Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expansion

I have considerably expanded this article. Please copyedit, expand, and reference as necessary. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a lot of work! How do you do this so fast? --plumalley

I've had a lot of free time in the past few weeks, I'll be busier starting on Monday. Plus it's hard to stop once you start writing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

THUD RIDGE

Hurry hurry before somebody finds out about your navigation.

Thud Ridge is not south of Hanoi, it is north. 21 16 47N, 105 49 37E north to 21 39 30N, 105 29 22E easily seen on Google-Earth--plumalley

It was necessary to fly completely around Hanoi and approach from the NW, to avoid the world's most heavily defended air space. --plumalley

I've updated the article with this information and the coordinates. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--plumalley

PAUL DOUMER BRIDGE

There is an article on Paul Doumer, the French Engineer. He build a REALLY! solid bridge that was highly resistant to destruction by 750 pound bombs. We lost a LOT of airplanes trying to take that bridge down. It was a repeat target, and AAA guns were permanently situatated at both ends of the bridge. You can see it north-central of Hanoi, across the Red River, on Google Earth. Finally we tried with 3000 lb bombs, one on each wing, only the F-105 (fighter in the world?) being able to use this weapon??. Despite our not getting the kind of sequenced release pattern possible with five x 1000. I don't know how long we worked on that bridge. I remember losing four airplanes in a single day on that bridge. Some hot fighter pilot will pehaps have more and more precise info on this bridge. We wrote a SONG about the bridge.--plumalley

OOPS

No it is not a series of hills, it is a single razor back ridge, standing all by itself in the Red River Valley bottom; a signal visual navigaional location for stressed fighterpilots, behind which they could hide, one side or the other, usually the north side, from SAM Unfortunately, there was a Mig fighter field at the south end, where we could look, not not shoot--plumalley.

It is not between the Red and Black rivers.

Thank you. I've corrected the article. Have you had any first-hand experience with the Combat Martin F-105Fs that were supposed to jam MiG communications? Judging by their very limited deployment I guess they were not especially successful but the information on this project is very limited. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Five Weasels lost by August 1965

I don't know about 1965, and the F-100s. Me and mine arrived at the 354 TFS Takhli, in July 1966 with five "F"s and 8 crews. (the proper ratio to keep the aircrft flying) I think four aircraft were gone by October,without available replacements, two crews MIA, two rescued; plus my pilot disabled--plumalley

REALLY GREAT JOB OF EDITING

It is difficult to talk about the deficiencies of the 105, and get a 'balance" You did great!--plumalley

KAMIKAZI

In discussing life with the F-105 you might want to look into what may be a myth, or may be fact; namely that the nuclear SIOP missions east from Germany were one-way;

I knew we were SIOP tasked to return our B-52 from Rostov half way around the world to Edwards AFB salt flats to be recycled with fuel, weapons and crew. It was possible, though unlikely. --plumalley

I think if nuclear war were to start, all missions would have been one way. The F-101B Voodoo had a hard enough time escaping the blast of a mere 1.5 kT Genie rocket. I don't know how well a low-level strike fighter like F-105 would have fared after tossing a megaton-range explosive. I know toss bombing was practiced but as far as I know they never actually tried it for real so all the evasive maneuvers and chances of survival were very much theoretical. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes; but my question concerns the official battle plan. There were lengthy procedures in place to get MY B-52 back. Land & refuel depots were planned at Tehran, Khrtoum, Dakar,, Racfe, to get us to California. Our weapons were all parachute "lay-down" with a timer, no problem about detonation.. The question which is really interesting: Did SIOP direct nuclear delivery F-105's to clear the target area and soon bailout upon fuel exhaustion? I think I heard this from Buddy, my pilot.

Concerning Thule AFB I have noted in the discussion that I flew reconnaissance from here in 1956. It is a very interesting story , but perhaps not a suitable insertion in the time line. I have added considerable words last month in the B-47 article We were the flight that was shot at and got away.---plumalley

I can believe that F-105 strikes were one-way missions. The interdiction would've happened at high speed and low altitude which means afterburner and gobbing up tremendous amounts of fuel. Afterburner-on range for most military aircraft is in the hundreds of miles.

Very interesting about the B-47. I recently met the son of late Francis Gary Powers who started a Cold War museum on the east coast. As I understand he is planning to include a tribute to all the reconnaissance crews that disappeared while flying missions along the borders of the Soviet Union. I remember seeing MiG gun camera footage of a burning turboprop (P-3 Orion maybe, I honestly don't recall), very scary. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Combat Martin

According to Dr. Alfred Price's excellent books on the history of electronic warfare, Combat Martin was used exactly once.

National Security Agency signals intelligence officers suddenly realized that the USAF was trying to jam North Vietnamese fighter-control channels and immediately told the Air Force to cease and desist -- from the NSA's point of view, the intelligence obtained from monitoring the communications outweighed the benefits from jamming them.

The Air Force might not have agreed, but the NSA was the law in the signals domain, and that was the end of Combat Martin.

Just an input to Wikipedians. I am not a member of this community and have no plans to become one.

MrG (Greg Goebel) / www.vectorsite.net

Thank you for the input and thanks for the excellent VectorSite. I will track down the reference and add this information. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is discussed in the encyclopedic HISTORY OF US ELECTRONIC WARFARE (Volume III) published by the Association of Old Crows (the EW community society) on page 143. This is THE book on US EW. However, it is only available from the Old Crows and it costs an arm and a leg -- it's only for people who are strongly interested in EW. I tried to add this detail but the editors refused to accept it though I had provided a citation. Sigh, what I get for bothering to edit WKPD articles -- "never again". Price did publish a seriously condensed version of the HISTORY in the general press as WAR IN THE FOURTH DIMENSION, but it's maybe about an eighth as long and I don't believe it covers Combat Martin. If you don't want to take me word for it, you can either (a) buy the HISTORY or (b) leave a note here and I will email a scan of the page. MrG 4.225.213.210 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a "tape instrument"?

