PDA

View Full Version : F5 'Freedom Fighter'



Xiolablu3
06-04-2006, 12:46 PM
Just watching a program about this amazing little fighter.

Northrop started development in 1954 after touring NATO countries to find out what they needed. The result was a low cost, easy maintanance plane which could operate from poor runways.

Although it sold massive quatities abroad, the USAAF and USN didnt like it and only used it for a trainer at first.

In fact when pitted against the top line US fighters of its day which cost on average 4 times as much, the little baby fighter won out 85% of the time.

The US then decided to use it at the Top Gun school and Jesters/Vipers fighter in the film is an F5. All the instructers fly them at Top Gun.

Eventually Northrop were forbidden to sell the F5 abroad, it was deemed too good to sell, yet the USAAF didnt really want it either.

Amazing little fighter and an amazing program on the history channel.

If you put the F5 against the same amount in $$ of the top line fighters, you would have more than 2 F5s to every 1 top line fighter. It would undoubtadbly win out in aircombat, as it wins most of the time in 1 Vs 1.

At no point has any front line fighter ever been able to clearly outfly the little F5.

Only the F15 eagle has been able to claim a tiny advantage in kill rate over the F5 at training schools, but the F15 is over twice the price.

Xiolablu3
06-04-2006, 12:46 PM
Just watching a program about this amazing little fighter.

Northrop started development in 1954 after touring NATO countries to find out what they needed. The result was a low cost, easy maintanance plane which could operate from poor runways.

Although it sold massive quatities abroad, the USAAF and USN didnt like it and only used it for a trainer at first.

In fact when pitted against the top line US fighters of its day which cost on average 4 times as much, the little baby fighter won out 85% of the time.

The US then decided to use it at the Top Gun school and Jesters/Vipers fighter in the film is an F5. All the instructers fly them at Top Gun.

Eventually Northrop were forbidden to sell the F5 abroad, it was deemed too good to sell, yet the USAAF didnt really want it either.

Amazing little fighter and an amazing program on the history channel.

If you put the F5 against the same amount in $$ of the top line fighters, you would have more than 2 F5s to every 1 top line fighter. It would undoubtadbly win out in aircombat, as it wins most of the time in 1 Vs 1.

At no point has any front line fighter ever been able to clearly outfly the little F5.

Only the F15 eagle has been able to claim a tiny advantage in kill rate over the F5 at training schools, but the F15 is over twice the price.

Viper2005_
06-04-2006, 01:04 PM
Actually, in Topgun, although Charlie mentions that F-5s and A-4s will be used as MiG simulators, Jester and Viper fly A-4s.

F-5s are used as "MiG-28s" in the film.

One of the most interesting result of the F-5 programme was the F-20, a very impressive machine; unfortunately that wasn't enough - it didn't sell.

For quite some time they were offering a dedicated land based F-18 in competition with the MD version. It had a lighter structure, and offered superior performance, but they didn't sell, despite the fact that many F-18 customers had no intention of flying their aeroplanes off carriers.

The F-5 has proven to be very popular as the basis for test aeroplanes due to its combination of high performance and low running costs; the X-29 was based upon F-5 technology. The F-5 is also the basis of DARPA's Quiet Supersonic Platform.

Friendly_flyer
06-04-2006, 03:39 PM
Norway used them for years on end. They where replaced by F-16, though no-one really understood why.

KIMURA
06-04-2006, 03:47 PM
During trainings with/vs. USAAF F-15 in the Swiss Alps the Swiss F-5E had a very good kill/loss ratio versus the more modern US F-15. I guess for countries with little budget air forces the F-5/F-20 is a very good alternative during cold war.

click me (http://images.google.ch/imgres?imgurl=http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2002/swissgames/Crossing-the-road-to-cavern.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2002/swissgames/swiss.htm&h=193&w=300&sz=36&tbnid=5mIQsmd0LOa-QM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=111&hl=de&start=18&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTiger%2BF-5%2Bswiss%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D)


http://www.jetshow.de/images/planes/axalp2003/AXALP2003_028.jpg

geetarman
06-04-2006, 04:19 PM
good fighter. However, poor range, poor avionics. The little guys are much loved (with good reasons), but there were some clear deficiencies.

