Did the F-105 Thunderchief suck or was it just used for the most dangerous operations so heavy losses were inevitable? Out of 833 built almost half were lost in Vietnam, the large majority to enemy action.

>>63805874 (OP)
They were used retardedly to comply with political limitations. Nva figured out pretty quick that having a russian at your airfield means it didn't get bombed, so they just had russians at all the airfields. Is that the answer you were trying to lead the discussion to?

it was supposed to be a fast nuke thrower
it was forced into a role it wasn't designed for (low level tactical bomber) so it sucked but that wasn't really it's fault

>>63805874 (OP)
It was a bit of both.

The F105 was designed primarily to carry aircraft launched nukes, but using it in a grond attack role worked to an extent as well. It was somewhat dated, big and slow so as a result it was relatively vulnerable to AA fire. With all those drawbacks it had the job of going directly into the teeth of North Vietnamese AA, which was in reality cutting edge Soviet equipment often crewed by Russians. The results were predictable.

I guess in a doing war by numbers approach that McNamara applied it made sense to use up an obsolescent platform in a shooting war rather than retiring it early for something more suitable, but it didn't actively factor the waste of qualified pilots. They did withdraw it in the end, but only after many predictable and completely preventative losses killed and captured.

>>63805874 (OP)
Being the first SEAD plane in history didn't help the loss rate and it took awhile for tactics to be developed that would eventually reduce it.

>>63805874 (OP)
It was designed to be a tactical nuclear strike fighter. It would carry one nuke in an internal bomb bay and approach advancing Soviet columns on the deck above Mach 1. The missions were expected to be very high risk but it would have been hard to stop them charging in so fast from unpredictable vectors. Vietnam was a mission it just wasn't built for. >>63805897
Is right, there were a lot of retarded political limitations that forced the pilots into an even worse situation such as forcing them to use the same approach every time. In spite of all of the problems thrown at it, it still proved to be a very adaptable aircraft. It was never meant to carry so many bombs under its wings but it did that well. It was never meant to be a SEAD/DEAD platform but it pioneered that mission for the air force. And at the end of the day it has a positive air to air KDR which is more than you can say for several of the supposedly fearsome fighters it faced.

Its often repeated that its the only fighter that was pulled from service due to losses but that's a lie. First, it wasn't pulled for losses, it was pulled due to readiness. The planes were designed to live short and violent lives in WW3 not fight protracted decade long campaigns in south east asia. They were worn out. Second, there are many US aircraft that were pulled due to losses like the Devastator.

>>63805874 (OP)
>Did the F-105 Thunderchief suck
It was a well-engineered plane that punched above its weight when all was said and done but in its intended role it was functionally irrelevant when it was adopted because of the advent of SAMs and it got absolutely shredded in 'nam for both doctrinal and technical reasons.

On the bright side, the lessons learned from how badly the F-105 got mauled are a not insignificant factor in the history of American air dominance ever since.

>>63805874 (OP)
On top of what all these other guys are saying (all of which is correct), there was also the matter of USAF doctrine. The Bomber Generals had spent so much time, money, and other resources planning and training for a massive, short nuclear war that they had basically neglected training and doctrine for fighting a protracted conventional one. The result was stupid mistakes that would have been largely irrelevant in WWIII but gradually wore down their forces in Vietnam.

I highly recommend that you read Revolt of the Majors (https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/595). It covers the inside-baseball stuff that was happening, and how it eventually got fixed in time for the post-'70s era of dominance. Another suggestion would be Eagles, Ravens, and Other Birds of Prey (https://www.amazon.com/Eagles-Ravens-Other-Birds-Prey/dp/B09TF4F6ZP), which also covers how the USAF learned painful lessons from Rolling Thunder, then immediately threw away all that knowledge and doomed a new set of pilots to the same fate in Linebacker.