The article mentions it:

The F-105 had a spacious cockpit with a good layout (particularly after introduction of "tape" instruments)

—Bromskloss 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Via google images, 2nd page using search terms tape instrument... vertical tape gauges displaying engine information. I'm no avionics expert, so thats all I can add. Dual Freq 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We think of classic aircraft dashboard indicators as dials, but they could be hard to read, and so later in the days of analog cockpits there was a tendency to go to linear instead of circular indicators, with the value indicated by a bar or "tape" moving up (or across) the linear range of values.

MrG -- 22 Oct 06

The real Gunfighter

The F-8 Crusader is often touted as the "last of the gunfighters, even though botht he F-104 and F-105 had internal guns. In fact, the F-8 has no pure gun kills, while the F-105 has 24.5! I'll try to line up my sources on this; it's an amazing, little-known fact that the F-105 scored at least 27.5 kills in Viet Nam, 2 with the Sidewinder. - BillCJ 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I found this on http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf105.html:

Flak and SAMs were the worst hazard, taking down 312 F-105s. North Vietnamese MiGs claimed 22 Thunderchiefs, but the Thuds more than evened the score, with the F-105 credited with the destruction of 27.5 MiGs. Interestingly, 24.5 of these kills were performed with cannon alone. This is very much the opposite of the kill records of the other major fighter types in the war, the Vought F-8 Crusader and the F-4 Phantom, in which most kills were achieved with missiles.

This record is probably as much to the credit of the M61 gun as to the F-105 itself. - BillCJ 02:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. 24.5 F-105 cannon kills (all MiG-17s) vs. 15.5 for F-4. I have the refs to support this information and will add it to the article soon. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief/GA1

Air superiority

THe F-105 was primarily a strike aircraft. It did carry the M61, and later Sidewinders, for self-defense, which is how its air-to-air kills occurred. It shot down about as many MiGs as MiGs shot down 105s, a pretty poor record for a dogfighter. I beleive this is backed up by the majority of the sources used in the article. Please establish verifiable sources to prove otherwise,a nd wait for a consensus before re-adding you contentions. THanks. - BillCJ 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the plane was used in dogfights, as was already stated mid-way through the article, it just wasn't as effective as the Phantom. Before the Phantom, it was the 105's secondary job to clear the sky of MiGs if that's what it took to get to the target and back in one piece. When the USAF created a separate escort mission for the Phantom, it became a dedicated air superiority role which, you would be correct, the F-105 really only got as a part-time job since it's main job was delivering boom. F-105 was featured in a dogfights TV episode that also emphasized the plane wasn't meant to tangle with MiGs, but just because a plane was not designed to dogfight doesn't mean that combat in an F-4 or F-15 is a dogfight, but isn't when using an F-105. I may help out with those A quality issues later. --Usertaffy3 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that it was the F-105's "secondary job to clear the sky of MiGs". If that is what the TV show is stating, it is wrong. The F-105s only defended themselves when attacked, which is not the same thing as having a secondary air to air role. However, the F-105 was fast at low altiutudes, could take damage, and carried an excellent cannon that is still in use today. These all gave it a fighting chance against the MiGs. Being "in" a dogfight is not the same thing as being "used for" dogfights. There is a great difference. - BillCJ 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You even noted above that the plane used guns in dogfights, (last gunfighter) The plane shot down 27 MiGs, but you are claiming that it wasn't doing air superiority, air combat or dogfighting, and it wasn't even its secondary job to shoot down MiGs. F4F Wildcat wasn't as good as the Zero either, and the Buffalo was pathetic, by comparison the F-105 was more than competitive even when its main job was bombing. lessons learned by F-105 pilots led to development of the FX / F-15 specification. Ok, leave it the way you want it.--Usertaffy3 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between offensive air superiority missions, and defensive actions. Yes, the F-105 shot down 27.5 MiGs, but this was in the course of their regular bombing missions; Migs showed up, and they shot at them. They were not used to escort other strike aircraft, as the F-4 was used. If you can find printed or web sources which back up what the TV show stated, we can check out the sources, and see what they say about this. But from everything I have read to this point, the show is wrong. - BillCJ 18:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Taffy, Dogfights is yet another Discovery/History turd chock-full of gross inaccuracies and sweeping generalizations. The fact of the matter is that F-105s did not carry Sidewinders into combat very often (being strike aircraft, the pylons were better used for a pair of bombs) and thus had to rely on the internal cannon for defensive armament. Therefore, it should not be surprising that most F-105 air-to-air victories were cannon kills. Despite the "F" designation, the Thud was never designed for air combat, being much closer to the likes of A-5 and B-58 in the concept -- a fact that would've been entirely clear if you had bothered to read the article before editing it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Usertaffy, air attack strategy in the early supersonic era was'slash & run'. The F104 starfighter, according to old CDN vets, wasn't a dogfight aircraft etiher.

