Will the F-5 ever go away?

[Daryl Hunt]

Not today. The F-5 beat out the F-16 for the agressors squadron for the Navies Top Gun. Starting sometime this year, the F-5 assumes those roles. These are F-5Es and Fs that were made in the 60s. And coming from the Air Force that also still uses them, they operate lower than any other jet in operations. The AF uses them to keep their Bomber and Tanker Pilots concurrent in flying hours to qualify for their flight pay when money gets tight. Plus, the Agressor Squadron for the AF uses the F-5 because it's about the same size as the Mig-21 with similar flight capabilities unless the F-5 is upgraded.

Then there is Brazil. And you thought that Iran was the only one flying them. They are all over the globe in many other Air Forces.

How the F-5E “Tiger” Fighter Jet Keeps Getting Better (Despite Getting Older)

January 13, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Latin America Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: BrazilF-5AWACSFrench MirageArms Sales

How the F-5E “Tiger” Fighter Jet Keeps Getting Better (Despite Getting Older)


Brazil has some big plans for this old fighter plane.


by Charlie Gao

The F-5E “Tiger” is one of U.S. aerospace industry’s largest export successes. Designed as a budget lightweight fighter, the F-5E is still operated by many nations around the world despite the availability of more modern fighters.

Its continued service is enabled by miniaturization of electronics, which allows for more powerful radars and more systems to be integrated into the same spaces as the original system. This approach is exemplified by the F-5EM operated by Brazil, one of the most advanced variants of the F-5E flying today.


Brazil first acquired F-5Es in 1974 after comparing it to rival NATO light fighters like the Harrier, Jaguar, Fiat G.91 and A-4 Skyhawk. Forty-two units were purchased originally, followed by twenty-six more in the 1980s.

These aircraft served in without much modification until CRUZEX I aerial exercise in 2002. The exercise simulated conflict between the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) and a French Armee de l’Air force equipped with Mirage 2000s with E-3 Sentry AWACS support. The results were abysmal , with France expected to take air superiority in a real conflict despite some good simulated kills by FAB Mirage IIIs.

This sparked a significant push to modernize the FAB’s capability to defend Brazil’s airspace. Modernization of the Mirage III was explored but deemed to be cost ineffective. The F-5E showed much more promise.

In the 1990s, Chile, facing a similar need to modernize, created their own variant, the Tiger III Plus with assistance from Israel Aircraft Industries . A similar program with newer technology could be done with the FAB’s F-5Es.

The program began in the 2000s when a contract was awarded to the Brazilian firm Embraer to modernize forty-six F-5Es with European and Israeli technology. The key aspect of the modernization was to “extend” the legs of the F-5E from being a short-range “point defense” fighter to something that could cover more ground over Brazil’s rather large borders.

To this end, the radar was upgraded to the SELEX Grifo-F, which involved lengthening the nose cone of the aircraft to account for the larger radar antenna. But while the new radar was better, the F-5EM was designed with a secure data link to connect to FAB E-99 AWACS aircraft and ground radars, which were envisioned to vector the F-5s onto a target.

The role of the data link in FAB doctrine is significant. In addition to the dominance displayed by the French Mirages working with E-3s during CRUZEX, the FAB always favored vectoring their fighters from more powerful radars due to poor experience with the original F-5E radar. During a night intercept of a British Vulcan bomber in 1982, the F-5E’s onboard radar was unable to effectively search for the massive aircraft, the fighters were reliant on ground radar.

To take advantage of the additional range given by the data link and radar systems, the Israeli Derby active-radar medium-range air-to-air missile was integrated into the F-5EM. While lighter and shorter ranged than heavier missiles like the AMRAAM and R-27, the missile gave the FAB much-needed beyond-visual-range capability in air-to-air combat, the third nation after Chile and Venezuela to gain such capability.

Many other systems were added or upgraded on the F-5EM. In addition to the Derby, Israeli Python III short-range missiles were integrated. The Israeli DASH helmet mounted display was installed in the cockpit to cue those missiles, making the F-5EM a formidable close range fighter.

A radar-warning receiver, onboard oxygen generation system, hands-on throttle and stick, and INS/GPS navigation are all included. The addition of all these systems came at a cost though. The starboard M39A2 20mm cannon was removed to make space for electronics in the jet.

Finally to address the F-5E’s meager internal fuel capacity, provision for air-to-air refueling was added.

