LN working on F-105 Thunderchief?

[Paradox]

While I would never lay down as much vitriol as the man above: The Thud is an essential aeroplane.

 

If we ever get one it will be from RAZBAM though, they've got one in FSX and I believe they're aware of the interest.

[Kev2go]

I think Id rather favor a Super Saber or a Phantom over a Thud. The Thunderchief fared only slightly better than the A-6E during the war and all it had going for it was speed. Dont even think it was all that fun of an aircraft to fly either, it being a flying boat...

 

i agree if for one reason the F100 SUper sabre would make a nice American counterpart to the Mig19 as far as development and time period goes. They entered service within months of each other. granted wed all want the definitive fighter bomber F100D ( preferably post project highwire) and possibly the modified ANG version from the late 60s that had the more reliable F102 Afterburners.

 

F105 sure is nessary to a nam period, but HUn along with F4 phantoms service extends beyond vietnam and saw export use too. F105 was strickly all american service jet.

 

F4 also saw notable use by the Isreali's as well as IRAN. and the whilst the Hun foreign service is not as glamarous or widespread as the phantomit still did see service with US Nato allies like France, Denmark and Turkey. The French used the hun in a strike role in thier Algerian war, and the Turks over thir invasion of Cyprus

Edited March 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[ObiWanVA10]

[addde]

Ideally we should get the whole family (like we do with the F-14....well, minus the D, but that is way too 90's anyways), but if we can't...... GO NAVY! I want my Phantoms in hig-vis schemes :smilewink:

 

You probably know this but there is only 4 years between the B and D, 1987 vs 1991 ;)

[BlackLion213]

You probably know this but there is only 4 years between the B and D, 1987 vs 1991 ;)

 

True, only a few years separated their manufacture start dates, but the F-14B is really just a re-engined F-14A so 20 years separates the avionics and weapons systems of the F-14D.

 

It's also true that their were some other small additions to the F-14A+/B such as the new ALR-67 RWR, AFC731 (new gun vents for better sustained M61 operations), and the absence of wing gloves, but these were all things planned for the F-14A anyway. These changes were retrofitted to all F-14As in the early 90s and the F-14A and F-14B were pretty much feature aligned throughout their careers in the 90s and 2000s.

 

Of course with the winking emoji this may be stuff that you are aware of....I'm never quite sure of what someone is saying when they use one...;)

 

-Nick

[zxrex]

Really would like to see a 105 in here, but agree the 100 would possibly be more popular with the community. A F100 would be nice to see in game. Definately would buy it. All the century series have been an interest of mine. Waiting to see how well the RIO/WSO/Bear is implemented before deciding on a 2 seater.

 

Guess this thread should be somewhere else then the Heatblur F14 forum.

[Robert31178]

I imagine this was due in part to it's nuclear capabilities and also some trick systems. The US also did not export the A-6 because of tech. Out of all of the planes used during Vietnam I think F-4 would be my #1 pick, and second would be a toss up between F-105 and A-6, both represented their services as the heavy lifting plane in theater in the Rolling Thunder campaign.

 

ZXRex - Yep!! I read either WWII or Vietnam aviation history almost exclusively. My favorite two quotes on about the plane are "The F-105 was sarcastically referred to as a 'Triple Threat' — it could bomb you, strafe you, or fall on you." and also "If someone built a runway that went all the way round the world Republic would build a plane to use all of it" Art Kartveli was really ahead of things and The F-105 represents a high water mark for them in my opinion.

[Kev2go]

True, only a few years separated their manufacture start dates, but the F-14B is really just a re-engined F-14A so 20 years separates the avionics and weapons systems of the F-14D.

 

It's also true that their were some other small additions to the F-14A+/B such as the new ALR-67 RWR, AFC731 (new gun vents for better sustained M61 operations), and the absence of wing gloves, but these were all things planned for the F-14A anyway. These changes were retrofitted to all F-14As in the early 90s and the F-14A and F-14B were pretty much feature aligned throughout their careers in the 90s and 2000s.

 

Of course with the winking emoji this may be stuff that you are aware of....I'm never quite sure of what someone is saying when they use one...;)

 

-Nick

 

 

I think F14D is still relevant aircraft, for GUlf war, and as well for Iraq 2003 scenario. F14A/B despite still soldiering on would still feel kinda out of place & dated during the 90s to 2000's time period.