WarWolfe_1
06-04-2006, 05:22 PM
they also were not versitile enough from what I've read, not enough payload either.

WTE_Galway
06-04-2006, 06:33 PM
my impression was that dollarwise they were competitive

as in .. if you got four F5's for the cost of an F15 then in a fight four F5's could take out one F15

pilotwise .. 4 pilot losses versus one .. the economics may not be so hot

MrOblongo
06-04-2006, 08:08 PM
The most powerfull tigers ever... Chilean F-5 III

http://www.homepagez.com/fighterjocks/chilf5.jpg

More pics:
http://www.fach.cl/galeria/f_5.htm

http://www.fach.cl/galeria/imagenes/combate/f_5/2g.jpg

http://www.fach.cl/galeria/imagenes/combate/f_5/5g.jpg
Note the nice Phyton IV missiles.

Charos
06-04-2006, 08:26 PM
The last F20 in existance (the other two crashed) apparently no fault was attached to the plane for both incidents.

Last F20 - on display (http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/AirAndAircraft/F20/F20.php)

What a great family of AC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Enforcer572005
06-04-2006, 08:43 PM
Um, actually, One F-15 with AIM-120s could take out all 4 F-5s before they ever saw him on thier short range radar (only on the E model)and he'd still have 4 sidewinders left and plenty of 20mm. He could control the fight and commit or leave at will. The info is a little off here, as it was good in close in fights only,and thats with excellent pilots (like top gun instructors). The cant compete wiht an F15,16,18, mig29 etc in the overall combat arena. It was a good training tool for many yrs, but its being replaced in that role by more modern fighters....the navy even leased some F-21 Kfirs from Isreal for yrs to get a higher performance plane at top gun.

They have short range and limited payload, and limited all weather ability. the F-20 was a major and competetive improvement that could have hung wiht 15s, 16s etc in modern combat, but was still shorter ranged, though incredibly economical to operate and maintain. The US govt didnt give any support to it because they wanted to sell F-16s, 18s to increase production and keep the price down on them. It was those considerations that kept the F-20 from being sold.

the last F-5Es were sold to the Mexican Air force....24 of them. there are still many in service in many air forces, but are considered second line aircraft. Many are being modernized due to thier economy.

Check the photos of the chilean F-5Es; those have been extensively modernized with israeali Python-4 air to air missles and refueling probes etc.

Against any modern air force however, they would be mostly used in the attack role....to put them up against F-16s, 15s, Rafales, Typhoons, Mig-29s etc (with well trained pilots) would be disasterous....They would go air to air only in defence in most cases, and if against F-16s,15s etc , they would be terribly outclassed. Chili recently bought a combo of new model and well used F-16s to stay competitive.

In modern warfare, you get what you pay for. And once pilots at top gun and red flag learned proper combat tactics, they could deal wiht the F-5s; in reality, as I pointed out, they could commit or leave at will.

BTW, all versions of the Harrier have always had at least an equal kill loss ration in mock dogfights, and in the Falklands cleaned house. That doesnt mean its a better air superiority fighter than F-15s etc. It was the circumstances and equipment shortcomings of the opposition that infuenced that outcome. All training at redflag and topgun is in a small area and in daylight in good weather. And the aggressor pilots were probably the best in the USAF and USN.

Keep in mind the conditions under which these events occur, in training and in combat.

The Iranian air force also did well against Iraqi Mig-21s in thier long war, but it was still mostly deployed in the attack role due to range and other limitations.

The USAF would be strictly a short range point defense arm wiht no offensive capability if they used F-5s, and they would handily defeated by a modern air force.

Xiolablu3
06-04-2006, 09:32 PM
DOnt you think that the F5 could have had that same radar implemented had they had the support?

F15's have been modernised, but the F5 wasnt. You could also say that the F5 could kill an F15 with a shorter range radar too.

The F5 is an old plane, which has now been discontinued. The F15 has been upgraded over and over.

