F-105 air superiority fighter variant.

[KJakker 901]

I remember reading once on a forum a few years back, maybe F-16.net I can't remember exactly, a comment that remarked on the possibility of developing an air superiority fighter based on the F-105 Thunderchief. I think the poster though it could be superior to the F-4 if I remember correctly. In my mind such and aircraft might be to the F-105 what the F-8 and A-7 were to each other. I was wondering what your thoughts on such an aircraft would be.

[Slartibartfast 153]

Well the F-105 wouldn't have been a great dofighter as the F-4 took a small country to turn in whereas the F-105 would have needed a medium sized country to turn in...

 

At least it had a gun from the start... but the 105 wouldn't have been a great fighter, attack bomber yes fighter no... you can turn a great fighter into a good bomber but going the other way round doesn't usually work too well...

[Spinners 15,986]

the possibility of developing an air superiority fighter based on the F-105 Thunderchief.

 

I don't even remember that term being used until the F-15 era so I think not. I suppose it might have have made a respectable missile-armed interceptor in the late 1950's early 1960's in which case I'd rate it higher than the 'Deuce' but below the 'Six'. And in case anyone thinks I'm knocking the Thud, I love it! But, horses for courses.

 

When I started out in Strikefighters I played around with the Thunderchief's thrust values to try get it to eclipse the Phantom for max. altitude (like the Project High Jump attempts) and ended up putting nearly 40,000lbs of thrust into it!

[ironroad 218]

I don't even remember that term being used until the F-15 era so I think not. I suppose it might have have made a respectable missile-armed interceptor in the late 1950's early 1960's in which case I'd rate it higher than the 'Deuce' but below the 'Six'. And in case anyone thinks I'm knocking the Thud, I love it! But, horses for courses.

 

When I started out in Strikefighters I played around with the Thunderchief's thrust values to try get it to eclipse the Phantom for max. altitude (like the Project High Jump attempts) and ended up putting nearly 40,000lbs of thrust into it!

 

Perhaps he is thinking of the XF-103 Thunderwarrior.

 

Until the F-111 came along the F-105 was one the fastest airframes at low level. It could easily outpace anything down low. I have heard stories of them out running F-15s during exercises in the 70s to early 80s.

 

Now the Thud could carry Aim-9s for self defense, the plane does have a few air to air kills, but trying to go out turn with migs....

[MigBuster 2,884]

I always thought it was designed as a low level nuclear bomber from the get go - and often wondered how it even got the F designation.

 

It killed about 27.5 Migs over vietnam with AIM-9Bs (a lot missed) but mostly its M61A1 Gun - according to Ospreys books. Quite a tally - something you cant create too well in this sim now the AI always sees you and breaks.

Its fast speed was of huge benefit like other US jets and could be employed successfully if used the right way (as they obviously managed to)

Still - nearly 400 were apparentley still lost over Vietnam despite this.

Edited April 12, 2010 by MigBuster

[KJakker 901]

Well this was more about building an true fighter out of the base F-105 design. Like a reverse of how the A-7 Corsair II is obviously related to the F-8 Crusader or maybe Wildcat to Hellcat might be more appropriate. The proposal from what I remember was like using the Thud as a starting point. Get rid of the bomb-bay to reduce weight and add new wings and enlarged vertical and horizontal stabilizers for lower wing loading and increased control to start with for example. In other words an aircraft in the same linage as the F-105, such that you could tell they came from the design school if you saw them side by side on the tarmac but built to preform a different mission.

[JediMaster 451]

Well, the F-22 has 2 engines that generate over 40,000lbs each, so putting one in that heavy 105 fuselage wasn't a ridiculous idea. It just was beyond the tech of the time.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Hey, it's a game. Mod the avionics, add TV, modern weapon capacity... Can the bomb bay be used for a load of AIM-120? With enough of those you can turn any crate into a air superiority missile vector. Then somebody could use the fake pilot method to add some extra covers to stealth it up.

Actually I'm kinda curious what a Silent Thud ( ) might look like.

[xclusiv8 35]

Hey, it's a game. Mod the avionics, add TV, modern weapon capacity... Can the bomb bay be used for a load of AIM-120? With enough of those you can turn any crate into a air superiority missile vector. Then somebody could use the fake pilot method to add some extra covers to stealth it up.

Actually I'm kinda curious what a Silent Thud ( ) might look like.

 

Speaking of the bombbay, can it actually be opened ingame?

[Gr.Viper 131]

No. From what I understand Thuds normally carried an extra fuel tank there in Nam.

