Republic F-105D-31RE Thunderchief

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

Aircraft: Republic F-105D-31RE Thunderchief

 

Classification: Single-engine, all-weather fighter-bomber

 

Visuals:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description: The F-105D was the definitive Thunderchief, as it represented the culmination of several improvements over the earlier F-105B. These modifications included the more powerful J75-P-19W engine that introduced water injection to the type, redesigned air intakes and airflow system, a modified rear fuselage to accommodate plumbing for the ADI system, a larger nosecone to facilitate the new AN/ASG-19 fire control system and R-14A monopulse radar, as well as a new cockpit that brought pilot controls and information up to a more modern standard.

 

The F-105D Thunderchief was first deployed in mid-1960 to the 335th Fighter Squadron with delivery to European-based squadrons soon thereafter. The type would go on to become a major participant in the Vietnam War, as it became the face of Operation Rolling Thunder where the Thunderchief excelled in the tactical bombing role.

 

Unlike earlier predecessors such as the F-84F Thunderstreak which could still boast competitive fighter performance, the F-105D was compromised by its high weight as a result of its incredible ordnance capacity in addition to its heavy airframe. This created a very high wing-loading that made it extremely difficult for the Thunderchief to evade its main opponents over the skies of Vietnam, the significantly lighter and more nimble MiG-17Fs and MiG-21s. In such scenarios, the only course of action was to open up the throttle, hit the deck, and allow the aircraft to make full use of the powerful J75 engine by going supersonic - essentially outrunning all of its opposition. Nevertheless, the F-105D is credited with 27.5 air kills against 17 losses.

 

The F-105D was eventually replaced in its role by the much-improved, superior F-4 Phantom, although specially modified F-105G “Wild Weasel” aircraft would go on to see service over Vietnam until the war’s end.

 

Fuel, Oil, and Water Data:

Internal Fuel Capacity: 1550 gallons (1160 gal in fuselage, 390 gal in internal bomb bay)

Oil Capacity: 4.5 gallons

Water Capacity: 36 gallons

 

Engine Data:

Manufacturer: Pratt & Whitney

Designation: J57-P-19W

Type: two-spool axial

Compressor Stages: 8-stage low pressure, 7-stage high pressure

Combustion Chamber: annular

Tail Pipe: 2-position convergent

Fuel Grade: JP-4

 

Power Data:

Afterburner Power w/ water injection: 26500 lbf @ 6900/9090 RPM (Low Pressure/High Pressure)

Afterburner Power: 24500 lbf @ 6400/8990 RPM (Low Pressure/High Pressure)

Military Power: 16100 lbf @ 6400/8990 RPM (Low Pressure/High Pressure)

Normal Power: 14300 lbf @ 6080/8750 RPM (Low Pressure/High Pressure)

 

Dimensional Data:

Length: 64.4 ft

Height: 19.7 ft

Wing Span: 34.9 ft

Wing Area: 385 sq. ft

Wing Loading: 92.56 lbs/sq. ft @ basic mission combat weight

 

Weight Data:

Empty Weight: 26855 lbs

Design Weight: 34085 lbs (with no stores)

Combat Weight, clean: 35637 lbs
Maximum Field Takeoff Weight: 52838 lbs

Fuel Weight: 17615 lbs (basic mission takeoff weight, full tank)

 

General Performance Data (combat weight of 35637 lbs, clean):

Max Speed @ SL: 726 knots (1344.6 kph)

Max Speed @ Altitude: 1192 knots (2207.6 kph) @ 36,089 ft

Maximum Rate of Climb @ SL:  34000 ft/min (172.7 m/s)

Power-off, flaps-up Stall Speed (takeoff weight of 48976 lbs, basic mission): 180.6 knots (334.47 kph)

Takeoff Distance: 4720 ft

Combat Ceiling: 48500 ft (afterburning)

 

NOTE: exact speed:altitude figures have limited accuracy (+/- 5 knots) due to SAC graph resolution in some instances.

Maximum Speeds (combat weight of 35637 lbs, clean, afterburner w/ water injection):

At SL: 726 knots (1344.6 kph)

At 10000 ft: ~820 knots (1518.6 kph)

At 20000 ft: ~910 knots (1685.3 kph)

At 30000 ft: ~1060 knots (1963.1 kph)

At 36089 ft: 1192 knots (2207.6 kph, ~Mach 2.1)

At 40000 ft: ~1165 knots (2157.6 kph)

At 50000 ft: ~1140 knots (2111.3 kph)

 

NOTE: exact speed:altitude figures have limited accuracy (+/- 5 kph) due to SAC graph resolution in some instances.

