She was my first love. 1000+ hrs. Then I realized that Canada would actually send me to war in the “fighter by Mattel” No radar, no RWR, no radalt, no moving map, no manoeuvring flaps, no fuel and no weapons. She looked like she was going 100 kts, parked on the ramp though. My real love was the F-18 😎
It would be great to hear about your career on a podcast or youtube channel like "Aircrew interview", have yet to hear anything from a Canadian perspective and surely our geographical size and weather conditions would lend to something a bit different. I know a lot of Americans loved flying the Talon and have to think it was the same for the CF-5, you hear that expression, " I just strapped it on" and it seems that this aircraft has that same quality. Your comments of going to war in the aircraft certainly bought things to a reality, shame it really looks the Biz! Thanks.
Great job! You said that they were put in storage at CFB Trenton, They were actually dismantled and wrapped in plastic for storage at CFD Mountainview. Remember driving by there, and on base where these were all lined up together along with T-33 shooting stars and ct-114 tutors
There is a beauty statue F5 at Fulton field in Kamloops, BC. What a nice looking fighter. Used to have excellent airshows there in the 90s and early 2000s
In 2001 I took my dad, an RCAF Halifax bomber veteran to Mountainview. He used to be an instructor there. We couldn’t get in but the guard told us they had several F5s in storage that were supposed to be sold to Turkey but the deal was cancelled. The Halifax at CFB Trenton was being rebuilt then, got a close up tour by volunteers interested in my fathers WW2 experience.
Wow! What a story!! Well researched and laid-out and great supporting video. One of my best photos taken at Abbottsford in the early '80s is of a CF-5D. Gotta dig that out now. (Note: @6:31 the RN Phantom featured the Rolls Royce Spey. I think you said, "Spray"). Many thanks on such a good job of telling a complex story with so many twists and turns.
The air frame got an upgrade and renamed F-20 which did not sell since most of the US export partners wanted the F-16. The US also used the F-5 in aggressor squadrons which trained F-14 squadrons in dog fighting. Currently, the Iranians have copied the air frame for their own "first generation" Iranian built fighter aircraft.
When I first emigrated from the UK in the 90s my impression was that Canada had let itself be manipulated into having a weak military. Canada grossly under-spent on defense and was too reliant on American equipment. Nothing has changed.
That’s very untrue with the third best Air Force, but keep on not researching, just like this F-5 and as never a useless aircraft, the f-5 is great up until more modern jets come to outdated it
@@cloudedxmarbles6284 third best airforce by what measure? we don’t have our own AWACS,SEAD, or EW capability our F-18s still use the AIM-7 sparrow as opposed to the AIM-120 AMRAM and the while the F-5e was certainly capable CF-5 lacked maneuvering flaps or any form of radar and INS it is in no way comparable to the F-5e
@@jameson1239 seems people do not pay much attention the current wings f-1's are nice but not near the best we use, AIM-7's aren't produced anymore as well. either way it's not hard to actually do research. it's also mostly observations compared to every other nation on planet, which most of have become super lax, you ask by what measure like i have better tabs on every current world airforce. kinda why i don't just believe every headline...
@@cloudedxmarbles6284 the F-18 is our only fighter jet at least for the moment and we bought them in the 80s we only started buying the AIM-120 in 2017 also If your going to say Canada’s airforce is one of the most powerful you should probably know enough about other countries airforces to be able to back that statement up seeing as how I can name five airforces that have more modern aircraft, more aircraft, and a full range of capabilities including AWACS,EW, and SEAD, those being the USAF, the USN, RAF, RAAF, and the French airforce. Germany is up for debate
The NF-5 was a nice little aircraft, marred mostly by its lack of advanced navigation and targeting equipment. This caused more than a few crashes as aircraft on low level training missions flew into above ground powerlines that weren't marked on their charts, and prevented the aircraft from being fitted with guided weapons. Both deficiencies were caused by the Dutch government wanting to cut cost by scrapping as many options as possible from the new aircraft being procured, an error that was also made when purchasing the F-16 (which also lacked several key systems when purchased that other countries did get, later Dutch government paid the price to modernise and upgrade those F-16s).
Actually it was used to depict the fictional mig-28 in the movie. The 'enemy' jets used at the top gun academy by Jester and Viper were A4 Skyhawks. In real life, the F5 is used at the top gun academy.
@@Crashed131963 my mistake. actually the Viper/Jester scene uses A4 Skyhawks and not F4s. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jk0gBZtTYUA.html.
@@Crashed131963 He said A4 not F4. You're confusing the small Skyhawk attack plane with tbe big Phantom. And the Navy hasn't used F-5s in some time in he aggressor role- they use F16Ns.
I was in an A-7 Squadron for three years. We gamed at Red Flag and Strike U Fallon, and every single aggressor pilot considered their F-5E to be the best pure air combat maneuvering platform they'd ever flown, with the exception of the F-16.
I lived in Wichita Falls, Texas during the late 80s and early 90s. It was home to Sheppard Air Force Base, with the US Air Force's largest technical training wing and the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training program. WF was famous for its large percentage of clear sky days, and almost any day you could look up morning or afternoon and see one or two of those bright white Talon trainers jetting overhead, cutting training flights through the clear blue skies. They were stunningly beautiful airplanes, especially in their mostly-white skin. To me, they looked exactly like what a great fighter jet should look like, if one were an artist drawing one just for appearance sake. It's a shame their fighter performance was not up to their clean and sharp lines. I had one class at Midwestern State University with a couple of Euro fighter pilot trainees, and they had the typical Top Gun arrogance, decades before the movie Top Gun was made.
when it comes to the British engines for the Phantom "Spey it, don't Sprey it', I understand they were more powerful, although provided little increase in top speed (?), but eliminated the smoking engines the Americans used.....
Yep given a range of choices they chose the worst possible option, i think the A7E would indeed have been the better choice ,while a bomber it was developed from the F8 Crusader and was certainly better in self defense than the CF-5.