[UnknownPilot 33]

What's all this talk of fighters and turning? You all need to be assigned some homework! Go fly FW-190s (Antons in particular) and Me-262s, and Do-335s until turning and air-combat no longer go together in your minds. (or you could even fly a Jug in the PTO or against 109s down low, too)

 

 

When I first got into LOMAC online, one of the guys there expressed concern when he heard that I came from IL2 and I asked why, and he said something to the effect of "because you prop guys know how to dogfight". This played out as I was able to get many guns kills on Flankers with the Eagle. While the LOMAC FM could easily be criticized, they did try to at least make the relative aspects match up appropriately. It was not that I could make an F-15 turn with an Su-27 - it just wouldn't. It was about energy fighting against a jet guy who only knew how to slam the throttle and put the stick back.

 

I've read that when Crusader and Phantom crews could mock dogfight early on, the Crusaders always won, but when a Crusader pilot transferred the Phantom, he wondered at how that was possible. Pretty much the same concept in application.

 

 

 

Slart, I disagree with the idea that you can turn a fighter into a bomber but not vice versa. You can strap ornance to a fighter, sure. But doing so leaves you with a heavily burdened fast mover - that isn't really made to go that slow, and has no armor. I'd much rather be in a dedicated mud mover (ie, A-10 over A2G F-16). Doing it right involves a thorough redesign and new build, ala A-7 (it was different enough that existing F-8 airframes couldn't be field swapped into A-7s, they had to modify the design itself and build new frames). And as such, you could certainly go the other way, within reason. Go back to the blue-prints and get to work slicing and dicing anything that isn't needed for the new role and adding what is. In that way, the 105 or 111 could be transformed. (arguably the 111 WAS transformed in this way, the result was called the Tomcat)

 

 

It killed about 27.5 Migs over vietnam with AIM-9Bs (a lot missed) but mostly its M61A1 Gun - according to Ospreys books. Quite a tally - something you cant create too well in this sim now the AI always sees you and breaks.

 

Again, disagree. Yes, the AI does have 720* vision, and can often break when it shouldn't, but, that said, I've gotten many gun kills in the Thud, and the A-4. In the A-4 I just conserve momentum, and in the Thud I use brute force, but the results and technique are much the same.

[macelena 1,070]

Actually I'm kinda curious what a Silent Thud ( ) might look like.

 

Well, here you got it. It wouldn´t look like anything at all. Maybe void, air, wind, supersonic fart...

 

Edited April 12, 2010 by macelena

[Spinners 15,986]

I always thought it was designed as a low level nuclear bomber from the get go - and often wondered how it even got the F designation.

 

 

I think it was to give TAC a slice of the nuclear action (funding).

[Spinners 15,986]

you can turn a great fighter into a good bomber but going the other way round doesn't usually work too well...

 

Totally agree.

 

F-15A to F-15E

 

Tornado IDS to Tornado ADV

[Stingray72 6]

U/K Pilot was right on in his blurb. That F-111 was pretty much Congress trying to get everyone to buy a multi-role swing wing jobbie, but the Navy knew it would not work out as designed and said so. They ended up with a neato plane in the Tomcat, but we all know that while it is a superb interceptor, it is on average on maneuverability and was grossly underpowered until the D came out.

 

Energy fighting IS where it is at. Thrust to weight only change how much energy you can maintain, and you can only maintain it IF you employ proper tactics with a gentle and deliberate hand. I am an IL2 kid as well, and have seen what he is talking about, even did it myself, the yanking of the stick and pumping of the throttle. After I read a book about the Navy standing up Top gun and leaning some tips on Phantom Phlying, I understood that it is the same as IL2: you lose energy you lose the advantage. YOU LOSE THE ADVANTAGE, YOU LOSE THE FIGHT!!!

 

The Phantom pilots who stood up Top Gun had to re-learn their craft, as in from scratch. Out were the old yank and bank tactics, in were the days of finess and feel. These dudes took ACM and turned it from an art to a science, then presented it in a way that all ofthe Phantom pilots got. After a while, I read, the F-8's no longer enjoyed victories because they only knew tha tthe F-8 could out perform the Phantom in a tight turn. After these men were educated, resisted the temptation of an energy bleed contest, and used the advanteges the F-4 had, it was an easy day every day for the Rhino guys.

