Most of people who scoff after hearing this thing being called greatest, are only looking at a specs sheet and thinking all other American fighters had bigger numbers. And they had a point in that. However, from the point of view of efficiency, pond for pound, the F-5E is the greatest fighter a American company ever made. To give you a idea, the E model can take off with two and a half times its empty weight. The only other fighters that can do that is the F-15E and Rafale, that have more titanium and composite materiais in each of them than the empty weight of a F-5E, which have almost nothing of these. Another metric is the thrust needed to achieve high Mach speeds, again a fantastic performance. The ACEVAL and AIMVAL exercises showed that, with the right armament (AIM-9L), the rumble F-5E could achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against much more expensive fighters. That led to the much needed AIM-120 missile, since the AIM-7 kept the big fighters in a collision course with the nimble F-5 with the Sidewinder, resulting in a mutual kill. And when that didn't happened, the Tiger II still had good chances to score a kill on the resulting dogfight, because its instantaneous turn rate was comparable to its big brothers. Subsequent developments in short range IR missiles would make any advantage in flight performance over the F-5 or equivalent cheap fighter, irrelevant, hence the priority on getting a medium range missile with autonomous guidance system.
ACEVAL AIMVAL hobbled the F-14 and F-15 by restricting their use of BVR. Even when allowed to use the AIM-7 they had to VID, which is not the way these airplanes planned to fight a real war.
There are reasons and it is partially due to those "spec sheets" that you are talking about. The F-5, compared to more modern planes then like the F-14, had very, very underpowered engines. They could not match the thrust to weight output of the newer planes. And no, they do not have a higher "instantaneous turn rate", just because it is smaller does not mean it is nimbler, it's also related to the thrust/weight ratio, you need ENERGY to turn and the F-5 just could not produce that energy fast. Did you know that the F-14 can out accelerate the F-5? Why? Because the F-14 had a thrust to weight ratio of 0.8 while the F-5's was only 0.4. The best use of the F-5 is like what they did in Fighter Training School, use them as ambush fighters where after an F-14, F/A-18 or F-15 has committed to a bombing run and their total energy is low, they'll use the F-5 to pounce on them at their weakest moment. That is one way to work around the F-5's lower energy output, by ambushing the enemy when their energy state is the lowest.
@@danielc2701there’s a reason I’ll say the F-20 is the greatest plane never built because it’s essentially an F-5 that makes up what it lacks ten told. Including the instantaneous turn rate.
@@thesovietvorona1007 Nonsense. The new engines of the F-20 run at 49kN of thrust (the old F-5 ran at 44kN with both engines), it's barely an improvement. I'll give you a comparison, the F-4 Phantom, the F-5's contemporary, ran at 106kN. It held the WORLD RECORDS in speed and altitude for that time. That was the real reason why the F-5 was approved for export, the US had a much, much more capable fighter in the F-4. The real "power" the F-5 had was in the realm of "media hype" and "layman's impression" where people have the mistaken impression that "smaller = more agile". IIRC, the turn rate of the F-20 was only 13 degrees per second or something like that, hardly "instantaneous". You need about 7 seconds just to make a 90 degree turn. BTW, it was built, there were at least 3 built for demonstration testing, which was where all the stats came from.
@@danielc2701 I also did a video on the F-4 Phantom, where I covered their record breaking speed, as well as their unrestricted climb record. If you're interested, check it out!
Thanks for making and sharing this video. A few friendly suggestions: 1. Avoid showing a black screen for several seconds at a time. It's jarring to the viewer, even if done for dramatic effect. Several such instances in this video were so long that I wondered if there was a problem; several times I checked the progress bar to see if the video had ended. Better to let us look at an airplane photo for a few more seconds than nothing at all. 2. Normalize your audio sources, and set their levels in the final audio carefully. At around 6:30, the music is nearly louder than your voice, which can make it hard to understand you. 3. Refrain from using stock photos (e.g. the one of the "naming board" in this video). It adds nothing good; it just cheapens your video. 4. Avoid flashing through photos too quickly. It's jarring and annoying to the viewer. If you're going to show a photo, give the viewer a moment to digest it. 5. Omit the title-style captions of your own voice for effect. It's more distracting than helpful. Just let us look at another nice photo of the aircraft while you speak over it. Keep up the good work!
You gave him Good advice. You shouldn’t complement him too much when he did a pretty bad job, but it is good to encourage him. But he needs to know how badly he did, and it was rotten. He has potential though.
In the 80's I was a Crew Chief at RAF Alconbury working Transient Alert. Northrup was delivering some F-5E's to Saudi Arabia and Gen Yeager was part of the team. Got presented with an F-20 Tigershark lapel pin from Gen Yeager for all the support we gave them. Nice guy in all our dealings with him.
I've long beleived the F-20 is the greatest fighter Never Made. There's a book, "Warriors" by Barret Tillman that tells a great 'What If?' story about using F-20's in Saudia Arabia. Highly Recommend it! Good video! Love hearing about the F-5's/T-38's/F-20! Northrup got the short end of the stick with the TigerShark, but the Tiger II's made up for it in the long run! Keep it up! Do one on the Gripen soon!
The F-20 dealt with the F-5E's biggest handicap--power. The F-404 engine raised the plane's thrust from 9600 to 16,000 pounds. Innovative and ics and starter systems made it the fastest scrambling fighter if it's time (and today too). It could be hitting Mach 1 before most others could clear the runway. It could outfly it's pilot, whereas the F-16 needed governor's so the pilot wouldn't outfly it. The F-20 could mount the AIM 7 Sparrow in 1982, the F-16 not until 1989. It died of politics, not performance. It remains "the greatest that never was."
Favorite plane in DCS, hands down- it's not the fastest or biggest nimblest or most advanced: but like an old Italian sports car, none of that matters. It's pure flying, and it does everything well.
F-20 was less expensive in terms of "retail" price as well as maintenance lifecycle costs than F-16, its main rival. It was also a platform that the nations already using F-5E could easily transition their pilots into. In almost every respect, F-20 was the ideal choice to supplement, and eventually replace, the F-5s in all the nations flying them. Unfortunately, Northrop was trying to sell F-20s at a time when the Cold War was getting hot (early 1980s) and the US had recently authorized the financially subsidized export of scores of F-16s to modernize the air forces of allied and friendly nations. When potential customers can get a discount rate on a fighter with comparable performance and an existing logistical support network compatible with USAF inventory, it's hard to sell them a new plane that has not even entered mass production yet. US mass export of F-16, while a good strategic move, doomed F-20.
@@christineshotton824 I can see though why it wen't down that way. the 16 was considered the NEXT Gen and could be built to numbers (History proved that correct) and the 16 proved very adaptable.
The most challenging thing about fighting the F-5 is that it’s so small - super easy to lose sight of it. And once you lose sight, it doesn’t matter how much better of an airplane you are in, you lose.
I don’t know why the military brat can’t figure this shit out. Time and time again, when I was in the Air Force, our larger fighters would complain about how impossible it was to follow the F 16 and the outside.
The Ace Combat 4 music along with this in the beginning brings me back nostalgia for the F5E. I specifically remember flying the Northern Eye mission flying this thank you for the nostalgia hit.
Actually the Netherlands retired their F-5's a little over three decades ago in 1991, having gradually replaced them with the F-16 since 1979, which in turn has now been largely replaced with F-35's with the F-16's being completely phased out in the Netherlands in 2024.
A fun fact: the first ever F-5E produced (tail code USAF 71-1417) was acquired in the late 80's by the Brazilian Air Force, from USAF Agressor squadrons. It was modernized in the early 2000's and is still operating. And yes, the Brazilians intend to keep it in a museum after it got out of active service in a few years, after they get enough numbers of the Saab Gripen E. If you want to see what it looks like today, search for FAB 4856, its current tail number at the Brazilian Air Force (FAB).
I am grateful that you mentioned the Tigershark F-20 (the one that Chuck Yeager called "the greatest fighter never built"!). The F-5 was the "red-headed step child" that never got the reputation it deserved, and, likewise the F-20 (essentially the same airframe with a single engine turbofan), cheap, agile, and superior performance. Cheap and effective. I wonder how the F-5 and F-20 would stand up under Col. John Boyd's analysis using his ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) thesis. Probably would have rated pretty well. The F-15 Eagle AND the F-16 Fighting Falcon (called by its pilots the "Viper") were based upon his calculations and writings.