Canada was able to keep more trained pilots and give them more flight experience. If a war broke out all those pilots are a better commodity in the long run. They're ready to start training on more capable aircraft if the need arises.
WRT the funding of the CAF at the beginning of the Trudeau Liberal era. Much of the DND/CF funding argument today is in respect to Canada attempting to meet its 2% of Canadian GDP funding obligations it has committed to fulfilling to NATO. In 1969, the Trudeau Liberals budget funded the DND/CAF at 2.274% of GDP. Up till then, funding for National Defence in Canada had been steadily declining since the end of WWII and the Korean conflict in the early 50's. In 1960, DND enjoyed a 4.185% GDP defence expenditure in the federal budget. However, throughout the 60's defence spending gradually declined to 2.544% GDP in 1968 when Trudeau won the Liberal leadership. It wouldn't be until 1973 when funding fell below 2% of GDP though it never fell below 1.7% which is higher then, than it ever was under the more recent Harper government. DND funding returned to 2.08% and 2.12% of GDP in 1983 and 1984 respectively and remained above 2% until 1988 when the Mulroney Conservatives finally got serious about tackling the growing accumulated federal deficit. Under the Chrétien/Martian Liberals, their priority was all debt and deficit. This saw spending on DND decline from 1.7% GDP (1994) when Canada committed to UNProFor in the former Yugoslavia to 1.1% (2005) when Canada was fully committed to the War on Terror in Afghanistan with an CF Battle Group and supporting assets in Kandahar province. It should also be noted the same government during the period of 1997-2006 paid off >80B$ (>18%) in accumulated federal debt, saving Canadian taxpayers billions in debt servicing costs. Only under the Harper Conservatives would defence spending fall below 1% GDP - to 0.992% in 2014 - after rising briefly to 1.38% GDP in 2009. The current Liberal government - under Trudeau-the-younger - has increased defence spending from 1.15% GDP in 2015 to 1.35% in 2017, keeping it above 1.25% since and averaging 1.28% over the first four years of its mandate, 0.1% of GDP more on average, than the previous Conservative government did throughout its ten-year term (2006-2015).
"Almost useless" mmmkay. And yet, considering the disparity in on paper capability vs cost Mig 17s 19s and 21s made a fair acounting of themselves vs. what was, at the time, arguably the most advanced fighter in the world. And a well flown F5 could roughly handle any of those aircraft in a merge.
I worked on the CF-5 in Cold Lake 80-87 and loved it, great plane. We could do an engine change in 20 minutes, I remember changing 4 engines and 4 full power runs ups in an 8 hour shift. 419 TFTS. The Moose is Loose.
I couldn't get the audio on this video but the F-5 was designed by by Northrup, maybe many were built in Canada under license. The F-5 was some what of a disappointment for Northrup, no foreign Buyers because the U.S. Airforce didn't want the F-5 they chose the F-16....However, I understand the Saudi's bought them and used them successfully against many neighbors in the middle east. They do have short legs but didn't have to go far to find trouble.......The Saudi Pilots were trained by the U.S.A.F .....
@@jerryle379 Thanks for the Correction...Your Right , I was thinkin of the F-20 and printed F-5....I know the difference , just forgot the assigned number, they are very similar in Appearance , Thanks again !!!!
Success stories are boring and harder to criticize; look at other Canadian projects like the PT-6, the Dash 8, the CL-215 and -415, Canadair Challenger, CRJ, and Global Express, and more recently the C-Series/A220. For that matter look at the company CAE has grown into. So while we’re not major designers of military aircraft there have been and continue to be very successful civilian projects which aren’t bound in sales by politics the way weapons are. That’s arguably a big win and a smart plan.
@@TimTheInspector i would add that as a small player, Canadian companies get steamrolled by larger American, Chinese, Russian, European etc ones despite developing what might actually be a better product because they dont want to allow any competition into the market. The most recent example being the Bombardier C-series being cockblocked by Boeing and then bought up by Airbus. Let's not even start on Avro...
Avro was a victim of making a near perfect product to obsolete requirements. Americans didn’t do anything except in the fictional world of the CBC docudrama. They cancelled their own interceptor which was a true Mach 3 interceptor the same year for the same reasons.
The big problem isn't really unique to canada, it's that the immediate military necessity is often subjected to political and economic reality. The cf5 acquisition is clinically insane from an order of battle perspective but it checks all the boxes from a wacko political perspective
A minor point: The T-38, although developed alongside the F-5 and very similar in appearance, is technically not a 2-seat version of the F-5. Differences exist is in the wing leading edge, intakes, and weapons provisions. 2 seat versions of the F-5 are the F-5B and F-5F.
@@knoahbody69 It's finally being replaced. It's said that it's not worth upgrading them and they essentially take it on essentially taken on another jet that very much appears to be just like the talon t38 / f5
F5 was the first model plane I ever built as a kid - I knew nothing about aerodynamics and aircraft design in those days, but this machine just looked so damned efficient...my childish intuition, it would appear, was spot on
@@Phenom98 Well; depends on the mission. The F4 proved more efficient than most aircraft in Vietnam at Ground Strike missions, carrying more ordinance, more quickly and with a faster sortie rate than any other jet aircraft; including the USAF's only [on paper] dedicated Tactical Bomber, the "F-111". (an aircraft that was deemed to be so bad at the role it ostensibly primarily existed for, that it was never used for it again) In a dogfight though; I'd certainly rather have an F-5E than a Phantom.
I was Marine stationed at Lemoore CA and deployed to Yuma AZ with VFA 125 when the Canadians flew in to to evaluate our F-18s. During one ACM a CF-5 overstressed the wings and required inspection. We watched and noted a 8 x 8 container rope off with do not cross lettering. Last day of the eval, container was opened to reveal at least 100 cases of beer. I thought these Canucks know how to fly and party.