 

 

F14D super tom cat was the defenitive version after all. would certainly love to have a tomcat with MFD's.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[probad]

the comments about the f-14 were in regards to a vietnam timeframe

Edited March 14, 2017 by probad

[Kev2go]

the comments about the f-14 were in regards to a vietnam timeframe

 

the F14 never saw combat in vietnaml unless you really split hairs and countover a couple of patrols during the saigon evacuation. especially since were getting a F14A+ and B variant. It would be anachronistic to place them In Vietnam/ SEA theatre. even in 1975.

 

Even though the very initial F14A By the time it was in service. US Military Combat role had ceased, by 1973. The very last small bits pf US personell withdrew after the fall of saigon. F14 wasnt going to flying over north vietnam shooting down Migs. or providing escort for Fighter Bombers

 

A small military presence post 73 there was really just to guard the embassy, and personel to monitor the situation up to that point. But the Combat role had entirely ceased. By 1973 Air strikes had entirely ceased, and all Combat troops sent home by that point. even Special operations and "advisors" were gone.

 

the only point in time a F14A would ever see actual combat would be a entirely alternative history of US coming back to full force Vietnam to prevent the South from falling from the final 1975 invasion from the NVA.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Kev2go

[Hammer1-1]

You obviously have never flown an F-105, nor have you read a shred of information shared by pilots who flew her in combat. Sure they lost some planes, but they were also the only USAF plane consistently flying over North Vietnam for a while during Rolling Thunder. A quick peek at USN aircraft over the period shows parallel losses between all of their airframes next to F-105's. Losses for the whole conflict over mid 300's for F-105, and for the USN mid 300's for A-6, A-4, A-7, and A-1 all tallied up. Furthermore, the USAF had the toughest of the route packages, and while Pack 2 was dangerous, it wasn't on the same level as flying the Red River Valley and Hanoi where the F-105 frequently operated. The USN also had the luxury of a short run to home when compared to the USAF egress routes to Thailand.

 

Was it maneuverable like a MiG? Nah, but that never stopped people like Gene Basel, Karl Richter, Leo Thorsness, Fred Tolman, Max Brestel....and those are just the famous ones. How about a MOH for Merle Dethlefsen for singlehandedly taking on the NVAF and SAM batteries to support the rescue of his flight lead? These guys had confidence in their aircraft and employed it effectively throughout the war. there's a reason why it was given another seat for the WW mission and continued to do so up to the end of the conflict even while the F-4G was in theater. How about being the plane in the USAF that did all of the heavy lifting, so to speak, over the RP's? It was a tactical fighter doing strategic bombing, and while they did take appalling losses the men who flew Thunderchief bravely and confidently climbed back into the cockpits day after day after day to take the war back to the antagonists in their own home.

 

As for flying the thing and not enjoying it, well......all I can say is grab a book. Nothing was faster on deck except a SAM, it had a gun, it was single seat, it was single engine, it was pure fighter piloting to as born and bred fighter jock. I've read half a dozen books written by pilots who flew the F-105 to 100 missions over North Vietnam, and not one of them said any negative thing about the plane except it was thirsty, yep! Jack Broughton, Ken Bell, Ed Rasimus to name a few.......more famous F-105 fliers!!

 

Get some books and get to reading son!!

 

~S

Ive read a few books on the Thud, and they all confirm my original posting - its just a fast bomb truck with a very large turn radius. Even the F-104 had better performance when it came to air to air engagements. And iirc, the F-105 wasnt just a single seat version either, there are multiple variants in a dual seat configuration too for Wild Weasel missions. Yeah it had a gun, but really couldnt hold its own against a Mig-21. So yes, the F-105 is the Vietnam eras B-17 without the a2a kill ratio. Ill even point out the atrocious kill ratio against both Mig-17s and -21s while in service. I stand by my opinion.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Hammer1-1

[Andy1966]

Id buy a Thud module ASAP

[lunaticfringe]

It was a tactical fighter doing strategic bombing...

 

...Nothing was faster on deck except a SAM, it had a gun, it was single seat, it was single engine, it was pure fighter piloting to as born and bred fighter jock...

 

...it was a nuclear sprint bomber playing in its secondary role.

 

Don't confuse the talents of its crews with the qualities of the machine.

[captain_dalan]

You probably know this but there is only 4 years between the B and D, 1987 vs 1991 ;)

Yeah, but my major concern about any post mid 90's simulator is data availability. Even today, after half a century some of the stuff made in the 60's is still classified. How are we supposed to simulate digital avionics and guidance systems present in the newer birds and weapons systems? As Nick said, the D was a much more different bird then the B or the A.

