Talk:Northrop F-5/Archive 2

Operator/user Map
Shouldn't US still a operator of F-5E/Fs? So can anyone change the operator map color of US, from red to blue? Bryan TMF (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Someone changed USA to blue. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical significance section?
The F-5 would seem to be an iconic fighter that is as much of a design breakthrough as more famous fighters such as the P-51 and F-86. It reversed the trend to greater cost, weight, and complexity that fighters were suffering under, and was competitive with much more expensive aircraft at least through the 1980's. The concepts it embodied were similar to those of the F-16, which received much more credit and are presented in some works ("Boyd" and "The Mind of War") as original breakthroughs more than a decade later. Would a section pointing out the big picture of where the F-5 fits in the history of fighter aircraft be a worthwhile improvement to the article? Candidate first draft text is as follows. This draft probably needs help to maintain a neutral point of view when communicating a possibly contentious topic (the quality of Air Force decisions on procurement).

"The lack of procurement of the F-5 by the U.S. Air Force and its lack of participation in a major war have reduced its prominence among historically significant fighters. Nonetheless, the F-5 embodies many of the design concepts that are well respected in the F-16 Falcon, the most numerically significant fighter in the USAF.  Like the F-16, it is based on  maneuverability, low procurement and maintenance cost, light weight, friendly flight characteristics, multirole capability, and just enough complexity to achieve the desired mission. It is recognized that Pentagon F-16 proponents such as Colonels John Boyd and Everest Riccione, and analyst Pierre Sprey, correctly identified the high value of light fighters, no more than necessary cost and complexity, and the fact that gun armed fighters and air-to-air dog fighting were still effective and necessary. They successfully and significantly improved the effectiveness of the USAF by guiding the definition of the F-16 and shepherding it into production.

What is not so commonly recognized is the fact that the F-5 and its proponents had pioneered many of the same correct concepts nearly 15 years earlier. The F-5 proved that it was possible to improve the performance of fighters while stepping back to the lower weight and complexity of earlier fighters, and to greatly improve the cost effectiveness of a modern air force. Had the USAF had the foresight to recognize the full value of the F-5 and procure it in volume beginning in the early 1960's, the U.S. would have had both a more combat effective and cost effective Air Force in the 1960's and 1970's (reference Sprey article on this point).

Though the U.S. Air Force is once again leaning to preferring complexity and resulting high cost and lower numbers of aircraft with the F-22 and F-35, the value of the light weight lower cost fighter is recognized elsewhere. A successful modern example is the Saab JAS-39 Gripen."   FarronDacus (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Farron Dacus


 * Sorry, but all that is original research without citing reliable sources. We can help you add the sources if that is the problem, but specific, verifiable sources (print is fine) do need to be provided. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

MiG-23
The design of the Mig-23 did not result from the examination of F-5's captured in 1975. The Mig-23 entered service in 1970.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Exchange rate of F-5 during ACEVAL/AIMVAL
In the segment under Operational History, the source written by Sprey appears dubious.

Sprey's document looks at a specific subset of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL tests, but not the tests as a whole. RADM Julian Lake, Navy Test Director of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL trials noted the Blue Force Navy F-14 and Air Force F-15 aircrews achieved an overall 2:1 exchange ratio vs. Red Force F-5's (Lake, Jon (ed.) "F-14 Tomcat, Shipborne Superfighter", pg. 84-85), RADM Paul Gillcrist reiterates this, among the other findings which he considered to be important takeaways from ACEVAL/AIMVAL (Gillcrist, Paul T., "TOMCAT! The Grumman F-14 Story", pg. 93, 95). It is repeated again by Donald Auten (CAPT, USNR) in his biography of Capt John Monroe "Hawk" Smith (Auten, "Roger Ball!" pg. 390). Capt Smith flew in assistance of the Red Force after they had been badly outmatched by the Blue Force F-14 crews and provided the Red Force with new tactics to help combat the F-14's radar (Auten, pg. 344, Jans, Andre & Dixon, Daniel (Ed.), "Hoser Here, Shoot!" pg. 134-135). One of the Tomcat pilots involved (and top exchange rate scorer of the entire exercise - Jans & Dixon (Ed.), pg. 100) recalled that at certain points in the trials, scores could be as lopsided as 6:1 in favor of the F-14 (http://www.tomcat-sunset.org/forums/index.php?topic=2441.msg62542#msg62542; pg. 149 - "[We] just recounted a tactic that our section spawned. We called it the "Piston". One of those complicated and difficult to execute profiles. This, for a while, drove our 2v2 and 2v1 kill ratio up into about the 6 to 1 realm of magnificence!").

