a Dave look at all things technical and historical

Yep, that happened.

I don't think people realise how heavy USAF A10 Warthog losses were in the First Gulf war.
In four years of combat in Ukraine, Russia has lost 41 Su 25 Frogfoot (their equivalent of the A10 Warthog)
However, the USAF lost 7 A10 Warthog to Iraqi fire during the first Gulf war in the space of two weeks. That's enough that the USAF had to temporarily stop flying A10 Warthogs over Iraq lines until the US led coalition gained air superiority, and that's the reasoning behind retiring the A10.
You see, the A10 is basically unparalleled in the ground attack roll against Insurgents, especially Insurgents with small arms and very limited access to modern MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems), and even when facing the Iraqi and Serbian armies who did possess Soviet made MANPADS, they were limited in numbers, and were downgraded export variants of very old first generation Soviet systems like the SA 7 that lacked the flare countermessures and advanced homing mechanisms of more modern Soviet systems, and as such they were very easily defeated by flares and EW, and sometimes even failed to detonate due to a lack of maintenance.
However, those in the know have determined that the A10 has questionae survive over the battlefield against an adversary with with access to large numbers of modern MANPADS.
The current threat of Unmaned Aerial and water born su***de drones and loitering munitions are potentially the greatest thing to happen for the A10 as they will likely keep them in service of the UMSC indefinitely.

I don't care what anybody says; I know why they where retired so early, but still: they retired these things to damn early!
If there's any justice in the world, ol' Scientology Tom Cruise gonna jump out a DC8 over Tehran, knick an F14 and give it the glory it deserves.

Iraqi MiG-29 "product 9.12B".
While the MiG-29 was generally considered a good aircraft, the Iraqi MiG-29 were the 9.12.B, a downgraded export variant of the 9.12.A built under licence by Warsaw Pact nations, the 9.12.A itself a downgraded variant of the original production MiG-29 9.12 which entered service with the Red Airforce in 1980.
Lacking the more powerful radar and more advanced avionics and electronics of the 9.12.A of Warsaw Pact nations, the 9.12.A itself having downgraded radar and electronics compared to the 9.12 of the Red Airforce, the Iraqi MiG-29 9.12.Bs were very basic aircraft, with some reports stating that the Iraqi pilots even lacked helmet display. Although the MiG-29 9.12B proved good enough against downgraded Iranian F14 Tomcats and F4 Phantoms during the Iran Iraq war, although lack of cohesive training of training for Iraqi pilots between Soviet and French advisers hampered the performance of the Iraqi Airforce, a Rigid, inflexible command structure hampered the MiG-29 performance further.
By the time of the first Gulf war, the MiG-29 9.12.B were spectacularly outdated compared to the MiG-29 9.13.S then entering service with the Russian Airforce.
Crippled further by the lack of pilot training, cohesive training, doctrine, and aircraft maintenance, as well as a rigid inflexible command structure that allowed very little initiative, the MiG-29 9.12Bs could do very little against more advanced coalition jets in the hands of better trained and organised coalition pilots, and performed very poorly as a result.

...I wonder how many reports of "flying saucers" could be explained by the B2?

I've heard it said that A.I. may make stealth technology obsolete.
My understanding is this:
A B2 may have the cross signature of a hummingbird, but if you get a powerful enough radar, you can still detect that hummingbird. Now that hummingbird may go noticed by human operators, but with a powerful A.I. analysing all the radar data in real time, it'll say "hang on a second, what's that hummingbird doing flying 900kmph at 50,000ft??"
And if that A.I. is able to successfully combine the radar data with thermal, atmospheric data and sonic data, the A.I. might just scrape together enough data for a lock, and if and when that day comes, current stealth technology will become obsolete.

