Jump to content

DCS: F-5E!


Python

Recommended Posts

[ame]

[/ame]

 

|Motherboard|: Asus TUF Gaming X570-PLUS,

|WaterCooler|: Corsair H115i Pro,

|CPU|: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X,

|RAM|: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3200MHz DDR4,

|SSD|: Kingston A2000 500GB M.2 NVMe,

|SSD|: Kingston 2.5´ 480GB UV400 SATA III,

|SSHD|: Seagate Híbrido 2TB 7200RPM SATA III,

|GPU|: MSI Gaming 980Ti,

|Monitor|: LG UltraWide 34UM68,

|Joystick 1|: Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog,

|Joystick 2|: T.Flight Rudder Pedals,

|Head Motion|: TrackIr 5.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im afraid its gonna be an unbalanced fight against the MiG21. Maybe we have to wait for the F4

 

I'm not an expert on MiG-21 and F-5E but I believe the MiG-21bis has better missiles, although it has worse radar, so I think it's gonna be "better" with missiles. F-5 I think it can outturn the MiG-21 very easy. But not sure.. just guessing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert on MiG-21 and F-5E but I believe the MiG-21bis has better missiles, although it has worse radar, so I think it's gonna be "better" with missiles. F-5 I think it can outturn the MiG-21 very easy. But not sure.. just guessing

 

 

 

I don't think the radar will make a difference without radar missiles.

 

It has much less missiles, less powerful engines.

 

The only think I give to the F5 is the gym and probably turning in dogfights. I hope it's enough to have a fair fight and keep pilots interested in flying it against the MiG21.

 

Let's see !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im afraid its gonna be an unbalanced fight against the MiG21. Maybe we have to wait for the F4

 

The F-5 should be very competitive with the Mig-21Bis.

 

Especially if they give it the Aim-9P4 or Aim-9P5.

 

But either way its gonna be competitive.

 

As its very maneuverable in the merge and will have the advantage when it comes to situational awareness (due to the better RWR and the wider search area for the Radar)

 

the only real disadvantages the F-5E are comes down to armament size as its limited to 2 air-air missiles while the Mig-21Bis can carry up to 6 (im not counting the bugged 8x R-60s Exploit)

 

and that it has a better Power to weight ratio.

 

But the F-5E is alot more aglie and also bleeds less speed so in a prolonged engagement it will still be even as while the Mig-21 is better and gaining speed it bleeds allot more.

 

If the F-5E Gets the All Aspect Aim-9P (P4 or P5) it will be a very good match for the mig-21Bis

(and if it does not it should still be good but you will just have to get past the merge and since the Mig-21 is gonna get improved R-60Ms with the next patch it will be even more potent in the head/on aspect)

 

And in either way the F-5E is a closer comparison to the Mig-21 in abilities then the F-4 is as the F-4 is much larger and is significantly more BVR capable etc.

 

(the R-3R might be Radar guided but its not BVR)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Performance charts on F-5E manual shared around these parts were showing turn rates more than 20 degrees per second at some flight regimes. That is 4th gen territory in turning performance. But I think MiG may still have a chance at dogfight victories by having a bit better pilot and sticking mostly to vertical fighting, or may be not we'll see :). If R-60M eventually become "not rear aspect anymore", MiG can have a bit more of a stake in fight, but without that, dogfighting would be a no-go for it in my opinion, more so if F-5 eventually get all aspect sidewinders.

 

I think MiG should rather make use of it's radar missiles, and if things don't work out just disengage with it's superiour speed and climbrate, and perhaps try again later. Of course, this whole thing depends MiG's radar being able to see the threat at all, which would require the Tiger to be at a higher altitude than MiG.

 

But yeah, apparently the F-5 can really turn, at least in some flight regimes.

 

Ed,t : if anything, unless the MiG gets at least somewhat all aspectish R-60Ms (which means unlike the current ones), it will probably be unbalanced in favour of F-5E. No favoritism, infact between the two I like the MiG more but, if I look at it objectively this is how I think it will go. MiG's biggest advantage is SARH missiles, and it requires a target cooperating by staying above you to be usable at all.


