Northrop F-5E/F/N tiger 2- International lightweight heavy hitter

[RanchSauce39 397]

F-5 tiger 2

 

 

 

 

A suggestion for a new US tree aircraft, a contender to potential  3rd generation Mig21's such as the MIG21S/SM, and MIg21BIS. Its should be considered  like an additional complimentary  option to  a potential F4 phantom. This is not strictly an A2A fighter, and can be used as a fighter bomber allowing versatility with its employment.

 

 

 

 

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)

Loaded weight: 15,745 lb (7,157 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,722 lb (11,214 kg)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0200

Drag area: 3.4 ft² (0.32 m²)

Aspect ratio: 3.82

Internal fuel: 677 U.S. gal (2,563 L)

External fuel: 275 U.S. gal (1,040 L) per tank in up to 3 tanks

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

 

Performance

 

 

Maximum speed: 917 kn (Mach 1.6, 1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h) ; at altitude

Range: 760 nmi (870 mi, 1,405 km)

Ferry range: 2,010 nmi (2,310 mi, 3,700 km[175])

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) M39A2 Revolver cannons in the nose, 280 rounds/gun

Hard points: 7 total (only pylon stations 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumbed): 2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations with a capacity of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:

 

Rockets:

 LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× /7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively); or

 LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× Zuni 127 mm rockets);

 

Missiles:

2× AIM-9 Sidewinders  (AIM-9B, E, J, P variations), and AIm9M ( F5N exclusive, not an option for USAF/USN F5E/F models)

Bombs:

Mk80 series of bombs ( Mk82, Mk82 Snake-eye, Mk83, Mk84) M117 750lbs bombs, CBU cluster munitions, BLU napalm canisters.

 

Other:

up to 3× 150/275 U.S. gallon Sargent Fletcher drop tanks for ferry flight or extended range/loitering time.

 

 

 

Avionics

 

F-5E

 

AN/ASG29 gunsight

Emerson Electric AN/APQ-153 radar on early batch of F-5E (max range 20 nautical miles, and no off bore sight tracking)

 

F-5E3

 

AN/ASG 31 gunsight

Emerson Electric AN/APQ-159 radar on F-5E3 – (max range to 40 nautical miles, with  a cursor allowing off bore sight target tracking/ acquisition ability)

 

 

F-5F2

 

AN/ASG 31 gun sight

Emerson Electric AN/APQ-159 radar on F-5E3 – (max range to 40 nautical miles, with  a cursor allowing off bore sight target tracking/ acquisition ability)

( optional upgrade) AN/ALR 46 v3 radar warning receiver  with IP 1310/ALR scope display

 

 

F-5N

 

AN/ASG 29 or 31 gunsight

Emerson Electric AN/APQ-159 radar on F-5E3 – (max range to 40 nautical miles, with  a cursor allowing off bore sight target tracking/ acquisition ability)

AN/ALR 87 radar warning receiver  with IP 1310/ALR scope display ( export derivative of AN/ALR46)

AN/ALE40 Countermeasures dispenser   ;  16 Flares and  32 Chaffs

 

 

 

The Cockpit

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

F-5E early cockpit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F-5E3 & front F-5F2 Cockpit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F-5N ( Former Swiss modified F5E3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diagrams - Airframe and Engine

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry thrust: 3,500 lbf (15.5 kN) each

Thrust with afterburner: 5,000 lbf (22.2 kN) each

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Radar

 

 

Spoiler

 

F5E radar being operated on ground ( hence lots of clutter)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radar scope + symbology ( no clutter from weather or ground)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 combined series of excerpts  from manual ( AN/APQ 159 radar)

 

 

 

 

 

RADAR DISH

 

An/apq 153  

 

parabolic dish

 

 

 

 

AN/APQ 159  Radar Dish

 

Plannar Phased Array Dish type

 

This made the antenna smaller front-to-back and allowed it to be pointed to higher angles within the nose. It also greatly reduced the sidelobes, which improved gain and allowed the range to be , increased from its predecessor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radar Warning Receiver

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

F-5F2 used the AN/ALR 46( v3) radar warning system   with IP-130/ALR scope display, whilst the F-5N used the AN/ALR87 with IP-130/ALR scope display. ALR 87 is an export derivative of the ALR 46V that was in use on Swiss F5E's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From F20 tigersharks marketing vidoe, but wasa otherwise known to be using the same RWR and associated display unit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RWR  reference symbology for threat types