When I was a young man in middle school my creative writing teacher found out I had a gift for digging up old documents and not such a gift for creative writing. So in exchange for good grades on a few assignments she asked me if I could dig up her father’s Air Force service history. He had been one of the only US pilots to operate the F-5 over Vietnam and he went down over Vietnam to enemy fire. Apparently her mother passed away without telling her anything and she was too young when he passed to remember anything. The look on her face when I gave her the documents I found was priceless.
My dad took me out to the hangar at CFB Trenton and sat me in the CF5 when they were first procured. A lovely Treat for this 10 year old. I was also agape seeing the voodoo and starfighter. Paint schemes were gorgeous then. I remember vividly a tiger striped 104 doing rolls the full length of the runway. I recall also dad being very disturbed by the changes to the military, he hated having to paint the Hurcules in army green,....
@@brucerideout9979 yeah well, she does spend as much time on ground as in air ,sooo... I understand the ground color scheme on the hercs... You want jaws agape, Wright Patterson museum.. I rember when they had valkyrie on guard duty outside the museum buil;ding proper .. and to a 15 year old kid, that peacemaker was extra ridiculous in scale
As a Venezuelan Av geek, I'm glad you acknowledged that our Air Force bought the model, which I wanna give some context to cause I live in the city where they used to operate from and they're one of my favorite aircraft. So as you said, in the early 70s Venezuela got a batch of CF-5s to replace the not so good F-86K Sabre Dogs bought from the Lufftwaffe years earlier, the type was our first supersonic jet, andfor long our main fighter jet till the arrival of the Mirage IIIEV later in the 70s and the F-16s in the 80s, but they still played a crucial role in training operations and air to ground operations for years. In the 90s the country (funny enough) acquired as well some NF-5s to replenish the fleet and a modernization program began for the fleet that would update the aircraft and elongate the frame life, thus renaming them VF-5, sadly during the coup attempt of November 27th, 1992, at least three planes were damaged in the ground by bombs dropped from rebel Broncos, but the fleet still served afterwards for years; sadly as the government (made up by the coup plotters from 92) took over, and relations with the US became strained, just like most our Air fleet, the planes had to be retired in 2010 (not 2015 but I'll get to that), as the govt purchased a whole fleet of K-8W Karakorums, which actually were meant to take over from the T-2 Buckeye retired in 1999, and at the beginning they flew side by side for a while till later that year, the fleet was retired without any acknowledgement from the air force, they literally just stopped flying, and so the information in their retirement has been very hard to confirm online as there's no official sources, and some rumors say that the F-5s are in storage, others that they're getting worked on by Iranian engineers so they can be restored to service, all I know is that in the air base here at my city there's at least still one VF-5A that's rolled out for special occasions like air shows and once a city fiair. Tl;DR: The CF-5 operated in Venezuela from the 70s to 2010, it was the country's first supersonic jet and was unceremoniously retired in favor of the Chinese K-8W Karakorum, although this gets hard to confirm for online reports as there was never an official announcement, and it's rumored the fleet is storaged somewhere but no one knows for sure
Those are some great fill-ins, @sithlord2225 ! The first time I stayed in Caracas (2008?) there was a huge flypast over the city. I didn’t even know Venezuela had SU-27’s. There were some F-16’s and even some F-5’s. We stayed at the Eurobuilding Hotel in Las Mercedes and my room overlooked the airfield, where the MI-8’s (maybe even MI-24’s?) operated. It was a real eye-opener for me. Thanks again!
Ummm?? .... and why DOES Venezuela even need an air force? Is it expecting disgruntled Mexicans to overrun the country wth bombers.. or maybe Panama will drop a nuclear bomb on Caracas? Think of the huge benefit if they had retired ALL those planes. Drug smuggling planes could be easily interdicted with much less expensive planes belonging to a good police force.
I spent 20+ years maintaining these aircraft. A real pain in the ass to work on, but I loved it! Pretty accurate article too, well done Polyus Studios!
True....and "The Republic of Congo" was a shit hole on the ground. [and I'm from Texas not Canada] I got a soft spot for NATO allied groups sent to proverbially "shovel a bunch of stupid shite" as well. 🤷♂️ Paid off my student loans neccessary for civilian life. So that worked out for us.
i heard to remove the engines from the plane for servicing it took two mechanics about 25 - 35 minutes to do so. y/n? also, with nano tech coming in during the 90s - certainly much smaller than anything before it - the f-5s became very capable fighters. also, the twin seat trainers were able to be improved to much more versatile strike fighters.
@@Thehawkdown99 United Nations ...it's okay. I'm used to nobody knowing what the numerous military personnel from a wide variety of countries do for the UN.
The fact that it was the F-5A over the later F-5E or F is just sad. Some more advanced F-5's were even evaluated by the Soviets and found to be superior in comparison to the Mig-21. Really a shame. I really like the F-5 as it was a cheap, and relitivly capable for the price point it offered. It's just a shame that it's exactly not what Canada needed. Canadian Phantoms, like you said, would have been ideal. Great video as always, can't wait to see the next one!
To be precise: The F-5 the RCAF *got* wasn't what they'd wanted, but the F-5E *would* have. As is often the case: Politics was the root cause of this aircraft falling short, just as much as Canada purchasing the useless Bomarc missile, the questionable Voodoo and the likely obtained via bribery F-104 groundnail, over more capable alternatives - were the result of political ineptitude / corruption.
@@user-gn8hf2ig7w It is hard to find an in depth analysis (That is probably locked up in an archive somewhere), however multiple websites cite the same evaluation quote. "Soviet pilots from Chkalov’s Russian Flight Test Center near the Volga River - among them Vladimir Kandaurov, Alexander Bezhevets and Nikolay Stogov - were reportedly impressed by the F-5’s performance against the MiG-21. Interestingly, Soviet engineers assumed the MiG-21 was more advanced than the American jet was, but the F-5 won every simulated air-combat engagement." I do wish that there was a more formal version of these evauluations, however since multiple sites have a very similar quote with almost identical names and places, I think a safe conclusino can be drawn from there. The F-5s evaluated are most likely captured E's. Hope this was somewhat helpful!
