As a member of the Pima Air & Space Museum here in Tucson I happen to know something about this particular aircraft. The USAF pilot who flew it in Vietnam is a current resident of Tucson and member of PASM and was involved in the restoration of the aircraft to its outward appearance when he was flying his missions into North Vietnam. After Vietnam he was an award winning test pilot at Edwards AF base in California and was instrumental in the development of the F-15E.

Interestingly, they discovered this plane at the Davis-Mothan AF base here in Tucson in the mothball yards that contain probably over a thousand aircraft. The USAF loaned it to the museum and the museum at its own expense restored this F-105 for public viewing. BTW, the museum this year finished it’s multi-year restoration of a B-36 that is a fantastic addition to what I think is probably the 3rd or 4th best air collection in the United States.

PS: As far as Inhofe is concerned he is just one more arrogant and compromised skunk that inhabits the chambers of the U. S. Senate.

This isn't really surprising, but it is pretty sad.

Does the govt work for the public, or does the public work for the govt?

As I think about this I get even more irritated. If a rich guy wants an old jet, and the Air Force considers it surplus, why doesn't he buy it at market value from the Air Force?

Why is Inhofe playing Santa Claus with the stuff our tax dollars paid for?

Best,
Tom

It's not just about the cost, Tom. I'm pretty sure the Air Force is also concerned about the implied liability if the guy crashes it at an airshow.

Bob Lutz, retiree of automaker fame (and a former Marine I might add, has his own Czech fighter jet. Unlike the d-bag in the article Lutz paid and maintains his without the help of an in-the-bag Congress critter.

(Lutz is a way cool guy, one of my sorta heroes)

I just did a quick search (eating lunch while looking) and came up with a $1500 contribution to John McCain. I cross checked this with one organization which did not have this yet. Inhofe is a wack job who thinks Global Warming is a communist plot. He may think this plane can shoot moon beams with missiles. Collings is a businessman who sold a company in the eighties and serves on boards of directors for some nice change. There is a Robert Collings listed as "Chief Pilot" for one company. I don't have time to run this down now but as Deep Throat said, "follow the money." There is definitely something there because inserting an ammendment of this type is a major league favor that these dingbats never thought would see the light of day.

Thanks Mr. Ricks for getting this out.

It would be fair to ask if Collings plans to sink moneys (ours and his) into improving the condition of the Thud. Is it in static display condition at Pima? A condition of the handover should be that the plane has to make mock runs on bridges spanning the Red River, or Inhofe's residence.

Alternately, would be useful to get a fellow Senator to propose an amendment that changes the aircraft handed over. Perhaps there's another Thud that can be brought back to flying condition?

This is the best Congressional scam since Rick Santorum decided that Catholic U really needed the Old Soldiers Home more than Old Soldiers needed the Old Soldiers Home!!

I was going to say that Congress is full of Sad Sack's but Sad Sack WAS a soldier and not many member of Congress have actually served anymore.

Tom,
Great post exposing yet another crook in Congress...but lets do something about the Armed services Committee meeting in a closed hearing to discuss amending/ending the Posse Comitatus act. Even VP Biden has been on the circuit talking about giving the military domestic arrest powers as an 'idea whose time may have come'.

I dont understand why military professionals are not up in arms about this horrible idea to give the military and or national guard domestic law enforcement powers!

The old girl belongs in a museum. I can appreciate the intentions written in the amendment but I also believe that this is a waste of the Air Force's time and quite frankly, we have done more than enough to commemorate Vietnam as it is. It was a traumatic time but like with any traumatic event, we have to move on eventually.

Tom, you posted an interesting blog post Thursday about Sen. James Inhofe’s attempt to force the Air Force to transfer an F-105 from Pima Air and Space Museum to the Collings Foundation. Both are worthy homes for a distinguished piece of military history, but very different. Pima has a fixed aircraft display in Arizona, while the Collings Foundation provides aircraft at events around the country.

In the blog comments on Thursday, Carl said, “The flying museum collections make for thrilling air shows and are great fun for the people who are involved in them… But if you fly these old things around, you are eventually going to crash them and there goes your historically significant airplane.”

Fair enough, but as William Shedd said, “A ship is safe in harbor, but that’s not what ships are for.”

These aircraft have served their original mission, but they’re fully capable of a new one: to be ambassadors to an American public that’s increasingly disconnected to the military, even at a time when we’ve been at war for over a decade, on multiple continents. Being exposed first hand to the implements of war has a way of connecting people to our armed forces that’s hard to beat.

