Talk:Canadair CF-5/Archive 1

Archive 1

Armament

I removed the Maverick, Sparrow and AMRAAM capability from the CF-5's armaments listing. The CF-5 was a very basic machine and did not even carry radar (most of the time it carried the recon camera nose); hence it could not have fired the Sparrow or AMRAAM, which are beyond-visual-range radar-guided missiles. I doubt it could have fired the Maverick as this capability was added with the F-5E Tiger II, which Canada did not fly. Canada did not operate the Maverick until CF-18's were upgraded to fire it, and Canada to date has never used the AMRAAM. The CF-18 can fire both the Sidewinder and Sparrow, however. I thought of adding the Bullpup since the early F-5's could fire it but I've never seen a Canadian CF-5 with the Bullpup.--MarshallStack 17:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I know little about these things but I'm puzzled by the max speed figures - the F 5 is listed as supersonic at: 917 knots (1,060 mph, 1,700 km/h) but the CF-116 as very subsonic at: 650 knots (560 mph, 1,200 km/h) with an inconsistancy in the knots mph figures. [Jon McKenney 20:08 1 Feb 2007]

I agree with your puzzlement. The CF-5 was definitely supersonic in "clean" condition, but I doubt that it was able to exceed Mach 1 with an actual warload. Also, I deleted the reference to AGM-65 Maverick missiles; early F-5's could not carry those. I also added the BL755 CBU. I don't know if CF-5's ever carried them operationally but I've seen pictures of early models carrying them.--Locutus1966 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Netherlands Air Force used LAU-3 rocket pods with 19 × 70 mm FFAR on their NF-5. HWClifton 19:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HWClifton (talk • contribs)

Rename

Bill (BZuk), in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), particularly this portion (In general, best practice is probably Manufacturer, followed by either Number or Name, whichever seems to be more common.), I recommend we rename this article Canadair CF-5 or CF-5 Freedom Fighter. If the names are current redirects we can't overwrite, I can ask an admin who works with the Aircraft Project to move it for us quickly. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Canadair CF-5 would be the most appropriate name. I wanted to stay away from the nomenclature, "Freedom Fighter" because it NEVER was used. I will post to the Aircraft Forum and get an admin to make the change. Bzuk 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

That's totally fine with me. I figured that "Freedom FIghter" was never used, but I left the option open just in case. I don't like to just propose a single option, it's too much like dictating my will to others. I feel I ought to give reasonable choices in such matters. I was going to directly ask User:Chrislk02, an admin, to make the move for me. He's usually pretty fast and agreeable to help when he's online. If no one else has done it by this time tomorrow, we can drop him a note. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch, Norwegian and Recon Versions?

Should the Dutch NF-5 and Norwegian F-5's be listed here? I know the Dutch birds were built by Canadair but they weren't exactly the same as Canadian CF-5's, and I think Norwegian ones had differences too. Also, is there a need to list a dedicated recon version? The CF-5 had a changeable recon nose that all the single-seat models could use, but I don't know that when a given bird was carrying it that it was actually referred to as a CF-5A(R)--Locutus1966 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Norway

Just out of interest I thought all the Norwegian aircraft were Northrop produced anybody have a citation for Canadair-built aircraft in Norwegian service? MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that they were Northrop F-5As and Bs and not Canadair ones. Official CF source acknowledges Netherlands and Venezuela. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Negative Views