 

 

https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/RWR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historical Summary

 

 F5 design dates back to the 1950s , it was initially developed by Northrop on their own initiative ( not on US or foreign air force requirements, based on  an official contract)  as a low cost, low maintenance tactical fighter/bomber primarily intended for export. It quickly  gained  a reputation and popularity  for being simple, reliable, and for still having good air too air performance characteristics, and entering the export market in 1964. The F5E tiger 2 is a further development from the earlier F-5A Freedom Fighter. IT was a evolution of the original design  developed for the IFA fighter competition, due to  new  export requirements of needing a export replacement of the F5A, fighter that was able to better compete with later model Mig21's. The F-5E  tiger 2 ended up winning the IFA fighter competition in 1970 by a wide margin

 

Design improvements over initial  F5A include:

 

• Being powered by the more potent General Electric J85-GE-21 engine having a 5,329 lbf (2,185 kgf) afterburner thrust.
•          auto flap system providing automatic flap operation depending on   flight conditions, similar to the systems used in Netherlands modified NF-5A/B;
• ·         increased wing area owing to changes in wing span and shape of the  wing leading edge extensions
•         arresting hook ( for emergency landings) that proved its reliability in Canadian, Norwegian and Dutch versions 
•        Emerson Electric AN/APQ-153 pulse radar ( Later production models had AN/APQ 159 radar, and most earlier ones were later retrofitted with this model sometime in their life.)
•         changed air navigation equipment and weapon control
•        Increase in fuel quantity by 300 liters due to the longer and wider fuselage 
•         An increase in the diameter of the engine intake as part of a defined   requirement to increase the allowable volume of air inside the engine
•          increased wheel base and track and a new two-position extendable nosewheel strut

 

         Late production F5E/F models  ( I.E F-5E3 or F-5F2)

Included replacing AN/APQ 153 for the AN/APQ 159 ( most earlier models  in export were refitted with this radar later) , and  revised cockpit front dashboard to allow fitting of a radar warning receiver  although USAF or USN F5E's didnt get the RWR. Only some F-5F2's were fitted with the RWR. Also to note F-5E3/F-5F2 production  circa1 1979+ later had improved air frames to increase maneuverability, by expanding LEX ( leading edge extension) , an incorporation of new Auto Flaps function , and redesign of the Nose of the aircraft. KIts were developed to retrofit pre 1979 F5E air frames to this new standard. Overall this resulted in 10% better maneuverability over earlier F5E's. which in turn were already 25% more maneuverable than F5A's.

 

to Quote

 

Spoiler

For customers that would like to improve the maneuverability of their F-5 aircraft, TCA has developed agility enhancement kits for the F-5 series that can be easily retrofitted.

All F-5 aircraft have included a wing-root leading edge extension (LEX) in their aerodynamic design. The original W1 LEX (designated by its wind tunnel model component number) was added to the F-5A/B wing design as a fairing over the leading edge flap actuator. Even though the W1 LEX was less than 2% of the wing area, it provided a 10% increase in the maximum lift capability of the wing, resulting in improved maneuverability. When the F-5E aircraft was developed, Northrop engineers increased the size of the LEX to approximately 5% of the wing area. This new LEX was designated W4 and provided a further 25% increase in maximum lift. Approximately 700 F-5E and 100 F-5F aircraft were delivered with the W4 LEX installed.

When the dual-seat F-5F was developed, it initially used the same W4 LEX as the single-seat F-5E. However, initial in-service experience with the F-5F uncovered some unfavorable stability characteristics at high angles of attack. In order to eliminate these problems, some design changes were made to the aircraft. The forebody was redesigned and new radome was developed that was designated “Shark Nose” due to its distinctive contour that resembled a shark. The wing flap control logic was changed to add angle of attack (AOA) as a scheduling parameter along with airspeed/Mach. The new flap system was designated “Auto Flaps”. One part of the design change resulted in a new, slightly larger LEX that was designated W6 LEX that is seen in the figure at the left. These three (3) design changes were certified by the USAF as the “Improved Handling Qualities – IHQ Package” and were incorporated in the production configuration of all F-5F aircraft built after 1979. For production commonality reasons (not to solve a stability problem), the IHQ package was incorporated into the production configuration of all F-5E aircraft after 1979 also.

