F-105 Typical Loadouts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-105 Typical Loadouts
While the aircraft had a provision for something like 14,000 pounds of bombs, what was the typical amount of bombs carried, what kind of fuel tanks were carried, and what typical weighs were seen in most fighter-bombing missions in Vietnam?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weights in 'Nam? Max T/O on every sortie I should think. As for loadout, enough fuel to get to the target and back (+ reserves) the remainder with stuff that went bang.
6 750 lb GP bombs on a centerline MER, a 450 gallon drop tank on each wing station. The internal bay had a fuel tank. There were many variations depending target, 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs being the common one, depending on target.
There are innumerable online references
GF
There are innumerable online references
GF
Guest
Posts: n/a
Seems they rarely used that big old bomb bay for....bombs!
Was it fuel mostly then?
Fuggin great aircraft, and hats off to their pilots. Top job.
These guys deserve giant kudos from any pilot, indeed, from any body except maybe Vietnamese civilians.
Great jet, Great pilots.
Too bad about the strategy.
Was it fuel mostly then?
Fuggin great aircraft, and hats off to their pilots. Top job.
These guys deserve giant kudos from any pilot, indeed, from any body except maybe Vietnamese civilians.Great jet, Great pilots.
Too bad about the strategy.
Fuggin great aircraft, and hats off to their pilots. Top job. These guys deserve giant kudos from any pilot, indeed, from any body except maybe Vietnamese civilians.
Although the main enemies at the time were that blinkered fool Robert McNamara, LBJ and the legacy-of-LeMay boneheaded, SAC-umsised air staffs. Read Jack Broughton's classic 'Going Downtown' to learn what those brave fighter pilots were up against....
Had they not been so hamstrung by Washington, the Thud drivers would have cut off the North from resupply and very probably brought the Communists to their knees.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: planet earth
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read " Thud Ridge" by Col Jack Broughton.
Please can every 1* and higher in the RAF read it too - lots in there about "leadership"......
PS: JD, that dramatic stuff you end you end your posts with
Please can every 1* and higher in the RAF read it too - lots in there about "leadership"......
PS: JD, that dramatic stuff you end you end your posts with
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cloud9
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One fine summer afternoon at Valley (early-70's), I was dunking my Mars Bar in my tea outside the Gaydon Hangar crewroom, when a 4FTS Hunter landed. Instead of the Brake Parachute deploying, both drop tanks deployed onto the runway. I am fairly sure that the student pilot was not experimenting with alternative weapons delivery procedures, however.
This shambolic episode merely served to bolster the sense of superiority that we Gnat boys had over the unwashed Hunter savages (we were rabid with jealousy that the Hunter lineys ran a field telephone down onto the beach in the summer, where they would indulge in Top Gun-style volleyball games between jets, legging it back to the line when summoned by 'phone. The RAF was such fun then........)
HB
This shambolic episode merely served to bolster the sense of superiority that we Gnat boys had over the unwashed Hunter savages (we were rabid with jealousy that the Hunter lineys ran a field telephone down onto the beach in the summer, where they would indulge in Top Gun-style volleyball games between jets, legging it back to the line when summoned by 'phone. The RAF was such fun then........)
HB
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sorry to Hijack the thread but this prompt me to wondering, has a plane ever dropped it fuel tanks to have them act like a bomb? "
I understand a common practice during the Korean war, and possibly WWII but you might need someone else to shoot / explode them
dropping napalm tanks develops naturally from that technique
I understand a common practice during the Korean war, and possibly WWII but you might need someone else to shoot / explode them
dropping napalm tanks develops naturally from that technique
Last edited by jamesdevice; 21st Jul 2011 at 21:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dakkg651
Hey, if it's classified, I'm sorry I even asked. I'm not interested in having a heart-attack or something
Fareastdriver
Though I assume you have placed me on ignore and will not hear this information, I'm sorry if I have offended you. I kind of use it as a silly tagline -- normally I would have adjusted the signature with the User CP, but this website as far as I know doesn't have that feature so I just write it out every time.
galaxy flyer
And that brings the F-105D up to around 51,000 pounds, with 2 x 1,000 pounds of bombs on the wings, the centerline stores, the 390 gallon internal tank, and the external tankage you described. That's only about 1,500 pounds off the max load. No wonder the aircraft had such obscene takeoff-speeds (full load takeoff speeds were like 235 kts) and climbed out at such a high alpha.
