F-35A vs. F-105D
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35A vs. F-105D
On Day 2, with F-22 cover, how much better would F-105D's be at doing what F-35A's are supposed to do post Day 1? ('Day 2' presupposes that everything that should be done on Day 1 actual got done.)
How many F-105's are in the order of battle, as of this morning?
How many suppliers of F-105 parts are there to keep them flying?
How big is the training team at Nellis keeping F-105 tactics up to date?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetically, of course. Really no need to dance on the head of a pin. We know exactly what the F-105D could do, and did. Both have (ended up with) the same basic mission, no? Both are single engine aircraft, though the F-35A has a significantly more powerful engine. For the F-35A, let's go with LM's sales brochure numbers.
On Day 2, with external ordnance and drops, the F-105D goes way farther, waay faster, and drops waaay more bombs than a clean F-35A, no? Add externals to the F-35A, and now the F-105D goes waay farther, waaay faster, and drops way more bombs than a F-35A. Isn't that right?
Let's just talk Day 2 for awhile.
On Day 2, with external ordnance and drops, the F-105D goes way farther, waay faster, and drops waaay more bombs than a clean F-35A, no? Add externals to the F-35A, and now the F-105D goes waay farther, waaay faster, and drops way more bombs than a F-35A. Isn't that right?
Let's just talk Day 2 for awhile.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: the earth
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Channel,
I think you're missing the point on what F35 is designed to do, which is operate in contested airspace. Given a significant, modern Fighter threat combined with modern day SAMs I'd be surprised is everything was 'mopped' up after night 1. So I suspect the answer is; not very well.
I think you're missing the point on what F35 is designed to do, which is operate in contested airspace. Given a significant, modern Fighter threat combined with modern day SAMs I'd be surprised is everything was 'mopped' up after night 1. So I suspect the answer is; not very well.
I think Channel 2 is being hypothetical and positing ops in uncontested airspace where F-35 can load up the external pylons. It's a slightly fictional scenario whereby we use F-35 for one day to destroy completely the air-to-air and surface-to-air threats, put them all away until the next war and get out the 105s.
If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.
But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".
If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.
But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good, just what the forum needs, another thread kicking lumps out of the F-35...
But, since it's here anyway, the F-105 could only carry dumb bombs, no smart/precision munitions, that puts it at a disadvantage to the F-35 immediately, no?
-RP
But, since it's here anyway, the F-105 could only carry dumb bombs, no smart/precision munitions, that puts it at a disadvantage to the F-35 immediately, no?
-RP
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read Jack Broughtonss book. He seemed to think they were doing Vietnam a favour by bombing them to a bloody standstill.
Him and his men heroically smashing them to atoms.
As for the Thud. Half the fleet is still in Vietnam.
Him and his men heroically smashing them to atoms.
As for the Thud. Half the fleet is still in Vietnam.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Day 2, with external ordnance and drops, the F-105D goes way farther, waay faster, and drops waaay more bombs than a clean F-35A, no? Add externals to the F-35A, and now the F-105D goes waay farther, waaay faster, and drops way more bombs than a F-35A. Isn't that right?
Let's just talk Day 2 for awhile.
Let's just talk Day 2 for awhile.
Edit: The A-7 was a fine attack platform also and replaced the F-105 even though it was much slower. It was operated by both USAF and USN, plus a few non-US air arms. And the A-3 in USN service, (B-66 in USAF service) was a pretty good bomber that could deliver lots more bombs farther than either the F-35 or F-105. The A-6 in USN service and F-111 in USAF service were fine attack platforms as well in their day and the F-15E/I/S/K/SG/SA/SE continues to be an exceptional attack platform today with a bigger payload and greater range than F-35. F-16 and Rafale are also a current production really good attack platforms. And the Typhoon is getting there. But clearly USAF, USN, RAF, RAAF, CAF, IDF and several other air arms have requirements that those platforms cannot meet effectively and that's the very reason the F-35 exists. It does things the others cannot do and clearly there are a number of air arms willing to pay a premium price and wait much longer than planned to get the capabilities the F-35 brings to the table.
Last edited by KenV; 12th Apr 2016 at 14:56.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One believes the OP has been exceptionally generous to the F35 [lol] how about an internal loadout instead?
X4 SDB''s VS X1 tac Nuke.
Thud wins. Period.
Who was it who said "Talk quietly [unless your anywhere near a F35] but carry a big stick" ?
X4 SDB''s VS X1 tac Nuke.
Thud wins. Period.
Who was it who said "Talk quietly [unless your anywhere near a F35] but carry a big stick" ?
but certainly not quiet.
Vietnam was fought for many years, so "Day 2" and thousands of days thereafter. A LOT of Thuds are still in the jungles of Vietnam. They had essentially zero air-to-air capability and had absolutely zero precision ordinance delivery capability. If you want to drop a lot of iron bombs with what today would be considered miserable accuracy with questionable survivability, then the F-105 would be a very fine platform to do that.