Secondary users tend to be one plane fleets,& there the f105 'did it all'.

thanks Opuscalgary 23:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, only the F-105 was not in a one plane-type fleet (one plane does not a fleet make :) ). The US was the only user of the F-105. Still, the point is that the F-105 defended themselves when attacked, but were not assigned to air superiority missions, or to "escort" other attacke craft. THe F-105 defeated MiGs in combat 27.5 to 15, thats not a bad reacord for a strike aircraft! And as discussed several posts above, it scored many more gun kills than the famed "Last of the Gunfighters", the F-8 Crusader! - BillCJ 23:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interresting! I thought Vietnam used them. Oh well. My apologies for the Avro rhubarb, Bill old chap. Had the double message fwd to me. Believe we have sorted out the debate....In any case, Mcdonnell gave Canada a heck of a deal on those f101 Voodoos. Superb plane for the money.

caio

23:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Garbage

Why do people keep adding garbage sections like "Legacy" and "Culture"? POV, editorializing, no citations, no contribution to the article. Go make your own fan website, this is no place for stuff like that. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I TOTALLY support the removal of such content. Thanks for beating me to it; it's hard to get the smell off my keyboard after I take that garbage out. If this sort of thing keeps up, I will seek administrative action agaist this user and his apparent use of sockpuppets in this endevor. - BillCJ 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget FA-status, let'd go for B-class!

Due to recent edits by one editor in particular, esp his voluminous additons of poorly-edited and badly-thought-out material, I believe this article is no longer GA material. This is an encyclopedia article, not a repository of all material ever written on a subject, sometimes verbatim! As long as this editor continue to work on this article without any discretion whatsoever, I believe we can have a B-class article by the end of the year, if not much sooner! - BillCJ 05:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

F-4 assertions

Whoever the IP user is (if you want people to take you seriously, register), stop adding the Phantom speculation and editorializing on the basis of:

1. The references you cited did not support the claims you made (F-4 fitted with cannon thanks to F-105 air combat experience and the suggestion that the F-105 was used in the air combat role before the F-4 came along)
2. Your comparative discussion of F-105 vs. F-4 had no grounding in credible references and was thus is violation of WP:NOR
3. Learn proper Wikipedia writing style, particularly WP:NPOV. Ungrounded superlatives have no place in an encyclopedic article.
4. This is an article about F-105, not F-4. The F-4 is already addressed in sufficient detail (noted as the replacement and the reason for decreased number of orders) and does not warrant further discussion in this article. If you have something useful to add about the F-105 please do so, abiding by WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and with a healthy dose of (much needed) proof-reading, good grammar, and spell-checking. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 71.164.9.103 (talk · contribs), an IP from the Seattle area, sounds like Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs), also from the Seattle area. Though they never edited this article, the material reads just like the POV they used to push especially on the F-14 article. Frequent POV pushing about McNamara as well. They also had a problem with the F-111, similar to this edit from the IP addy. They both edited the Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109 article as well. Wiarthurhu was indef blocked, but has frequently employed IP's and sockpuppets. --Dual Freq 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right! All this stuff reads just like Wiarthurhu's previous writing, especially the comments related to maneuverability, the F/A-18, F-14. It's probably him.--LWF 02:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if they come back, it's sockpuppetry. IPs are easy to block. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

five of first eleven lost July and August 1965

Perhaps 1965 is a typo; a sentence or so prior the introduction of the EF-105F is said to have occured in Jan 1966. moreover I was Bear with the first five to Takli that were lost. the loss date (if this is my event) was July-August 1966, not 65. --plumalley

Yes, it was a typo. Thanks for catching that! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

THUD RIDGE

Second paragraph, last sentence, just above "combat": you are calling a mountain (thud ridge) to be a valley (the Red River Valley; Weird! As can be seen on Google Earth this mountain ridge is free standing mostly in the middle of the very large Red River Valley NW of Hanoi, anchored by a fighter base, now Hanoi International. the function of the ridge in low visibility is as a visual navigation point, check point, whatever visual radar/visual screening may be obtained. Anyway, a mountain is not a valley. plumalley

Must have been vandalism or ham-fisted editing that I somehow missed. Good pick up! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

oops

Does anyone know which commission advised the USAF to delete from the F-105s the radar-warning receiver, radar jammer, chaff dispensers, and fuel tank fire suprression systems?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Verification of kills

First i must say that this is one of the best aircraft reference aticles i have read on Wikipedia and the editors must be thanked for their efforts.

One point though i have noticed on Wikipedia in general is that while kill scores are provided they are never linked to any referenced for confirmation. If the NVAF claim by type they must more accurately hold loss by type and hence a number generated for verified kills rather than just using USAF numbers, quoting them as fact and not making the statement that they are USAF credits. I totally understand that this is something very difficult to do, but as Wikipedia is an international project i think this is important to ensure neutrality of any article (while simutaniously providing greater confidence in USAF numbers). Wikipedia process states that the burden of proof is always on the editor. I shall try to do some digging but maybe there are more informed and qualified people who could help in this regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.244.246.25 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

OK, checked out the numbers on ACIG, Wings of Fame articles by Dr. Zoltan Buza/Dr. István Toperczer and other publications by Dr. István Toperczer, Mark Styling, and Iain Wyllie . I come out with 60 F-105s claimed by the VPAF, 34 agreeing with US losses, 32 claims off the USAF in F-105s of which is stated all are confirmed. (I have all the references) Anyone care to comment? Should these number be included under the NPOV policy of Wikipedia? (or should i put them in the MiG-17/21 section?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.209.109 (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what number you are referring to. 32 what? 34 what? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kills, the section is about kills. Sorry if i was not clear. 32 air-to-air kills of VPAF fighters by USAF F-105s (all of which are confirmed apparently). 34 confirmed air-to-air kills of F-105s by VPAF fighters of various types of an original 60 claimed (by the VPAF).

