KJ_Lesnick
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 79
Does the length of the F-5 or T-38 include the pitot-static tube on the front or not?
KJ Lesnick
KJ Lesnick
Northrop F-5 and T-38
- Thread starter KJ_Lesnick
- Start date
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,606
- Reaction score
- 3,046
I would recommend the following method :Take a 3-view, at best with
given dimensions and then you can calculate for yourself, if length is
with or without the pitot. Bonus point of this method : You can easily
decide, if it is a good or a bad 3-view. ;D
I've done this for the first 3-view of the T-38, I've found on my HD and
taken the very first data, too : length 14.10m, span 7.7m .As span should
be unaffected by the pitot, I've got .. (see sketch below) :
But with the use of more than one 3-view and more than one set of data,
it should be possible to determine the correct dimensions, I think.
given dimensions and then you can calculate for yourself, if length is
with or without the pitot. Bonus point of this method : You can easily
decide, if it is a good or a bad 3-view. ;D
I've done this for the first 3-view of the T-38, I've found on my HD and
taken the very first data, too : length 14.10m, span 7.7m .As span should
be unaffected by the pitot, I've got .. (see sketch below) :
But with the use of more than one 3-view and more than one set of data,
it should be possible to determine the correct dimensions, I think.
Attachments
KJ_Lesnick
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 79
Thank you very much...
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,606
- Reaction score
- 3,046
Another attempt, this time with a 3-view from an old Air World International
issue abd using the given scale ... hm, the calculated span don't match the
given data for the F-5, but I noticed, that very often it isn't mentioned, if
span is with or without tiptanks ! :
Never believe in 3-views, you didn't manipulate yourself !
issue abd using the given scale ... hm, the calculated span don't match the
given data for the F-5, but I noticed, that very often it isn't mentioned, if
span is with or without tiptanks ! :
Never believe in 3-views, you didn't manipulate yourself !
Attachments
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, RAAF chief in 1957-1961, said in an ANZUS meeting in 1958 that "We are willing to build it (Northrop F-5), we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them."
http://www.history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v16/d19
Minister Casey: Have you come to the end of the military?
Secretary Dulles: I thought we were approaching the end of that.
Minister Casey: I wonder if we would have Air Marshal Scherger have a word on that?
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger:10 Perhaps I should stand to make myself seen and heard, sir.
One of our most pressing problems is to find airplanes with which we can replace our present operation infantry. If we want them and buy them in small numbers, we buy them from the manufacturing country, as we have with transports. We have bought the C–130, as with maritime antisubmarine we have bought the P2V5, and I hope we will have some P2V7. But our real difficulty is with the airplane which is now designed as the technical [tactical?] fighter. The Tactical Air Command here use extremely big airplanes; they are complex, they are sophisticated, and they are tremendously expensive both in cost and in the ground environment you need from which to operate them effectively. Both the airfield’s length and the strength of the airfield is such that in the Southeast Asian theater there are about five airfields from which they can operate. And if you add Admiral Felt’s four carriers, that makes nine. But it still leaves the opponent with a fairly easy problem, and we have been desperately seeking a small, versatile airplane which can range over the whole area and which can operate from the thousand and one 6000-foot strips left over from the last war and which still are there and from which commercial airplanes are still operating.
We believe we have found the airplane in a project which has been raised and was having a little difficulty here, the Northrop–156, which is a development of the T–38 supersonic trainer. It is a light airplane and can have a lot of sophistication in it, but we don’t want a lot of sophistication. We want it in a fairly cheap and uncomplicated form. It is the kind of thing we can build and build relatively cheaply, and it is the kind of airplane which could be used right throughout that area, where we ourselves are perhaps the most capable in the use of modern equipment. But we know that the Filipinos and Thais and the Pakistanis are having more than a little trouble in operating the F–86’s. They can fly them all right, but even they require a fairly good airfield, and their ferry range isn’t all that much. We want an airplane that can go across Australia and from the top end of Australia, across the Philippines, up to Singapore.