Due to the fact that Northrop chose not to develop a retrofit kit for the IHQ package, none of the owners of previously delivered aircraft were offered the opportunity to upgrade their aircraft with the new design. In response to a market requirement from owners of F-5E/F aircraft built before 1979, TCA developed a wing leading-edge extension (W6 LEX) retrofit kit that is compatible with all configurations of the F-5E/F aircraft. The TCA W6 LEX kit is fully certified and is in daily operational service. The resigned shape of the W6 LEX provides a 10% increase in maximum lift over the W4 LEX. This increases instantaneous maneuverability, resulting in an improvement in mission effectiveness and survivability in close-in air-to-air combat. The W6 LEX also increases lateral-directional stability in the near-stall/post-stall angle-of-attack region resulting in improved spin resistance.

The benefits of the W6 LEX retrofit kit include:

• Increases instantaneous maneuverability at all subsonic Mach numbers by 10%, resulting in increased combat effectiveness in close-in air-to-air combat
• Increases lateral-directional stability in the near-stall/post-stall angle-of-attack region, resulting in improved overall departure and spin resistance

 

 

 

 

 

Thewould have been regarded as an ideal adversary to any nation operating improved models of the Mig21’s. The first operational F5E's were assigned to the  US Air Force 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron in April 6th 1973 ; a training squadron that would deploy to train foreign users of the F5. Eventually over the entirely of its service life F5's would be used in total by 32 countries across the globe, and production spanned from 1973- 1989, resulting in a total of 792 F5E models  built. Entirety of the F5 family production ( F5A/B/E/F) models had  shown over 2246 aircraft produced.

 

Whilst not adopted  and disregarded for official front line service alongside  aircraft like the F4 phantom ,  , The 3 branches of the US military ( US air force, US navy, US marines)  did however decide to adopt it an an  aggressor aircraft   for dissimilar air combat training , to provide a “redforce” adversary aircraft to sort of stand in in for the Mig21  in simulated air combat exercises.

F5E began being used starting in 1975 by the  USAF soon followed US navy and USMC) aggressor squadrons  for RED flag exercises and  US navy top gun Fighter weapons school  to provide  both student and veteran pilots (respectfully)  the experience needed for dismal air combat using primarily warsaw pact tactics. US Air Force retired the F5E in 1990, but the US Navy still operates upgraded F5E's ( F-5N's) in aggressor role to this day.

 

 

F5F.

 

Essentially just a 2 seater variant of the F5E.

 

 

F5N

 

US Navy designation for  35 F5E's acquired from the Swiss air force. got unique designation due to features inherited from swiss version that were not on prior F5E/F , i addition to planned upgrades the USN had in mind.

 

 

 

 

Notable uses in combat outside of USA

 

 

Spoiler

 

Ethiopia

Ethiopian flown F5’s partook in combat against Somalian MIg21’s in the 1977-78. War. The performance of the F5E got soviets to take notice, and eventually asking Vietnam to provide them former  captured South Vietnamese F5’s for evaluation to learn how for themselves and  to teach export client users of the Mig21 how to best counter the F5.

 

Iran

 

Iranian operated over 109 F5’E’s and saw various engagements against Iraqi pilot Mig21’s, MiG23’s and Su22’s. in the 8 year long war.

 

Saudi Arabia

 

Saudi Arabia deployed F5E’s in 1991 Gulf war  as part of the US lead coalition which flew some missions for Close air support and battlefield interdiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 Paint schemes

 

 

Spoiler

 

USAF 425th tactical Fighter Squadron - Silver

 

 

 

 

USAF 425th tactical fighter squadron ; Southeast Asia Style Camo

 

 

 

 

 

 

US Navy aggressor Top GUN "Mig28"

( yes this was a real aggressor scheme)

 

 

 

 

 

US Navy aggressor desert

 

 

 

 

 

US Marines aggressor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources

 

F5E - 'USAF  series'official flight manual

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/t-o-1f-5e-1-f-5e-flight-manual.html

 

F5E - "USAF series"  official flight manual  ( later revision including F5E3 )

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-ZiXoxMH4BnMzDHcZsO7ki75KTeOyyKK

 