Don’t be too hard on the RCAF as they are debating on retiring the “Snowbirds” which are 60y/o trainers. The “Blue Angels” fly F18s which can be quickly converted to war craft if required, something that the RCAF could consider doing the same?
He strikes me as a 'painting the bullseye around the arrow' sort of guy, what with changing the procurement requirements just to get the F-5 back in the running. I quite like the F5, but the idea that we _could_ have been flying A7 Corsairs, or even A4s?
Hellier was trying to squeeze the most bang for buck out of an increasingly smaller pool of cash (defence spending had fallen by almost 2% of GDP between 1960 and 1969). He was a fiscal pragmatist (though perhaps he was loyal to his former employer?) and needed to keep all branches of the CAF [reasonably] happy despite their hostility to unification. By the late 60's the navy was looking to replace its 15 year-old St. Laurence-Class and 12 year-old Restigouche-Class DDEs. The army needed a new MBT because the Centurion Mk V's and Mk XI's (with their Royal Ordinance 105 mm L7 gun which was untested against the sloped armour of the T-64) were a challenging match against the T-64 with its powerful 125 mm gun, which the newly formed 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (4CMBG) would face if hostilities broke out in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (the T-72 was known to be under development). For MoND Hellier, it was a balancing act to be sure.
@@Vespuchian Kinda like how the Harper government changed the CF-188 replacement competition so that only the F-35 could meet the criteria when there were far less expensive 4.5 gen fighters (F/A-18E Super Hornet, Rafale, Grippen) that could achieve comparable "stealth" with a 1M$ ECM/ECCM pod and that were far more capable of meeting Canada's air defence & tactical support mission requirements than that flying billion dollar lemon? The rational defence option would be to buy the F/A-18E Super Hornet because it represents the least amount of retraining expenditure and support for RCAF personnel. The Rafale beats all in operational range, payload flexibility (it can carry 1.5 more tonne of ordinance than the F/A-18E), speed and operational ceiling in a multi-role fighter/interceptor for the price (it also has _supercruise_ which the F/A-18E lacks) while the Grippen comes in at a close 2nd to the Rafale performing better than the F/A-18E in combat radius, t/w ratio and Mach. If the Americans were willing to sell the F-22 then it might be an entirely different story, but that's not an option.
@@Vespuchian What gets me is that the air superiority component of the requirement was relaxed for the F-5... exactly how were the A-4, A-6 OR A-7 supposed to meet this requirement... relaxed or not?
@@MelioraCogito F22 is not a good fit as it's not really multi-roll. Though I don't agree that the F18 is comparable stealth, I completely agree that it's a better fit for Canada.
The F-5 has more than proved it's worth as a training airplane. It is great at imitating the nimble flight characteristics of many lightweight enemy aircraft as well as being a terrific first jet for pilots to learn on.
I remember this little fighter. In fact, when the fighter competitions began for a small role fighter in the 70's, I was hoping for the F-20 TigerShark to gain reputation. I think with the upgrades Northrop implemented made it a better fighter.
@@timkc1638 At the time, I heard it was much better than both F-16 and F-18. The Pentagon forbid Northrop from selling it to foreign nations. So a we get a surprise egg from a magic chicken.. .and we leave it in a corner to rot. Meh.
@@rexyoshimoto4278 I wouldn't say it was straight up better than the F-16 or F-18. In certain categories yes, but both the F-16 and F/A 18 would have higher payload capacity and I'm pretty sure they both have tighter turning radius. Having said that, the F-20 was essentially what the F-5 should have been and would have been great to see it make it to production.
@@rexyoshimoto4278 the F-20 in fact had the same engine as the F/A-18 which boosted power by 60% over the twin engines of the F-5E...I had a childhood friend who's Dad was a test pilot for the F-20
While fishing on Lake Diefenbaker in the mid eighties my son and I were surprised by a CF 5 barrel rolling all the way down the lake about 200 ft in the air . He must have been going to the Moose Jaw air show ( a very popular event with crowds of 150,000) that week end , an unforgettable experience. Whoever the pilot was thank you.
The south Vietnamese made excellent use of this plane as well as did Taiwan. Useless is a gross misrepresentation of this planes capabilities. The neutered version used by Canada is hardly representive of the planes potential capability. Much like the F-20 it was a great plane never given a real chance and was good caompared to its contemporaries.
Do you not read whet the pilots who flew her say? No radar, no RWR, no radalt, no moving map, no maneuvering flaps, no fuel and no weapons. That is the very short list of the many deficits upgrades can''t fix. A major redesign would be needed, they could call it the F-18.
@@bodasactra That's Canada's fault for building these with nothing in them. The American made F-5E's had Radar, and every American made F-5 had RWR, as well as "manuevering" flaps and slats, etc etc. These problems arose because Canada decided too build a stripped down plane with absolutely nothing but engines and guns. The American built F-5's were always far more well equipped.
A really good history thank you. The insights into strategy, foreign policy, and tech choice really makes this video stand out. All of your video have been top notch examples of RU-vid.
