DCS: F-5E!

[Tirak]

I doubt the Air Force would do weapons fitting test in the middle of an international training exercise. But yes, our F-5s were ordered with some different stuff, such as the antenna mentioned. Doesn't make it any less an F-5E...

 

But it does make it not the F-5E variant being made. Don't get me wrong, i agree in wanting one that would have at least 4 heat seekers, but the Dash 1 and Dash 34 are both exhaustively clear about what ordnance goes where :(

[ESAc_matador]

Brazilian Airforce Schemes are my favourites. That grey and green are beautifull!!

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2015 by ESAc_matador

[Zibell]

But it does make it not the F-5E variant being made. Don't get me wrong, i agree in wanting one that would have at least 4 heat seekers, but the Dash 1 and Dash 34 are both exhaustively clear about what ordnance goes where :(

 

Sure, I understand. Actually, I say go for the one with more information available.

 

But they wanted pictures... :music_whistling:

[Cibit]

Can't believe your all getting excited about a jet plane:music_whistling:

 

;)

[Kev2go]

Can't believe your all getting excited about a jet plane:music_whistling:

 

;)

 

Why would't wr. This game aircraft are mostly jets and the f5e would mean mig21 has a actual counterpart to fight.

[Stratos]

A thing bothers me, is another plane whose primary A-G weapon are rockets and bombs, with current area damage those weapons are mostly useless against ground vehicles. Wondering If ED plans to update the capability of those weapons soon.

[Ultra]

A thing bothers me, is another plane whose primary A-G weapon are rockets and bombs, with current area damage those weapons are mostly useless against ground vehicles. Wondering If ED plans to update the capability of those weapons soon.

 

The rockets and bombs bother me as well. It seems usually only direct hits have a significant effect on any thing that isnt really soft. They need some remodeling to compensate for the lack of shrapnel implementation.

 

Sorry for OT

[King_Hrothgar]

I find rockets perfectly adequate (or did last week when I last used them). I don't use bombs often so can't comment on those. Now I would love to get an F-5E with AGM-65 support, as it was very common among those actually used in combat. But I don't think anything beyond that would be appropriate. It's a 1970's F-5E I want, so things like AIM-7's and LGB's aren't on my wishlist for it. I also think 2x AIM-9's should be enough. Ideally we'll get the AIM-9P (rear aspect only) + AIM-9P (all aspect). For the sake of completeness, AIM-9L and AIM-9M support would also be nice. I don't think the aircraft had to be modified to use them, but I could be wrong.

Edited December 18, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[mattebubben]

Aim-9L/M where not compatible as they needed different wiering etc.

 

But im 9P3 (read aspect) and Aim-9P4 (all aspect) would be good enough for me =)

[pepin1234]

The thing is if ED give us most advanced Aim-9 for F-5E e.g. a late 80's Aim-9, nobody going to set a 70's payload combat with this availability. Guys the Mig-21 need 70's hardware to face.

 

I really would like a Mig-21PF Vietnam era to end this discussion.

Edited December 18, 2015 by pepin1234

[Exorcet]

The thing is if ED give us most advanced Aim-9 for F-5E e.g. a late 80's Aim-9, nobody going to set a 70's payload combat with this availability.

Why not?

 

People made servers to avoid AIM-120/R-77/ER all the time. Also I'm pretty sure most Korea servers don't use the GAR-8.

 

I like having as many options as possible.

[pepin1234]

Why not?

 

People made servers to avoid AIM-120/R-77/ER all the time. Also I'm pretty sure most Korea servers don't use the GAR-8.

 

I like having as many options as possible.

 

Not sure how often is your "all the time" I rarely find limit payload, not all the time. When the players see the Aim-120 is not available they simple leave the server to enter another, that's it in real.

 

Is better the last word come from ED.

[shagrat]

The thing is if ED give us most advanced Aim-9 for F-5E e.g. a late 80's Aim-9, nobody going to set a 70's payload combat with this availability. Guys the Mig-21 need 70's hardware to face.

 

I really would like a Mig-21PF Vietnam era to end this discussion.

It is up to the Mission Designer to balance that.

When we get a historical mission setup, say MiG-21bis vs. a F-5E the Mission design can always lock newer weapons by emptying the warehouses.