Gotta agree, ever since I first played ace combat when I was ~8 (nice music choice btw), even before I knew my country used it, it was already my favorite fighter and it still is today. I used to live in a town where there is an airforce base on the city next to it, and it was common to military planes pass by, and I use to say that those jets were F5s on the school playground (little did I know that I was right)
The F-5 is still in use as an Aggressor aircraft in the US. Last I knew, VMFT-401 (US Marine Corps Aggressor squadron based at MCAS Yuma) still uses the the F-5N variant to this day.
The US still fly them as adversary role jets. Countries such as Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan and Brazil did a whole bunch of upgrades to theirs. Some are retrofitted with the newest sensors, avionics and weapons systems which will keep them flying in their respective air forces for much longer. The F-20 Tigershark would have been a great replacement for many of the countries that bought the F-5 E but due to US not selecting Northrop's design it ended up losing out to General Dynamics F-16. Retired US General Chuck Yeager even said the F-20 was a great fighter aircraft to fly. Thank you for doing this vid on such an iconic plane.
Jack Northrop got screwed or most likely out bribed by the big entrenched military contractors. Way ahead of his time with his designs . I saw a clip where they brought to see his flying wing concept finally being implemented as the stealth f117 just before he died .
Small complaint. the whole point of the Top Gun/Red Flag training is NOT to prove or disprove the aircraft in 1on1 combat but to PROVE THE TACTICS being trained. the bulk of the training is against Near Peer TACTICS. THe F5s were first flown to envelope to show the pilots training that the instructoras were as good if not better than them. the F5 is a small maneuverable and agile dog-fighter. these sorties are what they were designed to excel in. BUT these are not how the Soviets and Chinese flew. That is the rest of the program. the F5 was a supperior dogfighter. 1st half) show the limitations of your craft and the tactics known (Yes the trainees are expected to lose, this enforces knowing the craft and your own skills better. 2nd half) Now show what your training AND Craft can do against Soviet Tactics. (The trainees are expected to succeed. this reinforces skills, teamwork, and calculations over bravado). The USAF/Navy want's smark calculating fighter pilots (Iceman, NOT Maverik).
I have some original photos of the N-156 prototype at Edwards AFB. My uncle took them when he was Yeager’s crew chief in the Air Force. He sent them to me not too far back. Got some of the F-107 too. Neat stuff!
I was a weapons specialist at Nellis AFB and was assigned to the 64th Aggressor Squadron. In my day we had F-16's, but what you have to understand about any " Top Gun" schools is this. The pilots we had were in fact the absolute best the Air Force had to offer. The airframe they were in didn't really matter, they themselves were superior. I have seen HUD tapes of a pilot engaged with five F-15's who made two missile kills and three gun kills in less than a minute.
"Indigenous upgrades" are always interesting, esp w widely used aircraft like the F-5, F-4 and F-16. Most are done w license and assist from the original mfr, but you should look into what Iran did w the F-5s left behind after the fall of the Shah.
"Greatest ever" is a very big claim. Yeager retired from the service, but accepted one last job in civilian life, as a chief test-pilot, and the project he worked on, was the F-20 TigerShark. He wrote about it in his autobiography, and said a number of very complimentary things about it, along with the original F-5. High praise, from someone who's opinion I would listen to. People tell me the Hawker Hurricane is under-appreciated, because it had many times more kills than the much talked about Spitfire. This is true, and the Hurry did most of the work in defending Britain, but it could only do that, because the Spitfires protected the Hurry from the 109s. At the start of the Battle, there were only about 70 ~ 80 Spitfires in true operational condition. The outcome of the war, hung on those 70 or so Spitfires.... The P-51D had the performance to fight 109s & 190s, and the range to escort bombers all the way to Berlin. The counter-point to that, if Britain had fallen in 1940 ~ '41, then the whole escort thing becomes irrelevant. There never would have been an American daytime bombing operation. The B-29 dropped the two atomic weapons, and only that caused the Japanese surrender. Well ~ that's debatable. That view was presented at the time, and it has been repeated ever since, but I have heard the Japanese were about to surrender anyway... The point I'm trying to make, this is a complicated question, and exactly what represents "The Greatest" rather depends on the criteria you choose, which depends on the personal objectives you bring to the discussion .... My personal view (I am an Australian, not a Brit) would be the Mk 1 Spitfire, because the existence of the free world, hung on about a hundred young men in Spitfires. "Never in the field of human conflict, have so many, owed so much, to so few." The fact that the Spitfire is a simply stunningly beautiful object ~ that doesn't hurt either.
Loved watching the CF-5 's whenever they landed or took off from Winnipeg in the mid 80's when Bristol Aerospace was doing maintenance on them. They always looked "right" like the quintessential sleek and lethal fighter. Was always disappointed the F-20 didn't go into production to carry on this proud lineage.
I appreciate the sentiment. I did do a video on the Phantom. However, my current living situation doesn't allow me to do any prolonged voicework. In the future, I intend to return to this series.
Have always loved the "Skoshi Tiger" and all it's variants... and have to agree someone needs their ass kicked for the F-20 fall through...that was a major suck Thanks, Dane
I wrote the words into the Wikipedia F-5 article quoted here that in the 1977 Nellis trials "For the first three weeks of the test, the F-14s and F-15s were hopelessly outclassed and demoralized" against the F-5. They were quoted from the Pierre Sprey book sized report on fighter effectiveness. Sprey believed that the F-5 was the most effective fighter in the U.S. inventory in the 1960's based on the fighter effectiveness criteria of surprise, numbers per budget, maneuverability, and weapons performance. He was probably right, but there is a prejudice against light fighters in the United States military. That nearly kept the later F-16 from being adopted. It really is a shame that the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard did not adopt the F-5 for mainstream use. It could compete with and usually outperform any U.S. fighters of the 60's and 70's, and for a fraction of the price. For the same budget, an F-5 air force would have run over any other plane in the world in that era. The F-20 was a terrific close derivative that similarly did not survive the political resistance against light fighters that provide the best air force for the budget. But, the lightweight Swedish Saab Gripen that is the philosophical son of the F-20 and which uses the same engine is today becoming highly recognized and valued.
Since you seem to have a great deal of love and affection for the F-5 there's some additional information I figure you'd love to know about. It would really help to strengthen your claim about the jet, I feel certain it'll either make you want to create an extended version of this video or a part 2. 1. The Soviet Union were given several F-5a's or c's I think they were the C or "Skoshi Tiger." after the Vietnam war, they were completely BLOWN away by it, the pilots tasked with flying them developed a deep amount of love and respect for it. They were mainly tasked with flying it against the MIG 21 so they could compare them. They were NOT prepared for the results. The 21 ALWAYS got it's ass handed to it by the Tiger, the F-5 was either equal or superior in all but 1 category that being maximum speed. Hud footage of some of these engagements can be found on RUclips. Now imagine if it was the DRASTICALLY more capable E model. 2. Secret Projects Forum, I don't have time to write out all the ways that make this a "one stop shop website" I will try to summarize it thusly, this is the website where most of the authors of all the decent military aviation, well any book about various military stuff, the respected aviation and other photographers, the people who had a hand in the design of just about any military vehicle you can imagine and the ones with operational experience hang out, share pictures and discuss things. I'm going to leave a link to a particular topic I just know you're going to love. www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/big-wing-f-5s-and-f-5g-f-20-alternative-designs.4513/
I believe the Soviets received the F-5E version after the fall of Saigon, South Vietnam in April of 1975. Not sure how many airframes the South received, but I believe they used them during their operations in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge in 1979. There should be a video here on youtube showing showing the Soviets testing these aircraft.
I am in no way going to badmouth the F-5, but to call it the greatest aircraft ever made is simply ludicrous. You don't even narrow it down to category or subcategory...amazing.
Yup simply ludicrous, but hyperbole always outweighs accuracy on RUclips. It was a great jet in the affordable light fighter/trainer category, and there were allied countries for which this was the best they could afford. It was a notional step up from subsonic jets like the F-86 and allowed small countries to say they had supersonic jets. It's all about deterring the local opposition, not necessarily a major power.
