mattebubben

Ok thats the explanation then. Still it looked funny with the timing xD.

Oh thats actually simulated? That there is a reaction when you get to close to or collide with the cables? I would assume it would result in damage to the aircraft =P.

Well id say we have gotten slightly off Topic ^^. So lets return to the F-5E ^^.

a funny note about your video though xD. Look at around 6:02 Just as you say you dont think you were launched upon there is what looks like an explosion just behind your aircraft xD.

Sorry must be the language barrier (english is not primary language and i sometimes mix terms between what the translation means in my language and that it means in english ) i never ment there was a new built dedicated prototype. When i said prototype i was talking about the Test beds etc to make sure everything was viable etc (and some of the A-16 test aircraft were more modified then others) And the main reason for that picture etc was in response to the statements in the link you shared (that i guessed that you agreed with) that stated there were no major modifications done to the test aircraft. Which is something i found issue with =P.

Well sadly making sense is rarely a needed property for ideas when it comes to higher ups within politics and military acquisitions. For example we again have the exact thing we had back when with the F-35 to take over the A-10s duty. when that does not really makes sense and what is really needed is new design (that improves on what the A-10 is capable off) instead of trying to shoehorn a fighter into the duty of a cas aircraft. But as always Money and Political influence is usually more important or as important then something being logical or making sense.

Some higher upts withing the Airforce wanted to replace the A-10. (Some things never change ^^) For for that they needed something that could do the A-10s Job of low altitude CAS. And they decided with taking the F-16 as a base. So they needed to prove a F-16 variant could do everything the A-10 could and a part of that was to have a big ol cannon that would destroy armor etc.

Well there was a A-16 prototype that had some of the new aviconics designed for the A-16. It had Nose mounted Flir and targeting sensors. here is a picture example of the prototype (its from the link i posted 2-3 posts back)

Not really. They planned to make a A-16 that would have new Avionics and equipment an internal 30mm cannon and being up armored for the Cas duty. It only has prototypes and never entered service. The F-16s that flew with the Gunpods where F-16A Block 10s that had very minor modifications to let them use the gunpod (but they had no other new equipment or radar etc) the A-16 and real F/A 16Cs never saw production (only prototypes) the F-16A Block 10s have been called F/A 16 unofficially but officially the F/A-16 Tag was limited to the earlier project (the F/A 16C) To sum it up, The A-16 was the most Ambitious project of the 3 that would more or less demand new production. the F/A 16C Block 30 project was slightly less ambitious and would have been made out of rebuilt F-16C/Ds (Block 30/32 Aircraft) and the last being the F-16As armed with the GPU-5 gunpod (which contained the Gau-13 cannon) it was the cheapest and least ambitious of the 3 projects and the only one that actually went into the operational testing phase (with the 174th TFW having their F-16A Block 10s modified to carry the Gunpod) There was also the plan that if the F-16As carrying the Gunpod had been effective the same would have been done with a Number of F-16Cs. But all the different projects where different aircraft. So it would be incorrect to call the F-16A with the Gunpod a A-16.

There is no targeting pod etc but there is a small display to the right of the hud where the seeker picture is displayed. So like the A-10A you would use the Mk1 eyeball together with the missile seeker to find a target. That is the cockpit of the Attack Viggen and as stated the Round Display to the right of the HUD is the Display for the Maverick.

Well not as far as i know. The F-16s that carried those gunpods in the gulf war were National Guard F-16A Block 10s. (the ones that carried the Gunpod were often called F/A 16) the A-16 was a seperate "F-16" variant but it never reached production (they decided to keep the A-10 instead) Here is a Article about the F-16 Cas Project as a whole. Including talk about the Gunpod. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-16-gun-pod-that-tried-to-shoot-down-the-a-10-wart-1597577525

as noted by N1tch the F-5E is unable to IFF targets it all has to be done Visually. And that was not really a problem in reality as there was no real need to IFF a target when you need to be within visual range anyway. But in DCS that will make some more arcadish servers less F-5E friendly since on the 104th for example with both sides flying the same aircraft it will be very hard to Visually ID.

The R-60M has a warhead that is only slightly more powerful then some Manpads. It has a very small warhead when it comes to Air-Air missiles. its only a 3-3.5 kg warhead (depending on version) Where as the R-73 has a 7.4 kg warhead and the Aim-9s warhead is even larger. Where as manpads range from 1.5-3 Kg.

But the Auto Start button is already standard on most Modules. (Mig-21,Mirage 2000 Ka,50 etc) Im pretty sure most of the advanced modules have a Auto Start Option. So i can almost promise you the Viggen will also have that option.

And the F-5 will have a very decent bomb load. I Think the ultimate might be 5x MK-82 on the centerline. Mk-83s on the inner wing pylon (one on each wing) and M117s on the outer wing pylons (as its heaviest bomb you can carry on those pylons) or alternatively Rocket pods instead of the M117. That together with 2x Aim-9s should be a pretty formidable bombload. Sadly unguided HE bombs are not as useful in DCS atm as they should be but anyway the F-5E will carry a quite formidable payload. Only Trick will be learning to be Accurate with Bombs and Rockets.