The F-5E modernization program continued through the 2000s and 2010s, with the final jet being delivered in 2013. Eleven additional F-5Es were acquired from the Jordanian Air Force in 2009 to increase the number of the type in FAB service.

Brazilian experts stress that the FAB’s capability gap with neighboring air forces was only narrowed by the upgrade and that the F-5EM still remains an outclassed fighter in modern air combat due to its shortcomings and old-school design. Regardless, it was the best the FAB could do on a limited budget and the resulting craft was quite good for the money spent.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Corporate welfare.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Corporate welfare.

Comrade, is that the bet you got? The F-5EM can turn and burn and fight with anything in the Russian Inventory up close and personal. The upgrades includes AESA radar, R-27 Missiles with Helmet targeting and much much more. And it's one little bird that hard to see so it's going to get close enough to use it's teeth. That little bird has been a pain in the ass for every pilot that's ever gone through Red Flag. And it just keeps getting better. The Navy version for the contractor for the aggressor for Top Gun will have those little nasty F-5EMs just like Brazil has. There are a few other countries with the F-5EM and they would like to replace them by 2025 but can't seem to find a suitable replacement. This is another time of building it right in the first place.

Yah, corporate welfare. If Corporations had to rely on programs like the F-5 program they would starve to death.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Corporate welfare.

Comrade, is that the bet you got? The F-5EM can turn and burn and fight with anything in the Russian Inventory up close and personal. The upgrades includes AESA radar, R-27 Missiles with Helmet targeting and much much more. And it's one little bird that hard to see so it's going to get close enough to use it's teeth. That little bird has been a pain in the ass for every pilot that's ever gone through Red Flag. And it just keeps getting better. The Navy version for the contractor for the aggressor for Top Gun will have those little nasty F-5EMs just like Brazil has. There are a few other countries with the F-5EM and they would like to replace them by 2025 but can't seem to find a suitable replacement. This is another time of building it right in the first place.

Yah, corporate welfare. If Corporations had to rely on programs like the F-5 program they would starve to death.

Most of US military spending is corporate welfare and we don't even know where it goes. Ask the Pentagon.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Corporate welfare.

Comrade, is that the bet you got? The F-5EM can turn and burn and fight with anything in the Russian Inventory up close and personal. The upgrades includes AESA radar, R-27 Missiles with Helmet targeting and much much more. And it's one little bird that hard to see so it's going to get close enough to use it's teeth. That little bird has been a pain in the ass for every pilot that's ever gone through Red Flag. And it just keeps getting better. The Navy version for the contractor for the aggressor for Top Gun will have those little nasty F-5EMs just like Brazil has. There are a few other countries with the F-5EM and they would like to replace them by 2025 but can't seem to find a suitable replacement. This is another time of building it right in the first place.

Yah, corporate welfare. If Corporations had to rely on programs like the F-5 program they would starve to death.

Most of US military spending is corporate welfare and we don't even know where it goes. Ask the Pentagon.

I think you need to take a break since you can't seem to come up with anything constructive, Comrade.

 

[DrainBamage]

Corporate welfare.

Why does one get the sense you regurgitate a lot of catch phrases you've heard on youtube?

 

[Dayton3]

Corporate welfare.

Comrade, is that the bet you got? The F-5EM can turn and burn and fight with anything in the Russian Inventory up close and personal. The upgrades includes AESA radar, R-27 Missiles with Helmet targeting and much much more. And it's one little bird that hard to see so it's going to get close enough to use it's teeth. That little bird has been a pain in the ass for every pilot that's ever gone through Red Flag. And it just keeps getting better. The Navy version for the contractor for the aggressor for Top Gun will have those little nasty F-5EMs just like Brazil has. There are a few other countries with the F-5EM and they would like to replace them by 2025 but can't seem to find a suitable replacement. This is another time of building it right in the first place.

Yah, corporate welfare. If Corporations had to rely on programs like the F-5 program they would starve to death.

Most of US military spending is corporate welfare and we don't even know where it goes. Ask the Pentagon.

How is that possible? Most U.S. military spending is for personnel not weapons systems.

 

[Mushroom]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

 

[Mushroom]

Corporate welfare.

Comrade, is that the bet you got? The F-5EM can turn and burn and fight with anything in the Russian Inventory up close and personal. The upgrades includes AESA radar, R-27 Missiles with Helmet targeting and much much more. And it's one little bird that hard to see so it's going to get close enough to use it's teeth. That little bird has been a pain in the ass for every pilot that's ever gone through Red Flag. And it just keeps getting better. The Navy version for the contractor for the aggressor for Top Gun will have those little nasty F-5EMs just like Brazil has. There are a few other countries with the F-5EM and they would like to replace them by 2025 but can't seem to find a suitable replacement. This is another time of building it right in the first place.