Maximum Speeds (combat weight of 35637 lbs, clean, military thrust):

At SL: ~640 knots (1185.3 kph)

At 10000 ft: ~624 knots (1255.7 kph)

At 20000 ft: ~607 knots (1124.2 kph)

At 30000 ft: ~585 knots (1083.4 kph)

At 40000 ft: ~540 knots (1000.1 kph)

 

NOTE: exact climb:altitude figures have limited accuracy due to SAC graph resolution.

Rate of Climb (combat weight of 35637 lbs, clean, afterburner w/ water injection):

At SL: 34000 ft/min (172.7 m/s)

At 10000 ft: ~27500 ft/min (139.7 m/s)

At 20000 ft: ~20500 ft/min (104.1 m/s)

At 30000 ft: ~13750 ft/min (69.9 m/s)

At 40000 ft: ~6200 ft/min (31.5 m/s)

 

NOTE: exact climb:altitude figures have limited accuracy due to SAC graph resolution.

Rate of Climb (combat weight of 35637 lbs, clean, military thrust):

At SL: ~ 8750 ft/min (44.5 m/s)

At 10000 ft: ~8500 ft/min (43.2 m/s)

At 20000 ft: ~6750 ft/min (34.3 m/s)

At 30000 ft: ~4000 ft/min (20.3 m/s)

At 35000 ft: ~2500 ft/min (12.7 m/s)

 

Time to Climb (takeoff weight of 48976 lbs, military thrust):

From SL to 20K ft: 5.9 min

From SL to 30K ft: 10.15 min

 

Armament:

Guns: 1x M-61 20mm cannon (1028 rounds total)

Bomb/Rocket/Missile Ordnance:  (spoilered below due to the wealth of ordnance type and mount locations)

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Sources:

[1] Standard Aircraft Characteristics: F-105D-31 Thunderchief, (AFG 2, Col-1, Addn 49) June ‘70

[2] USAF Series F-105D, F-105F & F-105G Aircraft Flight Manual, T.O. 1F-105D-1, 20 June 1969, Change 3 - 9 September 1970

[3] Characteristics Summary: Fighter F-105D-31, (AFG 1, Addn 99), April ‘71

[4] Characteristics Summary: Fighter F-105D-31, (AFG 1, Addn 58), January ‘64

Edited January 10, 2019 by Aquilachrysaetos

[Princess_Pinch 5,625]

Open for discussion. 

[dotEXCEL 5,969]

+1

[Warlock_Leader 292]

Looks like a Hawker Hunter and Mirage F-1 had a baby.

[Functor 230]

I will be happy to see F-104/5 and a Soviet/French Mach 2 counterpart in the next patch.

[Wanhope 45]

Voted, nice work as usual.

[RanchSauce39 397]

I think it  relative depends how you think of it.

 

In terms of #'s as F105's aged ( or more were shot down) More F4 were sent to theatre and use as strike fighters

 

However in terms of Role technically speaking the F111 is a replacement for the F105. IN fact when pressed when to produce extra F105's dto replace  heavy losses in nam  it was cancelled becuase F111 was right around the corner and more funds divereted to that production.

 

 

F105 in its inception was designed a low level tactical nuclear bomber. with he F105D model it went from Single role nuclear bomber to being adapted as all weather ( it now had a radar)  Strike aircraft with adaption for use in a Conventional Strike role ( bomb trucking) and fit into tac because it was it could also be adapted fufill limited a2a mission ( Aim9's and internal gun)

 

 

in that regard the F111 is more coparable and a more direct replacment. F111 whilst initially intended asa F4 replacement was inadequate as a fighter,  for the TFX program, it instead became a  long range  INterdictor aircraft primarily used around doctrine  for low level attack runs,  A big mission it was intended to fufill if cold war went hot and escalated nuclear was to lob nukes like its F105 predecessor.

 

Like the F105, the F111 despite its F designation (  F designation is more attractive to pilots who want good posting)   was basically a bomber not a "fighter"

 

Edit:

 

why F105D31

 

what are differences in production models within the  F105D series.?

 

Edited January 12, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

On 11/01/2019 at 19:36, RanchSauce39 said:

Edit:

 

why F105D31

 

what are differences in production models within the  F105D series.?

 

 

The D-31 block was the "best" of the D blocks, incorporating aerial refueling capability and several other reliability/creature comfort improvements that made it the definitive D block version. 

 

As such, most information on the D series (i.e. SACs) are based around the D-31RE, which it makes it the most sensible to write a suggestion on. There are other variants that will have their own suggestions coming Soon^TM.

