F-105 Thunderchief

[zenrat]

Thanks Pyro.
Looks like I made the right decision as the price while being good wasn't that good given the lack of details.

Don't know what it's like where you are, but at the last few model shows I've been to here, the bagged-models-for-£cheap boxes have always been well stocked with Hase F-105s.

Good tip.  With expo in a couple of weeks I might be able to pick up a Thud there.

[Captain Canada]

I've always thought that about figures, especially 35th scale WWII, they always looks like little stone statues and not humans

[sandiego89]

On these notes I'm curious as to the following.......

• Was low-altitude AAA realized to be a threat when it came to penetrating Europe, and former USSR (particularly when such AAA was to be radar-directed)?
  
• Were the concern of losses at low-altitudes in a nuclear-war environment mitigated by the fact that despite a large number of planes lost, many would still deliver their loads?
  
• Why were later aircraft like the B-1, and F-111 designed for low-altitude penetration if this was an issue?
  
• Was the issue of low-altitude penetration survival a function of coming in at altitudes more like 30-50 feet vs 200-500
  

Penetrating Soviet/Warsaw pact airspace was not the same as operating in North Vietnam.  As others have said, going low and fast to avoid radar was still deemed the way to get into Soviet airspace when the F-111 and B-1 were being drawn up, and definitely for tactical nuclear strike with a one pass (or loft) attack profile.  AAA was a threat as well, bus much less so than long range radars and SAMs.  The primary concern was detection by radar.   

Losses (from all causes) were expected and planned for during nuclear strike planning.  Many targets were slated for strikes by multiple aircraft or other means, giving redundancy.     

Vietnam built a robust AAA defense network over time that took a huge toll on the F-105 and other aircraft.  The targets were known by both sides, often hidden or difficult to hit precisely and the ingress routes and profiles were somewhat predictable.  AAA is a huge threat at medium altitude, especially if aircraft are making repeated runs on a predictable target such as a bridge, airfield etc.  The attacking aircraft have a real dilemma:

- penetrating very low and fast makes it harder to detect you- but hard to find and bomb a target.  Very tough if you are attacking a small target like a truck or small site.
- operating at medium altitude makes it much easier to detect your target and make stable attack runs- but puts you in prime radar detection/AAA threat zone. 
- operating higher can get you above some of the AAA threat, but may put you into a higher SAM threat zone, and make targeting/accuracy  more difficult for the aircraft.   

-Dave   

[jcf]

Build What You Want, The Way You Want To, And Above All Have Fun!

[/quote]

That was the late Al SuperAl Superczysinki's sign-off line for years. 

I'll let Scott, he's a local IPMS-Seattle and NWSM member, know you guys agree with his sentiments re over-weathered aircraft. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

FAR148

No benefit to bombing at supersonic speed. Your accuracy goes to $hit

I was mostly concerned about how far the plane could do it for.


sandiego89

Penetrating Soviet/Warsaw pact airspace was not the same as operating in North Vietnam.

But there was AAA in said airspace as well as North Vietnam.  Dense in some areas, and better directed by radar systems.

Losses (from all causes) were expected and planned for during nuclear strike planning.  Many targets were slated for strikes by multiple aircraft or other means, giving redundancy.

I'm just curious if they properly calculated the projected loss rate due to AAA.  I'm also curious if they miscalculated the ability for one AAA site to pass data.

The targets were known by both sides, often hidden or difficult to hit precisely and the ingress routes and profiles were somewhat predictable.

Were the ingress/egress routes predictable solely from the means of hitting the targets, or due to some political concern?

I've heard numerous things that suggested the latter played a bigger role

• A website occupied by a number of former F-105 and F-106 pilots: They said they were sometimes sent to attack a bridge the wrong way (up the river for a perpendicular attack on the bridge, rather than across the river to drape the span)
  
• Don Harten: A former USAF pilot (B-52, F-105, F-111) who actually survived a mid-air collision on the 1st Arc Light sortie; he stated that among other things, some of the targets were actually given (through intermediaries in Switzerland) to either the Vietnamese or Russians so as to avoid the death of Soviet military advisors, which might have given them a heads up.
  
