A lot of folks who have never seen one in flight or heard the bang of a hard light J-75 afterburner will wax poetic about the F-105 as a ponderous bomber with little capability beyond the nuclear strike, low-altitude penetration mission. They link supposed design short-comings to losses over North Vietnam and categorize the airplane as the wrong choice for the war. Of course, they aren't really sure which end the hot air comes out of.
I'm a bit defensive and I tend to attempt to correct these errors in their historic thinking.
While I was in F-105 training at Nellis, we weren't yet very aware of our future in the next six months or the role which the jet would play. We weighed pros and cons of an assignment to Bitburg or Spangdahlem Germany against Yokota Japan or Kadena Okinawa.
It was inevitable that once we were pilot qualified in the airplane, even though not yet operationally qualified, that we would be briefed on the war-time role of the 70 or so Thunderchiefs at Nellis.
What was our tasking? What would we do if the balloon went up?
Our mission was going to be air defense against the bomber hordes from the Soviet Union coming toward the United States from over the North Pole. We would be the last line of defense after the early warning radars in Canada and the interceptors in the northern states had given their all. The profile demonstrates what the airplane could do.
We would be loaded with three external fuel tanks, a pair of 450 gallon wing tanks and a 650 gallon centerline along with another tank that was always carried in the bomb-bay. Roughly 22,000 pounds of fuel for the jet.
The weapons were a loaded Vulcan cannon with 1029 rounds of 20mm and two AIM-9B Sidewinder missiles; one on each outboard wing station. Strictly air defense against bombers.
We would launch in full A/B and climb on a supersonic profile to the north. As tanks went empty, first the centerline, then the wing tanks, we would jettison them. We would level at roughly 60,000 feet and reduce power to minimum A/B which would keep as supersonic at roughly M1.6 and follow ground radar instructions to an orbit point.
We could then orbit for almost three hours at supersonic speed waiting to be vectored to a target.
If that doesn't sound like something more than a low altitude bomb truck, I don't think you understand the concept.
10 comments:
I've had a special fondness for the F-105, ever since I was allowed to sit in the instrument simulator when I was little.
Other fighters were things I'd seen from afar, but I'd touched a Thud. That makes a big difference when you're, like, twelve and still dreaming airplane dreams. :)
Underestimating the equipment
is a sign of a lack of imagination.
I wonder who first thought that an 88 FLAK cannon would make a wonderful tank killer? History is full of people taking supposedly one dimensional tools and making them fit a variety of tasks.
I was stationed at Nellis in 1964-65. In May of 1964 F105's were crashing everywhere it seemed. A Thundebirds pilot was killed, then one crashed on take off, destroying houses and killing several people in North Las Vegas. The stockade was filled with mechanics who were being blamed for the crash. Of course the crashes and groundings continued after the aircraft were deployed to Viet Nam.
Immagikam: As I understand it, the 105 was intended to be a multi-role fighter-bomber from the drawing board.
I admit I was one of those people who thought the 105 was "in reality" only a low altitude nuke strike aircraft, and the other roles were merely Republic's sales pitch. I can see I was sadly mistaken. Thanks for this, Ed.
Stan: Did they really put mechanics in the stockade?!
Ed wrote: "We could then orbit for almost three hours at supersonic speed waiting to be vectored to a target."
Wow! Amazing. I mean, that is really amazing!
Impressive indeed, and the aircraft first flew in 1955!. A quick google shows first flights of '54 & '56 for the F104 and F105 respectively.
Didnt that 10 years post WW2 produce amazing progress in airframes and engines.
The vast technical progress in that short time period is amazing. It should be studied as such, and it is easy to see how people thought we'd have bases on the moon by now. Kubrick's 2001 wasn't at all far-fetched when, as a kid, I first saw it in 1968!
Yep, it gets the imagination going. I just posted a blog about this story:
http://carterkaplan.blogspot.com/
Stan, the Thunderbird accident was a B model. The operational aircraft was the D which was considerably different--engine, instrumentation, radar, auto-pilot, etc.
The issues which caused those '64-65 accidents were largely indentified and cured with two major depot level modification packages called Safety Pack I and II.
No aircraft were grounded after compliance with SP I & II. In 23 years of operational experience in fighters, I never saw nor heard of a maintainer being jailed for involvement in an aircraft accident. The years cause many of us to "mis-remember" things now.
The only time I flew with a Thud was when I was flying F4Es out of Moody in the early 80s. We were flying in a strike package with a Wild Weasel Thud, Guard probably. I felt a little uncomfortable with the speed we were flying and asked him to push it up a bit. THAT was the last I saw of him until debrief. Loved the Thud and it even had an ashtray!
I admit to being an F4 Phantom fan until I read your books and Jack Broughton's and realized how fast and versatile it was. I always thought that Republic aircraft were too big and bulky, too, but now I see the genius of Kartveli in the Thud.
I want one...I really want one.
My reassignment to Nellis from Sondrestrom started on May 25, 1964. Coincidentally that’s the day the F105's were grounded “for inspection”. The fatal crash on the F105 in North Las Vegas happened on May 13, 1964 and Thunderbird pilot Capt. Eugene J. Devlin was killed when his F105 disintegrated in California on May 9, 1964.
I was assigned to the 2069 Comm Squadron and had no direct knowledge of happenings on the flight line at the time. I specifically remember seeing a large group of airmen marching in formation which I thought was unusual and asked another airman what was going on. He told me that the entire group was aircraft mechanics that were in the stockade due to problems on the flight line. So my information is hearsay. The person I asked may have had inaccurate information but I’d never seen that many people in the stockade before. Maybe they were there as part of the crash investigation?
Shortly after that I went TDY to Luke for three months and the next stockade formation I saw at Nellis had only four people. After discharge I worked for Bell of Nevada and installed a Teletype machine in the Republic trailer at Nellis. The person working there gave me a very nice lithograph of the F105 which I still have stored away someplace.
Post a Comment