Where are you getting 32? My sources, including the official USAF publication listing all air-to-air victories of the war, say 27.5. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

ACIG, their list are not offical are a little more complicated, based on as much evidence from both sides as possible (hence they were able to add Lt.Cdr. Speicher F/A-18 Gulf War shoot down before the USN admitted it). They work from the claim lists and then gather evidence. I have ordered the offical USAF credit listings for Vietnam but ACIG has proved pretty reliable in the past. Here is what they have:

4Apr65 355 F-105D Bennet 20mm MiG-17

4Apr65 355 F-105D Magnusson 20mm MiG-17

14Oct65 36/644 F-105D Shuler MiG-17

Yes 29Jun66 421/388 TFW F-105D F.Tracy 20mm MiG-17

Yes 18Aug66 34/388 TFW F-105D K. Blank 20mm MiG-17

Yes 21Sep66 421/388 TFW F-105D K. Richter 20mm MiG-17

Yes 21Sep66 333/355 TFW F-105D F. Wilson 20mm MiG-17

Yes 4Dec66 469/388 TFW F-105D R. Dickey 20mm MiG-17

Yes 10Mar67 354/355 TFW F-105D M. Brestel 20mm MiG-17

Yes 10Mar67 354/355 TFW F-105D M. Brestel 20mm MiG-17

Yes 26Mar67 333/355 TFW F-105D R. Scott 20mm MiG-17

Yes 19Apr67 354/355 TFW F-105D J. Hunt 20mm MiG-17

19Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D H. Johnson 20mm MiG-17 (see below)

Yes 19Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D L. Thorsness/Johnson 20mm MiG-17 Actually F-105F, counted twice by ACOG

Yes 19Apr67 354/355 TFW F-105D F. Tolman 20mm MiG-17

Yes 19Apr67 354/355 TFW F-105D W. Eskew 20mm MiG-17

Yes 28Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D A. Dennis 20mm MiG-17

Yes 28Apr67 357/355 TFW F-105D H. Higgins 20mm MiG-17

Yes 30Apr67 333/355 TFW F-105D T. Lesan 20mm MiG-17

Yes 12May67 333/355 TFW F-105D J. Suzanne 20mm MiG-17

Yes 13May67 333/355 TFW F-105D C. Osborne AIM-9 MiG-17

Yes 13May67 333/355 TFW F-105D R. Rilling AIM-9 MiG-17

Yes 13May67 44/388 TFW F-105D M. Seaver Jr. 20mm MiG-17

Yes 13May67 354/355 TFW F-105D C. Couch 20mm MiG-17

Yes 13May67 354/355 TFW F-105D P. Gast 20mm MiG-17

Yes 3Jun67 13/388 TFW F-105D R. Kuster Jr. 20mm MiG-17

Yes 3Jun67 469/388 TFW F-105D L. Wiggins AIM-9 MiG-17

Yes 23Aug67 34/388 TFW F-105D D. Waldrop III 20mm MiG-17

Yes 18Oct67 333/355 TFW F-105D D. Russell 20mm MiG-17

Yes 27Oct67 354/355 TFW F-105D G. Basel 20mm MiG-17

Yes 19Dec67 357TFS/355 TFW F-105E P.Drew/W.Wheeler 20mm MiG-17 (F-105F in USAF records, the F-105E was never built)

Yes 19Dec67 333TFS/355 TFW F-105F W.Dalton J.Graham 20mm MiG-17 1/2 credit only, shared with Moore/McKinney F-4C

Total 32 - they normally specify 0.5 credits, maybe that is where this mismatch is originating.

How does that compare to the offical list?

I do not have any issue with quoting the 27.5 number other than it should specify "...the USAF offically credits F-105 pilots with..." rather than just making a blanket statement that they shot down X number. This allows the reader to understand the origin of the number and make his/her judgment, conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Just an opinion... Kill lists are very much a topic of continuing research and hence should be treated as such - quoting (to the best of an individual's knowledge) the origin of their number. This means that if the number are re-addressed and subsequently change the author is above reproach as an understanding can exist of why these number exist in the text, especially for someone new to the topic. I am trying to be as open as i can in this, hence why i do not unilaterally edit, that is why it is here as a topic of discussion and no more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.196.76 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I put "yes" marks next to the shootdowns on the official list (see above). So 3 unaccounted kills early in the war, one "made up" kill because ACOG people are careless or clueless and credited an F-105F crew with two separate aircraft, 0.5 extra kills because the ACOG people are too careless or clueless and did not note this as a shared kill. That's 27.5 my man. The cross-checking of records that people like ACOG do is inherently unreliable -- an aircraft damaged to the point where it cannot make it to the home base but does not immediately or obviously crash (i.e. it runs out of fuel) may be written off as "no credit" by the attackers (because it flew away) and "shot down" by the owners (because it didn't make it home due to combat damage). These reports are basically unverifiable. Considering that unlike India, Pakistan, Vietnam, North Korea, and Luftwaffe, the USAF and VVS were pretty stringent about meeting criteria for kill credits, I trust the official numbers much more than some airheads at ACOG (3 gross mistakes in one short list, there goes my confidence). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You say that listing Thorsness/Johnson as having 2 kills is incorrect, but in the article's medal of honor section Thorsness/Johnson are listed as having shot down 2 migs. You said above that the extra kill is made up, should the medal of honor section be changed? Bonewah (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK i shall inform them and see what they say, you make some interesting points (it may not be fair to blame them, it may be my misinterpretation of the list)....but that still leaves that matter of the VPAF kills, which have been published by the genlemen i have stated, i assume they researched them...