For me i will use it in the Air-Air role on Mig-21 Vs F-5E servers and servers where the Teams have different Aircraft Setups (to make visual ID possible/Reliable) and Air-Ground on servers where both teams operate the same aircraft types. And also let me respond to some of your notes. (Rant Incomming) The F-5E is has in many ways been used like the F-16. For Nations that can only afford 1 fighter type and have the F-5E it is used in both Air-Air and Air-Ground roles equally and it does both roles well. (just like the F-16 is with nations who has it as their primary fighter) While Nations with larger budgets who could afford other more expensive aircraft types still acquired the F-5E and still used it in both Fighter and bomber roles but relying on other more dedicated (and usually more expensive ) fighter aircraft to bear the brunt of air-air work where the F-5E would to Air-Air missions when needed but mainly to air-ground duties. In the same way the US Employed the F-16A (and Pre Aim-120 F-16Cs) With the F-15 being the dedicated Air Superiority platform where as the F-16 did mainly Air-Ground work but was well able to air-air duties when ever needed. Most of the more wealthy nations that had the F-5E together with other aircraft types used them together like this and had them complement each other (Examples Being Iran,South Korea,Saudi Arabia,Taiwan etc). So while for those nations the F-5E was not the Primary air-air platform it was for many others (id say the majority of F-5E users had it as a main fighter just not the largest ones who are among those listed above) And If the F-5E should not be called a fighter if it has leaned more towards air-ground then air-air with many of its users then the same can be said with the F-16. The F-5E is a True Multirole and is good in either role. But as always an aircraft that is designed to do both equally well tend to be worse then a aircraft specialized for one or the other. But the F-5E is still more then a match with a Mig-21Bis and in general i would say it should have a slight edge when everything is put together. Yes the Mig-21Bis is faster but that is not a massive edge in a fight. Yes the Mig-21Bis can carry more missiles but that is countered by the F-5Es missiles generally being better as well as that the F-5Es Gun sight is much more effective and easier to use making its canon a much deadlier and effective weapon. But the Biggest Advantage the F-5E has over the Mig-21Bis will be Situational Awareness . The Radar of the F-5E is superior in pretty much all ways. It has better range if only slightly, but more importantly its more advanced and less effected by ground clutter (and weather) then the radar in the Mig-21Bis is, It also has a wider search area that gives the user much better situational awareness then the radar of the Mig-21Bis. But most importantly atleast for me is the RWR. The RWR on the F-5E-3 that we are getting is miles beyond that on the Mig-21Bis (and id say its even better then the RWR on the Su-27,Su-25 and Mig-29) Its a Modern Western RWR with all the features of the A-10A RWR or the F-15C RWR. This give the F-5E Pilot a massive advantage when it comes to situational awareness as he will be able To ID targets with the RWR and have very precise data on where the threat is in relation to him. Where as the Mig-21s RWR can at best give you a general direction.

What F-5E could carry the Gau-12? And was it in pod form? I know of the F-5Es that can carry the GPU-5/A Gunpod (that is armed with the Gau-13 Rotary cannon which is a shorter 4 barreled variant of the Gau-8 ) here is a picture of the GPU-5/A pod on a F-5. (Its the same pod that was used in a trail by a few National Guard F-16s during the Gulf war to see if F-16s armed with such pods could replace A-10s in the CAS role) It should still be in use on the Thai F-5Es. But ive never heard of the Gau-12 being used on F-5Es =P.

I doubt it. The best you can hope for is an Auto start Key. (Keybind where you press it and the aircraft is automatically started and everything made ready for take off) Other then that i very much doubt they would dumb down the module.

Looks like a RB 05 in the front. And the reasons for not alot of flights with live weapons (atleast not until the 1990s when the weapons started to near their age limit anyway) Is the fact that Sweden only acquired a limited amount of weapons. (only number ive found for the AGM-65 for Sweden was 500 missiles acquired in the late 70s though its very possible that more were acquired later but thats the only number ive been able to find) And since any guided munition only has a limited amount of flight hours before it becomes unusable or at least unreliable they would save weapons like the AGM-65 for when they were needed (There were ofc some live firing practice done with them but not a large amount) Most of the AGM-65 (RB 75) Training was done with the Training model that had a live seeker but inert Body (no rocket engine etc). Live weapons would only really be carried during Live fire Exercises or when on alert (where it was usually Anti-Ship missiles) Otherwise you would usually just see the Green Practice weapons.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168144 Renhanxue has made a dedicated thread for it. (and he is the guy that has dug up most of the manuals for us)

Thats the Countermeasure pod (and its usually carried under the left wing) The jamming pod is a separate pod. (and it was usually carried under the right wing) And you did not have to carry both it was actually more common to just carry one (usually just the countermeasure pod) but it depended on missions needs.

Well from my reading of the story i dont really understand it as him completing the maneuver with 100m to spare. (like so many ppl seem to do) More that he leveled out at 100m after completing the maneuver (so after completing the maneuver he climbed to 100m before leveling off) Id does not really specify how low he got during the maneuver. So my bet is that he came well below 100M during the maneuver but leveled off at 100m when the split S had been completed.

Im impressed with how quick/maneuverable it seems taxing. Some aircraft are absolute pigs on the ground but the F-5 seems to handle like a race car. Just look at him turning back and forth with no problems what so ever.

Beautiful video of a beautiful aircraft =). Here are some More videos of the early F-5s. Norwegian F-5A/Bs. [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame]

Here is a much better view of the Hud used on the AJ/AJS (and all other variants but the JA 37) Its from the Swesim AJS 37 Simulator so it should be as accurate as can be. [ame] [/ame] As you can see its VERY different from the JA 37 Hud and obviously a much earlier type of HUD. (The JA 37 is of the same Age as a F-16 or F-15C HUD where as the AJ/AJS 37 has a hud of the same era as the A-7 Corsair etc) It still works and is a great tool (and a Significant step up since most aircraft of the era still had no HUD, hell the SU-25A entered service 10 years later and it still did not have a HUD) but its best to not come in with the expectation of the HUD being comparable to 1980s aircraft and then be Disappointed.