I think Yeager was a paid Northrop spokesman at the time. Not calling him a liar. I'm saying he wasn't a neutral observer. When asked about the relatively weaker F-20 radar, Yeager said it's like two men with guns and flashlights in the dark. The first guy to switch on his flashlight/radar can lose, so size doesn't always matter. Err... The main problem with assessing the F-5 is the lack of combat history. Small airplane like that, would have limited range. Look, I like the F-5. It was my country's main fighter. One flew low over my school and I saw its shadow on the ground. Huge thrill. Fun fact: The aircraft "dropping" napalm (for safety, it was all pre rigged on the ground) in Apocalypse Now are Philippine air force F-5.
Someone once about the P-51Mustang in WW2 . If it looks like a shark and moves like a shark it's a shark! You just have to look at tiger family of war aircraft if it looks like a shark and moves like a shark......it's a shark ❤ I know they use them in the TOP GUN resent training as the communists villain fighter jet. It's a very sharp dangerous dangerous weapons platform. It was to do what the F-16 ended up doing filling in gaps where it could be used in America and of course filling out nato. Politics killed this aircraft in AMERICAN navy even with it 2 engines and the airforce. It's a topnotch 4th generation fighter.
The F-5 the 1950 was also used as a chase plane for the X-15 being dropped from a B-52 bomber if you will check the F-5 was able to climb and keep up with the X-15 at a lower level of flight ✈️ about 2 miles under the X-15 s flight ranges. Please check the facts 🙏 I had the pleasure of coming back from Vietnam as back seat tag along 1971 as a close family friend being US Army service member and an Air Force brat.
The goobers at the Pentagon have always been suckers for hype over substance. They'd rather have an expensive chicken that meets their criteria than an effective fighter that can do the job better. They've done this with planes, ships, subs, rifles, and everything else. The M14, the Thunderchief (Thunderchicken to it's unfortunate pilots), and the Navy's LCS ships (soon to be decommissioned) are all examples of the brass' tendency to navel gaze, basking in the glow of their own brilliance. It's unfortunate, but when the system rewards asst kissing and flashy power point slides over effectiveness that's what we'll have to deal with going forward.
A rich story for sure I was on the flight line when Morooco dropped Mig-15 as a strong but troublesome pile of political junk. The U.S. Airforce delivered the first f-5 to be deployed by the Morrocan air force. The lead Moroccan pilot on his second flight ran the plane out of fuel and crashed it. The training went forward with a twin-seat version crash killing both pilots including the U.S. airforce pilot instructor an air force captain. The Morrocan airforces tried to kill the King by shooting him down in his 707 leaving Gibraltar the attempt failed. The king had one-fourth of his aircrew and officers shot on the Morrocan base, This began the service of the F-5 and it served very well for many years. Infamous as it was.
I always loved this small but effectice, and efficient, little plane. Bigger does not always have to mean better - and it could top 1,000 mph ffs! And if you look at the boeing/SAAB 'successor', it looks remarkably like (I know, higher wing, but you know what I mean, generally) the F-5. As for which is 'the best' - as a Brit, I will always cite the English Electric Lightning, purely for noise, power (5-6 miles high in 30 seconds, and this was the mid-1950s, not even a decade since piston power was the only real option), and brutal looks. BUT, in the all-round stakes, I love the little F-5.
NATO needs another F-5. Something cheap to buy, fly, and maintain; flexible, reliable, long legs, and can fly from austere bases (definitely a lot could be learned from the Gripen). Primary capability is air interceptor, secondary is ground OR sea attack, anything else is a bonus. Really designed for territorial defence rather than penetrating enemy air space. A plane that Canada could buy and fly a couple hundred of, always having a squadron at each of the 8 or 9 bases and forward operating locations along the coasts of the country (for Canada the secondary capability would be anti-shipping). One of the things we are learning from recent world events is that there is a value in quantity even if it isn't bleeding edge quality.
Good job on your video. F-5 one of my favourites. Almost got one from ( the C.A.F. Mountainview detatchment ) They cut the main spar so it can't be flown. But then some twat in Alberta tried to repair it and crashed into a bunch of houses putting the kibosh on that plan. So no cool lawn ornament. Cheers
Great musical choice for the Soundtrack.. sound familiar to anyone? Its the music from the Ace Combat games❤ youre a scholar and gentleman, sir! *Salute* EDIT: Can someone get a list of Ace Combat tracks featured in this video going please, with bookmarks? Thanks!
@@itsikorol hey there, thanks for the ❤️ I wrote my comment before I saw the tracks in the description, but I was wondering if someone would Bookmark them in the video
Red lobster surf and turf lobster, NY steak, fries, soup and a coke im ok with long form videos since im eating my dinner video was short still liked it 😎 👍
It is sad that the F5/20 was such a solid airframe and adaptability didn't get the fame the Falcon/Eagle has. This plane got the balance we were going for, on spot.
Clickbait title is an insult to the excellent airframe because it ignores war, the purpose of military aircraft. No "greatest" (a silly idea in the first place because aircraft are MISSION-SPECIFIC so the greatest at one cannot be the greatest at all) military aircraft doesn't put warheads on foreheads. It's very good at its specific uses, but those uses are quite limited so it's kept in its classic roles. The USAF knew very well what it was doing and had every opportunity over generations of aircrew trained in T-38 (therefore highly aware of its capabilities from the beginning of their careers as fighter aircrew) to use F-5 elsewhere. That it barely did except for aggressor squadrons (a complement to the airframe's agility and maintainability, they're quite easy to work on as I found training to R&I T-38 and other engines at Chanute AFB) is telling. Contrarians adore the F-20 (railfans are far from the only autspergies out there and aviation has its own "foamers") but tend to ignore the necessary capability and mission mix that airframe does not suit, especially because it lacks room for avionics expansion. Contrast with Phantom which was vastly more versatile, carried far larger and more varied weapons and other loads and greatly outranged it. If money permitted the USAF would have gone all F-15 as with the previous Phantom fighter monoculture, but money did not permit so it bought the high-low mix with F-16 (which has much more room for electronics than T-38/F-5) which will be in combat service for many more years. Likewise the Navy flies T-38 leveraging its economy, easy maintenance and safety record but didn't use it for combat. According to Northrop about two thirds of F-5s produced remain operational which is a magnificent testimony to their maintainability. F-5 is easily the greatest US jet trainer of all time.
Hey there, I'm happy to see you took the time out of your day not only to watch my video, but to also comment on it. Before anything else, I'd like to thank you for your very honest and labored response. From what I'm gathering from your initial thought, you believe my title is clickbait. Allow me to assure you it is not, it is a clear statement of what I as an individual believe. I believe the F-5 platform is the greatest ever made, but it's in no way my absolute favorite platform. That title belongs to the Phantom II. That does not mean it is, or that you are not allowed to disagree - that's what the comment section is for. To be completely transparent, I didn't expect nearly as much dialogue, feedback, and overall attention that I got with this video, which leaves me both humbled and astonished. (After all, I did this as a personal bet to myself to just prove that I was actually capable of it.) The F-5 fit in a strange niche where America looked to make a cheap export fighter to help their allies, but also saw the potential in the platform for themselves. With the T-38 being such a fantastic trainer, and one that I see so frequently myself, it was the primary inspiration for me to even MAKE this video. I would like to also make sure you know that if you dislike anything, or everything, I say and do within the content I produced, I completely understand if you chose to dislike it. There would be no hard feelings. But, take comfort in knowing that I have chosen to put significantly more research and work into producing content for those who are interested. The video I released on the F-4 Phantom showcases some error-correction and application of feedback from comments in THIS video. So, thank you for helping me see what you yourself believe, alongside the facts you have provided as well. Have a good one, friend.
There's a F-16 derivative with F-5E lineages and YF-17 aerodynamic characteristics called "Fighter Ching Kuo 1/ Indigenous Defense Fighter". This plane was design and made Republic of China back in 1989 with the implementation of Northrop's YF-17 technologies and with the aid of General Dynamics engineers. The Indigenous Defense Fighter is not the perfect lightweight multirole fighter due to it's anemic engines and could not export to other countries due to US restrictions but it does have a good APG-67 radar, great energy retention and has outstanding maneuverability, more importantly the flyaway cost is low and it was simple to maintain.