Yah, corporate welfare. If Corporations had to rely on programs like the F-5 program they would starve to death.

Most of US military spending is corporate welfare and we don't even know where it goes. Ask the Pentagon.

Well, this is where you really look silly then.

You see, the F-5 was never made for the US military. They never used more than a handful for training purposes. This was a fighter built almost exclusively for export, and not our own use. We built thousands of them, but never had more than a couple of dozen ourselves.

So I have absolutely no idea what your claims are even supposed to mean, when the item in question was never really used by the US in the first place.

Might as well scream that the Ford Prefect was corporate welfare.

 

[Mushroom]

Corporate welfare.

Why does one get the sense you regurgitate a lot of catch phrases you've heard on youtube?

Because he is. He does not even seem to understand that the US never really used this fighter.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Corporate welfare.

Comrade, is that the bet you got? The F-5EM can turn and burn and fight with anything in the Russian Inventory up close and personal. The upgrades includes AESA radar, R-27 Missiles with Helmet targeting and much much more. And it's one little bird that hard to see so it's going to get close enough to use it's teeth. That little bird has been a pain in the ass for every pilot that's ever gone through Red Flag. And it just keeps getting better. The Navy version for the contractor for the aggressor for Top Gun will have those little nasty F-5EMs just like Brazil has. There are a few other countries with the F-5EM and they would like to replace them by 2025 but can't seem to find a suitable replacement. This is another time of building it right in the first place.

Yah, corporate welfare. If Corporations had to rely on programs like the F-5 program they would starve to death.

Most of US military spending is corporate welfare and we don't even know where it goes. Ask the Pentagon.

Well, this is where you really look silly then.

You see, the F-5 was never made for the US military. They never used more than a handful for training purposes. This was a fighter built almost exclusively for export, and not our own use. We built thousands of them, but never had more than a couple of dozen ourselves.

So I have absolutely no idea what your claims are even supposed to mean, when the item in question was never really used by the US in the first place.

Might as well scream that the Ford Prefect was corporate welfare.

The F-5 was built from the T-38A which was a resounding success as a trainer. Almost every Cargo and Bomber outfit had at least one T-38 and a T-37 so that their pilots could keep up their flying hours on the cheap. Due to the pressure of losses of Aircraft for ground attack for Vietnam, both were modified for Attack Birds and WERE used by USAF. The reason the F-5 was created was that it was a cheap, fast, reliable alternative to a more expensive weapons system that would have take more time and money to bring onto line. But the F-5 was tied directly (for the US) to Vietnam. When that ended, there were hundreds that ended up surplus. The US had the funding for the F-15, F-16 and F-14. But for the other countries the F-5 was a Godsend considering the Mig-21 was a bit of a pilot killer.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

You been watching too many movies. There never was a Mig-28. Top Gun (the movie) was fiction from start to finish.

 

[westwall]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

You been watching too many movies. There never was a Mig-28. Top Gun (the movie) was fiction from start to finish.

He said the F5's were used as stand inside for the MiG 28 in the movie, not that there was a Mig 28.

Tac Air is based up in Stead, and they bought all of the Royal Jordanian Airforce F5's. They are modernizing them as we speak with full glass cockpits, and the ability to use the F35 flight helmet with the data link capabilities.

 

[Dayton3]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

You been watching too many movies. There never was a Mig-28. Top Gun (the movie) was fiction from start to finish.

Not quite true. The accident that killed Goose (Anthony Edwards), that is a compressor stall resulting in a flat spin and the F-14s RIO hitting his head and being killed during ejection actually happened and IIRC was suggested by some of the movies Navy advisers to replace the scripted scene where Mavericks fighter collided with another plane.

 

[Mushroom]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

You been watching too many movies. There never was a Mig-28. Top Gun (the movie) was fiction from start to finish.

I know that. Holy hell.

But in the school, just like in real life they were using the F-5 as OPFOR to simulate Soviet aircraft. Just as the Army in that era had mock-up kits to make various US tanks look like Warsaw Pact tanks.

 

[Mushroom]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

You been watching too many movies. There never was a Mig-28. Top Gun (the movie) was fiction from start to finish.

He said the F5's were used as stand inside for the MiG 28 in the movie, not that there was a Mig 28.