"Almost useless in a real fight," really? Provocative, to be sure. But it's a bit harsh given the Freedom Fighter's combat record. In good hands, the Freedom Fighter was quite resilient and capable in the air-to-ground role. We can dig into the 1965-1966 Skoshi Tiger program in South Vietnam for just one real-world example. Just five hours after a grueling 8,279 nautical mile trip across the Pacific (including a five-hour final leg from the Philippines to South Vietnam with three mid-air refueling), the F-5Cs were flying combat operations--a testament to the aircraft's reliability and deployability. During the first phase of combat testing, every combat-damaged aircraft (all damage aircraft had been hit by 7.62mm bullets) was turned around and combat-ready the morning after it had been damaged. On average, the squadron flew a grueling 24 sorties a day during the first phase, with the only major black mark being FOD damage from rockets and guns that forced periodic engine replacements. And even these issues did not keep the aircraft down for extended periods, since engine replacements could be done in about two hours. Overall, the F-5Cs only needed a paltry 8-10 man-hours for each flight hour (at least half what every other USAF combat aircraft of the time required). Plus, the 12 F-5Cs of the 4503rd TFS (Provisional) only needed 175 maintainers, a fraction of the number an F-4 squadron of the time required. In the higher-intensity third phase, the 4503rd stepped things up even further, flying 24-30 daily sorties, with each airplane flying 4-5 sorties a day. Ground crews were working so smoothly at this point that they could inspect, refuel, and rearm the returning fighters in just 20 minutes! All in all, the 4503rd flew 2,664 combat sorties in Southeast Asia and dropped 6 million tons of ordnance, for the loss of one aircraft and pilot (Major Joseph Baggett). What was the RCAF was being asked to do in the middle of the Cold War? Rapidly deploy overseas to provide air support for an expeditionary force. What had the F-5 done in Vietnam? Almost exactly that. The lack of all-weather air-to-air capability was definitely a drawback, but perhaps not as damning as one might think. Regarding air defense, the Soviets had given up on long-range nuclear strategic bombing by the mid-1960s (somewhat unbeknownst to NATO), so the CF-5’s shortcomings as an interceptor ultimately didn’t expose Canada to an existential nuclear threat. Had the Canadians deployed to Norway in a Cold War Gone Hot, they would have had the support of fighters from NATO allies, as well as ground-based radar. Even if the CF-5s been pigeonholed into an air-to-ground role, they’d have freed up Phantoms and other fighters for air-to-air work. Even if CF-5s had fought MiG-19s or even MiG-21s in anger, I'd have put my money on the Canadians. The MiG-19 had some vicious handling flaws (adverse yaw in tight turns, being "almost uncontrollable" at transonic speeds, violent pitch-ups when the airbrakes were deployed, engines which flamed out during spins, and gun gas ingestion problems that caused violent engine surges). By contrast, Northrop had designed the Freedom Fighter to be docile and forgiving (unsurprising given the fighter’s trainer heritage). If the fight got slow, as extended dogfights tend to do, the Freedom Fighter had much better high-AoA performance and low-speed handling than the MiG-19 (which was especially prone to adverse yawing into a spin at high AoA). While Freedom Fighters would have been at a disadvantage against MiG-21s, they’d still have had a fighting chance. The radars on Cold War MiG-21s were low-power units with small antennae (because of the limited space inside the nose spike) and Soviet pilots largely relied on GCI anyways. Their heat-seeking variants of the AA-2 Atoll were about as reliable as the AIM-9B Sidewinders they had been copied from, that is to say, not very. If it came down to a gunfight, many MiG-21s either had a very small cannon magazine or no cannon at all, one reason why Egyptian MiGs came out so badly in the 1967 air war against Israeli Mirage IIIs with a better cannon fit. The MiG-21s were a lot faster, to be sure, but most Cold War air-to-air combat took place at subsonic speeds and use of the afterburner ate into the MiG’s already short range. And in a UN peacekeeping scenario, A2A capability was essentially irrelevant. Good air-to-ground performance and reliability in adverse conditions (areas where the Freedom Fighter demonstrably shone) were far more important. Would Tiger IIs have been better performers? Absolutely. Was the Freedom Fighter good enough? I’d say so!
I was a kid growing up in Belleville, ON and we went to CFB Trenton in Grade 8 for Career Day. We went to what was then AMDU and they were doing maintenance on some CF 116s (as they were officially called, but everyone called it the CF-5). They mentioned how they could change an engine in no time. Later as an Infantryman, I remember them doing some CAS missions for us on FTX's. Back then, we had the CF 18 ("CF 188") and the Freedom fighter. Great to see a video on this little plane.
The left one or the right one? That's right, they had left and right engines and it took many hours to make a left into a right or vice versa. No such nonsense for the F-18.
I had a boss who flew CF5’s as well as 101 Voodoos. He had nothing but praise for the CF5’s and liked it better than the Voodoos, mostly because it was smaller, lighter and more nimble. Guess it’s like comparing a half-ton pickup to a sports car; both are fine vehicles, but the sports car was more fun.
Unfortunately the CF-5 is kind of the Fiat X-19 of sports cars. Small, nimble, underpowered, underweight. Fun from inside, but still getting passed by everything else on the track.
Yeah and as the video briefly mentions, the F-5A was eventually improved in to the much more capable F-5E. The F-5 always had good bones: a lot easier to add radar and some better engines than to attempt to make a poorly built airframe in to something.
@@markthomas5683 It was no F4, but neither was its price tag. But still it could put up a dogfight. Soviet pilots liked F5s captured from the South Vietnamese enough they reversed engineered it.
@@a-10thunderboltii24 It honestly has very little going for it. Did it handle better than a Mig-21? Yea, probably but that's a pretty low bar. It was "nimble" in that it had a high roll rate. That makes a plane feel "snappy" but actual turn performance (Ps stuff) is pretty atrocious. Combined with a low weapon load and low fuel capacity and I'm left wondering what exactly was it good for? It's a plane that is good if all you do it what it's (sort of) good at. If you take off, transit to the MOA 20 miles away, do a couple BFM engagements, come back into the break and log a 0.9, it's probably fine. Serving as an adversary for more sophisticated airplanes? Sure. Actually going somewhere to war and it's not so good. A cheap airplane is false economy if it can't do the mission.
@@markthomas5683 The F5 had a decent turn rate. It outdid both the F4 and MiG 21. In overall combat performance it isn’t that good compared to the F4 or most heavier fighters, but it wasn’t. The F-5 was supposed to be a cheap airplane with cost effective performance. The US never flew F-5s over Hanoi because it was not meant to go over such a distance in a high risk fight. It was a low end short range fighter. Ethiopia flew them against Somalia and got kills. It has been bought from Norway to Taiwan because it was adequate not just for what it could do, but it didn’t drain money for countries that might never see at most low end combat.
