F-105 (Thud)

[Ivan-otter]

Dear all,

After all the good advise and guidance and help on my little F-5, I now seek a bit of input on another topic (if the experts have the patience with me on this one as well):

Was the F-105 ever sold to other countries? I know it was deployed to the UK, still as USAF.

If it was never sold to any other country, was there a reason (as for the F-5, etc, etc)?

Yours,

[scotthldr]

Dear all,

After all the good advise and guidance and help on my little F-5, I now seek a bit of input on another topic (if the experts have the patience with me on this one as well):

Was the F-105 ever sold to other countries? I know it was deployed to the UK, still as USAF.

If it was never sold to any other country, was there a reason (as for the F-5, etc, etc)?

Yours,

Only used by the USAF, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve

[Ivan-otter]

Only used by the USAF, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve

Also wht I found out. Was ther eve a good reasonfg or not exporting it? I mean 50% got shot down/crahed, etc in Vietnam, which is a high atrition rate, but still?

No interest form other nations?

I have not seen any explanation on it

[ThudDriver]

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Keep in mind that the 105 was NOT a fighter as per se. It was along range low level nuclear strike platform. She was never designed to do air to air combat as her wing loading was quite high and helped her in the designed low level

design missions. She was more in the class of the F-111 rather than the F-8's. When the tasking changed from long range low level strike to plain strike, she excelled in that role in SEA.

ThudDriver

Also wht I found out. Was ther eve a good reasonfg or not exporting it? I mean 50% got shot down/crahed, etc in Vietnam, which is a high atrition rate, but still?

No interest form other nations?

I have not seen any explanation on it

[Ivan-otter]

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Keep in mind that the 105 was NOT a fighter as per se. It was along range low level nuclear strike platform. She was never designed to do air to air combat as her wing loading was quite high and helped her in the designed low level

design missions. She was more in the class of the F-111 rather than the F-8's. When the tasking changed from long range low level strike to plain strike, she excelled in that role in SEA.

ThudDriver

Ah, yes, it was a strategic platform; hence no exports. More or less as yuo said with the F111, although Australia bought some.

Thanks

[Spruemeister]

I remember doing an Airfix 105D as a child in West German markings. Got bored appearantly. Didn't look to bad. Canadian Thuds would look cool.

Rick L.

[r0t0rdr1ver]

I remember doing an Airfix 105D as a child in West German markings. Got bored appearantly. Didn't look to bad. Canadian Thuds would look cool.

Rick L.

If I'm not mistaken, Canada did evaluate the 105 at one point...I think I have a picture of that aircraft somewhere. It was to be equipped with an Orenda Iroquois engine if selected, but the choice was eventually made to go with the F-104.

Edited November 15, 2010 by r0t0rdr1ver

[Jennings]

It was heavily marketed to West Germany, but they never bit on it.

J

[dmk0210]

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

Keep in mind that the 105 was NOT a fighter as per se. It was along range low level nuclear strike platform. She was never designed to do air to air combat as her wing loading was quite high and helped her in the designed low level

design missions. She was more in the class of the F-111 rather than the F-8's. When the tasking changed from long range low level strike to plain strike, she excelled in that role in SEA.

ThudDriver

A lot of people don't get that. She had a bomb bay and everything. It was probably a political thing between TAC and SAC, but the -105 really should have gotten a B- designation.

Yet ironically the Thunderchief was used by the Thunderbirds. The name fits, but she never struck me as particularly agile.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dmk0210

[DonSS3]

One of my favorite what-ifs for a long time was an Israeli Thud. I think it would've looked pretty cool in the Israeli camo…

[Spaced Marine]

One of my favorite what-ifs for a long time was an Israeli Thud. I think it would've looked pretty cool in the Israeli camo…

That's exactly how my 1/72 Monogram kit is going to look!

[Slartibartfast]

Ah, yes, it was a strategic platform; hence no exports. More or less as you said with the F-111, although Australia bought some.

