I remember the F-4's keeping us awake in barracks at night when they were practicing "touch-and-gos"; afterburners would kick in and rattle the building, you'd roll over and just about get back to sleep, and the afterburners would kick in again. You finally got used to it after a while.



Chuck Yeager said that it was like flying an electric drill---you were always struggling to keep the wings level. He also said diving in it made it an extremely dangerous aircraft.

It was pretty, though.

They Flew T-33's out of Anchorage when I was stationed in Alaska; and the T-38 Talon, with a single cockpit configuration and fitted for combat, is known as the F-5 Tiger:



They used to be used by aggressor squadrons to simulate Soviet aircraft during the Cold War....helped our pilots with larger aircraft learn how to manuever for the kill. Not sure if they're still doing that or not, since the Russians are now our "friends".

Northrop had a long history of aggressive, company funded and pushed aircraft, primarily based on what became the F-5 frame. Other than the advanced trainer that we bought as the T-38, the most success the program had was in Foreign Military Sales/Military Assistance Programs, beginning with the Vietnamese Air Force. Eventually, through FMS/MAP, maybe 30+ countries used it, and some still do. I did a little paper work support on some of those foreign programs. The last model Northrop tried to market was the F-20 Tiger Shark. No takers. But the FA-18 the Navy bought, and the YF-17 it grew out of, that lost to the F-16 in the Light Weight Fighter program, grew from the original Northrop idea, back in the early 50s.

The F-5 airframe was used in Red Flag training, in dissimilar air combat, following some unpleasant surprises in the Viet Nam war, with respect to missiles vs guns and loss/kill ratios. The F-5 modeled the Mig-21 nicely. The US Navy still has a few models used in that role, I think, but the AF uses F-16s and F-15s, and maybe a few Soviet models acquired this way and that. Still a need for air combat maneuver training, with dissimilar opponents.


GKC

Yeager should know. A NF-104 almost killed him.

GKC

The F-5 Tiger II is a fine little fighter and has served in countries around the planet with distinction. The F-4/F-5 combo was a potent tactical combat force in any air force. I got a healthy respect for the F-5 'back in the day' as a fighter controller at those Red Flag exercises. Ironically, the country that used it in actual combat more than any was....the Islamic Republic of Iran's air force.

I had to look it up but I think the program that supplied the Shah's Iran with those F-5s was PEACE RUSH.

GKC

That sounds appropriately "Orwellian".

Ironically, (back to the other topic), the F-5 fulfilled that niche with our allies that the F-104 had done earlier.

A large number of the FMS/MAP programs were "PEACE". There was a PEACE HAWK and a PEACE FALCON, for example.



F-104s were primarily used by developed nations, like European states, and Japan; the F-5s down amongst the small players. There were exceptions, but the F-5s were a versatile and supportable poor man's bird. F-104s were pretty.

GKC

True, but the F-104 did have a high degree of "bang for the buck" and were actually relatively easy to maintain. They were just unforgiving to fly. Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Taiwan, were among those exceptions.

One of many times he was almost killed.

Ever hear of the Avro CF-105 Arrow? It was a Canadian-designed delta-wing fighter-interceptor from the 1950's, built in Ontario:



As you can see, it strongly resembled our F-106:



When the Canadian government cancelled it after only one year, it put almost 30,000 people out of work and effectively destroyed the Avro aerospace company; the chief areodynamics specialist of the company and 25 engineers subsequently migrated to NASA to work on the American manned space programs. Only five aircraft were ever completed.

You finally got used to it after a while.
Yep. That's right.

L.

Bang for the Buck has an ironic ring.

If I had to pick something that, more than other things, replaced the 104s, I say the F-16, out of the LWF program, and because the 4 participating European nations agreed to buy whatever the US selected, in support of John Boyd's theories and the high/low mix for the AF. And everyone jumped on the F-16 band wagon, that could afford it.

Three of the four you mention above did take F-5s, AFAIK, Pakistan did not.

GKC

Know of the Arrow, and its demise, yes.

It more resembles the earlier F-102 predecessor to the F-106, to me. Primarily in the chunky fuselage. The F-106 got the suppressed waist, to increase speed, decrease drag.

GKC

True about the F-16 being in that linage. Ironically however, in our air force it was really the replacement for the A-7 and we pretty much exclusively use the F-16 in the unglamorous 'air-to-mud' role.

Regarding Pakistan, that was due to one of our long line of blunders with that poor country. We sold them the F-104, along with dozens of F-86's and then when they actually used them in the 1965 war with India we imposed a complete arms embargo on both sides. Of course, India used no American equipment and Pakistan used almost nothing but American equipment at that time. Part of our, "It does not pay to be our friend." strategy that drove them into the arms of the red Chinese. We are paying for those mistakes as you read this.

Btw, regarding my F-16 comment. For almost forty years now, with only two exceptions for the F-16 and three exceptions for the F-14, every other enemy aircraft shot down (almost 50 since 1974) has met it's end at the hands of only one American fighter type which has suffered not one single air to air loss in return...



'Cancer' is afraid of the F-15.

The F-16 didn't start out that way, but the high/low mix was never popular in the AF and we in the test program saw GD pushing the versatility and adaptability of the F-16, laying out vast amounts of hang on stuff, on the tarmac, to take publicity pics for AVIATION WEEK; the handwriting was on the wall. One size fits all, and to heck with John Boyd.

RE: Pakistan, I never considered that. It fits.

GKC

One of the few programs in that time frame that I don't think I ever touched.

Nice bird.

GKC

Isn't that just....weird? The whole original point of that program was to build the ultimate dogfighter, and "dogfight" the F-16 will do admirably. Pakistan has proven that with their Falcons over many years. But what did we do? Defies logic, but it is a testament to the aircraft that it has proven to be one of the best attack aircraft in history.

I looked it up once and I think I remember that the F-15's overall kill ratio since it first rolled into action was around a 120+ smoking wrecks of enemy aircraft in it's wake for zero losses. It can still hold it's own against anything else it might face in the sky.

In some sense, bang for the buck, no doubt. But we could have made two models, dedicated for air superiority, going for super-manuverabilty, or ground support, with lots of stuff hanging on it. Maybe. Like the Strike Eagle.