Are the Lackland F-105's warbirds?

Scott Rose · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:43 am

Randy Haskin's excellent photos of the F-105's at Lackland AFB got me thinking. The registry's mandate is to document all aircraft that survived government service. Do these qualify? Technically they are still in government service and adding them would be like trying to add all the Phantoms at Davis Monthan. The difference is that these are slated for destruction (AKAIK) and are of a type with a limited number of survivors. I will leave it up to you guys to decide.

N3Njeff · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:35 am

I would say Yes.............even the F-4's at DM dont need to have a detail history such as wix. but should be noted for their existance. Reason being, I just got a e mail today about a Huey airframe here in VT. The guy was her crewchief in Vietnam. He is excited that she still survives today. We look at these airplanes as historic machines, but to the men who flew and maintained them, there almost human. To them its like reuniting with a old friend.

Jiggersfromsphilly · **Joined:** Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:15 pm **Posts:** 951

A general impression I have gotten is in reading about different types of WW2 planes, many were given or used by technical schools Et Al. It seems like they slowly dissappeared as they were scrapped or buried etc. It would be a shame to see a group such as these be scrapped. The previous planes dissapeared by erosion, no one kept count until there wer only a very few. Don't let these become an endangered species.

Rob Mears · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:25 pm

Definitely warbirds.

Personally, my definition of "warbird" includes all aircraft types that served in the combat theatre. A lot of folks draw a line following WWII or Korea, after which they feel the term "warbird" doesn't truly apply. I figure the universally adapted demilitarization rules that came into effect around that same time have done enough to stem the existence and survival of the more contemporary warplanes without their being discriminated against. :wink:

I'm guessing that chances are those very F-105's probably served in Vietnam since they weren't exactly produced in mass numbers like their WWII ancestors. I figure a point comes in a particular warbird type's life when there is no chance for their reactivation, and few enough of them are around that they are kind of unofficially accepted into the ranks of deactivated relics. I figure the Phantoms could easily be reactivated in a pinch (most of them will be as drones anyway), but there's no way the USAF is about to suit up to fly their old 105's again! Particularly since their destruction is imminent and their numbers are very few, I'd say include them in the registry.

Mudge · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:26 pm

I voted NO.
My definition of "Warbird" is:An aircraft that has participated in a hostile action, or one of the same make that could have participated.
ie. Not all P-51s, P-38s, P-47s, Spits, F-86s, F-4s, F-105s, etc. participated in actual combat but they were combat worthy "at the time" combat was taking place.
I don't recall F-105s ever having been in combat anywhere. I could be wrong. (I was wrong once, I believe it was 1953. I coud be mistaken about that, though :rolleyes:

Mudge the opinionated

ps. Don't get me wrong, the 105 is a way cool airplane. It just doesn't meet MY personal criteria for a "Warbird".

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:30 pm

Mudge wrote:

I don't recall F-105s ever having been in combat anywhere. I could be wrong. (I was wrong once, I believe it was 1953. I coud be mistaken about that, though :rolleyes:

Mudge the opinionated

ps. Don't get me wrong, the 105 is a way cool airplane. It just doesn't meet MY personal criteria for a "Warbird".

The Thud served in Southeast Asia for many years bombing North Vietnam from Thailand.

Jiggersfromsphilly · **Joined:** Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:15 pm **Posts:** 951

Read Thud Ridge or Going Downtown by Jack Broughton for more information on the F105 in Vietnam.

N3Njeff · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:42 pm

397 A/C combat losses and 22 Mig Kills.............Id say its a "Warbird".

Don Martin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:14 pm

I say yes. Even using "Mudge The Opinionated's" definition

Quote:

An aircraft that has participated in a hostile action, or one of the same make that could have participated.

Most modern, if not all military aircraft participated or could have participated in a hostile action. And what about all those "cold" war aircraft that made intercepts and recon flights that ended with the loss of aircraft and crew? When a military aircraft is no longer used as a military(flying) aircraft. I say it qualifies. And I'm not sure that drones shouldn't, too.
Don
That's my opinion, We welcome yours!

Dan K · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:29 pm

Here you go, Mudge: A list of F-105 combat victories in 'Nam.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7002/mig_kill.html

Perhaps you were thinking of a different aircraft?

Steve T · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:37 pm

A thundering YES.

Being Canadian and having been only ten when the Vietnam War ended, my understanding of the Vietnam experience comes only from history as presented in print, in documentaries, in interviews, et cetera. Some of the "print" included reading Jack Broughton's "Thud Ridge" (bought at a library sale) years ago...and so, for me, the F-105 Thunderchief more than any other airplane causes me to reflect on Vietnam, with all its horrors and frustrations, courage and sacrifice.

Two questions come to mind regarding the Lackland Thunderchiefs: one, is there any chance of persuading the Air Force to allow these aircraft to go into museum collections as Vietnam memorials; two...what is the chance a Thud, whether one of these or a preserved example, could be returned to the air as a flying monument to the airmen who did not come back from Southeast Asia?

S. (offering his two cents Canadian)

Steve T · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:44 pm

Hi again--two more cents Canadian, just remembered something.

One of the aircraft lost in the tragic 2004 hangar fire at Willow Run was an F-105B. Surely the Air Force might be receptive to providing one of the Lackland 105s to YAM (on loan) as a replacement...seeing as they are to be disposed of anyway??

S.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:10 pm

Steve T wrote:

seeing as they are to be disposed of anyway??

Nobody said anything about the Thuds going to the scrapper. Scott mentioned that as a possible fate, but as far as I know, nobody is talking about this.

I'm guessing that, like all other static aircraft at AFBs, these guys officially belong to the NMUSAF.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:20 pm

Steve T wrote:

Two questions come to mind regarding the Lackland Thunderchiefs: one, is there any chance of persuading the Air Force to allow these aircraft to go into museum collections as Vietnam memorials; two...what is the chance a Thud, whether one of these or a preserved example, could be returned to the air as a flying monument to the airmen who did not come back from Southeast Asia?

I'm going to fire off some e-mails after I get back to work (post New Years) and see if I can find out some information about the airplanes and what the AF's plans are for them in the future.

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:11 pm

I would vote "No" to defining the Lackland statics as warbirds. To me a warbird is any ex-military aircraft regardless of it's role. Although the Lackland aircraft are certainly vintage, they are not "ex" yet. They are still provide a useful function to the US military and have not yet military possession.

I voted "yes" to adding these airframes to the registry. I think and exception is definitely deserved here. I would image that it wouldn't be long before these airframes would be replaced by another type, the the F-105s would be distributed to museums. We would want to document their history then so we might as well start now.

Mike

Warbird Information Exchange

Are the Lackland F-105's warbirds?

Who is online