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?

I would stay off that stuff if I were you!

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.

Jane-DoH

With all that crap you finish your posts with I have just put you on my ignore list.

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

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.:ok: 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.

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. Read Jack Broughton's classic 'Going Downtown' to learn what those brave fighter pilots were up against....:mad: 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.

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 :ugh:

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?

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

'If he's dead, and Vietnamese....he's VC'.

Will they ever learn?

"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

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.

Jane-DoH: You said " a silly tagline".

I feel reasonably sure that I am not the only member of Pprune who agrees with that statement.

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!

As seen here:
Photos: Republic F-105D Thunderchief Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net

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?

Wasn't 100 Missions North written by Broughton's wingman?

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-1234S-017.jpg

Not the best posed photo...but does give an idea of what the Flying Anvil could tote around while working.