# Was the F-5 alone in its lack of radars in the 1960s?



## Nodeo-Franvier (Aug 6, 2022)

It's always puzzle me how this plane without a radar sold so well,How did it do so well against radar armed competitors(Mirage III,F-104,English Electric,MiG-21) or does the contemporary version of those plane lack radars as well?


----------



## Ovod (Aug 6, 2022)

Early series of the MiG-21 and the F-104 didn't have much of a radar fitted in the nose either, just a simple range-finding radar for use with the guns. The Hawker Hunter never had a radar either, as far as I'm aware of?


----------



## ThomasP (Aug 6, 2022)

Cost, reliability, & simplicity, were the original selling points. While the F-5A/B were were not quite given away under the US military aid programs, the cost to most users was relatively very low. For a country that had no modern jet aircraft it was very attractive - ie something (we can afford) is better than nothing. The multi-role capability (ie day fighter, ground attack, & training) was also part of its charm.

The F-5A/B had no radar, but the F-5E/F did beginning in the early-1970s. It was a short range (~10 nm) search & track unit with ranging/lead computing for the gun. Subsequently better radars were fitted, all still relatively short range primarily due to the small size of the radar dish/receiver.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 6, 2022)

It may be a little simplistic but in my mind the USA had three outstanding aircraft in the 1960's and 1970's, that were hugely successful for the same basic reasons. They were at least as good as the opposition, they did what they were designed to do, were reliable and were relatively inexpensive. The three aircraft were: -

The F5E
The Hercules
The F4
Now I am confident that it could be argued that others could be added to the list i.e. the A4. but the three mentioned dominated their individual markets, across the world, and did so for a number of years. That is my acid test

I was at a Farnborough Airshow once with a relation of my wife, he being a reasonably influential engineer from Bae, watching a C130 perform. He turned to me and said that he couldn't understand why people still liked the C130. I simply said to his 'Because its, cheap, reliable and does what people want it to do, and if the British Aerospace Industry had remembered that, it would be in a much better state'. He didn't try to disagree with me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Aug 6, 2022)

Maybe the F-104 and Bell UH-1 could also be added to the list?

A lot of US aircraft were obviously not going to sell well because of their original roles made them to large, complex and specialised - strategic bombers such as the B-52 and the B-58 Hustler were hardly going to sell well abroad. The same could be said for naval carrierborne aircraft such as the A-6 Intruder or A-5 Vigilante, or even the Vought A-7 and F-8.


----------



## Glider (Aug 6, 2022)

Ovod said:


> Maybe the F-104 and Bell UH-1 could also be added to the list?
> 
> A lot of US aircraft were obviously not going to sell well because of their original roles made them to large, complex and specialised - strategic bombers such as the B-52 and the B-58 Hustler were hardly going to sell well abroad. The same could be said for naval carrierborne aircraft such as the A-6 Intruder or A-5 Vigilante, or even the Vought A-7 and F-8.


If you are going to include Helicopters then I would include two

The Huey and the Sea King, both of which were licenced to other countries and served more of less everywhere.

F104 I wouldn't include. Yes it served in Nato but only very limited penetration elsewhere, I also don't believe it better than the opposition (in a military or commercial manner) and it also lacked reliability.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2022)

The Cobra didn't have radar either


----------



## Nodeo-Franvier (Aug 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Cobra didn't have radar either


No wonders the F-16 totally beat it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> No wonders the F-16 totally beat it.


The Huey Cobra - the YF-17 did have radar

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Aug 6, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Huey Cobra - the YF-17 did have radar
> 
> View attachment 680807



I thought you were referring to the other Cobra built by Bell - no room for a small radar because of all the nose armour - or something...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Aug 6, 2022)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Mirage 5 also had no radar - in fact it was removed during the development from the Mirage III:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 6, 2022)

GTX said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Mirage 5 also had no radar - in fact it was removed during the development from the Mirage III:
> 
> View attachment 680811


Correct and nice shot

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 7, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> It's always puzzle me how this plane without a radar sold so well,


From Canada’s perspective, where the CF-116 (CF-5) Freedom Fighter was the first radar-less fighter since the CL-13 Sabre fielded by the CAF, it was cheap and available for license production. Canada was operating the Voodoo and Starfighter, introduced to the RCAF in 1961 and yet still somewhat top drawer fighters. In 1968, Canada joined the Panavia Tornado program, demonstrating its commitment to high tech, next gen combat aviation.

