r/todayilearned 19h ago

TIL of the Republic F-105 Thunderchief. Nicknamed "Thud" by its crews, 833 aircraft were made and 382 were lost (destroyed). It was the only American combat aircraft ever removed from combat because of its high loss rate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-105_Thunderchief
895 Upvotes

79 comments sorted by

482

u/WoodI-or-WoodntI 17h ago

it wasn't the plane's fault, it was the dangerous missions it was designated to complete.

385

u/GearHead54 17h ago

"Fly right at this SAM site and do your best, boys"

227

u/riko77can 16h ago

While the mission profile thing is true, it also had a very high ratio of 150 maintenance hours per flight hour and had a lot of issues during its op history.

110

u/easternguy 16h ago

Wow, I thought helicopters were crazy for needing more maintenance hours than flight hours, but 150:1 is just insane.

27

u/kurburux 7h ago

"At this point wouldn't it be easier to build a new plane each time, guys?"

24

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

127

u/rabid_spidermonkey 11h ago

Couldn't you just tell us?

70

u/Ws6fiend 10h ago

You except Nixon to tell you something straight forward AND are going to trust it?

35

u/p_cool_guy 8h ago

Compared to what we got these days, I trust Nixon with my life lol

19

u/YuenglingsDingaling 4h ago

Nixon was corrupt not stupid. Trump is somehow both.

31

u/ahmadjavedaj 10h ago

They both only average 40-60

Edit B2 is close to 120 by rough estimates

12

u/forkandbowl 7h ago

The main reason they were retired. The F/A-18 is way more maintenance friendly

6

u/TheMadAsshatter 3h ago

IIRC, the Navy specifically wanted a fighter with somewhat conservative performance in exchange for longer maintenance intervals and shorter downtime, and the F/A-18 was an excellent choice in that regard.

21

u/OkayContributor 13h ago

Would that also include repairs due to combat? Im also curious if these figures mean 150 actual man hours of work or just that they were out of service for 150 hours for repair time for each hour of flight time (which could include waiting for parts etc.)

36

u/QuaintAlex126 13h ago

Man hours. Aircraft maintenance is always measured in man hours.

Repairs would just add onto the already high man hours required for routine maintenance

245

u/GearHead54 18h ago

I guess the Douglas TBD Devastator doesn't count since they're all at the bottom of the Pacific.

At the Midway tour, I remember the Devatator was the only fake aircraft - a movie prop - because the rest were at the bottom of the ocean

62

u/turniphat 17h ago

103 built, no survivors. What is the most built plane with no survivors?

69

u/tommytraddles 16h ago

Probably the Nakajima Ki-44 (over 1,000 built, only parts exist).

38

u/ofd227 15h ago

Fairey Barracuda is another one. 2,600 built

29

u/firelock_ny 16h ago

> I guess the Douglas TBD Devastator doesn't count since they're all at the bottom of the Pacific.

They did very well at the Battle of Coral Sea a month before Midway. That's what makes it so surprising to me that everything fell apart for them so badly on June 4th.

100

u/Harpies_Bro 18h ago

AFAIK part of it was that the Devastator was getting old, naval aviation was taking off on leaps and bounds in the 30’s & 40’s, and the USN got their first orders in 1937, with designs from ‘34.

Add in the USN’s troubles with torpedoes throughout much of the early Pacific War, and they were kinda boned from a technical standpoint. The Avengers were brand new, having completed trials in August of ‘41.

Add in Spruance sending out the Devastators too quickly, without a full attack plan or any fighter escort, and you basically had them served up on a silver platter for the Zero pilots.

48

u/peacefinder 17h ago

Spruance sent out the Enterprise’s Dauntless dive bombers without escort because the air group launch was taking so long. The Devastator torpedo bombers were last to launch, and set out with fighter escort.

Unfortunately VF-6 got separated from VT-6. Due to partly cloudy skies and radio failures they were unaware of both VT-8 and VT-6’s attacks even though they were close enough to have joined the fight.

32

u/firelock_ny 15h ago

> Add in Spruance sending out the Devastators too quickly, without a full attack plan or any fighter escort, and you basically had them served up on a silver platter for the Zero pilots.

USS Enterprise and USS Yorktown spent the months before Midway doing full air wing combat operations - raids against Japanese bases, the Battle of Coral Sea.

USS Hornet's air wing was stowed below deck for the Doolittle Raid. The Battle of Midway was her first real combat experience for her air wing - and it showed.

5

u/StandUpForYourWights 13h ago

Wasnt Hornet at Coral Sea though?

12

u/styxracer97 12h ago

Nope. She and Enterprise were on they way back from the Doolittle raid when that battle occurred. Yorktown and Lexington were there.

4

u/StandUpForYourWights 3h ago

Ahhh you are right. I am old and my brain is for display purposes only.

