(Storey & Co) case study analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

(Storey & Co) case study analysis - Essay Example The top 4 factors identified are talent retention, effective communication, leadership retention and cultural integration (Stahl et al. 2004). Another important factor that has been seen to influence this acquisition negatively is the insecurity it induces in the acquired firm’s employees (Stahl and Bjorkman. 2006). This has direct implications on employee morale of the acquired firm. The uncertainty of the entire operation can lead to insecurities about their job in the minds of the acquired firm’s employees. We have seen that so far no communication has happened with regards to this acquisition. National cultures also play an important role in cross-border acquisitions. In our case also cultural integration holds the key to successful merger. Storey is used to a high handed culture where they impose their own practices over the acquired firm. For example, British people are more neutral in expressing their emotions at work place as compared to Americans (Hoecklin 1995 ). This means that American working style is more expressive and open than British. This can be seen in our case also as the owners of Gittins & Edwards propagated an informal culture while Storey had a very heavy handed acquisition experiences in the past. Hence, the heavy handed attitude of Storey can emanate negative responses from the more open and informal acquired company. (Bowen, Galang and Pillai 2002). The employees of Storey have been seen to exert their policies on to the new firm it acquires. This can lead to major attrition and loss of talent as there is a major cultural difference in the two firms’ operating styles. The environment within an organization is highly dependent on the attitudes and values of its present and past leaders (Bhattacharya 2010). This has implications for our case as well. The leaders at Gittins & Edwards show a very informal but commercial style, while the British communication style is very formal. Hence the employees of the acquired firm will not