I wish I had just done that! I did some checking just now. Turns out that the plane had the provision for 2 x 450 or 2 x 650 gallon wing-tanks. I'm guessing once they removed the nuclear weapon (which the aircraft was originally to carry) and put 390 gallon tank in there, they decided to just carry the 450 gallon tanks.
They wings could carry 750 pounders in addition to 1,000 and 2,000 pounders too, though I guess it was more convenient to carry the bigger bombs.
Didn't seem to carry sidewinders much. There is a twisted irony that the F-8 despite being called the last gunfighter scored less kills with it's guns (2) than the F-105 (24.5), and the F-8 scored more kills with sidewinders (most of it's 19 kills were scored with AIM-9's, a few with zuni's and 2 with guns) than the F-105 (only 3) which was less agile.
The F-8 had a better kill-ratio though (19:3)
BarbiesBoyfriend
It originally was designed to carry a 8,000 pound nuclear weapon in there -- I don't know if it was wired to deliver anything else (from the bay).
Well, the F-105D which was the definitive version weighed 27,500 pounds empty, carried a little over 8,137 pounds of fuel internally. With a 390 gallon tank (1 gallon of JP4 = 6.6 pounds), 2,574 pounds of fuel is added bringing the total internal capacity to 10,711 pounds; with 2 x 450 gallon tanks on the wing, fuel capacity is increased to 16,651 pounds.
The large fuel capacity was very important for the F-105's mission because it had to fly fast at low altitudes, and both drag and fuel consumption is higher in those conditions.
BEagle
So, so true. It was amazing some of the ridiculous restrictions they had -- the dumbest thing I ever heard of was the Route Pack system. The last thing you want to be doing is flying easily predictable routes, your enemy will just position all his SAM's and AAA under your flight-paths, and they did this. If I recall correctly the North Vietnamese were in possession of more artillery in a 50 mile radius of Hanoi than the Germans had in all of Europe in WW2.
I would stay off that stuff if I were you!
Fareastdriver
With all that crap you finish your posts with I have just put you on my ignore list.
galaxy flyer
6 750 lb GP bombs on a centerline MER, a 450 gallon drop tank on each wing station. The internal bay had a fuel tank. There were many variations depending target, 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs being the common one, depending on target.
There are innumerable online references
They wings could carry 750 pounders in addition to 1,000 and 2,000 pounders too, though I guess it was more convenient to carry the bigger bombs.
Didn't seem to carry sidewinders much. There is a twisted irony that the F-8 despite being called the last gunfighter scored less kills with it's guns (2) than the F-105 (24.5), and the F-8 scored more kills with sidewinders (most of it's 19 kills were scored with AIM-9's, a few with zuni's and 2 with guns) than the F-105 (only 3) which was less agile.
The F-8 had a better kill-ratio though (19:3)
BarbiesBoyfriend
Seems they rarely used that big old bomb bay for....bombs!
Was it fuel mostly then?
The large fuel capacity was very important for the F-105's mission because it had to fly fast at low altitudes, and both drag and fuel consumption is higher in those conditions.
BEagle
Make that 'except maybe the enemy'.
Although the main enemies at the time were that blinkered fool Robert McNamara, LBJ and the legacy-of-LeMay boneheaded, SAC-umsised air staffs.
Although the main enemies at the time were that blinkered fool Robert McNamara, LBJ and the legacy-of-LeMay boneheaded, SAC-umsised air staffs.
For a completely balanced view, in addition to Going Downtown, you need to read books like When Thunder Rolled and 100 Missions North. They give the view of the tactics of flying from Korat. Jack Broughton flew from Takhli and was very scathing of the other airfield but there are two sides to this spat. I absolutely loved Going Downtown but I ended up questioning some of the stubborn adherence to low-level when higher-level and dive attacks were options. That sounds familiar!