F5E  -34 non nuclear weapons delivery manual

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/to-1f-5e-34-1-1-f-5e-f-tiger-ii-aircrew-nonnuclear-weapons-delivery-manual-to-1f-5e.html

 

NATOPS  ( US navy) F5E/F/N Flight manual 2006

 

https://mega.nz/#!bi5wjayQ!9EuceIQ34gFRwy4t6YEewXd8dylidkDK_PiSNC-JU60

 

 

F5E simulation manual

 

https://belsimtek.com/upload/docs/DCS_F-5Е-3_Flight Manual_ENG.pdf

 

Additional/ secondary sources for additional reading

 

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-5tiger2/

 

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=159

 

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/F5Tiger/Pages/default.aspx

 

F5E "late" Agility Enhancement Kit information

https://tigercenturyaircraft.com/upgrade-kits/f-5-agility-enhancement-kits/

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[Princess_Pinch 5,625]

Open for discussion. o7

[Old_Memmynochs@psn 924]

F5 w/MarAgg scheme ftw! wt needs this plane!

[RanchSauce39 397]

 

A study on radar detection ranges.

 

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750008534.pdf

 

 

so despite the paper  max range 20 nautical miles, ( or 40 NM for An/APQ 159 radar in F5E3)

 

such radar is only realistically able to detect a T38 ( a  supersonic trainer derived from the F5)  at very close ranges

 

larger sized aircraft like F4 phantoms could be detected from somewhat farther away.  Just something to keep in mind that within these ranges these early radars are not all seeing eyes even if targets are within thier detectable ranges.

 

Summary of  NASA's testing of An/APQ 153 results of T38 detection

 

20,000 ft AGL @ 8.7 nm

12,500 ft AGL @ 6 nm

2,500 ft AGL @ 2.5 nm

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by RanchSauce39

[Ska_King_Felix 1,450]

Seems cool.  I like it, but we need to first focus on adding other planes to other nations (like counters for the upcoming MiG-19).

[RanchSauce39 397]

an EM diagram .,  comparing F5E, F4E block 48 ( 1972+ production had leading edge wing slates) and the Mig21BIS

 

 

 

 

[seadogpirate@psn 888]

+1 bring on the freedom fighters.

[Warlock_Leader 292]

21 hours ago, Ska_King_Felix said:

Seems cool.  I like it, but we need to first focus on adding other planes to other nations (like counters for the upcoming MiG-19).

Why not both? Instead of adding a whole new Tank Tech Tree, i want to see them add a nice selection of Supersonic jets for each nation. About 4 or 5 each.They could do 2 attackers, and 2 or 3 fighters.

Edited December 17, 2018 by DarkSideSix

[Ska_King_Felix 1,450]

4 hours ago, DarkSideSix said:

Why not both? Instead of adding a whole new Tank Tech Tree, i want to see them add a nice selection of Supersonic jets for each nation. About 4 or 5 each.They could do 2 attackers, and 2 or 3 fighters.

F-5 is way, way overkill right now.  We don’t even have things like the Hunter F.6, F-86K and Folland Gnat yet.

[RanchSauce39 397]

58 minutes ago, Ska_King_Felix said:

F-5 is way, way overkill right now.  We don’t even have things like the Hunter F.6, F-86K and Folland Gnat yet.

 

 

perhaps i should have clarified in the poll ( it was written in the first sentence of the actual post however).

 

 

This is just thinking about the future. No ones saying F5E is needed to fight Current meta of Javelins and Mig19's, but in the future against later model mig21's at a higher b.r

 

 

[Ska_King_Felix 1,450]

Well, I definitely want this aircraft in game (not denying it).  But it has to come later.

[RanchSauce39 397]

Videos of aggressor f5s in action

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

I want it, but it has to come later.

 

My only issue with the performance of it is that wing limit speed. So it did 1,700 km/h at altitude? Well it rips at Mach 1.4 which is 1,728 km/h

 

+1

 

My country operated it, it was retired only in 2015

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

26 minutes ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

Well it rips at Mach 1.4 which is 1,728 km/h

 

Citation needed

 

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

1 hour ago, TyphoonCro said:

Citation needed

 

 

[TyphoonCro 6,833]

1 minute ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

 

Isn't air less dense, the higher you go?

I may be wrong, but higher you go, your indicated speed could be lower but your mach number could be higher

[RanchSauce39 397]

3 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

I want it, but it has to come later.

