mattebubben

it makes a bit of sense that =P. Since replacing the Drag chute is a bit more work then hanging new weapons under the wings, and you most certainly would not want to do it with the engines running due to the location of the Drag Chute "box"

I feel that if you want a two seater based of the F-5/T-38 design (from belsimtek atleast) the F-5F would be the way to go. the F-5F is very similar to the F-5E (but is a two seat variant) It has very similar Visual model and Performance and has mostly the same combat capabilities (it lacks one of the 20mm cannons of the E) It would be far easier to make a F-5F from the F-5E base(though it would still require plenty of work) then it would be to make a T-38 from the F-5E (and the F-5F would also be fully combat capable).

And thats pretty much the only time you can get a kill with the Aim-9P5 atm. The guns are more effective xD. I really hope they fix it as soon as possible for the sake of the F-5E. And especially since nobody can possibly argue that this is how the Aim-9P5 (Or the Aim-9P) should actually perform since they are very obviously performing alot worse then they should. (In all areas from Range to turning performance to seeker performance/sensitivity to flares etc) Atm i mainly use the Aim-9P5 as a Signal flare ^^ when it feels like firing atleast which is not a sure thing to start with.

Yea is the same problem the Mirage 2000 had with its missiles on release (ED made Magic II and Super 530) The modeling was old so they preformed like sheit and Razbam had to make their own missiles. I hope Belstimtek does the same as quickly as possible (or ED makes a change ASAP) Since this pretty much makes the F-5E a guns only fighter since the missiles are worthless. Im annoyed that this is something nobody had realised and fixed before the release =P. (since these missiles are not limited to the F-5E but were already in the game)

This would help Alot especially for the noobs unfamiliar with this kind of bombing (me beind an example) Or they could start by just adding the reference tables they have in the Manual to the kneeboard. (for Bombs,Rockets and Guns etc and then make a full table at a later date)

Yea and when you zoom in one can clearly see that there are 15 slots (for the flares) and 30 for the chaff. Only real question would be if there are 1 or 2 flares per cartridge since some flare cartridges had 2 and others have 1. Since that could change the number to 30 instead of 15. But untill proven otherwise i will assume the current setup is correct (with 15 flares 1 per cartridge)

Well the lack of good missiles for the Draken was more the Fault of the Airforce etc then it was the Aircraft itself. And export users would have been able to make their own choices (within reason) since some modifications especially when it came to IR missiles should not have been hard to do. For example the Draken with the best missiles were the J35s exported to Austria that started to be armed with All aspect Aim-9P5s in the early 90s. And also the missiles Sweden had were good enough in the 60s (since were no other missiles that were allot better around then and no point in getting a missile that was only slightly better since it would itself be outdated just a few years later) It was not really until the early-mid 70s were better missiles started to become available and that point Sweden started looking. And while the RB 24J was not exactly top of the line when it was adopted (as the Aim-9L entered initial service the same year) it was not terrible either. The bigger mistake when it came to the Draken if you ask me is that we never acquired a All aspect missile for it in the 80s or 90s. The best option would probably have been to get a Aim-9P4/5 or a Aim-9Juli in the 80s by both Upgrading the Existing RB24Js to the new standard (by replacing Seeker / Guidance units etc) as well as possible new manufacture. (With the Aim-9Juli being a German Conversion kit where a Aim-9J/N/P series missile was upgraded and equipped with Aim-9L guidance and control assemblies and some other minor changes) And use that missile together with the RB 74. Using the RB 74 (Aim-9L) as the main IR missile for the JA 37 with the slightly less less capable but cheaper all aspect missile being the Standard Air-Air missile for the J35 and AJ 37. That would most likely have been the best Cost/Performance option since it would not have resulted in any waste of existing missiles (as they would be upgraded to the new standard) while at the same time vastly increasing the capabilities.

yea this is very wrong. And especially on the Flare rejection side. Since the Aim-9P5 should be very close to the Aim-9M on that subject (thats the entire reason behind the Aim-9P5 variant over the Aim-9P4 so start with) I really hope they give the missile some attention (both the Aim-9P and the P5 actually as they both need some serious attention). This is pretty much the same problem the mirage 2000 had when it came out. Where they pretty much had to result to adding their own missile variant as the ED missiles (R.550 and R.530) were outdated and were under performing very badly. In either case i hope the F-5E gets improved Aim-9s (both Aim-9P and Aim-9P5 as quickly as possible.) And not just a fix in FOV as thats only a part of the problem. (since sure will be nice to have that fix but that still wont make these missiles perform as they should after launch.)