I speak from experience. In 2010, I talked my (very reluctant) wife into going to see one of the Collings Foundation shows near our home. As with many of my ideas, I think she would have preferred I talk her into a root canal. But her eyes lit up while walking around the aircraft, The experience brought alive to her something she had only read about in books, or seen on the History Channel.

Something magical happens when you’re walking around a Mitchell, realizing a half dozen men – some still in their teens – would cram themselves into one of those to fly into hostile territory on bombing runs, knowing full well they had a good chance at never coming home. The same holds true for the engineless gliders that air-landed our infantry into Europe. You begin to understand what “duty” and “courage” mean, and how they are more than just words for someone in uniform. You begin to understand the concept of “sacrifice,” at a time when most Americans don’t.

At the time of our trip, I was a civilian contractor with the Department of Defense, and my wife and I didn’t speak much about the specifics of what I did, or the people I worked with every day. That changed after our trip. It’s a lot easier to have a conversation when you have a common experience to initiate it. It’s a lot easier to have a conversation when you’ve experienced a living piece of history related to the topic. And it’s sure as hell a lot more engaging and enjoyable to do this by taking people around a beautiful aircraft and talking about it, vice handing them a copy of JP 1-02 or the QDR or similar.

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a report with the amazing, yet probably not surprising, statement that the connection between the military and civilian populations “appears to be growing more distant.” No kidding. Today, just 0.05% of the American population has served in the military in the last decade.

Earlier this year at West Point, Adm. Mullen said, “Our work is appreciated, of that I am certain. But I fear [civilians] do not know us. I fear they do not comprehend the full weight of the burden we carry or the price we pay when we return from battle. A people uninformed about what they are asking the military to endure is a people inevitably unable to fully grasp the scope of the responsibilities our Constitution levies upon them.”

I wish we could rely on our educational system to help provide our youth with this knowledge, but that may be wishful thinking. Over at the USNI blog this week, USNA Midshipmen JJames wrote of a recent high school recruiting trip he made, only to find that, “what surprised me the most was how little the faculty knew about the Naval Academy. Several high school teachers did not know where the Naval Academy was, or what the institution had to offer.” God help the next generation.

We need the general population to be more aware of what the military does. You can’t understand war unless you’ve lived it, but you can work to increase understanding of the people who wage war on our behalf, and how they wage it. There are a lot of ways to accomplish that, but a basic one is to give them the opportunity to be around and experience some of the awe-inspiring aircraft our men and women have gone to war in. In many cases, we’ve decided to stop flying these birds while we still have plenty of them sitting around, getting ready for the mothballs.

The Collings Foundation has an impressive collection of aircraft, spanning the early days of aviation (a Bleriot Type XI) to World War II (PT-17, TBM Avenger, B-25J, B-17G, B-24J) through Korea (A-26, F4U-5NL), Vietnam (Huey, TA-4J, F-4D, F-100F) and later. More than 20 aircraft, spanning 80 years of flight. Rather than sit in a static museum setup somewhere, most of their aircraft travel the country, supporting over 150 events each year: air shows, historical reenactments, and similar. Visitors can walk around the aircraft, pop their head inside and look around, and in many cases go for rides up to an hour long.

The Pima Air and Space Museum (250+ aircraft), the Smithsonian (200+ aircraft at the magnificent Udvar-Hazy Center near Dulles Airport) and others provide a great opportunity for citizens to get up close and personal with these aircraft – if the people are willing to travel to the museum. The collections are effective, but not expeditionary.

The Collings Foundation and others are both effective and expeditionary – they bring the aircraft to the people, all over the country, which makes all the difference in the world. It’s a lot easier to take the family to an airshow an hour away, then to take them to Tucson, DC, or elsewhere.

These aircraft have taken our men and women into harm’s way all over the world. They still have an honorable mission they can accomplish: bringing our nations civilians one step closer to a world they don’t often experience, but need to understand and connect with.

The question isn’t why Inhofe tried to get the USAF to give away one old, no longer in service aircraft. The question is why we aren’t trying to give all of our spare aircraft away to museums and Foundations.

It also doesn't seem fair to take the aircraft from the organization that invested it's time and money into restoring it. Are there no other F105s available to restore?

