Multi-Role Thud? Need your ideas!

[PraetorH 166]

Hello Forum,

 

I have started working on a German F-105:

http://combatace.com/topic/63073-what-if-screenshot-thread/?p=646646

 

This is a quite real what-if, since the Luftwaffe really considered buying the F-105 for their nuclear fighter bomber wings to supplement the F-104 (fighter wings) and G-91 (conventional bomber wings). The Luftwaffe decided to go for one high-tech plane only, but what if Republic reacted by offering a multi-role F-105? (I recall having read somewhere that this really happened... but I cannot find it atm)

 

How would that look like, is it even possible? I mean it is a huge plane, but it is fast and offers good avionics.

I would like to hear your opinions, please.

[Stratos 3,191]

Maybe reducing fuel amount will let you carry more weapons and/or have a more agile airplane? After all you will not need all that fuel on Germany.

[+Hans Topp 115]

It could be fitted with a hump like a-4, for fuel or avionics moved from fuse, two added pylons for wings....

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Two extra wing hardpoints definitely wouldn't go astray, though this would require a new wing and/or an augmentation of the landing gear. There's only so much one can load with 4 wing hardpoints, especially when two of those stations are carrying tanks. But given that these are for the West Germans, they may not need the long legs that the USAF needed in Vietnam, considering the vast majority of Red Forces would be only a relatively short distance away. Replacing the bomb bay with a large internal tank may alone be sufficient.

[+JonathanRL 974]

ASM and SAHM Capacity, no doubt.

[Stratos 3,191]

It could be fitted with a hump like a-4, for fuel or avionics moved from fuse, two added pylons for wings....

 

A avionics hump will sure kill the line of the Thud, but maybe the bomb bay can be used for that.

[+Hans Topp 115]

A avionics hump will sure kill the line of the Thud, but maybe the bomb bay can be used for that.

But if use the bomb bay for fuel.... maybe need one hump in ICE program....

Edited December 7, 2013 by Hans Topp

[Stratos 3,191]

The Reds were close to W.German bases, who need all that fuel?

[Toryu 156]

 

The Reds were close to W.German bases, who need all that fuel?

 

To bomb the sheet out of some road-intersection or marshalling-yard in Poland/ western SU in a L-L-L profile at high speed.. That's what the 105 would have been bought for - delivering "Sunshine in a Box".

Multi-Role wise, the Thud wasn't really the way to go, and neither was the F-104. The F-4 was much better in this regard (being a two-seater), hence the replacement of the Thud by Phantoms in US-service.

 

The belly-tank was usually used in Vietnam, though it proved somewhat nightmarish to the maintenance-people. It worked, however.

 

Generally, the Thud comes along with enough potential to put any kind of weaponry onto it (the only thing it really didn't carry were anti-ship missiles). 

Edited December 7, 2013 by Toryu

[PraetorH 166]

But if use the bomb bay for fuel.... maybe need one hump in ICE program....

Can't say I am a fan of the hump in this case, somehow it does not look right. And shouldn't there be enough space in the unused bomb bay?

 

Anyway, usually the bomb bay was filled with a tank for conventional, is that modelled in game or not?

 

 

That's what the 105 would have been bought for - delivering "Sunshine in a Box".

Multi-Role wise, the Thud wasn't really the way to go, and neither was the F-104.

Fair enough, but people knew that back then. And with the greater conventional load it was at least better than the F-104.

Thinking "multi-role" in the later 50ies is actually "dual role": nuclear strike and intercept. This is what Germany and the other NATO-nations following Germany's lead in aircraft aquisition wanted; the good old days before Flexible Response.

And in this the F-105 was seen as a contender. In fact Georg Feuchter, who was an influential theorist of that time in Germany, wanted the F-105 for just this dual purpose. General Kammhuber, commander of the Luftwaffe, and Strauss, Secretary of Defense, largely agreed. Of course, the latter merely wanted to nuke the Soviets in Moscow and needed a plane for that mission, but still... The lower costs and the better intercept capabilities of the Starfighter finally decided the issue against the F-105. Also the Starfighter could be announced as a fighter to the German public, which did not react well to nuclear bombers, so it was politically sensible.

 

But let's just follow the line of Feuchter, and assume Republic added interceptor qualities to the Thud. The F-105 is fast no doubt, so it may even work. Maybe another gunshight with lead computing would have sufficed, but I can imagine Sparrows (although not for W-Germany).

Later ICEs in the wake of Flexible response can be discussed as well.

 

 

PS: Range is an issue, even for Germany with the enemy a few miles away. It was anticipated that most airfields would be destroyed within the first 24h of WWIII. The Luftwaffe then would have had to operate from the Benelux-countries, France, and Denmark or even Norway.

