Northrop F-5 and T-38

T-38 Talons being looked at.
DOI:_10.1016/j.engfailanal.2025.109381
 
Rats.

Try searching for

"T-38 Talon jets receive help addressing critical aging aircraft issue causing cracks."

My vision just gets worse.
 
There are many types of air combat... It can only be said that the F5 is somewhat better than the F35 in terms of maneuverability. However, in today's air combat, especially between stealth and non-stealth aircraft, close-range dogfighting has almost become impossible. It's not to say that the F5 has no chance of defeating the F35; if there is a powerful early warning aircraft, a strong electronic warfare plane, and the F5 is equipped with some powerful missiles and all three are networked, the F5 can of course take down an aircraft like the F35.
 
SUPER=BUG said:
There are many types of air combat... It can only be said that the F5 is somewhat better than the F35 in terms of maneuverability. However, in today's air combat, especially between stealth and non-stealth aircraft, close-range dogfighting has almost become impossible. It's not to say that the F5 has no chance of defeating the F35; if there is a powerful early warning aircraft, a strong electronic warfare plane, and the F5 is equipped with some powerful missiles and all three are networked, the F5 can of course take down an aircraft like the F35.
Click to expand...


Ok

The guns in F-5...are they any good ?

F-5_IMG_6112.jpg
 
topspeed3 said:
Can this beat F-35 in dogfight ?
Click to expand...

topspeed3 said:
Has there been any dogfight between F-5s and F-35 in Red Flag etc ?

Is this better or worse than an F-5 ?
Click to expand...

topspeed3 said:
Ok

The guns in F-5...are they any good ?
Click to expand...

After asking the same thing twice a few hours apart (even after being answered the first time), are you going to question every single component of the F-5 in a puerile way?
Sorry to sound embittered but this kind of very generic question can easily be answered by a couple minutes of online research.
 
Page 205 of Colin Chapman: Inside the Innovator by Karl Ludvigsen, Haynes Publishing 2010, says "Simplicate and add more lightness" was one of Gordon Hooton. He worked as a designer for Bill Stout.
- Colin Chapman
- Ed Heinemann
- Bill Stout
- Gordon Hooton
... take your pick.
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Page 205 of Colin Chapman: Inside the Innovator by Karl Ludvigsen, Haynes Publishing 2010, says "Simplicate and add more lightness" was one of Gordon Hooton. He worked as a designer for Bill Stout.
- Colin Chapman
- Ed Heinemann
- Bill Stout
- Gordon Hooton
... take your pick.
Click to expand...
Who was first ?
 
Ludvigsen says Gordon Hooton.
Photos of Bill Stout's works confirming that order should clinch it.

Colin Chapman was the the first name I read about connected to the slightly different "Simplify, then (or was it and?) add lightness". As a racing engineer, Chapman's ideal was -
1) a car, fast enough to win the race being as light as possible
2) a car strong enough to last the race
3) and no more

Heinemann's A3D Skywarrior design came in considerably below the US Navy's stipulated maximum weight for their new bomber - a maximum weight deemed impossible not to exceed while achieving the requisite payload/range/speed performance by most other bidders. His A4D Skyhawk was another complexity/size/weight reduction exercise. I would love it if Heinemann would turn out to be the author of the saying, but Ludvigsen says otherwise.

I prefer simplify to simplicate, but I like the idea whichever way.
My take: first Hooton - then Stout - then Heinemann - then Chapman.
Very, very off topic - Saegeh.
 
Arjen said:
Ludvigsen says Gordon Hooton.
Photos of Bill Stout's works confirming that order should clinch it.

Colin Chapman was the the first name I read about connected to the slightly different "Simplify, then (or was it and?) add lightness". As a racing engineer, Chapman's ideal was -
1) a car, fast enough to win the race being as light as possible
2) a car strong enough to last the race
3) and no more

Heinemann's A3D Skywarrior design came in considerably below the US Navy's stipulated maximum weight for their new bomber - a maximum weight deemed impossible not to exceed while achieving the requisite payload/range/speed performance by most other bidders. His A4D Skyhawk was another complexity/size/weight reduction exercise. I would love it if Heinemann would turn out to be the author of the saying, but Ludvigsen says otherwise.

