F-105 (Thud) exports

This image on the Canadian Air Force Museum site in Trenton perhaps shows Republics attempt at marketing to the RCAF.

This is in a way a reverse of the similarly sized and of the time Voodoo which was designed to be a large missile armed escort fighter, but after entering service also could be used as a tactical striker.

I think you have it reversed. The F-101 was designed as a (presumably gun-armed) escort fighter in the early 50s.
It was then adapted into a nuke strike aircraft (A & C models) but more were made as 2-seat missile armed interceptors (Bs and Fs).

No A-4s – or any other US jets – until the French cut off supplies after the 6 Day War, refusing to deliver the 50 Mirage V on order. First A-4 delivered in 1968, F-4E in 1969.

I worked on the A-4 production line from July 69 to June 70. At that time we were building A-4’s for the IAF a long with the USN and USMC A-4’s.

I remember reading a LA Times article about the surplus USN A-4’s that were being sold to the IAF. Those surplus aircraft were new builds right off the production line?

The most ‘misunderstood” a/c

Hey, come to think of: We have a thread: the a/c that never took to the skies”.

What if we have a thread: The most misunderstood a/c in your opinion.

I think I wold nominate my F-105

reg,

I was under the impression that the wrap-around was in early 70’s. but ok

Yes, the “F” for the F-111 was a bit misleading

Ihave always looked at the F-105 as a bit of a misunderstood a/c.

Neither here nor there. Designed for one thing, used for something else.

Yours,

But I have also heard the arguments that a fighter with an internal bomb bay (!) was not what TAC wanted and that SAC where not interested either.

Should it have had a “B” designation?

I would say it was the other way around, ie it was foremost a tactical bomber/strike aircraft with fighter capabilities, as with the F-111 the ‘F’ designation was more of a reflection of its design use for TAC (and not SAC) rather than them being Fighters as such.
This is in a way a reverse of the similarly sized and of the time Voodoo which was designed to be a large missile armed escort fighter, but after entering service also could be used as a tactical striker.

One great thing about the 105 was that throughout its life it retained its cannon armament, something that was quickly being left off the new missile armed designs. This was a real bonus and a highly regarded capability for the Thud when it got to SE Asia.

However, I have now (thanks to ARC forum) been educated that the belly might have been painted grey to begin with, but that it became clear that even a grey colour would look dark against the sky.

The question is: The late models you served: Was the belly also camo painted and when about did it become the norm?

Regarding colour schemes, my understanding of it is that they were originally painted in aluminium finish (as opposed to left in natural metal) until just after they started arriving in Vietnam, when the colour scheme was changed to the SE Asia scheme of two shades of green and brown upper camoflage with the under sides and belly being painted in a very light shade of grey.
By the late 1970s they were wearing the SE Asia scheme all over, ie wrapped around the belly and wing undersides.

Ahhh, ok. so F-105 is a historic flight. well, ok, yes, no.

A good question for Don: The camo paint: The “typical” Vietnam paint would be the SE scheme. That I know.

However, I have now (thanks to ARC forum) been educated that the belly might have been painted grey to begin with, but that it became clear that even a grey colour would look dark against the sky.

Later models were then painted camo on the underside as well as (apparantly) the eye notices colour changes (grey to camo to grey again) rather than the actual colours. It would then make sense to have the belly in camo paint as well, due to turns, banking, etc etc.

The question is: The late models you served: Was the belly also camo painted and when about did it become the norm?

Yours,

Ivan

Moderator Message

Seeing as the last F-105 was retired over 25 years ago, this thread really belongs in Historic Aviation.

And so…..

Thanks for your postings.

It must have been an experience to be around the Thud.

I am fascinated by the F-105 somehow. I also think it got bad press.

But I have also heard the arguments that a fighter with an internal bomb bay (!) was not what TAC wanted and that SAC where not interested either.

Should it have had a “B” designation?

I am busy building the scale model, and comparing it to my other “favourite” (the F4), it looks bigger, sleek, but not as versatile as the F4.

Was it also end of the line for any more innovations on the “century” series? Time to move into the F-14/15/18 developments?