This is a MiG-25 Foxbat.it resembles a regular jet, but with two enormous engines strapped to the outside of it, but there is a very good reason for that.
You see, in 1966 the CIA air wing entered the Lockheed Martin "Sunk Works" SR71 into service. Capable of speeds of up to Mach 3.3 (3,540kmph) and altitudes of up to 85,000ft (26km), the SR71 spy plane caused the Soviets no end of worries. It was literally impossible for the Soviets to shoot down with the technology of the 1960s as it flew far fire and far faster than the Soviet MiG-21 of the time (with a top speed of Mach 2.05 and service ceiling of 57,400ft), and even flew above the service ceiling of the Soviet high altitude S75 (SA-2) Surface to Air Missile systems (with an altitude of 82,000ft) as well as being covered with radar absorbent paint containing iron ferrites that made the aircraft extremely difficult to track too. The real danger of the SR71 Blackbird for the Soviets was not that it flew over the USSR taking photographs with impunity, but the very real threat of a nuclear capable bomber version of the SR71 (something that was planned by the US), which would effective give the US the ability to strike the USSR with nuclear weapons while the Soviets were powerless to stop them.

For the USSR, action had to be taken, aircraft and missiles capable of striking the nuclear armed SR71s had to be created. The Soviet engineers went to work.
Enter the MiG-25.

Desinged to be capable of intercepting the SR71, the MiG-25 was essentially designed around the most powerful engines fir jet fighters available, the Tumansky R 15B 300 afterburning turbojet, which on the MiG-25P interceptor introduced in 1971, produced 16,500lb of thrust, each, or 22,500lb with afterburners, as compared to the Pratt and Whitney F100 PW220 afterburning turbo fans on the Macdonald Douglas F15C Eagle (the fastest and highest flying jet in US service) introduced in 1979, which produced 14,590lb of thrust each, or 23,770lb with afterburners (it is worth noting at this stage that afterburners drain an enormous amount of fuel, and can only be used for so long, and that the F15, first introduced in 1976, was itself a technological marvel worthy of its own post)
First flown in 1964 and first entering service with the Red Airforce in 1970, the MiG-25 was capable of flying at Mach 2.83 (3,000kmph) and had a service ceiling of 68,000ft armed with four air to air missiles (as compared to Mach 2.5 and 65,000ft for the F15C). US officials joked that it was a marvel in the sense that it sacrificed all else, including maneuverability, in pursuit of top speed, noting (correctly) that being designed as a fast, high altitude interceptor, it's performance suffered considerably at low altitude and low speed. However, from an engineering perspective, the MiG-25 truly was a technological marvel.
Limited to Mach 2.83 to prevent the tumansky R15 turbojets from overheating and suffering critical engine failure and to preserve the structural integrity of the airframe, the MiG-25 was capable of speeds of up to Mach 3.2 when unlimited, the airframe itself was designed to handle temperatures of up to 300°c (570°f) with an alarm set for 290°c. And while limited to 68,000ft armed with four air to air missiles, it was capable of potentially flying up to 79,000ft when armed with only two air to air missiles due to the reduced drag and weight. In 1977 a modified MiG-25 set the flight altitude record for a ground launch aircraft at 123,523ft in 1977 (a record that still stands to this day)
While the MiG-25 Foxbat is no longer in service with any major airforce, its legacy still carries on with the MiG-31 FoxHound still in service with the Russian Airforce to this day, flying Mach 2.83 at 70,000ft and flying at altitudes in excess of 82,000ft.

A short lecture on why soviet made aircraft used by soviet client states and customers often performed so poorly against the US Airforce, and why customers continue to buy them still.

Now I've always been obsessed with fighter jets since a very young age, I mean how can I not? they literally fly at twice the speed of sound and blow s**t up, plus there's lots of minor details for my high functioning autistic mind mind to dork out on, but the details of how air to air combat pans out and why can be absolutely fascinating on its own.

