@RamboJutter That's no fault of the design. Japan lost only three of its 230 Starfighters in the 24 years of service, two to a mid-air collision. Italy, while losing about 38% of its fleet over a 50 year span, had an accident rate of 14.2 flight hours per 100,000 hours, a fairly average rate for an aircraft of its era. Spain, who flew 17,000 flight hours with its 21 aircraft over 12 years, lost none.
As the above statistics show, it's not exactly an unsafe aircraft when flown correctly. The fault for the accidents were Lockheed's unscrupulous marketing, which in my opinion should not mar an objective assessment of the aircraft.
@F104Deathtrap That is true. The bribery scandals definitely blemished a fantastic jet. Still, I think the F-104 is a decent jet that was unscrupulously marketed for roles which it has no business in.
I should mention that the Paternian Air Force (the guys which this machine was attempted to be sold to) employed them with success in air combat. Accident rates were rather low, although this is attributed to the fact they were never used for ground strike missions and were almost always flown by reservists, who were more experienced. They were fairly successful in operations against the ISFOS in Australia, flying from New Zealand bases, refuelled extensively, and savaging subsonic jets which really stood no chance.
Ironically, it was because of operations in Australia that it was replaced. The F-4 Phantom II, despite small numbers employed, proved to be instrumental in the coalition victory. The high performance, heavy weapon load, and advanced avionics basically made it the ideal aircraft to shatter air defenses and wipe out their air force on the ground overnight. The effectiveness was such that the rest of the ISFOS air force was too scared to fly.
So that's the story of the F-104 in Paternian service. It was good, but the Phantom was miles above it.
@F104Deathtrap I think we cancelled Valkyrie because of things like the S-75 Dvina SAM. You know, Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 spyplane got knocked out of the sky.
Because of things like that, the meta changed to low-altitude penetration with cruise missiles. In that role, the projected performance of B-52, B-58, and XB-70 would be not much greater. And the B-52 was a far more versatile system.
Development thus went toward low-altitude, high-speed systems such as the F-111 and B-1, which served the US well.
As for the F-104 being a deathtrap, the aircraft was relatively safe as long as you weren't an idiot. I believe in the 17,000 flight hours in the Spanish Air Force, they did not lose a single aircraft. Likewise, the JASDF only lost three out of their 210+ machines in their 24 years of fending off frequent Soviet intrusions.
Then again, these guys only used them as interceptors, as intended. The air forces that suffered the most losses were those who did not use the plane ot their strengths.
The US didn't use the F-104 because the idea of a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter was not desirable. The US Air Force wanted heavier fighter-bombers and missile-laden interceptors, something which the F-104 isn't that good for. That being said, they did see service in Vietnam. They didn't bring down any MiGs and lost three (one from a Chinese MiG-19 copy and two which crashed into each other trying to chase it down) in combat, but they were considered effective at protecting strike aircraft.
@LatteCoffee55 Is interested. Will probably build own version based off yours, with emphasis on simplification so that the poor with crappy devices can run it.
And so I can modify it more easily to mount Defender missiles.
Not necessarily. It is likely that an opponent would try to counter-battery it. Given that a Paternian M135 Paladin howitzer could strike targets with a CEP of 5 meters with guided shells, the concerns are real. @AverroesIndustries
@AverroesIndustries Titanium is a metal, which means it is malleable.
While the armor is very hard, it isn't excessively so. Titanium has been successfully used as aircraft armor in machines such as the Su-25 Frogfoot and A-10 Warthog.
Graphene is incredibly flexible for its hardness, thanks to its structure.
In either case, spalling can be solved with several layers of Kevlar.
@NathanMikeska You mentioned XML option for Self Destruct and Burn Time on Rockets, but I do not know how to use them. Can you explain what scripts are necessary to employ them and how to employ them?
@AverroesIndustries It looks like an effective combination, albeit an expensive one.
My armor compositions comprise of glass, ceramics and metals of various forms. It's what we call composite armor, trading reduced weight for greater volume than a homogenous armor material.