This information is in stark contrast to what Sprey listed (in "Effectiveness of Air to Air fighters F-86 to F-18", pg 139-140):

"The outcome, despite the artificialities, was surprisingly similar to Featherduster, for the first three weeks, the F-14s and F-15s were hopelessly outclassed and demoralized [by the F-5]. Eventually, they adapted with more suitable tactics.  In the first test, AIMVAL, the pairs and fours of F-14s had an overall score of slightly less than 1 to 1 against the F-5s while the F-15s scored slightly above 1 to 1.  In the second test, with further "tuning" of the rules, the F-14s did slightly better than breaking even with the F-5s in non-1v1 engagements; the F-15s got almost 2 to 1."

The above is with respect to a specific set of tests, also discussed by RADM Julian Lake (Lake, Jon (ed.), pg. 84), wherein the F-5's were equipped with Radar Warning Receivers and as discussed by Auten and mentioned by Lake, had received new tactics from the TOPGUN XO on exploiting a weakness in the Pulse Doppler radar used by the F-14. Sprey tried to spin the results further into the F-5's favor, writing that the F-14's and F-15's were "hopelessly outclassed and demoralized". Perhaps for that span of the tests the F-5's outscored the larger fighters, but Sprey did not mention that the F-5 crews themselves were badly beaten by at least the F-14 crews during other portions of the very same tests. RADM Lake provides the exchange rates in other segments for the F-14's as between 1.4:1 and 2:1, which is not listed by Sprey, nor is the overall test result of 2:1, nor the engagements that favored the Blue Force F-14's at as high as 6:1. Gervasi, in Arsenal of Democracy II indicated that at points in the test, the F-14 exchange rate was between 1.3 and 1.4 to 1, and the F-15's "fared even worse" (Gervasi, pg. 123) the low rate matches what RADM Lake recalled for one of the portions of the test (listed above), but again not the overall results.

One must also consider the circumstances under which Sprey, an advocate of light fighters, was writing. In the year 1982, the Hornet program was still controversial; it needed all the help it could get, and even RADM Gillcrist who was a later critic of the Super Hornet program (Gillcrist, pg. 188), was one of the people fighting to keep the original F/A-18 alive at the time (ibid, pg. 188-189). By misrepresenting the record of the crews of the larger fighters, Sprey made a stronger case for lightweight fighter programs, regardless of the fact that the F-5 did not achieve an overall test exchange rate of better than 1:1. On the other hand, it must also be said that the F-14 and F-15 cost about 6 times an F-5 when the tests were being conducted in 1976-77 (Gervasi 97, 120, 125). With this in mind, the F-5 achieved better rates by cost per aircraft against both the F-14 and F-15, rather than by aircraft "shot down."

Recommend re-tailoring the section with the overall results, or mentioning specifically that during portions of the test, the F-5 crews were able to achieve positive exchange rates against the F-14 and F-15. Possible: "The F-5E, when equipped with the all-aspect AIM-9L, proved itself to be a fearsome opponent in visual range combat against more complex and expensive fighters. During realistic trials at Nellis AFB in 1977, aircrews in the much simpler Tiger fought Navy F-14's and Air Force F-15's equipped with long range radar, Visual Target Acquisition Systems and AIM-7 Sparrow Beyond Visual Range missiles to an overall exchange rate of only 2:1  , and achieved superior exchange rates at different points in the tests  .  At a unit cost of about one-sixth that of the larger fighters, the F-5's were clearly victorious from a cost perspective. ." USAFDude (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * References

Origins / T-38
The origin needs to be rewritten. I tried a quick fix, but it was reverted. The T-38 article says the F-5 is a product of the T-38, the F-5 article says the T-38 is a product of the F-5. The T-38 had a slightly earlier first flight, and both are basically a parallel N-156 (N-156F and N-156T) development. Lastdingo (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Thanks. There is always something else to learn. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC) -- So is it now correctly written?

✅ I read the T-38 article and it has the following: (... two N-156T prototypes ...) [reading 'between the lines']. Agreed? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The German Messerschimitt Bf 109 and Fock-Wolf Fw 190 have combat loss tables, such data also enhances the American Northrop F-5
The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, the Me-109, and the Fw-190 operational histories all possess combat loss tables in their articles. Although not graphed, the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt article lists 3,752 aerial kills at a cost of 3,499 P47s lost to all causes in combat. The North American P-51 Mustang article shows figures of destroying 550 enemy aircraft in the air and 466 on the ground, at a cost of 2,520 Mustangs.

The Grumman F6F Hellcat article, and this one should be graphed because it is somewhat more detailed, gives figures of: 270 Hellcats lost to air to air combat, 553 lost to anti-aircraft ground and shipboard fire, and 341 F6Fs lost to operational causes, with another 1,298 Hellcats destroyed during training and ferry functions.

Now to look at one editor's reasoning for removing a professionally drawn up statistics table, which apparently was well researched and properly sourced: He states: "I really do not see this as DUE WEIGHT when coverage of others losses in other conflicts are not covered in a loss by loss basis, typically this is not deemed notable."