Edited by WinterH

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Performance charts on F-5E manual shared around these parts were showing turn rates more than 20 degrees per second at some flight regimes. That is 4th gen territory in turning performance. But I think MiG may still have a chance at dogfight victories by having a bit better pilot and sticking mostly to vertical fighting, or may be not we'll see :). If R-60M eventually become "not rear aspect anymore", MiG can have a bit more of a stake in fight, but without that, dogfighting would be a no-go for it in my opinion, more so if F-5 eventually get all aspect sidewinders.

 

I think MiG should rather make use of it's radar missiles, and if things don't work out just disengage with it's superiour speed and climbrate, and perhaps try again later. Of course, this whole thing depends MiG's radar being able to see the threat at all, which would require the Tiger to be at a higher altitude than MiG.

 

But yeah, apparently the F-5 can really turn, at least in some flight regimes.

 

 

 

Can't agree more.

 

I would just add that LNS should tune down the R3R performance. They were bumped for gameplay against the FC3 fighters. Now that we have the F5 they should be more realistic. This will allow the f5 to get to a dogfight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Performance charts on F-5E manual shared around these parts were showing turn rates more than 20 degrees per second at some flight regimes. That is 4th gen territory in turning performance. But I think MiG may still have a chance at dogfight victories by having a bit better pilot and sticking mostly to vertical fighting, or may be not we'll see :). If R-60M eventually become "not rear aspect anymore", MiG can have a bit more of a stake in fight, but without that, dogfighting would be a no-go for it in my opinion, more so if F-5 eventually get all aspect sidewinders.

 

I think MiG should rather make use of it's radar missiles, and if things don't work out just disengage with it's superiour speed and climbrate, and perhaps try again later. Of course, this whole thing depends MiG's radar being able to see the threat at all, which would require the Tiger to be at a higher altitude than MiG.

 

But yeah, apparently the F-5 can really turn, at least in some flight regimes.

 

Word is that the R-60M for the Mig-21Bis will be all aspect with the Next patch.

 

And even the Russian Test pilots in the 70s found the F-5E to be a superior dogfighter to the Mig-21Bis.

(Surprising them all)

 

Most of you guys has probably seen it already but i think its fitting for this discussion.

 

Hello, everyone!

 

I think this can be of a great interest to the community, as it was for me. This is an excerption from the book "Life-Long Runway" written by the Soviet Air Force test pilot Vladimir Kondaurov. The story is that in 1976 the Soviets got an F-5E to test. Here is what the test pilot made out of it.

 

The translation was made by myself. English is not my native language, so, please, forgive me if the text is not perfect.

 

 

In the summer of 1976 a disassembled American F-5 fighter jet was delivered to our base at Aktubinsk. To be correct, it was F-5E - the latest variant with increased engines thrust. By the size it was smaller than MiG-21, had two engines installed side-by-side in the fuselage, a sharp swept-down nose and short tapered wings. The war in Vietnam had finished, and the United States Air Forces were leaving this long-suffering country, hastily abandoning several aircraft of this type on one of the airfields. One of them was handed over to the USSR together with its pilot manual. There were no technical descriptions, but our engineers figured everything out, assembled it to the last bolt and made it flyable, bringing not only the foreign hard pieces together, but also tons of electric wiring. A test brigade was formed to conduct special flight tests, and a program was written, which assumed 35-40 test flights. I was one of the test pilots, our lead was Nikolay Stogov.

 

After a proper training I was trusted to perform the first speed run on the runway and then a run with a 3-6 feet jump. These precautions had their reasons in our uncertainty, that all the systems had been assembled and connected correctly.

 

And finally, we were alone. The "Foreigner" hid within. From the manual I knew, that it had had no problems in operation whatsoever. But I also knew that every manufacturer had their own zest in the product. Unlike our fighters in production, the "Foreigner" had brakes on pedals, which we had on heavy aircraft only. The cockpit was not cluttered by various switches and circuit breakers unneeded in flight. They were all concentrated in a single horizontal "stock" away from the working area. I understood that F-5 was a way not the most modern plane and that it was inferior even to MiG-21, but, nonetheless, I liked the cockpit layout. I decided to make the run on the second runway, which was the longest one. "There is never too much runway ahead," I thought, taxiing to the runway. It was the winter of 1976-77. Of course, there was no reason to hide I was proud that the only aircraft of this type available in the USSR was trusted to me.

