WI: F-105 Thunderstick II Precision Strike Capabilities Widely Fielded

Delta Force

Banned
The F-105 Thunderstick II modification achieved a CEP of 15 meters (50 meters), comparable to the GPS guided JDAM decades later. By comparison, the F-111 achieved a CEP of 46 meters (150 feet) with its original bombing systems, improving to a CEP of 24 meters (80 feet) with Pave Tack. Unlike laser guided bombs, the F-105 Thunderstick II modification had a blind attack capability. I imagine these systems were rather expensive, but the capabilities are impressive.

Experience in Vietnam demonstrated the need for a better visual and blind bombing capability. In March 1968, the Air Force ordered development of an upgraded bombing/navigation system, incorporating a Singer-General Precision inertial navigation system, improvements to the AN/APN-131 navigation radar, and solid-state circuitry for the R-14A radar, which was redesignated R-14K. Furthermore, the digital AN/ARN-92 long-range navigation receiver replaced the problematic AN/ARN-85 receiver. The additional avionics were housed in a long, raised dorsal spine. The modified bombing/navigation system was known as Thunderstick II. F-105s with this system could achieve a bombing circular error of probability (CEP) of 50 feet (15 m) from an altitude of 15,000 ft (4,600 m). Although the first Thunderstick II aircraft flew in 1969, they were not used in Vietnam. A total of 30 F-105Ds received this modification.[47]

Given these impressive capabilities, what if the Thunderstick II modification had been more extensively deployed on the F-105, or integrated into the F-111? Could the system have allowed precision strikes on fixed targets by high altitude and/or high speed aircraft?
 
The F-105 Thunderstick II modification achieved a CEP of 15 meters (50 meters), comparable to the GPS guided JDAM decades later. By comparison, the F-111 achieved a CEP of 46 meters (150 feet) with its original bombing systems, improving to a CEP of 24 meters (80 feet) with Pave Tack. Unlike laser guided bombs, the F-105 Thunderstick II modification had a blind attack capability. I imagine these systems were rather expensive, but the capabilities are impressive.



Given these impressive capabilities, what if the Thunderstick II modification had been more extensively deployed on the F-105, or integrated into the F-111? Could the system have allowed precision strikes on fixed targets by high altitude and/or high speed aircraft?

The F-105 had been withdrawn from bombing duties for a while by then hadn't it? The F-4 had already taken over, with the C & D models if my references are right.

I mean they might have still been stationed in Europe or Kansas or somewhere but the bombing campaign was over North Vietnam. Having a theoretically more capable aircraft tucked well out of harms way is not going to change much.
 
The F-105 had been withdrawn from bombing duties for a while by then hadn't it? The F-4 had already taken over, with the C & D models if my references are right.

I mean they might have still been stationed in Europe or Kansas or somewhere but the bombing campaign was over North Vietnam. Having a theoretically more capable aircraft tucked well out of harms way is not going to change much.

Having this available in 1965 would have reduced the number of missions needed for targets, like knocking out the 'Dragon's Jaw' Bridge years sooner before the bombing halt, and fewer aircraft lost over the years.

One reason for the withdrawal of the F-105 was so many were shot down or damaged beyond repair from VN losses, not that the F-4 was a better bomber
 

Archibald

Banned
During the whole Vietnam the Air Force lost no less than 300 Thuds, while the production line was long shut down (can't remember how many F-105D were build) so Phantoms ultimately replaced them in service.
The A-7 navigation and bombing system was also very advanced for its time.
 
The T-Stick II Thud's magic box was the AN/ARN-92 LORAN-D navigation system, which was mounted also to 72 F-4D Pave Phantoms, identified by the "Towel Rack" mounted on the dorsal spine behind the rear cockpit.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The F-105 had been withdrawn from bombing duties for a while by then hadn't it? The F-4 had already taken over, with the C & D models if my references are right.

I mean they might have still been stationed in Europe or Kansas or somewhere but the bombing campaign was over North Vietnam. Having a theoretically more capable aircraft tucked well out of harms way is not going to change much.

That's why it's about the capabilities. I think the system or something similar could have been equipped on other strike aircraft and probably bombers too.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Having this available in 1965 would have reduced the number of missions needed for targets, like knocking out the 'Dragon's Jaw' Bridge years sooner before the bombing halt, and fewer aircraft lost over the years.

One reason for the withdrawal of the F-105 was so many were shot down or damaged beyond repair from VN losses, not that the F-4 was a better bomber

I wonder how it would impact the developed of guided munitions though. Would laser guided bombs be nearly as developed if an aircraft can execute precision strikes on targets through cloud cover?
 

Delta Force

Banned
During the whole Vietnam the Air Force lost no less than 300 Thuds, while the production line was long shut down (can't remember how many F-105D were build) so Phantoms ultimately replaced them in service.
The A-7 navigation and bombing system was also very advanced for its time.

I think Tactical Air Command actually wanted to restart production, which is amazing considering how old the design was by then. It must have had some advantage over the Phantom, likely its longer range. I don't think the Phantom or A-7 could operate over the DRV, and I think even the F-105 required refueling for its missions over Hanoi.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The T-Stick II Thud's magic box was the AN/ARN-92 LORAN-D navigation system, which was mounted also to 72 F-4D Pave Phantoms, identified by the "Towel Rack" mounted on the dorsal spine behind the rear cockpit.

The Pave Phantoms were even earlier, in 1967. Why did TAC equip existing aircraft (including fighter/interceptors such as the Phantom) with better bombing systems than its highly advanced strike aircraft? The F-111 never acquired those capabilities in all its years of service.
 