The Paternian Air Force has no issues with the F-35. We found modern air combat was more or less a long-range missile spamfest, and that initiating the fight was synonymous with victory. And the F-35 was very good at both.
In the rare cases where the F-35 did have to dogfight an Su-35 or PAK-FA, the F-35 held its own very well.
How? Team tactics. 1v1 fights are almost never going to happen, and it has been proven that slower less maneuverable aircraft can hold their own against faster and more maneuverable types. That's how Paternian F-35 decimated the Su-35 in dogfights.
Sure, the Su-35 can turn circles around virtually anything, but that's basically gone if the thing wants to chase something less maneuverable.
@SledDriver Fairly far, given that I have several artillery pieces, including a 120mm mortar and 155mm howitzer. Unfortunately for the mortar, I forgot to add cameras to the bombs to walk in the fire.
First.
@RamboJutter That's no fault of the design. Japan lost only three of its 230 Starfighters in the 24 years of service, two to a mid-air collision. Italy, while losing about 38% of its fleet over a 50 year span, had an accident rate of 14.2 flight hours per 100,000 hours, a fairly average rate for an aircraft of its era. Spain, who flew 17,000 flight hours with its 21 aircraft over 12 years, lost none.
As the above statistics show, it's not exactly an unsafe aircraft when flown correctly. The fault for the accidents were Lockheed's unscrupulous marketing, which in my opinion should not mar an objective assessment of the aircraft.
@F104Deathtrap And thanks!
@F104Deathtrap That is true. The bribery scandals definitely blemished a fantastic jet. Still, I think the F-104 is a decent jet that was unscrupulously marketed for roles which it has no business in.
I should mention that the Paternian Air Force (the guys which this machine was attempted to be sold to) employed them with success in air combat. Accident rates were rather low, although this is attributed to the fact they were never used for ground strike missions and were almost always flown by reservists, who were more experienced. They were fairly successful in operations against the ISFOS in Australia, flying from New Zealand bases, refuelled extensively, and savaging subsonic jets which really stood no chance.
Ironically, it was because of operations in Australia that it was replaced. The F-4 Phantom II, despite small numbers employed, proved to be instrumental in the coalition victory. The high performance, heavy weapon load, and advanced avionics basically made it the ideal aircraft to shatter air defenses and wipe out their air force on the ground overnight. The effectiveness was such that the rest of the ISFOS air force was too scared to fly.
So that's the story of the F-104 in Paternian service. It was good, but the Phantom was miles above it.
@WEAPONSMITH Thanks!
@F104Deathtrap I think we cancelled Valkyrie because of things like the S-75 Dvina SAM. You know, Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 spyplane got knocked out of the sky.
Because of things like that, the meta changed to low-altitude penetration with cruise missiles. In that role, the projected performance of B-52, B-58, and XB-70 would be not much greater. And the B-52 was a far more versatile system.
Development thus went toward low-altitude, high-speed systems such as the F-111 and B-1, which served the US well.
As for the F-104 being a deathtrap, the aircraft was relatively safe as long as you weren't an idiot. I believe in the 17,000 flight hours in the Spanish Air Force, they did not lose a single aircraft. Likewise, the JASDF only lost three out of their 210+ machines in their 24 years of fending off frequent Soviet intrusions.
Then again, these guys only used them as interceptors, as intended. The air forces that suffered the most losses were those who did not use the plane ot their strengths.
The US didn't use the F-104 because the idea of a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter was not desirable. The US Air Force wanted heavier fighter-bombers and missile-laden interceptors, something which the F-104 isn't that good for. That being said, they did see service in Vietnam. They didn't bring down any MiGs and lost three (one from a Chinese MiG-19 copy and two which crashed into each other trying to chase it down) in combat, but they were considered effective at protecting strike aircraft.
Glad I wasn't in that shitstorm of political discourse.
@QuantausAviation I have 155mm howitzers.
@LatteCoffee55 Is interested. Will probably build own version based off yours, with emphasis on simplification so that the poor with crappy devices can run it.
And so I can modify it more easily to mount Defender missiles.
@PyrusEnderhunter Tactics have changed now.