 

My only issue with the performance of it is that wing limit speed. So it did 1,700 km/h at altitude? Well it rips at Mach 1.4 which is 1,728 km/h

 

Quote

+1

 

My country operated it, it was retired only in 2015

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

People really need to stop thinking that max top speed = never exceed speed that would rip the air frame. Just like the F86  Sabre could IRL break mach 1 in a steep dive, and still pull out without ripping any wings or control surfaces. despite its "top speed" being much lower.

 

Dont Get into bad habits thinking top speed = RIP airframe in real life from playing games like war thunder.

 

Also to note lack of top speed wont be that much of a hindrance. It will require a different play style to a potential F4 phantom in Us tree. instead of relying on pure energy, top speed,  and climb rate for vertical maneuvers the F5 will be about taking advantage of superior l horizontal maneuverability, for dog fighting. It can still be a worthy adversary even against the likes of a Mig21BIS, and still proved to be so in aggressor use in dissimilar air combat training.

 

 

a translation of  Russian test pilots account.:

 

 

Spoiler

 

In the summer of 1976 a disassembled American F-5 fighter jet was delivered to our base at Aktubinsk. To be correct, it was F-5E - the latest variant with increased engines thrust. By the size it was smaller than MiG-21, had two engines installed side-by-side in the fuselage, a sharp swept-down nose and short tapered wings. The war in Vietnam had finished, and the United States Air Forces were leaving this long-suffering country, hastily abandoning several aircraft of this type on one of the airfields. One of them was handed over to the USSR together with its pilot manual. There were no technical descriptions, but our engineers figured everything out, assembled it to the last bolt and made it flyable, bringing not only the foreign hard pieces together, but also tons of electric wiring. A test brigade was formed to conduct special flight tests, and a program was written, which assumed 35-40 test flights. I was one of the test pilots, our lead was Nikolay Stogov.

 

After a proper training I was trusted to perform the first speed run on the runway and then a run with a 3-6 feet jump. These precautions had their reasons in our uncertainty, that all the systems had been assembled and connected correctly.

 

And finally, we were alone. The "Foreigner" hid within. From the manual I knew, that it had had no problems in operation whatsoever. But I also knew that every manufacturer had their own zest in the product. Unlike our fighters in production, the "Foreigner" had brakes on pedals, which we had on heavy aircraft only. The cockpit was not cluttered by various switches and circuit breakers unneeded in flight. They were all concentrated in a single horizontal "stock" away from the working area. I understood that F-5 was a way not the most modern plane and that it was inferior even to MiG-21, but, nonetheless, I liked the cockpit layout. I decided to make the run on the second runway, which was the longest one. "There is never too much runway ahead," I thought, taxiing to the runway. It was the winter of 1976-77. Of course, there was no reason to hide I was proud that the only aircraft of this type available in the USSR was trusted to me.

 

I turned on the extension of the nose strut - the electrohydraulic retractor engaged, and the nose of the aircraft started to "crawl" up. "How about that?" I shook my head surprised. "Couldn't you do without it on this little one?" As for me, not a common way to reduce your takeoff roll. In the USSR, only Myasischev used this on M-3 and M-4 - the heavy long-range bombers with a tandem gear layout, thus with very short nose struts.

 

"Alright," I thought, "we kneeled, so let's run. It is awkward to fool around this way." I increased thrust and released the brakes. The aircraft started to roll. It rolled evenly, reluctantly gaining speed. Aha! That's why they raise the nose strut! The engines are feeble, and the wing is too small. I lifted the nosewheel off the ground and held the airplane from the premature liftoff. Enough for this time. I powered back and lowered the nose. And then... what the heck? The entire nose started to shake and vibrate, then it started to wander left and right so violently, I thought it would just fall the hell off in a moment. Something was screeching and rumbling below. My first thought was about the nosewheel shimmy, but then I realized the nosewheel had been destroyed. I pulled the drag chute handle. "Not the brakes... Main wheels damage is the last thing we need: we don't have spares," the thoughts were rushing in my mind. Gradually reducing the speed, I stopped. I switched everything off, opened the canopy and impatiently jumped down onto the tarmac. I looked and I was puzzled: the wheel was intact. "That's strange! So what were you so unhappy with?" I looked at the "Foreigner" suspiciously. It turned out that he was unhappy with our runway condition: rough grooves and seams were so deep, and the surface of the concrete was decayed, so he just didn't stand it. One bolt was cut off, and the strut together with the wheel was turning around.