>>63805913
>slow

Doctrine and the use of what they had at the time. As discussed upthread it wasn't "because of losses" the airplane was deployed in high sortie rates to some of the greatest risk combat zones.
A lot of the interdiction and strategic bombing during the Vietnam part of the SEA conflict (excluding some of Laos and Cambodia which more often involved close support missions) was a modified version of WWII-style level bombing with radar
Obviously NVA air defenses, AAA, SAMs were a thread in this environment (hence the later Wild Weasel SEAD developments which the F-105 spearheaded and further increased its sortie risk/losses)

>>63806535
>were a thread
were a *threat

>>63805874 (OP)
Probably the least gimped of the Century Series (USAF F-10x fighters in service). It was the only aircraft of that family that could end its service early and before being a flying museum piece for decades, the rest of the CS had testimonial service (including the useless starfigther).

>>63806561
The F-110 was really, really good.

>>63805969
>>63806535
Yet the losses were appalling and must surely have been one of the factors in its retirement, if not the main factor. The aircraft itself may have been no great loss but trained aircrew were.

>>63806958
Losses were a factor because the production line had closed down before Vietnam really got started. But it wasn't pulled "because of losses". It was pulled because they had limited airframes for an important and niche mission that were having their hours used up in a proxy war. Specifically the F-105 wasn't needed to drop bombs on Hanoi. Any fighter bomber could do that. And as time went on the F-4 was proving to be perfectly capable of that mission. There were far more, it was still being built and it was easier to work on and get parts for. Also strategically speaking each F-4 was far less valuable than each F-105. The Thud was really scaled back once the F-111 reached maturity. It first showed up in Vietnam in 1968 but it had a lot of teething issues. It returned at the tail end of the conflict in 1972 and was far more successful that time. F-105s continued to serve in front line units in Europe until the late 70's and in ANG units well into the 80's.

This is a very different situation than say, the Brewster Buffalo which was pulled from US frontline service after midway and sent back stateside to be used as a trainer. Brewster was still around and capable of making more airframes. They just weren't fit for frontline service against Zeros. The Wildcat was just better and went on to serve through the end of the war.

>>63806958
As other anons mentioned the airplane itself was highly advanced and capable for interdiction at the time of its introduction. It was essentially deployed in SEA as a "long range medium bomber" and later in suppression of enemy air defense role, being a large size airframe (ability for onboard equipment fits, and heavy external load) capable of long range sorties. USAF/its crews learned and developed service doctrine lessons from the F-105 program some of which were applied during the Vietnam era to co-serving weapon systems and aircraft; even by the early 1970s when it had been retired from the strike role and replaced by F-4s it kept serving in the Wild Weasel mission.

>>63806561
Just one of those 1950s airframes that the USAF utilized to its best advantage during the Southeast Asia wars

>>63807064
>once the F-111 reached maturity
This also. The "long range medium bomber" / interdiction mission was (to be) handed over to the F-111 but as mentioned that airplane wasn't fully ready for prime time until after 1970

>losses
>production line had closed down
Yes this was the main reason, USAF concern of attrition/parts for a plane that had become relied on for a specific role, they wanted to prolong it as long as possible. Until the F-4 and F-111 took over that role

>>63807089
Indeed. I like to compare it to the current situation they've got themselves into with the B-1. A niche, high end airframe that's out of production and they wasted hours of its life dropping JDAMs on terrorists. Now they are all worn out from years of that when everyone wants to load them up with cruise missiles to delete the PLAN. I hope the B-21 doesn't get delayed.

>>63807098
Right and agreed about the B-1.
RE: military aerospace development/procurement (and Congressional spending) in 21st century overall, we're a long way from the mid-20th century. There's no long term consistent force structure strategy

>>63807098
*sniffle*
We never got the B-ONE-R and its dozens of AMRAAMs, either.

>>63807188
>There's no long term consistent force structure strategy
30 years from now we will still feel the effects of congress cutting the F-22 program early. That has caused downstream problems that we aren't even aware of yet.

>>63805874 (OP)
USAF was even more dysfunctional in Korea. They got banned from doing close air support because they killed too many friendlies. provided minimum aircraft and oldest airframes. wasted efforts bombing the same piece of railroad track on flat ground that was repaired in twenty minutes each time. MIG alley was absolutely retarded and they made sure to only launch for Japan so they had only a few minutes of fuel before having to return all for 24/7 patrolling while neglecting everything else. absolutely insane reasoning and priorities.