I found the philosophy in airplanes here is to build a single-seater airplane which costs over two million dollars a copy, which demands, if you are going to make it mobile, in-air refueling capabilities, which we can’t afford, and which requires an eight-to-eleven thousand foot runway. That kind of airplane is beyond our capabilities.
We find ourselves approaching now the time when it looks as though we are going to be priced out of being able to buy airplanes with which we can suitably arm ourselves. It is a fairly disturbing proposition, sir. And it is one which I thought perhaps, and Mr. Casey agreed, should be aired here, because it is the kind of military problem which I believe ANZUS could solve and I believe should solve. We are willing to build it, we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them. That is our problem, sir: How to get the airplane and where to get it—where to get it, rather than how to get it. Europe has nothing. The small NATO fighter which has been proposed to me, the F–91, is just like the Australian boomerang. It is never out of sight. It won’t go far enough. You have these F–105 airplanes, which are over $2,000,000 a copy. Even if we could afford them or build them in sufficient numbers, we couldn’t afford to operate them.
The same applies to the naval tactical fighter, the thing that carries ordinary, or shall I call them conventional bombs. I don’t know why these airplanes are so complex and so sophisticated unless perhaps it is that they are all designed around a nuclear capacity, which of course we don’t possess. We have to base whatever we have on a conventional capacity. I think that is it.
Secretary Dulles: Do you want a reply?
Mr. Irwin: Marshal Scherger brings up a very difficult type of air operation which has been under consideration by the Pentagon for some time in connection with the Northrop F–156 aircraft. I am not completely up to date as to what the current status of the studies are on it, Air Marshal. We had thought of it at one time in connection with NATO and the European countries as well as in the Far East and the Pacific. From the point of view of assisting and financing the manufacture and sale of the planes, the question really revolved around finding a market for it after you had gone all through the expense of development and production in large enough quantities to justify the expense. It was thought at one time that Germany might be interested in the N–156, and possibly Japan. Japan has decided against it and went to Grumman, I believe. Germany also appeared to have rejected it, although I am not sure whether that is completely final or not. So the problem is, if it were available, it is still on the drafting board or has not even been produced in prototype. The question really is, by the time you produce it, is it an adequate airplane for the period of 1961–1962, the period that it is coming in? There is question about it in Europe, and I think there is also considerable question, at least as far as Japan and that part of the Far East area goes.]There is undoubtedly a need for a less-sophisticated aircraft that can meet the problem. Of course, you run into the question, then, as to the control of the air. It would be useless in an area when you are facing a MIG–17 or MIG–19, although obviously you aren’t going to have a big MIG–17 or MIG–19 everywhere you are going to need another airplane. It poses a great problem of financing as well as the tactical application of it. I think the Air Marshal is coming over to the Pentagon tomorrow, I understand.
Air Marshal Sir Fredrick Scherger: That is right; yes.
Ambassador Beale: Mr. Secretary, could I supplement what Air Marshal Scherger said. This is quite a serious problem for Australia.] We have got a first-class aircraft industry in the country. We have a profound political and military necessity for maintaining that aircraft industry in Australia. It is in danger of languishing because we just haven’t got aircraft to make and we can’t plan ahead. A year or two ago we made a decision to buy and probably also to build to sell the F–104, but when a mission came over here,11 we were, I think, very rightly told, “Don’t be silly. Don’t build that one. It is far too sophisticated for you. If that type of aircraft has to be used in a war which you are planning to participate in, we in the United States will be there with that aircraft.” And quite rightly we would have made a great mistake to build the F–104. And we were also told at the same time, ”Why not have a look at the Northrop and one or two others?” This was on the technical level.