Going by the published accounts, the Thud was faster and more economical at terrain skimming altitude than the Phantom, more easily maintained with one engine versus two, and- under the circumstances this takes a bit of thought to believe- actually harder to hurt and more damage tolerant than the Phantom.

Which considering the loss rate is enough to give pause; if this was the better of the two, and they still managed to lose three hundred of them...

No aircraft is or can be immune to stupid users, and while the wing level downwards may have been competent professionals, higher command and political leadership were deeply, deeply stupid, with the sort of stupid you can only get deliberately.

The only thing that was wrong with the F-105 was micromanagment by untrained amateurs ignorant of tactics and indifferent to loss.

445 Phantoms went down in Vietnam, incidentally.

The Wild Weasel F-105 conversions were still there as late as early 1973, and in service until the invasion of Grenada, but the strike versions were phased out by summer 1970.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Going by the published accounts, the Thud was faster and more economical at terrain skimming altitude than the Phantom, more easily maintained with one engine versus two, and- under the circumstances this takes a bit of thought to believe- actually harder to hurt and more damage tolerant than the Phantom.

Which considering the loss rate is enough to give pause; if this was the better of the two, and they still managed to lose three hundred of them...

No aircraft is or can be immune to stupid users, and while the wing level downwards may have been competent professionals, higher command and political leadership were deeply, deeply stupid, with the sort of stupid you can only get deliberately.

The only thing that was wrong with the F-105 was micromanagment by untrained amateurs ignorant of tactics and indifferent to loss.

445 Phantoms went down in Vietnam, incidentally.

The Wild Weasel F-105 conversions were still there as late as early 1973, and in service until the invasion of Grenada, but the strike versions were phased out by summer 1970.

The F-105 is the only United States military aircraft since World War II to have been withdrawn from combat due to losses. It still served until the early 1980s in secondary roles though.
 
The Pave Phantoms were even earlier, in 1967. Why did TAC equip existing aircraft (including fighter/interceptors such as the Phantom) with better bombing systems than its highly advanced strike aircraft? The F-111 never acquired those capabilities in all its years of service.

Perhaps in practice the utility of the Loran based bombing systems wasn't all that great outside of the context of the missions over South East Asia in the 60's and early 70's ?
 
What would the impact of Thunderstick be on the Thuds survivability? Perhaps Thunderstick required Thuds to approach closer or lower or on a straight and level path for some distance. Did its use require any particular flight profile that with a bit of experience the NV AAA and SAM forces could anticipate?
 

Delta Force

Banned
Perhaps in practice the utility of the Loran based bombing systems wasn't all that great outside of the context of the missions over South East Asia in the 60's and early 70's ?

It could have been useful for strategic bombers charged with attacking hardened and/or deeply buried targets.
 
What would the impact of Thunderstick be on the Thuds survivability? Perhaps Thunderstick required Thuds to approach closer or lower or on a straight and level path for some distance. Did its use require any particular flight profile that with a bit of experience the NV AAA and SAM forces could anticipate?

LBJ was (in)famous for making flight plans for bombers that didn't concern with details like that.

Oh, and those AAA sites couldn't be attacked unless they fired first, and McNamara prohibited attacks on all SAM sites, as he didn't want Soviet technicians to be harmed.
 
What would the impact of Thunderstick be on the Thuds survivability? Perhaps Thunderstick required Thuds to approach closer or lower or on a straight and level path for some distance. Did its use require any particular flight profile that with a bit of experience the NV AAA and SAM forces could anticipate?

I've read accounts of Loran bombing missions that speak of straight and level flight for 20 miles at fixed altitudes and air speeds..
 
During the whole Vietnam the Air Force lost no less than 300 Thuds, while the production line was long shut down (can't remember how many F-105D were build)

The number of 610 F-105Ds comes to mind, but I'm not sure. *checks Wikipedia* Wikipedia mentions 610 F-105D and 143 F-105F built, with 320 combat and 62 non-combat losses in Vietnam. Original purchase was more than 1,500 F-105Ds, but McNamara.

As for the F-105 serial production line restart, it was a 1967-68 idea, IIRC. It was decided the cost of restarting the production line wasn't worth it - never found an explanation why, but I think some jig that was used to build an important part had already been disposed of, and they would have to either rebuild the jig or do some redesigning of the aircraft to have a replacement part that could be built with the available tooling. Also, by then they wouldn't know how troublesome the F-111 development would be.
 
Couldn't the A7D do pretty much all of the F105s actual combat missions, rather than the hypothetical nuclear missions, for much less cost?IN a similar vein I read that a reason why the A5 didn't progress as a conventional/dual purpose bomber was because the A6 could do 90% of the same things for a fraction of the cost.

I think Vietnam was a bit of a watershed for US Cold War thinking. They got this nuclear mania out of their heads and started thinking about fighting conventional roles. I think maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis may also have given this thinking a push.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The LTV A-7D had an interesting history in Vietnam. Does anyone know what kind of CEP it could achieve? I keep getting results for a CEP-7 camera lens.

The USAF A-7D flew a total of 12,928 combat sorties during the war with only six losses[19] – the lowest of any U.S. fighter in the theater. The aircraft was second only to Boeing B-52 Stratofortress in the amount of ordnance dropped on Hanoi and dropped more bombs per sortie with greater accuracy than any other U.S. attack aircraft.[17]
 
Top