 

I turned on the extension of the nose strut - the electrohydraulic retractor engaged, and the nose of the aircraft started to "crawl" up. "How about that?" I shook my head surprised. "Couldn't you do without it on this little one?" As for me, not a common way to reduce your takeoff roll. In the USSR, only Myasischev used this on M-3 and M-4 - the heavy long-range bombers with a tandem gear layout, thus with very short nose struts.

 

"Alright," I thought, "we kneeled, so let's run. It is awkward to fool around this way." I increased thrust and released the brakes. The aircraft started to roll. It rolled evenly, reluctantly gaining speed. Aha! That's why they raise the nose strut! The engines are feeble, and the wing is too small. I lifted the nosewheel off the ground and held the airplane from the premature liftoff. Enough for this time. I powered back and lowered the nose. And then... what the heck? The entire nose started to shake and vibrate, then it started to wander left and right so violently, I thought it would just fall the hell off in a moment. Something was screeching and rumbling below. My first thought was about the nosewheel shimmy, but then I realized the nosewheel had been destroyed. I pulled the drag chute handle. "Not the brakes... Main wheels damage is the last thing we need: we don't have spares," the thoughts were rushing in my mind. Gradually reducing the speed, I stopped. I switched everything off, opened the canopy and impatiently jumped down onto the tarmac. I looked and I was puzzled: the wheel was intact. "That's strange! So what were you so unhappy with?" I looked at the "Foreigner" suspiciously. It turned out that he was unhappy with our runway condition: rough grooves and seams were so deep, and the surface of the concrete was decayed, so he just didn't stand it. One bolt was cut off, and the strut together with the wheel was turning around.

 

- "Nice! Ours don't do things like that," I gave his nose a pat and whispered: "Don't worry, we'll find a new bolt for you and you'll gallop around again!"

 

As I got to know the "Foreigner" I grew up in my respect to him both as to the flying machine and as to the fighter jet. Unapt to aggressive maneuvering when in "cruise" configuration (flaps and slats up), he would have changed when the pilot put it into the "maneuvering" configuration (flaps and slats down). Then from a heavy clodhopper he turned into a swallow. Checking out the capabilities of the optical sight, I enjoyed keeping the reticle on the target while attacking with a 6g pull, whereas on MiG-21 it would disappear from the view at 3g.

 

After determining the basic specification we decided to set up for a mock air-to-air combat with MiG-21bis. I would fight on my "native" MiG-21, and Nikolay Stogov - on F-5. The close air combat started head-on in equal positions. Every flight ended with the same result: MiG-21 lost, although he had much higher thrust-to-weight ratio. I laid myself out just to keep the initial position. I took the most out of the aircraft, took all he could give, but the targeting angle grew steadily and in a few minutes the "bandit" was on my tail. Only tactics could save me. What I was stricken by the most is that the result of the mock fights took not only the generals by surprise (one could explain this somehow), but also the military research departments of the Air Force and even the aviation engineers. They would review the data records for thousand times, ask the pilots, especially me. Frankly, I was somewhat confused as well, but when I tried the F-5, I realized that it was not an ordinary one.

 

So, what was happening in flight? At the speeds of 800 km/h (430 kts) and above the fight was on equal terms, nobody had explicit advantages, but the fighting was not literally maneuvering because of the large radii of the maneuvers. We would both stay at the equal maximum allowable g-loads. Whilst at the speeds below 750 km/h (400 kts) one couldn't sustain these g-loads even with the afterburner. And the lower the speed was the faster it decayed, thus lowering the maximum available g-load. It turned out that the aerodynamics was what won the day, not the thrust/weight ratio. But how was I to explain all this to the people above? They wouldn't have patted our backs for this. Then the MiG company representatives suggested:

 

- "Let's set MiG-23M against him."

 

- "But they cannot be compared to one another; they are from different generations." The chief of our research institute objected.

 

The chief of our institute, colonel general I. Gaidayenko had been a fighter-pilot during World War II and a wingman of the very P. Kutakov, who was the supreme commander of the Air Force at the time of our struggle with the F-5. The result of the test flights was supposed to be reported to Kutakov.

 

- "So what? We will kick his ass anyway!" 2nd lead engineer of MiG-23M spoke out, rubbing his hands in expectance of the revenge.

