Talk:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

message: Should this article include the XB-70 photo in the §Safety section?
It's a well-known photo and highly relevant to the XB-70 article. However is it also relevant here?  The F-104 is widely seen as an "unsafe" aircraft (however true, false or narrowly specific that is) and this photo adds to that. However, is that warranted?  Is there any indication that the XB-70 crash was due to the F-104's characteristics? So should we give that impression? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's equally relevant to this article as well. The safety record section covers mainly the accident rates of the various operators (it doesn't attempt to address the "why", just the "what") and then lists some of the notable pilots who lost their lives. The photo was added to support the text regarding one of these pilots, Joseph A. Walker, who was flying the F-104 that day. While the collision wasn't due to an inherent design flaw of the F-104 or anything like that (or of the XB-70, for that matter), it certainly was a notable accident and covered in some detail in multiple Starfighter-specific sources. What's currently in the article and in the caption are what I would consider to be neutral statements about the two aircraft colliding, with no attempt to assign blame or cause. CThomas3 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  XB-70 photo? 

message: The paragraph starting "On 7 September 1965, a Griffin F-104A flown by Flight Lt. Amjad Hussein Khan intercepted 6 Indian Dassault Mysteres..." is totally incorrect. 12 IAF Mystere aircraft of No 1 Sqn IAF were detailed for the dawn attack, but four got lost in the dark in the pre-dawn zero R/T take off and returned to base. A lone Mystere flown by Sqn Ldr Tubby Devayya had taken off three minutes after the last foursome as standby to the mission, instead of staying on the ground, making it a 13-aircraft mission.  My CO and Flt Cdrs took part. Sqn Ldr Handa and his foursome (Nos 9-12) got lost. NINE aircraft attacked Sargodha, eight of which exited safely. Amjad Hussain, who was the least experienced in the F-104 Sqn, was one of a pair of F-104s scrambled. They took off in the three minute interval between the first two sets of four Mysteres. This was to be a futile chase of aircraft exiting at high speed in different directions in pairs, BENEATH radar cover. The CAP controller picked up the ninth attacker four minutes later as he pulled up for his attack and Amjad also spotted him, only to lose him in the exit mode as he was perched at 10,000 feet. He was to pick him up again a minute later, descending rapidly to below 5000' when the raider was still within the radar coverage zone. The story emerged in 1972 when Amjad, the only pilot to eject from a Starfighter in two successive wars was captured and kept as a POW. His story was a complete book by itself and cleared all doubts about No 13. I commanded this Sqn, 1 Sqn AF, much later. More details to follow as references. I need to read my Sqn Diary and the ATC log again, if it still exists...this was 57 years ago. As a matter of interest, Amjad told his interlocutor, the wartime CO, and in 1972, Gp Capt OP Taneja, that he had hit the Mystere with his second Sidewinder but apparently not fatally, as this Mystere pulled up and back into him, guns blazing wildly. He was travelling too fast to avoid him and the Mystere hit the underside of his belly. He was sure he wasn't downed by gunfire, as widely reported, but by the massive inertia/ pitiful aerodynamics of the F-104 that led to the collision and had to eject. He didn't see a second parachute anywhere. Based on this evidence, OP Taneja took up this case in 1972 to recognise Devayya, but met with only apathy, till 1980, when Pop Bhasin, his close friend, became an Air Marshal. Devayya was recognised in 1988 and bestowed a Maha Vir Chakra posthumously.
:Will be tough to get through, as personal experiences/original research won't count. That said, I find this section written with a pro-Pakistan bias; it indirectly reflects that shooting IAF ac down is an achievement, losing one is a tragedy. Moitraanak (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: India vs. Pakistan issues are some of the most contentious subjects we deal with on Wikipedia. Articles about Indian aircraft are generally very similar in tone, but with the opposite viewpoint, naturally. It's gets very tiresome to watch, and unfortunately, the tendency is to just laugh and ignore it. Unfortunately, most of the users who come here don't understand what is required to be neutral, and write solely from a nationalistic viewpoint. Every once in a while, we get some Indian and Pakistani editors that do understand how to write neutrally, but the last few have moved on from Wikipedia. It's practically a full-time job trying to keep these sections neutral, and Wikipedia doesn't pay us enough to make it worth the headache (as we are all unpaid volunteers!) I'd rather just remove all India vs. Pakistan combat descriptions altogether, and link to a relevant article on the war, engagement, or incident. That would at least keep the never-ending battles in one place where it's easier to keep on eye on things. BilCat (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan combat section

message: According to Dutch media, the front area of the train, where the hijackers were, was sprayed with bullets from the Starfighters. There are enough pictures that show the size of the bullet holes. Basvossen (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train attack in the Netherlands 

message: Lockheed U-2 states "Johnson's design, named CL-282, was based on the Lockheed XF-104 with long, slender wings and a shortened fuselage." I therefore think it should be listed as a related design. However, after @BilCat reverted my change, I came to discover that the XF-104 has a separate article. I would therefore like to open the discussion if the U-2 should be listed as a descendant of the F-104, the XF-104, both, or neither. Sundhaug92 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at Talk:Lockheed U-2#U-2 is not based on the F-104. BilCat (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  U-2 connection