The F5 is a bigger success

Pangur

Pangur

Donor
I started a thread a few months ago about F-111's that never were and I think it went quite well. I am now turning my attention to the F-5. I don't quite see why it never got the sales and as a result the development that it should have. What I think of is that the F-5 is light fighter that the US sells to the less well of countries like say Ireland. What are peoples ideas about this idea?
 

Bernard Woolley

Never got the sales? The F-5 was exported to a great many countries, just look at its wiki page!
Ireland would be a non-starter because it would be too much plane for their needs.
 

Just Leo

Northrop had a mock-up of a fighter called the N-102 which was powered by the GE J-79 when the GE J-85 was unveiled to the company. When they saw the engine, they asked what the engine looked like full-size.They were told that it was full-size. The resulting N-156, emerging from a nascent Lee Begin's pencil, performed well, within the limits of the design. But that was the catch. It was a light-weight day fighter with short range and short range weapons. Canada acquired some and found no use for them. The later models with more developed engines performed better, and were more capable. Sales were better. The developed trainer version, the T-38 Talon, became the established training aircraft of the USAF, and sales couldn't have been better. The subsequent F-20, powered by a single F-404 engine, was an extremely capable fighter, sales of which totalled zero, and this is the only case which I find strange. Chuck Yeager said it was great in a commercial, but foreign sales were to be handled only by the US State Department.
 

AdA

F20

The problem with lighter aircraft is that the same load has a much greater effect both on its power to weight and it's power loading. The F20 could fly like the F16 when they were both empty, but once both aircraft put on some weight (missiles, bombs, fuel tanks, etc) the performance of the smaller F20 degraded more for the same load. If the F16 had not been sold so freely and actively, it might have a chance, but would still have to face the Mirage F1.
Regarding the F5, it owned the light fighter market. The only way it could have done better would be to sell for countries buying from the USSR, or a market more interested in light rather than heavy fighters.
For that to happen, something like a "fighter mafia" would have to take over European airforces.
Interestingly, in conflicts were both light and heavy were used, like the Iran Iraq war, airforces found the heavy fighters more useful. The IRIIAF loved its F4s, but not so muchs its F5s.
 

aktarian

AdA said:
Interestingly, in conflicts were both light and heavy were used, like the Iran Iraq war, airforces found the heavy fighters more useful. The IRIIAF loved its F4s, but not so muchs its F5s.
Click to expand...

Hardly a surprise. F-5 was good for countries with limited money but also didn't expect their planes to either face much opposition or deliver really heavy punch. IRIAF had to fly in face of strong air defences and deliver heavy punch, something F-5 wasn't suited for. Consider payload, fual and equipment like radar, ECM etc and you can see why they weren't front line bomber. If you have both planes F-5 really doesn't have an advantage except being used where opposition is expected to be light to allow F-4s to concentrate of harder targets.

They did bag some Iraqi aircraft and helicopters, including 2 MiG-25s (one shared with F-14)
 
Petike

Petike

The F-5 is kind of more succesful in my LOSERS TL, where, among other things, it's the main combat aircraft of Iceland:

attachment.php


The TL also includes its successor, the Tigershark, entering production and being sold to many of the countries previously operating F-5s (as a replacement). Iceland is among them.

Pangur said:
What I think of is that the F-5 is light fighter that the US sells to the less well of countries like say Ireland.
Click to expand...

Well, it would be interesting to see the IAC operating proper fighters for a change ! :) But given Ireland's post-WWII history of military aviation, I'm kind of skeptical. Maybe if it's persuaded to enter NATO and not stay neutral, with the result being far more heavily-equipped Irish armed forces ? (That's one of the reasons my ATL Iceland has a proper air force of its own in the first place.)
 
Last edited:

AdA

aktarian said:
Hardly a surprise. F-5 was good for countries with limited money but also didn't expect their planes to either face much opposition or deliver really heavy punch. IRIAF had to fly in face of strong air defences and deliver heavy punch, something F-5 wasn't suited for. Consider payload, fual and equipment like radar, ECM etc and you can see why they weren't front line bomber. If you have both planes F-5 really doesn't have an advantage except being used where opposition is expected to be light to allow F-4s to concentrate of harder targets.

They did bag some Iraqi aircraft and helicopters, including 2 MiG-25s (one shared with F-14)
Click to expand...

And the air defences facing Canadian CF5 deployed to Europe would be a lot stronger. That claimed MiG25 kill was by a F5E with guns, the Foxbat pilot must have been caught very off guard...
 

Nicola

Petike said:
<snip>IAC operating proper fighters for a change ! :) But given Ireland's post-WWII history of military aviation, I'm kind of skeptical. Maybe if it's persuaded to enter NATO and not stay neutral, with the result being far more heavily-equipped Irish armed forces ? (That's one of the reasons my ATL Iceland has a proper air force of its own in the first place.)
Click to expand...

but would it not have F104 then F16 as per smaller NATO nations

, what about a TL where the Island of Ireland is a Dominion of the UK rather than an Integral part or the partition into NI and eire and flys a mixture of US and UK equipment ...

or French kit or Saabs from Sweden ...
 

sparky42

If Ireland was in NATO I always had a thought that we might invest in support systems and platforms rather then major fighter programs. Given our position would it suit NATO more for us to invest in ASW (Nimrod or Orion) or tankers or AWAC's in order to support operations across the Atlantic, while continuing the agreement with the RAF for air defence.