In this light the CF-5 was an uncompetitive, parsimonious politician’s choice that when deployed to CFB Baden–Soellingen would have needlessly killed Canadian airmen had it been forced to fight the Soviets. Our lads deserved a better aircraft. Mind you, in peacetime, the CAF airmen apparently thoroughly enjoyed the CF-5’s aerobatics. And in its defence, Canada was using them as fighter-bombers, like the radar-less Sepcat Jaguar, MiG-27 and Mirage 5.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nodeo-Franvier (Aug 8, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> From Canada’s perspective, where the CF-116 (CF-5) Freedom Fighter was the first radar-less fighter since the CL-13 Sabre fielded by the CAF, it was cheap and available for license production. Canada was operating the Voodoo and Starfighter, introduced to the RCAF in 1961 and yet still somewhat top drawer fighters. In 1968, Canada joined the Panavia Tornado program, demonstrating its commitment to high tech, next gen combat aviation.
> 
> In this light the CF-5 was an uncompetitive, parsimonious politician’s choice that when deployed to CFB Baden–Soellingen would have needlessly killed Canadian airmen had it been forced to fight the Soviets. Our lads deserved a better aircraft. Mind you, in peacetime, the CAF airmen apparently thoroughly enjoyed the CF-5’s aerobatics. And in its defence, Canada was using them as fighter-bombers, like the radar-less Sepcat Jaguar, MiG-27 and Mirage 5.


How effective was the 1960s radar? Apparently A2A missile against fighter size target was no good back then since the Jewish Mirage III got most of their kill using cannon but they should be effective for gun laying and detecting enemies location right?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 8, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> the Jewish Mirage III got most of their kill


What‘s a Jewish Mirage? Is the Su-30MKI the Hindu Sukhoi?

I’ll take a Christian F-35 please.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 8, 2022)

I've seen some beautiful Buddhist F-5s


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 8, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> I've seen some beautiful Buddhist F-5s


I think you've been smoking Buddha's F-5.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 8, 2022)

Whatever it was, it was some kick-ass shee-it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> What‘s a Jewish Mirage? Is the Su-30MKI the Hindu Sukhoi?
> 
> I’ll take a Christian F-35 please.



I like the Atheist F-22 myself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> In this light the CF-5 was an uncompetitive, parsimonious politician’s choice that when *deployed to CFB Baden–Soellingen would have needlessly killed Canadian airmen had it been forced to fight the Soviets.* Our lads deserved a better aircraft. Mind you, in peacetime, the CAF airmen apparently thoroughly enjoyed the CF-5’s aerobatics. And in its defence, Canada was using them as fighter-bombers, like the radar-less Sepcat Jaguar, MiG-27 and Mirage 5.


OK - I'm throwing the BS flag on this! First, during that period, there was nothing wrong with the F-5/ CF-5 series considering their size, mission and cost. The Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland flew them (and I believe the Swiss still do) and the F-5 showed, if properly flown and operated, could handle itself well against Soviet equipment during the Iran/ Iraq. war. Canada NEVER deployed CF-5s (CF-116) to Europe in large numbers (I believe no more than 16 were ever deployed) and in the return provided a good manufacturing and later sustainment program for companies like Canadair and Bristol Aerospace. Their mission in Europe was to be part of a rapid deployment force and at any given time only a few CF-5s were in Europe serving in this role. According to Wiki, he last deployment to Europe was in 1987 when four CF-5As arrived at CFB Baden–Soellingen. I know many people who flew the F-5 and met a few Canadian pilots (when I lived in Canada) who loved the aircraft and had no issues going up against the Soviet forces of that time. I got to work on ex CAF CF-5s while in Botswana and IMO were great aircraft and if anything were very under-rated!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RichardSuhkoi (Aug 8, 2022)