[Kev2go]

Yeah, but my major concern about any post mid 90's simulator is data availability. Even today, after half a century some of the stuff made in the 60's is still classified. How are we supposed to simulate digital avionics and guidance systems present in the newer birds and weapons systems? As Nick said, the D was a much more different bird then the B or the A.

 

F14 tomcat entirely retired by 2006 though.

 

alot of these newer digital systems found on F14D still werent anything special, pretty much jsut would have made F14 relevant for the late 80s- 90s period ( minus its lack of Amram capability) not much different than ones found on a F15E

 

Hell it F14D upgraded radar was even a close derivative of the An/APG 70 of the F15E. which in itself does have some commonality of the smaller AN/APG 73 radar used on later model F/A18C hornets. ( replaced the AN/APG 65)

 

If i recall F15E is a planned module from razabam roadmap at some point i nthe future, i and F/A18C is development by ED. So the 4th gen aircraft from US certainly have classification on post 1990s birds ( if i recal the model ED is doing is a OFP 13 Lot 20 hornet, which would make it a 2003+ bird, and later if since they mentioned a HMCD, and aim9x)

 

Even obvious F16 sim has a F16C blk 50/52 which went into service in the early 90s and it includes a MID life update version from the 2000's along with HMCS.

 

From my observation getting data for 4th gen 1990+ aircraft is more of a problem for other foriegn nations which are less transparent with flow of information or take longer to declassify similar tech level stuff than US does with thiers.

 

 

...it was a nuclear sprint bomber playing in its secondary role.

 

Don't confuse the talents of its crews with the qualities of the machine.

 

exactly, well said.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Kev2go

[cichlidfan]

The age of the tech doesn't always match up with whether it has been declassified. It doesn't happen based on some sort of expiration date. Somebody has to actually initiate the process.

[captain_dalan]

F14 tomcat entirely retired by 2006 though.

 

.........

 

From my observation getting data for 4th gen 1990+ aircraft is more of a problem for other foriegn nations which are less transparent with flow of information or take longer to declassify similar tech level stuff than US does with thiers.

Retired yes, but as i mentioned even things designed (and by now long retired) in the 60's can still be classified. We could of course try and guess how a system would perform, but my own personal preference goes to well documented sims. It's why i can't for the life of me figure out how are people planning on incorporating a Eurofighter in the game.... :huh:

 

EDIT: cichlidfan beat me to it....

[Kev2go]

The age of the tech doesn't always match up with whether it has been declassified. It doesn't happen based on some sort of expiration date. Somebody has to actually initiate the process.

 

no But as provided with other examples my point was theres no reason to suspect so when public data exists for these other US aircraft that are still in service and have outlived the F14.

 

In this case F14D manual is out there.

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/grumman/f-14tomcat/336301-f14aad-1flightmanualnavymodelf-14d.html

 

 

Retired yes, but as i mentioned even things designed (and by now long retired) in the 60's can still be classified. We could of course try and guess how a system would perform, but my own personal preference goes to well documented sims. It's why i can't for the life of me figure out how are people planning on incorporating a Eurofighter in the game.... :huh:

 

EDIT: cichlidfan beat me to it....

 

 

No it doenst alwasy but in this case it does. reread my prior post and look above at 1st quote response.

 

And yes DCS and that obvious sim are "accurate" for representing the aircraf systems within limitations of a Virtual experience.

 

 

AS for the Eurofighter that is the exception with VEO. They got a a Gov't contract to create milsim version for the Royal Air force. They are merely going to give us a "consumer" version as ED did with the A10C. and its only going to be a Tranch 1 EF not the Tranche 5.

 

In the CAse of the A10C ( if i recall correctly) the only thing from Suite 3 that was deemed sensitive was the IFF, Some DATAlink functions and some Electronic warfare stuff, which ED guesstimated other than that Its just about square on. the AF didnt have much to hide anyhow The CHarlie package only gave A10 Multifunction displays, Precsion guided munitons, and usage of a targeting pod. tech that had already been in use on Mulitrole fighters since at least the 90s. Its an upgrade but nothing state of the art by any stretch. of the imagination for something that only came around 2007-2009

Edited March 15, 2017 by Kev2go

[zxrex]

Ive read a few books on the Thud, and they all confirm my original posting - its just a fast bomb truck with a very large turn radius. Even the F-104 had better performance when it came to air to air engagements. And iirc, the F-105 wasnt just a single seat version either, there are multiple variants in a dual seat configuration too for Wild Weasel missions. Yeah it had a gun, but really couldnt hold its own against a Mig-21. So yes, the F-105 is the Vietnam eras B-17 without the a2a kill ratio. Ill even point out the atrocious kill ratio against both Mig-17s and -21s while in service. I stand by my opinion.