[Stratos 3,191]

Maybe dual racks for A-A missiles on the belly. That will make 4 on the wings + 2 on fuselage + DT pretty good for a interceptor.

[Toryu 156]

 

But let's just follow the line of Feuchter, and assume Republic added interceptor qualities to the Thud. The F-105 is fast no doubt, so it may even work. Maybe another gunshight with lead computing would have sufficed, but I can imagine Sparrows (although not for W-Germany).

I frankly don't see how this would have been possible:

 

The airframe was large and heavy with little "growth-potentioal" for fighter-optimization. Maybe by cancelling a few features, they'd be able to squeeze out a couple of pounds of weight.

Engine-wise, there was little to add: The F-105 was already powered by the meanest and largest fighter-engine around - the J75.

The wings were small and didn't feature means to increase the airplane's turning-capabilities (like the T/O-flaps on the F-104G that could be extended up to 450KIAS or M0.8 and could be out/retracted up to 540KIAS!).

Maybe you should consider a "maneuvering-setting" for the flaps!*

 

The NASARR was not a very good intercept-radar and for any radar with more serious interept-capabilities, the radar-dish is on the small side. Then again, the fighter-coverage of Central Europe was pretty tight and detection-ranges weren't all that critical back then.

 

Do you plan on adding Sparrow-capabilities later-on?

 

____

* Or maybe even several settings -  kind of like this:

 

Trailing-Edge flaps:

10° up to M1.2

20° up to M0.9

30° up to M0.8

 

Leading-Edge flaps:

15° up to M1.2

[NIELS 421]

The 'Hump Back' THUD is an F-105D Thunderstick II mod. Not sure of the avionics sweet in these beasts but pretty sure it enhanced some bombing type accuracy and all weather NAV capabilities.   Retreived this from the web (30 F-105Ds were were fitted with advanced attack avionics beginning in 1969 under the "Thunderstick (T-Stick) II" program, featuring an improved LORAN radio-beacon navigation system to hit targets at night or in bad weather. The avionics were stored in a dorsal fairing that ran from cockpit to tail. However, by this time the F-105D was being withdrawn from combat and the T-Stick II aircraft never went to war. The Texas USAFR was the only operators. Kind of a quasi A-6 capability maybe? Would be a cool addition for the NATO 5 campaign and 'what if' category for NATO purchase. I think it may not look pretty as far as lines go but it makes it look more fearsome!

 

NIELS

[PraetorH 166]

The airframe was large and heavy with little "growth-potentioal" for fighter-optimization. Maybe by cancelling a few features, they'd be able to squeeze out a couple of pounds of weight.

Engine-wise, there was little to add: The F-105 was already powered by the meanest and largest fighter-engine around - the J75.

The wings were small and didn't feature means to increase the airplane's turning-capabilities (like the T/O-flaps on the F-104G that could be extended up to 450KIAS or M0.8 and could be out/retracted up to 540KIAS!).

Maybe you should consider a "maneuvering-setting" for the flaps!*

 

The NASARR was not a very good intercept-radar and for any radar with more serious interept-capabilities, the radar-dish is on the small side. Then again, the fighter-coverage of Central Europe was pretty tight and detection-ranges weren't all that critical back then.

 

Do you plan on adding Sparrow-capabilities later-on?

 

You are right. There is hardly a way making it a fighter. But there was another engine considered for a British export version, the Olympus BOI.22R (Mk. 320), the same that powered the BAC TSR.2. It might be a worthy what-if for the Brits out here

 

I won't be adding AIM-7 for Germany and I have, on the whole abandoned the idea of a fighter Thud. It will be the plan that was rejected for financial reasons: F-104 for the fighters, F-105 for the fighter bombers, and G-91 for the light bombers.

 

 

The 'Hump Back' THUD is an F-105D Thunderstick II mod. Not sure of the avionics sweet in these beasts but pretty sure it enhanced some bombing type accuracy and all weather NAV capabilities.   Retreived this from the web (30 F-105Ds were were fitted with advanced attack avionics beginning in 1969 under the "Thunderstick (T-Stick) II" program, featuring an improved LORAN radio-beacon navigation system to hit targets at night or in bad weather. The avionics were stored in a dorsal fairing that ran from cockpit to tail. However, by this time the F-105D was being withdrawn from combat and the T-Stick II aircraft never went to war. The Texas USAFR was the only operators. Kind of a quasi A-6 capability maybe? Would be a cool addition for the NATO 5 campaign and 'what if' category for NATO purchase. I think it may not look pretty as far as lines go but it makes it look more fearsome!

 

Although I am not a fan of the hump, I would add it for an ICE, but lacking 3D-modeling capabilities I cannot...