I'm not sure what "due weight" means, but I'll try to answer it as what I think it means. The editor's "Due Weight" might mean that the listing of F-5 losses isn't important; in which case, as noted in the above examples, it must be! Just taking a very small sample; the Me109, Fw190, and the P40 Warhawk had tables, and nearly every WWII aircraft appeared (from the few samples looked at) had at least statistics concerning losses and/or aerial victories (kills). The tables appeared to be well researched and properly sourced, and they did enhance the Wikipedia articles, making the information far more easily understood.


 * Now lets look at the editing Editor's other part of his statement, "other conflicts are not covered...". Thats an easy one, someone simply needs to research the particular "conflict" in question and then contribute it to the article.  As long as it's well researched, well written, and properly sourced, then those "other conflicts...not covered" will have combat data.  But it is not proper to remove some other writer's well researched and properly sourced contribution to an article, simply because other sections don't have that information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.159.1 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For an editor that is relatively new to Wikipedia, there are many, too many Wikipedia articles in need of help. The F-86 as one example has at least 5 tags on it: Needs citations for verification, listed sources not reliable, neutrality disputed, and does not cite any references.  One of those tags goes back to the year 2011.  One paragraph of this same article has 7 citation needed tags; one goes back to the year 2007!  No editor seems to want to help out the F-86 jet article.  One missile article was actually begging for help in about 2010, the tag stated, "An expert is needed to help this article, please help."  A year later someone replaced the tag with a more commonly used tag.  Still no one came.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.159.1 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Theres plenty of GOOD work out there to be done, I've already cited just two of many examples (the F-86 jet and the missile); but removing well researched and properly sourced knowledge from and article...may not be the right thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.159.1 (talk • contribs) 01:14 26 March 2014

The F-5 Freedom Fighter loss rate data needs to be part of the article. After all, the ME-109 and the FW-190 get to keep theirs! And nearly all aircraft articles mention combat losses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.159.1 (talk • contribs) 01:14 26 March 2014


 * Quite a few points raised here 76, not sure if they all relate to the F-5 article. I presume this is related to the challenge to the addition of a list of seven aircraft lost during the Vietnam war. You have to appreciate if the addition is challenged then it up to those wanting to add it to gain consensus. Your comments are a bit long but it appears to be what we call "other stuff exists" argument, that is if it is elsewhere then why cant it be here. As far as I know individual combat losses are not detailed in any article, the Fw 190 you mention does not have a list of individual losses. We already have an article Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War which is as much detail as you need (although wikipedia is not a reliable reference it actually says nine were lost). Now if the combat rate was significant to the history of the type then it could be mentioned but more in the form "Of ten aircraft flown in operations nine were lost", it really needs to be balanced with how many were active which is why due weight is mentioned, if it was nine of nine then that would be of note if it was nine of sixty then it probably is not significant and we would not mention it. You mention other articles that have been tagged for attention, the aircraft project has over 17,000 articles and all are a work in progress, the limited number of active editors do what they can but cant be everywhere, remember we are all volunteers and spend different amounts of time in maintaining articles. Your are welcome to help fix or improve any of the articles, all you need is time and some reliable references, if you get stuck or think something needs attention then raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft which will get far more attention then articles tag, which to be honest nobody pays that much attention to. Also note that just because something is well researched and properly sourced is not an automatic ticket for inclusion, we do have to take other stuff into consideration. If you have any general questions about aircraft articles then please ask at the aircraft project talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see tables containing individual loss-by-loss entries in any of those articles you've cited. Totaled information, and summarizing statements, yes; but not anywhere near the level of entries for the fate of each individual aircraft in the conflict. Individual losses just aren't notable in this style; and its potentially deceptive - who's to say that the table's complete and hasn't missed an entry? Hence, a summarized statement saying "X number of F-5s were lost in the conflict, Y of these being in aerial engagements" is good as it is conclusive. It's also how most articles, including the examples you've raised do things. None of them attempt to compile individual combat losses, summaries are the commonly accepted means of presenting this information, individual combat losses are not typically listed and are not typically notable. Kyteto (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * '76 stated combat loss tables'', size and content was not mentioned. See "operational" sections for those 109 and FW-190 graphs.  In addition Mr. Kyteto, the issue is "tables".  Nothing was being noted concerning size, content, descriptions, etc.  And who's definition of "style"?:

Not notable? The article Battle of Trafalgar has three data tables; are we to delete those?
The Wiki article Battle of Trafalgar has 2 tables depicting French, Spanish, and British losses at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. And they list casualties by ship!

The Order of Battle at the Battle of Trafalgar has a table that is nearly 1 1/2 feet long! It lists the name of the ship, type of ship, number of guns per vessel, and how many sailors were killed on each warship. According to some editors, that data is "not notable"? Then according to that criteria, that "Trafalgar" data should be removed. That would not be acceptable. Nearly all technical articles concerning warships, firearms, etc. have data and putting them into easily readable formats such as graphs, tables, and graphs, etc. should not be an issue.