I follow a few guys who fly this bird and I've touched a few up close. Fantastic aircraft. It may be old school in our modern age but it's aged like a vintage Ferarri.
As long as there are parts, they will continue to fly them. A quick little transport even. they are just too good to let die. I personally think the USAF did the critter justice.
The concept of a small, capable, easy to maintain, multirole fighter never really goes away. In WWII it was the FW-190, in the Cold War it was the F-5 family, today, arguably, it is the Saab Gripen. Sadly, it's a category of aircraft that the USAF doesn't seem very interested in. $100 million+ aircraft can be very cutting edge and advanced; but how many of them can you realistically afford? Particularly when one consideres that for the past thirty years the conflicts the US has been involved with could have used aircraft costing a quarter as much just as well. Im not saying the top end fighters shouldnt be made, im simply saying that there is a need that is not only unfilled, but officially unrecognized, for a less expensive lightweight tactical fighter.
I think nowadays, the F-16 fills the role of America's 'export fighter'. After all, they're cheap, modular, and have great survivability. It was a logical step up from the F-5 platform, and I think that it certainly fits the bill. Personally, I'd like to see something new come up from the woodwork, but I doubt we'll ever see anything like that. After all, in a world of Lightning IIs and Gripens, who's going to want to go for the bottom-shelf option?
@@itsikorol There's no question that the F-16 fits that bill today (or at least the more basic versions do- $60million+ for the Block70/72 isn't anyone's idea of cheap). The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any thought for what will fill that role tomorrow. The High/Low concept of F-15/F-16 was supposed to be filled by F-22/F-35,, but prices went through the roof. F-22 is due to be phased out and at the price tag for F-35, nobody's going to call that a low cost tactical aircraft. The future of USAF fighters appears to be F-35 plus whatever even more expensive and complex fighters are developed. There is no High/Low anymore. When the last of the F-16s are phased out, there is nothing currently projected to replace them in the role of the more affordable lightweight tactical fighter.
Too much black screen. Is something wrong with my computer? Why did it go dark? Does the dark screen for more than 2 seconds lend anything to the video? Just asking. Content, by the way, and narrative excellent.
I appreciate the heads-up. When I made this, it was sort of a spur-of-the-moment thing, a shot in the dark that I took to prove to myself that I COULD make a video essay. Because of this, the research was what my primary focus was, and I didn't fill in the blank spaces like I could. However, in my more recent video, one on the F-4 Phantom II, I tried to remedy this issue by putting in some more footage to lend aid to those who didn't like the black screens. Thank you for watching the video and offering some feedback!
Mostly avionics, materials and a single f404 engine rather than twin J85 engines. The spiritual successor to the F-20 was the YF-17 which became the F-18.
I love the F-20. Best bang for buck there is. Over a lifetime cost, it was half the price of an F-16. You should read an article by the Atlantic titled "The Airplane That Doesn’t Cost Enough" written By Gregg Easterbrook. It goes into detail of why the airplane was not adopted by USAF. Mainly, because the DOD helped design the F-15 and F-16, yet the F-20 was made entirely by Northrop and it could beat both of those fighters on paper. DOD refused allowing it to dogfight either the Eagles or Vipers. The head of USAF at the time Charles A. Gabriel said of the F-20 "what [Northrop] is doing out there is the best I’ve ever seen”.
I was a crew chief on these 43 years ago for the 527th Aggressor Squadron at RAF Alconbury. I was also a crew chief on it's kid brother the T-38 Talon. I always thought Northrop got the shitty end of the stick from the USAF as far as fighters went. I knew a lot of crew chiefs on the F-4 and they were hated and despised by maintenance crews for being so difficult to maintain. F-5's and T-38's on the other hand were an absolute dream to work on.
The F-20 was always intended as an export fighter follow on to the F-5 series. What killed the F-20 was the Reagan administration approved selling the F-16 to almost any air force
Interesting story, I like F-5, but there is just too much black sections in a video - which feels disturbing. Black, black, two quick photos, more black... pitty.
@@itsikorol I agree with Virgo. Also, in future videos, it would be nice to try to grab more vintage photos and videos of the correct versions of the aircraft you are talking about. Your narrating skills are good, so with better research and presentation, your videos will be much more pleasant to watch.
I was watching this earlier. I love your editing style, the music you use, and how quickly the video went by while still feeling like a 30 minute documentary about the history and legacy of the Tiger II. I was having buffalo wings earlier with blue cheese, since you asked if we were eating dinner. Ha! Perfect time to find a video like yours. Subscribed, and hope to see more of this style content in the future! (I also shared this with a group of friends of mine on Discord. Don't be alarmed if your view count shoots up by a couple thousand!) 😉
Hey, I love to hear that you enjoyed the video. I actually have a new one on the way as well, maybe being uploaded some time tomorrow. Thank you for the kind words!
Hey, liked your doco. While best is subjective can still I don't disagree. It is a small fighter with snap and staying power, no small thing it turns out. All the best
Somewhere online, there are some comments by Soviet pilots that are very favourable on the F5. I believe some were captured in Vietnam and Russian pilots tested them.
I agree, and this was the first thing I sought to fix in my second attempt at a video - one covering the F-4 Phantom II. I hope you'll give it a try as well.
Most of people who scoff after hearing this thing being called greatest, are only looking at a specs sheet and thinking all other American fighters had bigger numbers. And they had a point in that.
However, from the point of view of efficiency, pond for pound, the F-5E is the greatest fighter a American company ever made. To give you a idea, the E model can take off with two and a half times its empty weight. The only other fighters that can do that is the F-15E and Rafale, that have more titanium and composite materiais in each of them than the empty weight of a F-5E, which have almost nothing of these. Another metric is the thrust needed to achieve high Mach speeds, again a fantastic performance.
The ACEVAL and AIMVAL exercises showed that, with the right armament (AIM-9L), the rumble F-5E could achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against much more expensive fighters. That led to the much needed AIM-120 missile, since the AIM-7 kept the big fighters in a collision course with the nimble F-5 with the Sidewinder, resulting in a mutual kill. And when that didn't happened, the Tiger II still had good chances to score a kill on the resulting dogfight, because its instantaneous turn rate was comparable to its big brothers. Subsequent developments in short range IR missiles would make any advantage in flight performance over the F-5 or equivalent cheap fighter, irrelevant, hence the priority on getting a medium range missile with autonomous guidance system.
ACEVAL AIMVAL hobbled the F-14 and F-15 by restricting their use of BVR. Even when allowed to use the AIM-7 they had to VID, which is not the way these airplanes planned to fight a real war.
There are reasons and it is partially due to those "spec sheets" that you are talking about. The F-5, compared to more modern planes then like the F-14, had very, very underpowered engines. They could not match the thrust to weight output of the newer planes. And no, they do not have a higher "instantaneous turn rate", just because it is smaller does not mean it is nimbler, it's also related to the thrust/weight ratio, you need ENERGY to turn and the F-5 just could not produce that energy fast. Did you know that the F-14 can out accelerate the F-5? Why? Because the F-14 had a thrust to weight ratio of 0.8 while the F-5's was only 0.4.
The best use of the F-5 is like what they did in Fighter Training School, use them as ambush fighters where after an F-14, F/A-18 or F-15 has committed to a bombing run and their total energy is low, they'll use the F-5 to pounce on them at their weakest moment. That is one way to work around the F-5's lower energy output, by ambushing the enemy when their energy state is the lowest.
@@danielc2701there’s a reason I’ll say the F-20 is the greatest plane never built because it’s essentially an F-5 that makes up what it lacks ten told. Including the instantaneous turn rate.
@@thesovietvorona1007 Nonsense. The new engines of the F-20 run at 49kN of thrust (the old F-5 ran at 44kN with both engines), it's barely an improvement. I'll give you a comparison, the F-4 Phantom, the F-5's contemporary, ran at 106kN. It held the WORLD RECORDS in speed and altitude for that time. That was the real reason why the F-5 was approved for export, the US had a much, much more capable fighter in the F-4. The real "power" the F-5 had was in the realm of "media hype" and "layman's impression" where people have the mistaken impression that "smaller = more agile". IIRC, the turn rate of the F-20 was only 13 degrees per second or something like that, hardly "instantaneous". You need about 7 seconds just to make a 90 degree turn.