 

I am also in agreeance with the not turning bombers into fighters. Even the A-4, which was super agile, could not carry any energy in a fight and was not great. My dad flew them, and he complained a lot about the leading edge slats doing you in a fight because you just slowed down too much, and that little turbofan couldn't hang with an afterburing unit. Now, he also flew Corairs and A-1's, and he learned ACM in the mghty Hog, which was no angel in a turning fight either. you just boomed and zoomed, using that 2400hp engine (he flew -4's in Korea) to carry you around again. He did say that the A-1 would outurn any of the fighters from WWII, so in the "what if" game, the A-1 would be a great one for this argument. What if the A-1 had been built by 1943 instead of 1945? Since it could outturn everything, and it could carry massive ordinance, why couldn't it have taken over every job like the F-4 did? And since it was designed as a bomber, that would satisfy the argument of whether you can turn a bomber into a fighter. Still, as said above, I agree with the statement that you can't. It does seem interesting to think about though.

 

Think about it? All of you real plane "nerds" will be able to quote specs better than I can, but it does seem like a pretty interesting argument.

 

~Stingray

[UnknownPilot 33]

U/K Pilot was right on in his blurb. That F-111 was pretty much Congress trying to get everyone to buy a multi-role swing wing jobbie, but the Navy knew it would not work out as designed and said so. They ended up with a neato plane in the Tomcat, but we all know that while it is a superb interceptor, it is on average on maneuverability and was grossly underpowered until the D came out.

 

Well(!)....... the F-14A is actually QUITE agile. Those straight wings, combined with full length leading edge slats and full length flaps really make a huge difference. It certainly IS underpowered, but that's really it's only drawback, and that was known from the outset and was only intended to be interim, but politics and finances got in the way, so the B never materialized as intended, so the D ended up as the definitive version.

 

As I mentioned elsewhere here today, the planned upgrade, the ST-21, would have been an upgrade of existing airframes, resulted in more agility, lower take off and landing speeds, higher take-back loads, and an all around better job of meeting the requirements the Navy is using the Super Hornet for, however it would have been done for pennies on the dollar in comparison.

 

Not only that, there is a thread here F-15 vs F-14 that is a real eye opener on just what that heavy 2 seater can really do.

 

And finally, the F-14 is lightyears ahead of the F-111, which had already been eclipsed by the MiG-23 in terms of performance. So, IMO, you seem to be selling it a bit short, and it is actually a great example of taking a good bomber and making it into a great fighter.

 

 

 

Energy fighting IS where it is at. Thrust to weight only change how much energy you can maintain, and you can only maintain it IF you employ proper tactics with a gentle and deliberate hand. I am an IL2 kid as well, and have seen what he is talking about, even did it myself, the yanking of the stick and pumping of the throttle. After I read a book about the Navy standing up Top gun and leaning some tips on Phantom Phlying, I understood that it is the same as IL2: you lose energy you lose the advantage. YOU LOSE THE ADVANTAGE, YOU LOSE THE FIGHT!!!

 

 

I had come from the F6F in CFS2 and was getting my ass handed to me regularly in the 109, and getting very frustrated by it. It didn't help that I REFUSED to fly a commie crate. hehe Eventually I tried the 190 and chose to find a way to make it work, and I did. And then branched out from there and suddenly found success in the 109 as well (even though they are completely different in every way in terms of how you use them).

 

It became a running gag after awhile. The guys I was flying with would say things like 'look out, he's diving on you', "yeah, I know, he's always diving on me", and.... 'I'll dive down, he won't follow me into the weeds' "Uh, tally" 'is he diving?' "no, he's re-entering!"

 

 

And like you said, Thud or Phantom, it's the same as 190 vs Spit, except that in this case it would be more like 190 vs P-11z or J8A.

 

 

 

I am also in agreeance with the not turning bombers into fighters. Even the A-4, which was super agile, could not carry any energy in a fight and was not great. My dad flew them, and he complained a lot about the leading edge slats doing you in a fight because you just slowed down too much, and that little turbofan couldn't hang with an afterburing unit. Now, he also flew Corairs and A-1's, and he learned ACM in the mghty Hog, which was no angel in a turning fight either. you just boomed and zoomed, using that 2400hp engine (he flew -4's in Korea) to carry you around again. He did say that the A-1 would outurn any of the fighters from WWII, so in the "what if" game, the A-1 would be a great one for this argument. What if the A-1 had been built by 1943 instead of 1945? Since it could outturn everything, and it could carry massive ordinance, why couldn't it have taken over every job like the F-4 did? And since it was designed as a bomber, that would satisfy the argument of whether you can turn a bomber into a fighter. Still, as said above, I agree with the statement that you can't. It does seem interesting to think about though.

 

Think about it? All of you real plane "nerds" will be able to quote specs better than I can, but it does seem like a pretty interesting argument.

 

~Stingray

 

Well that's just it, put a burner can on the 'hawk and it would be a different story. Didn't the Argentines do something like that? The FightingHawk or something? It was fast and turned great. E-retention is more about piloting than airframe. Airframe would come into play for things like drag, and you generally don't retain in a turn. And if the slats were coming out, it sounds like he was getting slow in the first place (which may have just been a result of low thrust - ie, lack of A/B).