• Some SAM sites were off limits, even if they fired on aircraft initially; then they allowed one to attack in defense.  The USAF got creative later on and started "protective reaction strikes" which basically involved the recon-planes claiming they got shot at (whether they did or didn't) to justify an attack on the site.
  

AAA is a huge threat at medium altitude, especially if aircraft are making repeated runs on a predictable target such as a bridge, airfield etc.

From what I remember, it was preferable to avoid going below 4500 feet as the accuracy of the AAA increased below that point; from around 15000-20000 feet, the gunfire became a lesser threat, with missiles and fighters becoming more serious.

Was one problem with low altitude penetration due to the fact that a more effective penetrating altitude wasn't really like 200-500 feet, but more like 50 feet?

[Weaver]

Okay, so this pic has been posted on Twitter by 'AncientSubHunter' as a puzzle: how is this Thud carrying this many bombs?



Original tweet: https://twitter.com/AncientSubHunt/status/1010569039821918208

[ChernayaAkula]

Is that an actual question? There's two MERs on the belly very close to each other. One on the left "flank", one on the right. Only trialled, but ultimately not adopted, AFAIK.
In addition to this a MER each per wing. And two somewhat lonely bombs on the outboard wing stations. 26 Mk 82s in total. 

EDIT: Lou Drendel's "Thud" from squadron/signal's Modern Military Aircraft series has a pic of a similarly-loaded F-105B sitting on the tarmac.

EDIT 2: Same plane as in the book - FH-836 -, but different photo. Shows what I meant by "flanks".

Found in the fun and aptly named "Impressive Weapons Load 2"-thread on KeyPublishing's Aviation foums: LINK!

[Weaver]

Ah, so that's how it was done!

I've never seen the two side-by-side pylons on the bomb bay doors, only the centreline one.

Are those Mk.82s or Mk.81s (250lb) ?

[AS.12]

Interesting to see the two backets mounting the MER pylons to the sides of the fuselage above the bomb-bay door hinges.

Which reminds me to ask; how was the centreline pylon attached?  Photos seem to show it butting straight up to the centreline of the doors, but surely they weren't structural and couldn't take the weight of 6 x 500lb x 5g.  So did the pylon structure carry-on into the bombay, hidden from view?

[zenrat]

From a purely aesthetic PoV i'd put TERs on the outboard wing stations.

Maybe that's how I whiff my Hasegawa 105 - subtley.

[Weaver]

Interesting to see the two backets mounting the MER pylons to the sides of the fuselage above the bomb-bay door hinges.

Which reminds me to ask; how was the centreline pylon attached?  Photos seem to show it butting straight up to the centreline of the doors, but surely they weren't structural and couldn't take the weight of 6 x 500lb x 5g.  So did the pylon structure carry-on into the bombay, hidden from view?

I think it went up through the doors and attached to the original bomb points on the bomb bay 'ceiling', because, IIRC, the extra fuel tank that was carried in the bomb bay was U-shaped to fit around it.

[Weaver]

From a purely aesthetic PoV i'd put TERs on the outboard wing stations.

Maybe that's how I whiff my Hasegawa 105 - subtley.

From a pure aeroelasticity PoV I'll leave you to test-fly that one - thanks...

[Weaver]

Interesting F-105 bomb bay pic:



From here: http://fortworthaviationmuseum.com/category/our-aircraft/f-105d-thunderchief/

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> Are those Mk.82s or Mk.81s (250lb) ?

Caption in the book says they're 500lb bombs.

[AS.12]

Made some progress on how the centreline pylon was attached.

Found a photo of an early F-105D banking away, showing four holes in the bay doors; two on each door, one fore and one aft.  Whether the pylon was bolted directly through those or had supports that passed through into the bay I don't yet know.  That seems to account for the flush-mounted pylon.

Later in Vietnam that was replaced by two semicircular backets as seen in ChernayaAkula's post, attaching to the fuselage above the door hinge-lines.  These brackets could mount a single centreline pylon or the two flank pylons.