Yours,

Very interesting to see a post about the ‘105. I was associated with her for a few years, and she got some bad press. I think the reasons stated for not being selected by others were well said. Originally designed for delivering nukes, eventually she was tasked with everything else. Early on, some problems came up, but she kept on tickin’. She was my first true love, and I had the Honor of bringing back the last Weasels from Korat to George and stayed with her ’till the end. Damn fine acft.:dev2:

No A-4s – or any other US jets – until the French cut off supplies after the 6 Day War, refusing to deliver the 50 Mirage V on order. First A-4 delivered in 1968, F-4E in 1969.

Wrong. The A-4Hs (= capability reduced examples!) were ordered in 1966 for delivery in 1967. The Israeli pilots under conversion in the USA were called back in May 1967. By the way that deal went through to offset the delivery of F-104A to Jordan in 1967. 😉

Israel was not intrested in the F-105. For some time they wished the A-6 as replacement for its Vautour or the A-7 at least. Just A-4s were allowed in the early 60s, before they were allowed to get the top-end F-4s later on.

No A-4s – or any other US jets – until the French cut off supplies after the 6 Day War, refusing to deliver the 50 Mirage V on order. First A-4 delivered in 1968, F-4E in 1969.

The “Iron Triangle” was in South Vietnam.

Thank you for the correction. My mistake, when I had “route package six” in mind.

…but would F-4 losses have been more scattered?

Yes…the F-4 was used in all of the Vietnam War target areas, whereas the F-105 was used primarily in NV and Laos. Also, the single seat F-105 left Vietnam in 1970, leaving the F-4 to continue the fight for three more years.

At first it was a political price. All the US A2G over NV was limited to the “Iron Triangle” were all the NV AD was massed. Hanoi itself and all NV ABs were off-limits to the US attackers. No tactical surprise was possible and the US-forces had to bang their heads. :rolleyes:

The “Iron Triangle” was in South Vietnam.

Just like all those Syrian MiG-31s and Iranian and Chinese Backfires.:D

About the F-105’s survivability: it was often said that the North Vietnamese had more AAA than the Germans had in WWII – they certainly had a lot more SAMs. It may also be pointed out that over 400 F-4s were also lost in the same war.

At first it was a political price. All the US A2G over NV was limited to the “Iron Triangle” were all the NV AD was massed. Hanoi itself and all NV ABs were off-limits to the US attackers. No tactical surprise was possible and the US-forces had to bang their heads. :rolleyes:

I didn’t know that the F-4 losses were so high.

I mean, I have heard about “Thud Ridge” and so on, but would F-4 losses have been more scattered?

Yeah you have to be careful with those!

Its amazing how one unsubstantiated comment in a forum can develop a life of its own and start a thousand threads over the internet each one with a wilder version of the information then the last. Before you know it the idea ends up in publications.

I remember a few years back Air Forces Monthly actually reported in its news section that Iran was fitting its F14 Tomcat with AL31 turbofans from Russia, no truth in it whatsoever but again an unsubstantiated rumour started that idea rolling…:rolleyes:

Just like all those Syrian MiG-31s and Iranian and Chinese Backfires.:D

About the F-105’s survivability: it was often said that the North Vietnamese had more AAA than the Germans had in WWII – they certainly had a lot more SAMs. It may also be pointed out that over 400 F-4s were also lost in the same war.

Patrick, Thanks for your reply. Yoguslavia? that is a surprise.

I heard about Canada, Germany and a British/French/German consortium looking at it. Maybe even Israel.

The level of sophistication ought not to be a problem, but I could imagine the losses in Vietnam would be.

Also with Switzerland going for Mirage, the Thud would be up against European competition.

And. of course the “incentive” offered on the F-104 deal should be taken into account as well.

HOWEVER: it still does not really add up to more than good reasons, nothing clear-cut.

Yours.

Israel was not intrested in the F-105. For some time they wished the A-6 as replacement for its Vautour or the A-7 at least. Just A-4s were allowed in the early 60s, before they were allowed to get the top-end F-4s later on.

Germany thought about it. But Lockheed made the better proposal: a cheaper aircraft with basically the same capabilities when it came to nuking. The F-104G was the better aircraft for the job.