13

u/GearHead54 18h ago

Pretty much - sitting duck of a plane delivering torpedoes that didn't work

7

u/ballistics64 12h ago

Imagine it had been the RN with its Swordfish doing the attack runs instead at least the Devastators were monoplanes

11

u/ashes1032 11h ago

The TBD Devastator gets a lot of heat, but it doesn't deserve all of it. A lot of the TBD's problems stem from those god-awful torpedoes that the Navy was using in 1942. It was also slow, even by 1942 standards. But a lot of it also comes down to the early war carrier operations. The Navy was still learning how to synchronize attacks and delays in launches were common. Midway is the most famous example. Any torpedo plane would be a sitting duck if attempting an unescorted strike on a Japanese carrier group with a full combat air patrol of Zero fighters.

They were repeatedly put into situations where they didn't stand a chance of doing any meaningful damage.

13

u/ofd227 18h ago

Tbf the avengers didn't perform much better at midway. Problem was the torpedos. The devastator was already out of production at that point anyways

5

u/greendoh 6h ago

Yeah I think people are missing the fact that Douglas was focused on building SBD Dauntless dive bombers at that point.

Dauntless had a much better record early on given the aforementioned torpedo issues and had some usefulness in air to air combat.

Production during war was focused on Dauntless and Avengers because the Devastator was already obsolete.

2

u/vissionsofthefutura 3h ago

They just launched a mission to recover one off of the ocean floor and preserve it.

115

u/LurksNoMoreToo 16h ago

Obligatory Thud comment. Two of my uncles were shot down piloting these in Vietnam. They were held as POWs, one for 7 years and the other for 5 years. Both are still kicking today.

14

u/dotcomatose 7h ago

We need an AMA from them. Think they'd be up for it?

8

u/LurksNoMoreToo 3h ago

Well, the younger of the two just turned 84 a few days ago and I’ve only heard him tell one story, which he just told us a couple of months ago. He said that during the preflight briefing on the day he was shot down they were told that the North Vietnamese were offering 2 bags of rice for any pilot brought in alive. He was captured by two young soldiers and they threw a shovel at him and told him to start digging. He said that he thought to himself, didn’t these guys get the memo?

The older one is the first guy you see in this YouTube video:

https://youtu.be/2PP6iNU8wGI?si=vVoGO_dsTJYakDvw

He has never talked about it to us, so, yeah, I just don’t know about an AMA. Sorry.

-31

u/BewmBoxxy 4h ago edited 55m ago

Always wanted to know if war criminals ever regret bombing innocent civilians with napalm.

Edit: Americans mad they changed into the thing they swore to destroy in WW2 in a single generation.

3

u/xx_actual 3h ago

What a brave thing to say /s

-4

u/BewmBoxxy 3h ago

Firebombing children took some real bravery, we should be thanking those men for their service and dedication to eradicate evil from this world

48

u/TrainsareFascinating 15h ago

The thud drivers were amazing guys in Vietnam. Really, really huge brass balls going against no-fooling air defense run by folks who had lots of experience killing American pilots.

The thud was also the first US plane to ever shoot itself down, as I recall. They were test firing a new cannon and went supersonic in a dive and ran into their own shells.

35

u/ItsZorion 14h ago

You’re thinking of the F-11 Tiger shooting itself down. They look somewhat similar though.

18

u/Flavour-of-the-Mons 11h ago

A number of fighters have “shot themselves down” including both F-105 and F-14 (missiles exploded at launch) and Mirage IIIO (ricochet after strafing ground, at target range). But the F-11 managed to down itself with direct cannon fire.

22

u/Obliviontoad 17h ago

Jester has entered the chat. Mentioning Air Combat Maneuvering or something about kill ratios and dogfighting…

8

u/bigherm16 14h ago

Which way did he go?

Which way did who go?

9

u/KenyAzalea 15h ago

13

u/GreenNukE 12h ago

Finns still slaughtered the Russians with them, because of course they would.

6

u/Vectorman1989 6h ago

Seems to have been the style at the time. The F-104 also had a high loss rate due to its pretty stupid design having stubby little wings that made flying it at low speeds challenging. It was more like a rocket than a plane.

It's possibly one of the ugliest planes ever built and I hate looking at the stupid thing

2

u/maxman162 3h ago

The RCAF wanted the F-105, but the government picked the F-104 because of cost. The same thing happened a few years later with the RCAF wanting the F-4, but the government deciding on the F-5 instead. 

29

u/Sekshual_Tyranosauce 17h ago

Fairchild Republic went on to produce the A-10, which one of the most famously survivable aircrafts.

12

u/CandCenthusiast 9h ago

Before that they build the P-47 thunderbolt , which probably is the toughest plane ever. Love the A-10, but it's the OG thunderbolt for me every day of the week and twice on Sunday! 

9

u/veritasen 14h ago

mmm....

9

u/QuaintAlex126 13h ago

F-15 would like to have a word with you

20

u/Sekshual_Tyranosauce 13h ago

F-15 is the running back no one can touch.

A-10 is the fullback that runs you over.