Sadly to hear..... luckily that F5 served us very well and it is one of the most loveable aircrafts that served in RTAF. Its decendant F5E had been upgrade to new standard and will serve until 2030 atleast.
Chilean Air Force F5Es arrived in 1976 . They have been upgraded jointly with Israel , now we have 18 of them left based at Punta Arenas , Southern tip of South America. They have a better radar - airefueling probe - helmet visor - Python 4 air to air missiles and advanced avionics. The regular F 5E beat the Navy F 14's during the 80's in joint maneuvers. The F5 is Much Loved by Chilean Fighter Pilots. Cheers
@@britishamerican4321 Yeah he was a nutter for sure his affects are still being felt today and not in a good way the A6 intruder would have been perfect for anti-ship missions and ground strike especially against soviet icebreakers
Here in the UK, we had Duncan Sandys, who in the late 50s decided that in future, everything would be handled by missiles. He cancelled a number of very promising aircraft projects. The rest, as they say, is history.
Still doesn't compare to the corrupt dementia lunatic we have in America now who causes more damage to our military and military's reputation than any foreign adversary could have. And it's barely Beijing Joe's first year in!
good video but sadly all too typical of Canada's defence procurement history..buy whatever is cheapest..downgrade the role of the service so the new purchase will meet the new downsized requirements..ohh and make sure its built in Quebec to support Quebec jobs..you should do a video on the CH 146 Griffon helicopter as it demonstrates all the above mentioned..
How could the A-7 possibly have been selected to meet an “air superiority” requirement? I always read how it was considered so underpowered. In fact, the candidate aircraft (three of them being bombers) makes me think that air superiority actually was not a requirement.
How dare you! inform Canadians of their own history!?! Only Foreign American history is allowed! We might develop a sense of Patriotisms!?! WE MUST ONLY WORSHIP AMERICA!!! :o
It is a pretty airplane though! The two seater actually has the cleanest lines. The NASA astronauts use them to get around the US and keep their flying hours up.
That's the T-38, not the F-5, and yes, they're different planes even though they look almost identical, their part commonality/compatibility is less than 70%. Especially with the F-5E.
@@jimmason8502 What can you expect from Pierre, who rode a bicycle through the streets of Montrèal, carrying signs that read ‘Don’t Fight for the English’, while men like my Dad were signing up to go fight in WW II.
I almost don't want to watch this video because I know how sadly it will turn out. Until we got F-18s the RCAF were victims of one political flub after another. And now that we've thankfully gotten out of the F-35 boondoggle, we're still waffling on what to replace it. Among the replacement options are...the F-35 LOL. But also the Saab Gripen which I really hope we adopt. It's got the range and the build requirements needed to actually cover our gigantic landspace and engineered to fly in cold environments allowing Canada to protect it's arctic sovereignty before Russia and the USA both start trying to take it away.
But that is the problem. Canada cannot commit to a program. If Canada managed to just stick with one program, most of these problems will go away, the CF-105 being the perfect example: let's get the F-4, but that is too expensive, so lets design our own aircraft perfectly suited to our need, but several years and several hundred million later it's too expensive, so lets buy a bunch of the crappy Century Series fighters, but those are becoming obsolete fast, so lets get the F-4 (all the way back to the beginning), but its too expensive, so lets get a aircraft to replace the CF-101 and CF-104 that is somehow worse than either. It would really just save them so much pain and misery to just stick with a program until the end.
And I guess I would add one more thing, the F-35 program. I really want to know why Canada wanted to be a part of the program that it has no interest in using. And like you said, they got out of the procurement, just to turn around and open a competition that includes the F-35. I see this situation playing out much like the CF-105 story above. Canada makes an investment in an aircraft, pays for the costs of development, and then, at the brink of it become fiscally profitable, they turn away. And this is compounded by the fact that they will likely lose billions of dollars in jobs related to the development and production of the F-35 should they choose to leave. Either way, it looks as if they are either stuck with the F-35 or liable to lose just as much in the procurement of the Gripen E or CF-18E.
Almost every USAF pilot was trained on the dual seat version, Talon. I don't know WHY anyone would call it "useless". The ability to carry air to ground weapons, as far as I'm concerned, is the most important feature of ANY "fighter". I watched the F-5 drop many bombs in Vietnam. They had a long linger time over target. Very useful.
@@wkat950 Don't know. Can't say. Although if you'll remember from "Top Gun", the enemy fighters were all F-5's. But fighters, fighting other fighters, is a secondary function for most fighters, in combat. Their MAIN function is to support ground troops by attacking enemy positions on the ground. And THAT function was well suited to the F-5's. I watched many drop bombs on enemy positions during the Vietnam war. They would circle those positions in a VERTICAL circle, like a Ferris Wheel. On the "down stroke" they would drop their bombs, on the "up stroke" they would have time to access their situation and prepare for the next "down stroke".
As a fighter the f-5 was slow and lacked bvr capability making it useless in a late cold war air to air engagement and especially in modern day engagements and in terms of ground attack other planes can do just as well or better then the f-5 could the real usefulness of the f-5 was as a super sonic trainer which is what the US and most people who still have the f-5 use it for
@@gufo_tave Hey....If you have ENOUGH...slow, cheap, attack aircraft, that have fast, expensive, attack missiles..NO FIGHTER in the world can overcome them. F-5 models are cheap, plentiful, spare part friendly. They just have to be outfitted with the right weapons...and they're deadly.
Very interesting video although I am more familiar with the vastly improved F-5E Tiger II and III operated by the Chilean air force since 1976. Chilean F-5Es where replaced by F-16 block 50 in the early 2000s. I love the little agile Tiger II/III.