After WW2 as the east and west divide opened up again on a level not seen since the great schism of 1054 when the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox went their separate ways with mutual excommunications, the Soviet Red Airforce and American US Airforce for another final confrontation. Now while the red menace of the Red Airforce and the decadent capitalist of the US Airforce never went head to head, the aircraft of the Soviet Union and the United States went head to head via satellites on more than a few occasions.
Now in many of these occasions, the US manufactured aircraft being operated by the highly trained pilots of the US air force clearly out performed the Soviet aircraft of the soviet satellite states. this draws many people, not just Americans, to often [falsely] draw the conclusion that "oh well I guess that American jets are just better", or worse: "all Soviet/Russian jets are just rusty pieces of s**t!". But the truth is often far more nuanced than that.

You see, usually when US aircraft went head to head with the aircraft of the Soviet satellites, the American pilots usually dominated, like when the Libyan Airforce of Colonel Ghaddafi scrambled two Soviet made MiG23 to intercept two American "Tom Cruise Top Gun" F14 Tomcats, the F14s of the USN dispatched the two MiG23 before the Libyan pilots really had a chance to do anything. "well there you go, US aircraft>Soviet aircraft. End of story".
..well stop right there buster, the first thing to consider is that the Libyan MiG23 (pictured above) was an older 3rd gen fighter, while the F14 was an advanced 4th gen fighter. hardly implicit of how a Soviet gen 4 fighter would perform against an American 4th gen fighter.
Now at this point you can reply "yeah well, the Iraqis operated MiG29 during Operation Dessert Storm, and that was supposedly an "advanced" 4th gen soviet fighter"
..yes, this is true, but once again, nuance exists and is being ignored.
You see, when American made gear heralded as "wunderwaffe" under perform or are destroyed, Americans usually say "yeah well, that was older, downgraded export quality crap. the stuff we use ourselves is much better!", and in their defense, that is technically true, the USA never exports their best weapons systems to hide their true capabilities, however what people often forget or even intentionally ignor is that the Chinese and the Russians do exactly the same thing. S300 long range Surface to Air Missile systems (SAMs) have seemingly under performed in both Venezuela and Iran, but its worth remembering that the S300 isn't a Russian system, it's a Soviet system from 1978 with older hardware and operating systems that are much more vulnerable to jamming from modern electronic warfare aircraft such as the EA18 Growler, and considerably more modernized and updated, much more complex and effective versions of the old S300 exist in the form of the Russian made S400 and S500 long range SAM systems which are reportedly considerably more resistant to jamming from Electronic Warfare (EW). Now modernized, updated versions of the S300 exist, but there's only so many operating system and software updates you can do on such an old system before you completely change everything and end up with an S400, and even then, the updated export version is still a downgraded version of the updated domestic Russian version, and this is just one example of the Russians selling downgraded versions of older equipment (as do the Americans)
The old Soviet union (just like the Americans, Chinese, and Russians of today) also use to only sell downgraded versions of soviet equipment to hide soviet secrets. one example was the T72M. The original production T72 Ural was hardly a complex vehicle, itself being a cheaper, easier to produce alternative to the more advanced and complex to produce T64 (the real genius of major general Leonid Kartsev was creating a simpler, quicker to produce tank to supplement the more complex T64, that actually outperformed the more advanced vehicle in some critical ways), even so, the T72 Ural was still fitted with NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) filters, but when it came to the export and licensed produced version of the T72 Ural provided to Soviet client states, (the T72M), the NBC filters were omitted to protect sensitive soviet equipment.
Now this is where it all ties back into aircraft, because the Soviets did exactly the same thing with their aircraft too.