Yes but the K-13M1 had copied the new Canard shape and steering assembly of the Aim-9J (probably copied from a Aim-9J stolen from south korea) Where as the K-13M used the canard shape of the Aim-9D series of missiles. And why should it preform better then the Aim-9P? The Aim-9P entered service in the late 1970s (around 1978.) Where as the K-13M1 seems to have entered service around 1976. The Aim-9P is an improvement of the Aim-9J and even the first Aim-9P should be a step up in terms of maneuverability (Due to more powerful steering servos and better guidance systems) The Aim-9P and the K-13M1 should either be very close in performance (if the soviets improved on the design of the Aim-9J they acquired) or slightly worse then the Aim-9P if they did not. Either way the Aim-9P (and especially the Aim-9P5 as it should be more maneuverable etc then the standard Aim-9P was) should be much more capable then it is today. And if you can find a source stating otherwise (or that the K-13M1 should be better then the Aim-9P) i would be more then happy to see it. And also its not related to MP lagg since i have the same problem in SP (both when im the one launching and when im the one "evading") And if we go back to the K-13. The K-13 series are basically copies of the Aim-9 (nothing wrong with that) With the K-13 (R-3) which was the first variant and in many ways just a prototype and was produced in small numbers being a direct copy of the Aim-9B The K-13A (R-3S) being the first mass production variant and had some modification including simplifications to make it easier/cheaper to produces (some of those simplifications made it slightly less effective then the Aim-9B it was copied from) The K-13M was a improvement of the series and copied many of the new features from the Aim-9D and Gs copied from examples that had been acquired from Vietnam (Most likely captured or found by North Vietnamese troops and given to Russia in exchange for military equipment) And then the K-13M1 (last missile of the series) that used the lessons learned from the stolen Aim-9J from South Korea. During the 60s and early 70s the Russians were generally playing catch up when it came to missile tech and it was not until the 80s with the R-73 that they got ahead on missile tech. (which did not last long as the west re-took the lead in the 90s with the Aim-120 and then with a series of new IR missiles in the early 2000s) So there is nothing to really suggest that the K-13M1 would be superior to the Aim-9P in maneuverability.

Much of the same was sometimes said about the F-4E and the F-16A when the F-16 first entered service. Since the F-4 had BVR weapons (that the F-16A lacked early on) could carry a heavier payload and was able to carry targeting pods (Pave Spike and Pave Tack etc) letting it self laze. It generally takes some time for a new aircraft to mature and get the needed equipment etc before it starts to reach its full combat potential.

One area where the F-5 should be superior to the F-14 though is roll rate. And in a maneuvering fight that quick roll rate could give it a decent edge since it would alot for much faster reversals etc. So while the F-14 might have the edge in turning the F-5E would still have a decent change to outmaneuver a F-14 if it had a good pilot at the controls.

Yea the Aim-9P (And the P5) seem to be badly modeled atm =P. They cant turn at all. And while they were no Aim-9Xs they were pretty decent for the time (especially the Aim-9P5 should be pretty good though still worse then a Aim-9L/M when it comes to manuverability) . While with how they currently preform even a target doing a gentle 2-3G turn will evade the missile. It seems to be have like a Aim-9B (or worse) Compare it with the russian K-13M1 (Russian copy of the Aim-9J/P atleast body wise) and it turns pretty well (dont know how close to reality its FM is but it seems allot closer then what we have currently for the Aim-9P/P5)

I would not say that even the latest JA 37 (JA 37DI) was more advanced then even the early JAS 39As. It was comparable in some areas (such as the datalink and air-air weapons and some computer systems etc) But it was not more advanced in general.