 

- "Nice! Ours don't do things like that," I gave his nose a pat and whispered: "Don't worry, we'll find a new bolt for you and you'll gallop around again!"

 

As I got to know the "Foreigner" I grew up in my respect to him both as to the flying machine and as to the fighter jet. Unapt to aggressive maneuvering when in "cruise" configuration (flaps and slats up), he would have changed when the pilot put it into the "maneuvering" configuration (flaps and slats down). Then from a heavy clodhopper he turned into a swallow. Checking out the capabilities of the optical sight, I enjoyed keeping the reticle on the target while attacking with a 6g pull, whereas on MiG-21 it would disappear from the view at 3g.

 

After determining the basic specification we decided to set up for a mock air-to-air combat with MiG-21bis. I would fight on my "native" MiG-21, and Nikolay Stogov - on F-5. The close air combat started head-on in equal positions. Every flight ended with the same result: MiG-21 lost, although he had much higher thrust-to-weight ratio. I laid myself out just to keep the initial position. I took the most out of the aircraft, took all he could give, but the targeting angle grew steadily and in a few minutes the "bandit" was on my tail. Only tactics could save me. What I was stricken by the most is that the result of the mock fights took not only the generals by surprise (one could explain this somehow), but also the military research departments of the Air Force and even the aviation engineers. They would review the data records for thousand times, ask the pilots, especially me. Frankly, I was somewhat confused as well, but when I tried the F-5, I realized that it was not an ordinary one.

 

So, what was happening in flight? At the speeds of 800 km/h (430 kts) and above the fight was on equal terms, nobody had explicit advantages, but the fighting was not literally maneuvering because of the large radii of the maneuvers. We would both stay at the equal maximum allowable g-loads. Whilst at the speeds below 750 km/h (400 kts) one couldn't sustain these g-loads even with the afterburner. And the lower the speed was the faster it decayed, thus lowering the maximum available g-load. It turned out that the aerodynamics was what won the day, not the thrust/weight ratio. But how was I to explain all this to the people above? They wouldn't have patted our backs for this. Then the MiG company representatives suggested:

 

- "Let's set MiG-23M against him."

 

- "But they cannot be compared to one another; they are from different generations." The chief of our research institute objected.

 

The chief of our institute, colonel general I. Gaidayenko had been a fighter-pilot during World War II and a wingman of the very P. Kutakov, who was the supreme commander of the Air Force at the time of our struggle with the F-5. The result of the test flights was supposed to be reported to Kutakov.

 

- "So what? We will kick his **** anyway!" 2nd lead engineer of MiG-23M spoke out, rubbing his hands in expectance of the revenge.

 

Well, the **** was kicked, for sure... but one of our own. The result was the same with the only exception that the agony lasted for 4-5 minutes. You have also to keep in mind that I had been considered a pilot capable of any stall and spin recovery and I had been permitted to break any angle of attack limitations. In the dogfight, I set the optimal wing sweep manually, but all in vain. The foreigner would slowly, but steadily, approach my tail. After these flights all calmed down for some time, all discussions ceased. The chief of the RI ordered to promptly compile a statement on the tests and directed me and Stogov to Moscow, to the Central Research Institution No. 30, which was involved in elaboration of the long-term problems of aviation advancement.

 

Paying a visit to one of its departments we asked, what they could tell us about the MiG-21 advantages over the F-5E.

 

- "Oh!" The military scientists immediately exclaimed. "With pleasure! There is a fray right now between Ethiopia and Somalia, and these very aircraft fight each other there. And we are busy preparing recommendations for the pilots on how to successfully fight the F-5 in aerial combat."

 

- "And what you've got?" I asked with an interest.

 

- "Take a look at the graph of the attack success probability. See? We beat him everywhere."

 

- "Indeed," I droned, looking at the so familiar graph in front of me and feeling somewhat hurt for the "Foreigner".

 

- "And what're the odds?" My friend asked, making a face of a village gull.

 

- "We've got much better thrust-to-weight ratio," the scientist replied in a voice of a mentor, who knew his worth.

 

- "Alright, then could you read this Statement and give us your final conclusion, please? And..."