I fail to see why this topic of tables and charts is even being discussed. What should be discussed is why sourced information is being removed w/o discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.79.187 (talk • contribs) 21:26 March 2014


 * This page is for discussing improvements and issues with the Northrop F-5 article and is not an article on a Battle, if you have a problem with Battle of Trafalgar then please use the related talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * '''Hi Milborne, I agree this page is for improving the F-5 article. And I can see the point brought up with the "Trafalgar Battle", that comment referred to is in its title, "are we to delete those?" meaning: If the F-5 can't have a table, then are we next (meaning the Trafalgar Battle)!"  Another words, the above comment was inferring a "precedent."  If the F-5 can't have one, then neither can the Trafalgar Battle.:


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Aircraft articles next to never have a kill-by-kill listing throughout a conflict. Ships commonly have individual articles, they are individually more notable. They aren't comparable situations, but you're welcome to take that complaint up with the Ships wikiproject. Kyteto (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This topic concerns tables. I think anything related to tables (or graphs, whatever terms one wishes to use) and Wiki articles are valid.  Actor Mickey Rooney recently passed away and I noticed quite a few tables listed for him; concerning how many films he made, what year they were made, the names of the films, etc.  So entertainers have tables too.  Not just airplanes and ships.
 * The issue here, appears to be someone who doesn't like "tables'' (or whatever term one wishes to use). Info on a particular airplane is part of its history and how its packaged should not be an issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.174.90.231 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is clearly not just one "somebody", given that multiple editors have replied about this here. Wikipedia is not the place for a directory or listing of data/statistics per WP:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE sections. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No listings? Fnlayson, have you seen the film and music listings for Hollywood entertainers?  The Lists are endless.  Have you seen the "SURVIVING AIRCRAFT" lists for each Wiki article on aircraft?  The lists are endless.  Have you seen the list of "Military Books."  Have you seen the PRODUCTION LISTS in most Wiki articles concerning aircraft?

Have you seen the "PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC MODEL AIRCRAFT" listed under many Wiki aircraft articles? There are lists in Wiki articles for nearly everything.:


 * I have nothing specifically against tables; tables are often used to contain useful information and are present on some of the articles on which I have been the most prolific editor (Id I had such an agenda against them, surely I would have removed those?), let's take two examples that come to my mind on previous aviation articles I've worked on: De Havilland Comet and Avro Vulcan. On the former article, a table contains the base specification information, an unusual move but I find it to have been appropriate and even useful at easily comparing the information across the variants of the design; meanwhile on the latter article multiple tables are used to compare variants and production information - I have never argued against either of these, despite being the most prolific editor on those articles, editing them over a hundred times over a period of years. Why do I let those tables by and go after this one? Because I'm not attacking this table for being a table, I'm attacking it because the individual routine combat losses of a fighter are not considered to be due weight - It'd be unbalanced and unfair to list the fighter losses of one conflict and not do so on another. It isn't about how it's packaged: If it were a bulleted list it would be undue weight, if it were paragraphs of prose it would be undue weight, it's the nature of the content itself, individual combat losses are routine and not normally covered unless they are individually significant or remarkable in some way, no aircraft article does it in the manner that was depicted here, and that has been an established policy laid down by WP:Aviation editors for far longer than I've been editing articles for. The objection isn't with the table format, it's that the individual entries themselves aren't notable. Kyteto (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Kyteto, here's a minor example, by use of comparisons: Removing the table under the term of "not notable because the other conflicts didn't have a table" would be like (as an example) "I am deleting this article on the Boeing B-17 bomber as not notable; because my favorite bombers the B-24, B-25, and the B-26 Marauder were not listed." That's just about what happened, only the editor said, "other conflicts weren't mentioned."  Well, it very well might be the case that those OTHER CONFLICTS DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMBAT LOSSES OF F-5 FREEDOM FIGHTERS.  Therefore, those OTHER CONFLICTS ARE TRUELY NOT NOTABLE.:
 * There's no need to spam your point in capitals. And we know it's very well not the case that no F-5s were lost in other conflicts, a fair few F-5s have been lost in battles fought by other nations, such as during the Iran-Iraq war. The fact that they didn't get a table, and that one conflict did, is just unfair and giving undue weight. It's been a long established principle in the WP:Aircraft project that individual fighter losses aren't notable, unless they were under abnormal circumstances or otherwise highly atypical. Kyteto (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I might add one other thing. Not notable to whom?  For those of us who have served our country, military men, and officers in particular, must be aware of both the capabilities of both their own equipment as well as the enemies.  Military officers MUST know the maximum effective range of their weapons, as well as their war machine (tank, plane, ship), as well as the maximum range (do you know the difference?).  I noticed on that deleted F-5 kill chart that one F-5 Freedom Fighter was downed by an enemy 20mm cannon.  I was not aware that the enemy in the Vietnam War possessed 20mike mikes. Nearly all U.S. Fighters were armed with them, but the enemy primarily used 37mm, 57mm, etc type AAA weapons.  How fast was that F-5 going, what altitude was he when he was hit...did he attack the 20mike mike site?  How many 20mike mike hits did he take?  My point is this Kyteto, whats NOT notable to you, just might be NOTABLE to the men flying those aircraft defending your freedom.
 * It's not what's notable to me, a consensus emerged years before I started editing that individual run-of-the-mill combat losses aren't notable. It'd be better to take this point up with WP:Aircraft and get the convention overturned, hence removing my basis for objecting, if that is what you truly feel should happen. Right now, my stance is inline with policy; overturn that policy and my basis for objecting is severely diminished - ergo, shouting at me has little point, trying to open up a discussion at the appropriate venue about changing that policy has more of a point. User:Kyteto|Kyteto]] (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tables & Charts
Its not too clear about what this "talk" is concerned about. If its about the information within the "table" or the table itself, either way "tables" can be beneficial, as well as making reading easier for people to understand. The three samples depicted below, including the F5 are and should be, respectively, a fine contribution to their appropriate article:

