F-5A Freedom Fighter vs F-100 Super Sabre

zhanrae · by **zhanrae** » 24 Oct 2015, 14:29

How would the F-5A compare against the F-100 in dogfighting and ground attack? I've seen plenty of forums discussing iconic fighters against each other, but i've never seen one that includes these two.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 24 Oct 2015, 17:11

I don't imagine the F-100 would have much chance against the F-5A.

eloise · by **eloise** » 25 Oct 2015, 19:50

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I don't imagine the F-100 would have much chance against the F-5A.

why though

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 26 Oct 2015, 00:39

They have similar wing loadings (and the Hun's wing was design for speed, the F-5's was designed for turning), but the F-5 has a 15% advantage to T/W which is manifested in a 50% greater climb rate. Oh and the F-5 has radar, the F-100 doesn't, so there is the whole SA thing. The Hun Driver has to visually find the smallest fighter jet the U.S. produced since the P-80. The F-5E had even stronger engines.

eloise · by **eloise** » 26 Oct 2015, 00:51

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:They have similar wing loadings (and the Hun's wing was design for speed, the F-5's was designed for turning), but the F-5 has a 15% advantage to T/W which is manifested in a 50% greater climb rate. Oh and the F-5 has radar, the F-100 doesn't, so there is the whole SA thing. The Hun Driver has to visually find the smallest fighter jet the U.S. produced since the P-80. The F-5E had even stronger engines.

that very interesting

how is the F-5E fare again F-8U and Mig-21 though?
( i assumed F-100 is same level as the Mig-17 right? )

35_aoa · by **35_aoa** » 26 Oct 2015, 01:38

F-5 also has a marked increase in turn performance. Century fighters turned like mack trucks below 400 knots or so. With mini LEX/LERX, and some more modern aerodynamic features (that would later be incorporated into the YF-17 & F/A-18A), it is a pretty good little WVR fighter…..even if completely outclassed by pretty much every 4th generation or younger fighter out there.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 26 Oct 2015, 03:54

F-5E was mostly similar to MiG-21 in many ways and for this reason was used as an aggressor for so long (as the MiG-21 is the most prolific jet fighter ever IIRC) although it lacks the MiGs top end speed.

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 26 Oct 2015, 08:18

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-5E was mostly similar to MiG-21 in many ways and for this reason was used as an aggressor for so long (as the MiG-21 is the most prolific jet fighter ever IIRC) although it lacks the MiGs top end speed.

F-5s are still used in NAS Fallon NV (if I'm not mistaken). Also F-5Es are a more stable aircraft. Something about the Mig-21 above a certain roll rate would lose control.

zhanrae · by **zhanrae** » 26 Oct 2015, 12:30

Uh, guys, i specifically want to know how the radarless, basic variant of the F-5 family, the F-5A Freedom Fighter, would fare against the F-100C (i forgot to state the F-100's variat) , not the F-5E Tiger II.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 26 Oct 2015, 13:47

My data was for the F-5A, not the E. What I did not see before was that the AN/APQ-153 was a designed for the E and retrofitted to the A. The rest of my comments stand.

eloise · by **eloise** » 26 Oct 2015, 14:00

so in air to air role
F-4 > F-8 > F-5E = Mig-21 > F-100 = Mig-17
is that correct?

zhanrae · by **zhanrae** » 26 Oct 2015, 16:23

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:My data was for the F-5A, not the E. What I did not see before was that the AN/APQ-153 was a designed for the E and retrofitted to the A. The rest of my comments stand.

Well then, i guess my question has been answered. Thanks!

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 27 Oct 2015, 12:15

eloise wrote:so in air to air role
F-4 > F-8 > F-5E = Mig-21 > F-100 = Mig-17
is that correct?

Certainly the MiG-17F (type most encountered) could out accelerate/out climb and easily out turn the F-100D under 450 kts (IIRC) - in fact the F-5A/C was the only fixed wing US jet that could turn with the MiG-17 under about 450kts in Nam (according to HAVE DRILL/FERRY).

Apparently having the afterburner on in the F-100 during High AOA manoeuvres tended to cause compressor stalls - bit of a problem - although not sure how unique this was.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 27 Oct 2015, 13:48

Theres a very confusing decision made in Vietnam that I still don't understand.

When the ROE was set to visually identify targets before engaging, it was assured that all engagements would turn into dogfights.

Then why were great turning fighters not given more prominent roles in A-A combat.

The F-8 and F-5 were better turning aircraft than the bulky F-4, especially when before the E model came out,
they also had the advantage of having a Gun, So instead of modifying the F-4 they could of just fielded more F-8s with the F-4 acting like air space coordinators instead

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 27 Oct 2015, 15:51

zero-one wrote:Theres a very confusing decision made in Vietnam that I still don't understand.

When the ROE was set to visually identify targets before engaging, it was assured that all engagements would turn into dogfights................

Not a simple answer I'm afraid.

probably 99% of engagements required visual ID (there were exceptions) - main reason is you cant shoot at anything if you don't know what it is.

Just because an aircraft can turn better than another doesn't mean it is "better" in a dogfight (there are good examples from WWII of this). An example from Nam - F-105s claimed ~27 kills against the MiG-17 (all guns bar one) - the F-105 was designed as a low level nuclear strike bomber and turns like a 747 - ok slight exaggeration but hopefully you get the point!

Just because you have to Vis ID something doesn't mean it always knows you are there.

Pretty sure the F-8 community at the start were trained in BFM and they obviously couldn't turn with MiG-17s but they were taught to dogfight using other strengths of the aircraft as part of basic BFM (this also includes the fact that combat is not generally 1v1). The F-8 was initially the primary Navy fighter (The USAF had the F-100 initially) but was gradually phased out by the F-4B & J during the conflict.

So why did the F-4 come in and be the primary fighter for the US when its radar / missiles were initially only of use for shooting down high altitude nuclear bombers. AFAIK it was inevitable - the thing was already designed and procured for squadrons (partly due to politics).

Was it a better dogfighter than the F-8? (or e.g. was the F-4B better than the F-8D) - the F-8D may have held a manoeuvre advantage in some areas and it had guns - and in 1965 you have to say the gun was still the primary AA weapon and it pilots were actually BFM trained.

The fact that all US fighters post 70s were designed with better manoeuvre capability and built in guns tells you that the F-4BCDJ was less than adequate for that role. The fact that US pilots wanted a gun was because the AIM-7D/AIM-9B/AIM-4D were fracking useless employed against lower level fighters and close in.

However what you also need to consider is the F-15/16 etc were produced with Radar/Missile/Speed and Good T/W - not just ability to turn tightly - because they need the things important for combat. (note by 1972 the AIM-9D/J / AIM-7E-2 and radars had improved exponentially from 65)

If we list some strengths of the F-4 you can see that all was not lost:

Good TW (for time) & Speed ( e.g. F-4C has better EM than MiG-17F (e.g. 15,000ft >M0.5)
Radar (might have been rubbish but was better than the one on the F-8 / F-104 / MiG-21PFM/MF etc
AIM-7 ( Again rubbish but still hit MiGs - is an all aspect weapon - MiGs needed to use tactics to negate)
Second Man (Good for spotting SAMs / MiGs etc and operating complicated radar)
Loadout (The ability to carry a ton of A-G and AA ordnance)
Range ( Think the F-104 was better - but that couldn't carry the loadout etc)

And importantly - when the F-4 was going into Nam it was flying into combat - not looking for a 1v1 dogfight - however if it got caught or had to intercept MiGs there were strengths and tactics it could use to survive and turn the tables where required.