DCS: F-5E!

[Tirak]

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:.

 

This myth needs to die a horrible fiery death. Sparrows in the late war became greatly improved with far better seeker heads, and IF LAUNCHED WITHIN SPECIFIED PARAMETERS were quite accurate. The problem in Vietnam was less the missile, and more a problem of RoE and lack of proper dogfight training. Too often, Sparrows were selected outside their launch envelope, leading to the high percentage of missed missiles. Reliability on early war missiles was poor, but its accuracy was far better than what might be assumed by just a straight hits per launch calculation.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

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)

 

Another advantage is that the F-5E possesses a genuine search radar. The MiG-21's radar is so limited, so gimped by comparison that the Tiger will have a huge situational awareness advantage at distance.

[Kev2go]

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.

 

 

 

The Mig21 may have been a poor mans plane by the 70s, but at the time of its design inception it was meant to be a next generation Fighter interceptor, and at the time of its service introduction until the end of the 60s it was pretty much the most advanced fighter available in soviet inventory, until the mig23 and mig25. Whereas the F-5E was designed from the Get Go as an economical plane for export primarily meant for poorer countries.

 

 

Also Even though both are dated by the late 70s Id say the F5E is less dated for having s RWR upgrade package available (id say its better than the very basic rwr the mig has) as well as the AL/APQ 159 radar, which had off boresight lock capability and longer ranger over the Saphir radar in the BIS. These are the features the Devs have mentioned on the forums. However I think its fair due to the f5s very small missile capacity ( X2 missiles) and being able to only use Heatseaker type missile.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Kev2go

[pepin1234]

The Mig-21 is made to be guided from the ground and to be only defensive, always awaiting you come first. No need a powerful radar to do his job.

 

The Soviet tactic was, go forward on the ground and keep defensive at the air. The 70's AWACS was poor in long range detection. Is nothing to do with this tactic if we get the real hardware of that time.

[Basher54321]

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.

 

The F-16A wasn't actually IOC till 1980 if you want to be totally true. The R-23/24 had the same issues as the AIM-7 so it would be incorrect to assume it was any better - and no the AIM-7F was not used in Vietnam.

[SkateZilla]

This myth needs to die a horrible fiery death. Sparrows in the late war became greatly improved with far better seeker heads, and IF LAUNCHED WITHIN SPECIFIED PARAMETERS were quite accurate. The problem in Vietnam was less the missile, and more a problem of RoE and lack of proper dogfight training. Too often, Sparrows were selected outside their launch envelope, leading to the high percentage of missed missiles. Reliability on early war missiles was poor, but its accuracy was far better than what might be assumed by just a straight hits per launch calculation.

 

Hence the reasoning for top gun.....

[Basher54321]

This myth needs to die a horrible fiery death. Sparrows in the late war became greatly improved with far better seeker heads, and IF LAUNCHED WITHIN SPECIFIED PARAMETERS were quite accurate. The problem in Vietnam was less the missile, and more a problem of RoE and lack of proper dogfight training. Too often, Sparrows were selected outside their launch envelope, leading to the high percentage of missed missiles. Reliability on early war missiles was poor, but its accuracy was far better than what might be assumed by just a straight hits per launch calculation.

 

 

Not far off in the case of the USAF - in 1972, 30 kills were by AIM-7 and only 10 by AIM-9 - one reason being the AIM-7E-2 had a higher launch G than the USAF AIM-9s.

[pepin1234]

The F-16A wasn't actually IOC till 1980 if you want to be totally true. The R-23/24 had the same issues as the AIM-7 so it would be incorrect to assume it was any better - and no the AIM-7F was not used in Vietnam.

 

You don't know how effective is the R-24. Also you can't compared the Aim-7 with the R-24. You have not any documentation in real combat to do such comparition.

 

In Africa wars the ambushes was the most Used tactic, in these cases you always try to get the tail of the enemy with poor option to use a BVR missile. The R-60 was the missile with the best success in the Mig-23, so this is a good e.g. How good is the Aim-9 for a 70's fighter like the F-5

Edited December 23, 2015 by pepin1234

[GGTharos]

The AIM-9J was considered generally superior to the R-60 in almost all cases, but R-60 had a slightly shorter Rmin. By the time you're using F-5's, you're probably looking at missiles newer than AIM-9J in general, but you could be justified in sticking anything from AIM-9B to AIM-9M on it. In 1980, AIM-9L (M after '82) would be appropriate.