 

Well, the ass was kicked, for sure... but one of our own. The result was the same with the only exception that the agony lasted for 4-5 minutes. You have also to keep in mind that I had been considered a pilot capable of any stall and spin recovery and I had been permitted to break any angle of attack limitations. In the dogfight, I set the optimal wing sweep manually, but all in vain. The foreigner would slowly, but steadily, approach my tail. After these flights all calmed down for some time, all discussions ceased. The chief of the RI ordered to promptly compile a statement on the tests and directed me and Stogov to Moscow, to the Central Research Institution No. 30, which was involved in elaboration of the long-term problems of aviation advancement.

 

Paying a visit to one of its departments we asked, what they could tell us about the MiG-21 advantages over the F-5E.

 

- "Oh!" The military scientists immediately exclaimed. "With pleasure! There is a fray right now between Ethiopia and Somalia, and these very aircraft fight each other there. And we are busy preparing recommendations for the pilots on how to successfully fight the F-5 in aerial combat."

 

- "And what you've got?" I asked with an interest.

 

- "Take a look at the graph of the attack success probability. See? We beat him everywhere."

 

- "Indeed," I droned, looking at the so familiar graph in front of me and feeling somewhat hurt for the "Foreigner".

 

- "And what're the odds?" My friend asked, making a face of a village gull.

 

- "We've got much better thrust-to-weight ratio," the scientist replied in a voice of a mentor, who knew his worth.

 

- "Alright, then could you read this Statement and give us your final conclusion, please? And..."

 

- "And we'll go have a lunch," Nikolay suggested, "You know, on an errand it's like in defense: the meal is the ultimate thing."

 

This was the end of our work on the comparative evaluation of the "Foreigner" and our Soviet fighters. I don't know what kind of discussions were held "up there", but I know for sure, that the recommendations for the Ethiopian pilots were changed. Our "experts" suggested not to engage in a close dogfight, but to use the "hit-and-run" tactics instead. What about MiG-23, everyone preferred to forget about it. You bet! It had been supposed to fight even more advanced aircraft! Our Statement was classified as top secret and removed somewhere away from the eyes. The "Foreigner" was given to the aviation industry specialists with a strict clause: no flying, but to disassemble and study the structural features to use the knowledge in further projects. Some time passed, and the Su-25 close air support aircraft emerged. It had the wheel brakes on the rudder pedals, "maneuvering" wing configuration and a different approach to the cockpit layout. In the terms of the pilot workstation our engineers went even further, and nowadays the cockpit of MiG-29 can serve as an exemplar for similar foreign combat aircraft. The same can be said about the aerodynamics. The aerodynamic capabilities of Su-27 fighter are considered unexcelled so far. It appears that what is clear for one is a revelation for the other. I believe that similar situations arose in the USA as well, as they got our aircraft at times from MiG-21 to MiG-29. We had luck only once.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144200

 

So the F-5E should be more then capable of defeating a Mig-21 in merge even if both pilots are comparable skill wise.

 

Ofc a Superior Mig-21Bis pilot can still beat a less experienced F-5E pilot but with a good pilot in both planes in the merge the F-5E should be deadly.

 

So best chance for a Mig-21Bis would be to use its speed and avoid a merge and rely on hit/run tactics and bringing the fight into the vertical.

 

And thats where the Aim-9P4 would be valuable as it would give the F-5E teeth before the merge.

 

And since the Mig-21Bis has the R-60M i see no reason against the F-5E getting atleast the Aim-9P4

(as they entered service at around the same time and both were compatible with

fighters capable of carrying the older variants of the missile R-60/Aim-9P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that sure, since some patches ago, R-3R does not feel like a death ray anymore, and I've had both AI and human players evade my missiles, and from fairly decent shots. I think it's relatively high hit success in DCS has more to do with just how close it is usually shot, often from head-on too, giving not much reaction time. But give it some chaff and beam, or even pull some Gs and it seems to miss just fine.

 

Originally though yes, it was pretty much a insta-death ray.

 

Even then, like I've mentioned, R-3R is dependent on Saphir being able to lock somebody, which in turn, depends on that somebody does not use ground clutter. Given that F-5 has a fairly decent RWR, I think pilots will often be able to duck under a radar when they see 21 symbol on RWR.

 

Personally, I can't wait to get shot down inside both :D, may be I'll score a few kills inbetween too :D.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not that sure, since some patches ago, R-3R does not feel like a death ray anymore, and I've had both AI and human players evade my missiles, and from fairly decent shots. I think it's relatively high hit success in DCS has more to do with just how close it is usually shot, often from head-on too, giving not much reaction time. But give it some chaff and beam, or even pull some Gs and it seems to miss just fine.

