Northrop F-5 and T-38

[RAP]

Info from a 1977 Northrop document. Sorry that some of pages are cut off, the document didn't fit on my scanner.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

Nice brochure cover of San Diego showing the Int’l airport and NAS North Island.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Halcyon66 : What did happen to this Tiger ?

Bent?

 

[aim9xray]

@Halcyon66 : What did happen to this Tiger ? Bent?

No, RF-5E forward fuselage Structural Test Article.

 

[TomcatViP]

@aim9xray : Thanks. I see now.

 

[zjz]

https://www.scalemodellingnow.com/aircraft-afv-club-rf5s-tigereye-singapore-air-force-build-review

 

[TomS]

I wonder if Northrop ever considered developing a two-seat version of the F-5 that was an all-weather/nighter-fighter version with the back seater being the navigator/RSO/WSO with a suitable radar?

I feel like with a second seat and ordnance hung on it, you could just about bomb the far end of the airfield before running out of fuel.

 

[Halcyon66]

Kitty Hawk 1/32 RF-5E Tigereye (Kit KH32023)

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/kitty-hawk-kh32023-rf-5e-tigereye--1156519

https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/5/1/9/1156519-74-instructions.pdf

This is one of the most accurate plastic kits and in a good scale.

Regards,

 

[NMaude]

I feel like with a second seat and ordnance hung on it, you could just about bomb the far end of the airfield before running out of fuel.

What I meant is an interceptor version developed either from the F-5B or F-5F which were designed and built as two-seaters.

 

[windcalm]

https://www.twz.com/news-features/i...wait-should-be-a-wake-up-call-ex-usaf-general

 

[NMaude]

https://www.twz.com/news-features/i...wait-should-be-a-wake-up-call-ex-usaf-general

I find it surprising and disturbing that those three F-5s weren't intercepted and shot down.

 

[iverson]

I find it surprising and disturbing that those three F-5s weren't intercepted and shot down.

I find it to be expected.

The Iranians successfully mounted ultra-low-level attacks more than once during the Iran-Iraq war. There was--and is--no reason to think that they couldn't do it again.

Nonetheless, the US neither hardened its forward operating bases nor provided adequate defenses against low-altitude, low-tech attacks. Why not? Most likely because fortifications, Stingers, and automatic AA guns:

a. are not sexy/expensive enough to get the Pentagon/White House/Congressional blood pumping

b. are not profitable enough to attract our defense industry/monopoly

c. divert funds that could cover at least some of the cost overruns on projects that better address (a) and (b).

As a whole, the US military bureaucracy has long had a firmly embedded and foolish belief that the side with the most advanced technology will win every time and that the unexpected never happens. We build gold-plated systems designed and optimized for Air/Sea/Land/Space Dominance in some hypothetical future war against one or two hypothetically equal opponents. Real-world experience fighting resilient, low-tech opponents counts for little. The politicians, defense CEOs, and armed services bureaucrats all prefer the glitzier, top-dollar Future of War projected by animated AI-simulations, one-paragraph executive summaries, and 5-bullet Powerpoint presentations.