I had no intention to go that deep into analyzing US foreign policy for last 4 decades (fact is that Russians were not better) but the fact that some aircraft has fought in a real war does not automatically render it either good or ‘battle-proven’. The fact stays that a fully loaded Thud had quite a problem even with old SA-2s. I, for one, would rather have taken something less complex, but more rugged, reliable and much more survivable.

As I said: Survivability was not a primary design consideration at that time. The F-105 was a dedicated nuclear bomber with all ingredients. No aircraft used in Vietnam was really designed for such a war. The SA-2 was no really “old” at that time, although it clearly was not the best to intercept fighter aircraft.

I think if there had been real targets to attack, less political inteference and if the whole war in general was not such a mess, the Thud would have come out with a better reputation. Attacks like flown for the 1972 raids are more grateful. The Thud had overally not an exceptionally high loss rate, it was lower than for WW2 designs or over Korea (don’t take this comparison too serious).

We fall back to the one conclusion that nearly always applies: conflict oftenb have so many special conditions that they can hardly used for a prove of design. A Thud on nuclear strike mission was a formidable opponent (like the Su-7 was, too, on a shorter nuclear strike mission).

Well, combat record of the F-105, ehm, let us rather avoid this topic… Or do you really want to go this road?

A MiG-23BN and most other contemporary attack fighters would have performed equally bad. How do you think a Su-7 would have performed, carrying the frightening amount of 2 bombs to its target, which should be placed rather close to the airbase fitted with close-to-infinite runway. The Su-7 was the counterpart of the F-105.

The Su-7’s combat capabilities were limited. With a tiny internal fuel volume of 2,940 l (647 imp gal), its operational radius, even with drop tanks, was poor – seldom more than about 300 km (200 miles), and it had almost no useful range at all with maximum ordnance. Take-off and landing speeds were also very high, requiring long runways. Su-7BKLs had provision for JATO, but this only made logistics even more complicated, so it was rarely used. An additional problem with early models was that the afterburner took six to seven seconds to light, a handicap in combat.

Regarding the significance of its technology, Thud’s legacy is clear: don’t design overweighted attack fighters with single engine and almost nonexisting hit survivalability.

Really, who didn’t learn the lesson? The Soviets. MiG-27 and Su-17/20/22 were built in thousands long after Rolling Thunder. The lessons learned in Vietnam served future aircraft. Combat survivability was not exactly a design parameter for the first generation of supersonic jets.
The F-105 has a pretty good thrust-weight ratio (0.74), it was very fast. The high loss rate was caused beside the named shortcomings by the high sortie rate, long distance from base and a quite accident rate. The J-75 was not exactly reliable. The F-105 thus represents a classical late 1950s/early 1960s supersonic jet. When did the Soviets had something comparable in their inventory?

Not quite true :
“The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven, 5th generation strike fighter with built-in versatility.”
Boeing says so… :rolleyes:

Boeing manager meets LM manager.

LM: “We defined 5th generation charcteristics. We put in stealth.”
Boeing: “Arghh, our F-18E isn’t exactly stealthy, but our head of marketing wants to sell 5th generation.”
LM: “How about ‘Very Low Observable’?”
Boeing: “Fair enough, let’s agree on that.”

And yippee, now Boeing has a 5th generation fighter, which may have sensor fusion but takes a big step back in flight performance.

Deltas are never good low level, stable but not comfortable. (Except probably the TSR2, but that was a very small delta). Buccaneer and Tornado should be about equal regarding low level stability and comfort, but the Buccaneer had more range.

Interesting, I read several accounts stating that deltas are well suited for low level due to low lift increase. Most important is the wing loading, it should be relatively high. The classical delta fighter has low wing loading (or needed it to become airborne on a finite runway).

Whilst the Tornado was superior tecnologically the Buccaneer had much better low level stability and often it was said there was nothing to match it in the world.

The Tornado has a pitch stability augmentation system, so I cannot really believe that stability is an issue. The Tornado is also a very stable design and with wings swept back stability shouldn’t be an issue.
I actually heard that the Buccaneer is very fast low-level (faster than the Tornado without afterburner), but I have never heard anything about better ride quality.

But is this still the case today or do the more modern fighters, Typhoon, Lightning II and Gripen to name but three have very good low level ride quality to match the Buccaneers?

The named designs have control systems that are 2 generations ahead of those of the Tornado. The pilot does not need to “stabilize” the aircraft. The fast actuators help for quick stabilization. As I stated the most important is the wing loading, so that all modern fighters loose in low-level flying against the Tornado.

Typhoon isn’t a stealth aircraft and doesn’t even have AESA for starters.

The funny picture in the beginning said “Stealth (VLO)”. So Lockheed Martin left a backdoor open if somebaody says that F-35 can be detected: It still is “Very Low Observable”.
The funny picture doesn’t say anything about AESA.

The most serious reason for the Typhonn being crappy 4th generation while the hyper-modern F-22 and F-35 are shiny 5th generation is the fact that it isn’t produced by Lockheed Martin.

Heard a rumor that ol Chavez is egging Argentina on to have another go at the Falklands………anyone hear anything about this?

Chavez is going around and is trying to stir the s##t whereever he can. His hate against the USA goes a “little” bit beyond the healthy scepticism Middle and South America should have against the USA. In the end he is nothing else than an upcoming dictator who needs a common enemy.

Argentinia doesn’t have the resources to do another Falklands. Which aircraft do they want to use?