# the purpose of F-5



## dinos7 (Aug 15, 2005)

alright im curious. What exactly was the purpose of the F-5.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 15, 2005)

This gives a good little spiel on the subject.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1366880&lastnode_id=1258885


----------



## dinos7 (Aug 15, 2005)

thanks nonskimmer!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 15, 2005)

The Canadian Air Force flew them for years. They were used as attack aircraft, trainers, aggressors, and testbeds. As FLYBOYJ has mentioned in other threads, many (of ours) had been fitted with F-18 avionics later on. They were decent planes that we shouldn't have sold-off so quickly.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2005)

The F-5 was an attempt to build a light weight fighter, simple to fly and cheap to operate. Thanks NS! - I think the CAF probably had the best F-5s built. 

The aircraft was used by many nations and made Northrop a lot of money. Even though it was developed in the late 50s - with the right pilot and avionics, could still be a worthy foe today......


----------



## plan_D (Aug 15, 2005)

Too right it could. Those F-5s were remarkable machines, they could turn on a six pence!


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 15, 2005)

I vaguely remember that there was also a development of F5, named F20 (of F 56?) that was a remarkable aircraft, said to be even better than F 16.
But it was not able to score an order with USAF mainly because of standardization issues (type of engine and logistics if I remember well)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> I vaguely remember that there was also a development of F5, named F20 (of F 56?) that was a remarkable aircraft, said to be even better than F 16.
> But it was not able to score an order with USAF mainly because of standardization issues (type of engine and logistics if I remember well)



Yep - the F-20. Northrop even got Check Yeager to market it. The US didn't buy it, but the state dept. would not allow Northrop to sell it abroad.

My father-in-law flew it once - he said it was a dream and thought it was at least a match to the F-16 (at that time, early 1980s)


----------



## evangilder (Aug 16, 2005)

I once heard that the main reason they didn;t buy the F-20 was because it required less guys to keep it operational, and they didn't want to lose head count in the maintenance side of things.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2005)

Probably true!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2005)

Ah, politics. 
I suppose it makes a bit of sense from the personnel standpoint in terms of job security and all, but...still.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 16, 2005)

It does kind of make sense, but it still stinks. The F-20 was a cool airplane. I always loved the T-38 and F-5.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2005)

You're probably not the least bit interested in this dino, but you know me. Always waving that maple leaf flag every chance I get. Hey, I don't get the chance often. 



Seriously though, it explains a bit about the F-5's in Canada if you're game to read it. It's a good little summary.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~rapickler/cf5.html





(BTW, the bit that states that the RCAF became the Canadian Forces isn't quite right. The RCAF and RCN unified with the Army in February 1968 to become the Canadian *Armed* Forces. The "Armed" was officially dropped in the late 90's. Why? Who the hell knows? It probably sounded too military.  Many people still use the term Armed Forces though.)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> You're probably not the least bit interested in this dino, but you know me. Always waving that maple leaf flag every chance I get. Hey, I don't get the chance often.



and again, the CAF had the best F-5s!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 16, 2005)

I am hoping that we are all talking about the same F-5, the Northrop jet. There was also a P-38 reconnaissance model called the F-5! So I assume we are talking about the modern one, since this is the modern thread.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 16, 2005)

Let's hope so, otherwise we've just steered dino waaaaaaaaaaaay down the wrong path.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 16, 2005)

True. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to ask and be sure though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 16, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I am hoping that we are all talking about the same F-5, the Northrop jet. There was also a P-38 reconnaissance model called the F-5! So I assume we are talking about the modern one, since this is the modern thread.



Ya know, didn't even think of that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

The real purpose of the F-5 was to be painted black with Red Stars so Hollywood can call it a Mig-28 in movies like Top Gun!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 5, 2005)

I was waiting for someone to say that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Its true though, in a way.


----------



## dinos7 (Oct 1, 2005)

nice one adler


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 8, 2005)

The aircraft was in the design stages in the late 50's, the U.S wanted a fast, agile CHeap and easy to manufacture aircraft to counter the Soviet airforce that totally outnumberd them. Once it went into production knowbody really cared anymore, better aircraft like the F-15,F-16 and the F-18 were already in the design stages and the US forces made good use with what they had. however other allied countries used the second version of the aircraft the F-5 Tiger II, I do know that Northprop ended up making a prototype which was amazing it was called the F-20 Tigershark but the program was cancelled.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 8, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> however other allied countries used the second version of the aircraft the F-5 Tiger II, I do know that Northprop ended up making a prototype which was amazing it was called the F-20 Tigershark but the program was cancelled.



Northrop and other manufactuers under license made thousands of F-5As and F-5Bs. Canada, Spain, the Netherlands manfactured them and off the top of my head I could tell you Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Saudi Araba, Iran, Venezuela, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, South Korea, Greece, Thailand, Jordan, Brazil and Norway used F-5As and F-5Es.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2005)

They still use a few of them here in Germany as trainers. Most are replaced now though.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 27, 2005)

the f 5 was not agood ac for canada it didn't have the range required it for example to play in the nato games in norway up to 8 air refuelings were required it was ordered in canada in order to keep canadair working upon completion of the 104 contract


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 27, 2005)

One thing the F5 had going for it, was it was cheap! A 2nd or 3rd world country could buy a squadron of them without going bankrupt. Plus since it had only a limited air-to-ground role, it did not have a stigma of being an offensive (thus warlike) aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2005)

And it's easy to maintain....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2005)

That I can believe.


----------



## R988 (Nov 22, 2005)

As said the F-5 was originally procured as a light fighter to sell/give to friendly countries. It's J85 engines were actually originally designed for the ADM20 Quail B-52 decoy missile. These engines also powered some learjet models and the white knight carrier aircraft for the recent SpaceShipOne suborbital vehicle and has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any production jet engine available.

The F20 was something of an F-16 competitor, but it was upgraded from the basic F-5, with proper avionics and a single F404 engine as used in the F/A-18 (an excellent engine and state of the art at the time). It was an excellent aircraft, with a low radar cross section and excellent power to weight ratio. It had excellent climb rate and low maintainence, it could be ready for combat within just 1 minute. It's main flaws were a lack of horizontal stability in some areas of the envelope but probably the biggest flaw was that the wing loading was far too high due to a design error and/or because they did it quickly and on the cheap, not bothering to change the F-5 wing much. This meant it could barely outturn an F-4 Phantom and by the time they redesigned it, most prospective countries had gone for the F-16. The fact that none of the US services wanted to buy any, not even as agressors pretty much sealed it's fate. The final nail in the coffin was that two of the three demo aircraft crashed while on demonstration flights, not a good advert. Apparently the last is still flying/flyable in a museum somewhere.

The F-20, like that other slightly later Northrop marketing failure, The F-18L, was an aircraft that could have been an excellent machine and would have eclipsed it's rivals in most areas but failed mainly due to not having a US order and poor/rival marketing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

What you just posted confirmed my theory that the real purpose of the F-5 was to pretend to be a Mig a the movie Top Gun.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 23, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

Its true I swear!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 23, 2005)




----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 23, 2005)

And Hotshots as well


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 23, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> And Hotshots as well



Those were Gnats!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 24, 2005)

No the bad guys, the bad guys. Oh F*ck I dont remember.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

Neither do I. Have not seen that movie in forever.


----------