>>63805874 (OP)
Zoomzoom or zigger? Thing is, back in the day such loss rate was expected. WWII and Korea wasn't that long ago when the Vietnam war happened. During the first Gulf War, the US military were expecting casualties in the tens of thousands and bought lots of bodybags and purple hearts. It was only after the first Gulf War that the US got used to very low casualties.

>>63807511
USAF was broke in Korea, but they were retardedly gutless in Vietnam. Quite a difference.

>>63807511
>MIG alley was absolutely retarded
Lol wut. The US shot down miggers like flies.

>>63809255
>retardedly gutless
Lol wut even? The USAF pwned the NVA Russian advisors so much that they stopped flying daylight sorties. The US bomber arm did get a black eye but after a change of tactics, bombed the North Viets to the bargaining table.

>>63806561
F-117 is legendary the fuck you're talking about

>>63807511
>provided minimum aircraft and oldest airframes

I was always incredibly confused why the B-47 and B-36 weren't deployed despite already being available by 1951. Would've been a good opportunity to get some practical experience in blasting the shit out of Works.

>>63809279
russians never flew sorties in vietnam, at all. you're confusing this with korea. they've also avoided bombing anything where russian advisors might've been and warned vietnamese prior to bombing about the time and location.

it's only after a change in administration and nasty attrition amidsts incredibly hostile political climate that US planners did grow a microscopic testicle and allowed USAF to do an effective bombing campaign and mine vietnamese ports.

>>63809286
>B-47 and B-36
because those, along with B-50 were SAC's front line new production airframes for the strategic intercontinental mission.
The B-29s were older, hundreds of them with low/no hours had been in long term storage also and were re-furbed relatively easily and cheaply for Korea

>>63807511
My grandfather almost got strafed by a flight of three F-51s while him and the other guys from his M16 halftrack were cleaning it along some river.

>>63809346
Soviet advisors to the SA-2 systems were killed by F-105 and F-4 SEAD aircraft.

>>63806420
>neglected training and doctrine for fighting a protracted conventional war
Yes apart from the specialized Operation Farm Gate and Project 404 deployed to Laos (each of which concentrated on close air support missions using older non-jet airframes) the main USAF force structure was unprepared to fight a war in southeast Asia and the equipment lineup was designed and tailored for a relatively fast, 'short' nuclear confrontation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Farm_Gate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_404

>>63813555
What's frustrating is its not like this knowledge just disappeared. TAC was full of Majors and Colonels who had combat experience from WW2 and Korea that knew what to do and could have disseminated that wisdom to their pilots. Its the larger airforce training structure and doctrine of the time that let them down. Brain drain is a serious problem orgs can face. But this wasn't that. It was a dogmatic application of a very narrow doctrine and inability to foresee the inevitability of fighting conventional wars.

>>63806481
It wasn't going supersonic with two tons of bombs strapped to its belly.

>>63814514
Its flight manual shows the F-105 could go supersonic with extra drag, if the ambient temperature wasn't 'hot'
>2 tons
Only parasitic drag matters, below 20 kft the weight isn't really a limiting factor for max speed, the induced drag is insignificant.

>>63814719
The loadout is going to vary but in a conventional strike mission with all of those bombs its doing to be dirty as hell. I can see it still going supersonic with just the supersonic drop tanks fitted which is how it was normally configured in its intended nuclear strike role. The nook was in the internal bomb bay. In Vietnam they put a fuel tank in there and mounted a pylon so the doors couldn't be opened.

>>63814719
>>63814727
Pic related. Two wing tanks and six 750 lb bombs hanging off the belly, plus some extra on the wings.

>>63814856
Thats not bad at all.

