 into F-104Z to have this kind of Aircraft.
Then happen proposal for new Bomber/Fighter Jet for Europe NATO airforces what became later the ADV Tornado

For a moment the Navy and Air Force look into option F-14 as idea choice
In mean time the Luftwaffe last single engine Jet Aircraft the VTOL VAK 191 B died quietly do budget cuts...

But here enter proposal in the Twilight Zone of european politic
With offer of Building those New Aircraft in Germany, also for Air force the politicians went for proposal
and bye bye F-14, what is understandable since the Aircraft had to be tested yet.
but then enter Britain the game and Proposal transformed into Bomber ADV Tornado.

So the German Air force in need of a Fighter-interceptor bought the F-4 Phantom until next generation interceptor was build: the Eurofighter
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,815
Reaction score
2,856
The Luftwaffe really liked its F4s and they were seriously upgraded over the years.
An interesting alternative to the F104 would have been F6 Lightnings like the two squadrons of F2As the RAF operated in N Germany.
 

1635yankee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
85
you can rule out any single engine proposal for Luftwaffe
They got very allergic for any Single engine Fighter since 1960s

Because of this
Were engine failures really that much of an issue with the 104 losses? I thought it was handling and low level flight combined with inexperienced pilots, rather than engines. Which made the idea of "no more single engine aircraft" seem like learning the wrong lesson to me.
The J-79, at least as installed in the F-104 had a terrible reputation for fragility.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
720
Reaction score
560
Actually if the Engine fails on F-104G, it became almost uncontrollable, ( the boundary layer control need running Engine)
BLC was only used (automatically) when the flaps were placed in the landing position. So losing an engine on approach could quite possibly leave you in a dangerous spot, but that's true of almost every aircraft of any configuration. Do you have any citations for BLC problems inducing a loss? I do not doubt there would be a few, I just question the notion this was an overarching problem with the Luftwaffe fleet, whose losses seem directly related to their usage.
When you lose an engine at low speed (or anywhere, really) in a Starfighter with tiny stub wings and poor glide properties, you're likely going to lose the aircraft.

The J-79, at least as installed in the F-104 had a terrible reputation for fragility.
The early engines (including those assembled by the Euro Consortium in Liege) had issues with nozzle reliability (which directly impacts available thrust). I don't remember the particulars, but having a nozzle fail in position or open/close uncommanded was dangerous in some parts of the envelope.

The most common early one affecting engines produced everywhere was the T-2 reset failures. The automatic system for adjusting stator blades would/could get fooled by temp and pressure differences and could starve the compressor and induce a stall or surge. That eventually got sorted as well.

Those were common to all the early J79's, but I'm not sure why'd that would extend that experience to judge all single engine aircraft.
 

Yankee_Aviator

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 12, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
28
I even recalled the French Navy wanted it at one point too!

Screen_200615_091323.png
Screen_200615_091323.png

003.jpg
France mulled it as an option to replace their F-8E(FN)s, however the idea of procuring another American fighter was largely shot down by French nationalism (something I respect the French for, personally) and the F-8 would not be properly replaced on the decks of French carriers until the introduction of the Rafale M.
 
Top