 

Regarding the F4U, it was a better turner than the Jug was. And in truth, the Jug isn't all that bad either, it's just a matter of relative perspective. However, the reason it "took over everything" was because Grumman chose to replace the Hellcat, rather than upgrade it, and they went in the direction of pure performance, pure fighter. But by that time, the war was over and the future was turbojet powered as far as the Navy was concerned, so the hose nosed ensign eliminator was pressed into A2G duty. In an A2A fight, the Bearcat would have mauled it... bad. But it was just bad timing. (unfortunately :( )

 

Anyway though... taking timing into consideration, your idea of the Skyraider, as well as the afforementioned Ardvark show that you CAN convert a bomber into a fighter, and have it be great. It's just in which bomber you start with, and how you do the conversion.

 

Even older and with less converting (none at all actually) is the Bristol F2B. A 2 seater observation/"bomber" that actually out fought the fighters of it's day. lol

[+Jug 99]

The Thud was conceived and did well at moving dirt. Lots of glowing dirt to start with and yellow mud to end up with. The mission of the AF and Navy is to support the Army (expecting lots-o-traffic on that one), and that means moving the dirt the Army tells us to move. Air to Air is a pipedream that has little to do with the outcome of many wars (BoB being the only known exception). At the end of the day, it is who owns the dirt and that is the Army's ball game. With that in mind, the Thud, in its time, was prime in the dirt moving arena. That is what she was built as and performed in an exemplary manner. Making her an Air to Air fighting machine requires a complete overhaul, not just more thrust. She was great at what she did and she deserves more than conjecture on how she could have been a jack-of-all trades and master of none. We have old double ugly (F-4) for that.

[MigBuster 2,884]

 

Again, disagree. Yes, the AI does have 720* vision, and can often break when it shouldn't, but, that said, I've gotten many gun kills in the Thud, and the A-4. In the A-4 I just conserve momentum, and in the Thud I use brute force, but the results and technique are much the same.

 

What that means is it used to be a lot easier - and also I havn't touched SF2V for a while - the MiG training seems to be generally lower in that so you might be right.

[UnknownPilot 33]

The Thud was conceived and did well at moving dirt. Lots of glowing dirt to start with and yellow mud to end up with. The mission of the AF and Navy is to support the Army (expecting lots-o-traffic on that one), and that means moving the dirt the Army tells us to move. Air to Air is a pipedream that has little to do with the outcome of many wars (BoB being the only known exception). At the end of the day, it is who owns the dirt and that is the Army's ball game. With that in mind, the Thud, in its time, was prime in the dirt moving arena. That is what she was built as and performed in an exemplary manner. Making her an Air to Air fighting machine requires a complete overhaul, not just more thrust. She was great at what she did and she deserves more than conjecture on how she could have been a jack-of-all trades and master of none. We have old double ugly (F-4) for that.

 

 

Absolutely. A2A is "sexy" and "fun" and makes for great movies, but it's dropping iron that really gets the job done. A2A isn't a pipe dream though, whether observing or bombing, you want to knock the enemy planes out of the air, and they want to do the same to you and you both want to protect your own assests as well.

 

So, in the end, A2A is a support mission, and once air superiority is attained, it doesn't really have a use. Thunderbolts FTW (P-47 and A-10 ).

 

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

What that means is it used to be a lot easier - and also I havn't touched SF2V for a while - the MiG training seems to be generally lower in that so you might be right.

 

Hmm... I wish there was some way to jack up the AI and make it dangerous, not just squirrely.

 

One thing that seems to work is putting them in US fighters. F-16 and F-14 AI seem pretty aggressive. AI Su-27s... so-so.

 

Another weird thing is that it seems to get more aggressive over time. Not sure that's true and I can't really prove it, but I swear they are using their weapons and coordinating more and actually shooting me down now. A bit of a surprise (and very welcome). But that might be Feb patch too....

[MigBuster 2,884]

The pilots have a skill level that goes up over time if they survive missions - you will see this on a campaign roster and the skill level does seem to make a difference I have found. This must be true of the enemy because some are pants - some are better - and some are aces.

 

If you are playing single missions the pilot skill is probably random - even though you have settings stuck on hard - You may just be coming up against better trained AI pilots - they follow you up in the vertical and generally do annoying things like trail you back to base.

 

Whether TK has got the AI learning based on what the Human pilot does - well only he would know. Certainly the AI started getting a lot better when First Eagles came about - and has improved a lot since then.Of course any AI tactical improvements would only be relevant to the series time period.

