Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief

Removed from Combat

There doesn't seem to be a section in the article to support this sentence from the opening paragraph: "it was the only U.S. aircraft to have been removed from combat due to high loss rates.[2] "

There is a citation, but that doesn't tell much of the story - it sounds like an interesting point, and worth leaving in, but it seems like it should be supported better. Does anyone know the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The text in the Lead (or Intro) is a summary; it seems to stand on its own, imo. There's info more later in the article. The heavy losses combined with a better fighter-bomber to replace it led to the withdrawal of F-105 from combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that they weren't making F-105's anymore, only 833 had been built, so there were no replacements available. As for getting shot down a lot, I seem to recall that more F-4's were shot down than F-105's in the Vietnam War, but I'm not sure, I'd have to research the matter. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's the stats--382 F-105's were lost in Vietnam but more F-4's were lost in Vietnam (445). 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

833 105's built-382 Lost One would think mere spare parts would be an issue since Republic Aircraft was no longer producing the "Thud" and the McDonnell/Douglas F-4 "Phantom II" even with the higher loss rate was still in production and a multi-role + multi-service assest. MARINE808 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's downright embarrassing that the article still says this, seemingly four years after the first objection was raised. It's simply not accurate. The Thud was NOT withdrawn from combat. According to the CITED SOURCE, it was "withdrawn from the frontline because of attrition." That's a direct quote. Of course, it was "withdrawn from the frontline" after the end of the war, as is STATED IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ITSELF. The impression given by the phrasing in the introduction (which is that the aircraft was withdrawn from service IN VIETNAM before the end of the war, and that it was withdrawn as a result of LOSS RATES rather than the overall attrition of what was a relatively rare airframe to begin with) is simply counterfactual, and the people responsible for this ought to be ashamed that it has remained for as long as it has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.123.162 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What the heck are "operational losses"?

More to the point what is a non-operational loss? From the 2nd paragraph: "The F-105 was one of the primary strike bombers of the Vietnam War; over 20,000 Thunderchief sorties were flown, with 382 aircraft lost (nearly half of the 833 produced) including 62 operational losses." I deduce from this that 320 aircraft were lost to non-operational losses, so what happened to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.12.61 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If you work your way through these where all the losses are listed:

• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1954.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1957.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1958.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1959.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1960.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1961.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1962.html
• http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1963.html MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could help--an "operational loss" is a non-combat loss. Say you're operating your airplane and you accidentally fly it into a mountain--that would be an operational loss. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The "venerable" Republic F-105 "Thunderchief" was designed to deliver a tactical nuclear device in a high speed low level (once it crossed the line of demarcation) proceed to primary target perform a parabolic arc releasing the weapon or weapons at the apex of the arc and then turn and burn hopefully to a intact friendly airfield. MARINE808 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Republic F-105 "Thunderchief" was forced into a mission profile it certainly wasn't designed for Fighter/Bomber Loaded with a full load of up to a dozen 750 lb. dumb bombs made it more than a little sluggish on take the take off run not to mention the in flight characteristics the fuel consumption was a constant concern with the KC-135 tankers just out of range of the SAM sites not to say those tanker drivers came danger close when needed (SALUTE) The KC-135's and their brave crews. Back to the point the Republic F-105 was designed for a high speed low level tactical nuclear strike! And out of "Operational Necessity" and the end result of that was it was the only operationally missioned aircraft removed from the southeast Asian theater of combat by order of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon due solely to unsustainable combat loses. i.e.(Operational Loses) MARINE808 (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I may have mission losses and Operational losses confused. My mistake I will research that my apologies. MARINE808 (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Largest single engine combat aircraft, or aircraft in general?

I can't think of any other non-combat single-engine aircraft that was heavier than F-105, not just combat aircraft. Why omit that fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.105.253 (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Randomly just looked at the F-35A which has a higher empty weight. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed - Talk:Republic_F-105_Thunderchief/Archive_1#F-105_is_the_heaviest_single_engine_aircraft_ever_producedNigel Ish (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Twin Rail Sidewinder Mount

I made an edit that the F-105 could carry 2 sidewinders on each outer wing station instead of the one mentioned in the article, and it got changed back. There are several photos, and even a video by Republic showing the twin rail installation... MakrisDG (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a Reliable Published Source. Photos are not reliable sources of themselves. I can't comment on the video, as I haven't seen it. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede is too long.

Hello folks. I believe the lede section is too long. I think everything except the first paragraph should be moved to the body of the article. Cheers. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not needed now, imo. The Lead is four paragraphs long and is within recommended length at MOS:LEADLENGTH. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

Hello -- I noticed the it reads F-102B below and is supposed to read F-105B:

Later development

To fulfill the USAF's requirement for an all-weather attack aircraft, Republic proposed the F-105D variant during 1957. This version featured an enlarged nose and radome housing the AN/ASG-19 Thunderstick bombing/navigation system. The AN/ASG-19 was designed around the Autonetics R-14A radar, which operated in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and the AN/APN-131 Doppler navigation radar. In the cockpit, the F-105D featured vertical-tape instrument displays for adverse weather operation. The ability to carry the TX-43 nuclear weapon was also added. On account of these myriad changes, Republic noted the difficulty of using the same production line as had been used for the F-102B; production times would also be extended from 144 days to 214 days. 2600:8802:470D:E000:C53C:5E08:33FB:8C43 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

References

hydraulics

The fault was that the two systems run very close, so that a single splinter could break both. Mutatis mutandis, this was the cause of the Bismarck loss. If you are interested, I may recover the reference -- in 2024. MCHNY 151.29.149.29 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Bomb capacity

The single-engine F-105 could deliver a bomb load greater than some American heavy bombers of World War II such as the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and Consolidated B-24 Liberator.

Reference or source for this statement needed? 2A02:8070:D188:2E20:317A:F46C:689A:EC24 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)