[Iron_physik 3,485]

yes please.

I want my supersonic bomb sled!

 

 

not only would this be a great tactical bomber in WT, it could also perfectly perform as a testbed for CCIP bombing, because the F-105 was one of the first planes to have such a system mounted to it.

the gunsight was linked to a ballistic computer that was linked to the radar, so the reticle would show where bombs hit in the ground attack mode.

 

 

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 29/01/2019 at 19:20, Iron_physik said:

yes please.

I want my supersonic bomb sled!

 

 

not only would this be a great tactical bomber in WT, it could also perfectly perform as a testbed for CCIP bombing, because the F-105 was one of the first planes to have such a system mounted to it.

the gunsight was linked to a ballistic computer that was linked to the radar, so the reticle would show where bombs hit in the ground attack mode.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CCIP would mean the impact point is calculated real time and constantly moved. the F105 didnt have such sort of computing power or advanced a sight ( let alone HUD) for this.

 

to Quote

 

"Constantly-calculated Impact point (CCIP) is HUD symbology where the point of impact is continuously shown on the HUD. A small pipper indicates where the bombs would land if dropped at this instant. The pilot flies the plane to place the pipper over the target and then pickles to release the bombs."

 

 

 

The F105 automated bombing method is just that something akin to CCRP not CCIP. the Radar is locked to a point on the ground, provides range to ballistic computer then fed to the sight. Pilot gets a cue to release, and pickles the bomb. Thus more akin to CCRP. So whilst this will work against a fixed target its not very useful against a moving target.

 

 

  Alternatively CCRP is not  necessarily reliant on radar, but instead based on imputed INS  coordinates or in newer gen aircraft GPS co-ordinances ,  or  coordinates/ point generated by laser designating device via Targeting pod  or  alternatively  is visually acquired via HUD or  by placing a pipper over desired target and selecting  that point  to be fixed in the hud, the computing does its thing, and release que is given when flying over.

 

 

How it looks in more modern aircraft with "HUD"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The F4 phantom since the F4D model, could employ such a radar automated CCRP like bombing mode like the F105D.Later  in life F4E phantoms  had AN/ARC 101 navigation/bombing computers installed allowing for actual CCIP

 

 

In any case such a basic radar based ranging for CCRP was not all that accurate for bombing small individual targets like tanks. Even from acedotal evidence from 4th gen pilots ( Hornets over Kuwait) the author  Jay A stout stated that even using his F/A18A hornet's AN/APG65  radar bombing mode was inadequate  unless bombing a target that was at least as large as a football field. IE good for destroying Infantry barracks or  destroying an airstrip but far too inaccurate for hitting small individual targets like tanks.

 

 

 

TLDR

 

its essentially a something of a "pseudo" CCRP mode on the F105D. IF not implemented then players will essnetially by "manual" bombing, although even that can be properly done by existing aircraft, since for Manual bombing one should be able to depress the gun sight  based on Mills setting ( refer to RL bombing tables which depression to use at which speeds and dive angles)

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[Iron_physik 3,485]

On 08/02/2019 at 03:07, RanchSauce39 said:

The F105 didnt have such sort of computing power or advanced a sight ( let alone HUD) for this.

 

it had...
you dont need a advanced hud, all you need is the Fire control computer to lower the sight angle based on radar input, which is exactly what the F-105 does. with the AN/AGS-19 thunderstick FCS

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0325.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0326.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0327.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0328.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0329.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0330.PDF

infos about the fire control system:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0333.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0334.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0335.PDF

 

 

 

 

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 12/02/2019 at 02:44, Iron_physik said:

it had...
you dont need a advanced hud, all you need is the Fire control computer to lower the sight angle based on radar input, which is exactly what the F-105 does. with the AN/AGS-19 thunderstick FCS

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0325.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0326.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0327.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0328.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0329.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0330.PDF

infos about the fire control system:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0333.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0334.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1964/1964 - 0335.PDF

 

 

 

 

 

No that is not CCIP......

 

 

by the very article piece....

