# Why wasn't the Northrop F-5 used in Vietnam for escort of strike aircraft



## jtm55 (Dec 3, 2010)

Hi All,
I wanted to know why the Northrop F-5 wasn't used to counter the Mig fighters during the Vietnam war. From my limited research, the F-5 has performance comprable to the Mig 21. It also has the benefit of having two 20mm cannon internally, and not mounted underneath the aircraft creating drag.

I'd appreciate hearing what All of you think. Let me say that the Folk on this Forum have a vast wealth of aviation knowledge, of the likes I've seen nowhere else. Well done!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2010)

The F-5 during that period was considered a "tinker toy" by many of AF brass and those operating the F-4. “Bigger and more complicated was better,” until the “Fighter Mafia” proved otherwise. It was never thought that an aircraft so simple to fly and maintain "could have" actually performed many other roles in SE Asia like MiG CAP and may have been more effective than the F-4 if given the chance with proper tactics. It may have had a range shortcoming but I think that could have been overcome by deploying them in forward airbases. My father in law and another good friend (who flew in Viet Nam) flew the F-5 and I worked around them for a short spell and I think it’s one of the most under rated jet fighters in history. If you can believe reports of the IIAF, the F-5 did very well against the Iraqis when Iran and Iraq were slugging it out.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 3, 2010)

Great question jtm. Same thought has gone through my mind. I've heard the same response that Flyboy put up as well. The AF is, first and foremost, a corporation. Acts like one very often. They put a lot of money into the concept of the F4 and it was gonna be the way they worked. No if-ands- or buts. 

Thought the F5 would've done a nice job up North. Agree with the range problem, but there are ways to get around that (the F105 did). The tinker toy idea sounds about right. It was never designed for domestic work, always an export fighter. But it worked. And it worked very well. Probably close to the F8 in terms of effectiveness but cheaper.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 3, 2010)

I totally agree about it being under rated. I also always liked the upgraded F-20 Tiger Shark - nice that politics are picked over common sense IMHO.


----------



## jtm55 (Dec 4, 2010)

Hi All,

I'd like to thank all of you who responded to my question as I now have a better understanding as why the F-5 wasn't used for MiG Cap

Follow up question, I believe that the F-5 has aerial refueling capability. Would that have been enough for it to do the mission, or are there other considerations.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 4, 2010)

The Soviets acquired a F-5E along with other former South Vietnamese aircraft that were shipped to the USSR in 1975. They tested and flew the F-5 extensively and were very impressed with it. There is a several page narrative of these tests in 'US Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia' by Gordon and Komissarov.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2010)

steve51 said:


> The Soviets acquired a F-5E along with other former South Vietnamese aircraft that were shipped to the USSR in 1975. They tested and flew the F-5 extensively and were very impressed with it. There is a several page narrative of these tests in 'US Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia' by Gordon and Komissarov.



Great info Steve - I guess what they found out is that we had this second line fighter that we toyed around with that had similar performance of the MiG-21 and drank half the fuel and was safer to operate!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 5, 2010)

Certainly the mentality of the AF and Navy in the 50s and 60s was away from purpose built dogfight type aircraft like the F-5 and F-8, including training, and more to the do everything reasonably well F-4, which led to a big surprise in Vietnam.

I understand the F-5 performed well in Red Flag and Top Gun, even against advanced fighters like the F-15 and F-14. Small size and difficult to see along with agility, and of course, expert pilots, really called into question the advantage of few-of-quality verses many of capable quality theory the Services had. The Navy, of course, always had to deal with limited deck space and needed multipurpose aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 5, 2010)

davparlr said:


> I understand the F-5 performed well in Red Flag and Top Gun, even against advanced fighters like the F-15 and F-14. Small size and difficult to see along with agility, and of course, expert pilots, really called into question the advantage of few-of-quality verses many of capable quality theory the Services had.



