The Greatest Fighter Jet of All Time.

[pbfoot]

Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.

Hey B25's , Hercs and other sundry aircraft not designed for naval ops have performed on decks i just don't think there would be much usable afterwords . Stretched F5's maybe Joe would be able to answer that better then me he worked on them I just watched them.
. Personally don't think the F5 is much good unless your defending Delaware .

 

[Matt308]

And let's not forget the context.. they were flying them off the coast of Siagon landing them on an active carrier during regular ops. It's not "whether its technically possible", it about whether operationally it would have ever occurred.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.

 

[Bluehawk]

Even though I've got sentimental attachment to the Phantoms... I voted for the Lightning, in this poll.

Awesome a/c, even from what little I know of it.

 

[SoD Stitch]

Okay guys let's quite pussyfootin' around. Someone say, BS already.

Okay, you're probably right; to be honest, my source never actually said any F-5's landed on carriers, just that "South Vietnamese fighters and other small planes also landed on American carriers", so it could have been A-37's or O-2's or who knows what. The source for these claims is a book called "Cruel April: The Fall of Saigon", by Olivier Todd.

Also, if someone is fairly intent on landing their a/c on a carrier, there's not much you can do to stop them short of shooting them down; and I don't think the Americans ever seriously considered shooting down their South Vietnamese allies, whether they were violating operational procedures or not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Okay, you're probably right; to be honest, my source never actually said any F-5's landed on carriers, just that "South Vietnamese fighters and other small planes also landed on American carriers", so it could have been A-37's or O-2's or who knows what. The source for these claims is a book called "Cruel April: The Fall of Saigon", by Olivier Todd.

Also, if someone is fairly intent on landing their a/c on a carrier, there's not much you can do to stop them short of shooting them down; and I don't think the Americans ever seriously considered shooting down their South Vietnamese allies, whether they were violating operational procedures or not.

Even an A-37 would be a hand full to land on a carrier in the hands of an untrained pilot - the key item here is training. O-2s? Possibly if they were able to make it to a carrier. I did know an ex SVAF pilot who did fly to a carrier - he loaded up his family and friends in a UH-1. I think the key would be to get as many people out as possible so I don't see an O-2 being the first choice of aircraft unless you were desperate.

Had this been done I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts the first attempt would of ended in disaster and I would also bet that the COs of any carrier would of prevented any further attempt. As far as I know the main source of evacuation from South Vietnam where helicopters.

"The ceasefire of 1973 under which American forces withdrew from Vietnam led to an increased amount of military aid supplied to the South Vietnamese government, in the hope that they could go it alone without direct American support. As part of this effort, a total of 126 F-5As were delivered to the South Vietnamese Air Force, most of the planes being supplied from stocks previously owned by South Korea, Iran, and Taiwan.

By 1974, the VNAF was operating four squadrons with F-5As and RF-5As (82 aircraft, with 36 more in storage), plus three squadrons of F-5Es.

During the final North Vietnamese assault on Saigon in 1975, numerous South Vietnamese aircraft escaped with their pilots to Thailand. Among these were four F-5As plus 22 F-5Es. These planes were returned to the USA where they were placed in storage pending sale to other customers.

Eighty-seven F-5A and B Freedom Fighters were left behind in South Vietnam when the country fell to the North in 1975. The planes that were captured by the conquering North Vietnamese were either pressed into service or offered up for sale on the world market. Some flew in support of the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in 1978. It appears that F-5 squadrons were scattered throughout North Vietnam's air force, with several composite squadrons operating both F-5s and MiG-21s.

The subsequent fate of these planes is largely unknown. A handful were passed along to the USSR for evaluation, and some ended up in Czechoslovakia and Poland. Their lifetime in Vietnamese service must have been quite short in any case, given the general shortage of parts and the lack of spares."

Freedom Fighter in Service with Vietnam

 

[Matt308]

Great post, FlyboyJ. Interesting information.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks

 

[davparlr]

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).