German Type 23 Torpedo Boat (Table depicted in Wiki article)

Ships
German Type 24 Torpedo Boat (Table as depicted in Wiki article)

Ships
''All three of these "tables" are informative, attractive, and seemingly well organized. They are fine contributions to the topics that they represent.'''

Really?
This article states: "it was perhaps the most effective air-to-air fighter possessed by the U.S. in the 1960s and early 1970s" The reference cited is hardly definitive for such a bold statement. Indeed, for a statement like this, one would have to get some pretty heavy hitters lined up to back it up - otherwise it just comes off as silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur. It certainly doesn't need to be in the lead, as "effective" is unlear in connotation, and to explain it would be to much of a digression for the lead, which is lng enough anyway. - BilCat (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like the phrasing either - the basis of 'effectiveness' can vary dramatically simply by which priorities you place on certain capabilities or aspects of the aircraft for what you're planning to do. One area in which it was not 'effective' was as the interceptor role, it had a relatively small onboard fuel capacity and the radar was hardly as capable as some platforms - but the aircraft was never designed to perform as an outstanding interceptor. The difficulty is that the 'most effective fighter' depends completely on what sort of fighter activity is being done, it is very cost-effective, but that doesn't make it more effective in a universal sense in all capacities under the sun. The phrasing is, to bring myself back full circle, taking from a perspective blind to such issues, and thus I don't like it. I think it should go out of the lead, possibly into an elaborative note. Kyteto (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While a definition for effectiveness has been added via the Notes system, I remain concerned that there might be an WP:Original Research problem here. An editor really shouldn't be trying to apply/assess the level of representativeness of those qualities, which are occasionally subjective, to the F-5 - the source should be outright stating that, otherwise it could be critised as OR or WP:Synthesis issues. To elaborate on the potential subjectiveness, let's take the ability of surprise; in the current article text a great deal of weight is placed on the smaller size of the F-5 making it visually harder to see, and thus considerably more likely to surprise the enemy; the difficulty I have is, is that size factor really that decisive? For instance, the early F-5's lack of a radar would mean it wouldn't get to have a chance of spotting an enemy until its in visual range, which if it ran up against say an F-14 armed with Pheonix missiles with a 100 mile range, putting aside the known accuracy issues of that missile aside, basically means the opponent would have the ability to detect and destroy the aircraft a long time before it hope to see that enemy - the enemy proves to have a vast advantage in 'suprise' here. That's the problem with a logical string to support a qualitative conclusion, rival logical scenarios can reason for a very different assessment - that's why not just the identification of those qualities but the recognition and application of those qualities to the given aircraft really, really should be made by an authoritative source. We have a definition, but the basis on applicability could be unsound. Kyteto (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Royal Bahraini Air Force F-5
I added the photo because it was the only photo of a Royal Bahraini Air Force F-5I think it adds to the article because of it's rarity.



Articseahorse (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The only photo where? A Google image search turns up several different images of RBAF F-5, so I'm not sure what exactly you mean. It's not that good a quality image or view of the F-5 either, which is why I originally removed the photo, as the article has better images of the F-5, and little room for more photos. A better artcle for this image would be Royal Bahraini Air Force, which has few main images outside of the current aircraft list. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From WikiCommons, I try to have a photo of each aircraft in the different country markings to help provide visual reference to show that the country used the aircraft. Articseahorse (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make it a "rare" photo, and it's no reason to overload the article with lesser quality photos. In fact the article probably needs to be trimmed of more images. We have WikiCommons for extra photos. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Would creating a separate article on Non-United States Operators similar to the one done on the F-4 Phantom page help in this as a alternative to removing additional photos?Articseahorse (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article's that long, but why you you think that's better than just using Commons? WP is not a repository of images; Commons is. - BilCat (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The main Northrop F-5 page on Commons only has 7 nations listed, so there's more than enough room to add a heading and photos for each operator. - BilCat (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hint to the X-29
I think a short text should point out here that 2 front  fuselage of  F-5E   are the front fuselage of the X-29. if we have a look at the YF-17 the difference is not much bigger to the F-5E. Two X-29As were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes (63-8372 became 82-0003 and 65-10573 became 82-0049) FFA P-16 (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is already covered by the X-29 link in the See also section under "Related development". The X-29 uses F-5 components and is not an F-5 variant. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