Edit: The A-7 was a fine attack platform also and replaced the F-105 even though it was much slower. It was operated by both USAF and USN, plus a few non-US air arms. And the A-3 in USN service, (B-66 in USAF service) was a pretty good bomber that could deliver lots more bombs farther than either the F-35 or F-105. The A-6 in USN service and F-111 in USAF service were fine attack platforms as well in their day and the F-15E/I/S/K/SG/SA/SE continues to be an exceptional attack platform today with a bigger payload and greater range than F-35. F-16 and Rafale are also a current production really good attack platforms. And the Typhoon is getting there. But clearly USAF, USN, RAF, RAAF, CAF, IDF and several other air arms have requirements that those platforms cannot meet effectively and that's the very reason the F-35 exists. It does things the others cannot do and clearly there are a number of air arms willing to pay a premium price and wait much longer than planned to get the capabilities the F-35 brings to the table.
Edit: The A-7 was a fine attack platform also and replaced the F-105 even though it was much slower. It was operated by both USAF and USN, plus a few non-US air arms. And the A-3 in USN service, (B-66 in USAF service) was a pretty good bomber that could deliver lots more bombs farther than either the F-35 or F-105. The A-6 in USN service and F-111 in USAF service were fine attack platforms as well in their day and the F-15E/I/S/K/SG/SA/SE continues to be an exceptional attack platform today with a bigger payload and greater range than F-35. F-16 and Rafale are also a current production really good attack platforms. And the Typhoon is getting there. But clearly USAF, USN, RAF, RAAF, CAF, IDF and several other air arms have requirements that those platforms cannot meet effectively and that's the very reason the F-35 exists. It does things the others cannot do and clearly there are a number of air arms willing to pay a premium price and wait much longer than planned to get the capabilities the F-35 brings to the table.
What about on Day 2 with F22 cover, how much better would the Avro Lancaster be, doing the F105D job that was trying to do the F35 job? (assuming everything on Day 1 got done.)
KenV They had essentially zero air-to-air capability
melmothtw beat me to it. The F-105 was credited with 27.5 kills (most with the gun) with what was essentially designed as a single seat penetration bomber is no slouch. That's more kills than other attack/bombers such as the A-4, A-7, A-6, and even the fighters such F-8, F-100 etc. Of the Western aircraft only the F-4 got more air to air kills in Vietnam/SEA. If you believe all the reports, the B-52 had the "best" air to air kill ratio.....
This study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/c016682.pdf is a good read on losses by type and with some good nuggets. Interesting about the part of the F-105's ability to "die slowly", which gave the aircraft perhaps an underserved rugged reputation, but highlighted that the abiltiy for an aircraft to fly on for even just a bit was a big factor in crew survival rates.
Yes the Thud had a high loss rate, perhaps 390 (sources vary), but the vast majority of the losses were to AAA, then SAM's then another big drop to MiGs, with perhaps 20+ lost to MiGs. So perhaps a 1:1 ratio, and many more likely survived by the Thuds impressive ability to outrun the MiGs down low.
As for the vs. F-35 debate, agree with the others. Bomb load, range and speed goes to the F-105, but the electronics and other feature is no comparison. Apples and oranges. Heck a B-24 could carry a similar bomb load farther, but no one is suggesting we should re-open the Liberator production line.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Area 51
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Well, if I am not mistaken, the skies over North Vietnam were heavily contested, in fact, they were the most heavily contested in the history of aerial warfare, no?
a) Perhaps the above explains why "half of the F-105 fleet is still in Vietnam?"
2) The F-105 is credited with 24.5 gun kills and 3.0 missile kills against the MiG-17, versus 17 confirmed kills for the MiG-17. That's not too bad for an aircraft originally designed to be a nuclear attack strike aircraft. The MiG was an incredibly agile pure fighter, wasn't it?
3) The F-105F/G preformed the SEAD/ECM mission until 1984?
4) Let's spend $10k wiring the F-105D for GPS (that's the cost of doing it, not the price) and $50k for the cost of a glass panel up front, and now we have GBU-31/54 (JDAM) capability. Adding a LANTIRN/LITENING/SNIPER pod brings us up to bomb dropping skill parity with a F-35A, no? Am I wrong?
5) Not to put fine a point on it, but in a bomb dropping/visual dog fighting fly-off, after doing '4' above, a refurbished F-105D gate guard embarrasses a F-35A in any configuration. No? Am I wrong?
Not trolling. I'm just trying to understand the fundamental reasoning and rational for the F-35. In the very near future, unmanned, low-observable aircraft will be doing ALL of the Day 1 missions, no? And if this is true, and 1-4 above are all true, then why are we still building these things?
a) Perhaps the above explains why "half of the F-105 fleet is still in Vietnam?"
2) The F-105 is credited with 24.5 gun kills and 3.0 missile kills against the MiG-17, versus 17 confirmed kills for the MiG-17. That's not too bad for an aircraft originally designed to be a nuclear attack strike aircraft. The MiG was an incredibly agile pure fighter, wasn't it?
3) The F-105F/G preformed the SEAD/ECM mission until 1984?