You do a huge disservice in this posting. There were 823 F-105s built and they wrote a lot of incredible history in the skies over North Vietnam. I'm one of the pilots who survived. Not a single flyable jet remains. There could be one.

The airframes are available. A few of the engines are still available but being intentionally spiked under orders of the USAF and once that is done there will be no possibility of restoration.

Collings Foundation has successfully restored an A-4 Skyhawk, an F-4D Phantom and an F-100F Super Sabre. There is no cost to the tax-payers and they aren't joy-ride birds for "some old guy to ride around in."

The Pima jet is a suitable two-seat version (125 produced) and in return would get a fully restored single-seat static display aircraft to replace it. All costs are supported by the Collings Foundation and not taxpayers. Liability is under a "hold-harmless" lease from the DOD with no tax-payer risk.

Thousands would get to see one of the most historic aircraft ever to serve the nation in combat and those who flew the jet might once again thrill to the sound of a J-75 afterburner on take-off roll.

Unless the trash-hauler in chief of the USAF decides that preservation of our warrior tradition is again valuable this opportunity will be lost forever.

When you don't apparently have a clue, Mr. Ricks, first do no harm!

Ed Rasimus
F-105 Pilot
Author: "When Thunder Rolled"; "Palace Cobra" and "Fighter Pilot: Memoirs of Robin Olds".

I am a New Zealander who had the pleasure and privilege of living/working in the US back in the '90's.
I love military museums, and you guys have truckloads of them. I love airshows, and again, you Americans put on the best.
However, you dont seem to have anything to match the likes of (say) the Battle of Britain memorial flight that the Brits run.
I think that this is sad. The living is better than the dead and a flying aircraft better than some gutted airframe in a hangar.

Mr. Ricks,

The slightest bit of investigation (which I must assume didn't happen) would have given you a different perspective on this matter. In fact, to be completely honest, my 12-year old is better informed than you on this subject.

That aside, rest assured that a restoration-worthy Thunderchief in the hands of The Collings Foundation would be a truly wonderful thing! For years, Collings has been trying to acquire an F-105 with the intent of getting her flying again. And I'd sincerly love to see it happen. It would be an incredible sight to see, not to mention a much-deserved overdue tribute to the men who bravely forged history in her in the skies over SEA.

In my opinion, if the USAF truly respects the service and sacrifice given of Thud drivers, they'll do everything in their power to put one into the caring hands of "old man" Collings.

You really did a disservice here, Mr. Ricks. Get your facts straight.

~KP

In order for the Collings Foundation to have an F105 return to flight, by law it must be through legislative action. There is no way around it. Current DoD policy prohibits the release of this type of aircraft for flight purposes to a civilian organization without public law to allow it to fly. By definition this type of action must originate with a legislator , either in the House or Senate. Senator Inhofe was approached to carry the amendment because of his pro aviation, pro veteran stance on the issues. An honorable action has been turned ugly without prior investigation of the real facts. An earmark ? Hardly. These aircraft have been deemed excess to USAF needs since 1982. Most are corroding away across the world. There are over 100 F-105s on loan for display all over the world. Some are kept very nicely, others are slowly sinking into the mud. The Collings Foundation would have restored the flyer to as new condition, put it out in front of the American public, at no expense to the taxpayer, to honor those who maintained and flew the Thud in combat. The additional aircraft requested were being kept as training aids for guard dogs, that need has be replaced with newer aircraft. The Foundation needed them for internal spares, last week the NMUSAF had the engines removed and spiked, the spars cut, and the tails cut. This work was done by a private contractor at great cost to the taxpayer. The Foundation was going to remove the aircraft, make them suitable for public display, all at no expense to the taxpayer.

The process to transfer an aircraft to a non profit entity is not an easy one when everything goes perfectly, this does not happen on a whim. The process was derailed by misinformed individuals, this time. I'd bet that the folks at the Collings Foundation will continue to work to expand the Viet Nam Memorial Flight.. With the cancellation this year of the ACC demo teams, I'll bet the Collings jets will be busier than ever filling the gap left by the USAF.

The men who flew the Thud over the skies of North Vietnam should be remembered and honored for their service and tremendous sacrifices. If that involves allowing the Collings Foundation to restore one to flying condition then I say thank you to them and Senator Inhofe for their efforts. As a taxpayer and veteran I'm in favor of restoring such a significant piece of our warrior heritage and appalled at your lack of knowledge and research. Your rant is one sided and ignorant of the true facts.