The minister in charge of aircraft at the time we were agonizing over this agreed. Now we are told by our air force advisers that this is the type of plane which will suit Australia’s needs. It is not yet, as you say, Mr. Irwin, quite off the drawing board. I think something like one dozen prototypes ought to be made and flown and tested before anybody can say for sure that it is the aircraft. Now what I think the Air Marshal has said is, will the United States give some consideration to making the funds available to take that airplane up to that stage, because if it proves itself I think it is pretty likely, I think it is certain that the Air Force would be advising the Australian Cabinet that “This is the airplane we want and this is the airplane we should build in Australia.” I think New Zealand might become interested in the same sort of aircraft, because it has a characteristic to suit our particular needs. And if we can’t get that one or something very like it, we just have nowhere else to turn for another one to build. We were told to build the Sabres for another year or two or three more. But in the meantime we have a real fight, we have a real professional difficulty in making up our mind as to what type of aircraft it should be.
Mr. Irwin: We have maintained at least to date going ahead on the N–156, trying to resolve this question or problem, but in large measure, it comes down to the financial problem with us, because it is financed by military assistance funds. The question is whether or not if you finance it through the ultimate to have enough prototypes to decide whether it is worth going ahead, are you going to have enough customers to justify the research and development and production of it when you have diminishing military assistance side to keep it up. [sic] They cut the program three hundred million dollars this past year, and we anticipate this next year it will be more difficult.
We have a great many calls on the program throughout the world. We are going to have the situation with Taiwan, and Taiwan has eaten into the program a great deal more than the normal expectancy would have been if there had not been the Taiwan crisis, because equipment had to go to the Chinese Nationalists because of the ammunition situation, etc. So you have a choice of not only do you have a question as to the people that actually would buy this airplane in the time frame of the early 1960’s but you have also the question of priority of the use of the military assistance funds over these few years until there would be production. So it presents a grave complication that the enthusiasm for the airplane itself has to date not been sufficient to justify final decision to go ahead with it.
Minister Casey: So far as the United States is concerned.
Mr. Irwin: The most likely customers had seemed to be Japan and Germany.
Minister Casey: If these aircraft were brought to the prototype stage, isn’t it likely that you would have potential customers in the Asian-SEATO partners in the smaller countries, and it would suit Australia and New Zealand, and there would be more generalized use than your highly-specialized aircraft now.
Mr. Irwin: That seems to be a possibility.
Minister Casey: I think the Air Marshal is seeing Mr. Quarles and Mr. Douglas tomorrow.
Mr. Irwin: I would suggest he also speak to our MAP people.
Minister Casey: I think that is worth raising.
Secretary Dulles: Yes.
[Here follows discussion of unrelated subjects.]
http://www.history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v16/d19
Minister Casey: Have you come to the end of the military?
Secretary Dulles: I thought we were approaching the end of that.
Minister Casey: I wonder if we would have Air Marshal Scherger have a word on that?
Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger:10 Perhaps I should stand to make myself seen and heard, sir.
One of our most pressing problems is to find airplanes with which we can replace our present operation infantry. If we want them and buy them in small numbers, we buy them from the manufacturing country, as we have with transports. We have bought the C–130, as with maritime antisubmarine we have bought the P2V5, and I hope we will have some P2V7. But our real difficulty is with the airplane which is now designed as the technical [tactical?] fighter. The Tactical Air Command here use extremely big airplanes; they are complex, they are sophisticated, and they are tremendously expensive both in cost and in the ground environment you need from which to operate them effectively. Both the airfield’s length and the strength of the airfield is such that in the Southeast Asian theater there are about five airfields from which they can operate. And if you add Admiral Felt’s four carriers, that makes nine. But it still leaves the opponent with a fairly easy problem, and we have been desperately seeking a small, versatile airplane which can range over the whole area and which can operate from the thousand and one 6000-foot strips left over from the last war and which still are there and from which commercial airplanes are still operating.
