Talk:Northrop F-5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] POV

Lines like "The U.S. Army expressed interest in it for ground support, but the U.S. Air Force was not going to let the Army operate fighters, nor would the Air Force fly them for the Army. The F-5 was just one more good design that fell to bureaucracy and inter-service rivalry" seem a little POV to me... Nrbelex (talk) 16:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The YF-17 Cobra is a derivative of the F-5? I'd appreciate a source for that info. --Mmx1 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F-5E Tiger II in used today

http://www.yuma.usmc.mil/tenantunits/vmft401/default.htm The "Snipers" of VMFT-401 are mostly Marine Corps Reserve pilots serving in Active Reserve or weekend drill status, currently flying the F-5E Tiger II aircraft.

[edit] T-38 and F-5 ineage

While the T-38 and F-5 both had their genesis in the N-156 project, they were siblings - the T-38 was not "a trainer version of the F-5". That distinction goes to the F-5B and F-5F versions of the fighter. While sharing aerodynamic configuration and many systems with the F-5, the T-38 had different wing construction and many differences "under the skin". Hatcat 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Only plane designated as it's own replacement"

I'm not sure if the Harrier II is the Harrier II because it's the second plane in US Service (and incidentally, this part of the article doesn't specify that the plane was the only plane in US service to replace itself either) to use the name "Harrier" but rather because of the British naming convention of giving later variants of the same plane a number suffix for the name (ie: Spitfire, Spitfire II, Spitfire III, they even did the same with American planes like the P-40 Tomahawk and the P-51 Mustang). It sounds like this time we just borrowed the British name for the plane since, well, they named it. While this doesn't have anything to do with the F5, it was in this article.--Raguleader 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While variants of British WWII aircraft are sometimes styled Spitfire I, Spitfire II, and Spitfire III, the official designations are Spitfire Mk I, Spitfire Mk II, and Spitfire Mk III. Later in the war, and certianly post-war, roles were added (i.e. Spitfire F. Mk XVIII, or later just F.XVIII.) Roman numerals were dropped post-war (Meteor F.4).
The AV-8B Harrier II is a wholly different aircraft from the AV-8A Harrier, despite sharing the same designation and basic design. The Harrier II is a much more capable aircraft, and replaced both the AV-8A Harrier and the A-4M Skyhawk II, The A-4M itself had replaced the A-4F Skyhawk, of which it was an upgraded version rather than a new design.
The British did name the Harrier, that is true, and the US did borrow the name. But as far as I know, the US named the AV-8B the Harrier II first. The British do not use the "II", calling their versions the Harrier GR5/GR7/GR9, as though it is the same basic airframe.
Whether that qualifies the Harrier II as the only plane designated as its own replacement, I think the C-2A Greyhound has a stronger case for that. It was ordered in the late 60's to replace the C-1 Trader as a COD aircraft. However, some C-1s remained in service until the 80's. At that time, the Navy ordered an updated version of the C-2A to replace the C-1 and the aging C-1A. In a stroke of bureaucratic brilliance, the new version was designated the C-2A! Thus the C-2A actually did replace itself.

-- BillCJ 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia is considering F-18E as temporary replacements for its F/A-18 until F-35 are ready. Archtransit 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

THe F/A-18E is not the same aircraft as the F/A-18A, tho they do look very similar. This really wouldn't count either.

[edit] Real F-5 or a Model?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vnf-5c-23tw-522fs--bh-1971.jpg

^Is this photo really a VNAF F-5 Freedom Fighter? It looks like a professionally built plastic model kit of an F-5 like the ones posted on Scale Model magazine. If it is, it’s pretty good. I’ve seen real pictures of F-5s and C-130s in an abandoned VNAF airfield be raided by North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam in 1975. --James 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for sure whether that plane is real, but as an amateur photographer I can tell you that the technique exists for taking a picture of a full-sized object and adjusting the focus and depth of field to make it look like a toy. If that was done here, then someone also used a 'soft' effect on it. The light and shadows to me look like a full-size object, but as I said it's hard to tell from that picture. Stacy McMahon 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it's real, just taken with a camera with a dirty lens. There's a number of details that I can pick out that are almost impossible for even a master model maker to duplicate. Akradecki 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

F-5 Freedom Fighter → Northrop F-5 — F-5A/B Freedom Fighter is the name of only one type of F-5. Far more F-5E/F Tiger IIs were produced. To comform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) guidelines for US aircraft with multiple names - Manufacturer, number) Will need to be moved by an administrator. - BillCJ 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No contest. Will request an Uncontroversial move. - BillCJ 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MiG 28

The fictional MiG 28s in the movie Top Gun were portrayed using F-5s. Also in the film they make reference to using A-4s and F-5s as MiG sims but they only show the A-4s.