We are not talking about using F5's now, obviously. But the F5 was ignored from its first production in 1958.

mortoma1958
06-04-2006, 09:54 PM
The F-5 could have easily been fitted with avionics, radar and weapons as good as the F-16 has. Being about the same size as far as the fuselage. And it's easily as manueverable as anything out there.

Enforcer572005
06-04-2006, 10:14 PM
There is a tremendous difference in the volume of hte F-16 compared to the F-5, even an F-20. The F-16 has a much larger engine, far more fuel, and a tremendous amount of avionics that the F-5 couldnt even approach, and even the F-20 didnt match.

Keep in mind the thrust availible to an F-16...no way you can mount the same avionics and capability on the F-5 as an F-16, much less get it off the ground. thats why the F-20 was designed wiht a much bigger engine and greater capability. STill, it didnt have as much room for improvement as the F-16 did.

the F-5 series had one big advantage over everything-economy and ease of maintenance, but you get what you pay for.

The F-5A was basically A T-38 with guns, and the F-5E introduced a small radar. the modernized ones are much improved, but still a target for a modern fighter with BVR capability (long range missles like AIM-120, AA-12, even the later model sparrows).

It was a good fighter for what it was designed, and the F-20 would have been competitive with anything flying, but the F-5 is totally obsolete now and the only F-20 is a poorly displayed museum piece. The F-5 in the same class and similiar performance as the Mig-21, and we all know what has happened to those things everytime they go up against current fighters. MIg-21s and 23s verses F-15s and 16s of the Isreali air force in 82 over lebanon...81 to zip. Even considering the far superior pilots of the isrealis, that and other wars make it clear that 1960s designs just cant compete overall with the planes designed just a decade later. The mig-21 similiarity was why the F5 was used as an aggressor opponent.

To trade in F-16s and 15s for F-5s for economy was what Jimmy Carter wanted to do...seriously.That got stopped thank god. It WAS a good defensive fighter, and has always been considered a short legged second line fighter in most air forces that use it, though highly thought of in its intended but limited roles. In Vietnam they were great. Its a great warplane overall, as long as its limitations are recognized. Its just terribly obsolete today, but it was a good one in its day.

horseback
06-04-2006, 10:44 PM
While the F-5 was a nice bit of technology for the late fifties, it was not designed for future upgrades, as the F-15, F-16, and F-18 were. When the F-15 came out in the early 70s, the whole area behind the pilot was largely empty. Now there's a bunch of avionics, the radar has been upgraded at least once, and the later models have some very fancy displays.

Ditto the F-16 and F-18, which was very much a derivative of the Northrop F-17 design. The Navy liked the navalized F-17, but wanted Northrop to team up with McDonnell-Douglas because of the latter's greater experience with Navy requirements...that was one more shotgun wedding that left the groom (Northrop) holding the bag.

But the Defense Department has never liked Northrop very much since the late forties, so unless they're the only game in town (as with the B-2), they will continue to get short shrift. Which may explain why Northrop-Grumman has a 'bitter' attitude about flight sims using 'their' airplanes...

By the way, those Red Flag and Top Gun F-5 drivers found a way around the restriction on radar warning devices(Aggressor units weren't supposed to have radar warning units on the supposition that older Soviet types still lacked them)-they may not have had the latest and greatest USAF or USN issue, but the pilots found that radar detectors used to warn drivers that the Highway Patrol was about worked just as well...

cheers

horseback

woofiedog
06-05-2006, 03:45 AM
F-5's were also used by the Vietnamese in the Sino-Vietnam War-1979.

By 1974, the VNAF was operating four squadrons with F-5As and RF-5As (82 aircraft, with 36 more in storage), plus three squadrons of F-5Es.

During the final North Vietnamese assault on Saigon in 1975, numerous South Vietnamese aircraft escaped with their pilots to Thailand. Among these were four F-5As plus 22 F-5Es. These planes were returned to the USA where they were placed in storage pending sale to other customers.