F-5E in use by 🇵🇱 and 🇨🇿
I think this 2 are missing may someone can build it into the text. They used it in flight tests to finde out the weak points of the F-5e and also used it to adapt usefule desings of the F-5E for the Aero Vodochody factory. FFA P-16 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 2 from Vietnam Poland made flight tests to find out the weak points of the F-5E
 * 1 from Vietnam
 * 1 from Vietnam
 * 1 from Vietnam

Turkey is a former operator
Turkish Air Force has phased out F-5 from active duty by the summer of 2013, only the aerobatic demonstration team keep using F-5, thus it can be removed from the operator list. And I believe it's better someone edit the operator map accordingly, I don't know how to edit that. 188.119.1.66 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Operators section includes both current and former operators. So there's no reason to remove former operators from the list; just update text to show they are a former operator. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If the aerobatic team still use the F-5 then it must still be in service ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Description should involve performance of aircraft and related facts, not political assumptions or the history of the aircraft
The basic description of the aircraft should not involve assumptions about the US policy towards light fighters, or the origins/history of the aircraft. That is not what the description is for.

including things such as a supposed double standard because the USAF bought the trainer version is not something that belongs in the summary or description of the aircraft.

Production numbers also are not the main point of a summary and description. It does not matter if we know how much of something was produced, if we dont know WHAT IT IS. That is the entire purpose of a summary and description of the aircraft itself. How much the aircraft was produced does not warrant replacing that the aircraft is 8th most common fighter, or replacing the entire purpose and performance of the aircraft with sections of its design history.

Replacing the main purpose of the aircraft with minor details about different models is not acceptable. Dont replace the main USAF role of the aircraft AS AN AGGRESSOR with information about models which werent produced or have little to do with the overall F-5 design. Replacing the words involving the MAIN ROLE OF THE AIRCRAFT with wording about a rare recon version make the summary vague and pointless. Pointing out many small facts about rare versions does not warrant removing almost the entire text regarding its main role as an aggressor.

Please, stick to the point when editing the description, include the most relevant information, and avoid replacing the most important information with small details which have little to do with the overall aircraft.

For instance, editing the description to involve the winning of the early 70s contract has nothing to do with the overall description of the aircraft. That belongs in history, not in the summary and description.

'''The description should involve the type of aircraft, how it generally compares, and what it is most well known for. Replacing this with small details and leaving out the large details and replacing them with details that describe nothing ABOUT THE AIRCRAFT ITSELF is absurd. Please refrain from this in the future.''' DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Lead is supposed to summarize the whole article including development history and such. What political assumptions are you referring to? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not revert to versions THAT INCLUDE THEY VERY SAME CONTENT YOU ARE CLAIMING IS NOT REFERENCE
Removing claims such as hourly cost, the purpose of the aircraft, or any other information that are ALREADY SUPPORTED should not be removed and replaced by past revisions THAT INCLUDE THEY VERY SAME INFORMATION. Please refrain from this in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk • contribs) 16:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your text left this statement: "By a wide margin, It is the least expensive supersonic fighter available, both in procurement and operating costs." without a clear reference to support it. That's why I moved the detailed text to later in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It was the very same thing claimed by the revision before it, just rephrased, and you restored the version including all sorts of information that belongs in other parts. You cannot tell me that part of the basic description of the aircraft and one of its most popular features is not relevant or supported, when it was considered supported in the last revision that is full of all sorts of pointless unrelated information to the summary.

The additional information that was restored is absurd. If you dont like something, dont revert it to a version that says the same thing with the same sources, but includes pointless information.

If you have a problem with one of the facts, please remove it and do not revise it to a version that is filled with all sorts of out of place information and things which do not belong in a summary. Thank you. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Issue of Fighter Effectiveness for the F-5
In the first few days of March 2015 there was an explosion of edits and a stable and fundamentally sound (in my opinion) introductory section was rewritten in a struggle between several editors. As a result all discussion of major fighter effectiveness factors was removed from the introduction.