If they cannot provide references for their claims, their data does not belong on Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. Also, please sign your posts by writing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your messages, or better yet register. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I own the books...i have not registered as i do not edit, (i do not have the time currently and i am still trying to learn what Wikipedia is all about, until i am comfortable with that i do not believe it is my place to edit)80.2.196.76 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I met Leo Thorsness who was listed as having 2 kills above. Leo said he shot down a MiG-17 that was going after his ejected wingman. Leo refueled his plane by an air tanker and came back to his downed wingman to help with the rescue but several MiGs were waiting. Leo shot down another MiG then drawed attention away from a US rescue helicopter. Leo was downed the very next flight and was a POW for 6 years. Leo wrote the book, Surviving Hell: A POW's Journey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.121.254 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

23rd Wing, 561st TFS, F-105s 1972, Vietnam War

commentary not directly related to article

The very last F-105 shot down in Vietnam was from my outfit, the 561st TFS. It was Wild Weasel F105G #63-8359. A SAM missile hit it on Nov. 16, 1972. The two crewmen were rescued. It began a few months earlier: I was stationed with the 23rd Wing (Flying Tigers) and its F-105's at McConnell AFB in Kansas in 1972. My squadron, the 561st TFS (Wild Weasels) was suddenly and rapidly detached to Thailand for Linebacker I in April (we got a Mobility Alert about 3 a.m., people pounding on our barracks room doors, telling us to report to the flight line, etc.) General Giap had decided to invade South Vietnam with 200,000 troops, the famous "Easter Offensive". American troop strength was down to about 69,000 since Nixon had begun the withdrawal in 1969, so the Air Force had to step up to the plate from bases in Guam and Thailand, using B-52's, F-111's, F-105 Wild Weasels, etc. We flew missions and dropped bombs for seven months. North Vietnam's Easter Offensive failed because of us and General Vo Nguyen Giap lost 40,000 troops KIA. Giap was fired and North Vietnam never let him be a General again. The U.S. Air Force not only defeated General Giap, we also got him fired--I mention this because General Giap was the general who had defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Linebacker I ended in October, 1972 and by December the U.S. only had 16,000 troops left in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese would not negotiate in earnest so Nixon started Linebacker II, which lasted from Dec. 18 to Dec. 29 (the famous "Twelve days of Xmas") and the North Vietnamese, defeated and brought to their knees by the relentless bombing campaign, returned to the negotiating table and signed the peace treaty as they were ordered to do. The war thus ended. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on Jan. 27, 1973, with the U.S. agreeing to withdraw all its remaining personnel within 60 days (the Vietnam Service Medal thus ends on March 28, 1973). The 561st TFS was awarded the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Combat "V" for Valour for its combat sorties against the enemy. (Wild Weasels in Vietnam had a 63% casualty rate.) Then, a couple of years later, South Vietnam lost their war on April 30, 1975, not us. We hadn't even been in Vietnam in two years. We handed South Vietnam the football and they fumbled it. 69.236.142.82 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thunderstreak compared to Thunderflash

Just a minor correction: under "Development" heading the Wiki article states in the first line that the F-105 was developed to replace the Thunderflash, however the Thunderflash was the recon version (RF-84F) of the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-105 was not developed as a recon plane, so "Thunderstreak" would be the correct name to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.231.183 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Thunderflash however has the signature wing-root intakes that were carried over to the F-105, unlike the open-nose normal variants .Bachcell (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Toss Bombing

In regards to the second to last paragraph in "Vietnam War" section, F-105 pilots knew all about Toss Bombing. That's where you launch your bomb like an artillery shell, with your jet plane being the cannon. An artillery shell going Mach I is very fast, and could go a long ways. The F-105 could do Mach II at altitude. The F-105's were designed for nuclear delivery, which would involve toss bombing. There's also a bomb delivery system called "Over the Shoulder" toss bombing, which involves doing a loop. 63.192.100.247 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No accidents in first operational year

While the statement that the F-105 experienced no accidents in its first operational year, which I assume refers to the 28 May 1958 deployment with the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, may be technically true, I feel that it is misleading. The first Thunderchief airframe loss came on 2 May 1958 when F-105B-1-RE, 54-0101, the second B-model, of the Air Proving Ground Command, at Eglin, suffered an engine explosion and fire during training mission, crashing on the range near Wright, Florida, pilot ejecting. Furthermore, a 355th-assigned F-105B-15-RE Thunderchief, 57-5799, exploded on start up on the parking ramp during a cartridge start on 29 August 1959, pilot surviving. Admittedly the second incident falls just outside the one year mark, but the loss on 2 May 1958 invalidates the claim that the "Thud" was accident-free for its first year of service, in my opinion. Mark Sublette (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Thud had a lot of problems during its development. It was a new aircraft. Perhaps "fatal crashes" might be a better phrase than "accident"--an accident could be anything. 67.121.225.17 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not needed. An aviation accident has a specific meaning. See Aviation accidents and incidents. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevant sentence here

Nevertheless, the Thunderchief completed its first year in operational service without a major accident; the first USAF aircraft to do so.{{citation needed}}

was removed as being unreferenced. Just saying it completed its first year in service with a major accident is OK, with a reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tags that need addressing

Hello there. I recently analysed this article, checking over to see if it met today's expectations for GA-class articles. I've found some significant flaws that probably wouldn't be tolerated at this level of quality; citations to books without page numbers make things very difficult and inconvinent for readers and editors alike. There are entire paragraphs without a single citation and several low quality citation publishers being used that shouldn't be the case at GA-level. Basically, I've punched up several tags into the article for fixes, this can be addressed at anybody's leisure. After a few months, I'll check back in, see how things are going. As an FYI, in the long-run, if there was no improvement, I would consider running the article through GA Re-assessment. Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like 4-5 cite needed tags and 4 page number needed tags left now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Thud" nickname

I wonder if the nickname has any relation to the name of Chief Thunderthud of Howdy Doody fame? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's the sound of an F-105 impacting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

There are several explanations for the nickname but no one knows for sure. "Thud" may just be a shortened version of Thunderchief. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

F-105 is the heaviest single engine aircraft ever produced

I added this information to the article, but it has been removed. Why? It is the heaviest single engine aircraft of them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip.vidinovski (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Added to lede, so statement doesn't stand alone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

While it may seem like a statement of the bleeding obvious - and certainly I cannot think of a heavier single engined aircraft that actually flew, has anyone got a reference stating that the F-105 is the heaviest single engined aircraft ever. Otherwise the statement is subject to challenge and removal.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I cited the USAF fact sheet, it appears as a statement in a gazillion electronic sites, but thought that the USAF fact sheet showing weight might be sufficient, however, a better cite may be needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

The actual weight of the aircraft isn't a problem its proving that nothing else is heavier without WP:OR. Especially as according to the wiki article the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II weighs in at 70,000 lb (or at least 60,000 lb according to most of the other sources that I've been able to check).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, a better cite may be needed, perhaps the proviso is that the F-105 was the largest aircraft in "combat," that eliminates the F-35 for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Found it; an exact, word-for-word quote in Francis Crosby's Fighter Aircraft. London: Lorenz Books, 2002. ISBN 0-7548-0990-0. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

John Boyd in Vietnam?

I just deleted a reference to John Boyd piloting an F-105 in aerial combat in 1965. Boyd's biography by Robert Coram makes it clear that the only missions he flew in Vietnam were several years later when he was assigned to a support base in Thailand. Boyd's lack of actual dog fighting experience (only limited missions as a wingman late in Korea) was one of the oddities of his career. The Harry Hilaker reference cited here is not written clearly and may have been misunderstood. The manuever used by the surviving pilot from that engagement as using would not have been new to Boyd - it was a fairly typical move for the aerial combat manual he wrote at Nellis a decade earlier. Robert Bin Peters (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest we leave it in for now, and gather additional information on this incident before ruling it out; Hilaker isn't exactly a bad source for information, I would want to be absolutely sure that he couldn't have been in that situation before questioning the word of a man who knew him well and said he was there. Kyteto (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

563rd TFS Flying Tigers

The 563rd TFS, flying F-105's went into action in Vietnam in 1965. Out of that 5 month tour, they lost 10 of the Squadron's 18 airplanes. In 1965, the 563rd TFS was the most experienced squadron in the U.S. Air Force. They flew 1,508 sorties over Vietnam and environs. They engaged in the first aerial destruction of a SAM site. A plane from the 561st TFS (again, F-105's) was the last F-105 shot down in the Vietnam War, as noted. The 562nd TFS completed the wing, which was the 23rd Wing, the famous "Flying Tigers", which is displayed on their Wing patch. The first shoot-down of an F-105D on a combat mission was on Aug. 14, 1964, this plane was from the 36th Squadron out of Thailand. I think it was with the 6441st Wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.100.247 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this commentary be over at 563d Flying Training Squadron ? or do you have a comment on the article? MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the 563rd TFS received two Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards with "V" for Valor Device for its 5 month tour of Vietnam in 1965. It's a rare decoration, restricted to wartime only and the 563rd was awarded two. It was the beginning of the war in earnest for the U.S. military. This was the "hot build-up". The 563rd had a Rapid Reaction Global Combat Commitment. The F-105 was a rugged airplane, the pilots liked it because it didn't carry fuel in the wings, which meant the F-105 offered a very slim profile to shoot-down because it could take hits in the wings without sustaining fuel loss. The F-105 pulled a tremendous number of missions over Vietnam, that's why there were so many shot down. The F-105 was the only U.S. plane to be withdrawn from service due to combat losses. Don't know where this info would fit in best, I'll leave that to Wiki editors. 63.192.100.247 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the F-105's played such an immense role in the Vietnam War I think the Vietnam War section of this article could be enlarged greatly, after all, the Vietnam War is the F-105's legacy. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A811:8838:64FF:F886 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thud - Term of endearment?

I never flew one of these; the only knowledge I have on the F-105 is from a research paper I did in college on aerial warfare.

Entirely 100% of the time it was said that the pilots called it 'Thud' because it hit the ground so much (it was shot down A LOT).

I saw "it hit the ground so much" repeated so many times in reference to the origin of the nickname 'Thud' I have no doubt that's where it came from. I never saw that anyone said anything 'endearing' about the F-105. It was used in a fashion that it was not designed for, and it made a low-flying, large target for SAMs. As a general rule, people don't speak in terms of endearment about a machine that has a very good chance of getting you killed.

To be honest, when the article said 'Thud' was a 'term of endearment', it made me laugh out loud. It's probably the least factual statement on Wikipedia as a whole. Given the tenor of the article, I thought it must have been discussing a different F-105 than the one I am familiar with. The F-105 was the least effective combat aircraft ever used by the United States. And as soon as there were enough F-4s to take its place, they just stopped flying it. Why would a pilot say anything nice about an aircraft that got it's nickname from being shot down so much? This article needs serious attention. --T.Lindenmuth (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

All arguable points, wait until there is authoritative reference sources to contradict the statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC).

