Countries such as Egypt seem to be more influenced by politics and finances than actual operational capabilities. They also seem to have a quantity over quality emphasis. Look at the relatively large numbers of basic F-7’s acquired in the past. These aircraft were probably not even as capable as the exisitng MiG-21MF’s but were still purchased to maintain numbers (I think local assembly also may have been involved).

Given that they still have both rust bucket MiG-21’s and F-7’s shows that they still emphasise quanitity to some degree.

To be fair, the Egyptians did upgrade those aircraft significantly back in the 1970s and 80s with western electronics (New HUD, IFF, communications gear, navigation suite, ECM pods…) and weapons including Sidewinder and apparently also R.550 Magic I misslies. So the MiG-21 and also the F-7B in Egyptian service was substantially better equipped than the standard Chinese F-7B export model. The Egyptians continue to operate these birds for the same reason it made sense to the the USAF to buy second hand Northrop F-5 from the Swiss and it’s not to use them as frontline fighters. Just like the USAF does with the F-5 the Egyptians use the remaining MiGs and F-7s aircraft for training which makes sense since they are cheap and losses are lightly felt so why not fly them as long as they will last?.

Hi all,

i’m looking for information about Northrop F-5/F-20 to be used in a public document that will be published in pdf and available to be downloaded in next december.

All information would be welcome but specially those related with the number and description of F-5 ancestors (N-102 Fang, a naval version for the F-5, a fighter called Tally Ho, and maybe four more design studies).

Photos and illustrations with proper authorization to be used in the book/document would be welcome too.

Thanks

What license will you be releasing the PDF under?

re-wiring the airframes for bombing missions and adding bomb bay doors would surely be a headache, not to mention strengthening the fuselage or the whole airframe. i don’t know about the 747 version where it was added with laser/laser-beam capability, but must have been a headache adding such additional equipment that was not originally designed with.

The concept of a B-747 has actually been seriously considered, I remember seeing the concpet drawings of a 747 with several internal cruise missile magazines. I don’t think rewiring the aircraft or redesigning it would be all that difficult. It is, however, a very old design and one wonders if it would be cost effective. When the USAF finally runs out of B-52’s wouldn’t it make more sense replace the B-52, if they still need a sub-sonic bomber, with an aircraft based on some jet-powered military transport?

A bit like New Zealand letting Australia defend them eh? 😀

I’m not arguing Hungary should abandon defence, but they should concentrate on providing a good, realistic force suited to their needs. If they want to develop a fast jet capability then they could save a lot of money by buying combat versions of aircraft like the L159 or Hawk. NATO and EU security is best served by political stability and effective border controls. NATO would probably be better served by telling the poorer members (no offence intended) to provide good domestic security forces and a border guard and let the bigger countries worry about air defence. Ultimately a single squadron of Grippens (great machine that it is) is a drop in the ocean.

You make some valid points countries often go way overboard when procuring air force equipment. But also keep in mind that aggressive dictators and the wars they start don’t creep up on you slowly and predictably they can come as a complete surprise. A lot of European countries still haven’t forgotten how their complete lack of preparation allowed Hitler to walk all over them. After the great war they drastically cut down their air forces and their aviation industries and when it became imperetive to re-equip getting ahold of modern fighters and training up large numbers of pilots turned out to be something they couldn’t do in a few months. Especially if they didn’t even have a viable force of professional military pilots to serve as the core of the expansion. To make matters worse the few third party sources of modern military aircraft were booked solid since everybody submitted massive orders at once. The French even offered to finance the construction of a factory for Curtiss fighters at French tax payer expense so that their orders could be fulfilled in time. There is a cruel joke in the Scandinavian countries that The German army was sent to invade Norway but Denmark was occupied by the Hamburg firebrigade. While that is not an accurate description the ease with which Denmark was occupied by literally a hand full of German troops has still not been forgotten in that country and as a consequense the Danes maintain a strong core air-force even if there may not be an immediately apparent need for one. According to AFM they are even looking into replacing their F-16s with Typhoons at some point. If the Danes ever have to build up for war rapidly and expand the air force by a few squadrons in a single year or two that core air-force will be invaluable even if it seems to serve no purpose in times of peace. Spending on a core air-force in times of peace is kind of like insurance. Why insure your car? But then again where would Finland have been during the Winter War, which came as something of a surprise, if they had done like Denmark and maintained an air force that could be wiped out in a couple of airstrikes by a handful of Bf-110s? As it turned out their air force was prepared enough to give the Soviet a proper spanking and played a significant part in ensuring that Finland didn’t become a Soviet Republic.

