mattebubben

Now what do you think is more likely. That those 2 sources are correct. Or that all other sources that stated it was limited to only Aim-9s to the Wingtip Launch rails including Manuals etc are wrong? Example of a page form a Manual of the F-5As Loadout options.

Its real and you can get it here as well for free. http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/t-o-1f-5e-1-f-5e-flight-manual.html Dont think it has any mention of Mid Air Refuling though (since the variant in Question did not have the refuling probe and this is a US manual and dont think the US had any F-5Es with Refuling Probes) And also if it was the case that it would be in the official manual since it was a common export option then would not the same be the case for the AGM-65? as the AGM-65 Capable display was also an Official optional addon. Edit: Dang Silver beat me to it ^^.

With more information on the Probes you mean Pictures right?... Pictures is not really what they need to implement something. They need to know how it worked (how it was turned on / Turned off how what pressures it operated on how much it weighed what id did to the flight model and many other things) Not just what it looked like. So many people on this forum (not talking about you specifically now) seem to think that a picture is the only evidence that matters and that a picture is more important that any other data or what ever backstory there might be to the picture in question. They just see that the aircraft in question has something on a picture (a weapon or attachment or whatever) and then assume that that picture is enough proof that the item in question should be added. Would not be surprised if somebody made a serious Thread on the A-10 Forum Demanding that the Following Gunpod be added. After all there is a picture of it so it has to be a loadout that is used and realisic and thus it should be added to the game.

Depends on how much work would be needed. And adding the Fuel Probe would be alot more work then might be thought . (if they want to do it properly that is a knowing Belstimtek if they decide to do something they will do it correctly) It would require more then just Modifying the Visual Model. (that would probably be the least of the changes needed). So the question is if the Reward is worth the extra work or not. (and also depends if they have all the information needed etc to simulate a F-5E with the Fuel Probe)

Great news =). For the biggest problem by far was the Flares. Since the FOV you can work around. The Poor performance you can counteract somewhat by getting closer and limiting to launching when the enemy is flying straight and level. But it being more or less 100% likely to head for flares was something you could not really do much about (Other then try to approach and launch unseen to the target does not know about the missile). But if all 3 of those problems are fixed then thats great =). im only a bit sad we have to wait for more then a week ^^ but then again i guess the 2.0 guys need to get some F-5E love as well.

There is already plenty of Solid Proof of the ability of the F-5E being able to use the AGM-65 and how it did it (with the Seeker video feed being Displayed by the modified Radar Display and then using same controls is used to select a target with the radar to slew the seeker on the desired target) Its not Proof they are wanting or waiting for. Its Detailed info (Pictures and optimally a Manual) that includes all the specific details in order for them to properly simulate it.

The Saudi F-5Es (yes single seaters) had the ability to use the AGM-65. And yes Saudi F-5Es had the Refuling Probe as standard. And also about the E/F... That simply means that they have both F-5E and F-5Fs. Just like you would say F-16C/D or F-15C/D. Its not related to the Swiss F-5E/F Hybrid. And also that picture is not related to the website you linked (it was taken earlier) they just use it. It was taken at a Display of the Capabilities of the F-5E.

I have looked but been unable to find anything on my searches on the internet. Would probably be easier for a national of one of the nations that did so since they would know the language and probably have a easier idea finding it. Since i can only really search on English or Swedish Forums (and the likelyhood of finding anything on the subject on a Swedish forum is miniscule ^^) So someone from one of the nations in question and especially someone interested in aviations that either has or knows somebody with past airforce experience or who knows of suitable national aviation forums (were people with information of a nations airforce etc often lurk) would have a much better chance at finding something. The Fact of the F-5E being able to use the AGM-65 is not in question its just a matter of what radar / Display the aircraft in question was equipped with. The later F-5Es were Equipped with the APQ-159 radar. (the radar the F-5E that is modeled is equipped with) With that Radar you had 4 different Displays available. Those different Radar/Display Combos were named as following. APQ-159-1,APQ-159-2,APQ-159-3 and APQ-159-4. the APQ-159-1 and APQ-159-2 were AGM-65 capable since the Radar Display had a Television mode and could be linked to the AGM-65. the APQ-159-1 being for the single Seat F-5E with the APQ-159-2 was for the F-5F (with dual Display / controls one for the pilot and one for the rear-seater) The APQ-159-3 (that we have atm) was for the F-5E and was not AGM-65 capable (as it missed the television mode) and the APQ-159-4 was two seater variant of the 3 (also lacking the Television mode). And also the Fact that the TV capable ones were the 1/2 makes clear that they were available and were a customer option from the start. (from when the APQ-159 was first available) It was simply a question of if the customer wanted the ability or not (if they needed it) since was no need to have the TV mode and the additional wiring (that most likely added to the cost as it was additional complexity) if you did not have any AGM-65s or did not intend to use the F-5E for the strike role.