Eighty-seven F-5A and B Freedom Fighters were left behind in South Vietnam when the country fell to the North in 1975. The planes that were captured by the conquering North Vietnamese were either pressed into service or offered up for sale on the world market. Some flew in support of the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea in 1978. It appears that F-5 squadrons were scattered throughout North Vietnam's air force, with several composite squadrons operating both F-5s and MiG-21s.

The subsequent fate of these planes is largely unknown. A handful were passed along to the USSR for evaluation, and some ended up in Czecholsovakia and Poland. Their lifetime in Vietnamese service must have been quite short in any case, given the general shortage of parts and the lack of spares.


The Vietnamese Air force (comprising of MIG-19s captured American F-5s and A-37s) launched fierce attacks from the airfields of Ho Chi Minh city (Saigon), Bien Hoa, and Binh Thy in support of their attacking columns. These columns raced along the roads and highways by passing or encircling major centres of resistance till they reached the Thailand border. Pol Pot himself was evacuated to Thai territory by helicopter to evade capture. It was a classic example of what Giap has termed "mobile operations". It was a perfect high tempo Air-land campaign that could serve as a text book model.

Links:
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/Vietname.../American/index.html (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/VietnameseAirForce/American/index.html)
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-3/bakshi.html

tigertalon
06-05-2006, 05:22 AM
Yep, tiger & talon, two of my fav jets all times.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/tigertalon.jpg

Any expert here knows if there was ever F-5 vs MiG-21 duel? Iraq Iran maybe?

JarheadEd
06-05-2006, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
Yep, tiger & talon, two of my fav jets all times.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/tigertalon.jpg

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do know that is TigerTiger there, right? F-5E and an F-5F.

-------------------------------------------------

Bremspropeller
06-05-2006, 05:37 AM
F-5Cs (flown by USAF and south-vietnamese guys) out of Bien Hoa pretty much rawked the house 11!

tigertalon
06-05-2006, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JarheadEd:
You do know that is TigerTiger there, right? F-5E and an F-5F.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif and those missiles (!!!) and wingroot extensions are so obvious...

alert_1
06-05-2006, 05:51 AM
There is a story about how two F5As were "evaluated" in Soviet Union back in late 70's. A mockeup CAC was staged between MiG23ML and F5A. Outcome was 3:0 for F5A and while F5 need tanked only once, MiG23 had to land for refuelling after every fight...

Bremspropeller
06-05-2006, 06:09 AM
CAS anyone?

http://www.cybermodeler.net/aircraft/northrop/images/f-5c_usaf.jpg

Asgeir_Strips
06-05-2006, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Norway used them for years on end. They where replaced by F-16, though no-one really understood why. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were replaced because the F16 was an equally maintenance friendly aircraft, it was lo-cost, and it had better performance in practically all aeras of flight. And it was next-generation too. Probably one of the first third generation of modern fighters, and IIRC the first production fighter to feature Fly-By Wire. So replacing the F5 was probably the best thing that we (norway) did. We should have bought more of them, and newer models of them too though (Block 52's F16CJ's etc)

Asgeir_Strips
06-05-2006, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
There is a story about how two F5As were "evaluated" in Soviet Union back in late 70's. A mockeup CAC was staged between MiG23ML and F5A. Outcome was 3:0 for F5A and while F5 need tanked only once, MiG23 had to land for refuelling after every fight... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no prob mate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
06-05-2006, 09:58 AM
The whole USAF fighter program has been dedicated to destroying opposing aircraft beyond visual range. This has worked beautifully since the IAF F-15s demolished the Syrian AF over Lebanon in '82. US fighter schools, like Top Gun, train fighter pilots in close-in fighting, which, in current American practice is a tactic of last resort in the event your missiles screwed up. Recently, according to the defense press, Indian fighters, Flankers and old MiG-21s have been beating the hell out of US fighter boys in yearly maneuvers. Some are suggesting the US has, once again, gotten lax in its close-in fighting skills like before Vietnam.

tigertalon
06-05-2006, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The whole USAF fighter program has been dedicated to destroying opposing aircraft beyond visual range. This has worked beautifully since the IAF F-15s demolished the Syrian AF over Lebanon in '82. US fighter schools, like Top Gun, train fighter pilots in close-in fighting, which, in current American practice is a tactic of last resort in the event your missiles screwed up. Recently, according to the defense press, Indian fighters, Flankers and old MiG-21s have been beating the hell out of US fighter boys in yearly maneuvers. Some are suggesting the US has, once again, gotten lax in its close-in fighting skills like before Vietnam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, this could also be "overclaimed" with goal to persuade taxpayers of necessity of F-22 (which will, consequently, bring a lot of money to arms industry).