With respect to size, I often hear this same exact quote about the Gripen.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2010)

davparlr said:


> Certainly the mentality of the AF and Navy in the 50s and 60s was away from purpose built dogfight type aircraft like the F-5 and F-8, including training, and more to the do everything reasonably well F-4, which led to a big surprise in Vietnam.
> 
> I understand the F-5 performed well in Red Flag and Top Gun, even against advanced fighters like the F-15 and F-14. Small size and difficult to see along with agility, and of course, expert pilots, really called into question the advantage of few-of-quality verses many of capable quality theory the Services had. The Navy, of course, always had to deal with limited deck space and needed multipurpose aircraft.



The F5 always did well at Red Flag and Top Gun to the point where the aircraft was used as the standard "adversary" aircraft but remember - these exercises pitted an aircraft like an F-5 in a "scenerio" where the defending aircraft may be outnumbered, presented with a tactical disadvantage or even limited from using some of its equipment. Despite that, the F-5 still a cheap easy to operate aircraft that offers a lot of advantages when compared to the more advanced hardware we are so accustomed to, but may not give the absolute "state of the art" requirement so sought by armed forces.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 5, 2010)

According to the Soviet test pilots, at speeds below 750 km/hr, the F-5 could out turn the Mig 21. Although the Mig had higher acceleration and climb rate, the F-5 maintain higher angles of attack and g loads at lower speeds. Apparently the high-lift devices on the F-5 wing made the difference.

The book I mentioned above also has great photographs of the F-5 in the air and on the ground in Soviet markings.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2010)

steve51 said:


> The book I mentioned above also has great photographs of the F-5 in the air and on the ground in Soviet markings.



Would love to see that!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2010)

Did some web searching. Apparently the F-5E was evaluated in Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The Czechs allegedly compared some of the technology to what was going into the L-39.

Soviet evaluation of captured F-5E Tiger II

_"When Bien Hoa was overrun by Communist forces, several of the aircraft were captured and used operationally by the NVAF, in particular against Khmer Rouge. In view of the performance, agility and size of the F-5, it might have appeared to be a good match against the similar MiG-21 in air combat. Several of the F-5s left over from the Vietnam war were sent to Poland and Russia, for advanced study of US aviation technology, while others were decommissioned and put on display at museums in Vietnam.
One F-5 was extensively tested by top gun Soviet pilots from Chkalov's State Flight Tests Center (GLIC - Russian acronym). GLIC was established in the 1920s in the arid delta of the Volga River and its tributary Akhtuba and a local counterpart of US Edwards AFB AFFTC or Tonopah Test Range.
In air combats with MiG-21, F-5 did show extremly well, surprisingly winning almost of all fights according to reports, that gave Soviet aircraft designers a push to develop new types, like MiG-23.
Pilots who were flying F-5E, are Vladimir Kandaurov, Alexander Bezhevets and Nikolay Stogov." _


----------



## steve51 (Dec 5, 2010)

FLYBOYJ,

I didn't realize that the Poles and Czechs also tested the F-5. Thanks for that information.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2010)

Me neither - ya learn something new everyday!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 5, 2010)

Wow, had no idea. Great info fellas!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2010)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmBdqxrwbw_


----------



## The Basket (Dec 5, 2010)

Im Surprised the Soviets would fly the F-5 as it isnt exactly cutting edge when it was made...also it wasnt a front line threat as such.

I thought the main interest would be armament and systems and construction. Thats where the true intent would have been.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 5, 2010)

It was a western airframe. Either side would jump at the chance to fly any of their enemies assets, regardless of capability or type. Not only for the operational effectiveness, but more importantly the engineering, manufacturing and maintenance techniques.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 7, 2010)

Soviets were still in love with light-weight fighters, so any tip from the US aviation industry was regarded as good thing. Plus, Soviet allies were likely to encounter F-5s in some future conflict - Iraq/Iran war as an example.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2010)

I'd bet dollars to donuts that the Soviets did not know or did not recognize the US military's feelings about the F-5.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2010)

For once I would take up that bet. The F5E was sold to a hell of a lot of nations and someone somewhere would have let on about what the US and its NATO allies thought about the F5.

In addition a number of countries tested the F5E such as Pakistan without buying it and they are close to China, so I am confident that word would have spread.