If we start with the Viggen. The Viggen has multiple variants with the two main variants being the AJ 37 (early strike variant) and JA 37 (later fighter variant) and they later had some upgrades over time which turned the AJ 37 into the AJS 37 that we are getting. But tech wise the two are very different. The AJ 37 is a early 1970s aircraft and as such should be seen as an earlier generation of aircraft then the F-16. While it might have been the highest level tech that generation had to offer it was still an earlier design. But in terms of air-ground duties etc the AJ 37 and F-16A are pretty comparable since the F-16A does not have a targeting pod or many guided munitions etc so they are pretty comparable in their air-ground capabilities even if the AJ 37 is using an older level of tech (as it entered service in 1971 where as the F-16A entered service in 1979-1980) the JA 37 on the other hand uses comparable tech to that of the F-16A and C (superior to that of the A comparable to the C) and it kept up with the C blocks through it lifetimes with upgrades that kept it comparable in most areas and better in some even when compared to later F-16Cs like the Block 50/52. The J35 Draken is a 1960s fighter interceptor and the Swedish variant had no real air-ground capabilities (could use guns and air-air rockets against ground targets sure but that was never a mission for it) In air-air capabilities its pretty comparable to other aircraft of the time like the Mirage III,F-104 and Mig-21. And again there are multiple different J35 variants so it depends which one you are comparing with what variant of the corresponding aircraft but if we compare them by service they are pretty similar performance / tech wise. The Saab 32 Lansen is a two seater mid-late 50s aircraft with both an attack variant and a fighter variant (as well as a recce variant like all Saab Jet aircraft) With the two variants having different capabilities. Its Transonic jet so its capable of speeds just below that of mach 1 (in level flight can easily reach mach 1 in a shallow dive) The attack variant was equipped with Rockets,Unguided bombs and Anti-ship missiles (as well as internal guns) where as the fighter variant was able to carry Aim-9Bs (RB 24) and air-air rockets. Its a bit harder to compare the lansen since while the fighter variant is comparable with aircraft like the Hawker Hunter (though being faster,larger and heavier etc) the Attack variant is a bit more unique with its Radar guided Anti-Ship missiles etc. Also an interesting thing to not about the A 32 lansen. In order to save money etc not all A 32s were equipped with air-ground search radars (that were used to find ships) but generally only the flight leader (1 in 4) had an aircraft with the search radar. So he would be the one using his radar to get through terrain and to search for targets where as the rest of the flight would simply follow and launch their anti ship missiles on his mark. (especially in bad visibility etc) And thats one of the things pilots likes with the AJ 37 in that everybody had their own so they were alot less reliant on each other (since in the A32 if either you lost contact with the leader you were suddenly blind as you had no air-ground radar your self or if the Radar equipped aircraft broke down it could ground the entire flight as they would have no search radar thus limiting them to only good weather flying).

While the Aim-9P5 does not use the same seeker as the Aim-9M it has a seeker that is derived from the Aim-9M seeker (some modifications to make it cheaper to produce etc) but the seeker performance should be very similar and it uses the same techniques when it comes to flare resistance as the Aim-9M so it should be almost identical in that area. (depending on what Aim-9M we have modeled in game) But then again alot of missiles seem very flare hungry atm (that should not be)

Have not tried the Aim-9P yet (and now im off to bed) does anybody know if the Aim-9P is any better on this point or if it has the same problem.

Yea i have the same problems. The area where it can actually lock something up is minuscule and as soon as you gain the lock you usually loose it and its very hard to time it right so you launch during that half a second to a second window where you have a tone. The fact that the spot where the seeker looks at is not synced to the pipper does not help either since if you try to keep a target at the pipper you are unlikely to ever get a good tone. I also had a bug with it where after i had re-armed i would simply be unable to fire it at all. Have you tried with any of the other missiles to see if they have the same problem? only tried the Aim-9P5 myself. But yea this is something i feel like it needs to be fixed since atm its very very hard to use the Aim-P5 against maneuvering targets. ive had a few kills with it in MP (Mig-21Bis Vs F-5E server) but there are so many more kills i could have gotten if it was working properly =P.