Grendel-B
06-05-2006, 11:02 AM
The F-5 gave sterling service in IRIAF during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988. Definitely the high point of its career, likewise for the F-14.

Both aircraft fought from the beginning of the war until the very end, and have continued in the IRIAF service. While the F-5 obviously lacked in avionics, range and payload, it was still cheap, easy to fly and easy to maintain, and therefore could be flown regularly. They weren't toothless either. One of the most famous incidents was when a Iranian F-5 stumbled on a damaged Iraqi MiG-25 and managed to shoot it down. One in a lifetime chance, that one.

Of course much credit goes to the well trained and aggressive Iranian pilots, who weren't afraid to use their planes to the limits.

It is pretty interesting to see how F-5 and F-14 both gave their largest contribution in the IRIAF service. Even the F-4 Phamtom II gave excellent service to Iran.

leitmotiv
06-05-2006, 11:04 AM
In this case, tt, I think it is sheer embarrassment. The Indians and the Russians are gloating---this hasn't been something the US has advertised.

Exactly, Grendel-B---the F-14, aside from some piece of cake Libyan knock-downs in '81, wasn't exactly the Top Gun of the US arsenal as claimed for so many years, but it was a Top Gun in Iranian hands---how ironic. Luckily for them The Great Satan makes the world's best aircraft!

tigertalon
06-05-2006, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In this case, tt, I think it is sheer embarrassment. The Indians and the Russians are gloating---this hasn't been something the US has advertised.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they didn't, they still plan to sell a number of teenager Fs to the world. However, an inside "report" for the congress is much more likely.

GR142-Pipper
06-07-2006, 02:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Actually, in Topgun, although Charlie mentions that F-5s and A-4s will be used as MiG simulators, Jester and Viper fly A-4s.

F-5s are used as "MiG-28s" in the film.

One of the most interesting result of the F-5 programme was the F-20, a very impressive machine; unfortunately that wasn't enough - it didn't sell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That was an interesting program. It started out as the F-5G and then was redesignated F-20. The reason that this aircraft was created was because of the huge installed base of F-5's around the world and the fact that the U.S. refused to sell the F-16/F-18 to other nations. So, given that, Northrup developed the F-20 only to have the U.S. policy change and allow the F-16's/18's to be offered. This effectively killed any market for the F-20 so Northrup was effectively screwed.

Interesting too that the Northrup F-17 (competitor to the F-16) was developed into the F-18 only to be taken over by McDonnell-Douglas as the prime contractor. Northrup just wasn't connected in Washington D.C.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-07-2006, 02:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In this case, tt, I think it is sheer embarrassment. The Indians and the Russians are gloating---this hasn't been something the US has advertised.

Exactly, Grendel-B---the F-14, aside from some piece of cake Libyan knock-downs in '81, wasn't exactly the Top Gun of the US arsenal as claimed for so many years, but it was a Top Gun in Iranian hands---how ironic. Luckily for them The Great Satan makes the world's best aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Make no mistake...the F-14 (even the A model with the TF-30s) was an extremely effective, first-rate aircraft. When it received the F101 engines in its B and D models, it was peerless in overall capability.

GR142-Pipper

Grendel-B
06-07-2006, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
In this case, tt, I think it is sheer embarrassment. The Indians and the Russians are gloating---this hasn't been something the US has advertised.

