DCS: F-5E!

[Custard]

Is that the F-5E pit?

{picture}

Yes but so are these, note the lack of any sophisticated RWR on the earlier models (the ones that fought the MiG-21 and that the Soviets acquired an example of).

It'll be very interesting which exact variant BST develop, the external model in 1.5 at the moment has an RWR on the cockpit texture but it looks like it's just a picture pulled straight from the internet so I don't think we can draw any conclusions from that.

 

A modern picture:

 

The aircraft the Russians got their hands on:

Edited October 25, 2015 by Custard

[Flycat]

F-20 is called F-5G before it got its own designation, and it planned to have BVR on paper,

F-5s is an upgraded kit from the F-5e, and I said what it changed at last post.

F-18e/f is still F-18 series, you can ask Boeing or DoD to give its a new callsign.

Did I make mistake? You don't need to correct it by your ways.

[Tirak]

F-20 is called F-5G before it got its own designation, and it planned to have BVR on paper,

F-5s is an upgraded kit from the F-5e, and I said what it changed at last post.

F-18e/f is still F-18 series, you can ask Boeing or DoD to give its a new callsign.

Did I make mistake? You don't need to correct it by your ways.

 

Just because it shares a name and appearance, doesn't mean the aircraft is at all similar. The Hornet and Super Hornet are two completely different planes, despite the fact they are both "F-18s", with about as much compatibility between them as the F-8 and A-7, despite the fact those planes have a similar appearance. In that vein, the F-20 may look like an F-5, but it has a completely different engine, a re-engineered wing, totally different design materials, fly by wire and a totally different electronic scheme. They share a shape and a wing profile, but they are in effect, totally different aircraft, so while the F-20 may be based off of the F-5, just because the Tigershark has a capability doesn't mean anything for the Tiger's capability.

 

In that vein, the F-5Ss have totally overhauled electronics and were given a change in designation making them no longer F-5Es. Since we're getting F-5Es, we're not getting the F-5S upgrade package, so no Amraam slinging for us.

 

The F-5E is a very simple fighter, in terms of AA weaponry we will have 2. Sidewinder equivalents, and the twin 20mm cannons. No sparrows, no Amraams. The plane's radar can't use it, even if we get the most modern radar the F-5E used.

[King_Hrothgar]

The F-5E has more in common with the F-18A than it does with the F-20. Regardless, it will be a pure WVR fighter like the MiG-21Bis. It should be an interesting matchup too. The MiG will smoke it in terms of speed and climb rate while the F-5E should be more agile.

[lokodehortaleza]

F-18e/f is still F-18 series, you can ask Boeing or DoD to give its a new callsign.

 

They could very well have chosen to change the designation altogether, it's not even the same airframe:

 

Edited October 25, 2015 by lokodehortaleza

[Zibell]

Wish it was a brazilian F-5EM, or a chilean Tiger III.

[mattebubben]

Any1 have any pictures of the F-5E hud? (Basic Tiger II hud and not from the upgraded variants).

 

And also as long as it gets some of the better Aim 9s (L or M for example) it will most likley dominate the Mig-21 to a some extent.

 

and i really think it should have atleast the Aim9L since the majority F-5Es where updated to the new Aim9s as they became avalible.

 

since F-5E Tiger II with Aim9L or M are alot more effective then any of the missiles the Mig-21Bis can use.

 

the F-5 would have an easier time getting a lock to be able to launch the missile and also more "accurate" and reliable missiles.

[King_Hrothgar]

I hope we get a mix of old and new missiles for it. I'd like to be able to do 1970's and Iran/Iraq war scenarios, both of which require AIM-9J's. The J model would also be a bit more balanced with the MiG-21's missiles, which is always a bonus. It already has the AIM-9M on the AI model, so I assume the newer missiles won't be an issue.

[Flycat]

You still repeat the same words by your way, and check the logic. Many things are only in your mind and I didn't said those. Follow the words which was written down. READ THE WORDS CAREFULLY.

And those Flanker and Fulcrum family could be a new designed aircraft by your standard. "bigger wing, new avionics, new glass screens, new engine, more pylon, new flight design with LEX and extra pair of wing or blahblah something" Do you mean NATO reporting name/designation system for eastern bloc is a joke?

Flanker-A, Flanker-B, Flanker-B+, Flanker-C, Flanker-D, Flanker-E or Fulcrum-A, Fulcrum-B, Fulcrum-C, Fulcrum-D, Fulcrum-E.

You are really boring.

[Tirak]

You still repeat the same words by your way, and check the logic. Many things are only in your mind and I didn't said those. Follow the words which was written down. READ THE WORDS CAREFULLY.

And those Flanker and Fulcrum family could be a new designed aircraft by your standard. "bigger wing, new avionics, new glass screens, new engine, more pylon, new flight design with LEX and extra pair of wing or blahblah something" Do you mean NATO reporting name/designation system for eastern bloc is a joke?