Are we sure the planes used for the film were F-5's and not T-38's? --JJLatWiki 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries

The list of countries using the F5 far exceeds the displayed. The US fairly dumped lots of F5 new and second hand in all of their allies and for example Portugal had more than a few.

[edit] Philippines as first SE Asian country with supersonic jets?

Indonesia obtained Mig-21s several years before this, and I've modified the statement in the article accordingly.

[edit] Unlicensed Versions!

It has been mentioned that Iran has modified F-5 and named them Saeghe and Azarakhsh.

The question is that modification needs license? Either the word modification is incorrect or the unlicensed.

I guess that depends on whether the statements by Iran are believable. Iran claims to be manufacturing these 2 planes, not modifying. If you believe Iran, and you accept the obvious that they are F-5 airframes, then they are "unlicensed variants". If you do not believe Iran, then these are simple modifications to existing Iranian inventory of U.S.-made F-5's, and should thus be called "modified airframes". The Northrup F-5 article does not dispute the Iranian claim that Iran is actually manufacturing them, but assumes Northrup did not license the production. And the phrase "unknown modifications" is not used to imply modification to exiting inventory, but a modification from original F-5 specifications, so there is no contradiction.
So what do you think should be done? Should we assume Iran is lying and call these planes, "modifications"? Or should we accept Iran's claim and call these planes, "unlicensed variants"? --JJLatWiki 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Please sign your posts in Talk pages. --JJLatWiki 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F-5 in Singapore (F-5 S/T), Chile (F-5 plus) and Brasil (F-5 M)

The F-5 S/T are not equipped with israeli radar, but with GRIFO-F Radar, from FIAR (now Galileo Avionica)from Italy. The same radar is installed in the Brasilian F-5, whilst the Chilean F-5 hosts an israeli radar (not griffon) from ELTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federico61 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to FINMECCANICA:[1].--Dali-Llama 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, the article doesn't contradict Federico61. The P2804 Grifo F was selected for both Singapore's F-5S/T and Brazil's F-5M, while Chile went with the Elta EL/M-2032 for its Tigre III. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I misspoke. I had actually corrected the text to say that the F-5 S/T did have the GRIFO radar, so I corrected the error he talked about.--Dali-Llama 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge discussion

IAMI Saeqeh article has a tag for discussing a merge with the F-5 article. The disadvantage of the merge is that it's unlikely that all 3 images from the Saeqeh article will remain in the F-5 article. That's loss of information. If the 3 images are kept, it may clutter the F-5 article too much. Archtransit 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Losing a 3rd Saeqeh, such as the ground image is a minor thing. That article could copy the specs from here. Modify something or leave it out if needed. -Fnlayson 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the copyright on the two in-flight images is questionable,a nd aren't likey to remain much longer, and have been deleted a few times already. As to the merge, I think it's best to leave the articles separate, as we really don't know exactly what the Iranians have done here. At least until the Iranins get a more-open govenment (not likely as long as their allies in the US Congress remain in power), we probably won't know the full story for a long time. Finally, what ever they are doing to the F-5s to make Saeqehs is not sanctioned by Northrop, and so I'd rather not put a legally-questionable aircraft on the page. A similar situation exists with the Iranian Bell upgrades/derivitives, and we've kept their pages separate thus far. - BillCJ 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 1) concur with BillCJ, 2) the Iranian government claims this plane is an indigenous development and there is little or no publicly available analysis to refute it, 3) this article is prone to vandalism and keeping it separated from F-5 compartmentalizes the vandalism. --JJLatWiki 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as well, per BillCJ.--Dali-Llama 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While clearly a "reverse-engineered" F-5 (with some unique mods), that said, the performance parameters as well as many items of equipment are probably notably different. It might be best treated here as a variant with its own article. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tigereye or TigerEye?

I've seen it written both ways (as well as "Tiger Eye" on rare occasion). Has anyone come across a reliable source that clarifies which is the official rendering? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian F-5?

There is an image in the article looking very much like a USAF Thunderbird #1, and the caption is designating it as being from Iran...

Some kind of aviation political humor, perhaps. Less entertaining than obviously mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.178.10 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This image Image:Apbat.jpg has I.I.A.F. on the side for Imperial Iranian Air Force. The Thunderbirds used the related T-38 in the 1970s. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The serial no. 3-7099 marks it as an F-5E among a batch ordered for Iran in 1974. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)