Glider said:


> If you are going to include Helicopters then I would include two
> 
> The Huey and the Sea King, both of which were licenced to other countries and served more of less everywhere.
> 
> F104 I wouldn't include. Yes it served in Nato but only very limited penetration elsewhere, I also don't believe it better than the opposition (in a military or commercial manner) and it also lacked reliability.


Until the S model with blown flaps that solved high AOA and improved turning. 
But it came too late.


----------



## Glider (Aug 8, 2022)

RichardSuhkoi said:


> Until the S model with blown flaps that solved high AOA and improved turning.
> But it came too late.


The S model had a significant number of issues, in particular whilst it could carry the twin Sparrow it couldn't carry the cannon as well. The turn was improved but it was still well below the opposition. 
However my main point was that outside Europe it's use was very limited.


----------



## RichardSuhkoi (Aug 8, 2022)

Glider said:


> The S model had a significant number of issues, in particular whilst it could carry the twin Sparrow it couldn't carry the cannon as well. The turn was improved but it was still well below the opposition.
> However my main point was that outside Europe it's use was very limited.


I didn’t know it had to lose the cannon. 
But say we compare the 104S to a Mig 21 (its bomber interceptor peer). From memory I think it could out climb,
Out pace, and reasonably dog fight. 
I think the Mig-21 only had a radar that transmitted to the ground.


----------



## Glider (Aug 8, 2022)

RichardSuhkoi said:


> I didn’t know it had to lose the cannon.
> But say we compare the 104S to a Mig 21 (its bomber interceptor peer). From memory I think it could out climb,
> Out pace, and reasonably dog fight.
> I think the Mig-21 only had a radar that transmitted to the ground.


There were a number of different versions of both aircraft but taking the two main versions The Mig21bis and the F104G in most instances the Mig 21 had the advantage.

The power to weight ratio was better which would help give better acceleration. The wing loading was much lighter which helps with the agility. It should be noted that the difference in these figures was significant, not borderline.

Range was comparable and while the F104 I think had a slight edge in top speed neither of these was going to go far on the afterburner without running out of juice.

In theory the F104 could carry a decent payload in reality both tended to tote a couple of missiles and drop tanks, plus a gun

I would expect the Mig 21 to be able to operate from shorter runways which can help and was reckoned to be easier to handle

Many people underestimate the Mig 21. Often the biggest problem in combat was the training of the crews, not the performance of the aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## PStickney (Aug 9, 2022)

Glider said:


> If you are going to include Helicopters then I would include two
> 
> The Huey and the Sea King, both of which were licenced to other countries and served more of less everywhere.
> 
> F104 I wouldn't include. Yes it served in Nato but only very limited penetration elsewhere, I also don't believe it better than the opposition (in a military or commercial manner) and it also lacked reliability.





RichardSuhkoi said:


> Until the S model with blown flaps that solved high AOA and improved turning.
> But it came too late.


All -104s had blown flaps. The F-104As and Cs had a Combat Flap setting that was good out to Mach 1.8, and better sustained turn than anything else at the time.
Add in the lightweight F-104As with the big bore -19 engines, and you had an airplane that cruised happily above Mach 2 at 70,000', and, in those conditions flew as far as it did at Mach 0.9 at 35,000'.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GreenKnight121 (Aug 9, 2022)

Glider said:


> If you are going to include Helicopters then I would include two
> 
> The Huey and the Sea King, both of which were licenced to other countries and served more of less everywhere.
> 
> F104 I wouldn't include. Yes it served in Nato but only very limited penetration elsewhere, I also don't believe it better than the opposition (in a military or commercial manner) and it also lacked reliability.



