Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
DerAdler,
So your position is from the point of view of the aircraft's original intended role?
Elvis
So your position is from the point of view of the aircraft's original intended role?
Elvis
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DerAdler,
So your position is from the point of view of the aircraft's original intended role?
Elvis
Just curious...
Has anyone mentioned the F-5 Freedom Fighter?
I believe it is (or was?) the "aggressor fighter" of choice, by both the Navy and the Air Force, in their respective Air Combat Training Programs.
Elvis
There's still a few at Fallon. One was brought into Reno as a static during the races.Actually, IIRC, most of the Aggressor pilots preferred the A-4 "Scooter", due to it's higher role rate and smaller silhouette (though I believe it had a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-5). However, lately, both the Navy and AF have been using F-14D's, F-15's, and F-16's in the Aggressor role; you don't see too many F-5's anymore.
You left out Botswana and Iran...the f-5 is only used in the trainer role now in the US and has equipped the US NAVY, the Brazilian Air Force, the Phillipine Air Force, and the South Korean Air Force
Would that be the new "F-18 like" Iranian Fighter?FLYBOYJ said:You left out Botswana and Iran...
Good point.Yes, a fighter is a fighter, a ground attack is a groung attack.
An AH-64D Longbow Apache as air to air capability, are you going to call it a figher?
Would that be the new "F-18 like" Iranian Fighter?
So apparently, it was used as an aggressor, but not so much anymore.
Oh well, nothing in this world is constant except change.
I still like it. To me, it looks like a slick little sports car with wings and a couple of jet engines.
Elvis
I understand that was the point.I worked on F-5s and they are easy to work on and fly - perfect fighter for the 3rd world.
I understand that was the point.
Created solely to sell to allied nations who didn't have "competitive" aircraft in their inventory.
Didn't we sell a boat load of those to the S.Vietnamese back in the late 60's and/or early 70's?
I think that's where the whole "Skoshi Tiger" thing came from.
Elvis
I can see it being done the F5's have an arrester hook , but being an approach end engagement might cause a little havoc, as i believe the arrestor hook and aircraft was set up for a departure end engagement like most AF aircraft, naval aircraft use the approach endF-5s landing on a carrier? Is there any video of that?? I personally find that a little hard to believe. Certainly can be done with the barrier erected, but I'm dubious that the airboss would allow it since the landing speed of the F-5 and resultant fouling of the deck would destroy the carrier's bring back efficiency.
I would love to read about that if you have any information.
Thats where the havoc part in my statement comes in I think it would bend the aircraft with an approach end engagementI doubt this ever occurred. The F-5 was a robust aircraft and could have gotten away with one carrier landing in a pinch BUT no SVNAF pilots were ever trained to do carrier landings. Ya just don't go out untrained in an aircraft with a 130 mph landing speed and land it on an aircraft carrier - sorry, I don't buy this.
A few F-5s were flown to Thailand or wound up with the North Vietnamese.
Hueys? Another story - dozens of helicopters were flown out of South Vietnam to US ships.