 

- "And we'll go have a lunch," Nikolay suggested, "You know, on an errand it's like in defense: the meal is the ultimate thing."

 

This was the end of our work on the comparative evaluation of the "Foreigner" and our Soviet fighters. I don't know what kind of discussions were held "up there", but I know for sure, that the recommendations for the Ethiopian pilots were changed. Our "experts" suggested not to engage in a close dogfight, but to use the "hit-and-run" tactics instead. What about MiG-23, everyone preferred to forget about it. You bet! It had been supposed to fight even more advanced aircraft! Our Statement was classified as top secret and removed somewhere away from the eyes. The "Foreigner" was given to the aviation industry specialists with a strict clause: no flying, but to disassemble and study the structural features to use the knowledge in further projects. Some time passed, and the Su-25 close air support aircraft emerged. It had the wheel brakes on the rudder pedals, "maneuvering" wing configuration and a different approach to the cockpit layout. In the terms of the pilot workstation our engineers went even further, and nowadays the cockpit of MiG-29 can serve as an exemplar for similar foreign combat aircraft. The same can be said about the aerodynamics. The aerodynamic capabilities of Su-27 fighter are considered unexcelled so far. It appears that what is clear for one is a revelation for the other. I believe that similar situations arose in the USA as well, as they got our aircraft at times from MiG-21 to MiG-29. We had luck only once.

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2413167&postcount=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

 

 

wiki as a undying proof when there is a flight manual with performance charts available as one of the listed sources in my OP?

 

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=4064

 

Page 409 for pertinent page

.

 

besides what you provided thats F5A,  which is slower than the F5E . F5E can reach mach 1.6

Edited January 2, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

On 02/01/2019 at 18:45, RanchSauce39 said:

besides what you provided thats F5A,  which is slower than the F5E . F5E can reach mach 1.6

 

I thought they had the same wing limit speed? 

[Milocat 4,857]

This would be a good tier 6 jet.  +1.

[Wilhuff_Tarkin_ 467]

+1

( OFC when appropriate counterparts get added from other nations) Mig-28 is an abvious USSR couterpart they are very similar designs....

[CountBuggula 33]

16 hours ago, Wilhuff_Tarkin_ said:

+1

( OFC when appropriate counterparts get added from other nations) Mig-28 is an abvious USSR couterpart they are very similar designs....

Definitely once there's counterparts available.  A Mig-28 as an event plane would be hilariously awesome.

[CountBuggula 33]

On 08/03/2019 at 17:14, CountBuggula said:

Definitely once there's counterparts available.  A Mig-28 as an event plane would be hilariously awesome.

Ok, for those who are confused, and miss the joke, the F-5 was used as a stand-in for Russian adversary aircraft in the movie Top Gun (and called Mig-28, which is fictional - there was no Mig-28 in reality) because at the time of filming there was no access to real Soviet aircraft due to the Cold War.  CGI wasn't really a thing yet, and so their choice was to either use models or paint some lesser-known US aircraft to look like Migs.  They chose the latter.

[RanchSauce39 397]

7 hours ago, CountBuggula said:

Ok, for those who are confused, and miss the joke, the F-5 was used as a stand-in for Russian adversary aircraft in the movie Top Gun (and called Mig-28, which is fictional - there was no Mig-28 in reality) because at the time of filming there was no access to real Soviet aircraft due to the Cold War.  CGI wasn't really a thing yet, and so their choice was to either use models or paint some lesser-known US aircraft to look like Migs.  They chose the latter.

 

except there was a very similar scheme used IRL to the "mig28" one used in Top gun

 

 

 

[PaganMin_ 483]

It's a must now to counter the Mitsubishi. Both a pretty similar. I wonder why the US didn't get this plane with 1.87.

On 18/03/2019 at 16:54, CountBuggula said:

Ok, for those who are confused, and miss the joke, the F-5 was used as a stand-in for Russian adversary aircraft in the movie Top Gun (and called Mig-28, which is fictional - there was no Mig-28 in reality) because at the time of filming there was no access to real Soviet aircraft due to the Cold War.  CGI wasn't really a thing yet, and so their choice was to either use models or paint some lesser-known US aircraft to look like Migs.  They chose the latter.

Someone should make a suggestion for the Airwolf attack helicopter.

[ZUUT23 25]

I hope this comes next patch to counter the T2K