In a way, it would make sense to give the F-5E support for more 80ies weapons, so it could face a Mirage 2000C or a MiG-23 or MiG-27.

 

Yet, as has been said before the Variant they make sets a limit to what is possible in terms of realism.

[pepin1234]

Server enjoyability depends of how powerful feel the players to do every task. The servers Admin know this very well.

 

To face Mig-23 you gone have the F-4 some day. For the Mirage 2000C probably you can get a Mig-29A DCS and for the Su-27 you have there the Eagle. F-5 should have balanced payload to face the Mig-21Bis of the 70's, this should come direct from the developer to be fair.

[mattebubben]

The thing is if ED give us most advanced Aim-9 for F-5E e.g. a late 80's Aim-9, nobody going to set a 70's payload combat with this availability. Guys the Mig-21 need 70's hardware to face.

 

I really would like a Mig-21PF Vietnam era to end this discussion.

 

How is Aim-9P4 late 80s ?

 

The Aim-9P4 enterd service the same time or earlier then the R-60M

(early to mid 80s.)

 

But a Mig-21PF would again be an earlier aircraft then the F-5E...

 

While the F-5E and Mig-21 are comparable in service dates.

 

and a Mig-21 with 4 R-60M missiles and 2 R3R is in no way weaker then having 2 Aim-9P4...

 

rather the opposite actually...

 

Aim-9L or Aim-9M are not realistic and are very much unlikley.

 

But Aim-9P4 (or the slightly improved Aim-9P5)

Are realistic for any F-5E "stock" variant.

 

An Aim-9P4 is a Aim-9P3 (wich is likley to be the Aim-9P modeld ingame)

 

with a All aspect seeker (slightly simpler variant of the Aim-9L seekerhead)

 

But it retains the rocket motor / Body of the Aim-9P3

 

So its no more agile then the Aim-9P3 and as such is not as deadly in a dogfight as a Aim-9L or Aim-9M as its not as agile.

Edited December 18, 2015 by mattebubben

[shagrat]

Server enjoyability depends of how powerful feel the players to do every task. The servers Admin know this very well.

 

To face Mig-23 you gone have the F-4 some day. For the Mirage 2000C probably you can get a Mig-29A DCS and for the Su-27 you have there the Eagle. F-5 should have balanced payload to face the Mig-21Bis of the 70's, this should come direct from the developer to be fair.

It is not the admin of a server who decides directly about available weapons, it is the Mission designer.

OK, mostly these are the same guys.

 

What I meant is, if you make a "Korea" Server you would usually expect MiG-15bis and F-86F. Now, would the F-86F have GAR-8? Did they when facing the MiGs over Korea?

So when a mission is set in the 70ies and it pitches Mig-21bis against F-5E what would be a realistic load out?

If the Scenario is Cold War gone hot in the early 80ies, Polish Air force launching their MiG-21s and NATO launching F-5Es as fast Interceptors, what would be a realistic load out?

 

In my opinion, it is defined by the real life capabilities of the plane (F-5E can only load AIM-9 on Wing tip station) and a reasonable mission design taking into account the scenario and timeline.

 

If people hop into a server named "70ies Vietnam- Tigers vs MiGs" they should expect planes armed with appropriate weapons...

[King_Hrothgar]

I don't think anyone is disputing the AIM-9P4. In regards to MP, there is the 104th server and time period restricted servers (WW2 and Korea atm) that are occupied. Given the popularity of the MiG-21 even on 104th, I think a MiG-21 vs F-5 server will do fairly well provided it has decent mission design and support. It could also be a good playground for the Su-25A, A-10A, UH-1 and Mi-8 too.

[dartuil]

I hope BST are aware :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=137863&page=24

The 23 is in making same era than F-5E Tiger.

[Kev2go]

I hope BST are aware :

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=137863&page=24

The 23 is in making same era than F-5E Tiger.

 

F4E phantom is from before the Mig21bis and F5E, its still more sophisticated with regards to its avionics.

 

But considering the mig23 ml didnt enter service until 1978

 

Its within the era of the F14 Tomcat. ( 4 years before the mig23 Ml Variant.)

 

So yes comparing aircraft just by year leads nowhere, Its better to compare with level of tech/ generation since in this case clearly F-14 would be the best of these aforementioned aircraft.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Kev2go

[pepin1234]

The Mig-23 was not made thinking to face the F-14. The 23 was a project to face the American 3th generation fighters with much better avionic than the Mig-21. Introducing a real BVR combat.