The Aussies were close enough to have heard every thud when an SEA F-105 bit the dust. That right there is why they didn't inquire...

[dmk0210]

The Aussies were close enough to have heard every thud when an SEA F-105 bit the dust. That right there is why they didn't inquire...

There was nothing wrong with the aircraft. It was the mission and tactics. Sending aircraft down the same ingress and egress routes, day after day. Holding a press conference two days *before* a mission. Loading four aircraft with a single bomb each to pad sortie numbers. These are what killed good men over there. The US government leaders and Air Force administration made decisions and issued orders that were criminal. The Thud pilots paid for this arrogance and stupidity with their lives.

[Jennings]

Ah, yes, it was a strategic platform; hence no exports.

Nobody, but *nobody* in the USAF of the 1950s and '60s would have called the Thud a "strategic" anything - which in fact it wasn't. It was a tactical fighter, pure and simple (by the standards of the day). TAC wouldn't have owned anything that wasn't a fighter, and SAC wouldn't claim anything that wasn't a multi-engined bomber. TAC had a tactical (hence the name) nuclear strike mission, which is what the Thud was designed for. Not strategic. Believe me, SAC and TAC weren't on speaking terms for the majority of their existences. They made nice when they had to, but the rest of the time they were siblings who just couldn't get along and play nicely together.

In the end, the Fighter Mafia won out, and SAC ceased to exist in 1991. Much to the delight of many old timers in TAC.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Jennings

[Av8fan]

Wasn't the same error made re ingress/egress with F-117 shoot down?

Thud Ridge was an okay read. It's been a while. Going to have to read it again.

[LZ82]

Nobody, but *nobody* in the USAF of the 1950s and '60s would have called the Thud a "strategic" anything - which in fact it wasn't. It was a tactical fighter, pure and simple (by the standards of the day). TAC wouldn't have owned anything that wasn't a fighter, and SAC wouldn't claim anything that wasn't a multi-engined bomber. TAC had a tactical (hence the name) nuclear strike mission, which is what the Thud was designed for. Not strategic. Believe me, SAC and TAC weren't on speaking terms for the majority of their existences. They made nice when they had to, but the rest of the time they were siblings who just couldn't get along and play nicely together.

In the end, the Fighter Mafia won out, and SAC ceased to exist in 1991. Much to the delight of many old timers in TAC.

Sorry Jennings...not so pure and simple a tactical fighter by any standard, any day!!! It flew on stategic/strike bombing missions along with the F-4 and B-52. It's designated role was "fighter bomber", check it out...

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oG7kuh3eFMku4A...05_Thunderchief

Edited November 16, 2010 by LZ82

[Ivan-otter]

Thanks all,

Most nteresting. So the F-105 was sort of falling between 2 chairs, really. Neither a figther nor a "real" multiengined bomber for SAC.

Could the lack of exports also be attributed to losses in Vietnam wherefore the numbers built were replacements and that it was not possible to also keep up with exports? Starting a new plant or ramping up production is not trivial.

I have not found any reference to a German F-105 at all.

Yours,

Ivan

[caudleryan]

Didn't France look into it, also? I could be wrong, but I thought I saw a picture of a Thud in French colors.

RYAN.

[Wayne S]

In the end, the Fighter Mafia won out, and SAC ceased to exist in 1991. Much to the delight of many old timers in TAC.

That is funny so did TAC.

Nobody, but *nobody* in the USAF of the 1950s and '60s would have called the Thud a "strategic" anything - which in fact it wasn't. It was a tactical fighter, pure and simple (by the standards of the day). TAC wouldn't have owned anything that wasn't a fighter, and SAC wouldn't claim anything that wasn't a multi-engined bomber.

Sounds like you are mixing up TAC with ADC.

TAC and SAC had fighters, the difference between TAC and SAC, TAC was short a range force, SAC was long range. The actual definition of F or B doesn't really matter to me, in essence majority of TAC aircraft should have had the A destination. Then aging even F/A never stuck well with the Air force.

