what's going to replace the F-5s?
-
F-5 is an interceptor .
F-16 is a fighter.
A-4SU is a fighter-bomber.
so F-5 can not be replaced by any aircraft in our current inventory.
correct me if i'm wrong.
-
Whether the jets in the current inventory can replace the F5 depends on the aircraft payload, onboard avionics, endurance/range and of course the operational role to be replaced. It is not necessary to have one single aircraft type to replace all operational roles of F5. Therefore I would say what we have in the inventory will be more than capable to replace F5, its only a matter of re-distributing the jobs.
-
Not worth it, no point purchasing such a big, loud, aggressive fighter which also guzzles lots of fuel and agitate our neighbours. Defensive planes will do, typically small ones.Originally posted by ray243:better if we got F-15 to replace the F-5 -
The A-4s have been used to intercept unknown aircrafts, abeit slow ones.Originally posted by epImetheus:F-5 is an interceptor .
F-16 is a fighter.
A-4SU is a fighter-bomber.
so F-5 can not be replaced by any aircraft in our current inventory.
correct me if i'm wrong. -
then what would you reaplce F-5 with? personal choice.
-
personally, my choice is very far fetched... i envision something like a point defence fighter with another version that can do long range escort...something like an f16XL fitted with a rocket engine to allow the quickest possible scramble in event of attack. it will not equire runways for takeoff, just using the rocket engine to blast off(has been done before).
okay okay,....my imagination is getting the better of me
-
Why not just get a fighter which can transform into a robot and gear-walk mode ala Macross?Originally posted by branzzz:personally, my choice is very far fetched... i envision something like a point defence fighter with another version that can do long range escort...something like an f16XL fitted with a rocket engine to allow the quickest possible scramble in event of attack. it will not equire runways for takeoff, just using the rocket engine to blast off(has been done before).
okay okay,....my imagination is getting the better of me -
F-5 is also an secondary land attack fighter
AFAIK, only the F-5 never met into accidents -
I know, they are going to replace the F-5 with the indian flying coffins
-
There was an incident of an F5 crash landing in Johor!Originally posted by sbst275:F-5 is also an secondary land attack fighter
AFAIK, only the F-5 never met into accidents -
We got the F-5 not because it was dbl engined. More because the first series was nearly free under FMS. The subsequent ones were not free when the economy boomed and foriegn aid dwindled.
F-5 was dbl engined because costs. Excerpt from "Northrop F-5/F-20" by Jerry Scutts, Modern Combat Aircraft.
"One drawback foreseen was the use of a large conventional turbojet: not only would this require a large amount of fuel, but its cost would be high. This factor was one of the primary reasons for the cancellation of furthter work on the Fang. Tom Jones, then Northrop Planning Officer (later President and Chief Executive) felt that this was not the way the company should go. He pressed for a reassessment of the fighter programme, with more emphasis on keeping the cost down.
At this point, Northuop's brainchild was helped considerably by the availability of very small turbojets being produced primarily for guided missiles. With very high thrust to weight ratios and dimension modest enough to fit into a very compact fighter airframe, these engines became the crux of the aircraft Northrop was plannning."
The F-5 has the smallest engines ever. The engines start after the auxilary air intakes. Look at any F-5 taking off. It is that small.
Due to same cost reasons, it have dry wings, eg all fuel is carried in the main fuselage.
The end result, the smallest fighter supersonic aircraft that can take off from a grass strip. You need to respect this little bird as it is used for Agressor training. This is mainly dogfight without radar using mainly eyes.
Cons, limited stores stations, limited radar capability. -
Even with Grifo F?
The transmit ERP is comparable or better than the APG68s.....the rx side depends on the waveforms used. The F5S radar may well outrange the F-16s. Processing power may limit their modes. But not by much, I guess.
I think RSAF's F5s are the best in the world just like the A4SUs.
The airframes maybe clocking hours......it can be zero lifed. The J85s are probably one of the most simple and reliable jet engines in RSAF history.
IMHO, its early days to plan their obsolescence.
RATO take offs on zero length launchers were tested (with a number of aircraft types) in the 1950s and found to be feasible albeit not practical :-
http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
Of course I'm wrong.[/url] -
The radar upgrade increased the capability of the F5 tremendously. But no matter what, it is still using the same engine and same airframe.... So its weakness of short endurance was not addressed.
It is the most capable F5 because we are probably the only nation where the F5 is still a frontline figther, the other major users of F5Es like ROKAF and ROCAF have both obsolete most of their F5 fleet.
Similar to the A4, we are the last major users of the A4. that is why it is the "most capable" A4. -
F5 endurance is an issue........but then we overcome by air to air refuelling......again because RSAF upgraded it.
This same airframe has low RCS as well as heat signature? F5 still have it's merits. Let's not write it off yet........ -
I will think that RSAF will just use the current F16 to replace F5... Because in the current warfare events... Dogfight is a thing of the past... There's not many dogfighting event due to the advancement of guided weaponery... and practically... F16 can totally handle air-to-air and air-to-land... Buying a new aircraft is a waste of tax-payer money... Don't forget that you need to train the new pilot to adapt the new plane, shipping the aircraft to australia, india, US for training...
The US had already tried a SCRAM jet engine plane from New Zealand to LA... It flew there in 1 hour only... So basically, future warfare will just be missile flying around... Geneva War convention stated that a war had to be declared in 1 hour advance... so that both party can be prepared and moblise... You can call the US to declare "WAR" while preparing the tactics... the rockets are already at your door-step...