Effects of the French and Indian War

Effects of the French and Indian War Why do I think the French and Indian war created America? Much of historians work on the creation of America has focused primarily upon the War of Independence and its great influence in shaping the institutions of the American state. This scholarly focus upon the War of Independence as the cradle of America has meant that the French and Indian war has rather less significance in the popular imagination than it merits. It is the aim of this essay to demonstrate that the French and Indian war was not just a mere precursor to the much more widely recognized American War of Independence but rather a seminal event in its own right that had a profound effect on the course of American history. The French and Indian war sowed the seeds for the creation of America as we know it today. The noted historian Fred Anderson believes that the importance and influence of the French and Indian war was such that he terms it â€Å"the war that made America.†[1] The argument that the French and Indian war created America shall be made with the expositio n of the following points: Firstly, the war changed the colonials’ view of their own standing within the Empire. They believed that they had proved themselves as equals but their status had not undergone a similar conversion in the eyes of the Whitehall. Secondly, the removal of the French threat from North America led some to question why they needed to continue in their relationship with the British. Thirdly, the French and Indian war led to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which denied the expression of the colonies’ determination for further westward expansion. Finally, the cost of the French and Indian war, and the wider Seven Years War  led to increased taxes being imposed upon the colonies, taxes that were increasingly seen as an unjust imposition. All of these factors outlined converged to produce the thirst for independence from the British Crown and led ultimately to the creation of America. The French and Indian war initiated a cultural shift which led the colonials to conceive of themselves as equal partners in the [British] empire†[2], an idea that put them at odds with their British overlords and ultimately led to conflict with the British Empire and the eventual creation of a independent America. The colonists assumed that their efforts in the war had proved their status as equal members of the Empire. They were, in their own opinion now ‘partners in Empire.’ There was a sense of pride in belonging to the Empire. Benjamin Franklin celebrated â€Å"not merely as I am a colonist, but as I am a Briton.†[3] In a mood of rejoicing, New York erected statues of King George III and William Pitt. However, the British did not agree that the colonists had earned their newfound status as partners in Empire. The views of the British had not altered, the belief in the Empire’s hierarchy and the primacy of the Crown remained. These competing vision s of empire[4] were irreconcilable and meant yet further division between the two sides. The Treaty of Paris (1763) saw France lose all of its North American territory east of the Mississippi save for the two small islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. This routing of the French led the colonies to question quite why they should remain tied to the British. There was now no common enemy to unite them. In 1773 the royal governor of Massachusetts stated that had Canada â€Å"remained to the French none of the spirit of opposition to the Mother Country would yet have appeared.†[5] The removal of the French threat that resulted from the conflict fostered an atmosphere in which the colonials began to give birth to their own ideas of democracy and self-rule thus providing them with the intellectual and philosophical ammunition with which to attack British imperialism The British were concerned that the colonies western frontiers should not expand any further, lest it aggravate the Indian tribes and thus provoke a further spate of conflicts. Furthermore, Britain’s new North American Empire, minus the French, was vast and any efforts to enlarge it yet further risked rendering it ungovernable. As a result the Royal Proclamation of 1763 prohibited further westward expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains. The ejection of the French from North America meant that the colonists’ desire for further westward expansion grew stronger at the very time when such expansion was denied by the Crown. In the eyes of the colonials the war had opened up the vast North American continent for further expansion and settlement. A 1763 famer’s almanac summed up the prevailing mood; â€Å"But now behold! The farmer may have land for nothing†¦Land enough for himself and all his sons, be they ever so many.†[6] Something had to give and the issue of pushing back the frontiers soon brought the colonies into conflict with the Empire and added to the clamor for independence. Ironically the imperials expansionist ambitions of the settlers brought helped turn them against the impositions of the British Empire. The huge cost of the French and Indian conflict, and the wider Seven Years War meant that British debt spiraled as a result. To help ease this financial burden a greater taxation was imposed upon the colonies. This fiscal burden, along with the philosophical objections no taxation without representation went the famous cry – made the colonies further question the wisdom of British rule. Protecting the continent had cost the British dearly and relative to British taxpayers the colonists paid less in taxes even though they were more prosperous. A prewar British debt of  £73 million had grown to  £137 million postwar[7] and the burden of administering North America was now more costly because the Empire had expanded so greatly. The colonists objected to paying what they saw as arbitrary taxes to a distant parliament where no colonist sat. Furthermore, the new taxes came at a time when the colonial economy was suffering a downturn, making them even more resented. The rebellio n over taxes, the Stamp Act in particular, also had the effect of confirming British suspicions that the colonists longed for independence and helped set the colonist on a collision course with the Mother country. In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated that the French and Indian war was a crucial contributing factor in the creation of an independent America. Whilst the American War of Independence may get much of the glory, the events of 1754–1763 clearly sowed the seeds for the colonies’ break away from the British Empire. It did so due to four key reasons. Firstly the war encouraged the colonials to view themselves as equals yet their status had has not undergone a similar conversion in the eyes of the Mother country, leading to discontent in North America. Secondly, the removal of the French threat also meant the removal of the common enemy that united the colonies and Britain, thus leading the colonists to question their ties to the Crown. Thirdly, the French and Indian war, due to the vast expansion of the North American empire, resulted in Royal Proclamation of 1763 which denied any further westward expansion, the very expansion that the settlers desired. Finally, the c ost of the French and Indian war, and the wider Seven Years War led to increased taxes being imposed upon the colonies who resented paying what they felt were arbitrary taxes to a distant parliament, especially in a time in which they were experiencing an economic downturn. All of these factors combined to stoke the fires of independence and rebellion in North America leading to the creation of an American nation free from imperialism. As Anderson argues, without the French and Indian war â€Å"American independence would surely have been long delayed†[8] Bibliography Anderson, Fred, Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (London: Faber Faber, 2000) -, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (New York: Penguin, 2006) Fowler, William M, Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763 (New York: Walker, 2005) Jennings, Francis, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America (New York: Norton, 1988) McLynn, Frank, 1759: The Year Britain Became Master of The World (London: Jonathan Cape, 2004) Taylor, Alan, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (London: Penguin, 2001) Footnotes [1] Anderson, Fred, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (New York: Penguin, 2006) [2] Anderson, Fred, Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (London: Faber Faber, 2000) [3] Taylor, Alan, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (London: Penguin, 2001), 437 [4] Anderson, The War That Made America , 746 [5] Taylor (op cit) 438 [6] Ibid. 437 [7] Ibid. 439 [8] Anderson, Crucible of Wa,r xi