I prefer simplify to simplicate, but I like the idea whichever way.
My take: first Hooton - then Stout - then Heinemann - then Chapman.
Very, very off topic - Saegeh.
Click to expand...
Ok

AI:

"Simplicate and add lightness" is a famous engineering mantra most commonly attributed to Ed Heinemann, the chief designer at Douglas Aircraft known for creating the A-4 Skyhawk.

  • Ed Heinemann: He frequently used this phrase during the development of the A-4 Skyhawk to focus his team on reducing weight, removing superfluous components, and keeping design simple.
  • Other Attributions: The phrase is sometimes also attributed to aeronautical engineer William Bushnell Stout or popularized by Lotus Cars founder Colin Chapman.
  • Significance: It is regarded as a fundamental engineering philosophy aimed at maximizing performance by minimizing complexity and weight.
-----

How are the guns if we compare the F-35 and the faster bird F-5 ?

Which is more accurate ?
 
topspeed3 said:
AI:
Click to expand...
I don't trust AI with this kind of question, period.
topspeed3 said:
How are the guns if we compare the F-35 and the faster bird F-5 ?
Click to expand...
There are probably several reasons why the F-5's 20mm cannon fell out of favour with the US military. My first thought is Gatling guns' rate of fire. Muzzle velocity?
I am not sure the F-5 is the faster bird. Which F-5 variant?
topspeed3 said:
Which is more accurate ?
Click to expand...
With the several decades younger electronics of the F-35, I guess the F-35.
 
Yes in close combat it can possibly shoot down an F-35, but today air battles are conducted at distances from 35 to 350 km. F-5s would have a chance if they are launched with the help of JATO rockets from a short runway, if the F-35 is previously detected at about 50 km, and then they try to see if they have a chance.
 
Arjen said:
I don't trust AI with this kind of question, period.

There are probably several reasons why the F-5's 20mm cannon fell out of favour with the US military. My first thought is Gatling guns' rate of fire. Muzzle velocity?
I am not sure the F-5 is the faster bird. Which F-5 variant?

With the several decades younger electronics of the F-35, I guess the F-35.
Click to expand...
Didn't F-35 have problems with the gun during the developement ?

---

F-5 in action:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTSxNLaQ7YE

The design effort was led by Northrop vice president of engineering and aircraft designer Edgar Schmued,[6] who previously at North American Aviation had been the chief designer of the successful North American P-51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre fighters. Schmued recruited a strong engineering team to Northrop.[7]
 

Attachments

  • Chile_A_FF-5E_Tigre_III.jpg
    Chile_A_FF-5E_Tigre_III.jpg
    433.4 KB · Views: 58
Last edited by a moderator:
topspeed3 said:
Didn't F-35 have problems with the gun during the developement ?
Click to expand...
Until quite recently, yes.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...-testing/?mode=document#document/p45/a2599125Page 45:
The F-35 lethality assessment suffered from the inability of the F-35's gun to hit the targets because of design and installation issues
Click to expand...
If the F-35 and F-5 (derivative) ever face each other in anger, flying an F-5 is likely to be an acute health hazard.
We are drifting away from discussing the F-5 and its derivatives. Take this somewhere else?
 
The F-5 can also use heat-seeking missiles in close combat with the F-35, which at 9 km provides high heat and infrared energy.Maybe the Iranian F-5s had some kind of thermal IR sensors like the Russian MiG-29 Iris and through them it can detect an aircraft at 30 km
 
Arjen said:
Asking a question, then providing an answer from wikipedia yourself. You are not helping this thread along much.

Compared to a half brick?
Click to expand...
Yup 1 800 dollar brick. It can shoot down also cruise missiles....brick cannot.

-----

F-35 carries less ammo than F-5 for the gun:

The F-35 is primarily a stealth, beyond-visual-range (BVR) platform, but it can operate as a gunfighter using its internal GAU-22 25mm cannon (A-model) or external gun pods (B/C-models). While not designed for close-in, high-G dogfighting like the F-22, its advanced sensor fusion and helmet-mounted display allow for high-accuracy aiming, even if it is generally considered less maneuverable than older, dedicated dogfighters.