I would also think that Ireland might leverage off the RAF rather then invest in the larger support requirements that modern fighters would need, so whatever they pick would most likely be the Irish choice.

Given the population of Ireland during the Cold War period I would see it being a niche force rather then having a full range of forces, maybe ASW forces (leveraging of the RN for example) and the above IAC.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Petike said:
The F-5 is kind of more succesful in my LOSERS TL, where, among other things, it's the main combat aircraft of Iceland:

The TL also includes its successor, the Tigershark, entering production and being sold to many of the countries previously operating F-5s (as a replacement). Iceland is among them.


? (That's one of the reasons my ATL Iceland has a proper air force of its own in the first place.)
Click to expand...

Iceland? !!! Iceland otl hasnt even a navy, let alone army or airforce. The population of the whole country is that of a medium sized city.

Note that new zealand, ten times larger, has scrapped its airforce as being unaffordable...
 

Gunnarnz

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Iceland? !!! Iceland otl hasnt even a navy, let alone army or airforce. The population of the whole country is that of a medium sized city.

Note that new zealand, ten times larger, has scrapped its airforce as being unaffordable...
Click to expand...

Although it doesn't detract from the point I think you're making, your information is not correct. NZ does have an airforce, what they scrapped was the air combat component of it - the superannuated Skyhawks and the rest of the fast-jet assets. Some might argue that's the important bit of an airforce but there are still people in blue suits wandering around with inconsolable expressions of loss on their faces...
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Gunnarnz said:
Although it doesn't detract from the point I think you're making, your information is not correct. NZ does have an airforce, what they scrapped was the air combat component of it - the superannuated Skyhawks and the rest of the fast-jet assets. Some might argue that's the important bit of an airforce but there are still people in blue suits wandering around with inconsolable expressions of loss on their faces...
Click to expand...

Ah. Quite. I apologize. For that matter, i could see iceland having an ,,airforce,, with a handfull of dhc caribou or so. But an f5? I just cant see it.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

Gunnarnz said:
Although it doesn't detract from the point I think you're making, your information is not correct. NZ does have an airforce, what they scrapped was the air combat component of it - the superannuated Skyhawks and the rest of the fast-jet assets. Some might argue that's the important bit of an airforce but there are still people in blue suits wandering around with inconsolable expressions of loss on their faces...
Click to expand...

Ah. Quite. I apologize. For that matter, i could see iceland having an ,,airforce,, with a handfull of dhc caribou or so. But an f5? I just cant see it.
 

BigWillyG

How about having the F-104 fail? It certainly had enough teething problems so it wouldn't be too hard to have it fail completely. Without the F-104 you could see the Italians, Germans and other air forces which bought Starfighters IOTL buying the F-5.
 

AdA

aktarian said:
Well, Canadians would act as part of NATO so that would make things a bit easier.



One was with guns, other with Sidewinder.
Click to expand...

The Sidewinder kill would be the one shared with the F14? I found the guns kill as soon as a I (re)opened my copy of this, but didn't really looked fpor the other one. Shame Osprey hasn't issued a "F5 Units of the Iran Iraq war" yet (or did I miss it?, my fav bookstore went bust in the current european finacial crisis...)

51ANMQSSEKL__SL500_AA300_.jpg
 

Slowpoke

BigWillyG said:
How about having the F-104 fail? It certainly had enough teething problems so it wouldn't be too hard to have it fail completely. Without the F-104 you could see the Italians, Germans and other air forces which bought Starfighters IOTL buying the F-5.
Click to expand...
They would've probably bought Mirages instead.
 

AdA

Slowpoke said:
They would've probably bought Mirages instead.
Click to expand...

Not in 59. The Mirage was a pure fighter by then, the Multirole IIIE only flew in prototype form in 61 and would not be avaiable in the time frame the germans wanted.
A land based F8 would make sense, but was not ofered OTL.
 

Nicola

sparky42 said:
If Ireland was in NATO I always had a thought that we might invest in support systems and platforms rather then major fighter programs. Given our position would it suit NATO more for us to invest in ASW (Nimrod or Orion) or tankers or AWAC's in order to support operations across the Atlantic, while continuing the agreement with the RAF for air defence.

I would also think that Ireland might leverage off the RAF rather then invest in the larger support requirements that modern fighters would need, so whatever they pick would most likely be the Irish choice.

Given the population of Ireland during the Cold War period I would see it being a niche force rather then having a full range of forces, maybe ASW forces (leveraging of the RN for example) and the above IAC.
Click to expand...

the Irish rode the coat tails of the RAF anyway but not officially

Irish cold war defence basically relied on being 'wrapped around' by the RAF and USAFE resources.

the interesting stuff comes with a 'whole island' Republic of Ireland ( in or out of NATO) or a whole island 'Dominion of Ireland' with little or no management via Westminster rather than the OTL pattern and the interests of Norethern Ireland being the interests of Westminster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top