Effects of the French and Indian War

Effects of the French and Indian War Why do I think the French and Indian war created America? Much of historians work on the creation of America has focused primarily upon the War of Independence and its great influence in shaping the institutions of the American state. This scholarly focus upon the War of Independence as the cradle of America has meant that the French and Indian war has rather less significance in the popular imagination than it merits. It is the aim of this essay to demonstrate that the French and Indian war was not just a mere precursor to the much more widely recognized American War of Independence but rather a seminal event in its own right that had a profound effect on the course of American history. The French and Indian war sowed the seeds for the creation of America as we know it today. The noted historian Fred Anderson believes that the importance and influence of the French and Indian war was such that he terms it â€Å"the war that made America.†[1] The argument that the French and Indian war created America shall be made with the expositio n of the following points: Firstly, the war changed the colonials’ view of their own standing within the Empire. They believed that they had proved themselves as equals but their status had not undergone a similar conversion in the eyes of the Whitehall. Secondly, the removal of the French threat from North America led some to question why they needed to continue in their relationship with the British. Thirdly, the French and Indian war led to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which denied the expression of the colonies’ determination for further westward expansion. Finally, the cost of the French and Indian war, and the wider Seven Years War  led to increased taxes being imposed upon the colonies, taxes that were increasingly seen as an unjust imposition. All of these factors outlined converged to produce the thirst for independence from the British Crown and led ultimately to the creation of America. The French and Indian war initiated a cultural shift which led the colonials to conceive of themselves as equal partners in the [British] empire†[2], an idea that put them at odds with their British overlords and ultimately led to conflict with the British Empire and the eventual creation of a independent America. The colonists assumed that their efforts in the war had proved their status as equal members of the Empire. They were, in their own opinion now ‘partners in Empire.’ There was a sense of pride in belonging to the Empire. Benjamin Franklin celebrated â€Å"not merely as I am a colonist, but as I am a Briton.†[3] In a mood of rejoicing, New York erected statues of King George III and William Pitt. However, the British did not agree that the colonists had earned their newfound status as partners in Empire. The views of the British had not altered, the belief in the Empire’s hierarchy and the primacy of the Crown remained. These competing vision s of empire[4] were irreconcilable and meant yet further division between the two sides. The Treaty of Paris (1763) saw France lose all of its North American territory east of the Mississippi save for the two small islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. This routing of the French led the colonies to question quite why they should remain tied to the British. There was now no common enemy to unite them. In 1773 the royal governor of Massachusetts stated that had Canada â€Å"remained to the French none of the spirit of opposition to the Mother Country would yet have appeared.†[5] The removal of the French threat that resulted from the conflict fostered an atmosphere in which the colonials began to give birth to their own ideas of democracy and self-rule thus providing them with the intellectual and philosophical ammunition with which to attack British imperialism The British were concerned that the colonies western frontiers should not expand any further, lest it aggravate the Indian tribes and thus provoke a further spate of conflicts. Furthermore, Britain’s new North American Empire, minus the French, was vast and any efforts to enlarge it yet further risked rendering it ungovernable. As a result the Royal Proclamation of 1763 prohibited further westward expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains. The ejection of the French from North America meant that the colonists’ desire for further westward expansion grew stronger at the very time when such expansion was denied by the Crown. In the eyes of the colonials the war had opened up the vast North American continent for further expansion and settlement. A 1763 famer’s almanac summed up the prevailing mood; â€Å"But now behold! The farmer may have land for nothing†¦Land enough for himself and all his sons, be they ever so many.