It could have been plausible for North Vietnam to retaliate against such Thai air strikes.
North Vietnam could have justified these counter-air strikes on the grounds of self-defence.
This could have been the scenario were we could have seen the use of the North Vietnamese IL-28 ‘Beagle’ light bombers attacking Thai air bases!
One would also question if Thailand would have the political willing to have its country openly attacked in support of American politics?
The A-4 Skyhawk was primarily a lightweight strike aircraft, who thanks to its designers want for minimal size and weight gave it a good account of itself in self-defence air-to-air combat – but it was not a fighter like the MiG-17.
Remember that the US Navy used its A-4 Skyhawks for dissimulated air-combat, ‘simulating’ the maneuverability of the likes of the MiG-15/17’s, but again this does not mean that it is equal to the MiG-17 – just the closest the Yanks have to it!
And what about North Vietnam’s MiG-21’s?
Did North Vietnam have Su-7 ‘Fitter’s’ in its inventory at the time of the Vietnam War????

The other concern with Thailand carrying out offensive air ops against North Vietnam – although granted only punitive in size, could have encouraged more PRC support to North Vietnam or even the North Vietnamese being supplied with more capable and effective strike than the IL-28 ‘Beagle’.

Regards
Pioneer

Given its size and cost the F-5A was indeed a fighter bomber, actually a very cost effective fighter bomber, probably better bang per buck than most aircraft the USA produced at that time, although a single F-5A not really rains down a carpet of bombs. But compared to other aircraft it can fly 6 missions a day (demonstrated). An F-105 can’t, or only with 25 people maintenance crew and a shipload of spares.

Well that was one of the major problems with the U.S strategy in Vietnam – ‘Carpet bombing!
So many U.S airmen and aircraft put into harms way to hit a target that could be.
Instead of going after known tactical and strategic targets.
‘But let’s not go there’!

I fully agree with you on the capability and maintainability of the likes of the Freedom Fighter. Anything more advanced, would have proven difficult for the Thai Air Force of the time to keep in the air.

Regards
Pioneer

1. YF-12A (yes, the fighter version of the SR-71).

3. YF-17 (I don’t mean the Hornet mutation, I meant in its original lightweight without the junk and still lean Cobra configuration).

I always liked the idea of the Northrop P-600
This was the single Pratt & Whitney F100 powered proposal of the YF-17
(To this day I have not been able to find a good drawing or even better a 3-view drawing of this design)
My search will continue!

I still believe that this would have faired better in the USAF LWF competition

Regards
Pioneer

Lavi
F-16XL
F-20 Tigershark
Mirage G8
F-18L
Northrop Fang
CF-105 Arrow

‘More too follow!

I think all this just goes to emphasis that Australia has to get its act of Defence together and in order.

The issue of defence in ADF and in our Federal Politics has to be a more cohesive matter of importance.
Every time we have a swing of government, one of new incoming government’s priority’s seems to be yet another ‘White Paper’ review of defence and the IDF.
This has to stop!
I think that defence has to have a review at least every 5-years, so as to give the ADF a health check of the current threats, and trends in warfare and technology changes.
But this is purely for the good of defence as a whole, and not a political tool.

I have to back the current Federal government’s new directive that Ministers holding portfolios will have to wait a minimum of 18-months before being able to be employed or financially involved with business which involves this portfolio.
As I have stated in another previous subject topic – there are too many ex-ministers that have rolled over to comfortably into the defence sector over the past.

I think the previous out going Federal Government was a perfect example (and the worst I can recall) of this political medaling and toying with Australia’s Defence.
The previous (out-going) Prime Minster John Howard and his Right-Wing hardliners, over night (after the 9/11 attack) obsessively transformed the ADF onto an anti-terrorist war footing as a knee jerk reaction. This act was detrimental to what the ADF had been geared for under a previous ‘White Paper’ review, and for what the majority of the ADF had been training and equipping itself.
To continue his want-to-be knee jerking reactions self claimed ‘Sheriffs’ to the United States-
At the blink of an eye, John Howard committed us to a war in Iraq.
This required the already over stretched ADF (especially the Army) which was committed to ops in East Timor and Afghanistan to swing back to a conventional war scenario.
Then as this war progressed into an occupation force, the ADF has had to swing its training and equipment back to urban insurgency warfare scenario.
Then as the United States began to up the anti, with North Korea and its ballistic missile development, John Howard decided that the new ‘Air Defence’ ships needed to be in the ABM game – so he announced that we would be part of the Standard 3 / ABM umbrella program – just like the big boys club
This knee jerk decision will cause the new ‘Air Defence’ ships (the Spanish designed F100 Frigates) to be far more costly than first planned, as well as the last 13-years have testified – will more than likely cause technical integration problems, and most importantly a critical time delay of these important ships into operational service and or the scenario of being put into service, before all their systems are working 100% (i.e. the Collins Class sub, Adelaide Class FFG, and the SeaSprite program have been examples of these disastrous, costly and detrimental programs for the IDF)
No we need a transparent ‘White Paper Review’ which can not be scraped, or pillage by what ever government comes into power, without a thorough and comprehensive investigation / senate inquiring, which would include the ADF and Australian defence industries, which are able to speak freely, without politic constraint, as to what new governments new wants or proposed changes will do to the ADF’s existing acquisition, research and development programs, training and very importantly moral and efficiency of the ADF as a whole.

For at the end of the day the ADF is a small, but professional force which has to be flexible, and exercise initiative while being reasonable with what it would like and what it can realistically have when it comes to weapon systems and weapons platforms.
For traditionally once chosen, these systems have to be kept and used for longer periods of time than other military force would, and yet kept combat efficient over this period of time.

Regards
Pioneer

Today’s best ‘Self Escorting fighter concept’ would have to be the F/A-22A Raptor.

Why?

Again it is based on a large 100% purpose-built air supremacy fighter designed airframe as its basis.

But when compared to the earlier F-15E, it has the following improvements and characteristics of:
-a large internal fuel load
-a large and powerful advanced technology radar (that takes EW in mind)
-it retains an expellant power-to-weight ratio PWR (unlike the F-15E, due to
external weight and drag)
-an internal weapons carrying arrangement (in most cases)
-it has a supercruise capability (without afterburner) with its offensive
warload

And the decisive piece of the equation – the F/A-22A Raptor has ‘stealth/low RCS’ and a true supercruise capability (without afterburner) with its offensive warload.
This allows the Raptor the advantage to be more flexible in choosing in a lot of cases, weather it does battle with enemy air defence assets (fighter/interceptors).
This gives greater flexibility to which direction it will attack from – having a better chance of bypassing ground-based air defence assets (Air search radars, AAA and SAMs).
Added to this capability is advantage that the supercruise capability would give the Raptor in many cases, the choosing if it wishes to do air-to-air battle, or leave a given area more readably?
And finally, the FA-22A with its internal offensive weapons load being carried internally, would not have to jettison it to do air-to-air battle, and then continue on to its assigned target

This is my view
Regards
Pioneer