Does the Thunderchief deserve its bad reputation?
>>28388716
Nah. It just came in at a transition period where there were little tactics to deal with SAMs. At its role as a bomber it actually did quite well and excelled at what it was made for.
>>28388716
It was designed to carry a single nuclear bomb in an internal payload. Its a cool idea.
I wasn't aware it had a bad reputation, since the museum where I saw one had an old pilot who was pretty fond of the craft.
>>28388748
This sounds about right judging by the years of service.
>>28388797
>I wasn't aware it had a bad reputation
I've seen people refer to the F-35 as "the New F-105" with a negative connotation.
>>28388820
Why are you listening to chinkposters in the first place?
>>28388828
Because they came armed, with sources:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/spr98/werrell.html
>>28388769
>It was designed to carry a single nuclear bomb in an internal payload.
Why internal?
Radar-Stealth wasn't germane during that time period.
>>28388828
Because they are not burgerclappers
>>28388883
whatever puts rice in the cracked ceramic bowl, chang
>>28388961
Kek.
>>28388865
At a guess because nukes were still fairly chunky things at that time, and having to carry one externally would compromise any attempt at high speeds.
>>28388716
FUCKING SHIT AIR INLETS
>>28388865
>Why internal?
It was a fuel-guzzler in afterburner anyways and needed a clean configuration. It was meant to sneak across the West/East German border really fast at low altitude and attack the expected Soviet Zerg Rush full of BMPs, T-62s, and MT-LBs.
Chad thunderchief