In Top Gun, A-4 and F-5s were used to represent Mig-17 and Mig-21s respectively (according to wikipedia). In the AF, F-5s were used until replaced by F-16s and were quite effective.

IIRC, the T-38/F-5 would roll at greater than 500 degrees a second, far higher than any possible use and I would be surprised if the A-4 could top it. We were warned not to use full deflection on roll unless you wanted to get a head hammered against he canopy. Also, the F-5 is one of the smallest fighter jets. It is smaller than the A-4 except in length. Outside the facility where I worked, they had a T-38 on its belly with no wings or tail. It looked like a Formula 1 race car in form and size. It is incrediblely small. The engines are only about 17 inches in diameter and about 45 inches long without afterburner.

F-5s fought valiantly in the Iraqi-Irani war.

Oh, by the way, the T-38 is one of the most delightful aircraft to fly. You only have to get used to doing things, like raise gear and fly final, really fast.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

To get back on track...A very, very tough choice. But in the end

F-15.

I asked myself if I had only 3 billion dollars to spend on fighter jets, and I had to choose only one type to spend that money on, which one would I buy? Then the answer became obvious.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomcat is my bird

 

[SoD Stitch]

To get back on track...A very, very tough choice. But in the end

F-15.

I asked myself if I had only 3 billion dollars to spend on fighter jets, and I had to choose only one type to spend that money on, which one would I buy? Then the answer became obvious.

I would have to agree; and, to be more specific, I would choose the F-15E. You can shoot stuff down AND drop bombs!

 

[Pong]

Chose the F-86. Beautiful and effective back in the 1950s. Though in modern times, I would go for the F-15 or the F-16.

 

[plan_D]

The best jet fighter aircraft to exist is the F-22; it's far superior technologically to any aircraft to preceed it. Of course, it has no combat experience but it's become irrelevant now - the F-22 has learnt lessons from the absolutely immense F-15 and other combat experiences; as well as maintanence practices and electrical technology combine together to make the F-22 the best on the ground and in the air.

 

[Bluehawk]

I wonder if there will ever again be such a thing as air to air combat.

 

[plan_D]

I could easily say not to the extent of World War II, not even Vietnam...but pre-Vietnam a lot of military top brass in the U.S and Great Britain thought air combat was a thing of the past (especially with guns). We probably will see air to air combat again; in fact, more likely than not.

But top brass love their multi-role beasts; hence it's the F/A-22

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wonder if there will ever again be such a thing as air to air combat.

The same question was asked during the late 50s. It will depend where and when. After military planners thought that air to air combat was obsolete there have been hundreds if not thousands of air to air engagements. From Vietnam to the Middle East. Today the potential for two countries to be engaged in air to air combat is just as high as it was in pre WW2, the only difference is you wont have hundreds of aircraft in the air all at once slugging it out.

 

[plan_D]

And there's a few more crazy air to air combat situations now too, with the higher usage of helicopters like the story you told of the AN-2 (?) vs. UH-1. And A-10s bringing down Mi-8s.

 

[Vic Balshaw]

The English Electric Lightning. When the "Firebirds" thundered down the runway in a line of nine aircraft and stood on their tails, the world shook.
It may have only been an interceptor, but it could also turn in a very tight figure of eight, often shattering windows as it sliced the air over the base.
It's also a nostalgic choice.

 

[Condora]

Now, generalisations are *always* dangerous

There are a few left out there, which deserved to be included - Hawker's Hunter, Dassault's Mirage IIIC, F-5, even the A-4 Skyhawk, they all deserved to be there. The "all times" clause messes up the selection...

For instance, I'm not aware of the kill statistics, but the old and plain F-5 is supposed to once have managed to surprise the all-mighty F-15 when playing the aggressor role. On a bang-per-bucks basis, that leaves the F-15 looking bad.

My vote goes to the F-16, but had any of the names I mentioned been there, it would change.