@SledDriver I suppose.
Love this ... aircraft. Reminds me of the T-1000 from Terminator 2.
You know, the liquid metal dude.
@SledDriver My music tastes are varied.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds!
Am interested. @DeathStalker627
That is true. @WNP78
@ItzGray Ik.
On one hand, there's 323 million Americans, and 65 million Britons, so you tell me who's right.
Ignore the 1.3 billion Indians of which 125 million speak English, 36.6 million Canadians, 24.4 million Australians, and 5 million Kiwis.
Which would be about 256 million people. Which is still about 67 million people short of those who spell it without "u".
Thus, we can safely assume that I am correct.
@WEAPONSMITH Thanks!
It seems the multirole 8x8 armored car market is becoming increasingly saturated.
rush b intensifies
@Makcoink
Neat.
One problem: you spelled color wrong.
@Fang1009 You will need to zoom inside the tail section in order to access it easily. And thanks!
@AttestedArk It's okay. Just a friendly reminder.
As much as I am inclined to agree with you, it is advised to leave politics out of this. @AttestedArk
@GermanWarMachine Neat.
Thanks! @NathanMikeska
The armor is fine. @Baldeagle086
Not necessarily. It is likely that an opponent would try to counter-battery it. Given that a Paternian M135 Paladin howitzer could strike targets with a CEP of 5 meters with guided shells, the concerns are real. @AverroesIndustries
Sure. @Supercraft888
@Johnnyboy9 Thanks!
@AverroesIndustries Titanium is a metal, which means it is malleable.
While the armor is very hard, it isn't excessively so. Titanium has been successfully used as aircraft armor in machines such as the Su-25 Frogfoot and A-10 Warthog.
Graphene is incredibly flexible for its hardness, thanks to its structure.
In either case, spalling can be solved with several layers of Kevlar.
@Baldeagle086 lol its all good.
@Baldeagle086 70 tons is quite heavy for an artillery vehicle, given that the Victoria tank weighs just as much and is designed to get shot at.
@Baldeagle086 The whole point of composite armor is to be lighter than homogenous armors for the same level of protection.
However, homogenous armors tend to be more compact than composite armors of the same weight, and are generally cheaper.
It's an engineering tradeoff.
@NathanMikeska You mentioned XML option for Self Destruct and Burn Time on Rockets, but I do not know how to use them. Can you explain what scripts are necessary to employ them and how to employ them?
@AverroesIndustries It looks like an effective combination, albeit an expensive one.
My armor compositions comprise of glass, ceramics and metals of various forms. It's what we call composite armor, trading reduced weight for greater volume than a homogenous armor material.
Reminds me of a single-engine F-5.
@Supercraft888 Np!
Sweet jet though.
The F-35 hardware-wise isn't the most impressive as a whole.
The software though, is flawless. That's probably where most of the billions of dollars pumped into the jet went. @ColonelStriker
Neat. @SledDriver
Ok. @AverroesIndustries
@phanps Thanks!
Interesting.
The Paternian Air Force has no issues with the F-35. We found modern air combat was more or less a long-range missile spamfest, and that initiating the fight was synonymous with victory. And the F-35 was very good at both.
In the rare cases where the F-35 did have to dogfight an Su-35 or PAK-FA, the F-35 held its own very well.
How? Team tactics. 1v1 fights are almost never going to happen, and it has been proven that slower less maneuverable aircraft can hold their own against faster and more maneuverable types. That's how Paternian F-35 decimated the Su-35 in dogfights.
Sure, the Su-35 can turn circles around virtually anything, but that's basically gone if the thing wants to chase something less maneuverable.
@SledDriver I've got to try that with my Paladin.
@Oski Okay. I suppose I can try too.
@Z3RO There's only a limited amount of charges.
@Oski Sweet. Figured out the XML scripts?
Nice build!
Btw, it's a 3-inch gun.
@SledDriver Fairly far, given that I have several artillery pieces, including a 120mm mortar and 155mm howitzer. Unfortunately for the mortar, I forgot to add cameras to the bombs to walk in the fire.