Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2685 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Even thought the basic design is 50 years old now the plane still looks sexy with all the sleek looks of a modern fighter. The fact that countries like Brazil and Chile spent millions modernizing their existing fleet after so many years of service speaks for itself. For many countries that cannot afford modern combat aircraft and want somethiing more than just an armed trainer the f-5 fits the bill perfectly:
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
And the Iranians are still trying to figure out how to build and improve on it!
TripleDelta From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1053 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Alberchico (Thread starter): Even thought the basic design is 50 years old now the plane still looks sexy with all the sleek looks of a modern fighter
Too bad the F-20 never caught on... with that big engine in the back, it looks even better and sexier IMHO...
Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Just also wanted to add that China is now offering a F-5 lookalike for export that is basically a low cost multirole fighter for developing nations. It claims to offer near performance in the range of thr F16 Falcon but for only a fraction of a price. Personally I think that claim if BS but that's just my opinion. It is called the FC-1 or the JF-17 which is what Pakistan is calling it.....
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 32767 times:
F-16 technology is at least 30 years old. Doesn't seem unusual that China could produce an airplane now that might equal the early F-16s at least. It's not hard to loose track of time and sometimes we have to sit back and look back. The F-15 is real old technology, if you're talking about the early A and B models. Same holds true for the F-16A and B. Truth be known, even the F-15E is old technology when compared to the Rafale, F-22A and current Typhoon FGR4.
Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2685 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 4): F-16 technology is at least 30 years old. Doesn't seem unusual that China could produce an airplane now that might equal the early F-16s at least. It's not hard to loose track of time and sometimes we have to sit back and look back.
While China might get the aerodynamics right and design a similar looking aircraft to the F-16 what counts is its avionics, radar and weapon systems. In all these areas the Chine are behind the West they are even behind Russia. In an air forces monthly magazine that has an article on athe Pakistani air force. they said the the Chinese J-10 has the equivalent of 1990's avianics and that is the reason why Pakistan is so eager to integrate the Jf-17 and the J-10 with western systems.
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
It was a much better 'entry level' supersonic combat aircraft than the Mig-21 ever was.
But, while it was politics that got the F-5 built (so the US could supply allies or potential allies with affordable aircraft), it was up against the massive 'Mig Diplomacy' from the USSR, who had a bit of a head start.
Still, a highly successful design.
(And remember how often USAF/USN 'Agressor' crewed F-5's embarrassed the highly expensive and brand new teen series 'Super Fighters' in realistic ACM exercises too. It started a real debate on whether the US/NATO should mass produce aircraft like the F-5 and drop the 'quality not quantity' idea. In the end though, with the F-16, they found a happy medium. I would suggest that this ACM experience was also a prime mover in the design and building of the F-16. Ironically, it was the F-16 that was to effectively kill the F-20 sales wise).
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 5): In all these areas the Chine are behind the West they are even behind Russia.
One must be careful with that statement. While true to some extend, don't forget that everyone produces microelectronics in China. While it is something different to build a laptop and to develop a highly sophisticated missile radar, a lot of technology and know-how gets transferred by producing alone...
Think of Huawei electronics, they produce a lot of useful staff already.
No doubt they are still behind in some areas, but they surely close the gap fast.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 8): Great looking machine, any one know the most significant differences between the F5 and the T38 ?
F-5 is more or less a T-38 on steroids, the F-5 has a longer nose to incorporate a radar and twin 20mm's, the F-5 has a antiskid system at on some models not all, the F-5 has a bigger wing with strakes that go along to the engine intake, the intake is also different, the both need a external air start but the F-5 can cross or tiger start its other engine plus with a extendable more heavy nose gear to bring up the nose to lessen fod injestion both have a J-85 GE engine but the F-5 has a few extra stages of afterburner. The F-5 has hardpoints for external stores such as drop tanks and weapons plus missile rails on the wing tips. The T-38 has a centerline hardpoint for a travel pod and back in the late 70's they put a gattling cannon on the bottom or a SUU with practice bomblets.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
What's also cool about the F-5 is its engines. The J-85 has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any afterburning turbojet, and compares favorably with the F100-PW-200/220. Too bad they didn't uprate it's thrust over the last 30 years.
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 9): It's hard to argue with a classic design that offers low cost, hi performance, and good looks all in one package....
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 3): Just also wanted to add that China is now offering a F-5 lookalike for export that is basically a low cost multirole fighter for developing nations. It claims to offer near performance in the range of thr F16 Falcon but for only a fraction of a price.
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 12): The J-85 has the highest thrust to weight ratio of any afterburning turbojet, and compares favorably with the F100-PW-200/220. Too bad they didn't uprate it's thrust over the last 30 years.
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Specifications (F-5E Tiger II)
Data from Quest for Performance[16]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 47 ft 4¾ in (14.45 m)
Wingspan: 26 ft 8 in (8.13 m)
Height: 13 ft 4½ in (4.08 m)
Wing area: 186 ft² (17.28 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 65A004.8 root, NACA 64A004.8 tip
Empty weight: 9,558 lb (4,349 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,664 lb (11,187 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric J85-GE-21B turbojet
Dry thrust: 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) each
*Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0200
Drag area: 3.4 ft² (0.32 m²)
Aspect ratio: 3.86
Internal fuel: 677 US gal (2,563 L)
External fuel: 275 US gal (1,040 L) per tank in up to 3 tanks
Performance
Maximum speed: 917 kn (1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h, mach 1.6)
Range: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)
Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,720 km)
Service ceiling 51,800 ft (15,800 m)
Rate of climb: 34,400 ft/min (175 m/s)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 10.0
Armament
Guns: 2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Pontiac M39A2 cannons in the nose, 280 rounds/gun
Hardpoints: 7 total: 2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations holding up to 7,000 lb (3,200 kg) of payload
Rockets:
2× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× /7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively); or
2× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets); or
2× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× Zuni 127 mm rockets); or
2× Matra rocket pods (each with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets)
Missiles:
Air-to-air missile:
4× AIM-9 Sidewinders or
4× AIM-120 AMRAAMs
Air-to-surface missile:
2× AGM-65 Mavericks
Bombs: A variety of air-to-ground ordnance such as the Mark 80 series of unguided iron bombs (including 3 kg and 14 kg practice bombs), CBU-24/49/52/58 cluster bomb munitions, napalm bomb canisters and M129 Leaflet bomb
Others: up to 3× 150/275 US gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.
Avionics
AN/APQ-153 radar on early batch of F-5E
AN/APQ-159 radar on later production F-5E
Specifications (T-38A)
General characteristics
Crew: 2: student and instructor
Length: 46 ft 4.5 in (14.14 m)
Wingspan: 25 ft 3 in (7.7 m)
Height: 12 ft 10.5 in (3.92 m)
Wing area: 170 ft² (16 m²)
Empty weight: 7,200 lb (3,270 kg)
Loaded weight: 11,820 lb (5,360 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric J85-5A (J85-5R after PMP modification) afterburning turbojets
Dry thrust: 2,050 lb (9.1 kN) each
Thrust with afterburner: 3,850 lbf (17.1 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.3 (858 mph, 1,381 km/h)
Range: 1,140 mi (1,835 km)
Service ceiling 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
Rate of climb: 33,600 ft/min (170.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 70 lb/ft² (340 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.65
Steman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1275 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
I think that there are more differences between F-5 A/B and F-5 E/F than between T-38 and F-5 A/B
In particular T-38 and F-5B seem to be very similar in terms of performance and overall frame.
Does anybody know which are the main difference between a Talon T-38 and a two seater F-5B?
Weapon pylons and relevant wiring? Empty and Max weight maybe?