Here’s another one. What’s this F-7M carrying on the left wing pylon?

I think if a US Carrier is sunk the popular impact would be tremendous but I don’t think that nuclear weapons would be used. Lt’s supose the CVN is actualy sunk inside the Persian Gulf, what does the USN do to it? Destroy it further to keep it’s unexploded (nuclear?) stockpiles from reaching ennemy hands? Or leave it there waiting a better moment to salvage any usable item left behind?

It’s done with US fighters that fall behind enemy lines, but a CVN is much bigger and expensive. Even financialy a CVN loss woulde be a mighty blow, the last time I checked it carried a US$6Bi price tag on it, not counting the aircraft and weapons on board.

Sinking a US Carrier would be a huge blow to the Americans. Most of all in terms of prestige, they would lose a huge amount of face. To play advocatus diaboli, if I was the Iranian leader I would be prepared to do anything to achieve this even if it meant sending fifty flankers out at once with orders fly their aircraft and their bombs into the carrier at high speed if that’s what it takes. The shock value of such an attack alone would make it worth while even if it fails. But even so I would only behave agressively if the Americans pushed me into a war which I don’t consider likely because of the effect that would have on oil prices. If I was Iran’s leader my strategy would be to provoke the Israelis once in a while to keep the religious and political hotheads happy but avoid a war with the USA at all costs. Iran currently seems to be playing for time with their participation in the nuclear negotiations which makes sense. The Iranians are no fools, they know that if they can manage build up a nuclear arsenal of 20-30 or so simple but robust nuclear weapons in the 10-20 kiloton range and set one of them off in an underground test to prove they have the capability they are basically as safe from the USA as they can be the moment the US geologists and their earthquake sensors confirm a nuclear detonation and pin down the location. The ensuing embargo would probably not be all that severe either since the USA and the World in general needs Iranian oil to flow.

Any bids on what bird this cockpit belongs to?

Not to mention support . Would companies be making Parts for the Mig-21 in 2025 ?? Or for the F-5/F-4 for that matter? Add to all that the ever-increasing cost to maintain a jet that is 40-50 years old and to then put it against an opposition that is even somewhat up to date. having hoards of old Mig-21’s are useless say 10 years from now when those damn things become so old and problematic that the AF finds it hard to to put a substantial no. in the air at the time of need.

Upgrading MiG-21s and F-5s is something that is usually done by air forces that have alot of them already, have done the financial math combined it with a threat analysis:

So they decided that they might as well have the old birds zero timed, wired up for better IR missiles, possibly fitted with a HMS and fitted with a self defense suite (new RWR, IR flares and Chaff dispensers). In some cases like the Romanian Lancer they are given the ability to carry a laser designator pod and are fitted with a new radar and a stores management system. In each case you have a fighter that may not be able to carry BVR missiles but it will do the job of something like a Hawk 100 MB.339,K-8 etc., it is perfectly good for ground attack missions, it can handle air defense since it is capable of dealing with 80% of what you are likely to run into in your paticular region which includes other upgraded MiG-21s, F-5s, Hawks, MB.339s or overhauled MiG-23s and when armed with something like a Python 4 and a HMS it will absolutely slaughter helos like the Mil-8 Mil-24/35 and it will do so at a portion of the cost of a new machine of equivalent capability. Expect a lot of the air forces who are now upgrading F-5s, MiG-21s or buying new built F-7s today to replace them with something like a Hawk 200 series single seat variant of a two seat advanced trainer or a pocket F-16 like the JF-17 or KAI T-50 although at that time they will probably acquire low end BVR options.