Will the F-5 ever go away?

[Dusty]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Tell us then, how does a carrier launch an attack on China or Russia and survive?

It can't

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?

We take a look.

nationalinterest.org

As Obsolete as a Battleship: Why Is the U.S. Navy Still Building Aircraft Carriers?​

The hubris of the “battleship Navy” was such that just nine days before Pearl Harbor, the official program for the 1941 Army-Navy game displayed a full page photograph of the battleship USS Arizona with language virtually extolling its invincibility.

How did that work out

 

[westwall]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

 

[Dusty]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

LOL great decision, everyone who humiliates you with the truth is a Russian troll.

Why would a Russian troll waste time on you by the way? Are you special or something

Anyone feel free to chime in

 

[Mushroom]

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

I would not even say that, because I have seen that user give the same kinds of responses in dozens of threads.

Is just a troll, does not matter who it seems to favor.

 

[Dayton3]

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.

That is what the U.S. thought going into the Vietnam War and look how that worked out for us.

In truth almost every air to air engagement since World War Two has been a close range "knife fighting" engagement.

Vietnam is over, as there is no way to approach either china or russia with a useless carrier. Since the foe can not be approached there is no way to even use a jet
So were there hypersonic missiles or gps in Vietnam?

The past is over

The U.S. Navy has proven it can approach Russian territory without its carriers being detected by either aircraft or satellites.

Nope, but even if that were true and a carrier launched an attack, no jet would be able to land on the sunken carrier. LOL I assume that the carrier turns on the invisibility shield to hide itself from satellites.

You are just really stupid

If you knew anything about naval operations you would know that a carrier and other naval vessels do not need any kind of "invisibility shield" to avoid satellite detection.

Satellites have totally predicable orbital paths and the parts of the Earth they monitor are actually very narrow and restricted and predictable.

 

[Dayton3]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

 

[Vrenn]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

 

[westwall]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

 

[Dusty]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

But F5's are.

Yea okeedokee

 

[Vrenn]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

 

[Dusty]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

Not and get them into the air

 

[westwall]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

Not even one. They can cannibalize all they want. Not one will get in the air.

 

[Vrenn]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

Not even one. They can cannibalize all they want. Not one will get in the air.

Never underestimate your enemy even by a tiny bit.

 

[Dusty]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

Not even one. They can cannibalize all they want. Not one will get in the air.

Never underestimate your enemy even by a tiny bit.

You have absolutely no clue who that is

 

[westwall]

Top gun is a waste of time as are the existence of aircraft carriers that can never approach either china or russia and survive.

How boringly predictable. You ignore my reference, and I challenge you to provide your own.

You then simply repeat yourself. How predictable.

It's a troll. Same mindless drivel over and over. Morons, like him, have been predicting the end of piloted aircraft since the 1950's.

In the UK those idiots took over the Air Ministry and destroyed English aviation.

And not only that, he literally just repeats himself over and over again and insults anybody that does not agree.

Why is already on block, I have no use on wasting time on such children.

Yup. It's a Russian troll. I just placed it on ignore.

So you can not answer the question as to how a carrier can be used to attack a hypersonic equipped adversary and ignoring the truth is your only option.

The Russians don't have active hypersonic weapons. No one does.

Taking this back to the original idea.

The F-5E with upgrades will never haul around the long ranged radar missiles. The missiles are nearly as long as the fighter. But the shorter ranged missiles like the Aim9s and such can be carried. The smallness of the F-5 has it's negatives and positives. And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs tells you why there are more than a few small countries that still keep them around. You would think that the F-14 of the Iranians would be the worry but it would be all those friggin F-5s.

The F-14's aren't capable of flying. They have had no spares in decades.

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

Not even one. They can cannibalize all they want. Not one will get in the air.

Never underestimate your enemy even by a tiny bit.

I don't. I am a pilot however, and am very familiar with keeping things flying. Especially old complex things. I have been a mechanic at the air races almost from the beginning. I work on everything from radials to turbojets.

 

[Mushroom]

Last count, the Iranians might be able to field about 6 F-14s out of over 90.

In other words, none.

Six aircraft is a joke, barely enough to even sustain flight hours for the few pilots who can still fly them, let alone actually send them on actual combat missions.

Iran has been struggling for decades to keep them operational for decades, and it is largely a failed effort. And they have been trying to copy them for almost 2 decades with no success.

 

[Mushroom]

And the fact that it can be modded to compete in a dogfight with a F-15/16/18 for a fraction of the daily operational costs

Not even close. Even the best F-5 that is fully upgraded is not even close to the capabilities of any of those you listed. The closest comparison in capabilities is actually the MiG-21. A Korean War era fighter. The 15, 16, and 18 are decades more advanced.

But also remember, it was never designed or purchased to be used against the "front line fighters" of the major NATO and Warsaw Pact nations. It was built to be a cheap fighter, that could be used by those nations against peer adversaries. Like say South Vietnam. Who's main enemy was North Vietnam, with MiG-21 fighters. The US by that era was already using the F-4, which is more capable than the F-5.

 

[miketx]

Corporate welfare.

My bad, I thought I had all you commie scum blocked.

 

[Dayton3]

The US by that era was already using the F-4, which is more capable than the F-5.

If, IF the right tactics are used. For years in the Vietnam War the Navy and Air Force used piss poor tactics for the F-4 Phantom that took advantage of none of the Phantoms assets.

 

[Mushroom]

If, IF the right tactics are used. For years in the Vietnam War the Navy and Air Force used piss poor tactics for the F-4 Phantom that took advantage of none of the Phantoms assets.

Which is exactly why the Top Gun school was formed in the first place, as well as the Air Force Weapon School.

The problem is that the air forces stopped intensive training in dogfighting techniques, and started to rely to heavily on missiles. Those schools were formed after those hard lessons in Vietnam, in order to not let that happen again.