 

Originally though yes, it was pretty much a insta-death ray.

 

Even then, like I've mentioned, R-3R is dependent on Saphir being able to lock somebody, which in turn, depends on that somebody does not use ground clutter. Given that F-5 has a fairly decent RWR, I think pilots will often be able to duck under a radar when they see 21 symbol on RWR.

 

Personally, I can't wait to get shot down inside both :D, may be I'll score a few kills inbetween too :D.

 

 

 

Let's schedule a flight when the Tiger is uncaged :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting anecdote about the Aim-9P I have heard a bunch now.

 

The last paragraph talks about it´s apparent problems with flare recognition.

 

http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t-know-what-90-percent-switches-did

 

I´m guessing it can´t be modeled since all aircraft essentially use the "same" flares, but it should be interesting when modeling the capabilities of the P.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

GCI: "Control to SEAD: Enemy SAM site 190 for 30, cleared to engage"

Striker: "Copy, say Altitude?"

GCI: "....Deck....it´s a SAM site..."

Striker: "Oh...."

Fighter: "Yeah, those pesky russian build, baloon based SAMs."

 

-Red-Lyfe

 

Best way to troll DCS community, make an F-16A, see how dedicated the fans really are :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting anecdote about the Aim-9P I have heard a bunch now.

 

The last paragraph talks about it´s apparent problems with flare recognition.

 

http://aviationweek.com/blog/we-didn-t-know-what-90-percent-switches-did

 

I´m guessing it can´t be modeled since all aircraft essentially use the "same" flares, but it should be interesting when modeling the capabilities of the P.

 

The flares issue was just not with the Aim-9P but with most early Flare rejection attempts.

 

And the problem of different flares works both ways

(all sides were testing missiles against their own flares as that was what they had and nobody realized they had different effects)

 

And i assume he is talking about the early Aim-9P (rear aspect oneslike the one we have ingame atm)

 

and not the all aspect variants (that were comparable to later L / M variants when it came to flare rejection)

 

But either way the difference between Soviet and US flares is most likely not modeled.


Edited by mattebubben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When can we expect a new F-5E video from wags?

PC: i7 9700K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 2080 SUPER, Tir 5, Hotas Warthog Throttle, VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Base with VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Grip, VKB-SIM T-RUDDER PEDALS MK.IV. Modules : NEVADA, F-5E, M-2000C, BF-109K4, A-10C, FC3, P-51D, MIG-21BIS, MI-8MTV2, F-86F, FW-190D9, UH-1H, L-39, MIG-15BIS, AJS37, SPITFIRE-MKIX, AV8BNA, PERSIAN GULF, F/A-18C HORNET, YAK-52, KA-50, F-14,SA342, C-101, F-16, JF-17, Supercarrier,I-16,MIG-19P, P-47D,A-10C_II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you

PC: i7 9700K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 2080 SUPER, Tir 5, Hotas Warthog Throttle, VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Base with VPC MongoosT-50CM2 Grip, VKB-SIM T-RUDDER PEDALS MK.IV. Modules : NEVADA, F-5E, M-2000C, BF-109K4, A-10C, FC3, P-51D, MIG-21BIS, MI-8MTV2, F-86F, FW-190D9, UH-1H, L-39, MIG-15BIS, AJS37, SPITFIRE-MKIX, AV8BNA, PERSIAN GULF, F/A-18C HORNET, YAK-52, KA-50, F-14,SA342, C-101, F-16, JF-17, Supercarrier,I-16,MIG-19P, P-47D,A-10C_II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the pre-purchase discount how long?

 

Until you can fly it as EA (Early Access) - the discount is gone in July!

DCS: F-5E Tiger II will sell for $59.99 in July 2016. Pre Purchase now for $47.99 and save 20%! In addition to the 20% purchase discount, pre-purchasers will receive a 20% full-price value in bonus points for future purchases!

 

Source: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2783893&postcount=28

Playing: F-16C

Intel i7-13700KF, 64GB DDR5 @5600MHz, RTX 4080 ZOTAC Trinity, WIN 11 64Bit Prof.

Squadron "Serious Uglies" / Discord-Server: https://discord.gg/2WccwBh

Ghost0815

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...