We believe we have found the airplane in a project which has been raised and was having a little difficulty here, the Northrop–156, which is a development of the T–38 supersonic trainer. It is a light airplane and can have a lot of sophistication in it, but we don’t want a lot of sophistication. We want it in a fairly cheap and uncomplicated form. It is the kind of thing we can build and build relatively cheaply, and it is the kind of airplane which could be used right throughout that area, where we ourselves are perhaps the most capable in the use of modern equipment. But we know that the Filipinos and Thais and the Pakistanis are having more than a little trouble in operating the F–86’s. They can fly them all right, but even they require a fairly good airfield, and their ferry range isn’t all that much. We want an airplane that can go across Australia and from the top end of Australia, across the Philippines, up to Singapore.
I found the philosophy in airplanes here is to build a single-seater airplane which costs over two million dollars a copy, which demands, if you are going to make it mobile, in-air refueling capabilities, which we can’t afford, and which requires an eight-to-eleven thousand foot runway. That kind of airplane is beyond our capabilities.
We find ourselves approaching now the time when it looks as though we are going to be priced out of being able to buy airplanes with which we can suitably arm ourselves. It is a fairly disturbing proposition, sir. And it is one which I thought perhaps, and Mr. Casey agreed, should be aired here, because it is the kind of military problem which I believe ANZUS could solve and I believe should solve. We are willing to build it, we are willing to operate it, and we are very willing to supply it, if we can manufacture it, to the whole SEATO area, if they can afford to buy it and if arrangements can be made for them to get them and use them. That is our problem, sir: How to get the airplane and where to get it—where to get it, rather than how to get it. Europe has nothing. The small NATO fighter which has been proposed to me, the F–91, is just like the Australian boomerang. It is never out of sight. It won’t go far enough. You have these F–105 airplanes, which are over $2,000,000 a copy. Even if we could afford them or build them in sufficient numbers, we couldn’t afford to operate them.
The same applies to the naval tactical fighter, the thing that carries ordinary, or shall I call them conventional bombs. I don’t know why these airplanes are so complex and so sophisticated unless perhaps it is that they are all designed around a nuclear capacity, which of course we don’t possess. We have to base whatever we have on a conventional capacity. I think that is it.
Secretary Dulles: Do you want a reply?
Mr. Irwin: Marshal Scherger brings up a very difficult type of air operation which has been under consideration by the Pentagon for some time in connection with the Northrop F–156 aircraft. I am not completely up to date as to what the current status of the studies are on it, Air Marshal. We had thought of it at one time in connection with NATO and the European countries as well as in the Far East and the Pacific. From the point of view of assisting and financing the manufacture and sale of the planes, the question really revolved around finding a market for it after you had gone all through the expense of development and production in large enough quantities to justify the expense. It was thought at one time that Germany might be interested in the N–156, and possibly Japan. Japan has decided against it and went to Grumman, I believe. Germany also appeared to have rejected it, although I am not sure whether that is completely final or not. So the problem is, if it were available, it is still on the drafting board or has not even been produced in prototype. The question really is, by the time you produce it, is it an adequate airplane for the period of 1961–1962, the period that it is coming in? There is question about it in Europe, and I think there is also considerable question, at least as far as Japan and that part of the Far East area goes.]There is undoubtedly a need for a less-sophisticated aircraft that can meet the problem. Of course, you run into the question, then, as to the control of the air. It would be useless in an area when you are facing a MIG–17 or MIG–19, although obviously you aren’t going to have a big MIG–17 or MIG–19 everywhere you are going to need another airplane. It poses a great problem of financing as well as the tactical application of it. I think the Air Marshal is coming over to the Pentagon tomorrow, I understand.
Air Marshal Sir Fredrick Scherger: That is right; yes.