The design section of this article refers to the F-5 being considered as a "disposable" fighter and being viewed as "a step backwards" for Canada. In all the professional quality references I am aware of, the F-5 is considered one of the most effective and finest fighters of its era. Even today, elderly F-5's often defeat more modern fighters in combat trials. It would seem this article needs editing to give a balanced, fair, and referenced summary on the F-5. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The text you are referring to is not unreferenced, it is cited to this ref. Also as a retired CF pilot who served in Cold Lake alongside the operators of the aircraft I can vouch for the accuracy of the cited ref. If anything the ref understates the issues. In fact the RCAF had chosen the F-4 as its new tactical fighter, but had the F-5 imposed by the government of the day for political reasons (it could be built under licence in Quebec). The RCAF and later CF took delivery of its whole slated production run of 115 aircraft, but had many of them dissembled and left in crates, as they were unsuitable for Canadian use, due to short range and minimal weapons carrying capabilities. Canada is a large country and the aircraft lacked range for the geography. Basically it could carry fuel or weapons, but not both. The pilots who flew it in the tactical role used to say it was "the ideal aircraft for bombing your own runways". The boxed aircraft were sold off to other countries, like Venezuela, as quickly as possible. The CF-5s only ever formed two operational squadrons (433 and 434) and they were transitioned to other aircraft as soon as they could do so. The CF found the CF-5 only suitable as trainers and used the two-seaters they had in that role successfully as a lead-in for the CF-18. - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahunt, try the reference "Comparing the Effectiveness of Air-to-Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18", which is downloadable at http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf. This is probably the finest work in print by a top professional combat aircraft architect on the subject of what works in air combat. Quoting from page 143 to 145: "Though not widely conceded at the time, air-to-air tests and Aggressor squadron engagements have demonstrated that the F-5 was the most effective U.S. air-to-air fighter of the sixties and early seventies, up through and including the F-4E and F-14". The F-5 is five to six times more cost effective than the F-4 and F-16, and one tenth the cost of the F-15.

In the 1965 Nellis "Featherduster" trials the F-5 ran over the F-4. It also held its own plane for plane with the F-14 and F-15 in the 1977 ACEVAL/AIMVAL trials. Quoting page 139, "For the first three weeks, the F-14s and F-15s were hopelessly outclassed and demoralized". This occurs because the element of surprise is the deciding factor in 80% of air-to-air kills, and you cannot see an F-5 until within about 4 miles range, whereas you can see an F-15 7 miles away and an F-14 10 miles away. The fighter radar of that era detected an enemy less than 5% of the time (Stevenson, James (1993), The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet, Naval Institute Press, ISBN 1-55750-775-9, page 130), so radar did not save the heavy fighters. Stevenson also covers ACEVAL very well, see pp. 33 to 43 of the book just referenced to understand the beating the F-5 put on the F-14 and F-15.

From www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-5e.htm, "In 1977, the bulk of two major air-to-air tests were flown on an instrumented air combat maneuvering range north of Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada: the Air Intercept Missile Evaluation (AIMVAL) and the Air Combat Evaluation (ACEVAL). These tests pitted "Blue Force" F-15s and F-14s against "Red Force" F-5Es, chosen to simulate the Soviet-built MiG-21. AIMVAL's test matrix included Blue-versus-Red force ratios of 1-v-1 (one F-15 or F-14 versus one F-5E), 1-v-2, 2-v-2, and 2-v-4, and called for 540 valid engagements involving 1,800 sorties. ACEVAL's test matrix added 2-v-1, 4-v-2, and 4-v-4 trials to the four force ratios used in AIMVAL and required a total of 360 valid engagements involving 1,488 sorties. The results of AIMVAL/ACEVAL were highly controversial at the time -- "superior" Blue fighters, avionics, and missiles had not dominated Blue-Red exchange ratios nearly as much as had been expected. This confirmed past combat experience, especially its implication that situation awareness explained why people were shot down four times out of five."

AHunt, the references I am quoting above are professional grade, and they are all strongly in support of the effectiveness of the F-5. That effectiveness is based on the element of surprise, and cost/reliability/numbers, which are the two strongest factors after pilot skill that dominate air combat results. Now that radar guided missiles have finally become reliable (see the Wikipedia Fighter aircraft article, fighter weapons section) the 1 may have changed, but in the 1960's and 70's the F-5 ranked as a superb fighter. It cannot really even be claimed to be too short-legged, as in combat trials it regularly ran the F-15A out of fuel.

PhaseAcer (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, but that wasn't the Canadian experience, as that ref attests and this article is about the Canadian version and its service. - Ahunt (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

AH, you are quoting an archived dead website of unknown authorship. There can be valid information there, but it is still an unverifiable reference of unknown quality. In contrast, there are numerous professional references on the quality of the F-5 that completely disagree with that unverifiable reference. Why not weight and summarize them all, as is general Wikipedia policy, instead of depending on one reference with what seems to be an invalid opinion?