I would submit that the issue of effectiveness is a major one for the F-5, and for any fighter plane. The main factors of effectiveness as promoted by Pierre Sprey and other professional air combat experts are in order of importance:

1. The element of surprise.

2. The element of winning numbers (cost and reliability)

3. Maneuver advantage.

4. Weapon systems effectiveness (ability to score reliable shoot-downs).

It was claimed under the talk section "Really?" that it appeared "silly" to note that the F-5 might have been the most effective U.S. fighter of the 1960's and early 1970's according to these criteria. That concern was mostly based on the assertion also claimed under "Really?" that surprise and its small visual signature component were not that important. That is a mistaken statement based on the historical record which proves that the majority of shoot-downs are based on ability to surprise without being surprised, which is in turn based on small size, good visibility out of the cockpit, and lack of engine smoke (all attributes possessed by the F-5, but certainly not by the contemporaneous F-4). It was argued by example that the F-14 with long range Phoenix missiles might claim the title of most effective by surprising from very long range. However, the reality based historical record is the complete opposite. The only 3 times a Phoenix missile shot was ever tried (due to difficult identification at long range) no kills were scored. The concept of the very long range air to air missile has so far failed (after spending approximately $1Billion and scoring no kills) and been retired from U.S. military service, so it cannot be claimed to be in any way "effective". The claim might be made that modern Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) based radars that do not give away the radar source offer a long range element of surprise independent of aircraft size, but this is not applicable to the F-5 of the 1960's and 1970's. Those radars did not exist then, and the small visual and radar cross sections of the F-5 were key to its effectiveness.

Also critical to its effectiveness are low cost, high reliability, high maneuverability, and an effective weapons suite of heat seeking missiles and guns (no gun on the contemporary F-4 of the 1960's, only smoky engines visible over 20 miles away and missiles with about 10% kill probability). Along with surprise these are key reality based measures of effectiveness that deserve to be in the article.

Neglecting to note these factors presents a negatively biased perception of the F-5 in the most fundamental way, and degrades the quality of the article. Would be acceptable to the other editors to add this material back in the Design section? Question asked March 4, 2015. --FarronDacus (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "the reality based historical record is the complete opposite" The difficulty with this statement is that reality has context - the long range capabilities of missiles were very, very rarely used because the majority of the combat was dictated according to rules of engagement that demanded visual confirmation; what would be the point of using a long range missile at short ranges? That's why only a tiny number were ever fired, a matter of policy and doctrine made sure that the situations it could be applied to were very, very rare; that doesn't bare any evidence to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the technologies at play. I was just making the point that, if such a confrontation were to happen, the radar-less F-5 would be completely unaware that it was under attack right up to the point where it would be destroyed, it did not have the element of surprise against targets that it itself could not hope to see before being shot down. If a single Pheonix failed, the F-14 wouldn't just shrug its shoulders and retreat/go into closer range, it'd fire another, and another, and another (10% across five missiles adds up to 50% likelihood of destruction, considering that thousands of rounds were typically used against a single combatant in Afghanistan just to ensure they couldn't move until a confirmed kill shot was made, a single attempt is unrealistic) and the whole time the F-5 would be blissfully unaware, and even if they all failed it could just fly off home and the F-5 would have come no closer to 'surprising' the F-14 or aware it was even there. In the reality based historical record, no confrontation of this kind ever happened, there's nothing to suggest the "complete opposite" in real world conditions. Unless the F-14 randomly decided to sail right up to the F-5's vicinity and its own radar/local AWACS being somehow unable to spot it for the hundred and fifty miles or so of approach, playing right into the F-5's advantages - that would make the F-5 pretty effective, but portrays its opponents unrealistically stupid - why close into your opponent's effective weapons range if you could stay far outside and already attack it; other that the doctrine, not much reason at all. Kyteto (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Kyteto, you might take a look at the "Light fighers vs heavy fighters" and "Fighter weapons" sections of the "Fighter aircraft" article. Your assumptions on the reliability of both radar and radar missiles of that era seem to be a bit off.  It's not surprising you would have that view, since one has to dig into the right references to get the details. For example, during the Vietnam War only 3% of detected North Vietnamese fighters were detected by the radar of American fighters (chiefly the F-4).  And, the reliability of radar missiles then was quite poor--at one point American F-4's fired 50 AIM-7 Sparrows in a row without a hit.  From the mid-50's to the mid-80's there were over 2000 missile shots taken, and only 4 BVR kills.  The extra size of the fighters to carry BVR missiles cost those fighters visual surprise in many cases (you can see a smokey F-4 20 miles away, you have to be within 4 miles to see an F-5 or a MiG-21), so those missiles were a net negative in that era. The idea of "see enemy on radar, push button to eliminate" simply was not valid at that time (and is not 100% true even today).  See the references in the "Fighter aircraft" article, particularly LtCol Higby's thesis "Promise and Reality: Beyond Visual Range (BVR) Air-To-Air Combat", which is available for download at the link provided.  See the Sprey report for the full details, such as the F-5A outperforming the F-4 in the 1966 Featherduster trials aimed at figuring out why the United States was doing rather poorly in the air war over Vietnam. When you take these realities into account, the F-5 was more effective than the F-4 on a plane for plane basis, at about 25% the cost each, and for half the budget an F-5A air force would have dominated an F-4 air force.  In fact, the ACEVAL 77 trials showed that for half the budget an F-5E air force would have dominated over F-14's and F-15's as well, as that budget would buy three times the planes and allow for trading at about 1:1.  That attrits the F-14s and F-15's to zero with two thirds of the F-5 force still surviving. The reason was that even as recently as the late 1970's, the reliability of radar missiles was too poor to outweigh the advantages of surprise, numbers, and maneuverability possessed by light fighters.  That's not my opinion talking, it is the statements of the authoritative references quoted in the Light fighter and Fighter aircraft articles.  The data is right there for reviewing.  PhaseAcer (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not "developed from" T-38.
The N-156 was a fighter. Its first successful sales came from a version they developed into a trainer, the T-38. They then successfully sold it in its original form as the F-5 fighter. That does not mean it was "developed from" the T-38. One might say that a F-94 is developed from a T-33, as it used the stretched fuselage of the trainer. The F-5 is the N-156; the T-38 is to the F-5 as the T-33 is to the F-80. Which version was adopted by the USAF first is irrelevant; the F-5 was designed by Northrop as a single seat fighter, and then modified it into a trainer.