[Kev2go]

You don't know how effective is the R-24. Also you can't compared the Aim-7 with the R-24. You have not any documentation in real combat to do such comparition.

 

In Africa wars the abuched was the most Used tactic, in these cases you always try to get the tail of the enemy with poor option to use a BVR missile. The R-60 was the missile with the best success in the Mig-23, so this is a good e.g. How good is the Aim-9 for a 70's fighter like the F-5

 

The 1977/78 aim9p ( technically a p3) is comparable to the r60m. Which is from 1982.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Kev2go

[GGTharos]

The AIM-9P has three times the range of the R-60M.

[Kev2go]

The Mig-21 is made to be guided from the ground and to be only defensive, always awaiting you come first. No need a powerful radar to do his job.

 

The Soviet tactic was, go forward on the ground and keep defensive at the air. The 70's AWACS was poor in long range detection. Is nothing to do with this tactic if we get the real hardware of that time.

 

Yes that's what really limited soviet airforce potential. That for a superpower that had to be capable of an offensive conventional war had primary defensive planes that can't operate independently the way American planes could. Or fly very far or loiter as long.

 

That also means more airfields are needed to be built and closer together.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

The AIM-9P has three times the range of the R-60M.

 

I meant in terms of manuverability and angle of attack

[GGTharos]

Good point :)

[GumidekCZ]

I hope, that F-5 will be able to do this, as it the Mig-21 and L-39 and many other AC in DCS should be able to do.

[ame]

[/ame]

[cofcorpse]

Did they modify nose wheel? It is double wheel, while normally there is one wheel.

[SkateZilla]

The nose gear was re enforced on that model.

 

wanna see what a typical Air Force Jet does on grass, look up F-16 OshKosh Crash

[mig29movt]

The nose gear was re enforced on that model.

 

wanna see what a typical Air Force Jet does on grass, look up F-16 OshKosh Crash

 

ouch

[SkateZilla]

^ The funny part? a few hours later a USN Plane lands and goes off the end of the runway and rolls by the crashed F-16, lol

[Kev2go]

^ The funny part? a few hours later a USN Plane lands and goes off the end of the runway and rolls by the crashed F-16, lol

 

Lol ikr?

[pepin1234]

The AIM-9P has three times the range of the R-60M.

 

Not 100% true in dogfight real actions. When you get into dogfight you get closer and closer and when you get into a circular pursuit you always get into a short range, less than 1000m or 500m. When you get into these situations your missile best performance is in very close combat.

[Basher54321]

You don't know how effective is the R-24. Also you can't compared the Aim-7 with the R-24. You have not any documentation in real combat to do such comparition.

 

 

It was a reference to the limitations of the technology of the era actually.

 

The only combat firing of similar type missiles would have been the R-27 in the 98/00 Eritrea conflict.

[mattebubben]

It was a reference to the limitations of the technology of the era actually.

 

The only combat firing of similar type missiles would have been the R-27 in the 98/00 Eritrea conflict.

 

Well there have been multiple combat firings of R-23s and R-24s.

 

More or less any time a Mig-23 has seen combat somewhere a R-23 or R-24 has been used (depending of Mig-23 variant)

[Basher54321]

Well there have been multiple combat firings of R-23s and R-24s.

 

More or less any time a Mig-23 has seen combat somewhere a R-23 or R-24 has been used (depending of Mig-23 variant)

 

I have not come across any information on type and number fired myself regarding that - any recommendations? If Syria could release its version of Red Baron in English that would be most helpful.

[mattebubben]

Well the R-23 saw plenty of action in the Iran war and that would probably be the place it saw the most use / had the most kills.

 

the R-24 has not seen as much use since its limited to the Mig-23ML,MLA and MLD variants where as all variants could use the R-23

(not all 23ML could use the R-24 it depended on the user)

 

But it has also seen some combat