F-104 operators "outside NATO":
Japan - 198 from 1961-1986
Taiwan - ~244 from 1960-1998
Pakistan - 22 from 1961-1975
Jordan - 36 from 1967-1982

And "inside NATO" was:
USA - 277 from 1958-1975
Canada - 238 from 1961-1986
Germany - 915 from 1960-1991,
Belgium - 112 from 1963-1983,
Netherlands - 138 from 1962-1984,
Italy - 326 from 1963-2004,
Norway - 45 from 1963-1983,
Denmark 51 from 1964-1986,
Greece - 152 from 1964-1993,
Turkey - "just over 400" from 1963-1996,
Spain - 21 from 1965-1972 (the only operator to never lose an airframe)

Note that these totals include many transfers between operators (some airframes having served in 3 or more different nations) and some transferred as spares sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nodeo-Franvier (Aug 9, 2022)

Why do I have a feeling that F-5A was totally inadequate for 1960s air combat,It certainly can beat MiG-21 in a dogfight but doesn't have an answer of Atoll.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> Why do I have a feeling that F-5A was totally inadequate for 1960s air combat,It certainly can beat MiG-21 in a dogfight but doesn't have an answer of Atoll.


And what are you basing your assumption on? The F-5A wasn't top shelf but was able to hold it's own. Again, look what the F-5 did during the Iran/ Iraq war (I believe 6 kills)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Nodeo-Franvier (Aug 10, 2022)

Even Senator Symington doesn't like F-5!









Department of the Air Force






books.google.co.th





And by the time Iran-Iraq war come around,Iran operated mostly F-5E too.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> Even Senator Symington doesn't like F-5!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what's your point? *This is meaningless!*

Senator Symington - you're kidding, right?!?! 

If you read that whole chapter you'll find you'll find that everything mentioned turned out to be false! It speaks of the SVNAF defending itself providing the government of South Vietnam has the will to fight! (That's a whole other story) So we give them F-4s?!?!? In hindsight that would have been a disaster if it happened!!!

Senator Symington was a very misguided politician and wanted to protect military interest in his home state of Missouri - guess what aircraft manufacturer was in Missouri? McDONNELL DOUGLAS - THE MAUFACTRER OF THE F-4!

*This was the statement of ONE US Senator who was looking out for the interest of his own state! He did not want to see any programs that might jeopardize funding for the F-4!

DO YOU KNOW HE WAS ONE OF THE POLITICANS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE FIRST NORTHROP FLYING WING?!?!?*

_During his tenure, there was a major debate and investigation into production of the Convair B-36 Bomber, which was the last piston-powered bomber at the beginning of the Jet Age. During his tenure, Symington had a meeting with John K. Northrop on the contract for the YB-49 Flying Wing bomber, which was well underway with seven examples manufactured. During this meeting, Symington threatened Northrop that if they refused to enter into a corporate merger with Convair (the company building the rival B-36 Peacemaker bomber) that Northrop would be, "Goddamn sorry if you don't!". This threat, later reported by Northrop, was eventually carried though when Symington cancelled the Flying Wing program and ordered all existing aircraft destroyed._



Symington hated anything from Northrop! Go to 21:50 of this clip - Interview with Jack Northrop!

Symington was also the president of Emerson Electric - the manufacturer of many electric products during WW2 to include gun turrets! If there ever was a poster child for the "Military Industrial Complex" it was him!


Nodeo-Franvier said:


> And by the time Iran-Iraq war come around,Iran operated mostly F-5E too.


So what? Northrop kept developing the F-5 line and the F-5E became available a decade later. It didn't make the earlier models any less capable at the time they were developed!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Aug 10, 2022)

Nodeo-Franvier said:


> Even Senator Symington doesn't like F-5!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats funny. Taking the argument of a senator into a debate here. It like taken the National Enquirer as a worthy source.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2022)

Snautzer01 said:


> Thats funny. Taking the argument of a senator into a debate here. It like taken the National Enquirer as a worthy source.


Especially this senator who hated Northrop!


