F-105 in Vietnam

[Slater]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...r98/werrell.pdf

 

Above is one of a myriad of case studies regarding USAF efforts in Vietnam. In this particular paper, the Thud is described as a "mediocre performer in difficult conditions", and "It is hard to put a positive spin on the F-105's service in Vietnam". Further, "...the F-105 could not overcome the limitations of it's basic design, the peculiar conditions of the war, the role in which it found itself, or American tactics".

 

Admittedly, the Thud had it's share of problems (maybe more than it's share), but I've aways heard generally positive comments about the F-105. Was it not quite as distinguished an aircraft as the popular publications would lead one to believe?

[Guest pfcem]

Typical disingenuous BS. Faulting the F-105 for not being what it was not intended to be.

[RETAC21]

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro...r98/werrell.pdf

 

Above is one of a myriad of case studies regarding USAF efforts in Vietnam. In this particular paper, the Thud is described as a "mediocre performer in difficult conditions", and "It is hard to put a positive spin on the F-105's service in Vietnam". Further, "...the F-105 could not overcome the limitations of it's basic design, the peculiar conditions of the war, the role in which it found itself, or American tactics".

 

Admittedly, the Thud had it's share of problems (maybe more than it's share), but I've aways heard generally positive comments about the F-105. Was it not quite as distinguished an aircraft as the popular publications would lead one to believe?

 

Off the top of my head, based on articles and books I have read, the F-105 was a lemon until the D version, and even then and there it was optimised for strike missions rather than interdiction. It lacked all weather capability but had a gun, which could be more useful than the AAMs of the time, but then there was no choice, either that or F-100s in the early years, because in the 70s it was superseded by the Phantom.

[Detonable]

Thud Ridge, a book by a Thud pilot (Broughton?) mentioned the hydraulic problem. Stupid to produce a plane with such a vulnerability.

 

The claim that the 105 was designed for a nuclear role only makes no sense. What was Tac Air for? Not all wars were destined to be nuclear. Korea was not, even though MacArthur suggested the use of nukes.

 

The Thud hauled ordnance into a well defended airspace. Laser guided weapons weren't available yet, so they had to go in low. Any aircraft would take casualties. Probably the Thud took more than necessary.

 

The Thuds big advantage was its speed, which didn't matter too much since the Mig threat wasn't very high early on. A Mig 17 would have real trouble catching it, I think.

 

Perhaps if the Thuds had better targets to attack their reputation would have been better.

[RETAC21]

Plenty of misconceptions there....

 

Thud Ridge, a book by a Thud pilot (Broughton?) mentioned the hydraulic problem. Stupid to produce a plane with such a vulnerability.

 

The claim that the 105 was designed for a nuclear role only makes no sense. What was Tac Air for? Not all wars were destined to be nuclear. Korea was not, even though MacArthur suggested the use of nukes.

 

In the 60s everything had a nuclear mission first and foremost, that it could carry iron bombs did not detract from that.

 

The Thud hauled ordnance into a well defended airspace. Laser guided weapons weren't available yet, so they had to go in low. Any aircraft would take casualties. Probably the Thud took more than necessary.

 

Low level went out after the losses from AA started to climb and was only applied to a few special ops during most of Vietnam. The USAF and the Navy learned that trying to jam and supress SAMs was less costly than taking the chances with AAA. This translated into Europe too, 2nd ATAF supporting NORTHAG and commanded by the RAF specialised in low level, while 4 ATAF commanded by the USAF went at medium level applying SEAD. Iraq '91 showed who was right. Laser guided weapons had nothing to do with surviving AA defences.

 

The Thuds big advantage was its speed, which didn't matter too much since the Mig threat wasn't very high early on. A Mig 17 would have real trouble catching it, I think.

 

Perhaps if the Thuds had better targets to attack their reputation would have been better.

 

But loaded with bombs it was slower than the MiGs and dumping the bombs to run away means the mission is a flop and the MiGs win.

[Detonable]

Plenty of misconceptions there....

In the 60s everything had a nuclear mission first and foremost, that it could carry iron bombs did not detract from that.

Low level went out after the losses from AA started to climb and was only applied to a few special ops during most of Vietnam. The USAF and the Navy learned that trying to jam and supress SAMs was less costly than taking the chances with AAA. This translated into Europe too, 2nd ATAF supporting NORTHAG and commanded by the RAF specialised in low level, while 4 ATAF commanded by the USAF went at medium level applying SEAD. Iraq '91 showed who was right. Laser guided weapons had nothing to do with surviving AA defences.

But loaded with bombs it was slower than the MiGs and dumping the bombs to run away means the mission is a flop and the MiGs win.

 

No, laser and optically guided bombs increased the stand off distance, because they could achieve hits from further out. The Thud had to use a dive delivery to hit anything, which took it into the region of the AAA.

[Cromwell]

I have heared and read all this slander and libel against the F-105, but no one really offers a replacement aircraft in the '65-'69 timeframe. It strikes me that it was the mission that had its problems (restrictions), not the plane. Did F-4s do that much better later on when doing bombing missions?