You see, while the Soviets did provide MiG29s to Iraq when they where fighting Iran, they were provided the downgrade export variant MiG-29 9.12.B used by non Warsaw Pact nations, which was a downgraded version of the 9.12.A used by Warsaw Pact nations, the 9.12.A itself being a downgraded version of the 9.12 used by the Red Airforce. So, a downgraded version of a downgraded version, with severely downgraded radar and navigation, downgraded optoelectronics, the Iraqi pilots often lacking helmet displays, and equipped with the older short ranged R60 infrared homing proximity missiles that had a range of 8km and a speed of Mach 2.47, essentially meaning their own MiG-25s could outrun their own bloody air to air missiles (the R40RD with a range in excess of 50km and speed in excess of Mach 4 was supplied by the Soviets along with MiG-25 in 1980, but strict soviet control prevented them from being used against Iran until 1982) . in comparison the then current Soviet MiG-29S (9.13S) which had an upgraded flight control system, four new computers for better in-flight control and increased angle of attack, upgraded hydraulic flight control systems, upgraded underwing hardpoints, upgraded gross weight, upgraded avionics and the upgraded Phazotron N019M radar, as compared to the older Phazotron N019 of the original Soviet Mig-29 (9.12) and the even older RPLK-29E radar of the export MiG-29A (9.12A) and whatever the hell they were using in the even more downgraded 9.12B used by the Iraqis."
Obviously to all of this you can say "yeah, well, the Iranians used downgraded US made F14s, and they smoked the soviet made jets with a 5 to 1 kill ratio"
..okay, straight off the bat, not all Iraqi jets were soviet, the French supplied them with Dassault Mirage F1s too.
The F14 Tomcats flown by the Iranians were also technically a downgraded of the USN F14s, but not nearly to the extent that the Iraqi MiG-29s were downgraded. The Iranian F14s originally delivered to the Shah were technically current service US F14s, just with slightly slower micro processors in the radar and avionics to make them a bit dumber, and AIM-54 Phoenix missiles with downgraded electronic counter countermessures.
But beyond all of that there was still the question of
'pilot training"
If you've ever been exposed to car enthusiast or motorsport culture, one thing you will have undoubtedly heard before is "its not the car, its the nut behind the wheel", and this is true for everything. While both the French and Soviets provided advisors to assist the Iraqis with the training and use of their respective jet fighters during the Iran Iraq war, the two nations took very different training and doctrinal philosophies, so there was very little consistency within the training and tactics of the Iraqi Airforce, and the rigid top down command structure offered no flexibility too, with Iraqi pilots being forced to follow strict flight paths, and on course of all of this, limited training in a war time setting.
In comparison, despite the fall of the Shahist regime during the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Iranian Airforce remained intact, retaining the well trained F14 pilots who had been trained by the Americans during the previous regime, and despite the lack of spare parts, the Iranians proved extremely resourceful and apt at keeping their F14s in the air through a mixture of cannibalizing parts and even manufacturing their own through reverse engineering. under such circumstances it seems almost inevitable in hind sight that the Iranian Airforce would outperform the Iraqis. The USAF is a whole 'nother beast still.
baring such things in mind, such as disorganized training, a lack of training, disorganized, doctrine, and overly ridged command structure, it should go without saying that the coalition would have still greatly outperformed Saddam's Airforce, even if the aircraft and equipment had been on par. Personally I think it says a lot about the skill of Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat pilot Lieutenant Zuhair Dawoud shot down the F/A18 Hornet of USN pilot of Lieutenant Commander Michael Scott Speicher using an R40RD. (the MiG 25 Foxbat itself deserves a post all of its own).