6 750 lb GP bombs on a centerline MER, a 450 gallon drop tank on each wing station.
Photos: Republic F-105D Thunderchief Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
henry crun
Of course -- it's meant to be silly sounding.
MG
Well, the F-105 was designed mostly for low altitude, and I guess that's what motivated things. Regardless, when you consider how far the F-105 could fly down-low, I could only imagine that it could fly very far up high.
Did the F-105 have a multi-stage afterburner, or just the means to throttle the N1/N2 down while keeping the burners on at low altitude?
I feel reasonably sure that I am not the only member of PPRuNe who agrees with that statement.
MG
I ended up questioning some of the stubborn adherence to low-level when higher-level and dive attacks were options. That sounds familiar!
Did the F-105 have a multi-stage afterburner, or just the means to throttle the N1/N2 down while keeping the burners on at low altitude?
You're right, Ken Bell was with Jack Broughton at Takhli, my mistake. Reading When Thunder Rolled and then Palace Cobra gives an interesting demonstration of how things changed after the bombing halt in 68 and how they ramped up during Linebacker, including the use of large packages rather than formations.
To Hanoi and Back gives a balanced view of the two airfields, their approaches to ops and their leadership issues.
As I said, I loved reading Jack Broughton's books but I came away thinking that there was his way and then the highway. It would be a travesty and cruelty in itself to liken him to a certain Mr Ward but there are parallels, especially in the loan fight against everyone else.
To Hanoi and Back gives a balanced view of the two airfields, their approaches to ops and their leadership issues.
As I said, I loved reading Jack Broughton's books but I came away thinking that there was his way and then the highway. It would be a travesty and cruelty in itself to liken him to a certain Mr Ward but there are parallels, especially in the loan fight against everyone else.
Not the best posed photo...but does give an idea of what the Flying Anvil could tote around while working.
The Thunderchief made an excellent tactical bomber. The internal bomb bay had originally been designed with nuclear weapons in mind, but for operations in Southeast Asia, the internal bay of the F-105D rarely carried any ordnance, usually being fitted with a 365-gallon auxiliary fuel tank. With the exception of the ammunition for the M61A1 cannon, all the ordnance was carried externally. With multiple ejector racks the F-105D could carry an impressive load of external fuel, ECM gear, and up to eight 750-pound bombs on long-range missions. On short-range missions, it could carry sixteen 750-pound bombs. Alternative combat loads were two 3000-pound bombs or three drop tanks. On a typical mission over North Vietnam, the F-105D would carry six 750-pound bombs or five 1000-pound bombs, along with two 450 US-gallon drop tanks. The D could also carry the Martin AGM-12 Bullpup air-to-surface missile, but this weapon was to prove almost useless in Vietnam against hardened targets. The F-105D could carry 2.75-inch rocket pods, napalm canisters, as well as four AIM-9 Sidewinder infrared homing air-to-air missiles. The M61A1 Gatling-type 20-mm cannon proved invaluable in the dual role of air-to-air combat and ground strafing. With its size and range, the F-105D could carry twice the bombload further and faster than the F-100.
However, the F-105D was somewhat less successful as a fighter, often being hard pressed by enemy MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters. It had a wing loading that was much too high for it to be able to maneuver effectively against the more nimble MiGs. Since all the ordnance was carried externally, maximum performance could only be reached once the bombs and rockets had been released and the aircraft was departing the target. However, when jumped by MiGs, the enormous thrust of the J75 engine enabled a cleaned-up Thunderchief to go supersonic "on the deck", quickly leaving its pursuers behind in a cloud of half-burned kerosene.
However, the F-105D was somewhat less successful as a fighter, often being hard pressed by enemy MiG-17 and MiG-21 fighters. It had a wing loading that was much too high for it to be able to maneuver effectively against the more nimble MiGs. Since all the ordnance was carried externally, maximum performance could only be reached once the bombs and rockets had been released and the aircraft was departing the target. However, when jumped by MiGs, the enormous thrust of the J75 engine enabled a cleaned-up Thunderchief to go supersonic "on the deck", quickly leaving its pursuers behind in a cloud of half-burned kerosene.