4) Let's spend $10k wiring the F-105D for GPS (that's the cost of doing it, not the price) and $50k for the cost of a glass panel up front, and now we have GBU-31/54 (JDAM) capability. Adding a LANTIRN/LITENING/SNIPER pod brings us up to bomb dropping skill parity with a F-35A, no? Am I wrong?
5) Not to put fine a point on it, but in a bomb dropping/visual dog fighting fly-off, after doing '4' above, a refurbished F-105D gate guard embarrasses a F-35A in any configuration. No? Am I wrong?
Not trolling. I'm just trying to understand the fundamental reasoning and rational for the F-35. In the very near future, unmanned, low-observable aircraft will be doing ALL of the Day 1 missions, no? And if this is true, and 1-4 above are all true, then why are we still building these things?
Last edited by Channel 2; 12th Apr 2016 at 21:59. Reason: Numbering typo
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,807
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
No horse in this race, but I'm glad the OP has had some sensible responses.
A good question, and a good topic
A good question, and a good topic
No A2A
The F-105 radar actually had an air-to-air mode, primarily radar ranging for lead computations with some search capability (With my eyeballs I could generally see much further) and it was unlikely you would need exacting lead computations when any likely opponent could easily turn better. The only USAF fighter it could out-turn was the F-101 and to air refuel smoothly on a 135 at 310 KCAS (P&D or B/R), the leading edge flaps had to be extended.
In the late 70s the air-to-air mode was not maintained, but to my surprise in 1979 I got in a tail number one day where it actually worked. It also had a small, almost unreadable head-up radar repeater in the combiner, really in fact not much good for radar bombing or a2a search anyway.
I think it's ironic that the Navy makes a point of calling the F-8 the last gunfighter....if it was, it was in name only.
(The F-105 was generally flown by the USAF's best pilots early in the game (a lot of ex-Hun guys), which probably accounted for most of the successes they had, but was opened later to lesser experienced Majors & above {not even necessarily fighter types} wanting to get their career ticket punched. At this time many of the 105 guys had opted for additional tours in the F-4.)
F-105, even in 1979, would have been tasked many days/weeks after D+1. The old girl was not as quick as she used to be. So F-35 comparison is really moot.
(BTW I don't consider myself a Thud driver (they all wear the 100 over the North patches), but I was a dilettante F-105 pilot and enjoyed the hell out of it.
In the late 70s the air-to-air mode was not maintained, but to my surprise in 1979 I got in a tail number one day where it actually worked. It also had a small, almost unreadable head-up radar repeater in the combiner, really in fact not much good for radar bombing or a2a search anyway.
I think it's ironic that the Navy makes a point of calling the F-8 the last gunfighter....if it was, it was in name only.
(The F-105 was generally flown by the USAF's best pilots early in the game (a lot of ex-Hun guys), which probably accounted for most of the successes they had, but was opened later to lesser experienced Majors & above {not even necessarily fighter types} wanting to get their career ticket punched. At this time many of the 105 guys had opted for additional tours in the F-4.)
F-105, even in 1979, would have been tasked many days/weeks after D+1. The old girl was not as quick as she used to be. So F-35 comparison is really moot.
(BTW I don't consider myself a Thud driver (they all wear the 100 over the North patches), but I was a dilettante F-105 pilot and enjoyed the hell out of it.
Slight thread drift apropos the Thud and the Lancaster.
I hadn't realized how big the F-105 was until I saw one in the Palm Springs museum. On looking up the dimensions, I see it is 65' long, which is only 4' shorter than a Lancaster!
A few years ago, I had the surreal experience of watching a stream of Mig-21s take off at Hanoi, with Thud Ridge in the background. All commercial traffic had been halted and remained that way until the Migs returned about 20 minutes later, presumably with Bingo fuel.
I hadn't realized how big the F-105 was until I saw one in the Palm Springs museum. On looking up the dimensions, I see it is 65' long, which is only 4' shorter than a Lancaster!
A few years ago, I had the surreal experience of watching a stream of Mig-21s take off at Hanoi, with Thud Ridge in the background. All commercial traffic had been halted and remained that way until the Migs returned about 20 minutes later, presumably with Bingo fuel.
I think Channel 2 is being hypothetical and positing ops in uncontested airspace where F-35 can load up the external pylons. It's a slightly fictional scenario whereby we use F-35 for one day to destroy completely the air-to-air and surface-to-air threats, put them all away until the next war and get out the 105s.
If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.
But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".
If the only metrics are farther, faster, heavier, then the question is already answered. If the question takes the whole issue in the round, then you're unlikely to get to day 2 in time for farther, faster, heavier to be any kind of advantage.
But like I said, it's a hypothetical "what if".
It's all well and good being able to achieve a mission on paper, but if the levels of cost-induced risk aversion are so high that putting it into that sort of scenario is unlikely to happen, why not just go for the cheaper option? How many aircraft losses would the UK be able to sustain politically before having to withdraw? How much would the F-35 have to be supplemented by other systems such as EA on top of the already high price tag?