I worked on F-105's during the Vietnam War. The pilots knew they had a harrowing job, the casualty rate was 1/3, and for Wild Weasels the casualty rate was 63%. So yeah, pilots are not going to be particulaly "endeared" to an aircraft in such circumstance. It was stressful. I remember a quote from Jack Broughton's book "Thud Ridge" which goes: "Any pilot who is not completely terrified does not understand the mission". The F-105B was considered by ground crews to be terrible to maintain but the F-105D was much better. The REASON WE LOST so many F-105's was because they flew thousands of missions (my squadron the 561st TFS flew 1,900 sorties in 1972--and four out of our 12 Wild Weasel aircraft got shot down and we lost one to operational accident), and F-105's carried the brunt of the air war in the early part of the Vietnam War. It was also called the "lead sled" among other nicknames. It was a rugged aircraft and could survive a lot of punishment--it had a narrow profile from the ground and didn't carry fuel in the wings so was hard to shoot down. This college paper you wrote sounds interesting. Could you post some of it on the talk page? You may have gleaned some interesting, referenced data which could prove useful. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:18B6:8FFE:DB0A:C560 (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, we never referred to them as "Thuds", we referred to them by their individual tail numbers. A particular aircraft number carried with it certain attributes, or if you will, a personality. Each aircraft was different and would have its own peculiar set of problems or things that never went wrong. If somebody asked what planes we worked on we said F-105's or "105's". Ground crews always took pride in their work, people joined the Air Force to work on airplanes, it was an all volunteer group. And contrary to popular opinion, only 25% of all Vietnam Vets were draftees. My squadron, the 561st, helped bring North Vietnam to its knees during the Easter Offensive and the Xmas bombing, after which the US made North Vietnam sign the Paris Peace Accords. The USA won the Vietnam War, three years later the South lost. Of course, we all knew the South would lose because they were so corrupt. But we accomplised our mission and left the country in the hands of the politicians... 2602:306:CEDF:1580:A811:8838:64FF:F886 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Was rated A-class, and it probably deserves it, but the article never went through a review. I put it up for GA, so that will be the first step to becoming an FA. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Is now a GA. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Designed for hi-lo-hi

The article text claims the Thud was designed for the hi-lo-hi mission, to penetrate Soviet defences at low level. I find this very difficult to believe. The idea of low-level penetration did not become a design criterion until the late 1950s and especially after the Powers shoot-down. The fact that TFX was started specifically to replace the Thud with an aircraft designed to penetrate at low altitudes is strong evidence of this. It seems much more likely that the lo portion was simply because tactical aircraft almost always deliver their weapons at low altitudes, because that's their mission. Can someone with access to the reference check to see if this is what it actually claims? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall that the F-105 was developed to fly UNDER the enemy's radar to deliver NUCLEAR weapons, hence the lo level. It was because of the RADAR avoidance that it was lo level. I also seem to recall that the pilots could do "toss bombing". There's also something called "Over the Shoulder" toss bombing, which is a crazy bomb delivery manouver. Republic started the F-105 venture on its own as a speculation aircraft, under the design team of Alexander Kartveli in Farmingdale, New York, in 1951. Hope this helps and gives you some leads to work on. Also, as an interesting side note, the F-105 silver aircraft were not bare-skinned aluminum, that was actually aluminum lacquer paint that was applied to help prevent corrosion and leaks! There's about a hundred F-105's on static display around the world, none flying that I know of. The F-105 pilots carried "barf bags" in case they threw up during in-flight refueling because the jet fuel fumes would enter the cockpit. The TFX F-111 had Terrain Following Radar (TFR) that could be set at different altitude increments by a rotating switch, as low as 200 feet above the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.231.183 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't cite any references right off, but it was during my F-105 training by a Republic Tech Rep in 1968 that I first learned about many of the unique design features of the 105. According to him, the elevators were placed below the flight plane of the main wings specifically because that enhanced the low-altitude stability and speed of the aircraft. And yes, the original design concept was that in a nuclear conflict the aircraft would fly at low altitude toward it's target. At a certain point before reaching it's target, the aircraft would open it's bomb bay doors, "pop up" in a sweeping arc and toss it's nuclear bomb toward the target. The aircraft would continue to arc on over backwards into a descending angle and accelerate as fast as it could away from the target. Meanwhile, the bomb would arc over toward the target and explode at a pre-programmed point in midair on it's downward fall. Since the aircraft would likely still be within proximity of the bomb when it detonated, the cockpit was equipped with black "flash" curtains that the pilot could pull forward to shield himself from radiant heat effects of the blast.

Also, in regards to low-altitude speed, although it had a higher top speed--I've heard from more than one F-4 pilot that they simply could not keep up with an F-105 when exiting North Vietnam at relatively low altitudes. Perhaps one or more of them could chime in here to confirm. Biscuiteater57 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've heard that sometimes the F-105 could go Mach 1.5 on the deck. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

890 knots at low-level, is what I've read - 1024 mph. That's about Mach 1.3Dukeford (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"affectionately called"

Dear BilCat, I see that you removed my comment that the F-105 "...was affectionately called the 'Thud' by it crews..." and your note was "Removed peacockish claim". I'm curious about the basis of your decision. Having worked on Thuds and with their aircrews for many years, I can personally vouch for this statement (for what that's worth). Also, I was a little surprised at the negative tone of much of the article, especially in contrast to the article that I read about the F-4, which had numerous "peacockish" comments in my opinion. (I also worked on RF-4s for several years.) Both were very good aircraft, each with it's own features--and shortcomings.