However, I don't doubt at all that the Canadian Air Force leadership could have had a negative view of the aircraft. The U.S. Air Force leadership preferred the F-4 instead, and insisted on procuring it over the F-5. Then when they sent the "advanced" F-4 to Vietnam, they were shocked to have $4M F-4's trade about equally with MiG-17's and MiG-21's that were on average about one tenth that cost. When they investigated that using the F-5 as a MiG-21 simulator and the F-86 as a MiG-17 simulator, those planes just destroyed the F-4. That happened because the generals and admirals who made those calls did not understand some of the basics of air combat, such as the fact that you can often see a smokey F-4 20 miles away and sneak up on it with a $0.25M F-86 or a $0.6M F-5A before the F-4 pilot is aware he is under the gun. That is the verifiable truth of the matter.

The Canadian leadership could easily make the same mistake, not fully understanding real air combat and thinking that the most high tech planes are the best. That is not a negative reflection on the CF-5. It is a negative reflection on the decision makers who did not actually know their own jobs, and therefore flushed an outstanding aircraft. That is more the "Canadian mistake" than it is the "Canadian experience", though to be fair that mistake was first made by the American military leadership, and the Canadians probably followed their lead. PhaseAcer (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You're primarily referring to the F-5 in the air-to-air role, while the Canadians were apparently more interested in a tactical fighter-bomber. Sure the F-5 might have been able to defend itself better than an F-4, but what use was it to the Canadians if it couldn't carry an adequate bomb load the required distance. It certainly didn't have anywhere near the load-carrying capacity of an F-4. , Regardless of the validity of what you're saying, unless you have reliable published sources that apply it to the Canadian version and experience, what you're doing is Synthesis. And also POV pushing. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

User:BilCat is quite right. The CF-5 in Canadian service was intended as a ground attack aircraft, but it needed all its external stores stations for fuel and couldn't carry any bomb load any distance. In the air-to-air role, over Canada's vast distances, it was too slow and to short range and, again, if air-to-air weapons beyond the cannons were carried, its range was seriously cut down. We also already had the CF-101 and CF-104 in those roles. It is telling that despite all the refs you cite that the US never adopted the aircraft in any numbers after trials in Vietnam and only really used it as a MiG simulator in the aggressor role. The US never even bought the much more capable F-20. The only countries that were happy enough with it were small third world nations who couldn't afford or operate more capable aircraft and then the "E" version was much more successful than the "A". Regardless, as User:BilCat pointed out, this article is about the CF-5 in Canadian service and you can't cite refs from other service use to support that this was a great fighter in Canadian use, when it wasn't. The CF-5B was a successful trainer, but the A was a failure in Canadian use and they were glad to get rid of it ASAP. I guess I could have mentioned that I have some flying time logged in the CF-5, so my knowledge here is not all theoretical. - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtful comments, but what you both seem to be saying is that the Canadian Air Force tried to MISUSE an excellent lightweight air-to-air fighter as a long range heavy duty air-to-ground bomb truck, and it did not do very well in that role. Naturally it was not best for that mission, since a rapier is not a shovel. To present an unbiased view of the CF-5, perhaps that should be mentioned in the article. Quoting the other references in doing so would not be POV pushing, it would be using and weighting references as is Wikipedia policy.

PhaseAcer (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If the sources you've provided don't specifically state that the Canadians misused the CF-5, then adding them would be Synthesis and POV. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:BilCat, quoting non-Canadian sources about non-Canadian operational use isn't relevant to this article. As I noted above the government bought the wrong aircraft for the job, for political reasons and we ended up using it as a trainer instead. The USAF/USN/Marines experience wasn't much different as they couldn't find an operational role for it either after the initial Vietnam trials, which were essentially a marketing effort to sell the plane to third world air forces, as the Northrop F-5 article notes. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The original statements that the OP is contesting is this:

"Originally designed by Northrop as a low-cost, disposable, low-maintenance fighter jet, the F-5 was intended for use by air forces that had limited resources and technical expertise to maintain a sophisticated aircraft. For Canada, which had an extensive aerospace industry, selection of the F-5 was seen as a step backwards."