Ambassador Beale: Mr. Secretary, could I supplement what Air Marshal Scherger said. This is quite a serious problem for Australia.] We have got a first-class aircraft industry in the country. We have a profound political and military necessity for maintaining that aircraft industry in Australia. It is in danger of languishing because we just haven’t got aircraft to make and we can’t plan ahead. A year or two ago we made a decision to buy and probably also to build to sell the F–104, but when a mission came over here,11 we were, I think, very rightly told, “Don’t be silly. Don’t build that one. It is far too sophisticated for you. If that type of aircraft has to be used in a war which you are planning to participate in, we in the United States will be there with that aircraft.” And quite rightly we would have made a great mistake to build the F–104. And we were also told at the same time, ”Why not have a look at the Northrop and one or two others?” This was on the technical level.
The minister in charge of aircraft at the time we were agonizing over this agreed. Now we are told by our air force advisers that this is the type of plane which will suit Australia’s needs. It is not yet, as you say, Mr. Irwin, quite off the drawing board. I think something like one dozen prototypes ought to be made and flown and tested before anybody can say for sure that it is the aircraft. Now what I think the Air Marshal has said is, will the United States give some consideration to making the funds available to take that airplane up to that stage, because if it proves itself I think it is pretty likely, I think it is certain that the Air Force would be advising the Australian Cabinet that “This is the airplane we want and this is the airplane we should build in Australia.” I think New Zealand might become interested in the same sort of aircraft, because it has a characteristic to suit our particular needs. And if we can’t get that one or something very like it, we just have nowhere else to turn for another one to build. We were told to build the Sabres for another year or two or three more. But in the meantime we have a real fight, we have a real professional difficulty in making up our mind as to what type of aircraft it should be.
Mr. Irwin: We have maintained at least to date going ahead on the N–156, trying to resolve this question or problem, but in large measure, it comes down to the financial problem with us, because it is financed by military assistance funds. The question is whether or not if you finance it through the ultimate to have enough prototypes to decide whether it is worth going ahead, are you going to have enough customers to justify the research and development and production of it when you have diminishing military assistance side to keep it up. [sic] They cut the program three hundred million dollars this past year, and we anticipate this next year it will be more difficult.
We have a great many calls on the program throughout the world. We are going to have the situation with Taiwan, and Taiwan has eaten into the program a great deal more than the normal expectancy would have been if there had not been the Taiwan crisis, because equipment had to go to the Chinese Nationalists because of the ammunition situation, etc. So you have a choice of not only do you have a question as to the people that actually would buy this airplane in the time frame of the early 1960’s but you have also the question of priority of the use of the military assistance funds over these few years until there would be production. So it presents a grave complication that the enthusiasm for the airplane itself has to date not been sufficient to justify final decision to go ahead with it.
Minister Casey: So far as the United States is concerned.
Mr. Irwin: The most likely customers had seemed to be Japan and Germany.
Minister Casey: If these aircraft were brought to the prototype stage, isn’t it likely that you would have potential customers in the Asian-SEATO partners in the smaller countries, and it would suit Australia and New Zealand, and there would be more generalized use than your highly-specialized aircraft now.
Mr. Irwin: That seems to be a possibility.
Minister Casey: I think the Air Marshal is seeing Mr. Quarles and Mr. Douglas tomorrow.
Mr. Irwin: I would suggest he also speak to our MAP people.
Minister Casey: I think that is worth raising.
Secretary Dulles: Yes.
[Here follows discussion of unrelated subjects.]
Last edited by a moderator:
What the Australian ambassador said in that meeting - " We have got a first-class aircraft industry in the country. We have a profound political and military necessity for maintaining that aircraft industry in Australia. It is in danger of languishing because we just haven’t got aircraft to make and we can’t plan ahead. " - is being repeated in Tokyo nowadays.
Frestylewyvern
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 19 May 2019
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 7
Hi, I'm trying to find information on RATO installation on the F-5. I know that the Norwegian Air Force used RATO equipment on their fleet of aircraft, and I know that some F-5Fs did training hops with RATO systems in the 70s prior to being delivered to Saudi Arabia. From the looks of the system shown in the pic, the system seems to be made up of four small RATO units fitted to a rack underneath the fuselage.
