RichardSuhkoi
Airman 1st Class
- 171
- Apr 27, 2021
Until the S model with blown flaps that solved high AOA and improved turning.
But it came too late.
Was the F-5 alone in its lack of radars in the 1960s?
- Thread starter Nodeo-Franvier
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But it came too late.
Glider
Captain
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
Airman 1st Class
- 171
- Apr 27, 2021
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
Captain
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.
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'.
GreenKnight121
Staff Sergeant
- 751
- Mar 16, 2014
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.
- Thread starter
- #27
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 124
- Jul 13, 2020
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
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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)
- Thread starter
- #29
Nodeo-Franvier
Airman 1st Class
- 124
- Jul 13, 2020
Even Senator Symington doesn't like F-5!
And by the time Iran-Iraq war come around,Iran operated mostly F-5E too.
Department of the Air Force
books.google.co.th
And by the time Iran-Iraq war come around,Iran operated mostly F-5E too.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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!
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!
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 43,274
- Mar 26, 2007
Thats funny. Taking the argument of a senator into a debate here. It like taken the National Enquirer as a worthy source.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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Especially this senator who hated Northrop!
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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.
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.
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.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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??? No - though it would make for an interesting Whiff.
Maybe you meant Bahrain, Botswana or perhaps Brazil?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
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
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
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.
By the way, Iran claims they are building new F-5's, but I think in reality it is a rebuild program.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