Sure but is it known that the LAU-100 and LAU 101 packs were easy bolt ons that did not require any other significant modification. And also do you know what nations operate F-5Es with those packs? (without also having major modification on their F-5s in the form of new cockpit / radar etc)

The Saudi F-5Es have the ability to use the AGM-65 even their Single seaters. http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=109103&d=1136187634 Pay attention to the AGM-65 in the foreground. And the Saudi F-5Es are non upgraded. There are also other examples of F-5Es being AGM-65 capable. And apparently some Swiss F-5s were given the AGM-65 capable display in the 90s to replace the Hawker hunter in the air-ground role. Some of the Taiwanese F-5Es also had AGM-65 capability as did some of the Jordanian F-5Es. And there are likely some other users as well but these are some of the ones who had F-5Es with that Capability. Most likely no all of their F-5Es where AGM-65 capable (except for maby Saudi Arabia as their F-5Es were Mainly air-ground) But a number of them were (the ones assigned to air-ground specialised units probably)

Will the Missile fix include a fix when it comes to missile performance and flare sensitivity (since atm its almost 100% likely to follow any flare it sees) or will it just fix the Fov problem (which is the least of its problems)

When could the F-5A cary 6 Aim-9s? =P. Source Please since ive found nothing to point towards anything like that. Atleast for a Standard F-5A variant. Everything ive found on the F-5A says it was limited to the wingtip mounted Aim-9s just as the F-5E. And also just because something could be carried in theory (the aircraft could physically mount it on the aircraft and carry it during tests etc) does not mean it was practical for it to use it. For example the MERs. There might be an excellent reason why F-5s did not operate with multiple MERs (like in the photos) that reason being weight and Drag. The F-5 (and especially F-5A) was borderline underpowered to start with and loading it down with multiple MERs with 5-6 bombs each would have reduced its performance to where it would not be considered Combat Capable. (as well as the added stress on the airframe) Same reason why they could only carry the Wingtip Aim-9s. The Drag from the Wingpylons (especially when using all 4 wing pylons) were significant and while it was acceptable for air-ground duties when performance / agility was not as important (+ the drag and weight of the ordnance itself) the reduced performance caused by the drag was not as acceptable for air-air duties. Since the penalty on performance caused by the wing pylons (even if they only carried Aim-9s) had a significant effect on its effectiveness in air combat. So it was decided the performance was more important for air-air combat then the extra missiles were. And also alot of the armaments we find pictures for (especially when they are in US colors) are just armaments that were tested. Does not mean they were armaments that were accepted for combat use it just means they tested to see if the aircraft could carry it and how well it did so. And the fact that many of those armaments then never entered service (or did not carry over to the F-5E) pretty clearly tells us what the conclusion of those tests were. The reason why upgraded F-5Es can carry more then 2 missiles are due to new lighter and more aerodynamic pylons have been made to reduce the added drag etc to acceptable levels. Pylons that were not available until around the late 90s or early 2000s.

Two weeks™ =(.

It will be added the Next time 2.0 is updated. Not really in Belstimteks control.

For the A/A2 mode to work you need to manually lock the target. Since using the Dogfight radar mode will change the sight into Dogfight mode and will cause the piper to act like it was in A/A1 (Like auto has said). So if you want the A/A2 style pipper you will have to lock the target yourself by selecting it on the radar screen instead of using the dogfight mode.