Done some flights in her and love her so far =). Have had some missile related problems but other then that all is good. Only tried the Aim-9P5 so far but it seems VERY hard to get a good lock with it even if you are point blank behind a Mig-21 with afterburner,The area where you can get a lock is far to small and its not synced to the middle of the pipper either but is higher up. And also i what was probably a bug where after rearming and getting new missiles they would just not fire (even if i managed to get that hard to find missile lock they would just not fire). But other then that i have had no problems and she is a beauty to behold and to fly.

Looks like a Saab 32 Lansen rebuilt into a Deicing machine. it looks really funky xD.

And another point being. With the F-18C and then the F-15E we need for a F-16C is significantly less. As we will already have 2 Capable US Multirole aircraft with Aim-120s Targeting Pods all sorts of guided air-ground munitions etc from the 90s/late 80s. So in that sense adding a earlier F-16A would be more interesting then adding the F-16C that is just doing the same things that the F-15E and F-18C are doing. Where as the F-16A would be different in both capabilities and and cockpit design etc (not having the MFDs of the F-18C,F-15E while the F-16C would just be more of the same in that compartment) To start with id say maby the priority should be on non US aircraft for a while since we are getting in a short period of time the F-18C,F-14A/B and F-15E. (Ontop of the A-10C we already have and the F-15C of FC3 that makes for a pretty complete US rooster where as most others are pretty bare especially when it comes to fully modeled aircraft) So while adding a F-16C might complete the roster it would not add anything new. So pritority would probably to get some none US aircraft on the line primarily some eastern designs (Russian or Chinese) or if they should make a F-16 then a F-16A would as i have already stated bring something different.

Just give them each an Iphone when they are 2-3 months old and they should be Ok. That seems to be the most common parenting technique today so it must be "working" xD. Then you can go back to flying ^^ and if they need Food, money or a diaper change just tell them to text you.

Well there is already a F-18C on the way From ED. and its slated for a release either this year or "early" next year. So the F-18 slot is about to be filled.

Well why not a F-16A with Aim-7s and or Aim-120s?... F-16A Block 15 OCU for example. Old cockpit but with the ability to use Aim-120s and AGM-65s. But in general i would have no problems with a Aim-9 only F-16 (and that would probably be my preferred way of using a F-16A in the Air-Air role) And a F-16 with 6 Aim-9s would still be more then a match for a Mirage-2000 with 2x R-530s and 2x R-550s... You simply need to avoid those 2 missiles until you get into Aim-9Range and suddenly you have the advantage. And dodging two Semi active missiles in a head on when you know they are coming (and you are free to maneuver since you are not guiding a missile of your own) is not a major difficulty. a F-16A with only Aim-9s would have less problem against a Mirage 2000C then the Mirage 2000C has with Aim-120 or R-27ER equipped aircraft and if you know what you are doing the Mirage 2000C is very effective in the PVP role. For me Any F-16A would be a first day buy (be it a Block 1,Block5,Block 15 or Block 15OCU) where as a F-16C im not that sure. a F-16A would be something different and classic and would still be a very effective platform and it would be a better showcase of what the F-16 was designed to be then what a Block 50 etc is. And also we already have a combat sim where you can experience the F-16C (especially Block 50/52) namely Falcon BMS where as there is no such simulator for the F-16A. And personally i will get the F-18C when it comes out and that makes it so i dont really feel a need for a F-16C since the F-18C is very similar in abilities and task etc and can do most tasks as good (or better depending on the task) then a F-16C can. Where as the desire i have for a F-16A is not affected. I would be overjoyed if somebody made a F-16A but i would not be the least upset annoyed or angry if somebody made a F-16C instead. So i dont think people should be angry for the reverse either. Dont like something dont buy it dont be angry at those that do or those that made the product.

So sometime in July or August. That does not mean tomorrow. there is still more then a week left of July and then then all of August. So July-August only means sometime before the last of August.

Well it was a very early hud. So not much to base it on experience wise. No real standard existed in the mid/late 60s when it was developed etc so they simply had to make it up as they went. Might take some getting used to. But then again the only reason later huds were better is they had experience from the early huds and knew what to improve upon. The A-7D/E Corsair is an example of an Early American HUD. The F-14A also has an earlier style HUD (though a few years later then the A-7s or the AJ37 HUD)