nairb121

As far as I can tell, it's a USAF F-5E-3 exactly as represented in the -1 manual – except with the AN/ALR-87 RWR and AN/ALE-40 countermeasure dispenser added (and now an optional non-functional dorsal spine antenna).

That's really cool, thanks! Looks like the first clip was just a bench test so that would explain it being kinda weird.

This radar clip is really valuable, not just in showcasing the correct appearance of the clutter, but also functionality. For example - the elevation bar is clearly indicating a 2-bar scan, while ours remains fixed, even for the 5-, 10-, and 20-mile ranges where it should be operating in 3-degree 2-bar scan. I am a bit confused by the lock though - prior to acquisition, the return doesn't seem to be within the range gate, rather it's on the horizon bar where the aim symbol then appears when locked? (Could also just be something to do with the FAIL indication)

That seems like reasonable behavior to me - since the reticle depresses far more than it elevates, the alternatives would be to have the 0 point almost at one end of the axis, or for the motion to be wildly non-linear. Since many HOTAS/control panels have dials with center detents, having 0 depression at 50% makes the most sense to me.

Is there any hope for the VFC-111 liveries?

Remaster confirmed in this week's newsletter!

I don't believe the F-5 has any native telemetry for that kind of effect - usually this is derived indirectly from telemetry for airspeed, g, AOA, engine RPM, etc.

Yes, it would be nice to get an idea of where the team is on this.

For what it's worth, the F-5N NATOPS includes this line regarding the AN/ALR-87, pages VIII-26-4 - VIII-26-5. I assume this is the devs' source for these keys not being functional. null

The F-5 has been used by many countries in various upgraded configurations. Most of the stuff you listed has been on one variant or another... not necessarily all at once though, and generally not as early as the 90s. Ours is about as good as it would've been in the 90s, though some users had in-flight refueling and an expanded A-G capability (I know some 90s upgrades had Maverick capability). Most of the "big" stuff, with upgraded radars, INS/GPS, and limited BVR would've been in the 2000s-2010s. Our F-5 isn't a 60s F-5A, it's a early 80s F-5E-3 - so it would not have actually been all that dated by the 90s, given the expected capabilities for its role as a cheap, reliable light fighter. I've never seen anything on it carrying AIM-7 though, nor Maverick as early as pre-revolutionary Iran - do you have a photo you can share?

This is the Steam page for the full fidelity F-5E: https://store.steampowered.com/app/411894/DCS_F5E_Tiger_II/

Cool, thanks. Is there a good reference for the various avionics packages in the export models? There seems to have been a lot of variation, I'd be interested in learning more. Yeah you're right, it does seem to be a mix of those versions. It's not quite an N either though is it, since those have INS, and I think a second UHF radio? Unless there's an earlier version of the N that I'm missing. Yeah, the flyable version was what I was referring to, I just somehow didn't see in in OP's second screenshot and didn't remember if I'd specifically noticed it before.

Looking more closely at the comparison, while most of the changes appear to just be improved details, there are a couple things that caught my eye: 1. I can't believe I never noticed before that the countermeasure dispenser (AN/ALE-40(V)) is completely missing from the DCS F-5E external model 2. Most of the antenna locations are consistent between the before/after pictures, and match the locations shown in the F-5EF-1 or F-5E/N NATOPS (below) - but I don't know what the large dorsal antenna shown in the "new" model is for. It's not shown in any of my reference material, but many export F-5Es were equipped with it - probably an additional radio?

Our F-5E is effectively a Swiss F-5 already, I believe the E-3 with the RWR is pretty much unique to Switzerland – the "standard" E-3 as described in the USAF manuals doesn't have one. I would certainly like to have an updated 3D model though!

The F-5E modeled in DCS uses the ALR-87 I believe, which has very little public documentation. I agree that it should be very similar in capabilities to other similar RWRs, but it's difficult to prove.

I was able to find data on roll response for an F-5A, which should be similar enough aerodynamically for direct comparison, in the public release document at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0738625.pdf . However, this is mostly concerned with roll initiation rather than damping, though there were a few references to the F-5A having strong roll damping. Were you testing this with a clean aircraft, or carrying wingtip/pylon stores? Particularly with how light the F-5 is, and how thin its wings are, its roll inertia is extremely sensitive to outboard stores - per the document linked, the roll mode time constant can increase by over 4 times from a clean aircraft to fully loaded. It's possible that the DCS F-5E is overly sensitive to wingtip missiles - I think this has also been discussed elsewhere. It should still be capable of Mach 0.8 or higher with most loads, but with a heavy/high drag load the AOA required to get airborne can make it difficult to accelerate to cruise speed in MIL - if you use afterburner to accelerate to 400 or so can you maintain it in MIL? Also, if you took off from a cold start make sure you're retracting the airbrake. This will depend on CG location - if you're carrying centerline stores the F-5 can't hold its nose up with much weight on the wheels, but with a more moderate CG, you should be able to aerobrake with a good flare and a gentle touchdown - as long as the nose doesn't come down you should be able to hold it up for a little while.

Checking back on this - is there any other information needed on this? With the FC2024 version of the F-5 using the same flight model, this is now an issue with two modules.

He means that, unless it has that capability to protect itself, it would be correct to rapidly lose all the hydraulic fluid. I personally have not been able to find evidence either way, my documents don't have much detail on the hydraulic systems. I would guess though, that there wouldn't be a cutoff system like that. If damage is severe enough to cause leaks in both hydraulic systems - then odds are that much more is damaged and the airframe is lost anyway.

There are 2 systems, the flight control and utility hydraulic systems. Both redundantly serve all flight control surfaces, while the utility system also controls wheel brakes, gear, speedbrakes, stability augmentation, and the gun doors.

It's kind of a weird situation... theoretically the fuselage and wing stubs can still provide some lift, and you still have elevators for pitch and the rudder for roll. There are no fuel tanks in the wings to leak fuel when damaged, so the engines should still run. As long as the damage is symmetrical, maintaining stable flight theoretically should be possible. The main problem (and I haven't thought to check this in game) would be loss of hydraulic pressure - I'd think losing the wings should drain the hydraulic systems (since there are lines to the ailerons), I don't think they have any sort of cutoff valve in case of damage like that.

The F-5E-3 would not be able to use Mavericks without significant upgrades, it wouldn't be able to interface with the missile and doesn't have an appropriate display. It also has no means of laser designation - I believe some F-5Fs were equipped with laser designators in the rear cockpit, but the E doesn't have anything like that.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that the AIM-9L was ever carried by the F-5E — the -1 and -34 manuals only reference B, E, J, N, and P.

My understanding is that the correct behavior of the Search mode is as something of a declutter option, to show or remove search radars (i.e. early warning, AWACS, etc.), rather than toggling between these and threat radars. Threat radars (either surface or aerial) should always be visible.

This section of the -1 manual (page 6-13) states that the effect of asymmetrical wingtip stores is negligible:

I located an additional source for further clarification on maximum AOA for the F-5E: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA029071.pdf Page 5-10 has this chart showing the AOA limits as a function of CG for tail deflections limited to 17° (as in the production F-5E) and 20°. CG with full fuel and no ammunition is approximately 12.5% MAC, full fuel and ammo loaded is about 11%. Correction - I had read these values from the incorrect charts - for the clean E-3, guns empty CG is about 17.5%, and with guns loaded it's about 12%. This gives a AOA of up to about 30°, which closely matches the references above.