Tirak

I'm not claiming it's a new argument, but it is different than the A-10 one he kept trying to insist on.

And what I'm telling you is that the attitude is different. The two arguments are not the same, the attitude behind them is not the same. The A-10 argument centers around whether or not the intent of an airframe is to be flown in as similar a way to real life as possible, or by its rated capabilities. The argument here with the F-5 is not this in any way.

You're trying to draw parallels between the old A-10C loadout arguments, and this argument. They cannot be compared as they advocate for very different things. This argument being had has to do with modifying an aircraft, either to have unrealistic capabilities, or to present a different version all together. The arguments about the A-10 are about doctrinal decisions, not physical limitations. They cannot be compared.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/08/02/f35-ioc-air-force-operational-acc-combat/87948142/

No, this is a completely different argument. Arguments for realism on A-10C loadouts based on doctrine are in no way related to arguments about adding in capability that does not exist on the current variant of F-5 we have.

Apples and oranges mate, don't get them crossed. The A-10C can and is rated to carry 6 mavs. The F-5E-3 we have cannot carry 4 sidewinders or mavs, not because of doctrine, but it is physically unable to do so. Do not get these arguments mixed.

Ground radar contacts show up as blotches depending on the strength of their radar return in BMS now. Large structures and complexes can be distinguished by their shape I.E. airfields. Also, while BMS doesn't yet have radar shadows, it already models properly not showing radar contact returns if you do not have line of sight.

Absolutely, you just need to pick your moments. Don't put yourself in a situation where you're panic burning, we burn hard on the outbound to recover energy, not because we tried to turn with the F-5 and got caught out. That's the reason for doing high yo yos for your turns, you cover more distance, but because your energy stays high you keep with them. Also, the F-5 isn't modeling compressor stalls, when that happens... well things are gonna get even more even.

Posting about it here spreads the knowledge to the MiG-21 community. I would have never have thought to try flying inverted as a workaround until I read about it here. Talking about it in the open keeps everyone up to date, even those who don't read through the Bug Tracker daily, and lets us come up with temporary solutions until the problem is fixed. The radar is bugged, multiple people have posted easily repeatable experiments, operating within the correct envelope. Not talking about it, and just keeping to ourselves and trusting the developers to find the problem is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Only in ambush and neutral merge conditions. The radar isn't good at dogfighting, though locking from a fixed beam yields decent results. All heaters vs a brace of SARH is just down to preference. All heaters is way easier to use, but you sacrifice front aspect attack and some range, but both are pretty viable. Fly in whichever configuration you feel more comfortable with. Personally, I just can't stand to give up the edge of having radar guided missiles against the F-5. The R3Rs are situational as all hell and getting locks is ridiculously hard because of the current radar bug, but I'd rather have them than not.

Can confirm the Inverted behavior in multiplayer. Was practicing on Sierra Hotel and practicing Radar because I thought the problem was user related. Level flight, 5000ft, within visual range of an F-5 and F-15. Level flight saw nothing on the radar. Inverted, both contacts popped up clear as day. This has got to be a bug, I cannot fathom the real radar operates in such a bizarre fashion.

The big thing that mod does is cleans up the canopy. Since we now have a comparable aircraft to dogfight against, the added viability from applying some windex to the canopy is a huge help.

The Voodoo's too limited in what it can do. 4 Falcon Missiles? Er, no. The Dagger and the Dart are both interceptors, again, not flexible dogfighters. Sure they look sexy, but they have nothing to fight since there's no bombers, and frankly I'm not a huge fan of Deltas. The Starfighter is one of the ugliest fighters every build by man. The G variant has ground attack sure, but it's hideous, I would never buy it. The Thunderchief is a fighterbomber, emphasis on the bomber. But it's dumb bombs. Sure, a Wild Weasel version could be interesting, but I've never really liked the aircraft. The Hun is the only one worth while from the list of the Century Series. America's first supersonic in level flight fighter, the D was used all the way through Vietnam. It's a rough and tumble drag racer, and you can practically smell the oil and soot from this quad cannon monster. Give me one of these.