BTW, it was built, there were at least 3 built for demonstration testing, which was where all the stats came from.
@@danielc2701 I also did a video on the F-4 Phantom, where I covered their record breaking speed, as well as their unrestricted climb record. If you're interested, check it out!
I generally like small light nimble aircraft, but this family of jets (F-5, F-20, T-38 Talon) is also extremely beautiful to me! Love them
Thanks for making and sharing this video. A few friendly suggestions:
1. Avoid showing a black screen for several seconds at a time. It's jarring to the viewer, even if done for dramatic effect. Several such instances in this video were so long that I wondered if there was a problem; several times I checked the progress bar to see if the video had ended. Better to let us look at an airplane photo for a few more seconds than nothing at all.
2. Normalize your audio sources, and set their levels in the final audio carefully. At around 6:30, the music is nearly louder than your voice, which can make it hard to understand you.
3. Refrain from using stock photos (e.g. the one of the "naming board" in this video). It adds nothing good; it just cheapens your video.
4. Avoid flashing through photos too quickly. It's jarring and annoying to the viewer. If you're going to show a photo, give the viewer a moment to digest it.
5. Omit the title-style captions of your own voice for effect. It's more distracting than helpful. Just let us look at another nice photo of the aircraft while you speak over it.
Keep up the good work!
A titlecard would be Ideal here. Re-enfirce the topic and maybe a small humorous quip below. but something to look at.
You gave him Good advice. You shouldn’t complement him too much when he did a pretty bad job, but it is good to encourage him. But he needs to know how badly he did, and it was rotten. He has potential though.
@steveperreira5850 well that was rather sh*tty of you
In the 80's I was a Crew Chief at RAF Alconbury working Transient Alert. Northrup was delivering some F-5E's to Saudi Arabia and Gen Yeager was part of the team. Got presented with an F-20 Tigershark lapel pin from Gen Yeager for all the support we gave them. Nice guy in all our dealings with him.
I've long beleived the F-20 is the greatest fighter Never Made. There's a book, "Warriors" by Barret Tillman that tells a great 'What If?' story about using F-20's in Saudia Arabia. Highly Recommend it!
Good video! Love hearing about the F-5's/T-38's/F-20! Northrup got the short end of the stick with the TigerShark, but the Tiger II's made up for it in the long run! Keep it up! Do one on the Gripen soon!
The F-20 dealt with the F-5E's biggest handicap--power. The F-404 engine raised the plane's thrust from 9600 to 16,000 pounds. Innovative and ics and starter systems made it the fastest scrambling fighter if it's time (and today too). It could be hitting Mach 1 before most others could clear the runway. It could outfly it's pilot, whereas the F-16 needed governor's so the pilot wouldn't outfly it. The F-20 could mount the AIM 7 Sparrow in 1982, the F-16 not until 1989. It died of politics, not performance. It remains "the greatest that never was."
Favorite plane in DCS, hands down- it's not the fastest or biggest nimblest or most advanced: but like an old Italian sports car, none of that matters. It's pure flying, and it does everything well.
The F-20 Tigershark should have been produced in large numbers to replace the F-5E Tiger II. One of the best looking lightweight fighters ever made.
F-20 was less expensive in terms of "retail" price as well as maintenance lifecycle costs than F-16, its main rival. It was also a platform that the nations already using F-5E could easily transition their pilots into. In almost every respect, F-20 was the ideal choice to supplement, and eventually replace, the F-5s in all the nations flying them.
Unfortunately, Northrop was trying to sell F-20s at a time when the Cold War was getting hot (early 1980s) and the US had recently authorized the financially subsidized export of scores of F-16s to modernize the air forces of allied and friendly nations. When potential customers can get a discount rate on a fighter with comparable performance and an existing logistical support network compatible with USAF inventory, it's hard to sell them a new plane that has not even entered mass production yet. US mass export of F-16, while a good strategic move, doomed F-20.
@@christineshotton824 I can see though why it wen't down that way. the 16 was considered the NEXT Gen and could be built to numbers (History proved that correct) and the 16 proved very adaptable.
The most challenging thing about fighting the F-5 is that it’s so small - super easy to lose sight of it. And once you lose sight, it doesn’t matter how much better of an airplane you are in, you lose.
I don’t know why the military brat can’t figure this shit out. Time and time again, when I was in the Air Force, our larger fighters would complain about how impossible it was to follow the F 16 and the outside.
I mean, Chuck was on Northrop's payroll when he said that, soo... But, yeah, this would have been great!
I worked in NDI/JOAP in the USAF. We had very little work on the F5. Engines were dependable as well.
The Ace Combat 4 music along with this in the beginning brings me back nostalgia for the F5E. I specifically remember flying the Northern Eye mission flying this thank you for the nostalgia hit.
Actually the Netherlands retired their F-5's a little over three decades ago in 1991, having gradually replaced them with the F-16 since 1979, which in turn has now been largely replaced with F-35's with the F-16's being completely phased out in the Netherlands in 2024.
Most of those he lists have stopped using them for a long time. It's hopelessly outdated at this point.
A fun fact: the first ever F-5E produced (tail code USAF 71-1417) was acquired in the late 80's by the Brazilian Air Force, from USAF Agressor squadrons. It was modernized in the early 2000's and is still operating. And yes, the Brazilians intend to keep it in a museum after it got out of active service in a few years, after they get enough numbers of the Saab Gripen E.
If you want to see what it looks like today, search for FAB 4856, its current tail number at the Brazilian Air Force (FAB).
I am grateful that you mentioned the Tigershark F-20 (the one that Chuck Yeager called "the greatest fighter never built"!). The F-5 was the "red-headed step child" that never got the reputation it deserved, and, likewise the F-20 (essentially the same airframe with a single engine turbofan), cheap, agile, and superior performance.
Cheap and effective. I wonder how the F-5 and F-20 would stand up under Col. John Boyd's analysis using his ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) thesis. Probably would have rated pretty well. The F-15 Eagle AND the F-16 Fighting Falcon (called by its pilots the "Viper") were based upon his calculations and writings.
Gotta agree, ever since I first played ace combat when I was ~8 (nice music choice btw), even before I knew my country used it, it was already my favorite fighter and it still is today. I used to live in a town where there is an airforce base on the city next to it, and it was common to military planes pass by, and I use to say that those jets were F5s on the school playground (little did I know that I was right)
The F-5 is still in use as an Aggressor aircraft in the US. Last I knew, VMFT-401 (US Marine Corps Aggressor squadron based at MCAS Yuma) still uses the the F-5N variant to this day.
The US still fly them as adversary role jets. Countries such as Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan and Brazil did a whole bunch of upgrades to theirs. Some are retrofitted with the newest sensors, avionics and weapons systems which will keep them flying in their respective air forces for much longer. The F-20 Tigershark would have been a great replacement for many of the countries that bought the F-5 E but due to US not selecting Northrop's design it ended up losing out to General Dynamics F-16. Retired US General Chuck Yeager even said the F-20 was a great fighter aircraft to fly. Thank you for doing this vid on such an iconic plane.
This was my favorite fighter until the YF23, yes I'm a fan of Northrop
Jack Northrop got screwed or most likely out bribed by the big entrenched military contractors. Way ahead of his time with his designs . I saw a clip where they brought to see his flying wing concept finally being implemented as the stealth f117 just before he died .
Small complaint. the whole point of the Top Gun/Red Flag training is NOT to prove or disprove the aircraft in 1on1 combat but to PROVE THE TACTICS being trained. the bulk of the training is against Near Peer TACTICS. THe F5s were first flown to envelope to show the pilots training that the instructoras were as good if not better than them. the F5 is a small maneuverable and agile dog-fighter. these sorties are what they were designed to excel in. BUT these are not how the Soviets and Chinese flew. That is the rest of the program. the F5 was a supperior dogfighter.
1st half) show the limitations of your craft and the tactics known (Yes the trainees are expected to lose, this enforces knowing the craft and your own skills better.
2nd half) Now show what your training AND Craft can do against Soviet Tactics. (The trainees are expected to succeed. this reinforces skills, teamwork, and calculations over bravado).
The USAF/Navy want's smark calculating fighter pilots (Iceman, NOT Maverik).
I have some original photos of the N-156 prototype at Edwards AFB. My uncle took them when he was Yeager’s crew chief in the Air Force. He sent them to me not too far back. Got some of the F-107 too. Neat stuff!
Wah..
Terbaik 👍👍
Tigers.. Hari²mau..
also the f18/FA18 was the macdac derive from the F20
Nam in 66-67 we had F5 Freedom fighters down south. Thing of beauty, and to see it attack ground positions was awesome
I was a weapons specialist at Nellis AFB and was assigned to the 64th Aggressor Squadron. In my day we had F-16's, but what you have to understand about any " Top Gun" schools is this. The pilots we had were in fact the absolute best the Air Force had to offer. The airframe they were in didn't really matter, they themselves were superior.
I have seen HUD tapes of a pilot engaged with five F-15's who made two missile kills and three gun kills in less than a minute.
"Indigenous upgrades" are always interesting, esp w widely used aircraft like the F-5, F-4 and F-16. Most are done w license and assist from the original mfr, but you should look into what Iran did w the F-5s left behind after the fall of the Shah.
Greatest? I dont know. I will say it is one of the prettiest planes ever built. It just looks like a thoughbred colt.
One down vote for use of Greatest ever"... And too many black areas.
"Greatest ever" is a very big claim. Yeager retired from the service, but accepted one last job in civilian life, as a chief test-pilot, and the project he worked on, was the F-20 TigerShark. He wrote about it in his autobiography, and said a number of very complimentary things about it, along with the original F-5. High praise, from someone who's opinion I would listen to.
People tell me the Hawker Hurricane is under-appreciated, because it had many times more kills than the much talked about Spitfire. This is true, and the Hurry did most of the work in defending Britain, but it could only do that, because the Spitfires protected the Hurry from the 109s. At the start of the Battle, there were only about 70 ~ 80 Spitfires in true operational condition. The outcome of the war, hung on those 70 or so Spitfires....
The P-51D had the performance to fight 109s & 190s, and the range to escort bombers all the way to Berlin. The counter-point to that, if Britain had fallen in 1940 ~ '41, then the whole escort thing becomes irrelevant. There never would have been an American daytime bombing operation.
The B-29 dropped the two atomic weapons, and only that caused the Japanese surrender. Well ~ that's debatable. That view was presented at the time, and it has been repeated ever since, but I have heard the Japanese were about to surrender anyway...
The point I'm trying to make, this is a complicated question, and exactly what represents "The Greatest" rather depends on the criteria you choose, which depends on the personal objectives you bring to the discussion ....
My personal view (I am an Australian, not a Brit) would be the Mk 1 Spitfire, because the existence of the free world, hung on about a hundred young men in Spitfires. "Never in the field of human conflict, have so many, owed so much, to so few."
The fact that the Spitfire is a simply stunningly beautiful object ~ that doesn't hurt either.
This is a beautifully worded comment, and I appreciate you spending the time to type it out in regards to my video.
Loved watching the CF-5 's whenever they landed or took off from Winnipeg in the mid 80's when Bristol Aerospace was doing maintenance on them. They always looked "right" like the quintessential sleek and lethal fighter. Was always disappointed the F-20 didn't go into production to carry on this proud lineage.
I always like the F20, an F5 with a large single engine.
It looks like a razor blade with an engine.
pretty sure the dutch don't use F5's anymore
You should do more, it's way higher quality than those ChatGPT generated plane videos.
I appreciate the sentiment. I did do a video on the Phantom. However, my current living situation doesn't allow me to do any prolonged voicework. In the future, I intend to return to this series.
Eating a meatball sub while watching.
Nice video, this is truly one of the aircrafts of all time.
Have always loved the "Skoshi Tiger" and all it's variants... and have to agree someone needs their ass kicked for the F-20 fall through...that was a major suck Thanks, Dane
I hope you can continue to enjoy the content I put forward, Dane. Thank you for watching my first real attempt at a video essay! Enjoy your day!
I wrote the words into the Wikipedia F-5 article quoted here that in the 1977 Nellis trials "For the first three weeks of the test, the F-14s and F-15s were hopelessly outclassed and demoralized" against the F-5. They were quoted from the Pierre Sprey book sized report on fighter effectiveness. Sprey believed that the F-5 was the most effective fighter in the U.S. inventory in the 1960's based on the fighter effectiveness criteria of surprise, numbers per budget, maneuverability, and weapons performance. He was probably right, but there is a prejudice against light fighters in the United States military. That nearly kept the later F-16 from being adopted. It really is a shame that the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard did not adopt the F-5 for mainstream use. It could compete with and usually outperform any U.S. fighters of the 60's and 70's, and for a fraction of the price. For the same budget, an F-5 air force would have run over any other plane in the world in that era. The F-20 was a terrific close derivative that similarly did not survive the political resistance against light fighters that provide the best air force for the budget. But, the lightweight Swedish Saab Gripen that is the philosophical son of the F-20 and which uses the same engine is today becoming highly recognized and valued.
Glad to hear someone else's love for this aircraft. Love this thing since I was a kid.
Hearing the Ace Combat music in the background brought up so much nostalgia. I just had to boot up AC5 as soon as I finished watching this vid
I'm glad I could bring back some good memories.
my all time favorite video game
Since you seem to have a great deal of love and affection for the F-5 there's some additional information I figure you'd love to know about. It would really help to strengthen your claim about the jet, I feel certain it'll either make you want to create an extended version of this video or a part 2.
1. The Soviet Union were given several F-5a's or c's I think they were the C or "Skoshi Tiger." after the Vietnam war, they were completely BLOWN away by it, the pilots tasked with flying them developed a deep amount of love and respect for it. They were mainly tasked with flying it against the MIG 21 so they could compare them.
They were NOT prepared for the results. The 21 ALWAYS got it's ass handed to it by the Tiger, the F-5 was either equal or superior in all but 1 category that being maximum speed. Hud footage of some of these engagements can be found on RUclips. Now imagine if it was the DRASTICALLY more capable E model.
2. Secret Projects Forum, I don't have time to write out all the ways that make this a "one stop shop website" I will try to summarize it thusly, this is the website where most of the authors of all the decent military aviation, well any book about various military stuff, the respected aviation and other photographers, the people who had a hand in the design of just about any military vehicle you can imagine and the ones with operational experience hang out, share pictures and discuss things. I'm going to leave a link to a particular topic I just know you're going to love.
www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/big-wing-f-5s-and-f-5g-f-20-alternative-designs.4513/
I believe the Soviets received the F-5E version after the fall of Saigon, South Vietnam in April of 1975. Not sure how many airframes the South received, but I believe they used them during their operations in Cambodia against the Khmer Rouge in 1979. There should be a video here on youtube showing showing the Soviets testing these aircraft.
Sorry, I meant to say the Communist North used them against the Khmer Rouge.
NOT buying the Northrop F-20 Tiger Shark, and not acquiring the Northrop F-23 Black Widow were 2 of the biggest mistakes the USAF ever made.
I am in no way going to badmouth the F-5, but to call it the greatest aircraft ever made is simply ludicrous. You don't even narrow it down to category or subcategory...amazing.
Yup simply ludicrous, but hyperbole always outweighs accuracy on RUclips. It was a great jet in the affordable light fighter/trainer category, and there were allied countries for which this was the best they could afford. It was a notional step up from subsonic jets like the F-86 and allowed small countries to say they had supersonic jets. It's all about deterring the local opposition, not necessarily a major power.
I would phrase it as, at the time….
It's the Ford Escort of fighter planes
@@bear76009 😂
@@bear76009I had an escort in the 80’s, it’s not that good.
I think Yeager was a paid Northrop spokesman at the time. Not calling him a liar. I'm saying he wasn't a neutral observer. When asked about the relatively weaker F-20 radar, Yeager said it's like two men with guns and flashlights in the dark. The first guy to switch on his flashlight/radar can lose, so size doesn't always matter. Err...
The main problem with assessing the F-5 is the lack of combat history. Small airplane like that, would have limited range. Look, I like the F-5. It was my country's main fighter. One flew low over my school and I saw its shadow on the ground. Huge thrill.
Fun fact: The aircraft "dropping" napalm (for safety, it was all pre rigged on the ground) in Apocalypse Now are Philippine air force F-5.
Someone once about the P-51Mustang in WW2 .
If it looks like a shark and moves like a shark it's a shark!
You just have to look at tiger family of war aircraft if it looks like a shark and moves like a shark......it's a shark ❤
I know they use them in the TOP GUN resent training as the communists villain fighter jet.
It's a very sharp dangerous dangerous weapons platform.
It was to do what the F-16 ended up doing filling in gaps where it could be used in America and of course filling out nato.
Politics killed this aircraft in AMERICAN navy even with it 2 engines and the airforce.
It's a topnotch 4th generation fighter.
The F-5 the 1950 was also used as a chase plane for the X-15 being dropped from a B-52 bomber if you will check the F-5 was able to climb and keep up with the X-15 at a lower level of flight ✈️ about 2 miles under the X-15 s flight ranges. Please check the facts 🙏 I had the pleasure of coming back from Vietnam as back seat tag along 1971 as a close family friend being US Army service member and an Air Force brat.
Chipotle steak bowl. 😂 Great video, love the F-5E in DCS. If I ever hit the lottery I'm getting a T-38 ASAP.
Love the F-5E…and the F-20 Tigershark was one of the greatest planes that never went into production. I believe THAT was a disgrace.
The goobers at the Pentagon have always been suckers for hype over substance. They'd rather have an expensive chicken that meets their criteria than an effective fighter that can do the job better. They've done this with planes, ships, subs, rifles, and everything else. The M14, the Thunderchief (Thunderchicken to it's unfortunate pilots), and the Navy's LCS ships (soon to be decommissioned) are all examples of the brass' tendency to navel gaze, basking in the glow of their own brilliance. It's unfortunate, but when the system rewards asst kissing and flashy power point slides over effectiveness that's what we'll have to deal with going forward.
A rich story for sure I was on the flight line when Morooco dropped Mig-15 as a strong but troublesome pile of political junk.
The U.S. Airforce delivered the first f-5 to be deployed by the Morrocan air force. The lead Moroccan pilot
on his second flight ran the plane out of fuel and crashed it. The training went forward with a twin-seat version crash killing both pilots including the U.S. airforce pilot instructor an air force captain. The Morrocan airforces tried to kill the King
by shooting him down in his 707 leaving Gibraltar the attempt failed. The king had one-fourth of his aircrew and officers shot
on the Morrocan base, This began the service of the F-5 and it served very well for many years. Infamous as it was.
I always loved this small but effectice, and efficient, little plane. Bigger does not always have to mean better - and it could top 1,000 mph ffs! And if you look at the boeing/SAAB 'successor', it looks remarkably like (I know, higher wing, but you know what I mean, generally) the F-5. As for which is 'the best' - as a Brit, I will always cite the English Electric Lightning, purely for noise, power (5-6 miles high in 30 seconds, and this was the mid-1950s, not even a decade since piston power was the only real option), and brutal looks. BUT, in the all-round stakes, I love the little F-5.
NATO needs another F-5. Something cheap to buy, fly, and maintain; flexible, reliable, long legs, and can fly from austere bases (definitely a lot could be learned from the Gripen). Primary capability is air interceptor, secondary is ground OR sea attack, anything else is a bonus. Really designed for territorial defence rather than penetrating enemy air space. A plane that Canada could buy and fly a couple hundred of, always having a squadron at each of the 8 or 9 bases and forward operating locations along the coasts of the country (for Canada the secondary capability would be anti-shipping). One of the things we are learning from recent world events is that there is a value in quantity even if it isn't bleeding edge quality.
Tbf I’m eating breakfast on the morning of July 4th. Happy 4th to those who’ll be celebrating it.
🎆 🎇💥
Good job on your video. F-5 one of my favourites. Almost got one from ( the C.A.F. Mountainview detatchment )
They cut the main spar so it can't be flown. But then some twat in Alberta tried to repair it and crashed into a bunch of houses putting the kibosh on that plan. So no cool lawn ornament.
Cheers
Great musical choice for the Soundtrack.. sound familiar to anyone? Its the music from the Ace Combat games❤ youre a scholar and gentleman, sir! *Salute*
EDIT: Can someone get a list of Ace Combat tracks featured in this video going please, with bookmarks? Thanks!
Hey there, I have a list of all the tracks I used in the video description in chronological order. I hope that clears things up!
@@itsikorol hey there, thanks for the ❤️
I wrote my comment before I saw the tracks in the description, but I was wondering if someone would Bookmark them in the video
Salad, with fresh baked butter milk biscuits. Thanks for the presentation! 👍
Red lobster surf and turf lobster, NY steak, fries, soup and a coke im ok with long form videos since im eating my dinner video was short still liked it 😎 👍
Only halfway through this but I sure hope you mention how beautiful the thing is! I'd like to know who pencilled the outlines...
Oh! You better make a vid about the F20 tigershark. You didnt have enough time to elaborate the myriad of reasons for both its existence and failure.
It is sad that the F5/20 was such a solid airframe and adaptability didn't get the fame the Falcon/Eagle has. This plane got the balance we were going for, on spot.
The F-5 lives on in its descendants: the F/A-18 family.
F5:s where dirt cheap to build compared to its counterparts.
Your channel has great potential. Good luck!
It's all about power-to-weight ratio in a dogfight
Never herd of the B52 decoy, didn't know they implemented airborne decoys back in the 50's.
Clickbait title is an insult to the excellent airframe because it ignores war, the purpose of military aircraft. No "greatest" (a silly idea in the first place because aircraft are MISSION-SPECIFIC so the greatest at one cannot be the greatest at all) military aircraft doesn't put warheads on foreheads.
It's very good at its specific uses, but those uses are quite limited so it's kept in its classic roles. The USAF knew very well what it was doing and had every opportunity over generations of aircrew trained in T-38 (therefore highly aware of its capabilities from the beginning of their careers as fighter aircrew) to use F-5 elsewhere.
That it barely did except for aggressor squadrons (a complement to the airframe's agility and maintainability, they're quite easy to work on as I found training to R&I T-38 and other engines at Chanute AFB) is telling. Contrarians adore the F-20 (railfans are far from the only autspergies out there and aviation has its own "foamers") but tend to ignore the necessary capability and mission mix that airframe does not suit, especially because it lacks room for avionics expansion. Contrast with Phantom which was vastly more versatile, carried far larger and more varied weapons and other loads and greatly outranged it.
If money permitted the USAF would have gone all F-15 as with the previous Phantom fighter monoculture, but money did not permit so it bought the high-low mix with F-16 (which has much more room for electronics than T-38/F-5) which will be in combat service for many more years.
Likewise the Navy flies T-38 leveraging its economy, easy maintenance and safety record but didn't use it for combat.
According to Northrop about two thirds of F-5s produced remain operational which is a magnificent testimony to their maintainability.
F-5 is easily the greatest US jet trainer of all time.
Hey there, I'm happy to see you took the time out of your day not only to watch my video, but to also comment on it. Before anything else, I'd like to thank you for your very honest and labored response.
From what I'm gathering from your initial thought, you believe my title is clickbait. Allow me to assure you it is not, it is a clear statement of what I as an individual believe. I believe the F-5 platform is the greatest ever made, but it's in no way my absolute favorite platform. That title belongs to the Phantom II. That does not mean it is, or that you are not allowed to disagree - that's what the comment section is for. To be completely transparent, I didn't expect nearly as much dialogue, feedback, and overall attention that I got with this video, which leaves me both humbled and astonished. (After all, I did this as a personal bet to myself to just prove that I was actually capable of it.)
The F-5 fit in a strange niche where America looked to make a cheap export fighter to help their allies, but also saw the potential in the platform for themselves. With the T-38 being such a fantastic trainer, and one that I see so frequently myself, it was the primary inspiration for me to even MAKE this video.
I would like to also make sure you know that if you dislike anything, or everything, I say and do within the content I produced, I completely understand if you chose to dislike it. There would be no hard feelings. But, take comfort in knowing that I have chosen to put significantly more research and work into producing content for those who are interested. The video I released on the F-4 Phantom showcases some error-correction and application of feedback from comments in THIS video. So, thank you for helping me see what you yourself believe, alongside the facts you have provided as well.