PS: TAC had C-130s and the like

Edited November 16, 2010 by Wayne S

[pigsty]

Sounds like you are mixing up TAC with ADC.

TAC and SAC had fighters, the difference between TAC and SAC, TAC was short a range force, SAC was long range. The actual definition of F or B doesn't really matter to me, in essence majority of TAC aircraft should have had the A destination. Then aging even F/A never stuck well with the Air force.

Well, being fair, they had very few and dumped them pretty early on - like the F-84F. Once it was clear that no fighter would ever have enough range to be strategic, SAC lost interest.

Which is pretty much the distinction. The F-105 is best described as tactical because even it didn't have the legs to fly strategic missions - the ones that target things like your opponent's main cities, and for which you start well away from your opponent's territory. The US wasn't averse to selling tactical nuclear strike aircraft - that's how the F-104G was sold to European nations - and I suspect the main sticking point for foreign sales of the F-105 was price.

[Jennings]

Sorry Jennings...not so pure and simple a tactical fighter by any standard, any day!!! It flew on stategic/strike bombing missions along with the F-4 and B-52. It's designated role was "fighter bomber", \

You can get into semantics here, but what we did in Vietnam was not strategic bombing. It was purely tactical bombing. The fact that we did it with a SAC B-52 is irrelevant. We were dropping bombs to keep the enemy from moving, blowing up supply transfer points, roads, etc. That's tactical no matter how you slice it. If it were strategic, it would have been included in the SIOP, which it wasn't.

There is simply no way to argue that the F-105 was a strategic bomber. It wasn't. It was a tactical fighter bomber.

J

[Ivan-otter]

Well, being fair, they had very few and dumped them pretty early on - like the F-84F. Once it was clear that no fighter would ever have enough range to be strategic, SAC lost interest.

Which is pretty much the distinction. The F-105 is best described as tactical because even it didn't have the legs to fly strategic missions - the ones that target things like your opponent's main cities, and for which you start well away from your opponent's territory. The US wasn't averse to selling tactical nuclear strike aircraft - that's how the F-104G was sold to European nations - and I suspect the main sticking point for foreign sales of the F-105 was price.

I can understand the price issue.

The french must have been evaluating and going for the Mirage at that time, I should think.

As far as i know, none of the European nations who bought F-104's were nuclear powers.

Are you sure the F-104 was positioned as a nuclear platform?

The European nations having bought F-104's were: Germany, Holland, Belgium Denmark, Norway and italy. None were in the game of storing nuclear weapons, not even under forward deployment. at least as far as I know.

Comments?

Yours,

Ivan

[Murph]

As far as i know, none of the European nations who bought F-104's were nuclear powers.

Are you sure the F-104 was positioned as a nuclear platform?

The European nations having bought F-104's were: Germany, Holland, Belgium Denmark, Norway and italy. None were in the game of storing nuclear weapons, not even under forward deployment. at least as far as I know.

German F-104G with a B61 on the centerline:

Off the top of my noggin the Belgians, Dutch, and Turks also held NATO nuclear commitments with their F-104s.

Regards,

Murph

Edited November 16, 2010 by Murph

[ST21]

As far as i know, none of the European nations who bought F-104's were nuclear powers.

Are you sure the F-104 was positioned as a nuclear platform?

The European nations having bought F-104's were: Germany, Holland, Belgium Denmark, Norway and italy. None were in the game of storing nuclear weapons, not even under forward deployment. at least as far as I know.

Comments?

Yours,

Ivan

Nuclear strike was definitely one of the missions of German, Dutch, Belgian and Italian F-104Gs. For that role, they used US-supplied B61 tactical nukes. However, the weapons remained under US control.

PS : damn, Murph was faster.

Edited November 16, 2010 by ST21

[Ivan-otter]

Nuclear strike was definitely one of the missions of German, Dutch, Belgian and Italian F-104Gs. For that role, they used US-supplied B61 tactical nukes. However, the weapons remained under US control.

PS : damn, Murph was faster.

You are spot-on. I was totally wrong on that account.

Yours.