†[6] Something had to give and the issue of pushing back the frontiers soon brought the colonies into conflict with the Empire and added to the clamor for independence. Ironically the imperials expansionist ambitions of the settlers brought helped turn them against the impositions of the British Empire. The huge cost of the French and Indian conflict, and the wider Seven Years War meant that British debt spiraled as a result. To help ease this financial burden a greater taxation was imposed upon the colonies. This fiscal burden, along with the philosophical objections no taxation without representation went the famous cry – made the colonies further question the wisdom of British rule. Protecting the continent had cost the British dearly and relative to British taxpayers the colonists paid less in taxes even though they were more prosperous. A prewar British debt of  £73 million had grown to  £137 million postwar[7] and the burden of administering North America was now more costly because the Empire had expanded so greatly. The colonists objected to paying what they saw as arbitrary taxes to a distant parliament where no colonist sat. Furthermore, the new taxes came at a time when the colonial economy was suffering a downturn, making them even more resented. The rebellio n over taxes, the Stamp Act in particular, also had the effect of confirming British suspicions that the colonists longed for independence and helped set the colonist on a collision course with the Mother country. In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated that the French and Indian war was a crucial contributing factor in the creation of an independent America. Whilst the American War of Independence may get much of the glory, the events of 1754–1763 clearly sowed the seeds for the colonies’ break away from the British Empire. It did so due to four key reasons. Firstly the war encouraged the colonials to view themselves as equals yet their status had has not undergone a similar conversion in the eyes of the Mother country, leading to discontent in North America. Secondly, the removal of the French threat also meant the removal of the common enemy that united the colonies and Britain, thus leading the colonists to question their ties to the Crown. Thirdly, the French and Indian war, due to the vast expansion of the North American empire, resulted in Royal Proclamation of 1763 which denied any further westward expansion, the very expansion that the settlers desired. Finally, the c ost of the French and Indian war, and the wider Seven Years War led to increased taxes being imposed upon the colonies who resented paying what they felt were arbitrary taxes to a distant parliament, especially in a time in which they were experiencing an economic downturn. All of these factors combined to stoke the fires of independence and rebellion in North America leading to the creation of an American nation free from imperialism. As Anderson argues, without the French and Indian war â€Å"American independence would surely have been long delayed†[8] Bibliography Anderson, Fred, Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (London: Faber Faber, 2000) -, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (New York: Penguin, 2006) Fowler, William M, Empires at War: The French and Indian War and the Struggle for North America, 1754-1763 (New York: Walker, 2005) Jennings, Francis, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America (New York: Norton, 1988) McLynn, Frank, 1759: The Year Britain Became Master of The World (London: Jonathan Cape, 2004) Taylor, Alan, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (London: Penguin, 2001) Footnotes [1] Anderson, Fred, The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (New York: Penguin, 2006) [2] Anderson, Fred, Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 (London: Faber Faber, 2000) [3] Taylor, Alan, American Colonies: The Settling of North America (London: Penguin, 2001), 437 [4] Anderson, The War That Made America , 746 [5] Taylor (op cit) 438 [6] Ibid. 437 [7] Ibid. 439 [8] Anderson, Crucible of Wa,r xi