Out of curiosity, I took a quick look at your page. I like your sense of humor--and was extremely impressed by your many accolades. I hope you are feeling better soon! Biscuiteater57 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording like that is not really encyclopedic. Peacockish refers to WP:PEACOCK (Words that may introduce bias). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I worked on Thuds--we'd call them "nickels" too (for the five in F-105). We'd call C-130's "Herky Pigs". If a C-130 needed fixing, we'd put both hands on the radome, bow our heads and intone "Herky Pig, Big and fat, Tell me where your trouble's at". We called the demo team Thunderbirds the "Thunderchickens". I think "affectionately" is appropriate. When you go through a war together and your life depends on that airplane, you develop a relationship with it. I suppose an article on the psychological relation between a crew and its airplane might be interesting. Crews named their planes, after all. And people love flying. 67.121.225.17 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article a few minutes ago. A very few minutes after that Fnlayson removed not only the forbidden phrase "affectionately called" (which I didn't know was so toxic to him and others when I used it) but also *the entire edit*, which moved the mention of the nickname to the section about size and weight, which is where the entry should be because THAT'S WHY IT GOT THE NICKNAME. As presently written the article "isn't very encyclopedic" because of the bald insertion of information without context in this and other cases. Uncle Bubba (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The wording should be neutral per WP:Neutral point of view. Besides the F-105 got nicknames for multiple reasons, including "Thud". Details on the nicknames are covered later in the article in the Design section. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Understood, and very well, then. However, in order for the article to be encyclopedic all the nicknames should be listed with 'Thud' at that point followed by a link or reference to the Design section, or there should be no mention at all of the nicknames until the Design section since they're covered there. As presently written the mention of one of its nicknames at that point is just partial information without any context. Uncle Bubba (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

The F-105B was used briefly for the Air Force's demonstration team. One of them did a pitch-up for landing and snapped in two, and the demo F-105 idea was scrapped. Did anyone ever figure out why a fighter jet just snapped in two coming in for a landing? --A plane like that would not survive in combat. It must have been a pre-existing condition (I heard the plane had been in a prior air accident). Why would the Air Force scrap the F-l05 demo planes just because one of them was faulty? 67.121.224.149 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not come across much detail on this in my books. The F-105 was really an attack aircraft, not a fighter, as in primarily for air to air combat. Given that it was not really designed for a lot of maneuvering along with some leftover defect probably did that one in. I'll look some more to see what I can find on this... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• FN, the thing about the USAF Thunderbirds is this, they do not get to have the latest spanking new planes from the manufacturer but rather those aircraft rotated out from frontline squadron usage (especially those rotated back to the stateside after tours in Vietnam/SEA), hence there always existed a possibility that those very ex-squadron aircraft could have sustained damage without anyone even knowing about it until things happen. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Thunderbirds_F-105_crash_site.htm Thunderbird Two, Air Force serial number 57-5801, had been involved in an air-refueling incident. During an aborted hook-up attempt, turbulence dragged and pounded a drogue basket into the fuselage, damaging the aircraft's spine. The damage to the spine was repaired, but no direct evidence was uncovered that this incident caused a defect or weakness in the fuselage. But the suspicion remains that there may have been some connection between this, and the untimely destruction of Thunderbird Two.

books.google.com/books?id=B2epoTDPffgC&pg=PT265&lpg=PT265&dq=57-5801+thunderbird&source=bl&ots=NkDlJeAANS&sig=IpJ35DVTl1mLA-4FcPoBENHuYHc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v4dCUeb3KsqQyAG08YDQBA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBA

aerobaticteams.net/thunderbirds-f-105-crash.html Much later during routine maintenance of the F-105, structural engineers began to find cracks in the upper part of the aircraft just behind the cockpit. ... The defect was found to be a trapezoidal-shaped manufacturing joint - a plate that was designed to strengthen the connection between the forward and aft fuselage. It should have been rectangular. However, the investigation also turned up some very interesting side information on the particular aircraft the Devlin flew that day.

Thunderbird Two, Air Force serial number 57-5801, had been involved in an air-refueling incident. During an aborted hook-up attempt, turbulence dragged and pounded a drogue basket into the fuselage, damaging the aircraft's spine. The damage to the spine was repaired, but no direct evidence was uncovered that this incident caused a defect or weakness in the fuselage. But the suspicion remains, that there may have been some connection between this, and the untimely destruction of Thunderbird Two.

Anything notable in that? Hcobb (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• HC, ALL I can say is... for once your nose dug in the right pile. Well done! (PS: BTW, that joint is called a fishplate, something the early aviation borrowed from the railways.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Air and Space Power Journal is a questionable source?

Is the problem that it is from Air University or the close connection to the USAF? Hcobb (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You posted a broken link [www.au.af.mil/au/cadre/aspj/airchronicles/apj/apj98/spr98/werrell.pdf] this appears to be the correct version, although the Air University website is desperately slow today.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I had thought the info with the cite was already covered in the article, but it does not seem to be. The AF removed some survivability features from the design to cut costs. Many of these had to added back after -105s went to SE Asia. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so now that we're reading the same pages, should my paragraph be merged up in the text a bit so the sequence becomes clear? I think it would go something like this...

• Need seen for tac nuker.
• F-105 rushed into service for this mission.
• Vietnam happens. F-105 sent into theater as is and suffers.
• Design upgraded with combat exp.
• Improved record in combat.

Right? Hcobb (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Water injection

The F-105 had water injection for take-offs with a heavy bomb load; it increased the thrust and this should be annotated. They couldn't carry the water at altitude since it would freeze so it would just be used for take-offs. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Low frontal radar signature

The F-105 could be invisible to GCA (Ground Control Approach) radar because it's front profile was narrow and rounded and the jet engine was internally located. --This necessitated the installation of a unit on the front landing gear to make the plane detectable to GCA. The plane would also evade SAM missiles by flying directly at them and veering away at the last moment. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)