F-35 Gun System and Capabilities
  • Internal/External Gun: The F-35A features an internally mounted 25mm GAU-22/A cannon with 182 rounds. F-35B/C variants utilize a centerline external gun pod, which carries 220 rounds.
  • Targeting System: The APG-81 AESA radar and Distributed Aperture System (DAS) provide 360-degree situational awareness, feeding data directly to the pilot's helmet-mounted display for aiming.
  • Performance: While some critics view it as less optimal for close-quarters "dogfighting" compared to 4th generation fighters, the F-35's advanced systems are designed to make it highly lethal if it engages in close combat, with some, such as on Quora, arguing it can compete.
  • Primary Roles: The gun is intended for both precision ground attack and air-to-air engagements, particularly if stealth allows for a close approach, though the platform relies more on its missile payload.

---

The GAU-22/A 25mm Gatling gun has a maximum rate of fire of 3,300 shots per minute. This four-barrel, externally powered gun is designed for the F-35A Lightning II, offering high-accuracy close-air support with a 25mm round that delivers more energy than 20mm alternatives. It has an effective range and is engineered for reduced weight.

Key Details regarding the GAU-22/A:
  • Rate of Fire: Approximately 3,300 rounds per minute.
  • Weapon Type: 4-barrel, 25mm, electric-powered rotary cannon.
  • Feed System: Linked or linkless.
  • Capacity & Timing: As integrated into the F-35A, the system carries 180 rounds, allowing for just over 3 seconds of total firing time.
  • Usage: Used internally on the F-35A and in external pods on other variants.
The GAU-22/A, described in detail in this GAU-22/A Overview, is a lighter, four-barrel variant of the GAU-12/U. It balances a lower rate of fire (compared to the GAU-12's 4,000+ rpm) with improved accuracy and efficiency.



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


I am no longer able to comment here.

What is the deal ?
 
Last edited:
U.S. Air Force T-38s Return To Flight

The U.S. Air Force’s main jet trainer returned to flying status after an approximately weeklong pause connected to a crash earlier in May.

The service in an announcement said the fleet-wide operational pause was lifted May 28 but did not provide specifics as to what the issue was that prompted the grounding.

“The Air Force continues making progress toward safely returning the fleet to service and anticipates inspected aircraft will begin returning to flying status within the next few days,” the service says. “Collaborative engineering and maintenance teams across the joint force have finalized the inspection procedures to be accomplished to ensure a safe and thorough return to flight.”
Click to expand...
 
As part of the studies done early during the Indigenous Defense Fighter development, the idea a F-5E derivative powered by two TFE-1042 turbofans was evaluated.

From a book on F-CK-1 development published in 1997, ISBN# 9789578902206 (Traditional Chinese only though)

IDF-A.png
 
Last edited:
dy031101 said:
As part of the studies done early during the Indigenous Defense Fighter development, the idea a F-5E derivative powered by two TFE-1042 turbofans was evaluated.

From a book on F-CK-1 development published in 1997, IBSN# 9789578902206 (Traditional Chinese only though)

View attachment 818547
Click to expand...
Wow. I would kill to get my hands on that book in English. Well, maybe not kill. Wound, certainly.

I've always wondered if it was possible to redesign the F5E for a more powerful and efficient engine fit than the GE J85. Looks like it could have been done after all. Trouble is, Tiger 2 was just too limited for such an expensive repower program. The IDF is as close as we will ever get.

I've been trying for years to find a book on the IDF program to no avail. However, the Fall of 1996 edition of World Airpower Journal (Volume 26) has a 14-page article if anyone is interested.

Thanks, dy03, for the heads up.
 
Request for info:

I recently came across some statement that a LOROP camera option, KS-147A, is available for the RF-5E.

Interesting!

As the saying goes, "Would You Like To Know More?" Yes, I would!

I've seen pictures of the RF-5Es with various camera ports being opened or closed off depending on their configurations. I would certainly love to see how a LOROP-equipped RF-5E would precisely look. A search on Google suggests that only the rearmost camera port would be given window; but the window is said to be "three-side" rather than vee-shaped. I could never find any close-up picture of the "three-side" camera port window.

If anyone could help, thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Weekend search yielded this:

RF-5E_LOROP.png

Taken from a speech by Northrop test pilot Roy Martin.
 
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?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom