Talk:Northrop F-5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV

Lines like "The U.S. Army expressed interest in it for ground support, but the U.S. Air Force was not going to let the Army operate fighters, nor would the Air Force fly them for the Army. The F-5 was just one more good design that fell to bureaucracy and inter-service rivalry" seem a little POV to me... Nrbelex ^(talk) 16:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The YF-17 Cobra is a derivative of the F-5? I'd appreciate a source for that info. --Mmx1 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

F-5E Tiger II in used today

http://www.yuma.usmc.mil/tenantunits/vmft401/default.htm The "Snipers" of VMFT-401 are mostly Marine Corps Reserve pilots serving in Active Reserve or weekend drill status, currently flying the F-5E Tiger II aircraft.

T-38 and F-5 ineage

While the T-38 and F-5 both had their genesis in the N-156 project, they were siblings - the T-38 was not "a trainer version of the F-5". That distinction goes to the F-5B and F-5F versions of the fighter. While sharing aerodynamic configuration and many systems with the F-5, the T-38 had different wing construction and many differences "under the skin". Hatcat 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Only plane designated as it's own replacement"

I'm not sure if the Harrier II is the Harrier II because it's the second plane in US Service (and incidentally, this part of the article doesn't specify that the plane was the only plane in US service to replace itself either) to use the name "Harrier" but rather because of the British naming convention of giving later variants of the same plane a number suffix for the name (ie: Spitfire, Spitfire II, Spitfire III, they even did the same with American planes like the P-40 Tomahawk and the P-51 Mustang). It sounds like this time we just borrowed the British name for the plane since, well, they named it. While this doesn't have anything to do with the F5, it was in this article.--Raguleader 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While variants of British WWII aircraft are sometimes styled Spitfire I, Spitfire II, and Spitfire III, the official designations are Spitfire Mk I, Spitfire Mk II, and Spitfire Mk III. Later in the war, and certianly post-war, roles were added (i.e. Spitfire F. Mk XVIII, or later just F.XVIII.) Roman numerals were dropped post-war (Meteor F.4).

The AV-8B Harrier II is a wholly different aircraft from the AV-8A Harrier, despite sharing the same designation and basic design. The Harrier II is a much more capable aircraft, and replaced both the AV-8A Harrier and the A-4M Skyhawk II, The A-4M itself had replaced the A-4F Skyhawk, of which it was an upgraded version rather than a new design.

The British did name the Harrier, that is true, and the US did borrow the name. But as far as I know, the US named the AV-8B the Harrier II first. The British do not use the "II", calling their versions the Harrier GR5/GR7/GR9, as though it is the same basic airframe.

Whether that qualifies the Harrier II as the only plane designated as its own replacement, I think the C-2A Greyhound has a stronger case for that. It was ordered in the late 60's to replace the C-1 Trader as a COD aircraft. However, some C-1s remained in service until the 80's. At that time, the Navy ordered an updated version of the C-2A to replace the C-1 and the aging C-1A. In a stroke of bureaucratic brilliance, the new version was designated the C-2A! Thus the C-2A actually did replace itself.

-- BillCJ 07:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Australia is considering F-18E as temporary replacements for its F/A-18 until F-35 are ready. Archtransit 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

THe F/A-18E is not the same aircraft as the F/A-18A, tho they do look very similar. This really wouldn't count either.

Real F-5 or a Model?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vnf-5c-23tw-522fs--bh-1971.jpg

^Is this photo really a VNAF F-5 Freedom Fighter? It looks like a professionally built plastic model kit of an F-5 like the ones posted on Scale Model magazine. If it is, it’s pretty good. I’ve seen real pictures of F-5s and C-130s in an abandoned VNAF airfield be raided by North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam in 1975. --James 00:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for sure whether that plane is real, but as an amateur photographer I can tell you that the technique exists for taking a picture of a full-sized object and adjusting the focus and depth of field to make it look like a toy. If that was done here, then someone also used a 'soft' effect on it. The light and shadows to me look like a full-size object, but as I said it's hard to tell from that picture. Stacy McMahon 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it's real, just taken with a camera with a dirty lens. There's a number of details that I can pick out that are almost impossible for even a master model maker to duplicate. Akradecki 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

F-5 Freedom Fighter → Northrop F-5 — F-5A/B Freedom Fighter is the name of only one type of F-5. Far more F-5E/F Tiger IIs were produced. To comform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) guidelines for US aircraft with multiple names - Manufacturer, number) Will need to be moved by an administrator. - BillCJ 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No contest. Will request an Uncontroversial move. - BillCJ 02:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

MiG 28

The fictional MiG 28s in the movie Top Gun were portrayed using F-5s. Also in the film they make reference to using A-4s and F-5s as MiG sims but they only show the A-4s.

Are we sure the planes used for the film were F-5's and not T-38's? --JJLatWiki 17:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The MiG-28s were F-5s--the aircraft has Leading-edge extensions which the Talon lacks. The reference to the F-5 in Kelly McGillis's dialogue is ironic in that the F-5 was used as a MiG simulator--for the film. PTPLauthor (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

List of countries

The list of countries using the F5 far exceeds the displayed. The US fairly dumped lots of F5 new and second hand in all of their allies and for example Portugal had more than a few.

Philippines as first SE Asian country with supersonic jets?

Indonesia obtained Mig-21s several years before this, and I've modified the statement in the article accordingly.

Unlicensed Versions!

It has been mentioned that Iran has modified F-5 and named them Saeghe and Azarakhsh.

The question is that modification needs license? Either the word modification is incorrect or the unlicensed.

I guess that depends on whether the statements by Iran are believable. Iran claims to be manufacturing these 2 planes, not modifying. If you believe Iran, and you accept the obvious that they are F-5 airframes, then they are "unlicensed variants". If you do not believe Iran, then these are simple modifications to existing Iranian inventory of U.S.-made F-5's, and should thus be called "modified airframes". The Northrup F-5 article does not dispute the Iranian claim that Iran is actually manufacturing them, but assumes Northrup did not license the production. And the phrase "unknown modifications" is not used to imply modification to exiting inventory, but a modification from original F-5 specifications, so there is no contradiction.

So what do you think should be done? Should we assume Iran is lying and call these planes, "modifications"? Or should we accept Iran's claim and call these planes, "unlicensed variants"? --JJLatWiki 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Please sign your posts in Talk pages. --JJLatWiki 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

F-5 in Singapore (F-5 S/T), Chile (F-5 plus) and Brasil (F-5 M)

The F-5 S/T are not equipped with israeli radar, but with GRIFO-F Radar, from FIAR (now Galileo Avionica)from Italy. The same radar is installed in the Brasilian F-5, whilst the Chilean F-5 hosts an israeli radar (not griffon) from ELTA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federico61 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not according to FINMECCANICA:[1].--Dali-Llama 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, the article doesn't contradict Federico61. The P2804 Grifo F was selected for both Singapore's F-5S/T and Brazil's F-5M, while Chile went with the Elta EL/M-2032 for its Tigre III. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I misspoke. I had actually corrected the text to say that the F-5 S/T did have the GRIFO radar, so I corrected the error he talked about.--Dali-Llama 22:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

merge discussion

IAMI Saeqeh article has a tag for discussing a merge with the F-5 article. The disadvantage of the merge is that it's unlikely that all 3 images from the Saeqeh article will remain in the F-5 article. That's loss of information. If the 3 images are kept, it may clutter the F-5 article too much. Archtransit 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Losing a 3rd Saeqeh, such as the ground image is a minor thing. That article could copy the specs from here. Modify something or leave it out if needed. -Fnlayson 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the copyright on the two in-flight images is questionable,a nd aren't likey to remain much longer, and have been deleted a few times already. As to the merge, I think it's best to leave the articles separate, as we really don't know exactly what the Iranians have done here. At least until the Iranins get a more-open govenment (not likely as long as their allies in the US Congress remain in power), we probably won't know the full story for a long time. Finally, what ever they are doing to the F-5s to make Saeqehs is not sanctioned by Northrop, and so I'd rather not put a legally-questionable aircraft on the page. A similar situation exists with the Iranian Bell upgrades/derivitives, and we've kept their pages separate thus far. - BillCJ 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1) concur with BillCJ, 2) the Iranian government claims this plane is an indigenous development and there is little or no publicly available analysis to refute it, 3) this article is prone to vandalism and keeping it separated from F-5 compartmentalizes the vandalism. --JJLatWiki 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as well, per BillCJ.--Dali-Llama 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. While clearly a "reverse-engineered" F-5 (with some unique mods), that said, the performance parameters as well as many items of equipment are probably notably different. It might be best treated here as a variant with its own article. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tigereye or TigerEye?

I've seen it written both ways (as well as "Tiger Eye" on rare occasion). Has anyone come across a reliable source that clarifies which is the official rendering? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Iranian F-5?

There is an image in the article looking very much like a USAF Thunderbird #1, and the caption is designating it as being from Iran...

Some kind of aviation political humor, perhaps. Less entertaining than obviously mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.178.10 (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• This image Image:Apbat.jpg has I.I.A.F. on the side for Imperial Iranian Air Force. The Thunderbirds used the related T-38 in the 1970s. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The serial no. 3-7099 marks it as an F-5E among a batch ordered for Iran in 1974. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

YF-17 is a Variant

According to the YF-17 Cobra's page, it's a variant of the F-5 design - but that got reverted when added to the sidebar. I think that a case can be made for the F/A-18 to be marked as an F-5 variant too, since it was developed directly from the Cobra.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.165.95 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The YF-17 is a descendant of the F-5, but not a variant of it. Too many differences. Northrop went through more than 2 designs along the way before getting to the YF-17 (N-650?) design. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The T-38 is a variant of the F-5 (actually vice versa in order of being ordered, but the single-seat N-156 was developed first). If we were to split the F-5E/F family off from this page, it would be listed as a variant of the F-5A/B. The F-20 is a bit of both, but is still the same basic airframe as the F-5. The YF-17 and F-18 are definitely derivatives of F-5, but not variants. - BillCJ (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't the T-38 at least be in the "Variants" list? Although while we're on the discussion of the T-38, the article refers to the Talon as both the originator of the F-5 ("Developed from: T-38 Talon") and a derivative airframe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.165.95 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of photographs

With 20 photographs, this article may be "image heavy" and some pruning is in order. The Commons gallery is an alternative for grouping images. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

• Actually, I like this better now since it represents pretty much of what is the F-5A/B (which includes both the CF-5/NF-5), F-5C and F-5E/F models. Let's cap the limit for images at 20, thoughts... anyone? --Dave1185 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the number of images is alright. But there are several on-ground images. And some of the areas are a bit crowded with images. It'd help if there were spread out more uniformly, but the images should correspond to the text nearby. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability of sources

This is an "old" argument as to whether Joe Baugher is an acknowledged expert or merely a "hobbyist." His bio on the internet/wikipedia reads: "Joseph F. Baugher (born 1941) is a retired physicist, software engineer, and textbook author, who has also written a series of articles on aviation.

He graduated from Gettysburg College in 1963 and studied physics under Philip J. Bray at Brown University, receiving a Ph.D. in 1968.

After fellowships at the University of Sheffield and the University of Chicago, he became a professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology in 1971. Turned down for tenure, he went to work at the Teletype Corporation in 1979 doing research and development related to custom semiconductor chip manufacture. After several years, Teletype's activities gradually shut down (1985-1986), as its parent company AT&T divested various of its operations. Baugher then switched to computer programming for the Naperville division of Bell Laboratories (having developed a taste for computer work), and worked on phone switches for several years, retiring in 2001. As of 2003[update], he teaches part-time at the Illinois Institute of Art, and continues to write.

Baugher's American Military Aircraft website provides detail from the initial design phases to the final fate of the built aircraft, covering practically all the US fighter and bomber models, and several foreigner types as well.

Publications:

• Baugher, Joseph F. On Civilized Stars. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985. ISBN 0-13-634411-9.
• Baugher, Joseph F. The Space-Age Solar System. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1987. ISBN 0-471-85034-9.
• Joe Baugher's Home Page, [2]. Retrieved: 5 March 2010."

For the contentious issue of identifying Taiwan's F-5 derivatives, his article also cites:

• Lake, Jon and Robert Hewson. "Northrop F-5." World Airpower Journal, Vol. 25, 1996.
• Shaw, Robbie. F-5: Warplane for the World. St. Paul, MN: Motorbooks, 1990.
• Shaw, Robert. "Taiwan: The Dawn of Modernisation." Air International, February 1996.
• Scutts, Jerry. Northrop F-5/F-20. London: Ian Allan Ltd, 1986.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm afraid not all knowledgeable editors share your enthusiasm for Baugher: I've initated discussion at the Aviation Project. WP:SPS (policy) is clear, and he is not an expert publishing in his field. If he consults other sources, those sources should be consulted and used here so that his errors are not propogated in our work. We have no logical or policy-based reason for using a hobby site when we have better sources. He is published in other areas, in which he may or may not be an expert, but he is not an aviation expert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue appears to be what constitutes an expert. Is it someone who consults other sources, provides a scholarly and academic approach, and has a background in post-secondary work/research/teaching? We have numerous examples of authors who have now concentrated on digital or electronic publishing that have the same or lesser credentials and are accepted as experte. In the publishing, academic and filmmaking spheres, consultants are regularly screened for not their publishing resumes but their background and knowledge of the subject. In the Canadian Aviation Historical Society, there are countless instances of aficionados who are accepted for their contributions to the mandate of preserving a historical record. Many of these are individuals who have demonstrated an authoritative and precise record and account-keeping. Most are not the traditional "academic historian" but as long as they bring the knowledge and background to the subject, they fill an important niche. Most of the authors I know, started as "fans", and then were accepted as subject experts, no differently than Joe Baugher, who publishes for more than himself. I have yet to find glaring errors in his research. FWEiW Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Look closer. And WP:SPS is clear; I'll unwatch this page now, but we have growing sourcing problems to Baugher in aviation articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've moved my comments and observations to: the Aviation Project. WP:SPS (policy) where we can continue the riposte.

I understand that this is an issue, but where do you get that this a growing problem? If anything it is diminishing as these refs have been replaced over time. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not using Baugher for GA/FA articles has been accepted, but for the others when editors have cited the website, does the site really come across as that unreliable? FWiW, I believe that the challenge to the site originated with someone who may be riding a "hobby horse?!" Bzuk (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be more concerned with some of the other sources! is www.taiwanairpower.org reliable, one example is http://taiwanairpower.org/blog/?p=78 which is a blog page with just a fuzzy image and is used as source for a statement which is not mentioned on the page. MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Milb1 on that point. User:Bryan TMF states on his user page that he is "Support staff at taiwanairpower.org", which may also introduce a COI issue. In addition, his usage of such sources has been challenged before, which led to an strange situation in which he used some "right to disappear" to clainm that he coould remove all the material he contribuuted to an article, while at the same time continuing to contribute to WP, thus not "disappearing" at all! - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

But you would agree that the other cited link/ref, http://taiwanairpower.org/blog/?p=62, was clearly shown as new paint job done to make them as decoys. The A la Mirage paint job was just throw in to be complete the decoy collections. You can remove the F-5E Mirage look a like decoy link if you like. As for other ref cite needed for F-20 shark nose and enlarge LERX, isn't all the other pictures, plus the Tiger 2000 ref already cited, proven that beyond a doubt? Or you guys wants more ref cited to no end, since Joe Baugher no longer can be considered as safe source any longer? Bryan TMF (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Found more ref in Warbird Tech Series, volume 44, Northrop F-5F-20/T-38, By Frederick A. Johnsen, published by Specialty Press Publishers and Wholesalers, ISBN-13 978-158007-094-2, ISBN-10 1-58007-094-9. On the chapter Foreign Clients, F-5 Service Around the World, Taiwan section, on page 35, "Later batches of Taiwanese Tiger IIs were fitted with flare/chaff dispensers, the handling qualities upgrades (enlarged LEX and sharknose), and radar warning receivers(RWR)." Baugher's ref/link had been removed from Taiwan operator section. Bryan TMF (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

retired date for Brazilian F-5

I am reverting to 2030 Translation: The F-5M exceeded expectations and will fly up to 2030, five years beyond the initial goal. Dafranca77 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,governo-vai-revitalizar-11-cacas-por-r-276-mi,707681,0.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca77 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of Hidden messages

The common use of a hidden message is to first provide information for editors as to the development of an article, as well, as often directing prospective controversial edits to the talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC).

This hidden template is used on most aircraft type pages to discourage the addition of lots of non-notable appearances in movies, TV shows and games. By a long-standing consensus expressed at WP:AIRPOP we also move all this fictional use content to Aircraft in fiction to leave the aircraft type aircraft articles less cluttered. - Ahunt (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Has the F-5 been used as a chase plane?

From Northrop_T-38_Talon:

"NASA operates a fleet of 32 T-38 aircraft[5] and uses the aircraft as a jet trainer for its astronauts, as well as a chase plane."

Has the F-5 been used as a chase plane? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I can provide no references right now, but I have seen images of jet prototypes with Talon chase planes, and I have a memory of the Shuttle being "chased" by NASA Talons. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Accident section?

I notice there isn't a mishap section. It came to my attention because I've seen it with other Wiki articles. I noticed it because in 1987, I was stationed at Osan as a Fire Fighter, and had experienced a Korean F-5 that cart-wheeled into a rice paddy short of the runway while doing approaches. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)