 

What loss rate to Migs? By far the most losses of the Thud were to AAA followed by sams. There were more Thuds lost just to operational accidents than to Migs. The information I can find shows 22 F 105s shot down while being bounced loaded with bombs to 27.5 Migs shot down. Pretty much same ratio for any airframe at that time. It had most of it's kills with guns. The Vietnam era B17 was the B52 but it didn't go North until Dec 72. Up to 68 the 105 was doing that work. It wasn't the a2a machine, but it did a hell of a job and had teeth too.

[Robert31178]

Thank you ZxRex for saving me some time there!!

 

Hey, and no foolin' the F-105 was developed into a 2 seater. Trainers were available at the time pilots went through transition training on the A/C but no one rode in the back seat past a fam flight - WW mission and aircraft were not who I spoke of then I said single seat, single engine.....The pilots who flew D models did tout the fact that they did fly single seat, single engine and had a gun, as well they should have.

 

Every single airplane in the world has shortcomings. Every one of them. For as many as the F-105 had it performed beautifully in the face of unimaginable danger. Did the pilots make the plane? Ok, sure, but if they weren't confident in what they flew then they would not have been willing to fly it in combat, making it not effective. The fact is that this was the only plane in the USAF inventory that could do the job it did in 1965-67 because the USAF wasn't throwing F-4's into the ground pound role up north in mass numbers yet, and the US Navy just plum didn't have the number of aircraft that the USAF did operating North Vietnam - I say that meaning for a strike package you'd see 40-60 F-105's compared to maybe 24 A-6's in an alpha strike. Yep, the 105 took heavy losses...because it was ALWAYS there. But even with the heavy losses it was a tough plane that could still get pilots home, and more importantly would most likely fly again. "F-105's came back so blown to Hell that more costly F-4's even one tenth as damaged would NEVER make it home!" - SSgt Eervin Davis, USAF F-105 crew chief.

 

And really, history does come out and say "yeah, that plane was pulled from service because it couldn't cut it", but I don't think that's quite right. I think it was a consideration, but I think it was a consideration in part to cover the asses of bureaucrats who decided that putting transport and bomber pilots into combat in a very advanced airplane, pilots who took immense losses simply because they had no business in charge of a strike aircraft over a target area but John Wayne'd up and went anyway. I also think that the USAF had a better, more advanced plane in the F-4 and started employing it once the program was moving along nicely. Uh, they did that with the F-100 as a WW plane (in rapid fashion - the first operational unit of WW lost all but one of their planes within 45 days of commencing WW in theater.....who was suffering a high attrition again??), it happened with the P-47 in WWII when the Mustang was shown to outshine Jug in A2A situations, it happened to the F-4 when the next gen planes came online, etc etc etc for all time infinity yay technology.......

 

The pilots made the plane, but the plane made the pilots. It was a great airplane, if for no other reason than to say it did a job that it wasn't designed for, and it had to do it because nothing else in the USAF inventory could do the job either.

 

And I stand by MY opinion :-)

Edited March 15, 2017 by Robert31178

[dolfo]

I sure hope someone is working on releasing the F-105 for DCS. Sure purchase for me.

 

Do not know if it was mentioned yet, but there is a great book on the subject. Suggest people do a search for "When Thunder Rolled" by Ed Rasimus.

[Buzzles]

no But as provided with other examples my point was theres no reason to suspect so when public data exists for these other US aircraft that are still in service and have outlived the F14.

 

In this case F14D manual is out there.

 

First of all, a flight manual being available isn't any and all the information needed, plus a manual can be declassified and other parts not.

 

Second, contracts are weird. Don't forget there's service and support contracts between militaries and the manufacturers. Being out of service in one airforce doesn't mean there's not stuff going on behind the scenes for other users. Even strored/mothballed airframes can have support contracts still active.

It's those contracts that may or may not have a bearing on stuff being classified or available. Political climate plays an role too, both now and when they were signed.

[Hammer1-1]

What loss rate to Migs? By far the most losses of the Thud were to AAA followed by sams. There were more Thuds lost just to operational accidents than to Migs. The information I can find shows 22 F 105s shot down while being bounced loaded with bombs to 27.5 Migs shot down. Pretty much same ratio for any airframe at that time. It had most of it's kills with guns. The Vietnam era B17 was the B52 but it didn't go North until Dec 72. Up to 68 the 105 was doing that work. It wasn't the a2a machine, but it did a hell of a job and had teeth too.