Another thing to bare in mind though is that US aircraft haven't always out performed the Soviet aircraft by default. In Korea the swept wing MiG 15 greatly physically outperformed the straight wing F80 Shooting Star and F84 ThunderJet jet fighters in many ways, shocking and gravely concerning UN forces, but were ultimately limited by the lack training received by North Korean and Chinese pilots (much like when KJ51, which was a bomber unit in the Luftwaffe which had previously operated Do 17, He 111, Ju 18, and Me 410, but whose pilots had been pushed into flying Me 262 jet fighter which they had previously not trained for due to a lack of trained jet pilots, and suffered a negative kill ratio as a result). This caused the USAF to rush the swept wing F86D Sabre out to Korea in response. the F86D was still out performed by the MiG-15 in climb and service ceiling, and sometimes speed (F86D had a top speed of Mach 9.3, MiG-15 was technically capable of Mach 9.5, but was usually limited to Mach 9.2 because it became unstable above that speed), and the MiG-15 had considerably heavier armament too, but the F86 did had a faster dive speed being capable of Mach 1.0 in a dive, and a faster roll rate giving them an edge in a dog fight. It also had an advance radar gun sight while the MiG-15 had a manual gun sight.
During the Vietnam war, the Vietnam Peoples Air Force (VPAF) of north Vietnam first started engaging aircraft of the USAF and USN on the 3rd April 1965 using gun-only armed MiG-17s which lacked missiles, and scored their first air to air victories the next day on the 4th of April when they downed 2 F105 Thunderchiefs, and the first US air victories occurring on June 17th when USN F4B phantoms downed two VPAF MiG-17. The F8 Crusader, often referred to as "the last of the gunfighters", being the last jet fighter designed with a gun as its primary weapon, performed very well in the Vietnam war, having superior speed to either the VPAF MiG-17s and 19s (Mach 1.86 vs Mach 1.04 and 1.22 respectively), and achieved a 19 to 3 downing 16 MiG-17 and 3 MiG-21 during the war for a loss of 3 F8, although it should be noted that 15 kills were achieved with missiles and only 4 with guns, the F105 Thunderchief, despite being designed as a low altitude fighter bomber was also successful, being credited with 27 air to air victories against VPAF MiGs, while 17 were lost to VPAF aircraft (although 335 total were lost to enemy fire in Vietnam). The F104 Starfighter, however, was less successful, with 17 being lost in combat, including 1 to VPAF aircraft, while scoring no air to air kills itself, causing it to be replaced entirely by the F4 Phantom by 1967.
The F4 Phantom had mixed success in Vietnam. designed as a reflection of US doctrine from the late 1950's which assumed that the guided air to air missiles which entered service in the mid to late 50's would make dog fighting obsolete, it initially entered service with no guns and with AIM7 Sparrows and AIM9 sidewinder air to air missiles as its primary weapons system. However, these missiles proved to be disastrously unreliable with complex maintenance needs, limitations from the available technology of the time, quite frankly the usual gremlins you'd expect with new tech too, and a lack of training for both the pilots and ground crews. These missiles were often damaged during transportation, suffered from the humidity, and were really better suited for targeting large strategic bombers than small, agile single seat fighters, the AIM6 and AIM7 achieved success rates of 10% and 16% respectively, what exacerbated the situation further was that pilots were required to visually identify targets under the RoE (Rules of Engagement) and these missiles were particularly unreliable at close range. This effectively allowed the MiG-17s of the VPAF to ambush the F4s, often flying just above the tree tops to avoid detection.
To rectify the situation, the F4 phantoms were eventually fitted with the 20mm M61A1 Vulcan in 1967, but in turning dog fights the smaller, more agile MiG-17 could easily out maneuverer the larger, more powerful F4, the US forces eventually changed their tactics to use the exact same "bomb and zoom" tactics that F4U Corsairs had used against smaller and more maneuverable A6M Zeros in the pacific war, utilizing superior speed and firepower to neutralize the superior agility of the smaller aircraft.
during the Vietnam war F4 Phantoms achieved 197 confirmed air to air kills, while 529 where lost to enemy fire.
I do not know how many where lost to MiG-17, but I do know that 19 North Vietnamese pilots became aces during the course of the war, with at least 5 achieving all theirs kills while flying MiG-17s. they are:
1. Nguyen Van Bay (7 comfirmed kills)
2. Le Hai (6 confirmed kills)
3. Luu Huy Chao (6 confirmed kills)
4. Nguyen Phi Hung (5 confirmed kills)
5. Vo Van Man (5 confirmed kills)
A 6th pilot, Le Quang Trung, also achieved 5 kills using both the MiG-17 and 19.