>>63814441
>dogmatic application of a very narrow doctrine and inability to foresee
Yep

>>63814441
>>63815155
It wasn't just the doctrine that was the issue, the political leadership was also completely out of their mind considering they decided that informing the north vietnamese of the timing and the location of the bombing raids beforehand was somehow a good idea that wouldn't lead to massive losses to the strke aircraft for very little gain.

https://www.f-4phantom.com/thud/

>>63816678
Obviously. But remember that other large scale operations in southeast Asia (Laos—see above, Cambodia) were not even publicized until a decade later or remained classified

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal

>>63805874 (OP)
>did it suck?
No
>was the usaf retarded?
Yes

>>63814856
Shit, didn't realise just how big they were.

>>63817113
biggest heaviest single engine fighter
(really a fighter-bomber but... quite a contrast with for example the A-4 Skyhawk)

>>63814856
Oh yeah, fuel me up, daddy.

>>63817113
A lot of people say this, the F105 was a big jet but go to a museum sometime, fighter jets in general are big, especially fighter/bombers. The P80 was the smallest US fighter jet, and it was still longer than a P-51. Wait until you see an F111 in person, they're full size tractor trailer length.

>>63816678
Yes but we covered that earlier in the discussion
>>63805897
>>63805969
McNamara and Johnson burdened the military with ridiculous limitations in Vietnam in an attempt to keep it from boiling over into a larger conflict with communist China like what happened in Korea. I recommend reading Dereliction of Duty. It does a great job explaining the terrible relationship the Kennedy and Johnson admins had with the DoD and the how and why so many poor and stupid decisions were made in regards to Vietnam.
>>63819279
My favorite comparison to illustrate this is that Su-27s are roughly the same size as a B-17 in every dimension and they also have very similar gross and takeoff weights. People wonder how they keep getting shot down in every conflict they're in. Well, since most nations dont have bombers anymore they are usually the biggest aircraft in any given conflict and have the RCS to match.

Always loved this plane, especially in the SEA camo

>>63819491
I was there about a month ago. Always nice to see a Thud. They also have one in dayton

>>63819279

>>63819433
>Dereliction of Duty
I fucking love /k/ book recommendations. I finished recently a book about the Soviet-Afghan War, am reading Cobra II now.

>>63819279
f111 was about the same size as the b-58, and the f105, while big, was actually physically smaller than the f101, f102 and f106. (f105 is bottom right, prototype wasn't yet area ruled or fitted with ramp intakes). Smallest and lightest century fighter overall is the f104, although the f100 is shorter.

One thing you will find in memoirs of pilots who flew the Thud up North is the gradual realization that the rules of engagement were as much of a danger as the North Vietnamese defenses.

The White House and DoD seemingly did everything possible to make the missions as dangerous as can be.

Another book to read is "When Thunder Rolled" by Ed Rasimus >https://www.amazon.com/When-Thunder-Rolled-F-105-Vietnam/dp/0891418547
LBJ and SecDef McNamara should have been shot for treason.

>>63821191
Thanks Anon, ordered.

>>63820991
Impressive how much leadership and tactics had degraded since korea.

https://youtu.be/NVAs-7Im7ZI

It did dirty deeds

>>63805874 (OP)
Its 2025. Read Russian and Vietnamese accounts of the airwar, not the early propaganda peices but things published in the 90s and early 2000s.

Search some names.
https://www.f-4phantom.com/mig-pilots/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/nguyen-van-bay-and-the-aces-from-the-north-1606486/

TL/DR: If an F-105 saw you first and was at speed, and you were not, you were fucked. The pilots were mentally unhinged nuclear strike mission pilots who believed their duty was one way.

>>63819279
>F111
This. Fucking huge bitch, I couldn't even get most of the thing in frame when I snapped a pic of one at the museum in Warner Robbins. It deserves the description "big as a house."

>>63819279
The F111 was never reaaaally a fighter, in theory or in practice. It was a strike bomber, and McNamara wanted it to be a missile truck for the Navy. It was incapable of BFM.
>>63822824
They're large.