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4428 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 6): (And remember how often USAF/USN 'Agressor' crewed F-5's embarrassed the highly expensive and brand new teen series 'Super Fighters' in realistic ACM exercises too.
They might embarass them a little more after fitment of new radar and navigation displays on the F-5N.....
Quote: “The US Navy stated that this new maintenance cost-avoidance program will save an estimated $20 million dollars over the life of the F-5N program. Interface’s newly designed radar/CDU will guarantee the F-5N Adversary program seamless functionality, while increasing mission training performance and situation-awareness safety."
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 7): Think of Huawei electronics, they produce a lot of useful staff already.
Compare theirs with the above manufacturer's track record.....
Quote: "Interface has been engineering and manufacturing innovative and reliable products for the military aviation industry for more than thirty years. The company specializes in the design and manufacturing of cockpit controls, display devices, data transfer systems, rugged computing devices, and keyboards for both military and commercial aircraft. All products are available with Night Vision (NVIS) compatible lighting and are useable in applications for aviation, marine, search & rescue, police, surveillance & security, as well as land vehicles and weapon support systems."
Quote: "South Korea has asked Korea Aerospace Industries to develop a prototype of a light attack version of its T-50 advanced jet trainer, with a production contract likely to be awarded after the aircraft has been tested by the nation's air force.
Under the 400 billion won ($306 million) contract, KAI will upgrade four T-50s to the F/A-50 standard and deliver them to the South Korean air force by 2012. It then expects the service to order around 60 F/A-50s for delivery from 2013 to replace its ageing Northrop F-5s, and to eventually buy up to 150 of the type.
[.....]
The F/A-50 is also likely to use an EL/M-2032 radar supplied by Israel's Elta Systems. The radar selection has been a bone of contention with Lockheed Martin, which helped to develop the T-50 and had wanted KAI to use its own APG-67(V)4 on the F/A-50. Seoul had preferred Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems' Vixen 500E active electronically scanned array, but is barred from sharing the T-50's source codes with non-US companies. That led to it choosing the Israeli radar, which will be installed on the F/A-50 by a US company, meeting US government and Lockheed conditions."
Much preferable would be Northrop's SABR or Raytheon's RACR scaled-down AESA radar, but anyhow, the T-50 and F/A-50 combination could take over the crown formerly held by the T-38 and F-5. This will be a boon and a worthwhile investment for those countries looking long and hard for a good, cost efficient replacement for their faithful-serving or retired Tigers.
Fridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1383 posts, RR: 11 Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Any ideas why the F-20 Tigershark did not garner enough or any export orders?
Thanks
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:
Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 20): Any ideas why the F-20 Tigershark did not garner enough or any export orders?
Be warned that that site is very strongly slanted in favor of Northrop and against pretty much everybody else. A little more balanced history of the B-35/B49 and F-5G/F-20 would have been better received.
Fridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1383 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Thanks SCAT, I read the entire website! Like Thorny said, it was slanted towards Northrop, but it read well. Knowing our Govt, I'm sure there's a lot of truth there!
No matter, a beautiful and very capable aircraft, one that should have been developed and at least exported.
Thanks for your help.
F
The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
25 Trex8: and the ANG chose the block 15 ADF F16 instead of the F20
26 Acheron: The FC-1 as far as I know comes from a project between China and Grumman to modernize the chinese J-7(MiG-21) in the 80's, so I doubt the FC-1 has an
27 DEVILFISH: And speaking of modifications, these fighters from the Brazilian and Chilean air forces show the two most noticeable changes..... Note the two-seat ve
28 AC788: Don't forget the Swiss Air Force's F-5s which were relatively recently decommissioned. http://www.airlinefan.com/photos/mem.../watermarked/medium_wm_1
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2685 posts, 
From Croatia, joined Jul 2004, 1053 posts, 
.jpg)
From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! 
, 12713 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4428 posts, 
.....
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}