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 10, 2022)

This guy has a poor opinion of the CF-5 and does make some good points. Mainly, that the CF-5 was supposed to support peacekeeping missions rather than slug it out with the Soviets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2022)

The F-5 is a great aircraft. Is it in the same category as an F-16 or F-15? No, of course not, however, it is a capable aircraft that fills a specific need and role as a light and cheap fighter. That is what it was designed to be. Nothing more, and nothing less. It more than fulfills its intended role.

It’s like buying a basic model car. You aren’t getting all the bells and whistles, but you know that up front. It’s great for someone on a budget.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 10, 2022)

But the F-20 was in the category of an F-16. It is ironic. Northrop's F-17 lost to the F-16. Then Northrop's Cobra replacement for the F-5 lost to the McDonnell Douglas beefier version of the F-17, the F-18. As they said when I toured the F-18 plant in St Louis, even third world counties only want the same aircraft the USAF and USN are flying. Then Northrop tried to get the USAF to buy the F-5G/F-20 instead of the F-16, partially so foreign countries would buy it. Northrop invented the lightweight fighter concept with the N-156F and then lost the competition to replace it not once but 3 times, one of which was to their own design built by someone else.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> This guy has a poor opinion of the CF-5 and does make some good points. Mainly, that the CF-5 was supposed to support peacekeeping missions rather than slug it out with the Soviets.



This was nicely done, there weren't any political or opinionated points made, all this was fact! I saw the upgrades being done at Bristol and later worked on some of the Botswana aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 10, 2022)

I believe that Bulgaria and Jordan are still flying them, among others. Jordan bought some that had been surplused by some NATO countries to supplement F-5's they already had. Originally Venezuela had planned to buy the F-5's that had been captured by the NVA after SVN fell but the US told them that spare parts would be VERY hard to find if they did that.


----------



## GTX (Aug 10, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> I believe that Bulgaria and Jordan are still flying them, among others.


Bulgaria??? No - though it would make for an interesting Whiff. Maybe you meant Bahrain, Botswana or perhaps Brazil?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> I believe that Bulgaria and Jordan are still flying them, among others. Jordan bought some that had been surplused by some NATO countries to supplement F-5's they already had. Originally Venezuela had planned to buy the F-5's that had been captured by the NVA after SVN fell but the US told them that spare parts would be VERY hard to find if they did that.


Bulgaria? AFAIK never flew the F-5, Jordan did for sure. 

I'd like to know your source about North Vietnam (Vietnam) selling F-5s to Venezuela?!?!? During that time period Venezuela was an ally and would not have acted in any way to piss off the US. There were plenty of F-5s from other countries to go around during the period Venezuela operated them. The F-5s captured in Vietnam were retained and used until attrition grounded them. I think North Vietnam used about 40 F-5s operationally.



Vietnam South AF



And as far as the F-5 taking on MiG-21s...

_"Every flight ended with the same result: MiG-21 lost, although he had much higher thrust-to-weight ratio,' Vladimir Kondaurov, Soviet pilot who tested the F-5."_









Soviet Pilot who test flew captured F-5 against MiG-21, MiG-23 explains why the Tiger beat the Fishbed, Flogger in every engagement - The Aviation Geek Club


Soviet Pilot who test flew captured F-5 against MiG-21, MiG-23 explains why the Tiger beat the Fishbed, Flogger in every engagement




theaviationgeekclub.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 10, 2022)

I read an article, I think in Air Progress in the late 70's, that mentioned the VN F-5 sale as a possibility.

By the way, Iran claims they are building new F-5's, but I think in reality it is a rebuild program.


----------



## ARTESH (Aug 10, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I like the Atheist F-22 myself.


Mine are Pagan Tomcat and Tangri Cobra (TOW).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Aug 10, 2022)

Admiral Beez said:


> What‘s a Jewish Mirage?


Refers to Israeli Defensive Forces and their Aviation. That's a common term in Middle East to combine religion with other things, Including Geography.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GTX (Aug 10, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> By the way, Iran claims they are building new F-5's, but I think in reality it is a rebuild program.


The Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company currently produces three aircraft, the Azarakhsh, Saeqeh, and Kowsar, derived from the F-5.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Aug 10, 2022)

GTX said:


> The Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company currently produces three aircraft, the Azarakhsh, Saeqeh, and Kowsar, derived from the F-5.
> 
> View attachment 681373
> 
> ...


However, the numbers are very low, and mostly for show and morale!!!

On paper, they claim "modernized", "reinforced" and "strengthen" the AF! But first, they need to be tested on a real modern combat against at least same level enemy Aircrafts and second, which is way more important than first, it's a big thing! Bigger than changing color and name.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2022)

MIflyer said:


> I read an article, I think in Air Progress in the late 70's, that mentioned the VN F-5 sale as a possibility.


Well to be honest I'll call utter BS on who ever wrote that, it sounds like some writer's fantasia to sell copy. 


MIflyer said:


> By the way, Iran claims they are building new F-5's, but I think in reality it is a rebuild program.


This is true and Iran made their own version of the F-5 a few years ago.








HESA Kowsar - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 10, 2022)

GreenKnight121 said:


> F-104 operators "outside NATO":
> Japan - 198 from 1961-1986
> Taiwan - ~244 from 1960-1998
> Pakistan - 22 from 1961-1975
> ...


Now compare that to the list of countries outside Nato who flew the F5


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 10, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The F-5 is a great aircraft. Is it in the same category as an F-16 or F-15? No, of course not, however, it is a capable aircraft that fills a specific need and role as a light and cheap fighter. That is what it was designed to be. Nothing more, and nothing less. It more than fulfills its intended role.
> 
> It’s like buying a basic model car. You aren’t getting all the bells and whistles, but you know that up front. It’s great for someone on a budget.



When I arrived at Moron AB in Spain for Desert Shield in Aug 1990, the Spaniards were still flying a squadron of them on their side of the base. I never saw them at altitude, but down low they could turn-and-burn pretty damned well; their maneuvers were sharp, crisp, and on-point. 

I believe they were E models, with two 20mm under the nose, and I bet they could put a hurtin' on a MiG-21 in a straight-up fight. They also had either two or four (I cannot remember any more) Sidewinders, two on tip-rails and perhaps two underwing.

IMHO it would definitely be one of those "it depends on the pilot" encounters.


----------



## MIflyer (Aug 10, 2022)

I recall a B-52 pilot saying that up above 30,000 ft one day he got on the tail of a couple of Korean F-5's and they could not shake him, and dove away.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2022)

GTX said:


> The Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company currently produces three aircraft, the Azarakhsh, Saeqeh, and Kowsar, derived from the F-5.
> 
> View attachment 681373
> 
> ...



Didn’t one of them show pics of the cockpit and it looked plastic with a car tape deck/radio in the center of it? Or was that their “Stealth Fighter” that looked like it was manufactured by Hasbro?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> When I arrived at Moron AB in Spain for Desert Shield in Aug 1990, the Spaniards were still flying a squadron of them on their side of the base. I never saw them at altitude, but down low they could turn-and-burn pretty damned well; their maneuvers were sharp, crisp, and on-point.
> 
> I believe they were E models, with two 20mm under the nose, and I bet they could put a hurtin' on a MiG-21 in a straight-up fight. They also had either two or four (I cannot remember any more) Sidewinders, two on tip-rails and perhaps two underwing.
> 
> IMHO it would definitely be one of those "it depends on the pilot" encounters.



Yeah, like I said its a capable outstanding aircraft as long as it is used as it was intended.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 10, 2022)

Thumpalumpacus said:


> When I arrived at Moron AB in Spain for Desert Shield in Aug 1990, the Spaniards were still flying a squadron of them on their side of the base. I never saw them at altitude, but down low they could turn-and-burn pretty damned well; their maneuvers were sharp, crisp, and on-point.
> 
> I believe they were E models, with two 20mm under the nose, and I bet they could put a hurtin' on a MiG-21 in a straight-up fight. They also had either two or four (I cannot remember any more) Sidewinders, two on tip-rails and perhaps two underwing.
> 
> IMHO it would definitely be one of those "it depends on the pilot" encounters.