HIV and Aids in Sub Saharan Africa :: HIV in Africa

HIV and Aids in Sub Saharan Africa Introduction Sub Saharan Africa has a very serious HIV / AIDS epidemic with millions of its people living with the disease. It has now become a human tragedy in many areas of the world, but most affected is sub Saharan Africa. It is no coincidence that the countries suffering most with HIV / AIDS are also the poorest. HIV / AIDS is now considered to be the single most important impediment to social progress to many countries in Africa .This report will analyse the current situation using up to date sources from articles, books and the World Wide Web. UN Millennium development goals At the start of the new millennium, all 191 UN member states pledged to meet all the UN Millennium goals by the year 2015. These goals covered such issues as, poverty, hunger, education, aid, gender equality, child mortality, pre natal care, environmental sustainability and HIV / Aids. All UN states have agreed to, "Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS." (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/). At Present, the HIV prevalence rates are still rising in sub Saharan Africa. The rate is seven ties higher in developing countries than it is in developed countries. Many different schemes are trying to reverse this trend. These schemes include,à ¢? ¦. Oxfam, who work to help ease developing world suffering believe that the only scheme that will help reduce HIV / AIDS in developing countries is to cancel world debt. "Unsustainable debt represents a huge barrier to progress in the fight against HIV / AIDS. Repayments to creditors by some of the poorest countries in the world are diverting the resources needed to respond to current suffering." (http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/debt_aid/bp25_debt_hivaids.htm) Oxfam and other similar organisations believe that countries with high prevalence rates could help them selves to solve the aids epidemic if they did not have to meet large debt repayments to the developed world. Concurring the epidemic Unfortunately this disease is not easily concurred. The disease is still today considered to be taboo, making it difficult to talk to

Prime Mover Essay

Aristotle believed that there had to be one primary cause for the world to make sense. There must be something that triggered off the ‘chain of movement’. The Prime Mover is the ‘Uncaused First Cause’, both the unmoved mover and the final cause. As a result this means that all of earth and existence is in a constant stage of movement and change. , Aristotle is similar in his thinking to just like another philosopher, Heraclitus, who believed everything is in a dramatic state of change and, that this change had to be started by someone he called , the Prime Mover.The Prime Mover started off a cosmic chain of movement, whilst remaining unmoved, thereby making him an essential cog in the dynamics of the physical world. The Prime Mover has always existed in his eternal state of perfection and excellence to which that everything in the universe is drawn to the Prime Mover like a magnet. Everything is attracted to this perfection, even though the Prime Mover is de tached from the physical mortal world of humans. The Prime Mover has no plan or dependency for anyone or any thing. The Prime Mover is possessing actuality in its highest form.He relies on nothing but himself for existence. And if he was to become reliant on others, he wouldn't be the Primemover as he wasn't perfect. Aristotle describes the Prime or ‘Unmoved Mover’ as being separate from sensible things (world of the senses), but causing motion and the things in that world to move; for example, such as the circulatory motionwork of the stars and planets. All such movement is done as a great act of love and desire towards The Prime Mover. Who does so effortlessly. The Prime mover doesn't have to move, the Prime Mover can't and won't move.The Prime Mover is the reason for the start and the end of these chain of movements, the object of everything; he is the very essence face of excellence that no one can compete with, being the most beautiful and divine thing in the unive rse. The Prime Mover, unlike the change of matter is immaterial. The Prime Mover is not made from any physical object, and can never change therefore it cannot because this would suggest it could die, yet the Prime Mover can never change. He cannot perform any physical action and manifest himself through acts in purely spiritual and intellectual intention.Aristotle’s interpretation of God, which pre-dates no connection to the Christian notion of Godbased god, is that which is the best of all things possible that are thought, defined as th the ‘thought of thought’ only knowing himself and nothing of the physical world. The Prime Mmover must be good because there can be no badness in something that must exist in the first instance. Conversely anythat this is that exists necessarily hence being bad is so because is not connected to ‘not being ‘something that ought to be there’.In Conclusion, The idea of the Prime Mover is still valid today in resp ect to concept of the Uncaused Cause. In its idea that the reason behind the substances of the universe Yet it seems unlikely that a Prime Mover is something that has the power to move everything in the sensual world, add purpose and meaning to all known would have no physical connection or interaction withto the mankind, existing only as as Aristotle explains, how The Prime Mover is the ‘thought of thought. ’ But how can something consisting of pure thought alone, be capable of move things in the material world?