5 US pilots and Weapons Systems Officers (WSO) also became aces during the Vietnam war, all while flying F4 Phantoms. they are:
1. Charles B. DeBellevue (6 confirmed kills)
2. Randy Cunningham (5 confirmed kills)
3. W***y P. Driscoll (5 confirmed kills)
4. Richard Stephen Ritchie (5 confirmed kills)
5. Jeffrey S. Feinstein (confirmed kills)

The entry of the Shenyang J-6 (Chinese MiG-19) into service with the VPAF in 1969 gave the North Vietnamese an increase in their defensive capabilities, being a supersonic aircraft it had greatly increased performance over the transonic MiG-19, and was more maneuverable in subsonic speeds than the more modern MiG-21 too (subsonic speeds being where turning dogfights usually happened). Being a twin engine aircraft with after burners, it burned through considerably more fuel than the single engine MiG-17 and MiG-21s, and had a much shorter range than the MiG-17 too (about 1,400km vs 2,000km), with the afterburners being so thirsty that they could reportedly drain the MIg-19s tanks in as little as little as 5 minutes, with some reports of VPAF pilots having to ditch their aircraft because they ran out of fuel, it was unpopular with VPAF pilots. estimates of MiG-19 kills in Vietnam vary from 3 to 7 US aircraft for the loss of 8 to 10 MiG 19.

The MiG-21 represent the largest increase to to the VPAF capabilities and the biggest threat in the air to US aircraft. Introduced to North Vietnamese service in 1967, it was the first VPAF aircraft capable of using air to air missiles, with soviet K-13 missiles being standard armament on VPAF MiG-21s. With MiG-21Ss being a less numerous but highly important aircraft in the VPAF, the North Vietnamese were often used sparingly, commonly using Ground Controlled Intercepts (GCI) to guide groups of 3 to 4 MiG-21s towards F105 Thunderchief formations before using "slash and dash" tactics to ambush the US aircraft with missiles before the escorting F4 Phantoms had a chance to engage (when intercepting attacking bomber formations, the bombers are the target, the escorting fighters are an obstacle between you and the target).
F4 Phantoms countered MiG 21 "slash and dash" ambushes on F105s formations by using their own "boom and zoom" tactics using their guns, and used the radar superiority over the MiG-21 combined with the longer range of their AIM6 and AIM7 missiles over the soviet K-12, as well as the greater situational awareness awarded by having a second seat with a dedicated WSO on board, to engage the MiG-21s at a greater distance. they also mimicked the flight patterns and electronic signatures of F105s to lure MiG-21s into ambushes.
Calculating total kill ratios in Vietnam is complicated because sources vary. anybody who claim that they know the exact numbers is either lying or stupid. American sources claim a total of 196 MiGs destroyed in air to air combat in the Vietnam war, while Vietnamese sources only list 131, while the Vietnamese sources claim 266 US aircraft lost in air to air combat, any good historian will admit that the American numbers are likely skewed because American pilots usually claimed to have been shot down by SAMs as it was less embarrassing than being shot down by a North Vietnamese pilot (the same way Luftwaffe pilots in the Battle of Britain were mostly shot down by Hurricanes, but usually claimed to have been shot down by Spitfires).
American sources of MiG-21 losses vary, they list VPAF air to air losses at between 68 and 86, while Vietnam sources list MiG 21s list 60 MiG-21s lost to US aircraft. US historians generally list around 50 US aircraft as lost to MiG 21s, putting the official MiG-21 kill ratio between 1.1-1 and 1.6-1, but with US pilots basically claiming have been shot down by SAMs as the default, it could be much higher, but we do know that officially, 13 VPAF MiG-21 Pilots became aces in the Vietnam War, with the greatest ace of the whole war being Mig-21 pilot Nguyen Van Coc with 9 confirmed kills.
the other 12 being
1. Pham Thanh Ngan (8 confirmed kills)
2. Nguyen Hong Nhi (8 confirmed kills)
3. Dang Ngoc Ngu (7 confirmed kills)
4. Le Thanh Dao (6 confirmed kills)
5. Nguyen Duc Soat (6 confirmed kills)
6. Nguyen Dang Kinh (6 confirmed kills)
7. Nguyen Ngoc Do (6 confirmed kills)
8. Nguyen Nhat Chieu (6 confirmed kills, MiG-21 and 17)
9. Nguyen Tien Sam (6 confirmed kills)
10. Vu Ngoc Dinh (6 confirmed kills)
11. Nguyen Van Nghia (5 confirmed kills)
12. Mai Van Cuong (5 confirmed kills)