First, the OP seems to object to the term "disposable", but that has nothing to do with the Canadian view. That's what Northrop designed: "a low-cost, disposable, low-maintenance fighter jet". It wasn't just designed for air-to-air, but it was good at that, especially in the hands of top-notch experienced air-to-air instructor pilots who primary purpose was to teach inexperienced fighter pilots how to defeat low-cost fighters such as MiG-17s and -21s. Most of the sources you've quoted are in this context. Please note that the USN racked up an initial 20:1 kill ratio with Topgun-trained pilots flying F-4s against MiGs in 1972. The results probably would have been the same had the North Vietnamese been flying F-5s! Small, low cost fighters have their uses, but well-trained pilots flying superior aircraft can defeat them quite easily in the real world where it counts. (Most of the F-5's "kills" are in an instrumented training area.) As the RCAF found out, they're not much good for anything else except teaching DACM, and as a LIFT.

Second, Canada did have a very advanced aerospace industry, having produced the state of the art CF-105 interceptor in the late 1950s. So to them, the F-5 really was a step backwards. But Northrop had good salesman, and the aircraft was cheap. - BilCat (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this discussion into the ceaseless beating of a dead horse, but the statements just above do call for a response.

I have several additional key references that sharply conflict the idea that the F-5 was designed as a "disposable fighter" chiefly for "3rd world" air forces. The aeronautical engineering textbook "Northrop F-5 Case Study in Aircraft Design" never mentions or even implies such an idea. This book is written by the actual designers of the F-5, and it presents the F-5 as a very disciplined effort to provide a fighter that maximizes fighter effectiveness based on the main criteria known to dominate military performance of an air superiority fighter. In order of importance these are the element of surprise, numbers (planes per budget), maneuverability, and weapons systems effectiveness. The other reference is "Mustang Designer: Edgar Schmued and the P-51". Schmued was the design leader on all three of the P-51, F-86, and F-5, and was a giant of the fighter design field. Again, nowhere in this book's extensive coverage of the design of the F-5 does any concept like "disposable" get presented. The mission was to "buy" maximum shoot-downs of enemy aircraft per dollar invested, which is the correctly defined fighter procurement mission for ANY nation and not just for 3rd world nations.

The U.S. did not procure the F-5 for mainstream use because it was not suitable, but out of Groupthink that radar and radar-equipped fighters were superior. That may be true today, but due to the very low detection capability of radars in the 1960's and 70's (about 3% successful detection)and the very low reliability of radar missiles in that era (less than 10% at visual range and far worse in BVR), it was most definitely not true in the prime of the F-5.

This is borne out by documented history, such as the very extensive ACEVAL/AIMVAL trials of 1977. To see the reasons, data, and graphs, refer to pp. 33 to 43 of the professional book "The Pentagon Paradox: the Development of the F-18 Hornet". In particular page 41 shows the final and most important graph of exchange ratios between F-14 / F-15 vs. F-5. The F-14 and F-15 have the better of it for forces matched in number of aircraft. But, when the F-5's outnumber the big fighters by 2:1, which can be attained with 1/3 the budget, the exchange ratios approach equality. Half the budget spent on F-5's would result in total dominance against the more advanced fighters. That is the definition of "effective"--it wins the war considering available resources. Note that these results were attained despite the reliability of the radar guided missiles being assumed at over FIVE TIMES recent Vietnam War results, AND the F-5's being forbidden to use simple radar warning receivers. With realistic kill probabilities and by flipping the ON switch on the radar warning receivers, the F-5's would have totally destroyed the big fighters even at equal numbers. I know it is hard to believe, but check the raw data presented by Sprey and Stevenson, and you will see.

The only reason I am going to such lengths here is because the CF-5 article is presenting a mistaken view of the F-5, and doing so based on one dead and poorly written web reference. The article ignores the large body of outstanding professional references that present the strong consensus view that the F-5 was an outstanding fighter.