If you care to glance at the actual article: "The F-5 development effort was formally started in the mid-1950s by Northrop Corporation for a low-cost, low-maintenance fighter. The company designation for the first design as the N-156, intended partly to meet a U.S. Navy requirement for a jet fighter to operate from its escort carriers, which were too small to operate the Navy's existing jet fighters. That requirement disappeared when the Navy decided to withdraw the escort carriers; however Northrop continued development of the N-156, both as a two-seat advanced trainer, designated as N-156T, and a single-seat fighter, designated as N-156F.

That in no way indicates that they went through the trouble of shortening a T-38 and figuring out how to fit armament to it...that is what "developed from" suggests. They already had an armed, single-seat fighter, which they had developed into a 2-seat trainer.

And if you disagree that constitutes the T-38 being developed from the F-5, perhaps "related to " might be a better term..45Colt 04:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst it's entirely arguable that the T-38 wasn't developed into the F-5 (they both share a common ancestor), it's completely wrong to say that the T-38 was developed from the F-5 (as you're actually changing the article to read). The T-38 is earlier (look at the flight dates). The F-5 has a more sophisticated wing planform with LERX. Development ancestry is more usually based on flights or production, not sales. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * While it's not as straightforward as most aircraft developments, Andy is right that the production of the T-38 did precede that of the F-5. In this case, it fits well enough for infobox purposes. If we had a separate article on the original N-156 design, then we'd probably link to that instead. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Northrop F-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150724071006/http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112yemen.html to http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112yemen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Max speed
Presentation by Ron Gibb, a systems designer/engineer for the RF-5E, says this was Mach 2. As youtube links are not allowed - search for "RF-5E Tigereye Part 1 Development History" (26m19s) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.93.39 (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Mach 2 reference is for the RF-4C Phantom, not the RF-5E. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Northrop F-5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012135126/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2282 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2282
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160728194823/http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/tig5e.html to http://www.lw.admin.ch/internet/luftwaffe/en/home/dokumentation/assets/aircraft/tig5e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223084408/http://a4skyhawk.org/9e/aerogrp/aerogrp.htm to http://a4skyhawk.org/9e/aerogrp/aerogrp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719045618/http://home.eblcom.ch/f5enthusiast/AirForces/MoroccoAF.html to http://home.eblcom.ch/f5enthusiast/AirForces/MoroccoAF.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151127021946/http://www.turkyildizlari.tsk.tr/EN/IcerikDetay.aspx?ID=17 to http://www.turkyildizlari.tsk.tr/EN/IcerikDetay.aspx?ID=17
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923133314/http://www.pacificcoastairmuseum.org/aircraft/F5ETigerII.asp to http://www.pacificcoastairmuseum.org/aircraft/F5ETigerII.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012135126/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2282 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2282
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415154432/http://www.flyingleathernecks.org/museum.html to http://www.flyingleathernecks.org/museum.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Sprey of F-16 fame?
How come Sprey is credited in this manner? The only employment he had in aerospace was with Grumman (Not General Dynamics who developed the F-16 series) and as a special assistant to SecDef. He was a proponent of E-M theory, for certain, but surely any credit should be given to John Boyd as opposed to Sprey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.6.191 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ANSWER: The reason military operations researcher and combat aircraft architect Pierre Sprey is referenced several times is because Sprey extensively discusses the F-5 in his book length report "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18", April 1982. You can find this excellent professional report available free on-line.  It is not just giving Sprey's opinions, but contains a large volume of military operations research data.  In contrast, John Boyd did not publish any writings on the F-5, nor is his opinion of it cited in the two John Boyd biographies.  Quoting from published sources is what we are required to do. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)