Tac Air is based up in Stead, and they bought all of the Royal Jordanian Airforce F5's. They are modernizing them as we speak with full glass cockpits, and the ability to use the F35 flight helmet with the data link capabilities.

What some seem to miss is that for the US, OPFOR ("Opposing Forces") has been a big part of US training doctrine for decades. Generally units composed of instructors, who actually train and operate in the tactics of our potential adversaries. And as most times we can not actually get enough of their equipment to train with, we simulate it with the closest one of our own.

The F5 was used in training units. As I said, mostly adversarial ones. Top Gun is the most well known example, but the Marines and Air Force had the exact same kinds of units, with the same mission. They were not trained in combat in the F5 to do "F5 combat". They trained in it using Soviet doctrine, to simulate Soviet and Soviet trained forces. If needed for combat, the pilots would be yanked out of those F5 units, given a refresher in the most appropriate mainline fighter, and sent to combat in that.

And all 3 of our "Air Forces" used the F5, we never created "Fighter Units" around them. We made them for export. We of course used them, but that was not what it was designed for. Kind of like another vehicle that was a common sight from the late 1970's until the mid 1980's. The CUC-V.

The military bought tons of those then, to fill the gap from when the classic "Jeep" was retired, and the HMMWV adopted. And if it looks like a standard 1 ton truck, that is exactly what it was. Dodge then later Chevy trucks, off the same factory floors as made the ones for commercial sale. Just a few minor changes for the military. But do not mistake these as being "made for the military", they were just like any other truck.

The only major difference was the paint, and that there were no keys for them, and the switch for the headlights was removed and relocated to the standard military cluster.

Heck, I also know for a fact that the US Army "owns" several of the PATRIOT launchers of the style made specific for Germany. I saw at least a dozen of them complete in Army paint, with Army registration data. But that does not mean we will ever use them other than for testing and training.

 

[Vrenn]

Not likely.

The F-5 was primarily built as a lightweight jet fighter for export. While the US Navy has used it (and considered it in the event escort carriers ever returned to service), most of them were sold to other countries. Well over a dozen still use them to this day (from Vietnam and Iran to South Korea and Mexico. Easy to maintain, very adaptable, and still on par with most of the equipment their most likely adversaries would be using. And they have even been copied, as F-5 captured by Vietnam were sent to the Soviets, and used in updating the MiG-21 into the MiG-23 and MiG-28.

Ironically, the US military never really used them. The only units to ever use them were all "Adversary" units, who primarily used them to simulate MiG-21-23-28 fighters for training purposes. The Air Force, Navy, and Marines all had units that used the F-5, but only in that role and never as an actual "combat unit". This can even be seen by anybody who watched the movie "Top Gun". Those "Soviet Fighters" they were going against in the school? Northrop F-5 fighters.

You been watching too many movies. There never was a Mig-28. Top Gun (the movie) was fiction from start to finish.

He said the F5's were used as stand inside for the MiG 28 in the movie, not that there was a Mig 28.

Tac Air is based up in Stead, and they bought all of the Royal Jordanian Airforce F5's. They are modernizing them as we speak with full glass cockpits, and the ability to use the F35 flight helmet with the data link capabilities.

What some seem to miss is that for the US, OPFOR ("Opposing Forces") has been a big part of US training doctrine for decades. Generally units composed of instructors, who actually train and operate in the tactics of our potential adversaries. And as most times we can not actually get enough of their equipment to train with, we simulate it with the closest one of our own.

The F5 was used in training units. As I said, mostly adversarial ones. Top Gun is the most well known example, but the Marines and Air Force had the exact same kinds of units, with the same mission. They were not trained in combat in the F5 to do "F5 combat". They trained in it using Soviet doctrine, to simulate Soviet and Soviet trained forces. If needed for combat, the pilots would be yanked out of those F5 units, given a refresher in the most appropriate mainline fighter, and sent to combat in that.

And all 3 of our "Air Forces" used the F5, we never created "Fighter Units" around them. We made them for export. We of course used them, but that was not what it was designed for. Kind of like another vehicle that was a common sight from the late 1970's until the mid 1980's. The CUC-V.

The military bought tons of those then, to fill the gap from when the classic "Jeep" was retired, and the HMMWV adopted. And if it looks like a standard 1 ton truck, that is exactly what it was. Dodge then later Chevy trucks, off the same factory floors as made the ones for commercial sale. Just a few minor changes for the military. But do not mistake these as being "made for the military", they were just like any other truck.