PhaseAcer (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can find a reference that says that for Canadian service, then by all means add it, but foreign assessments are not suitable refs for this article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually this ref from the official military journal is a very complete look at the procurement of the CF-5 and includes enumeration of all its shortcomings as a fighter. It is pretty scathing of the tainted procurement process and the fact that the aircraft was not suitable for any NATO role in modern warfare at the time of the late 1960s. The ref should probably be worked into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as we don't have to sing the supposed superiority of the F-5 based on fake combat flown by experienced DACM professionals. - BilCat (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

AH, I read with interest the article you referenced just above. It may be summarized with this quote taken from the article: "In a nutshell, Miller reminded the DM that the CF-5 was an ineffective air superiority fighter because it lacked radar, and that it was an equally ineffective ground attack aircraft, because it lacked range when carrying any significant or useful weapon load."

The problem with the statement about radar is that the professional literature shows it simply is not true at that time. Quoting the commander of the Israeli Air Force, the highly regarded General Mordacai Hod, after the Israeli air war victory in the 1967 "Six-Day War", air-to- air radar and radar guided missiles in that era were "essentially useless". They drove the price of the aircraft up hugely and thus reduced numbers, while adding little combat effectiveness per plane. The net result was a strong reduction in force capability for the available budget. Concerning ground attack and the lack of strong nuclear delivery capability by the F-5, that simply was not the F-5 mission. If Canada wanted that mission, then the aircraft for it were the F-4 or the F-105.

My argument here is that some of assertions made in the article are both flat wrong and flatly contradicted by the professional literature. For example, the article states that the F-5 was originally designed by Northrop as a "disposable" fighter. Actually, the F-5 was the FIRST fighter with an engineered long life cycle, deliberately designed to be maintainable for decades. That has resulted in the plane being in service for nearly 60 years now, a record among fighters only matched by the MiG-21. The assertion that Northrop intended it as a disposable fighter is simply false.

PhaseAcer (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This ref I cited is professional military literature detailing the Canadian experience with this aircraft. The Israeli opinion on the F-5 isn't relevant, they never even operated the aircraft and the first fighter they bought after the Six Day War and every one since has been equipped with radar. Anyway, unless you have refs on the Canadian experience with this aircraft design, I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I do think the term "disposable" is misleading to the average, uninformed reader, and thus probably better left out. However, unless the OP presents better sources that address the Canadian experience, there's nothing more to discuss. - BilCat (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

There is at least one point left to discuss, which is Wikipedia policy on neutrality and use of references. AH, the unknown author of the flimsy web reference you use as your primary source who stated that Northrop's original F-5 design was for a disposable fighter provided provably false basic information on the F-5. This might be pure ignorance, or it might be a deliberate lie told as part of a political disinformation campaign to malign the F-5. Such disinformation is common in the struggle over military budgets. In either event, it is still blatantly incorrect, no matter what nation's F-5's are at issue. If it is left in the article that way, without mentioning the large body of professional references that say the complete opposite, then the article also promotes an ignorant error, or a lie that is part of a political disinformation campaign, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy on neutrality and use of references.

PhaseAcer (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with you. I'll remove "disposable" and move one. If you're still not satisfied with the content, then you're free to pursue an RfC, third opinion, etc etc. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, BilCat. Actually, I'm sorry to irritate you and I dislike being in these arguments to the point that I almost dread checking the Talk pages when one is in progress. The only reason I do it is that in the last 30 years or so there has been a lot of expert publishing on fighter effectiveness, and these valid points are not really well presented in Wikipedia. Once you read the material, such as the outstanding Sprey report, you have a totally different perception of fighter aviation from the one you have been steeped in since childhood.

PhaseAcer (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC) PhaseAcer (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Self published ref: the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info

An IP editor has been trying to insert the use of https://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info as a ref for this article. The ref is self-published by anonymous authors and itself has no citations or indications where this information comes from. The website itself says Please note that this page is written by enthusiasts without connection to any authority. This material is being kept for historical purposes only; is being updated as additional information is available. It may contain broken links and errors (as few as possible). Under WP:SPS this is not suitable as a reference for Wikipedia. Specifically that Wikipedia policy says Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)