Importance of Following Orders Essay

The importance of following orders is that if one person breaks off and does whatever they want it can leave others weak and vulnerable. Being in that state, others can be subject to extreme conditions and injury. There are reasons why regulations and protocols have been put in the places they have, to prevent chaos. There is usually a good reason that an order is given to a subordinate of lower grade. Although there can be times where an order can be unlawful, there are counter measures in place to prevent such a case. One can sometimes not have the knowledge if an order is just or unlawful. They will think that what they are being told is the right thing and carry them out when they should not have. If orders are not carried out it can lead to inevitable disaster. Being assigned to Lukatina guard desk duty is a great responsibility with incredible risks. You hold the responsibility of protecting the nations secrets and the people there in. the people working inside of the building need to be protected and feel safe with the conditions they are under. We are here to provide that pivotal security. If one of use falls out of line then the entire system of operation can be thrown out of place. In the case of leaving the desk to acquire food for the day, was it wrong? Yes, and it should not have happened and it will not happen again even if it means to have to go hungry for the whole day until end of shift. That is the sacrifice that needs to be made in order to keep harmony in the circle of work that has been set up and has been up for a great span of time. What kind of a soldier has the right to break that cycle just because they were a little puckish? None, under no circumstances are you to leave your post no matter the situation or time of day unless otherwise told so be your immediate chain of command. The chain of command is there for a reason and should be followed no matter how much one does not understand it or disagree with it. The chain of command may not always be right, but even then one must follow orders and  carry them out to the best of their ability. A problem that can happen is that because of so many different commands that are in place, there can be times that one may not understand something or be unable to carry out one order because it conflicts with another order. When this happens one cannot rely on their own decision alone but need to stay in line and follow whatever order was given or get orders from their closest highest ranking official inside your chain of command even if some full bird comes and tells you to leave your post to do something you will kindly and respectfully replay that you cannot under current circumstances with only two personnel at the desk. One cannot know if said Colonel was giving the correct order for the assigned desk duty S.O.P. if said Colonel even knew what the S.O.P. was. One would need to contact their closest next chain in the command if they are not present at the time. One could not know if a high ranking official outside of ones chain has the security and well being of them and the people they protect in mind.