A good number of NATO members flew F5's and the aircraft they faced off against was often the Mig21. So getting a good understanding of its strengths and weaknesses would have had a high priority.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2010)

Think the Soviets might have also liked it because it reflected their own design philosophy. Build it cheap, reliable and effective. Pretty much what they did with the Mig series up until the end of the cold war.

Anybody know if the F5 ever faced off with Migs and what the outcome was?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2010)

Glider said:


> For once I would take up that bet. The F5E was sold to a hell of a lot of nations and someone somewhere would have let on about what the US and its NATO allies thought about the F5.
> 
> In addition a number of countries tested the F5E such as Pakistan without buying it and they are close to China, so I am confident that word would have spread.
> 
> A good number of NATO members flew F5's and the aircraft they faced off against was often the Mig21. So getting a good understanding of its strengths and weaknesses would have had a high priority.



But did the Soviets know specifically that the US viewed this aircraft as a "tinker toy," that it was not the best we had to offer although it was supplied accross NATO? If I read into the Soviet evaluation of the aircraft, it sounds like the aircraft gave then a scare if not something to really think about. "If this is not their best, imgine what their best can do."



timshatz said:


> Think the Soviets might have also liked it because it reflected their own design philosophy. Build it cheap, reliable and effective. Pretty much what they did with the Mig series up until the end of the cold war.
> 
> Anybody know if the F5 ever faced off with Migs and what the outcome was?



One shot down a MiG-25 during the Iran/ Iraq War if you believe the sources.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 7, 2010)

timshatz,

Iranian F-5 pilots made quite a few claims during their war with Iraq, with one pilot ( Yadollah Javadpour ? )claiming 5. Independent confirmation of these claims is very difficult.

The only engagment where both sides agree as to results that I'm aware of was on Sept 23, 1980. 6 F-5s were bounced by Mig 21s and one Iraqi destroyed two of the F-5s with AAMs

Tom Cooper, Farzad Bishop and David Nicolle have contacts with aircrew from both countries, as well as Arab air forces. Their information is interesting but is verbal accounts, usually not confirmable.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 7, 2010)

Ditto - 

Joe, I know it is a sensitive subject but Yeager flew the F-20 about 20 hours per week as a contractor to Northrup when they were trying to compete against the F-16 for international biz. Felt it was an excellent airplane.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2010)

steve51 said:


> timshatz,
> 
> Iranian F-5 pilots made quite a few claims during their war with Iraq, with one pilot ( Yadollah Javadpour ? )claiming 5. Independent confirmation of these claims is very difficult.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the info Steve, it was something I wondered about. Understand it is all unconfirmable. Just the nature of the beast.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Ditto -
> 
> Joe, I know it is a sensitive subject but Yeager flew the F-20 about 20 hours per week as a contractor to Northrup when they were trying to compete against the F-16 for international biz. Felt it was an excellent airplane.



Yep - my father in law was working with the F-5 during that period and was "waiting his turn" to fly the F-20 until fate took over. he too thought it was a great aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> But did the Soviets know specifically that the US viewed this aircraft as a "tinker toy," that it was not the best we had to offer although it was supplied accross NATO? If I read into the Soviet evaluation of the aircraft, it sounds like the aircraft gave then a scare if not something to really think about. "If this is not their best, imgine what their best can do."



I am as sure as I can be that you have it right. To Russia it was probably _'this can take on and beat our Mig 21's, the Mirages have done the same in the Desert, the Lightning can take on both of those, what will the F4 do? _At this point I will pass over the F104, the one NATO aircraft which was second to the Mig 21.

To be fair to the F5, it may have been a sports car compared to the Formula 1 machines in the USA, but to the Nato countries that used it to replace F86's F84's it was a leap almost like no other.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 7, 2010)

Glider said:


> To be fair to the F5, it may have been a sports car compared to the Formula 1 machines in the USA, but to the Nato countries that used it to replace F86's F84's it was a leap almost like no other.