Edited April 13, 2010 by MigBuster

[UnknownPilot 33]

Lately, it's all Single Mission only for me, because my original system, which could only JUST handle the Expansion Pack 2.0 installed campaign missions, died and was replaced by a 200mhz slower counterpart. Now single missions are all it can handle. :(

 

 

It would be cool if the AI would learn from the human pilots. Given what you said, and considering my observations, I'm wondering if being in MiGs cuts them back. Because like I said, putting them in US jets seems to cause them to be aggressive. And others have said the same when flying Red campaigns. But then again, the Su-27s aren't overly dangerous either (not like they *could* be), so.....

 

 

For the most part, "aces" here just mean difficult targets. Like they are flying weaponless versions and it's just target practice for you, the higher their skill the better they are at evading, but not much else. They would only shoot you if you flew like a bomber... on a landing approach. Lately I've noticed this improve a lot and I don't know if it's because the something to do with the AI over time flown, or the patch, or the planes I'm putting them in, or what, but they are actually fighting back now.

 

But they still have a long way to go. IL2 has dangerous AI. Even that is beatable because you can work around it's behaviors or limitations, but at least they are very aggressive and more interested in killing you, than in evading your fire. If you get behind them, they work like hell to not just loose you, but gain an advantage (though if they are in a fast plane that can be boring at times as they won't fight, just extend, climbing away until you either give up or they get far enough away, then they try to come in fast from above and stay above you - not quite flying against a person, but damn good for AI).

 

 

[Gr.Viper 131]

TW engine has a file that determines skill levels of various AF. Normaly MiG-ed sides have lower skill preset that the US. Sometimes much lower.

 

more interested in killing you, than in evading your fire

Uh-huh.. In my experience with it every single head-on merge ended with a head-on collision. Well, unless one of us had enough guns to vaporize the other before that moment. SF2 head-on passes are much more thrilling - I'm less scared of the war face and more interested in reaction speed on the AI, sometimes they pull the trigger too late.

 

BTW, I've seen AI Thuds getting gun kills on Frescos in SF2:V. Mainly on the Frescos who decided to stop maneuvering and fly straight regaining speed.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Gr.Viper

[UnknownPilot 33]

TW engine has a file that determines skill levels of various AF. Normaly MiG-ed sides have lower skill preset that the US. Sometimes much lower.

 

Which file is that?

 

 

Uh-huh.. In my experience with it every single head-on merge ended with a head-on collision. Well, unless one of us had enough guns to vaporize the other before that moment. SF2 head-on passes are much more thrilling - I'm less scared of the war face and more interested in reaction speed on the AI, sometimes they pull the trigger too late.

 

In fairness, it's always going to be a trade off. Another example is how the IL2 AI is made for angles fighters, not energy fighters. But I'd rather an aggressive AI that is a danger to me, over one that is just hard to shoot.

 

I never go head on againt IL2 AI if I can help it. I either dive under them, or climb over them, ot beam them and get them to bleed their E trying to follow me so I can swing down on them.

 

Going gunzo in a head on pass at jet speeds however, is not something I'd like to try either. The difference is, missiles here allow "head on merges" to take place as much as 5 miles apart. lol

[eraser_tr 29]

The Thud was conceived and did well at moving dirt. Lots of glowing dirt to start with and yellow mud to end up with. The mission of the AF and Navy is to support the Army (expecting lots-o-traffic on that one), and that means moving the dirt the Army tells us to move. Air to Air is a pipedream that has little to do with the outcome of many wars (BoB being the only known exception). At the end of the day, it is who owns the dirt and that is the Army's ball game. With that in mind, the Thud, in its time, was prime in the dirt moving arena. That is what she was built as and performed in an exemplary manner. Making her an Air to Air fighting machine requires a complete overhaul, not just more thrust. She was great at what she did and she deserves more than conjecture on how she could have been a jack-of-all trades and master of none. We have old double ugly (F-4) for that.

 

A2A is quite a big deal. Fighter cover for your own bombers so they can reach enemy targets and support the army, and keeping the enemy's bombers from pounding your guys. Look at the battle of France or anywhere else the germans had total air superiority early on.

 

Or look at desert storm or allied force, air made those conflicts the successes they were, indeed that was from their ground pounding, but they were by no means only "supporting the army."

 

The "commie crates" in IL2 are quite good, not surprising as they came from a former soviet aeronautical engineer as a developer. If he had done the migs in SF, they'd probably wipe the floor with any American plane instead of accurately representing strengths and weaknesses. Just with a pure F-105D I've done very well in air to air against migs, far better than I've ever managed in a Hun and without any real adjustment in tactics.