The best of the 5s has to be Brazils with the upgrades they did it still shines. And the irony is its successor there is spiritually an F5 per se Aka thhe Gripen which they are building locally and is what we should have done here since it would be a perfect fit for our needs hands down But sadly justin is fukin the dog o that the same as the Libs did to the 5 repeatedly much to the detriment of all canucks
Taiwan's F-5s use sky sword 2 missiles. Which are equivalent to AMRAAM. Sometime better because they can go hypersonic. But the airframes are to old. I'm thinking Taiwan will retire them soon.
I do love these videos for their background checks and the fabulous backing stories of how Canada acquired aircraft after Diefenbaker Stabbed Canada's Aircraft industry and forcing the brilliant engineers who designed and built the Arrow to go find work in the USA the brain drain of Canadian Tallent little valued in Canada still forces our intellects to look for work outside of Canada
"brilliant engineers who designed and built the Arrow to go find work in the USA the brain drain of Canadian Tallent" No engineers from Canada are listed as having designed any plane in the USA. They are were US born, even if some of them may have French sounding names.
@@truthadvocacy The brain drain involved the Avro Canada engineers migrating down to the U.S, most of whom were snapped up by NASA and worked on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.
There used to be a crashed cf-5 on the beach of a private lake in eastern quebec. It was pretty much skeleton in the late 80s, so i'd imagine nothing is left of it today.
If the priorities for the new fighter (that the CF-5 won) were 1) Air Superiority 2)CAS/Interdiction 3)Reece then the CF-5 was the obvious choice since the A-4, A-6, and A-7 would have done rather poorly in the Air Superiority role. I am a USN veteran and hold the Scooter, Intruder, and SLUFF in high regard for their A/G capabilities - however I readily acknowledge that they would do very poorly as a fighter. The RCAF's mistake was to go with the early Freedom Fighter variant rather than the F-5E Tiger II, however the Freedom Fighters could have been upgraded relatively easily as the Freedom Fighter and Tiger II had 85% commonality.
Canadians: Useless CF-5, can't handle itself in a real fight, problems galore. Meanwhile México still flying the F5E: 😶 *awkward silence* (We urgently need to secure the already rumored purchase of F-16s or JAS-39s. Like, at this point I don't think anyone cares which plane they buy but they need to buy one lol)
@@winternow2242 yeah it's just like 12 F-5 Es but only 8 are actually flyable from what I've read. They've actually been using Swiss PC-7s for coastal defense since they have a ton of them (60+) and because they supposedly "fare better" against slow-moving aircraft like the ones used by smugglers or to escort civilian aircraft entering our airspace unauthorized. But they need a proper 4 or 4.5 gen air superiority fighter. They just know how expensive it will be to acquire those new jets and they're delaying the purchase as much as possible. We're also supposed to be a "neutral" country, so having a super aggressive air force is not the goal. Whatever they buy, it's probably not going to be a record-breaking purchase. Still, our congress approved funds for the new fighters and that money will become available in 2024. In the meantime they've been hosting air shows around the country with American, French, Korean, and even Russian contractors (although I suspect after Ukraine they won't be hosting Russians any time soon). So far, the F-16C and the JAS-39 Gripen seem to be in the lead. They're not that expensive to buy or maintain and they come from reliable allies. The navy supposedly fell in love with the Rafale C, but the "money guys" were quick to tell them it was out of our budget lol. They're also looking for a new trainer aircraft and so far they like the new T-7 Red Hawk and the Korean KAI-50. There's even a rumor that if the 2024 money is not enough to buy a substantial fleet of fighters, they would prefer to buy the light attack variants of the T-7s or KAI-50s to complement the current role of the PC-7.
Oh and Spain also had a spot at the air shows since they offered 30 of its used Eurofighter Typhoons because their Royal Air Force is undergoing budget cuts. But I read they didn't get approval to sell it to a non-European nation even if they're allies. Which is weird because the Saudi Air Force has dozens of Typhoons, so idk. Maybe they pitched in with some funds during the development process and that's why they have special access to it.
Nice video, I wish you talked more about the Norwegian versions. We operated many variants, 108 F-5 Freedom Fighters in total. The last squadron flew them until 2000. After retirement some of the aircraft were delivered to technical schools (high schools / colleges) as well as museums, but many remain in storage today.
@@invertedv12powerhouse77 I know I'm responding to a two-year-old comment, but I do have a fictional scenario (set in the Armed Assault universe) where the RCAF bought Tomcats for use as home defense aircraft, while having the Hornets be stationed at NATO bases in Europe.
Hahaha, you are so right. They were useless. And I say that will all due respect for those that flew them; I know many maintainers and a few pilots. I even worked on the dorsal longeron and 15% spar. I'm sure it was a neat little scooter, but not a serious war machine like the F-18 is.
Unfortunately the F/A-18 is a modified version of an airforce reject that was following the F-5 /CF-5 called the YF-17 Cobra and the F/A-18/CF-18 hornet have a very similar fault, and as a mercenary I believe that The F-5 is way better then the F/A-18 hornet family
@@RedXlV nope, the Hornet family is actually related to the YF-17, which is actually an Air force variant of the LWF program that resulted in the F-16, the F-5 was supported by the navy
The F-5, as used by the Aggressor Squadron (Nellis AFB, NV) kicked EVERYONE's ass in air to air combat.........F-16, F-4. tomcats, ........the whole arsenal. Apparently, the Kanucks didn't WANT to use it for it's capabilities, preferring to just "be nice".
Nice concise video Brad, I was at 434 in Cold Lake when the first CF-5s arrived and when 804 crashed. We called them Dinky Toys as most of us working on the had come from the CF 104 which was quite complex in comparison :)
I was in the Canadian Army, 3PPCLI, and was on exercise in Wainwright but working on the umpire staff; I had a bit of time and thought that I'd flaunt my circumstances and lay down on TOP of a hill to enjoy the warm sun. As I am dozing off this joker in a CF-5 goes as low and as fast as he could go right over top of me- I didn't hear him until he was above me but I evacuated my position hastily; it seemed like he was close enough to touch and the sound might as well have been a bomb going off... To this day, I picture him in the mess later telling tales of success during the great Pickly hunt...