Have a good one, friend.
I like the AC aircraft selection music.
Hm... hello fellow ace combat 5 enjoyer :P
There's a F-16 derivative with F-5E lineages and YF-17 aerodynamic characteristics called "Fighter Ching Kuo 1/ Indigenous Defense Fighter". This plane was design and made Republic of China back in 1989 with the implementation of Northrop's YF-17 technologies and with the aid of General Dynamics engineers.
The Indigenous Defense Fighter is not the perfect lightweight multirole fighter due to it's anemic engines and could not export to other countries due to US restrictions but it does have a good APG-67 radar, great energy retention and has outstanding maneuverability, more importantly the flyaway cost is low and it was simple to maintain.
The F-5 Tiger II is still a damn good plane, and less expensive to buy and maintain. The F-20 would of been a monster..
I completely agree. It's an incredible aircraft, and the F-20 would have been a game changer if it was made!
Imagine F-5s escorting A-4s in a strike package. They would still be worthy in today's combat scenarios.
Sounds like a pretty damn menacing set of blips on a radar. I'd run for the hills.
The US Armed forces missed out on 2 great aircraft: the F20 Tigershark and the F21 SuperTomcat.
And the F-23.
I’m taking a huge dump while watching! Great video.
Good shit, literally!
I follow a few guys who fly this bird and I've touched a few up close. Fantastic aircraft. It may be old school in our modern age but it's aged like a vintage Ferarri.
eggs, sausages and baked beans with fried bread
mig 28
I saw lots of the trainer T5 in the AF .
F-5's are still in use by the USAF. Eglin AFB has a handful of them.
As long as there are parts, they will continue to fly them. A quick little transport even. they are just too good to let die. I personally think the USAF did the critter justice.
Good story. I personally loved the F5.
The concept of a small, capable, easy to maintain, multirole fighter never really goes away. In WWII it was the FW-190, in the Cold War it was the F-5 family, today, arguably, it is the Saab Gripen. Sadly, it's a category of aircraft that the USAF doesn't seem very interested in.
$100 million+ aircraft can be very cutting edge and advanced; but how many of them can you realistically afford? Particularly when one consideres that for the past thirty years the conflicts the US has been involved with could have used aircraft costing a quarter as much just as well. Im not saying the top end fighters shouldnt be made, im simply saying that there is a need that is not only unfilled, but officially unrecognized, for a less expensive lightweight tactical fighter.
I think nowadays, the F-16 fills the role of America's 'export fighter'. After all, they're cheap, modular, and have great survivability. It was a logical step up from the F-5 platform, and I think that it certainly fits the bill. Personally, I'd like to see something new come up from the woodwork, but I doubt we'll ever see anything like that. After all, in a world of Lightning IIs and Gripens, who's going to want to go for the bottom-shelf option?
@@itsikorol
There's no question that the F-16 fits that bill today (or at least the more basic versions do- $60million+ for the Block70/72 isn't anyone's idea of cheap). The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any thought for what will fill that role tomorrow. The High/Low concept of F-15/F-16 was supposed to be filled by F-22/F-35,, but prices went through the roof. F-22 is due to be phased out and at the price tag for F-35, nobody's going to call that a low cost tactical aircraft. The future of USAF fighters appears to be F-35 plus whatever even more expensive and complex fighters are developed. There is no High/Low anymore. When the last of the F-16s are phased out, there is nothing currently projected to replace them in the role of the more affordable lightweight tactical fighter.
Too much black screen. Is something wrong with my computer? Why did it go dark? Does the dark screen for more than 2 seconds lend anything to the video? Just asking. Content, by the way, and narrative excellent.
I appreciate the heads-up. When I made this, it was sort of a spur-of-the-moment thing, a shot in the dark that I took to prove to myself that I COULD make a video essay. Because of this, the research was what my primary focus was, and I didn't fill in the blank spaces like I could. However, in my more recent video, one on the F-4 Phantom II, I tried to remedy this issue by putting in some more footage to lend aid to those who didn't like the black screens.
Thank you for watching the video and offering some feedback!
@@itsikorol A titlecard would be Ideal here. Re-enfirce the topic and maybe a small humorous quip below. but something to look at.
I loved this video about the Tiger, thanks for putting this out there
You're welcome! Thanks for watching.
I always liked this aircraft because it’s good at everything basically.
I really enjoyed this content but would like to know what the differences are between the F5 and the F20,
Mostly avionics, materials and a single f404 engine rather than twin J85 engines.
The spiritual successor to the F-20 was the YF-17 which became the F-18.
I love the F-20. Best bang for buck there is. Over a lifetime cost, it was half the price of an F-16. You should read an article by the Atlantic titled "The Airplane That Doesn’t Cost Enough" written By Gregg Easterbrook. It goes into detail of why the airplane was not adopted by USAF. Mainly, because the DOD helped design the F-15 and F-16, yet the F-20 was made entirely by Northrop and it could beat both of those fighters on paper. DOD refused allowing it to dogfight either the Eagles or Vipers. The head of USAF at the time Charles A. Gabriel said of the F-20 "what [Northrop] is doing out there is the best I’ve ever seen”.
I was a crew chief on these 43 years ago for the 527th Aggressor Squadron at RAF Alconbury. I was also a crew chief on it's kid brother the T-38 Talon. I always thought Northrop got the shitty end of the stick from the USAF as far as fighters went. I knew a lot of crew chiefs on the F-4 and they were hated and despised by maintenance crews for being so difficult to maintain. F-5's and T-38's on the other hand were an absolute dream to work on.
The F-20 was always intended as an export fighter follow on to the F-5 series. What killed the F-20 was the Reagan administration approved selling the F-16 to almost any air force
Thanks for the video. Love the F5.
You could cut back on the music. It's drowning you out.
Interesting story, I like F-5, but there is just too much black sections in a video - which feels disturbing. Black, black, two quick photos, more black... pitty.
Stick around. I'll get better
@@itsikorol I agree with Virgo. Also, in future videos, it would be nice to try to grab more vintage photos and videos of the correct versions of the aircraft you are talking about. Your narrating skills are good, so with better research and presentation, your videos will be much more pleasant to watch.
I was watching this earlier. I love your editing style, the music you use, and how quickly the video went by while still feeling like a 30 minute documentary about the history and legacy of the Tiger II. I was having buffalo wings earlier with blue cheese, since you asked if we were eating dinner. Ha! Perfect time to find a video like yours. Subscribed, and hope to see more of this style content in the future! (I also shared this with a group of friends of mine on Discord. Don't be alarmed if your view count shoots up by a couple thousand!) 😉
Hey, I love to hear that you enjoyed the video. I actually have a new one on the way as well, maybe being uploaded some time tomorrow. Thank you for the kind words!
Hey, liked your doco. While best is subjective can still I don't disagree. It is a small fighter with snap and staying power, no small thing it turns out.
All the best
The F-5 was also the basis of the Hornet, and thus the Super Hornet. Probably one of the most successful aircraft designs of all time.
Excellent 👌👌☺️
Nice bro.
I knew you had it in you to create something like this. This video went well with a Spicy Pepperoni Pizza.
Dinner: chips, salsa and scotch 'n soda. F5,Excellent aircraft.Still flying today!!!!
It's ok, but it's nowhere near the plane the F-16 is especially the IAF F-16 Sufa..................................
Somewhere online, there are some comments by Soviet pilots that are very favourable on the F5. I believe some were captured in Vietnam and Russian pilots tested them.
During the Soviet trials F-5 beat the MiG-21 and MiG-23 at 1:1 dogfights. That was a quite an embarrassment for them.
Nice video but far too much black screen over exposition.
I agree, and this was the first thing I sought to fix in my second attempt at a video - one covering the F-4 Phantom II. I hope you'll give it a try as well.
@@itsikorol Good! Best of luck!
Great subject matter but there were too many cuts to a black screen for too long and the music mostly drowned out the verbal presentation, IMO.
Great airplane. Far from the best though. It was great for it's time. Wouldn't stand up well in a modern battlefield.
Please make a video for Tigershark. This is a great video you made very educational
What's with the black screen sequences? Super annoying.
Steak