The only major difference was the paint, and that there were no keys for them, and the switch for the headlights was removed and relocated to the standard military cluster.

Heck, I also know for a fact that the US Army "owns" several of the PATRIOT launchers of the style made specific for Germany. I saw at least a dozen of them complete in Army paint, with Army registration data. But that does not mean we will ever use them other than for testing and training.

When you go to war, you fight with the lady that brung ya.

 

[Mushroom]

Vrenn Yes, but many things the US makes strictly for export, with no intent on using them for themselves.

And I can bring up yet another one with little thought.

In 1978, we started building 4 new destroyers for the Royal Iranian Navy. These were to be based on the Spruance class, but to include major changes, including a vastly improved HVAC system to deal with the heat in the Persian Gulf. And less emphasis on ASW than the Spruance class, with more emphasis on air defense and surface warfare capabilities.

But after the Iranian Revolution, the new government sent a letter to the State Department stating that they no longer wanted the ships. So now the Navy was stuck with 4 ships that it did not really want. This started the saga of one of the most unique classes of ship in the US Navy, known officially as the "Kidd Class Destroyer". But it was most commonly known as the "Dead Admiral" class, as each ship was named after an Admiral that had died in battle. Or the "Ayatollah class", as they were for Iran, but the Ayatollah cancelled the contract.

Admiral Kidd, who died on his flagship, the USS Arizona. Admiral Callaghan, who died during the surface battle at Guadalcanal on the USS San Francisco. Admiral Scott, who also died at Guadalcanal on the USS Atlanta. And finally, Admiral Chandler, after a kamikaze struck the USS Louisville off of Luzon.

But because of their modifications, they spent most of their career in the Persian Gulf, ironically poised against Iran and Iraq. And as a pre-AEGIS system, they also became a test bed for future AEGIS upgrades and configurations.

Finally in 1999 they were retired after a proposal to sell them to Australia fell through. And after a similar deal to sell them to Greece failed, they were bought by Taiwan. Where the four ships are known as the Kee Lung class destroyer.

This was yet another item that the US never intended on using, it was literally built in the window right before the Arliegh Burke class destroyers, which was from the inception to have been a fully AEGIS class ship. This was made for export, so had some parts that were compatible, but many more that were not. The US was only using them because the purchaser basically ceased to exist between keep laying and delivery.

 

[Dusty]

Not today. The F-5 beat out the F-16 for the agressors squadron for the Navies Top Gun. Starting sometime this year, the F-5 assumes those roles. These are F-5Es and Fs that were made in the 60s. And coming from the Air Force that also still uses them, they operate lower than any other jet in operations. The AF uses them to keep their Bomber and Tanker Pilots concurrent in flying hours to qualify for their flight pay when money gets tight. Plus, the Agressor Squadron for the AF uses the F-5 because it's about the same size as the Mig-21 with similar flight capabilities unless the F-5 is upgraded.

Then there is Brazil. And you thought that Iran was the only one flying them. They are all over the globe in many other Air Forces.

How the F-5E “Tiger” Fighter Jet Keeps Getting Better (Despite Getting Older)

January 13, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Latin America Blog Brand: The Buzz Tags: BrazilF-5AWACSFrench MirageArms Sales

How the F-5E “Tiger” Fighter Jet Keeps Getting Better (Despite Getting Older)


Brazil has some big plans for this old fighter plane.


by Charlie Gao

The F-5E “Tiger” is one of U.S. aerospace industry’s largest export successes. Designed as a budget lightweight fighter, the F-5E is still operated by many nations around the world despite the availability of more modern fighters.

Its continued service is enabled by miniaturization of electronics, which allows for more powerful radars and more systems to be integrated into the same spaces as the original system. This approach is exemplified by the F-5EM operated by Brazil, one of the most advanced variants of the F-5E flying today.


Brazil first acquired F-5Es in 1974 after comparing it to rival NATO light fighters like the Harrier, Jaguar, Fiat G.91 and A-4 Skyhawk. Forty-two units were purchased originally, followed by twenty-six more in the 1980s.

These aircraft served in without much modification until CRUZEX I aerial exercise in 2002. The exercise simulated conflict between the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) and a French Armee de l’Air force equipped with Mirage 2000s with E-3 Sentry AWACS support. The results were abysmal , with France expected to take air superiority in a real conflict despite some good simulated kills by FAB Mirage IIIs.