Its worth noting that once again, the North Vietnamese Migs were older Variants and often export variants too, and not more modern and advanced variants of the MiGs used by the Red Airforce.
My point is that there's usually nuance to be added when eastern aircraft seemingly underperform against western aircraft.

Photos: 1) Iraqi MiG-29. 2) Libyan MiG-23. 3, 4 & 5) F4 Phantom. 6 & 7) MiG-21. 8) VPAF MiG-17s and pilots. 9) F4 Phantom ace WSO Charles B. DeBellevue (6 confirmed kills). 10) MiG-17 ace Nguyen Van Bay (7 confirmed kills). 11) F8 Crusader. 12) F105 Thunderchief with unknown pilot.

Same s**t, different century.

The Sino-Pakistani CAC/PAC JF17 Thunder, jointly produced Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and Chengdu Aircraft Corperation (CAC) is essentially the modern Eastern analogue of the highly successful Northrop F5 Freedom Fighter.
Not the most glamorous fighter in the the world, nor the one with the best kinetic performance, being a lightweight fighter primarily being designed with cost effectiveness and ease of maintenance (much like the beloved F5), they none the less reportedly performed very well against the significantly more complex and more expensive Dassault Rafale of the Indian airforce in the most recent Indo-Pakistan conflict.
I think that makes the JF17 an interesting aircraft worth keeping an eye on.

Northrop Grumman F5 Freedom Fighter.

Originally conceived as a private project by Northrop Corperation despite the USAF having no need for a light fighter at the time, the F5 was initially created to meet the requirements of NATO and SEATO members, being designed primarily with cost effectiveness and ease of maintenance in mind.
Being significantly cheaper than the larger F4 Phantoms, and later, the F16, the F5 proved to be extremely popular with the United States allies, becoming one of the most commercially successful fighter jets of all time with other 30 nations operating the F5 and T38 trainer variant.
The F5 is still operated in one form or another by:
1. Bahrain 🇧🇭
2. Botswana 🇧🇼
3. Brazil 🇧🇷
4. Chile 🇨🇱
5. Honduras 🇭🇳
6. Iran 🇮🇷
7. Kenya 🇰🇪
8. Mexico 🇲🇽
9. Morocco 🇲🇦
10. South Korea 🇰🇷
11. Spain 🇪🇸
12. Switzerland 🇨🇭
13. Thailand 🇹🇭
14. Tunisia 🇹🇳
15. Turkey 🇹🇷
16. United States of America 🇺🇸
17. Yemen 🇾🇪
As well as formerly being operated in some form by:
18. Austria 🇦🇹
19. Canada 🇨🇦
20. Ethiopia 🇪🇹
21. Greece 🇬🇷
22. Indonesia 🇮🇩
23. Jordan 🇯🇴
24. Libya 🇱🇾
25. Malaysia 🇲🇾
26. Netherlands 🇳🇱
27. Norway 🇳🇴
28. Philippines 🇵🇭
29. Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦
30. Singapore 🇸🇬
31. South Vietnam
32. Sudan 🇸🇩
33. Taiwan 🇹🇼
The F5 Freedom fighter reported performed very well in Vietnam, with official number listing only 9 lost to ground fire, flying over 2,500 sorties.