RAAF F - 5 Freedom Fighter
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
Seems reasonable to me. Would Australia and Canada work together to come up with a Commonwealth specific version of the F5? By that I mean things like engines, instruments and weapons carried. Both nations would have more money to spend equipping their aircraft than the less developed countries it was originally aimed at.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
Good question, one would hope that there could be some level of cooperation for development of a license built F 5A. There is potential for a joint development as iirc the Australian Aslav is based on the Canadian Lav.
However, my suspicion is that any cooperation, in time, leads to an evolved F 5 to deal with the similar situation be setting both countries (large country, austere strips etc).
However, my suspicion is that any cooperation, in time, leads to an evolved F 5 to deal with the similar situation be setting both countries (large country, austere strips etc).
The licencing agreement between the US Government and Northrop on one hand and HM Australian Government and Commonwealth on the other would have to include export rights for the RNZAF sale to be possible. The territory sales could be allowed in could include Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. IIRC Malaysia bought F-5E's in the 1970s and Singapore bought dozens of Skyhawks. ITTL they might have bought F-5s built by Commonwealth. The Malaysian connection would be helped by the RAAF having 2 squadrons of F-5s at RAAF Butterworth in the 1960s and 1970s instead of 2 Mirage III squadrons.
Will tinkering with the F-5A/B make it more expensive to build, more expensive to operate and too complicated for the CAF to operate? If that's the case they might as well stick to the OTL solution and buy the Mirage III plus buying more MB326 to equip the CAF squadrons if the Australian Government wants to keep the latter.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
I don't expect the modifications to result in a significantly more complicated aircraft, rather a refined version of the original design. My thoughts combine the changes made to the CF 5 in otl, with the improvements introduced with the F 5E.
In terms of range and payload how inferior was the F-5A/B to the 1960s Mirage III and in the 1970s the F-5E/F to the Mirage F-1? Were these types fighting for the same corner of the fighter export market?
IIRC a F-5A powered with Australian-built Avon engines was mentioned. Is that sort of inventing the Tigershark earlier? Even if it doesn't would the RAAF operating the F-5 instead of Mirage III make the Tigershark a strong contender to replace it? I know that it doesn't quite fit on timescale grounds.
IIRC a F-5A powered with Australian-built Avon engines was mentioned. Is that sort of inventing the Tigershark earlier? Even if it doesn't would the RAAF operating the F-5 instead of Mirage III make the Tigershark a strong contender to replace it? I know that it doesn't quite fit on timescale grounds.
Archibald
Banned
The Mirage III is faster (mach 2.2 vs 1.6) has better range (F-5s were rather short legged) plus better missiles and radar (AFAIK the F-5A had very basic avionics, something like range finding radar). It is inferior to F-5A in manoeuverability and take-off, thanks to the draggy delta wing.
Although early medium range AAMs aren't very good (and the R.530 is as bad as the Vietnam-era AIM-7B reliability-wise, which says a lot) the Mirage III can carry a single R.530 on a belly pylon. No F-5 ever had Sparrow ability.
The F-5E was waaaay better equiped than the F-5A, but the Mirage F-1 was a quantum leap compared the the Mirage III (better avionic and the very superior Super 530F), so the gap is the same.
Although early medium range AAMs aren't very good (and the R.530 is as bad as the Vietnam-era AIM-7B reliability-wise, which says a lot) the Mirage III can carry a single R.530 on a belly pylon. No F-5 ever had Sparrow ability.
The F-5E was waaaay better equiped than the F-5A, but the Mirage F-1 was a quantum leap compared the the Mirage III (better avionic and the very superior Super 530F), so the gap is the same.
In that case would the ability of the RAAF to provide the SVAF with technical personnel to keep them flying be a bigger contribution to the Allied war effort than sending one or two RAAF squadrons equipped with the aircraft to Vietnam? Especially if the RAAF keeps the 5 (IIRC) CAF fighter squadrons and re-equips them with Freedom Fighters because it would then have a bigger pool of trained ground personnel to draw from.
Only if OZ takes the place of the US. post watergate where US Congress cut support. but more training might help, though.
I also though that sending support personnel to help the SVAF would be less controversial than sending whole squadrons.
Another option would be bringing SVAF personnel to Australia for intensive training, but it's still the time of the White Australia policy so that could be problematic. Selling the South Vietnamese spare parts should be no problem however, provided they can pay for them.
The changes made OTL to the CF-5 made it more austere, although the nosewheel mod retrofit was an improvement. Budgetary considerations.
