I am always careful where it comes to pilot accounts. Ego is not a dirty word to most of them. I've read two accounts of the RAAF's encounter with the F-5 with the Mirage and it occurred way back in the 1980s. The Mirage pilots claimed they defeated the Aggressors when they came on a tour of Oceania. Now, they may have had a bad day or they may have let the Mirage's win, deliberately. However, the accounts I have read appeared to back up that the superior tactics of the Mirages were what defeated the F-5s, not any inherent flying abilities of the aircraft. They were published in Australian magazines back in the day, so they aren't available any more.
It might have been that the F-5 pilots were just a little cocky and suffered as a consequence? I think one of the problems they had was that they flew like they believed Soviet pilots flew - with limited creative input from the pilots and a lot of GC input? The RAAF flew more creatively than they were used to as well? Who knows?
As I have suggested, the Soviet method of piloting, in those days, didn't allow for much creativity. You took off, you carried out your interception, you fought, you landed (if you survived) and all the time were under ground control direction. After Vietnam, the Soviets realised it wasn't working and started their own "Top Gun" school and loosened up their control of the pilots. Training is always the key which wins the battles. If you train hard you have a better edge than the person who doesn't. The Mirage was a good interceptor which got turned into a good fighter-bomber. It wasn't a super-plane - no aircraft is. Some are better than others some worse. It is the pilot and their abilities which are the winner.
That's very much in line with my assessment and understanding.
Instead of buying a super-plane, I'd go for a smaller aircraft, such as the F-5 or the Hunter - both cheaper and more easily replaceable. I'd concentrate on the pilot's training. Purchase a trainer version of your fighter and teach your pilots how to fly by the seat of their pants. It might not win you any battles but it will ensure you don't lose many. Build a ground defence radar network and invest in AEW aircraft. Make sure it is nearly impossible for your enemy to attack you without being detected. Train your fighter pilots and use the radars to your advantage.
Totally valid choice, especially if you upgrade the Hunters to use Sidewinders. Otherwise, they may be at a disadvantage against opponents armed with AIM-9Bs or K-13s.
I think the J32B Lansen could also be a nice choice, with its radar, 4 AIM-9 and 4 30mm ADENs. Good range and a second set of eyes in the back as a plus. Unfortunately I have no idea about its maneuverability though I've read somewhere it could outclimb the Hunter and hold its own against it, as long as the fight was kept in the vertical.
All good point, though I'd worry about its deficiencies in speed and agility. I've not read anything outstanding in either category regarding it. I do love the look of it, though, and think it's a good all-weather fighter for the era, as well as a good strike platform, too.
Because of the rapid development in capabilities in this era, I think you really need to consider when said nation acquires. If it was towards the start (say pre-1960) than the subsonic (Sabre etc) or 1st Gen supersonic (F-100/MiG-19) would have to be the leading candidates. If however, you want to consider a latter acquisition (post 1960 and especially towards the latter '60s) than platforms such as the F-4 Phantom and others become more viable. To try to select something for right across this period is too difficult otherwise.
Again, I think some more context is required here. Are we talking about a nation with a definite threat/competitor at hand or just a run of the mill country. For instance, a selection for New Zealand would potentially be different than say a Israel. are they likely to go up against a peer force or not? Are they likely to be purely defensive or just as likely to go on the offensive. As alluded to in my last post, a pure defensive role may point you more towards an interceptor whereas an offensive role (or "taking the fight to the enemy") will favour something with more range/weapons compliment.
As for the timeframe, assume that this is a force already equipped with something like the F-86 Sabre or MiG-15 and you're in charge of lining up a replacement that's to serve until about 1968-70. So, you're country is not without a fighter (in other words, it doesn't have to enter service in 1956), but the sooner the better. That's why the F-5A wouldn't be ideal. It means that you'd have to keep the Sabre as your frontline fighter until 1965 and that its replacement would only serve 3-5 years until it was replaced.
As I mentioned earlier, I would say that the scenario favors defense, but not exclusively. If attacked by neighbors, you'd want to be able to take the fight to them, I'd think. I'm evaluating other platforms separately for the strike role, so the multi-role aspect isn't huge, but you're going to want to escort strike packages. I'd say this would be a country like Greece, Iran, or Indonesia in that period, for example. Multiple different threat vectors and profiles. No single enemy, but a variety of opposing equipment types and regions.
The reason this thought experiment started in my head was that I was used to comparing combat aircraft purely as airplanes. In doing this, though, I was looking at combat performance and I realized that the weapons used (20mm Colts, 30mm DEFA, AIM-4 Falcom, AIM-9B Sidewinder, Shafrir-1, K-13, etc.) began to have more of an impact on effectiveness than the airframe that carried them. In short, the concept of "weapon system" really starts to come into its own at this time. I feel like I know enough about modern systems and aircraft to be able to evaluate their capabilities relatively well, but this 12 year period during the years of early jets, early missiles, early radar, and early countermeasures is a bit less clear to me.
Furthermore, during this time, most missile-equipped fighters were designed to down bombers, any yet most aerial combat in this period was actually fighter vs. fighter, further complicating things. So, that led to this thread.
In short, taken as a
weapon system, which fighter aircraft was the best practical solution to likely threats in the air-to-air role?
Cheers,
Logan