>>63814856
It's still a fast bird. Whoever called it slow was way off the mark

>>63805874 (OP)
Its was actually a very good plane that was loved by its pilots ...it also had to face some of the best and heaviest concentration of anti air in Vietnam
>>63814441
>>63813555
The air force after Korea became obsessed with safety and pilots were reprimanded if they pushed the envelope while training..the navy didn't have the same mind set so they actually performed better

>>63822972
The only good thing McNamara ever did as SecDef was give us the F-4. May he rot in hell for the rest of eternity.

>>63822972
>F111 was never reaaaally a fighter, in theory or in practice
>It was a strike bomber
This. And a very good, highly advanced one with TFR

>>63805874 (OP)
What is up with how many hardpoints of this particular fighter are angled down?
It's more aerodynamic for the AoA it flies at, but why didn't they just give more AoA to the wings?

>>63823450
The f110/f4 was already in production by the time macnamara got the job, all he did was to force the airforce to use it as well instead of adopting the f106 as intended.

>>63822824
That's where I saw it too. What surprised me when I went there was the U2, which was smaller than I expected. There was an F117 behind the fences behind the buildings when I went there this year, it was under a shelter and partially disassembled, you couldn't see it well just a glimpse. Hopefully it'll be on display soon.

>>63822467
You can tell the caliber of the pilots by simply listening to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2Z49-xU1n0

>>63824725
That might be enough to get me back. I went three years ago, saw no signs of any Nighthawks.

It's funny you say the U2 was smaller than you expected, I was blown away by the wingspan. I'd almost expect it had to have custom hangers, because you couldn't park it anywhere else.

The one that got me was that SA-2. I remember, years ago, watching one of the Vietnam War episodes of Dogfights, and recall one of the pilots describing them as looking like telephone poles coming at you. I never really appreciated that comment until I saw this thing. They're fucking massive.

>>63822215
THUNDERCHIEF

>>63824320
The hard points are level when the plane is sitting on the ground so it makes sense for filling drop tanks and attaching bombs

>>63822467
The vast majority of F-105 losses were to AAA not SAMs or fighters. The Thud, for all the shit it gets was not bad at air to air combat. It has a positive kill ratio at the end of the day and a fair number of those were guns kills.
>>63823450
Well that and he was a fan of the M16.

>>63825615
Okay, so he did two good things. Although the M16 is arguably a wash, because if he gets credit for it becoming the primary infantry arm in service, he also deserves blame for procurement fucking up the ammunition at first, birthing the deprecated but not quite dead meme about Mattel-toy jam-o-matics.

>>63816894
The Menu raids were exposed in 1969 in a NY Times article and directly led to Mixon ordering the bugging of journalists phones as well as White House staffers as they tried to find the source.

s: Eisenberg - Fire and Rain - Nixon, Kissinger, and te wars in Southeast asia

>>63826750
>in a NY Times article
Yes but beyond that article and a flurry of political controversy over that specific narrow leak, too much else was going on in the southeast Asia conflict overall 1969-1972 for the mass American public to notice. (they did three years later amid the Watergate revelations, but the war was officially over by early 1973)
Linebacker II Christmas 1972 got far more publicity and knowledge/awareness than Menu
Also the May 1970 antiwar protests were a result of the Cambodia invasion, widening of the war overall. These are the things which got mass public attention in terms of the U.S. war effort (not the secret classified bombing campaigns)
Point being that massive bombing campaigns—Menu and Freedom Deal—remained unknown to most Americans including servicemembers that deployed there until years after the war was over

>>63825666
>he also deserves blame for procurement fucking up the ammunition at first
no, that was 100% on Army Ordnance, and it was intentional on their part. Once Mac found out, he busted their asses and degraded Ordnance to a lower organizational level

in retrospect the era of designing planes to fit the "fly in really fucking quickly and drop a nuke. Doesn't really matter what happens after that" mission profile might not have created the best aircraft, but it did create some cool ones

>>63824984
Krug (SA-4 Ganef) and S-200 Vega (SA-5 Gammon) missiles are even more massive, Krugs in particular look like winged tanker trailers...

>>63805874 (OP)