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter History

Lockheed F-104 Starfighter History The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter was developed for the US Air Force as a supersonic interceptor. Entering service in 1958, it was the USAFs first fighter capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2. Though the F-104 set a multitude of airspeed and altitude records, it suffered from reliability issues and possessed a poor safety record. Briefly used in the Vietnam War, the F-104 was largely ineffective and was withdrawn in 1967. The F-104 was widely exported and saw service with numerous other countries. Design The F-104 Starfighter traces its origins to the Korean War where US Air Force pilots were battling the MiG-15. Flying the North American F-86 Sabre, they stated that they desired a new aircraft with superior performance. Visiting American forces in December 1951, Lockheeds chief designer, Clarence Kelly Johnson, listened to these concerns and learned firsthand the pilots needs. Returning to California, he quickly assembled design team to begin sketching out a new fighter. Assessing several design options ranging from small light fighters to heavy interceptors they ultimately settled on the former. Building around the new General Electric J79 engine, Johnsons team created a supersonic air superiority fighter that utilized the lightest airframe possible. Emphasizing performance, the Lockheed design was presented to the USAF in November 1952. Intrigued by Johnsons work, it elected to issue a new proposal and began accepting competing designs. In this competition, Lockheeds design was joined by those from Republic, North American, and Northrop. Though the other aircraft possessed merits, Johnsons team won the competition and received a prototype contract in March 1953. Development Work moved forward on the prototype which was dubbed XF-104. As the new J79 engine was not ready for use, the prototype was powered by a Wright J65. Johnsons prototype called for a long, narrow fuselage that was mated with a radical new wing design. Employing a short, trapezoidal shape, the XF-104s wings were extremely thin and required protection on the leading edge to avoid injury to ground crews. These were combined with a t-tail configuration aft. Due to the thinness of the wings, the XF-104s landing gear and fuel were contained within the fuselage. Initially armed with a M61 Vulcan cannon, the XF-104 also possessed wingtip stations for AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. Later variants of the aircraft would incorporate up to nine pylons and hardpoints for munitions. With construction of the prototype complete, the XF-104 first took to the sky on March 4, 1954 at Edwards Air Force Base. Though the aircraft had moved quickly from the drawing board to the sky, an additional four years were required to refine and improve the XF-104 before it became operational. Entering service on February 20, 1958, as the F-104 Starfighter, the type was the USAFs first Mach 2 fighter. Cockpit of a F-104C Starfighter. US Air Force Performance Possessing impressive speed and climb performance, the F-104 could be tricky aircraft during takeoff and landings. For the latter, it employed a boundary layer control system to reduce its landing speed. In the air, the F-104 proved very effective at high-speed attacks, but less so in dogfighting due to its wide turning radius. The type also offered exceptional performance at low altitudes making it useful as a strike fighter. During the course of its career, the F-104 became known for its high loss rate due to accidents. This was particularly true in Germany where the Luftwaffe grounded the F-104 in 1966. F-104G Starfighter GeneralLength:  54 ft., 8 in.Wingspan:  21 ft., 9 in.Height:  13 ft., 6 in.Wing Area:  196.1  sq. ft.Empty Weight:  14,000 lbs.Loaded Weight:  20,640 lbs.Crew:  1Performance Power Plant:  1 Ãâ€" General Electric J79-GE-11A afterburning turbojetCombat Radius:  420 milesMax Speed:  1,328 mphArmament Guns:  1 Ãâ€" 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan cannon, 725 rounds7 Hardpoints:  4 x AIM-9 Sidewinder, up to 4,000 lbs. bombs, rockets, drop tanks Operational History Entering service with 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron in 1958, the F-104A first became operational as part of the USAF Air Defense Command as an interceptor. In this role the type suffered teething problems as the squadrons aircraft were grounded after a few months due to engine issues. Based on these problems, the USAF reduced the size of its order from Lockheed. Lockheed F-104A Starfighter of the 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Taoyuan Air Base, Taiwan, on 15 September 1958, during the Quemoy Crisis. US Air Force While issues persisted, the F-104 became a trailblazer as the Starfighter set a series of performance records including world air speed and altitude. Later that year, a fighter-bomber variant, the F-104C, joined the USAF Tactical Air Command. Quickly falling out of favor with the USAF, many F-104s were transferred to the Air National Guard. With the beginning of the US involvement in the Vietnam War in 1965, some Starfighter squadrons began to see action in Southeast Asia. In use over Vietnam until 1967, the F-104 failed to score any kills and suffered a loss of 14 aircraft to all causes. Lacking the range and payload of more modern aircraft, the F-104 was quickly phased out of service with the last aircraft leaving USAF inventory in 1969. The type was retained by NASA which used F-104 for testing purposes until 1994. An Export Star Though the F-104 proved unpopular with the USAF, it was exported extensively to NATO and other US-allied nations. Flying with the Republic of China Air Force and Pakistan Air Force, the Starfighter scored kills in the 1967 Taiwan Strait Conflict and India-Pakistan Wars respectively. Other large buyers included the Germany, Italy, and Spain who bought the definitive F-104G variant beginning in the early 1960s. Featuring a reinforced airframe, longer range, and improved avionics, the F-104G was built under license by several companies including FIAT, Messerschmitt, and SABCA. In Germany, the F-104 got off to a bad start due to a large bribery scandal that was associated with its purchase. This reputation sank further when the aircraft began suffering from an unusually high accident rate. Though the Luftwaffe endeavored to correct problems with its F-104 fleet, over 100 pilots were lost in training accidents during the aircrafts use in Germany. As losses mounted, General Johannes Steinhoff grounded the F-104 in 1966 until solutions could be found. Despite these problems, export production of the F-104 continued until 1983. Utilizing various modernization programs, Italy continued to fly the Starfighter until finally retiring it in 2004.