Rhine USAF crashes

[HMS Sophia]

My father in law was in the TA (territorial army) in the 70's, in both the engineers and the caterers. In '75 they went to Germany to lay bridges over the Rhine.
Anyway, he loves to tell stories about those days, and one particularly chilling one is in regards to the USAF and their exploits over the River. He says that on several occasions, a group of fighters (he thinks starfighters but he isn't sure) came buzzing down the river, and then pulled up sharp at the end (not sure what this 'end' was), apart from one or two who failed to do so, hitting the bank/cliff/thing at the end.
I wondered if it would be possible to find details, or if anyone could help me work out what the hell was going on. He isn't one for embellishments really, so I doubt he is making it up, but his memory isn't the greatest... Any help would be much appreciated.

[Sea Skimmer]

German F-104s crashed like crazy; result of throwing the pilots into them without advanced jet training and then ordering them to immediately train for low level fighter bomber operations. A sharp pull up after a low level run could be training for a nuclear lob toss, but it could also be other things.

[Thanas]

And of course the fighter was also crap. I doubt pilot error is solely to blame for the malfunctioning instruments in the cockpit, Afterburners not functioning and landing gear breaking upon landing.

[Sea Skimmer]

And of course the fighter was also crap. I doubt pilot error is solely to blame for the malfunctioning instruments in the cockpit, Afterburners not functioning and landing gear breaking upon landing.

It may have been built like crap in Germany, as only the first 30 German F-104s were produced in the US, but the design did not have nearly as many problems in the US air force or many other European air forces. Nor was the plane designed in the first place for the low level role the Luftwaffe decided to use it for, which evenutally led to the wings falling off, because low and behold a small wing fast climbing mach 2 interceptor was not intended to fly its entire service life at 200ft with heavy bombs on board. You know the Luftwaffe put WW2 pilots directly into this plane, one who had generally never flown a jet before and what's more, were given only a few hours of prior refesher flying training after having been civilians for fifteen years. This was just stupid, the plane was bought when known to be hard to handle and the topic was just ignored. The same issue plagued the ground crews, WW2 personal and inexperienced men were thrown into a massive expansion of the Luftwaffe with too little time for training and not enough experienced men to even things out. India did the exact same thing with its MiG-21 force, take pilots from piston engine planes and throw them right into a fast jet, low and behold the Indian MiG-21 loss rate is massively high while other nations never had such problems.

Now meanwhile Italy kept its own Starfighters flying IN COMBAT as late as 1999 over Serbia. The F-104 certainly had a higher then average accident rate, but the Luftwaffe did everything it could have to make it far worse.

[Mr. Coffee]

I remember when I was a little kid and my folks were still stationed at Sheppard AFB (was maybe 5 or 6 years old back then, was hatched out from under a rock on post as Air Force female personnel aren't allowed to give live birth). The 80th FTW would play host to a lot of NATO member's pilots to teach them how not to catastrophically fuck up in the cockpit. One day my pop was taking me and my little brothers to drop us off at day care before he went to work and the car rocked violently as we heard this loud ass roar and Pop started swearing volcanically about "Goddamn crazy ass Kruat motherfuckers". Ever since if I see Luftwaffe colors on an aircraft I know to immediately go prone so the pilot has enough gorund clearance not to fly into me.

Good times.

[ComradeClaus]

what about loses to bird "inDEgestion"? a single engine jet flying 200ft for most of it's service live is true stupidity. Which is why the Air Force planning on the F-35 replacing the twin engine A-10 is such a good idea

The Luftwaffe only bought the F-104 cause Lockheed bribed them (Wiki: Lockheed Bribery Scandal) & their bundestag NEVER procures native designed aircraft (Like TKF-90, MBB Lampyradae & Dornier MAKO, now they no longer have companies large enough to do so, such a loss). The Tornado & Typhoon (named after WW2 killbirds) are british while the Tigre, A400 & NH 90 are French, why do they think non-competitive bids are a good idea? When companies compete, they're compelled to keep on schedule, on budget & sell their products cheaply, which is GOOD for tax payers. monopolies like Eurofighter GMBH, Airbus & "Euro"(Francais)copter are monopolies that delay projects for decades! it took 20 years between the requirement for the Tiger (1985) to the 1st delivery (2005) Yet it's faster to buy Cobra/Apache, C-130J/C-17 & UH-60/Ch-53K (European gov't never learns)

On a side note, I'm shocked (not really, DISMAYED perhaps) so few Royal Air Force Typhoon pilots can use Air-to-ground in Libya (you'd think the Gulf War 1 would've taught them to prioritize A2G training over A2A training)

But may i ask what the max load the F-104 can carry on each pylon? Like how much did the Droptanks weigh (empty & full)?