Boom and Zoom. The F-5/MiG-21 matchup is an amusing inversion of the MiG-21/F-4 matchup, so ironically you end up having to fly the MiG like its main enemy. Your power is vastly superior to his, you've got more Umpf, a signifigant amount more. You regain energy faster than him in straight lines, and you climb better than him. Once you get going, you pull away without any problems, where he is stuck coughing on your dust, and this isn't even with emergency afterburner. Personally I fly with 2x R3R and 2x R-60M.Taking only 2 R-60Ms is less drag, and less weight on your tiny wing, giving you a bit more leeway. Taking the R3Rs gives me an advantage at a neutral merge, since I have reliable forward aspect missiles, and he does not. Neutral: -----F> <M------- Huge advantage for you here since you have the R3Rs. Keep below him, looking up, lock on, fire. Easy dead F-5. If you meet in the merge and pass by, do so at full burner and climb and loop back in on him. Disadvantage: -----F> -------M> Use your superior acceleration, full burner and run, once you make it up to around 800kmph, pull back on the stick. Produce no more than 20~25 units of AoA and loop. Do not go slower than 550kmph. He can turn faster than you, but he can't climb with you, so always do climbing turns. If he follows, he bleeds all his energy, something he cannot recover. If he does not, you're in a strong followup position. Advantage: -------M> -----F> Radar if you can, Heater if you're having trouble. In this position he will try to force the overshoot with hard turns. His agility and superior low speed handling means you will overshoot if you try to turn with him. Keep with his turns using high yo yos, flow out, up over and in to keep on his tail. The key thing to take away is DO NOT TRY TO TURN WITH HIM. His aircraft is far better in turns, you will lose your energy faster, turn slower, and leave yourself in a stall if you try to stay with him. Never try to force an overshoot, always burn away, then go high.

I think that the F-5 was sold to quite a few countries who each had their own needs and upgraded the fighter accordingly, and that such upgrades would not appear in the original US manual for when the fighter was built, and that over the course of a fighters life, it will be modified as new capabilities are asked for. But what do I know right? :doh:

1. 4 missiles isn't a missile truck. Fighters since the F-100 had 4 missile capability, this is not a missile boat. 2. The F-5E-3 has been upgraded by many different operators from many different companies. Many of these upgrade kits are "bolt on". While I agree, doing something like an F-5ES is ridiculous, modeling LAU-100(M) and LAU-101(M) Launcher Rails is not the same as altering the aircraft. 3. The LAU-100(M) and LAU-101(M) Launcher Rails exist, and are an upgrade for F-5s, it's not unrealistic to ask for it, just because you have a preference it is not modeled this way, does not make it unrealistic.

Some do, some don't. BST has said repeatedly if anyone could find them accurate pictures of the display they'd look into including them. So far, no one has.

A new refueling probe would require a panel in the cockpit. That's a remodel and a retexture of the interior. That's coding to hook it up and make it work to. It also means remodeling the exterior, changing the flight model, and the bugsmashing required for that too. It's also a retexture, and it's a bit of a pain in the ass given the geometry but again possible. But, now you've got to code systems, and while the thing to make it work might be simple, the damage model won't be. Coding damage has been a huge stumbling block for a lot of modules. If that probe takes a hit, does it blow the whole plane up? Well no but it'll stop working. That's lines of code right there. But if it gets hit again, then what? Can it be hit at all? Does it have a damage state? Does that damage state cause a particle or flame effect? Do i need to create a damaged texture map for holes or does the whole thing fly off like a wing? What are the break points? We're talking a lot of work, for no real gain. Who actually uses aerial refueling? A few folks running super sim missions and the occasional guy who does it just because it's cool, but most of the sim population does it once or twice, then never does it again because it's a pain in the ass. On the other side, adding in two sidewinder slots is not out of the realm of possibility. That just uses already established hardpoint code, piece of cake. Minor coding to make it so flipping up the hardpoint switch arms the missile. Bing, bang done. There's an upgrade kit specifically for that and it doesn't require a whole lot of work. That's an upgrade worth doing, but not the refueling probe. TL:DR: Refueling probe is lots of work, don't bother. Upgrade kit for 2 more sidewinders should be included.

Link Link And while I can't link it, I have an encyclopedia of fighter aircraft which describes the F-5A as being able to mount sidewinders on the wing hardpoints, distinctly referenced apart from the Wing Tip rails.

It really kind of blows my mind to see how much ordnance hauling capability they removed from the F-5 when they upgraded to the E. Early F-5s could haul 6 sidewinders and MERs on the wings, but I've poured over the F-5E manual and none of those options are available. Seems like such an odd thing to take a step back on..

I agree whole heartedly. Part of the advantages/disadvantages of the modules is visibility and situational awareness from cockpit design. If externals must be on, then pilots should be instructed they are not allowed to use them.

Just in case you don't have it, something for the MiG guys: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153273

Yes we do, and not only that, most of the planes on his "wishlist" are being done by others, which makes him lazy.