EDIT:
Removed speculation that the T-38 could use RATO equipment, as the attached pic was identified as an F-5F instead of a T-38 as I had originally assumed.
EDIT:
Removed speculation that the T-38 could use RATO equipment, as the attached pic was identified as an F-5F instead of a T-38 as I had originally assumed.
Attachments
Last edited:
Silencer1
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
- Joined
- 3 August 2009
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 500
I kindly suggest to watch this video about F-5 history, that includes facts about unique Norwegian terms of F-5' purchase.
Hope, that this could help
Frestylewyvern
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 19 May 2019
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 7
I watched the video, and while it did make mention to the RATO assisted take-off system at 2:15, there is no further information after that.
Frestylewyvern
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 19 May 2019
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 7
I can't make put any markings on the airframe, but I'm pretty sure it's on a training hop as it seems to be carrying training sidewinders.
- Joined
- 19 February 2007
- Messages
- 1,097
- Reaction score
- 1,499
That's F-5F s/n 75-0713 (not a T-38) in the first post, configured and painted for the Royal Saudi Air Force, undertaking a test flight at Edwards AFB, California. '713 also did spin testing for the Saudi weapons configurations and loadouts. This mission has the aircraft carrying two Sidewinders, four Mavericks, and a centerline tank. The aircraft is also configured with a (removable) Inflight Refueling robe.
Leuhman Ridge (also known as Rocket Ridge) can be seen in the background. The various "lumps" visible at the top of the ridge are just a few of the rocket motor test stands at the facility.
AFIK, the T-38 trainer has no JATO capability. If you have evidence that they did, please post.
Leuhman Ridge (also known as Rocket Ridge) can be seen in the background. The various "lumps" visible at the top of the ridge are just a few of the rocket motor test stands at the facility.
AFIK, the T-38 trainer has no JATO capability. If you have evidence that they did, please post.
Frestylewyvern
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 19 May 2019
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 7
That picture at the start was my only source on the T-38 side of things, so with that having been correctly as an F-5F I don't have anything to say that the T-38 could use RATO equipment. I've removed it from the text of the 1st post and edited the title as I don't have anything to back up a claim on the T-38 being able to use RATO gear.
Silencer1
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
- Joined
- 3 August 2009
- Messages
- 883
- Reaction score
- 500
Hi, Frestylewyvern!
I'm occasionally remembers this video at the moment, when F-5' designer said about Norwegian AF and RATO usage.
The picture in your first post is awesome - this F-5 looks like real strike fighter
Thanks for interesting thread!
I'm occasionally remembers this video at the moment, when F-5' designer said about Norwegian AF and RATO usage.
The picture in your first post is awesome - this F-5 looks like real strike fighter
Thanks for interesting thread!
It comes to me only today but I wonder if there is not a confusion here with the N-205, Northrop own competitor to the NF-104
As a side note, this also
Source of images:
ghostmodeler.blogspot.com
As a side note, this also
Source of images:
Talons in Space: Northrop's N-205 Proposal
When I ran across this concept nearly twenty years ago I was utterly amazed and intrigued by the whole idea of using a modified T-3...
ghostmodeler.blogspot.com
D
Deleted member 2278
Guest
In the absence of anywhere to place this, Ecuadorian interest in the T-38:
- Joined
- 11 March 2012
- Messages
- 3,016
- Reaction score
- 2,684
Official dimensions are usually the longest needed for sizing hangars. They should also include "worst case" scenarios like flat tires tilting airplanes and increasing height.
Performance figures are always based upon maximum gross weight and standard atmosphere (sea level, 59 degrees Farenheit, etc.)
Performance figures are always based upon maximum gross weight and standard atmosphere (sea level, 59 degrees Farenheit, etc.)
D
Deleted member 2278
Guest
Reposting this in the correct section.