 

 

Most of the kills against the F-105s were from Mig-17s and vice versa. Thats not really anything to be proud of...

And my comparison with it being the B-17 of the era is logical; the B-52 is the Vietnam eras B-29.

[Hammer1-1]

Thank you ZxRex for saving me some time there!!

 

Hey, and no foolin' the F-105 was developed into a 2 seater. Trainers were available at the time pilots went through transition training on the A/C but no one rode in the back seat past a fam flight - WW mission and aircraft were not who I spoke of then I said single seat, single engine.....The pilots who flew D models did tout the fact that they did fly single seat, single engine and had a gun, as well they should have.

 

Every single airplane in the world has shortcomings. Every one of them. For as many as the F-105 had it performed beautifully in the face of unimaginable danger. Did the pilots make the plane? Ok, sure, but if they weren't confident in what they flew then they would not have been willing to fly it in combat, making it not effective. The fact is that this was the only plane in the USAF inventory that could do the job it did in 1965-67 because the USAF wasn't throwing F-4's into the ground pound role up north in mass numbers yet, and the US Navy just plum didn't have the number of aircraft that the USAF did operating North Vietnam - I say that meaning for a strike package you'd see 40-60 F-105's compared to maybe 24 A-6's in an alpha strike. Yep, the 105 took heavy losses...because it was ALWAYS there. But even with the heavy losses it was a tough plane that could still get pilots home, and more importantly would most likely fly again. "F-105's came back so blown to Hell that more costly F-4's even one tenth as damaged would NEVER make it home!" - SSgt Eervin Davis, USAF F-105 crew chief.

 

And really, history does come out and say "yeah, that plane was pulled from service because it couldn't cut it", but I don't think that's quite right. I think it was a consideration, but I think it was a consideration in part to cover the asses of bureaucrats who decided that putting transport and bomber pilots into combat in a very advanced airplane, pilots who took immense losses simply because they had no business in charge of a strike aircraft over a target area but John Wayne'd up and went anyway. I also think that the USAF had a better, more advanced plane in the F-4 and started employing it once the program was moving along nicely. Uh, they did that with the F-100 as a WW plane (in rapid fashion - the first operational unit of WW lost all but one of their planes within 45 days of commencing WW in theater.....who was suffering a high attrition again??), it happened with the P-47 in WWII when the Mustang was shown to outshine Jug in A2A situations, it happened to the F-4 when the next gen planes came online, etc etc etc for all time infinity yay technology.......

 

The pilots made the plane, but the plane made the pilots. It was a great airplane, if for no other reason than to say it did a job that it wasn't designed for, and it had to do it because nothing else in the USAF inventory could do the job either.

 

And I stand by MY opinion :-)

I never stated it wasnt a great plane, I just stated that its not that great of an airplane. It had its positive aspects and flaws like all aircraft, but unlike most aircraft it had more negative aspects than most. The poor attrition rate with the F-105 was the main reason why the F-4 was pushed out in a hurry. Think about it: the armed forces needed a bomb truck that could defend itself that was both fast and flexible. Why do you think the early versions didnt have a gun? Ironically, it was that flaw that brought about Fighter Weapons School. There was a reason why the F-4 replaced all of the F-105 missions...it did each job better with the added benefit of being able to defend itself.

[Kev2go]

First of all, a flight manual being available isn't any and all the information needed, plus a manual can be declassified and other parts not.

 

Second, contracts are weird. Don't forget there's service and support contracts between militaries and the manufacturers. Being out of service in one airforce doesn't mean there's not stuff going on behind the scenes for other users. Even strored/mothballed airframes can have support contracts still active.

It's those contracts that may or may not have a bearing on stuff being classified or available. Political climate plays an role too, both now and when they were signed.

 

No its not all you need. BUt thats nother matter entirely again.,

 

okay believe what you want despite what i tell you and show proof on the contrary. ( this case manual is entirely unclassified, so your comment does not apply here)

 

None of what you say is quite to the case of the Tomcat ( or some prior aforementioned US aircraft) again you are very much incorrectly generalizing, and such generalizations have more commonly applied ot foreign aircraft anyhow.

 

But contracts is another thing entirly, please dont change the conversation when it was just about availability of information.

 

Besides there are no contracts in the case of the F14 . not only is the F14 entirely retired in US. F14 has no foreign users except IRan ( which has the F14A, which we are getting anyways from heatblur) and US companies certainly haven't providing support to them for a long time, due to obvious political reasons.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Kev2go