Some quick research on the potential market for the Commonwealth F-5 to the middle of the 1970s from World Combat Aircraft Directory by Norman Polmar.
The Royal Malaysian Air Force had 16 second-hand Commonwealth Sabres and 16 F-5E plus 20 Canadair CL-41 trainers. Could 32 Australian built F-5 and 20 MB.326 be substituted?
The RNZAF had 14 A-4K Skyhawks and 10 Strikemasters. Could 14 F-5A/B and 10 MB.326 be substituted?
The Singapore Air Defence Command had 47 second-hand Hunters and 40 A-4S Skyhawks plus 15 Strikemasters. Could 87 F-5A/B and 15 MB.326 be substituted?
That's a grand total of about 130 Freedom Fighters and 45 MB.326.
The Royal Malaysian Air Force had 16 second-hand Commonwealth Sabres and 16 F-5E plus 20 Canadair CL-41 trainers. Could 32 Australian built F-5 and 20 MB.326 be substituted?
The RNZAF had 14 A-4K Skyhawks and 10 Strikemasters. Could 14 F-5A/B and 10 MB.326 be substituted?
The Singapore Air Defence Command had 47 second-hand Hunters and 40 A-4S Skyhawks plus 15 Strikemasters. Could 87 F-5A/B and 15 MB.326 be substituted?
That's a grand total of about 130 Freedom Fighters and 45 MB.326.
WI Aussies and Canucks and a few Northrup engineers co-operate in developing a big-wing version of the F-5? The bigger-wing might reduce top speed a bit, but would increase payload, bomb-load and range.
OTL Range was the biggest limitation in Canadian service. That short range limited their ability to patrol Canada's 3 coast-lines. They only patrolled the northern coast when tankers were available. Because CF-5s could only carry enough fuel to drop a full load of bombs on the end of their own runways, the CAF struggled to find a role for them. Cat-5s were soon relegated to photo-recce, light ground attack and fighter trainer roles. CF-5s only served from 1968 to 1995.
OTL Canada built CF-5s to satisfy domestic political problems. Canada feared Quebec Separation far more than it feared communist invasion. To that end, as many defence dollars as possible were spent in Quebec factories. Canadair (in Montreal) built CF-104s, CF-5s and got the first overhaul contracts for CF-18s. Meanwhile, Levi's shipyards and Canadian Vickers shipyards overhauled the Canadian Navy's east coast fleet and Bombardier built trucks for the Canadian Army. Odd, because Bombardier only built trucks for the Canadian Army, otherwise Bombardier turned profits on snowmobiles and rapid-transit systems.
In the end, Canadian defence dollars bought enough votes in Quebec to prevent the province from separating.
OTL Range was the biggest limitation in Canadian service. That short range limited their ability to patrol Canada's 3 coast-lines. They only patrolled the northern coast when tankers were available. Because CF-5s could only carry enough fuel to drop a full load of bombs on the end of their own runways, the CAF struggled to find a role for them. Cat-5s were soon relegated to photo-recce, light ground attack and fighter trainer roles. CF-5s only served from 1968 to 1995.
OTL Canada built CF-5s to satisfy domestic political problems. Canada feared Quebec Separation far more than it feared communist invasion. To that end, as many defence dollars as possible were spent in Quebec factories. Canadair (in Montreal) built CF-104s, CF-5s and got the first overhaul contracts for CF-18s. Meanwhile, Levi's shipyards and Canadian Vickers shipyards overhauled the Canadian Navy's east coast fleet and Bombardier built trucks for the Canadian Army. Odd, because Bombardier only built trucks for the Canadian Army, otherwise Bombardier turned profits on snowmobiles and rapid-transit systems.
In the end, Canadian defence dollars bought enough votes in Quebec to prevent the province from separating.
Still, not a bad run. Just a few years less than the Clunks
Everything can't be as long lived as a B-52
The Aussies would be mugs not to follow the improvements introduced by the Canadians and then the Dutch, who had the best F-5s prior to the F-5E.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_22.html
You'd also buy A-37 Dragonflies as your trainers as well to standardise on the J-85 jet engine.
And to cap it all off you could replace your F-5OZs with F-20s in the 80s!!!
Which also means that in the event of the F-5 being too expensive or too complex for the Citizens Air Force squadrons there is the possibility of equipping them with cheaper A-37s instead.
If the 5 CAF squadrons had survived into the 1960s and been re-equipped with F-5s or A-37s what are the chances that some of them would be mobilised for service in the Indonesian Confrontation and/or Vietnam?