F-8 Crusader or F-105 Thunderchief

[drgondog]

The F105 did fairly well in the wild weasel role. I don't think the F8 could have done that. But then, the F105 was not designed as a dog fighter and the F8 as a tactical bomber.

The Thud was a great Weasel - and absolutely required a WSO in the back seat to a.) survive, and b.) pinpoint the Fansong sites.

Then the combination of Shrikes, Cluster bombs and 20mm was a great combo for air to ground options.

The 105 was uncatchable until it decided to turn to engage.. never, ever, an air superiority fighter (like the F-8 ) by design or accident. It had the lead in MiG kills in 1967 strictly because of opportunity - and the gun to compensate for lousy air to air missiles.

 

[ivanotter]

I also think the gun was the saving grace there.

But I have found it a bit confusing (please help me out here):

You have a single-seater "bomber" F-105, a fighter with an internal bomb bay and a gun, escorted by a 2-seater "fighter" F-4, which can carry 8 tons of bombs, is missile armed but having no gun.

Starting to read all the posts (as a layman, ok) the F-105 and F-5 could have been a good combination, when looking at the North Vietnamese fighter community IMHO.

 

[renrich]

From what I have read the F105 in VN was much more accurate in the air to ground role than the F4. I have a friend who flew 150 missions as a FAC and I think he was the one who told me that. He was an interesting case in that he had 2000 hours in the F100 and had been an IP at the Fighter Weapons School and then went to VN to be a pilot in a light plane. Had a lot of decorations in that role.

 

[pbfoot]

I also think the gun was the saving grace there.

But I have found it a bit confusing (please help me out here):

You have a single-seater "bomber" F-105, a fighter with an internal bomb bay and a gun, escorted by a 2-seater "fighter" F-4, which can carry 8 tons of bombs, is missile armed but having no gun.

Starting to read all the posts (as a layman, ok) the F-105 and F-5 could have been a good combination, when looking at the North Vietnamese fighter community IMHO.

The F5 had very very limited range

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Depending on the load out, mission and model, the F-5 had a combat radius between just over 500 miles to 800 miles. It "could have" served well in Vietnam in an expanded role providing there were enough tankers to support its mission or it continually operated from forward air bases which again "could have" been accomplished if the war "would have" been conducted with an offensive mindset in lieu of just containment. Hue to Hanoi was just over 300 miles so the F-5 could have certainly served a larger role.

 

[Zipper730]

Well, I know both were "attack basis", and just was curious overall, which was better.....

Okay, firstly the F-8 was designed as a largely dedicated fighter with the F-105 basically classified as a fighter bomber, and in practice, mostly a bomber.

The F-8 was...

• Designed as mostly as a fighter with a variable incidence wing that would allow a reasonably high AoA, with a low pitch angle so they could keep the deck in view
• Was built predominantly around the Air to Air role
• While there were early depictions of the aircraft with wing-pylons that could carry bombs or a single AAM-N-3 (AIM-7B), the fact is that the Sparrow II was never fielded operationally, and was mostly a wish-list either made by Vought, or by the United States Navy itself

It came in several variants, and since many of these designs came before 1962, I'll list both the pre-1962 (USN) designations, and post 1962 designation as well (There could be an error or two here so don't take it as gospel)

• XF8U-1/XF-8A: The prototypes, had 4 x 20mm cannon (144 RPG), provision for rails on either side of the forward fuselage able to carry a single AIM-9B, as well as a rocket tray that could carry 32 x 2.75" rockets for air-to-ground operations.
• F8U-1/F-8A: The first operational variant, and had the same armament as depicted for the XF8U-1/XF-8A. It differed in that it had a radar-directed gun-sight.
• F8U-1P/RF-8A: Modified for photo-reconnaissance, it had no armament a flat, squared-off under-fuselage with additional area-ruling. I'm not sure if it was any faster than the baseline F8U-1
• F8U-1T/TF-8A: Two seat trainer variant of the F8U-1, sometimes called the "Twosader"
• F8U-1E/F-8B: Equipped with the AN/APS-66/67 radar providing a limited all-weather capability, was able to use the AIM-9C which was SARH equipped
• F8U-2/F-8C: More powerful afterburners with a pair of cooling scoops, ventral fins, and new pylons able to carry 4 x AIM-9 instead of 2 x AIM-9. Like the F-8B, it was possible to carry AIM-9C. I think the inlet had a door which either would fix airflow-disturbances, and possibly relieve excess pressure inside the duct
• F8U-2N/F-8D: An all-weather variant of the F-8C
• F8U-2NE/F-8E: It had a bigger nose for an improved radar, pylons on the wings able to carry up to 5,000 pounds of bombs, or a pair of drop-tanks (almost never used)

It had more maneuverability than F-105 as a result of a lower stall-speed (and by extension, corner velocity -- that's the speed you need to fly at to achieve full g-load) and a superior rate of sustained turn (a function of lift & drag vs power). It was slower at all altitudes as far as I know (as the F-105 beat nearly everybody), with the F-105 able to achieve a placard limit of 815-830 knots at sea-level, and a maximum mach number of 2.3 to 2.5. Both had good roll-rates, the F-105 might have had a similar or T/W ratio in the fighter load-out, but it didn't always fly in that set-up, and it's heavier wing-loading would interfere with turn-rate.

The advantage of the F-105 is largely the ability to outrun everybody at low altitude where airspeed becomes the limiting factor, ironically few Soviet fighters could have kept up with it, so the predominant threat would have basically been gunfire. The F-8 combined a good mix, responsiveness, sustained agility, roll-rate, and climb-rate, that made it quite a formidable opponent.

The Crusader was designed to provide the Navy with a supersonic air superiority weapon with GUNS.

During the time it was produced, guns were the norm, so that wasn't unusual. It was noteworthy later

Robin Olds had a great influence on the F4E with the internal gun.... but he rotated home as AF Academy Den Mother before the E got to Nam.

I thought the F-4E first flew in 1965, and entered service in 1967?

Had the sidewinders and sparrows worked worth a damn all the USAF fighters would have done well as long as they stayed out of horizontal fights..

Actually that depends on weight and speed. The problem was that it didn't have enough lift to turn so good at high altitude, but below 20,000 feet it sustain something like 7g in turns at combat weight.