2 cannons and 2 sidewinders. 

When I was in Botswana we were putting chaff dispensers on their F-5s. At the same time there was a crew from CASA doing PDM on some of the aircraft.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## ARTESH (Aug 11, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Didn’t one of them show pics of the cockpit and it looked plastic with a car tape deck/radio in the center of it? Or was that their “Stealth Fighter” that looked like it was manufactured by Hasbro?


Yes, and all of those shows and "circus" were for "fanatic" fans of regime! The people that don't know difference between their right and left hands, and can't even speak Persian, properly.

This topic remembered me of some older discussions in one of Iranian military forums... The site is still operational, but let's hope that those old posts be available as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Aug 11, 2022)

Glider said:


> If you are going to include Helicopters then I would include two
> 
> The Huey and the Sea King, both of which were licenced to other countries and served more of less everywhere.



I would also include the Boeing Vertol C-47 Chinook in that list. I suspect the C-47 is the helicopter with the longest production run in the world - still in production today after more than 60 years!



> F104 I wouldn't include. Yes it served in Nato but only very limited penetration elsewhere, I also don't believe it better than the opposition (in a military or commercial manner) and it also lacked reliability.



The F-104 sold reasonably enough all over the world, but I think the F-4 outsold it. The F-104 certainly had better sales than the EE Lightning or the SAAB Draken (or most of the other Century series of fighter aircraft).

I never heard of the F-104 being an unreliable aircraft, could you provide more details?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2022)

Ovod said:


> I would also include the Boeing Vertol C-47 Chinook in that list. I suspect the C-47 is the helicopter with the longest production run in the world - still in production today after more than 60 years!



One could argue the Huey as well. It has the CH-47 beat by 5 years. Bell technically is still building them in the UH-1Y variant. That is technically a total of 66 years. It can be broken down as such though with the various variants:

Bell 204/205 (UH-1A to UH-1N): 1956-1987 (31 years)
Bell 212 (UH-1N): 1968-1998 (30 years)
Bell 412: 1981 to present (still in production) (41 years)
Bell UH-1Y: 2001 to present (still in production) (21 years)

As much as I love my Blackhawk, the Huey will still go down as the greatest rotary wing aircraft ever built.









Bell Begins Manufacturing UH-1Y For First International Operator


Commonality of H-1 Platforms Benefits Restart of the UH-1Y Helicopter Production Line




news.bellflight.com

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ovod (Aug 11, 2022)

Glider said:


> There were a number of different versions of both aircraft but taking the two main versions The Mig21bis and the F104G in most instances the Mig 21 had the advantage.
> 
> The power to weight ratio was better which would help give better acceleration. The wing loading was much lighter which helps with the agility. It should be noted that the difference in these figures was significant, not borderline.
> 
> ...



I don't think any of these comparative facts between the F-104 and MiG-21 bear much resemblance to reality.

Are you sure about the MiG having a better thrust-to-weight ratio? I'm not. 

I doubt very much if the F-104 needed a longer runway compared to the MiG-21, not when they are carrying a comparative payload.

The F-104 certainly had the better range and payload. The Starfighter could certainly carry more than a "couple of missiles" - have you any idea of the type of strike missions the F-104 G was tasked with? Clue, see picture below:


----------



## Glider (Aug 11, 2022)

Ovod said:


> I don't think any of these comparative facts between the F-104 and MiG-21 bear much resemblance to reality.
> 
> Are you sure about the MiG having a better thrust-to-weight ratio? I'm not.
> 
> ...


