2 F-105's placed on display in Tallapoosa, Ga

[Enemy Ace]

These pictures were put on facebook by my former class mate Maj. John Alderman. One of the Thuds has been marked with the tail # of his Father in Law, Captain Benton West.
From his post: Flying out of Thailand during the Vietnam War, Benton was shot down twice in 30 days, the second time over Hanoi on his 69th mission. As the gigantic F-105 started to disintegrate around him, he pointed out to sea and counted seven. He made it to to the water and ejected over Haiphong Harbor, where a Jolly Green picked him up even as the sampans were motoring out to nab him. He was the first person rescued from north of the DMZ.

Aren't these the F-105's that were in Maxwell or Lackland set up to simulate a flight line for SP training? So glad to see them saved...
-Robert

Attachments

[Enemy Ace]

Just got confirmation that these were indeed 2 of the Lackland security forces training aircraft.

[JohnB]

Why two?

It might have been nice to share them with other museums...if anyone wanted one.

PS if you have the serials, let Joe Braugher know....

[SaxMan]

All the "Century Series" fighters are good looking planes, but the 105 to me is the best looking plane of the bunch.

[Rauhbatz]

If the landing gear is around for the one on the pole we could use it for the Zanesville F-105

[Snake45]

All the "Century Series" fighters are good looking planes, but the 105 to me is the best looking plane of the bunch.

Funny thing is, it's not and never has been a "fighter." It only got that designation because USAF wasn't handing out A-for-Attack designations in the '50s.

Here's a great irony: The US government changed the designation of the aging Douglas B-26K in 1966 to A-26A so they could say "We have no bombers based in Thailand," yet no one seemed to mind that F-105 and F-4 "fighters," flying daily missions that were comparable in distance, objective, and bomb load to WWII B-17 missions, were based there. Think about that for a minute.

[JohnB]

Funny thing is, it's not and never has been a "fighter." It only got that designation because USAF wasn't handing out A-for-Attack designations in the '50s.

The Air Force got want it asked for...and it did a good job. Titles were superfluous.
When you're dealing with nukes, I'm not sure there is a meaningful difference between tactical and strategic operations
or between CAS (what we think of "Attack" types now days with the A-10) and a 1-2 crew deep strike or interdiction aircraft.
In many ways, the armament carried on a particular sortie define the aircraft and mission....

Still, it could protect itself...and was certainly more a fighter than the Air Force bombers of the time.
And if you ask back in time and asked at the O'Club bar if they were fighter or bomber pilots, they'd let you know.

I'll also point out, that the 105 was designed for the deep strike mission...something the F-84, F-84F, F-100C/D, F-101A/C and F-104G (albeit not in USAF service) did along with the Phantom. And no one ever makes the point you raised about THEM...

[shrike]

I'll also point out, that the 105 was designed for the deep strike mission...something the F-84, F-84F, F-100C/D, F-101A/C and F-104G (albeit not in USAF service) did along with the Phantom. And no one ever makes the point you raised about THEM...

None of them was designed with an internal bomb bay either.

[Enemy Ace]

thuds whacked quite a few migs... I'll keep referring to them as "F" -105's.

[Snake45]

thuds whacked quite a few migs... I'll keep referring to them as "F" -105's.

I'll have to check my books, but I think more of them got whacked by MiGs than whacked MiGs.

Skyraiders killed two MiGs, too. That doesn't make them "fighters."

[Matt Gunsch]

thuds whacked quite a few migs... I'll keep referring to them as "F" -105's.

I'll have to check my books, but I think more of them got whacked by MiGs than whacked MiGs.

Skyraiders killed two MiGs, too. That doesn't make them "fighters."

Ask the MiG pilots what they think..

[Chris Brame]

Shame to see the second one sinking into the ground like that; just wait until the kids start crawling all over it...

[Snake45]

The Air Force got want it asked for...and it did a good job. Titles were superfluous.

Agree on the first part. On the second...I'm not sure they could have gotten funding for the 105 as a "bomber." "We're buying B-52s and B-58s, what do we need this 'little' hot rod bomber for?" But it looked like a sexy fighter, so nobody argued with that.

In many ways, the armament carried on a particular sortie define the aircraft and mission....

To some extent, true. You can hang bombs and rockets and whatever on a fighter and turn it into a fighter-bomber, or "jabo," or "strike fighter" or attack aircraft, or whatever you want to call it, but it's still a fighter, which is, by definition, designed and deployed to engage, attack, and destroy other aircraft. If it's not designed and deployed to engage other aircraft, it's not a fighter.

Still, it could protect itself...and was certainly more a fighter than the Air Force bombers of the time.

Agreed. But it was also less a fighter than other real fighters of the time. Even Jack Broughton said he'd have rather been flying MiGs against 105s, than 105s against MiGs, especially under the silly-ass rules of engagement he was forced to work under.

I'll also point out, that the 105 was designed for the deep strike mission...something the F-84, F-84F, F-100C/D, F-101A/C and F-104G (albeit not in USAF service) did along with the Phantom. And no one ever makes the point you raised about THEM...

Agreed, the 105 was designed for deep strike, not for fighter work. The F-84, F-100, F-101, and F-104 were all initially designed as pure fighters. It just worked out that by the time some of them were deployed, they were second-rate and found meaningful work as jabos/strike fighters, recon birds, etc. As for F-84F, I think that Republic originally intended it to be at least as good as the F-86, and then found another niche for it when that didn't work out. (The politics--literal politics--of funding and building and buying these things can never be discounted, either.)

The Navy seems to have always had a better handle on the whole fighter-vs-attack thing. That's why there was an AU-1 Corsair and not an F4U-6 Corsair.

[SaxMan]

Funny thing is, it's not and never has been a "fighter." It only got that designation because USAF wasn't handing out A-for-Attack designations in the '50s.

Here's a great irony: The US government changed the designation of the aging Douglas B-26K in 1966 to A-26A so they could say "We have no bombers based in Thailand," yet no one seemed to mind that F-105 and F-4 "fighters," flying daily missions that were comparable in distance, objective, and bomb load to WWII B-17 missions, were based there. Think about that for a minute.

Pardon my grammatical error. I probably should have said "Century series planes" I did know that F-105 was not truly a "fighter" but was given that designation. For that matter, the F-117 isn't a fighter either (or even the F-111). I always found that designation curious, as the tri-service renaming of airplanes occurred in the early 60s. It's like "F-117" is a throwback to those days.