Might be it not sure but it might be (atleast the Jettison switch) Since i usually Jettison the centerline in a hurry before i enter the fighting. But i thought i always put it back to the off position but maby im wrong =P. Hopefully i dont have that problem any more know that i know what to look for when it happens.

the F-21s AJSFs were Painted in a Modern Grey scheme in the late 90s (similar to the JA 37 and Jas 39) when they got earmarked for being included in the unit of aircraft that could be sent to International missions supporting the UN etc (SWEFRAP) so they the got grey camo to match. I were unaware any of F-21s AJSHs had been painted grey as i dont think they were included in that group. And i think F-21s Last AJSH 37s were Green. And all other SF 37s were painted Green (only the 4 AJSF 37s from F-21 picked for SWEFRAP in the 90s got painted grey) And as far as i knew all SH 37s were painted with the Green camo during their active service (its possible they were repainted when leaving service or after having left active service but i dont know of any that operated with anything but the Green camo other then some of the earliest that might have been unpainted for a short period of time before they got the Camo)

Are you sure its the Uncage button preventing you from launching? Since i have a problem where sometimes i cant launch the missiles at all (90% percent of the time when playing on MP and 10% of the time when on SP) I have the Tone the missiles are selected and i press launch button and nothing happens. No difference if im using the Uncage button or not. So might it be that the Uncage feature is not the thing preventing you from launching?.

Well it would depend. It would probably be easy for a modder to add the Fuel tanks but it would not look right. Since the easiest way to add them (atleast from what i can see) is make them as a loadout option (weapon or fuel tank etc) and then mount them on the Wingtip hardpoint. But that would not look quite right unless you found some way to remove the Missile launch rails since otherwise the fuel tanks would have to be mounted on the launch rails where as on the F-5A they were mounted directly on the wing since the Launch rail was removable on the F-5A while on the F-5E they appear to be fixed.

And also the reason why the wing tanks are so often used for the F-5A (and F-5B) is the fact that they have to carry either the wingtip tanks or Missile launch rails during flight and if they do not they risk damage to the Outer parts of the wings due to Wing oscillation and they acted as dampers to prevent the Harmonic Oscillation in question. The F-5E however did not have that problem due to a redesigned wing and had no need for the wing tanks (especially since it already had improved range due to the new engines and slightly larger internal fuel tanks). But for the F-5A they needed them and thats why whenever a F-5A is not carrying missiles (or atleast the launch rails) it uses the Tip Tanks. (and thats most of the time since they only used Launch rails when they needed to carry missiles and the missiles when they had a need them for them in a mission where as the Tip tanks are used at all other times)

Yea. No wing fuel tanks on the F-5E. If they added a F-5A (or a CF-5A/NF-5A) Then sure but it would be completely unrealistic to put it on the F-5E. The F-5A is pretty different though. It has no Radar and has weaker engines so its significantly slower then the F-5E (Mach 1.3 compared to Mach1.6) As well as a large number of other changes. So it would require a decent amount of work to make a F-5A in addition to the F-5E.

Well only the JA 37s had the grey paint (and only some of them) Once the AJ 37s got their Camo paint they kept it. the JA 37s got the Grey 2 shade camo as their main air superiority paintscheme but it was decided to have a number of the JA 37s painted like the AJ 37s in the green camo in order to make it so any enemy was unable to easily ID if they were facing a JA or a AJ 37. Since while if they saw a Grey JA 37 they knew it was a fighter they could not tell as easily if they saw a green viggen. Since it was almost as likely to be a JA 37 as it was to be a AJ or SH 37. This also made it harder for the enemy to determine what numbers there was of each type. And also a note on your comment im not sure if you mixed up info or something. I assume you ment the First Draken to the painted in the splinter camo and not the first Viggen. And while the Bulldog was the first Swedish aircraft to use the paintscheme and it later became standard for most vehicles the Viggen was the most Iconic aircraft / Vehicle to use it.

But then again the Current missile Performance is not realistic either.

Does not specify what Aim-9P though so i doubt it applies to the Aim-9P5 (probably for the Base Aim-9P but not the Aim-9P5)

For me when it comes to spotting i usually have a hard time spotting targets and medium ranges then i do at long ranges (with the Model Enlargement option enabled) Because it does not help as much at medium ranges (especially not if you try to zoom in to find something) so the targets become almost invisible even tough you could sea them further away by using the large models =P. I wish they would try to revise the LOD system to try to aid more in spotting atleast until targets get close enough. Since the enlargened models option is imperect since it only helps on some ranges (if you dont zoom in) and it does not always look that good, Id rather they just use a black Dot approach for targets at long range (until they got close enough to where you should be able to see the shape etc.