But a leap above a Mirage? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps it was the low cost that made it much more palatable for return on investement. I don't recall how it compared to other airframes from the time (Mirage III/V or Viggen), but must assume that it was relatively less expensive. And perhaps the commonality and parts availability were viewed as much more obtainable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2010)

Glider said:


> I am as sure as I can be that you have it right. To Russia it was probably _'this can take on and beat our Mig 21's, the Mirages have done the same in the Desert, the Lightning can take on both of those, what will the F4 do? _At this point I will pass over the F104, the one NATO aircraft which was second to the Mig 21.
> 
> To be fair to the F5, it may have been a sports car compared to the Formula 1 machines in the USA, but to the Nato countries that used it to replace F86's F84's it was a leap almost like no other.





Matt308 said:


> But a leap above a Mirage? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps it was the low cost that made it much more palatable for return on investement. I don't recall how it compared to other airframes from the time (Mirage III/V or Viggen), but must assume that it was relatively less expensive. And perhaps the commonality and parts availability were viewed as much more obtainable.



I think one would have to look at price, performance and cost to get a proper picture - additionally may countries produced the F-5s under license which was a huge perk in itself.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 7, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> additionally may countries produced the F-5s under license which was a huge perk in itself.



didn't think of that


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> But a leap above a Mirage? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps it was the low cost that made it much more palatable for return on investement. I don't recall how it compared to other airframes from the time (Mirage III/V or Viggen), but must assume that it was relatively less expensive. And perhaps the commonality and parts availability were viewed as much more obtainable.



I was thinking of a leap above an F84. If you were a pilot who had spent your time flying old F84/F86's getting a hammering in every exercise by the opposition and someone gave you an F5, you would think that all your Birthdays had come at once. 

Its worth remembering that in a visual type engagement an F5 is no walkover for an F4. While its clear that in a Beyond Visual Range engagement the F4 holds all the aces most exercises had an element of VR combat due to the fears of losses to friendly fire.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2010)

But the F-84/-86 were not the current day comptetition for a light weight fighter. That was my point.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 8, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> But the F-84/-86 were not the current day comptetition for a light weight fighter.



Funny thing about mentioning the F84F, I was at an Airport Holiday Party last week and met a guy who flew P51s and F84Fs. Said he was flying them when Phila International was the host to the ANAG Squadron. Told me the runway was only 5K feet long back then and it was tough getting the birds in the air in the summer (F84s were notorious for having long take off runs). Said the Squadron XO tried to take off with a full load in the summer of 55, ran off the end of the runway, through two pipes that they were using to build land for the extension of the runway (Phila International is built on a swamp that is filled in) and ended up sitting in the mud just at the edge of the Delaware River.

Said the F84 was so tough, the just repaired it all at the field. New gear and a few dings (clean the intakes) and it was ready to go again.

That's a tough bird.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 8, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Funny thing about mentioning the F84F, I was at an Airport Holiday Party last week and met a guy who flew P51s and F84Fs. Said he was flying them when Phila International was the host to the ANAG Squadron. Told me the runway was only 5K feet long back then and it was tough getting the birds in the air in the summer (F84s were notorious for having long take off runs). Said the Squadron XO tried to take off with a full load in the summer of 55, ran off the end of the runway, through two pipes that they were using to build land for the extension of the runway (Phila International is built on a swamp that is filled in) and ended up sitting in the mud just at the edge of the Delaware River.
> 
> Said the F84 was so tough, the just repaired it all at the field. New gear and a few dings (clean the intakes) and it was ready to go again.
> 
> That's a tough bird.


Couple of comments running around it the AF during the F-105 days.

If you could build a runway that went all the way around the world, Republic would build an airplane that would need it all.

The F-105 had a runway sniffer on the nose gear, when it detected dirt, it rotated.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2010)

That's a keeper.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 8, 2010)

Great aircraft it was just to short legged and I don't think there was a fix if you added xtra tanks the Hard points were gone , to cross the pond it took 8 air to air refuellings.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 9, 2010)

pbfoot said:


> Great aircraft it was just to short legged and I don't think there was a fix if you added xtra tanks the Hard points were gone , to cross the pond it took 8 air to air refuellings.



Yeah, I'm a big fan of the Thud, with all its limitations. As I've said, many a brave men flew into the jaws of Hell in those strong and fast, but heavily loaded, planes and many were lost in a vicious environment.


----------