 

 

"For the attack itself the AN/ASG-19 Thunderstick integrated fire control system provides automatic or manual and blind or visual delivery of virtually all the weapons available, with automatic or manually controlled bomb-release and autopilot control of the various toss-bombing manoeuvres. Although classical bombing from level flight at high altitude is possible with the aid of the Nasarr, most bomb deliveries are by low-level toss of one form or another, except for the xxxx lay-down, which is done from level flight at low level. The profiles of these deliveries are illustrated in an accompanying diagram. The simplest form is that in which the pilot approaches in level flight and depresses the reticule of his visual sight by an amount appropriate to the weapon used. As soon as the reticule lines-up with the target, he releases the bomb and pulls away, leaving the bomb to follow a ballistic trajectory onto the target. This can be modified for diving attacks by using either the Nasarr or a computation of barometric height and angle of dive to compute a point at which the pilot should initiate a 4g pull-up. The bomb is automatically released during the pull-up at a point from which its resultant trajectory will take it onto the target. The gunsight gives the pilot a range indication and a break-away signal as shown in the diagram. Lock-on is at 60,000ft slant range, the computer is "frozen" or "pickled" at 20,000ft and the pull-up is initiated at 6,500ft slant range from the target. The forward low and high toss modes aie similar in conception and are equally automatically controlled if desired. A low toss pull-up may be begun at any point between the maximum range from the target appropriate to the trajectory of the weapon used and the minimum range dictated by the safe escape of the aircraft from the resultant blast"

 

"If the target itself has no "radar signature," an identifiable offset point is chosen from which the computation process can be initiated. The IP may be in line with the target, but short of it, or to one side, the requisite co-ordinates being set into the bombing system before the attack. For any given range and relative height, there is a particular release point matched to the ballistics of the weapon. "

 

These descriptions of Automated modes, are very much be CCRP, and not CCIP.

 

 

 

Automatic = another name used for CCRP  bombing forms ( IN most modern A/C is called more often CCRP but in others like even a Hornet is  instead called AUto mode) . and even analyzing the very below article  ( bolded bits in particularity) description of bombing functions that falls under CCRP type bombing methods . As described in earlier post that is not CCIP including the ability of inputing INS coordinates of pre planned targets or bombing a target already programmed into navigation based on a Waypoint.

 

Manual = unguided bombing. the pilot manually adjust  Mills  gun sight depression  based on memorized information bombing tables needed for specific delivery of given weapon type. ( IE  pilot on his own accord taking into account dive angle, AOA indicator, and airspeed, and altitude for aforementioned unguided manual delivery)

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[ivica70 910]

Fully support this! 

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

+1 seems a bit too early but alongside Mig-21 cant imagine us TT without it

[Vekken1 2]

I would love to see this and the F-105G Wild Weasel.

[F_L_A_N_K_E_R_2 11]

I'd definitely love to see the F105G WW in game as well, especially with all the new radar mechanics in game.

[Palmput 60]

Yep, it's iconic. +1

[AnelToro089 70]

As Im close to finishing my f100 skinning project the addition of the thunderchife would fit perfectly to start a new one. +100 

[Gavin_Mactavish 943]

But is warthunder ready for guided bombing?

[kamikazi21358 998]

+1, when maps and counterparts for it are added.

 

Though I would like to see more versions of the F-105D than just the 31.

[RanchSauce39 397]

10 hours ago, Gavin_Mactavish said:

But is warthunder ready for guided bombing?

 

we already sort of do.

 

 The cross you get in arcade mode for fighters when dive bombing is basically sort like CCIP function which in turn would be even better than CCRP guidance.

 

The only difference is we would have such a feature in RB/SB

[Iron_physik 3,485]

 

 

one thing he said that caught my eye:

Quote

This airplane was ahead of its time as far as stealth goes, this is a corner box reflector for radar (guy points at a box on the frontal landing gear), because under normal conditions, if its raining or in bad weather, the GCA radar would loose the airplane, because it was so hard to pick up on radar.

The main reason for that is that not only is it a very smooth shaped airplane, the engine is what we called "buried". Its not seen by radar, because the radar does cant see down the intake. normally the radar sees the spinning blades which are great radar reflectors.

 

 

GCA radar is a air traffic control radar. the radar used at this time was the AN/MPN-14 this unit had 2 rdars:

• the primary radar AN/CPN-4, an improved modell of a 60-mile S-Band Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)
• the primary radar AN/FPN-13, a 10-mile S-Band Precision Approach Radar (PAR);

these 2 are S-band radars and are sitting in the frequency right between the most commonly used radar types for finding planes. meaning in WT the F-105 should have a fairly low radar profile without payload when it points directly at the enemy radar source, especially when it carries its jammer pod under a wing.

 

 

read this article if you are interested more into military radar:

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/radar-electronic-countermeasure/

 

 

[benboy24 1,127]

+1

[Milocat 4,857]

With the more modern aircraft we now have in the game this would be perfect as a top-tier jet bomber for the U.S.  +1.

[kamikazi21358 998]

Also should this go in the attacker line?  Since it isn’t a bomber, but isn’t a pure fighter?  As a fighter bomber?