About the legs on a Northrop T-38 and its F-5E/F cousin. Sept 2021 the T-38 with now with several avionics upgrades is still in limited used by the U.S. Air Force. The Swiss Federal (F+W) Aircraft Factory coproduced more the 60 extremely nice F5Es and the two seat F-5F trainer versions. Then they took meticulous care of them-each with very little flight hours. The U.S. Navy gladly bought most of them a few year ago and turned them into very hard to see Top Gun aggressor fighters. Fighter who on any given day in the hands of a good pilot can and have beat F-18s. Two F-5Es with snakes.. on your six and your dead.
Yep, the swiss F-5's would be hunting flying down low in the alps valleys, preying on unprepared bandits and jumping on them with their 20mm cannons and sidewinders. Not particularly high tech but effective noneless.
I never understood why Canada was always at war with itself over domestic fighter production. Starting with the cancellation of the Arrow, Canada never really recovered.
Fighter airplanes are always expensive and a drain on any federal budget. If fighters are bought offshore, they are an even worse drain on foreign currency reserves. Politicians are always under pressure to spend that same money on a dozen other projects, all f which will garner more votes.
@@robertwarner5963 The Arrow was at the time, one of the most advanced fighters in the world and had great potential for outside military sales. In addition, Avro developed very advanced manufacturing techniques no one else had at the time. All these capabilitie could have been a significant boost to the Canadian economy.
"Useless in a real fight".....except the Soviet AF tested captured South Vietnamese models against its MiG21 and the MiG got spanked in each and every single engagement. Every one of them.
Our Philippine Air Force had a great time with these F5s. We received the first F5As and F5Bs in 1965. It served us for 40 years. Aside from starring at air shows, they dealt with Communist and Islamic insurgents here. Though these aircraft did not face another adversary, it would not say that it was useless. It guarded our skies for decades. And everyone in the Air Force was so sad when they were retired as we don't have a budget for buying new and better platforms. We were basically jetless until the Korean FA50s came.
Can't wait for the Hydrofoil vid. My calculus instructor at SIAST in MooseJaw worked on the Hydrofoil program. Toughest teacher I EVER had but you DID learn Calculus. 😅
HMCS Brador was a British Coastal Command project that got foisted on the RCN ... after the RCN had already decided that helicopters - flying from destroyers - were the best anti-submarine weapons. HMCS Brador was a distraction and a waste of money from the RCN's perspective.
A little pre CF5 history. Northrop developed the T38 as and advanced trainer for the USAF. Over 1000 were produced and some are still used for non combat rolls. The F5 was developed for export. The F5s main advantage was low cost of operation as it pioneered ease of maintenance as well as low initial cost. The F5 became operational at a time when fighters were becoming more defined by electronics as weapons platforms. One equip an F5 with the latest electronics, but that would make it more expensive. The curious choice of the CF5 for Canada can only be explained by choice of not being willing to spend vast sums for the best possible fighter. Canada could not follow the USA program of spending the USSR into oblivion. Building the next generation of fighter was becoming suicidal expensive. The much better CF18 (another Northrop design concept, evolved from the XF17) is an expensive fighter. It does inherit many ease of maintenance features from the T38. Today it appears that Canada needs long range Patrol aircraft to protect its artic
" However, as an air superiority fighter, it was useless against all but the oldest relics in the Warsaw arsenal" During the Ogaden War between Ethiopia and Somalia in late 1977, Ethiopia's out numbered airforce achieved air superiority using the F-5, against a Somali Air Force using MiG-21MFs which had only been in production since 1970. If it hadn't been for those F-5s, Ethiopia may very well have lost that war.
The CF-5 is comparable to the F-5A, which Iran used extensively during the Iran-Iraq war. Many Iranian F-5A jets were shot down by more capable Iraqi MiG and Mirage F1 fighters. The Ethiopians used the F-5E during the Ogaden War, which was more maneuverable and allowed better visibility than Somali MiG-21MF and MiG-17 fighters. These advantages combined with better pilot training (for example, DACT with F-5A fighters), allowed the Ethiopians to hammer the Somali MiGs. Late-generation upgrades, including advanced radars and AAMs such as Python and AMRAAM, kept the F-5 a deadly point defense fighter for low-budget air forces for quite some time.
Turkey got Phantoms. Greece got Phantoms. Korea got Phantoms. None of these countries outperformed Canada back then. And Canada couldn't handle Phantoms??? That's sad that they got the 5As and not 5Es... Story would be much different. I don't know how A-6s or A-7s would perform A2A missions, but the A-4!!!!!
Just came to see that this sharp video has gotten closer to the views it deserves. I started watching because I like Canadian military aviation. I keep watching because the technical accuracy, B-roll, narration, music, and overall audio/video quality are absolutely fantastic.
Nowhere in the long winded recitation is a detailed explanation of the reason the aircraft was "useless in a real fight." For that, we need to read the comments. Polysus, if you can't explain the reason for your title fairly quickly, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
Combat range: less than 200 miles. Cruising range : about 800 miles. Runway length: 2,000 feet. Radar..nope. So basically its range was 300 miles too short. Its required runway was 700 feet too long. It couldnt use long range missiles ( no radar ) It could only use unguided bombs. While some of these issues were mitigated ( but not solved ) in later production models the main problem was that it was too small to carry the radar and targetting systems needed. It was a very good 2nd generation fighter in a 3rd generation world. Its main success was it served as the inspiration for the F-18.
I used to live about a kilometer from Canadair in Ville-St-Laurent as a kid in the early 60s. We used to see CF-5s flying over our house all the time. And CF-104s and CL-215 water bombers, too. It was pretty freaking cool. 😀