 

The F-14 was an all in one fighter. The Soviets had the Mig-25 at the time so the Mig-23 was a plus to mix.

 

Also In any case the F-5E gone have any option against Mig-23, even with better Aim-9 versions.

[dartuil]

I was so excited about F-5E but less now about only 2 sidewinders. But ill still follow the evolution maybe BST wil go a version with more before release. Who know? :)

[mattebubben]

2 missiles will be fine especially if we get an all aspect variant.

 

And the F-5 was never intended to be just a fighter.

 

It was an allround aircraft.

 

If we get an all aspect Aim-9P (P4 or P5) it will have no problems taking on a mig-21 but with a Rear aspect missile it has less of an advantage as it would not have an edge when it came to missiles.

 

But look at the Mirage 2000C we are getting.

 

It only have 4 missiles (2 Ir and 2 Radar)

Edited December 21, 2015 by mattebubben

[Kev2go]

The Mig-23 was not made thinking to face the F-14. The 23 was a project to face the American 3th generation fighters with much better avionic than the Mig-21. Introducing a real BVR combat.

 

The F-14 was an all in one fighter. The Soviets had the Mig-25 at the time so the Mig-23 was a plus to mix.

 

Also In any case the F-5E gone have any option against Mig-23, even with better Aim-9 versions.

 

Excuses don't matter mig23 was pretty much nearly a decade tool late. Because as soon as the soviets had a true 3rd gen fighter with bvr, america was going into 4th generation. nways the mig23 was mass produced much more than mig25. And widely exported. So it would be mostly fleets of mig23 mixed with mig21 that us air forces & nato alliess would be facing against. Not entire fleets of mig25

 

The mig25 was a pure bred interceptor it wouldn't really be worth much in a dogfight. And actually going near Mach 3 would really quickly ruin it's engines if attempted

 

 

 

 

Also since we at 1978 you can count in the f15a and f16a fighters joining the f14.

 

So while Russia was stuck with Gen 3 aircraft USA was into Gen 4.

 

 

But like I said comparing years is pointless because apart from the mig25 . The us tech during this period was ahead. 4th generation was already in service sooner than the ussr could come up comparable counterparts such as the mig29 and su27.

 

Also an f14 is actually in development by Leatherneck. No mig25 projects in play.

 

 

In terms of comparable generation tech however

 

It would be f5e vs mig21bis.

 

F4e vs mig23.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Kev2go

[King_Hrothgar]

The above is mostly true, but is only half the story. The armament at the time must also be considered. The F-16A entered service in 1978 if memory serves, that's about the same time as the MiG-23ML's were coming about. But while the MiG-23ML's had true BVR capability with the R-23/24, the F-16A and 1980's C's were armed only with AIM-9's and a cannon, it could not use AIM-7's or any other BVR missile. Against this kind of foe, the MiG-23 would actually hold a substantial initial advantage. It's also worth noting that the MiG-29A was introduced in 1982, only 4 years after the F-16A.

 

The F-15A was better than the F-16 of course (also far more expensive), but the AIM-7's in service at the time were the same ones used in Vietnam, which is to say marginally more accurate than an unguided rocket:lol:. The engines on the early F-15's were also problematic from what I've read in pilot accounts. One notable comment from an F-15A driver was something along the lines of engaging the AB was just as likely to have the flames shoot out the air intakes as it was the nozzles. Obviously an exaggeration, but they were clearly problematic.

 

With that more nuanced look, it isn't anywhere near as one sided. The MiG-21 was still out of date by the end of the 1970's, but that's true of the F-5E too. Both soldiered on due to low production and operation costs. They were the poor man's fighters and never intended to be the best. As for the F-14A, it was a something totally different from anything else at the time, sort of like the MiG-25.

[Stratos]

The MiG-21 was still out of date by the end of the 1970's, but that's true of the F-5E too. Both soldiered on due to low production and operation costs. They were the poor man's fighters and never intended to be the best.

 

Thats the key I think, poor man fighters, for small air forces, we can simulate conflicts with limited availability of airplanes, it will be fun If each airframe and pilot counts. Remember guys, not every country has an USAF fleet available.