I know that a couple pylons could fire the AS34 Kormoran, shich is heavier than the 1000lb limit I've read in some books.

Also, is it possible for the F-104S to carry 6xAIM-9 & 2xAIM-7? (AIM-9: 2x Wingtip, 2x Fuselage, 2x Outboard Wing + AIM-7: 2x Inboard Wing)

[Thanas]

And of course the fighter was also crap. I doubt pilot error is solely to blame for the malfunctioning instruments in the cockpit, Afterburners not functioning and landing gear breaking upon landing.

It may have been built like crap in Germany, as only the first 30 German F-104s were produced in the US, but the design did not have nearly as many problems in the US air force or many other European air forces. Nor was the plane designed in the first place for the low level role the Luftwaffe decided to use it for, which evenutally led to the wings falling off, because low and behold a small wing fast climbing mach 2 interceptor was not intended to fly its entire service life at 200ft with heavy bombs on board. You know the Luftwaffe put WW2 pilots directly into this plane, one who had generally never flown a jet before and what's more, were given only a few hours of prior refesher flying training after having been civilians for fifteen years. This was just stupid, the plane was bought when known to be hard to handle and the topic was just ignored. The same issue plagued the ground crews, WW2 personal and inexperienced men were thrown into a massive expansion of the Luftwaffe with too little time for training and not enough experienced men to even things out. India did the exact same thing with its MiG-21 force, take pilots from piston engine planes and throw them right into a fast jet, low and behold the Indian MiG-21 loss rate is massively high while other nations never had such problems.

Now meanwhile Italy kept its own Starfighters flying IN COMBAT as late as 1999 over Serbia. The F-104 certainly had a higher then average accident rate, but the Luftwaffe did everything it could have to make it far worse.

I have no doubt these were contributing factors, but the aircraft itself had many technical difficulties. One third of all aircrafts crashed, with one third of those crashes being due to engine failure, while many of the casualties were due to malfunctioning ejector seats. I am not sure how much of that is incompetent license manufacturing though.

[Simon_Jester]

Thanas, does "engine failure" cover all causes, or only those which cannot be explained by the prolonged, low-altitude flying the Luftwaffe used its Starfighters for?

[Sea Skimmer]

I have no doubt these were contributing factors, but the aircraft itself had many technical difficulties. One third of all aircrafts crashed, with one third of those crashes being due to engine failure, while many of the casualties were due to malfunctioning ejector seats. I am not sure how much of that is incompetent license manufacturing though.

The aircraft was powered by the J79 turbojet which was pretty damn successful in USAF service, also powering the B-58, F-4 Phantom, including the ones later bought by Germany, and A-5 Vigilant. The plane had problems, bad maintenance when the Luftwaffe expanded at a wartime pace with little trained cadre made them worse. The F-104 needed a damn lot of maintenance by the book, something like 40 hours per flying hour and many air forces simply did not give it the attention it required. This was a known issue when the plane was bought.

The ejection seat in the aircraft was never rated to for use at the very low altitudes the plane was normally flown at in Germany in bad weather. Nor was any other ejection seat in the world that existed at the time the F-104 was designed rated for this kind of operation. Eventually it was replaced in the late 1960s with a newer seat rated for low altitude operation, the first zero-zero seat from Martin Baker. In the end about 30% of the F-104 force was lost, against 36% of the Luftwaffe F-84 force which was the only postwar jet Germany had prior to the F-104.

But anyway total number of losses is not as relevant as loss rate per flying hour, you fly combat planes long and hard enough in bad conditions and every single one will crash. At its peak of crashes the Luftwaffe lost 139 planes per 100,000 flying hours. The Norwegian air force lost 6 in 56,000 flying hours in the same time period. Italy lost 14.7 per 100,000 flying hours over the entire history of the program, but ultimately lost 36% of its entire force because the planes flew 928,000 hours. The USAF which had the plane first and had to work out all the worst bugs by crashing had a loss rate of 26.7 per 100,000 flying hours. This was about twice as bad as the next worst jet it flew at the time but still just 20% of the worst Luftwaffe rate. Like I was saying the plane had problems, Germany made them worse and simply flew the plane very hard and long hours in bad conditions it was never designed. NATO lost planes like crazy in training long after the 'Starfighter crisis' because they told pilots to push the limits at all times.