Potential F-5E/F sale to Peru:
Some angst and drama over potential sales of F-5E/F to the Philippines which had A/Bs:
Special added bonus, Nigerian interest and an interesting comment on a lack of ECM for the F-5E. Clearly the F-5 was not yet qualified for the ALQ-101 at that date and according to the ad poster in the 2nd link below, the ALQ-171 was a decade off in the future:
Potential F-5E/F sale to Peru:
State Dept cable 1974-99625 : State Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
State Dept cable 1974-99625
archive.org
Some angst and drama over potential sales of F-5E/F to the Philippines which had A/Bs:
Special added bonus, Nigerian interest and an interesting comment on a lack of ECM for the F-5E. Clearly the F-5 was not yet qualified for the ALQ-101 at that date and according to the ad poster in the 2nd link below, the ALQ-171 was a decade off in the future:
State Dept cable 1973-32251 : State Department : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
State Dept cable 1973-32251
archive.org
Vintage Military, War and Army Recruiting Ads of the 1980s (Page 12)
Vintage Military, War and Army Recruiting Ads of the 1980s (Page 12)
www.vintageadbrowser.com
Combat-Master
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 July 2020
- Messages
- 1,104
- Reaction score
- 2,854
Thought it may be interesting to have this here, thermal image of NF-5A Freedom fighters from Turkish Stars aerobatic demo team
- Joined
- 3 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,387
- Reaction score
- 1,210
That's highly unusual. What were the circumstances?
njiiaf
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 6 December 2021
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 284
The Iraqis had vectored a fully-armed MiG-25PD to intercept an Iranian Boeing 747 that was returning from Europe. The IRIAF quickly scrambled a two-ship of F-5E Tiger IIs, lead by then Cpt. Zarenejad, from the 2nd Tactical Fighter Base at Tabriz to intercept the MiG.
Zarenejad and his wingman were told by GCI that the MiG was flying at 30,000 ft. near Lake Urmia. Once they reached the area, they visually spotted the silhouette of the MiG above them in the sun. The Foxbat pilot was preoccupied with searching for the 747 and hadn't realized that there were two bandits on his tail.
Zarenejad quickly accelerated to intercept the MiG while his wingman stayed back for support. He heard a good tone from from his AIM-9Js and held the pickle button but only heard a loud 'pop'. The missile had failed to launch. Thinking that he hadn't pressed the button for long enough, he switched to his second AIM-9 and tried again, but this missile failed as well.
By now, the Foxbat pilot's RWR had detected the emissions from the F-5s radar and the pilot began defensive maneuvers. Zarenejad performed a climb to avoid overshooting, rolled back on top of the Foxbat, and fired a burst from his 20mm cannons.
This didn't seem to affect the MiG, however, so he dumped the remaining 400 rds. into him and observed several hits. The Foxbat was now on fire and heavily damaged, but still flying. Zarenejad pulled up beside him and rocked his wings, signaling the MiG pilot to follow him. The MiG ignored him and continued to fly towards Iraq. Zarenejad and his wingman were forced to pull back and RTB.
Later, they received confirmation that the MiG had crashed inside of Iraqi territory.
Sheppard AFB ‘elephant walk’ asserts training’s role in airpower
Four thousand Airmen and 90 aircraft participate in a one-of-a-kind elephant walk at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, April 7.
www.af.mil
Two Swiss demonstration team aircraft collided over Zug city. Both jets were able to land. One reported injury on the ground by debris fall (nose cone) :
View: https://youtu.be/oQTP8Vlk-lA
F.L.
ACCESS: Top Secret
Can anyone tell me why some of the Honduran F-5Es have black noses and others don't ?
snne
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 July 2022
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 1,421
A Turkish Stars NF-5 had a crash, the pilot ejected but a ground personnel lost their life. RIP.
Video showing seconds before the crash
View: https://x.com/gurselkursunat1/status/1768224010217611300?s=20
View: https://x.com/tcsavunma/status/1768230036530659447?s=20
Video showing seconds before the crash
View: https://x.com/gurselkursunat1/status/1768224010217611300?s=20