Exactly, Grendel-B---the F-14, aside from some piece of cake Libyan knock-downs in '81, wasn't exactly the Top Gun of the US arsenal as claimed for so many years, but it was a Top Gun in Iranian hands---how ironic. Luckily for them The Great Satan makes the world's best aircraft! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Make no mistake...the F-14 (even the A model with the TF-30s) was an extremely effective, first-rate aircraft. When it received the F101 engines in its B and D models, it was peerless in overall capability.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is absolutely fantastic to read how the Iranian pilots handled their F-14As. Top notch pilots, with aggressiviness in their DNA. Not only those chaps used the AIM-54 Phoenix missile very well, they didn't avoid close quarters dogfighting either. Think on it - they made quite a few kills with cannon (!) after running out of missiles, or being too close for even Sidewinders. A single F-14 plunging into Iraqi jet formation, just unbelievable.

Got to respect the F-5 pilots as well, of course.
And the F-4 pilots, who made deep penetration raids into Iraq, even into middle of Baghdad.

Did you know, by the way, that it was the Iranian F-4s who first hit the Iraqi nuclear reactor? And contacted Israel about hitting it? Iranian pilots actually flew the recon flights on the reactor shooting the recon photos, that Israelis then used in their attack.

At least I take my hat off in respect to the Iranian pilots on that war. Amazing pilots, who're way too little respected or even known in the west.

R988z
06-07-2006, 10:00 AM
The F-20 did have at least one major flaw at first, they never changed the wing design and so it had really high wing loading and a turning circle in a sustained turn worse than an F-4 Phantom! They later redesigned it but by then it was too late.

Also on the F-18, Northrop were instructed to work with McDD as they had more experience with Naval and carrier aircraft. There was an agreement between the two companies that Northrop would make any land based models and McDonnell Douglas would take care of the Navalised aircraft. This led to the situation of Northrop and McDonnell Douglas actually competing with each other. It's claimed McDD were using underhand tactics and using connections (as always) to market the naval fighter to foreign countries claiming it's all working and already in service with US forces and large order while the F-18L was still just a mock up with no orders. I believe Northrop actually sued McDonnell Douglas over this, but I can't remember if it was successful or not though.

On the Iranian F-14s, the Iraqis supposedly came up with a successful tactic against them, they would track them with ground radar, then send in Mirage F.1s at extremely low level with everything turned off, no radar or anything in order to avoid detection, then go underneath the F-14s position, then pull into a steep power climb turn on the radar and fire off a couple of missiles then bolt for home.
I have looked this up and but haven't been able to find much in the way of reliable confirmation though, here is a list of all Iraqi air to air victories since 1967 from the very informative but atrociously designed ACIG website.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_404.shtml

huggy87
06-07-2006, 09:11 PM
Nasty little buggers...

They do a pretty good Mig-21 sim. They can usually get at least one good move in before they are out of poop and defensive. I have fought the F-5's of VFC-13 about 3 dozen times in my years flying hornets. They have a tough time finding the merge (not many of them have radar- and a crude one at that), but if they see you first you're in for it. The things are damn near impossible to spot coming to a merge. You will usually find at least one, the one your radar is locked on, but getting a tally on his wingman is dicey.

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 09:26 PM
Fascinating, huggy87. From what I've been reading our pilots had a hard time spotting the smokeless MiG-21 during the Vietnam War. I am a big fan of WINGS OVER VIETNAM by Third Wire---spotting a MiG is a near-miracle without Phantom radar in the sim, and shooting one down is, maybe, a five times a year event. Go Navy!

GR142-Pipper
06-09-2006, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Nasty little buggers...

They do a pretty good Mig-21 sim. They can usually get at least one good move in before they are out of poop and defensive. I have fought the F-5's of VFC-13 about 3 dozen times in my years flying hornets. They have a tough time finding the merge (not many of them have radar- and a crude one at that), but if they see you first you're in for it. The things are damn near impossible to spot coming to a merge. You will usually find at least one, the one your radar is locked on, but getting a tally on his wingman is dicey. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. You know you're in for a good fight if it's against an F-5E and an A-4 (lightened E, Super Fox, M). At the merge, if the F-5E goes vertical and the A-4 turns hard in the horizontal, you know these guys know what they're doing.

GR142-Pipper