It doesn’t get much love regarding Vietnam and is often overshadowed by the earlier F-4 or F-100+ and the later F-14/15/16
Opinion on the F-5?
It doesn’t get much love regarding Vietnam and is often overshadowed by the earlier F-4 or F-100+ and the later F-14/15/16
area 88 was rad.
Did the F-5 deploy to Vietnam after all?
*at all
Yeah a lot actually.
They were mostly flown by the South Vietnamese though.
The US hardly used the F-5 as a combat aircraft at all apart from two test units 4503rd TFS who acted as the combat evaluation unit, and 10th Fighter Squadron (Commando) who served as an conversion unit, training the VNAF aircrews and ground crews in combat conditions
Yes, they sent a testing squadron to try it out and they racked about 1.5k missions during their stay doing ground attack, with pretty much stellar reports.
not my favorite but the widebody stance looks good from bottom angle
Sexo.
Uohhhhhh
great plane for the value,
F-20 would have been great too but the Government wanted to appease the CCP so they stop the production of it so Taiwan couldn't get them.
>F-20 would have been great too but the Government wanted to appease the CCP so they stop the production of it so Taiwan couldn't get them.
No, you fricking moron.
The YF-17 with a single F404 would be far better than the F-20.
It wasn't about performance but the affordability of that performance.
On paper it had that performance, in real life it didn't solve any of the short comings of the F-5E. It was something similar -or worse- than the MiG-21bis.
Not really. It WAS better than the F-5 in all respects.
The problem is, the niche it was designed to fill, I.e. “inexpensive export fighter that’s better than an F-5 and isn’t an F-16 which we can’t export” was made redundant when the administration allowed the sale of F-16’s which were superior to the F-20.
>and isn’t an F-16 which we can’t export” was made redundant when the administration allowed the sale of F-16
in other words, Northrop's lobbyists were worse than General Dynamics lobbyists
F-16 was just a better plane altoghether, though. If you could pick between the two you'd just pay a bit more for the F-16, no question about it.
it's neat i guess but not as neat as the f4
They looked great as aggressors and MiG-28s
Wasn't the F-5 made primarily to be an export/donation for US allies?
The F-5 was a vastly superior dogfighter to either the F-4 or the Mig-21 and would have slotted the shit out of some migs if they had given it the chance.
Nowhere near as upgradable or versatile as the F-4 but it still would have been far better at the its role in Vietnam
>would have slotted the shit out of some migs if they had given it the chance
It was and and it did, just not in US service.
F-5 is also one of the few planes that killed a Mig-25.
It was good for what it was (a cheap day fighter). I have great respect for it since my favorite aircraft is the Sea Harrier which is another short king that punched above its weight and proved that a shitty subsonic IR only fighter piloted by a British NATO pilot is worth more than a supersonic air superiority fighter flown by an argentina chimp. The only reason people bully the F-5 is due to the morons like Sprey who think it was better than the F-4 and that the US should have adopted an aircraft with no radar.
The Sea Harrier FA.2 is basically what the F-5 could have been turned into since was turned into a 4th gen fighter by adding an extremely power PD radar, AMRAAMs, The same extremely accurate swedish computer INS/Nav-Attack as the Gripen plus integration of anti-ship missiles and PGMs. Wargames against the US Navy proved that the FA.2 was a devious little bastard and massive pain in the ass for F/A-18s to deal with due to being a tiny adorable A-4 Skyhawk sized aircraft with a similar missile engagement range to a Legacy Bug meaning the Harrier would often get the first missile off.
It sucks, but still in service while the phantom and big cat are out to pasture. If you're a fan then thats a win for you.
>while the phantom and big cat are out to pasture
several countries still use the F-4 (Greece and Roaches both have them). Iran has F-5s, F-4s and F-14s
I'm talking about in the United States dipshit.
US doesn't operate the F-5. The T-38 isn't identical.
>a cheap, easy to maintain plane in an era of bloated overweight giants, introduced the concept of life cycle costs and designed to be easily managed from the get-go
>light, small and nimble fighter with the aerodynamic configuration ahead of its era, looks like a 4th gen and eventually evolved into one with the F/A-18. is still supersonic.
>still a solid ground attacker, carries the bombload of a Skyhawk or a Super Sabre into combat effectively.
It could've become the low part of the hi-low mix in the USAF along with the Phantom and it's a crime that it didn't, overshadowed by the F-104 both in the short-lived US service and in abroad sales. Quite a few nations did end up adopting it in the 70s but it could've happened a decade earlier if it was given the chance, turning its success into a triumph and the plane into the symbol of freedom it was meant to be, like the F-4.
Pretty much the start of the US jet exports. Simple, cheap, dependable, and with just enough sophistication to be a threat to any air force of it's time. F-5s wouldn't win a war but they'd give their users a chance against a more powerful air force.