Fair observations

Mig 21bis Empty Weight 11,770lb Max take off Weight 22,928lb Engine Power 9,030lb dry, 15,640ib afterburner = 0.66

F104G Empty Weight 14,000lb Max take off weight 29,027lb Engine Power 10,000ib dry, 15,600lb afterburner = 0.53

Wing Area 
F104 196 Sq Ft = 148 lb/ft, 
Mig 21 247 Sq Ft = 92 lb/ft

Which ever way you look at it, the Mig 21 has the better power to weight ratio and the much better wing loading

I cannot find comparable figures regarding range. F104 has a combat range of 420 miles and a ferry range of about 1,600 whereas the Mig 21 has an internal range of 751 miles, so I am not expecting the difference to be huge. As for take off, with a much lower wing loading and a better power to weight ratio I would expect the Mig to have a shorter take off distance. 

Please take care with what I posted. Both the Mig21 and the F104 could carry more than a couple of missiles, but I stated that they normally they carried a couple of AAM's and drop tanks. It might be worth mentioning that the Mig 21 carried a semi active radar homing version of the Atoll, something the F104 couldn't until the F104S. It certainly wasn't the greatest missile, far from it, but if they had to go against B52's it was a real threat.

As for your photo of the F104 equipped for a nuke, how many nukes did Germany have?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2022)

Glider said:


> As for your photo of the F104 equipped for a nuke, how many nukes did Germany have?



German aircraft are nuclear capable so that they may deploy US nuclear weapons in the event the Cold War turned hot.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 11, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One could argue the Huey as well. It has the CH-47 beat by 5 years. Bell technically is still building them in the UH-1Y variant. That is technically a total of 66 years.
> 
> As much as I love my Blackhawk, the Huey will still go down as the greatest rotary wing aircraft ever built.



I'd argue the Mi-8 deserves equal status to the Huey. Yes, it's a little younger, but it's still in production and just as prolific (if not more so). On a personal note, it also might be the loudest helicopter I've every had the displeasure of being near.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> I'd argue the Mi-8 deserves equal status to the Huey. Yes, it's a little younger, but it's still in production and just as prolific (if not more so). On a personal note, it also might be the loudest helicopter I've every had the displeasure of being near.



I’m not quite sure it holds up in the quality department or is as iconic. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 11, 2022)

Jabberwocky said:


> I'd argue the Mi-8 deserves equal status to the Huey. Yes, it's a little younger, but it's still in production and just as prolific (if not more so). On a personal note, it also might be the loudest helicopter I've every had the displeasure of being near.


Worked on Hueys, a little on Mi-8s. The Mi-8 is not a bad machine but it's a size up on the Huey. Quality and ease of maintenance, the Huey hands down! A better comparison is an SH-3 to a Mi-8

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 11, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I’m not quite sure it holds up in the quality department or is as iconic. Just my humble opinion.


If we were on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, or former Iron Curtain, would the Mi-8 be more iconic? I haven't forgotten that Hollywood films, CDs, discs, etc, might influence even the not western nations. Who hasn't seen Apocalypse Now?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> If we were on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, or former Iron Curtain, would the Mi-8 be more iconic? I haven't forgotten that Hollywood films, CDs, discs, etc, might influence even the not western nations. Who hasn't seen Apocalypse Now?



Thats true…

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 11, 2022)

Just wondering, does Vietnam still use UH-1s?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2022)

SaparotRob said:


> Just wondering, does Vietnam still use UH-1s?


I doubt it. They were still operating a few in the early 2000s but haven't come across anything on their status


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2022)

Found this...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 12, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> German aircraft are nuclear capable so that they may deploy US nuclear weapons in the event the Cold War turned hot.


I totally agree, but I think we can all agree that if German F104's start toting nukes around for real, debates over which had the best climb or turn becomes totally irrelevant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2022)

Glider said:


> I totally agree, but I think we can all agree that if German F104's start toting nukes around for real, debates over which had the best climb or turn becomes totally irrelevant.



Sure, but that was not the question right?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2022)

Back to the F-5...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 13, 2022)

I get a kick out of the "No Smoking" sign above the MiG. 2:14 minute mark.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