This sparked a significant push to modernize the FAB’s capability to defend Brazil’s airspace. Modernization of the Mirage III was explored but deemed to be cost ineffective. The F-5E showed much more promise.

In the 1990s, Chile, facing a similar need to modernize, created their own variant, the Tiger III Plus with assistance from Israel Aircraft Industries . A similar program with newer technology could be done with the FAB’s F-5Es.

The program began in the 2000s when a contract was awarded to the Brazilian firm Embraer to modernize forty-six F-5Es with European and Israeli technology. The key aspect of the modernization was to “extend” the legs of the F-5E from being a short-range “point defense” fighter to something that could cover more ground over Brazil’s rather large borders.

To this end, the radar was upgraded to the SELEX Grifo-F, which involved lengthening the nose cone of the aircraft to account for the larger radar antenna. But while the new radar was better, the F-5EM was designed with a secure data link to connect to FAB E-99 AWACS aircraft and ground radars, which were envisioned to vector the F-5s onto a target.

The role of the data link in FAB doctrine is significant. In addition to the dominance displayed by the French Mirages working with E-3s during CRUZEX, the FAB always favored vectoring their fighters from more powerful radars due to poor experience with the original F-5E radar. During a night intercept of a British Vulcan bomber in 1982, the F-5E’s onboard radar was unable to effectively search for the massive aircraft, the fighters were reliant on ground radar.

To take advantage of the additional range given by the data link and radar systems, the Israeli Derby active-radar medium-range air-to-air missile was integrated into the F-5EM. While lighter and shorter ranged than heavier missiles like the AMRAAM and R-27, the missile gave the FAB much-needed beyond-visual-range capability in air-to-air combat, the third nation after Chile and Venezuela to gain such capability.

Many other systems were added or upgraded on the F-5EM. In addition to the Derby, Israeli Python III short-range missiles were integrated. The Israeli DASH helmet mounted display was installed in the cockpit to cue those missiles, making the F-5EM a formidable close range fighter.

A radar-warning receiver, onboard oxygen generation system, hands-on throttle and stick, and INS/GPS navigation are all included. The addition of all these systems came at a cost though. The starboard M39A2 20mm cannon was removed to make space for electronics in the jet.

Finally to address the F-5E’s meager internal fuel capacity, provision for air-to-air refueling was added.

The F-5E modernization program continued through the 2000s and 2010s, with the final jet being delivered in 2013. Eleven additional F-5Es were acquired from the Jordanian Air Force in 2009 to increase the number of the type in FAB service.

Brazilian experts stress that the FAB’s capability gap with neighboring air forces was only narrowed by the upgrade and that the F-5EM still remains an outclassed fighter in modern air combat due to its shortcomings and old-school design. Regardless, it was the best the FAB could do on a limited budget and the resulting craft was quite good for the money spent.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

Top gun is a complete fucking waste of time as no pilot will ever dogfight again.

 

[Mushroom]

Top gun is a complete fucking waste of time as no pilot will ever dogfight again.

*laughs*

*looks up again, laughs even harder*

Oh really now, once again you just inject nonsense and show that you are really John Snow.

The first American air-to-air kill involving manned aircraft in almost two decades opens up a new chapter in American warfare — and perhaps a more dangerous phase of the air war against the Islamic State terror group.

Nobody knows yet what the ramifications will be from the June 18 shootdown of a Syrian Su-22 fighter jet by a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet, but it — along with Air Force F-15s shooting down drones on two recent occasions — quickly raised tensions in the volatile Syrian theater.

Air-to-air combat is back: How will the Air Force respond as the war over Syria heats up?

The first American air-to-air kill involving manned aircraft in almost two decades opens up a new chapter in American warfare — and perhaps a more dangerous phase of the air war against the Islamic State terror group.

www.airforcetimes.com

OK, so "never again", since 2017. So kindly tell me, what has changed so much in 4 years to have made it obsolete?

There were dozens of air to air kills in the Libyan Civil War. At least 3 Ukrainian fighters were show down in air to air action in 2014.

In the modern era, "dogfighting" is actually primarily used against drones. And the same skills needed to dogfight a drone are those needed to dogfight a real person.

So while true, that "dogfighting" against another manned aircraft is rare, the skill itself and the use are not. And as drones are becoming rapidly more sophisticated, the skill is only going to become more critical. Especially as the newer generations of drones become more "stealthy", and the only way to acquire, target, and destroy them will be increasingly visual.

So please, do as you have every other time and inform us all exactly why dogfighting is obsolete, and will never be used again.