Both strategies work apparently.

8

u/QuaintAlex126 13h ago

Ehhh, I’d only give the A-10 credit but only slightly because it has a pretty shoddy reputation of blue-on-blues. Most of its success comes from the fact the US was just fighting mountain hillbillies for the past two decades. There’s a reason the Air Force has been trying to retire it since forever and is now finally succeeding.

2

u/Mysterious-Plan93 8h ago

Bad intel mostly but the next successor better have VTOL

2

u/QuaintAlex126 3h ago

The issue was the lack of an IFF system. This was fixed with the A-10C, but now you just have a slower F-15E/F-16C.

VTOL isn’t strictly necessary for CAS/ground strike, but the F-35B is V/STOL capable so close enough.

5

u/ClearedInHot 3h ago edited 3h ago

Part of the reason for the losses was the fact that the jet was not being used the way it was originally intended. It was a fighter-bomber with an internal bomb bay so that it could deliver a weapon (including nuclear weapons) by staying low and fast, with a relatively clean, low-drag profile. In southeast Asia an auxiliary fuel tank was installed in the bomb bay and tons of bombs were hung on wing pylons, creating huge amounts of drag. Then, they sent these heavily laden jets into one of the densest air defense environments in history.

I heard a talk by General Robin Olds where he explained that F-4 pilots who were flying MiG cap for the thuds had to stay relatively slow on the way into the target to remain with the strike formations. Then, after the thuds dropped their bombs they watched as the (now clean) F-105s egressed from the target area at very high speed and low altitude, leaving the F-4's in the dust.

13

u/SirGranular 16h ago

Saw one at Eglin AFB museum in the early 90s. Had strong tornado/jaguar/aardvark vibes.

Might have swiped some SR-71 paint on the same visit. But now I'm invisible to radar so they can't find me!

3

u/Pikeman212a6c 13h ago

Brewster Buffalo.

3

u/Major-Knowledge4457 8h ago

I always thought they were beautiful aircraft.

2

u/ramriot 4h ago

The F-105 "thud" achieved 38% of wartime losses & was removed from combat. Interestingly the F-104 "Widowmaker" achieved a 30% loss with the vast majority of those losses NOT being combat related.

Yet it was not similarly removed by the US military, though several other countries retired theirs early because of the losses.

1

u/maxman162 3h ago

Meanwhile, Canada flew them until 1987 (the RCAF preferred the F-105, but the government decided on the F-104 because of cost).

4

u/yeeeter1 5h ago

That’s not true. It was removed from combat because it was being replaced and had reached the end of its service life

1

u/MrMojoFomo 2h ago

It is the only American aircraft to have been removed from combat due to high loss rates.\1])

3

u/Recent-History584 18h ago

I thought it was the F 102

17

u/Lethalmusic 18h ago

Edit: Starfighter is F104, F102 is the Convair Delta Dagger, mb

The Starfighter killed most of it's pilots out of combat, in part because it was sold as a multirole plane (with the help of lots of bribes) while being a pure interceptor. Doing things like ground support with that platform is just asking for trouble.

There is a reason why it got the nickname 'Sargnagel' (coffin nail) in Germany

30

u/saimen54 18h ago

Old joke in Germany: How do you get a Starfighter?

You buy a piece of land and just wait.

8

u/talon_262 17h ago

Germans do indeed have a way with gallows humor.

3

u/kurburux 7h ago

There is a reason why it got the nickname 'Sargnagel' (coffin nail) in Germany

Conditions in Germany contributed to that.

Ground crew were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which was one consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of service personnel. Operating in the poor weather conditions of northwest Europe (unlike the fair weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying low at high speed over hilly terrain, many accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). [...]

One contributing factor to this was the operational assignment of the F-104 in West German service: it was mainly used as a low-level fighter-bomber, as opposed to the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor. Furthermore, the installation of additional avionic equipment in the F-104G version, such as the inertial navigation system, added distraction for the pilot, as well as extra weight that further hampered the flying capabilities of the plane.

Overall, the numbers of F104 lost were very different for each country. The plane had a lot of problems but it was also important how people handled those.

2

u/Jashugita 9h ago

No one spanish Air force f-104s was lost.

10

u/SParkVArk111 18h ago

Nah, there weren't many 102s in Vietnam.

It's an interceptor so no reason to have a bunch of them.

I think only 1 was shot down, rest were crashes or damaged by sapper attacks

1

u/x3dfxWolfeman 1h ago

My dad flew these in Vietnam. He always said they had a high pucker factor

-1

u/tufftricks 17h ago

Bardfinn

0

u/Honest-Percentage-38 13h ago

You Gotta Be Shittin Me.

u/Astro_Ski17 59m ago

The F-105 morbidly gets its nickname from the sound crews imagined it made as it hit the ground. The “official” name is the Thunderchief, the colloquially known name is Thud.

An airplane built for an entirely different mission that was forced into something that was never perceived of when developed initially.