Due to technology advancement, aircraft will not longer be carrying pilots... everything is radio controlled... The US actually send the first prototype to launch an assualt in IRAQ by having the pilot siting in the whitehouse in washington, while president bush is drinking red wine... And those were facts that you will never be able to read about in Straits Times... By the way, I'm in NZ... -
F16 can do anything F5 can do and better. Thus it can easily replace F5.Originally posted by Ryen:I will think that RSAF will just use the current F16 to replace F5... Because in the current warfare events... Dogfight is a thing of the past... There's not many dogfighting event due to the advancement of guided weaponery... and practically... F16 can totally handle air-to-air and air-to-land... Buying a new aircraft is a waste of tax-payer money... Don't forget that you need to train the new pilot to adapt the new plane, shipping the aircraft to australia, india, US for training...
The US had already tried a SCRAM jet engine plane from New Zealand to LA... It flew there in 1 hour only... So basically, future warfare will just be missile flying around... Geneva War convention stated that a war had to be declared in 1 hour advance... so that both party can be prepared and moblise... You can call the US to declare "WAR" while preparing the tactics... the rockets are already at your door-step...
Due to technology advancement, aircraft will not longer be carrying pilots... everything is radio controlled... The US actually send the first prototype to launch an assualt in IRAQ by having the pilot siting in the whitehouse in washington, while president bush is drinking red wine... And those were facts that you will never be able to read about in Straits Times... By the way, I'm in NZ... -
The info I posted is from a history book on F-5 upto early 1990s.Originally posted by Fairyland:Even with Grifo F?
The transmit ERP is comparable or better than the APG68s.....the rx side depends on the waveforms used. The F5S radar may well outrange the F-16s. Processing power may limit their modes. But not by much, I guess.
I think RSAF's F5s are the best in the world just like the A4SUs.
The airframes maybe clocking hours......it can be zero lifed. The J85s are probably one of the most simple and reliable jet engines in RSAF history.
IMHO, its early days to plan their obsolescence.
RATO take offs on zero length launchers were tested (with a number of aircraft types) in the 1950s and found to be feasible albeit not practical :-
http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
Of course I'm wrong.[/url]
The F-5S is limited by space in the fuselage. Most of it used up. For the Grifo radar, the bulkhead actually was in the way and they have to do major structural work on the nose. Not speced out originally.
The turbojet engines isn't exactly cold.
Zeroing the airframes involves stripping down the entire jet. Not too sure if ST have the necessary parts and skills to do it. Not to talk about cost.
Yes it is a great aircraft, but it is time to move on. -
You are wrong!Originally posted by epImetheus:F-5 is an interceptor .
F-16 is a fighter.
A-4SU is a fighter-bomber.
so F-5 can not be replaced by any aircraft in our current inventory.
correct me if i'm wrong. 
-
Agree on the space limitation within the fuselage.Originally posted by touchstone_2000:The info I posted is from a history book on F-5 upto early 1990s.
The F-5S is limited by space in the fuselage. Most of it used up. For the Grifo radar, the bulkhead actually was in the way and they have to do major structural work on the nose. Not speced out originally.
The turbojet engines isn't exactly cold.
Zeroing the airframes involves stripping down the entire jet. Not too sure if ST have the necessary parts and skills to do it. Not to talk about cost.
Yes it is a great aircraft, but it is time to move on.
Though I remember Celsius and some other company approach this by incorporating ECM jammers into pylons and other conformal packages attached to pylons strong points(centreline station).
There must be other ways to add black boxes too. -
F-5E : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_26.html
Service in Indonesia : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_36.html
Service in Malaysia : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_37.html
Service in Singapore: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_38.html
Service in Thailand : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_39.html
RF5E : http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f5_27.html
If F-16 is taking over F5S in the Air Defence Role, then NGF is mostly a strike platform? -
Land accidents got one, further, cannot say.Originally posted by sbst275:F-5 is also an secondary land attack fighter
AFAIK, only the F-5 never met into accidents -
I think not all will go, I think Tiger Eyes will stay, so dun say yer goodbyes too early!
PS: Even as I type, an F-5 takes off at Paya Lebar. -
Yeah, the Tigereyes will probably stay for a period of time.
Note that we only have 7 F16 As and Bs. To operate these seven a/c next to our 40+ Cs and Ds would not have been good. Better to streamline and only operate Cs and Ds. The RTAF have As and Bs and also 2nd hand ex-ADF F16s which are also As and Bs and would be able to incorporate them into the fleet easily.
I don't think any country would want to our A4s they are quite old and are unique (only A4 to have F404 engine) so will not be compatible to any A4s operating else where (if there??). -
Oh yeah, Indonesia received OUR SF-260s, so who says so.Originally posted by spencer99:Yeah, the Tigereyes will probably stay for a period of time.
Note that we only have 7 F16 As and Bs. To operate these seven a/c next to our 40+ Cs and Ds would not have been good. Better to streamline and only operate Cs and Ds. The RTAF have As and Bs and also 2nd hand ex-ADF F16s which are also As and Bs and would be able to incorporate them into the fleet easily.
I don't think any country would want to our A4s they are quite old and are unique (only A4 to have F404 engine) so will not be compatible to any A4s operating else where (if there??).