Flanker-A, Flanker-B, Flanker-B+, Flanker-C, Flanker-D, Flanker-E or Fulcrum-A, Fulcrum-B, Fulcrum-C, Fulcrum-D, Fulcrum-E.

You are really boring.

 

I'm going to assume that English is not your first language, so here is my suggestion. Get a friend of yours that actually does understand English, get him to read what I'm writing, and then have him translate for you in a way that you will understand. The STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PLANE IS DIFFERENT. There is no part compatibility. I cannot go into a spares shop for an F-5 and get parts I need for an F-20. The planes look similar, but they are radically different. It's like saying an A320 and a 737 are essentially the same aircraft because they both have two engines and a tail.

 

An F-5E is not an F-5S either. The F-5S completely rewires the bird to allow it to carry AIM-120s on its pylons, installs a whole entirely new radar, completely overhauls the cockpit. Structurally they are the same, but internally they are entirely different, and so you will not see AMRAAMs on an F-5E because the overhaul required is so massive, so complete, that you can't just jury rig it on and say "it works".

 

Do yourself a favor, actually learn about the aircraft you're talking about before you start making suggestions.

[dartuil]

So it get bvr i believe they remove cannon for biggest radar?

[Bewsher]

The F-5E could only carry winders rockets and iron bombs. It is not a a F-20 and nor has it any ECM carrying or onboard system to spoof any incoming sam or enemy lock, which should be fun around sam sites.

[Tirak]

So it get bvr i believe they remove cannon for biggest radar?

 

New radar, new flight computer, new wiring. It's a heavy overhaul to bring an 1970s plane into the 21st century. If a dev wants to make an F-5S then yeah, but since BST is making an F-5E, not gonna happen.

 

 

 

F-5S Cockpit

 

 

 

 

F-5E Cockpit

 

[Flycat]

hhh, I never said they are the same shit aircraft, you mind are broken and fully pipedream.

I only said they have the same callsign or the number after the alphabet F is the same, could you understand, you banana? Did I said they are the same at any part of aircraft? I only said before the F-20 got its own designation, it is called F-5G, and it has the capability of aim-7 on paper or plant, I never said the aircraft is the same, son. If you didn't mention that poor plastic bug, I would not to discuss what it is really like. And that poor F-5s is just an upgraded F-5E, however you always dream to have a new "designed" aircraft, but you can't, It's still an upgraded kit based on F-5e, just like lancer or bison, or fishbed 2000 by the kindly weapon company, and then re-designation. And did I said F-5e got the BVR capability in directly or under logic? Do you think I try to cue or hint you? I've told you read carefully but you don't. You are boring and sick in your mind. Even I didn't try to reply or correct your words first.

[Tirak]

hhh, I never said they are the same shit aircraft, you mind are broken and fully pipedream.

I only said they have the same callsign or the number after the alphabet F is the same, could you understand, you banana? Did I said they are the same at any part of aircraft? I only said before the F-20 got its own designation, it is called F-5G, and it has the capability of aim-7 on paper or plant, I never said the aircraft is the same, son. If you didn't mention that poor plastic bug, I would not to discuss what it is really like. And that poor F-5s is just an upgraded F-5E, however you always dream to have a new "designed" aircraft, but you can't, It's still an upgraded kit based on F-5e, just like lancer or bison, or fishbed 2000 by the kindly weapon company, and then re-designation. And did I said F-5e got the BVR capability in directly or under logic? Do you think I try to cue or hint you? I've told you read carefully but you don't. You are boring and sick in your mind. Even I didn't try to reply or correct your words first.

 

It's like talking to a brick wall with you. You cannot extrapolate F-5E capability based on an aircraft that is completely different. Your statement about the F-5E having BVR capability on paper because the F-20 has the capability on paper, is literally the same statement as saying the F-18C and the F-18E have the same capability because they share a designation. The bureaucratic name for an aircraft DOES NOT ALWAYS REFLECT REALITY. Aircraft designation changes all the time, and especially during the cold war era, aircraft were designated under one type of aircraft start their design phase there, before being given their own individual designation. The fact that you do not seem to understand this is very telling as to your understanding of the F-5.

 

The aircraft being modeled is the F-5E, and so the capabilities it will receive are those of the F-5E. The F-20 is a completely different aircraft, and the F-5S is a drastically upgraded aircraft that cannot be considered comparable to an F-5E. You cannot extrapolate capabilities based on this information. It is INCORRECT to say that because the F-5S has AMRAAM capability, the F-5E could do it as well. The overhaul required is a massive undertaking, and thus drastically outside the reasonable expectations of an F-5E sim.

 

Read carefully, pay attention, and research the aircraft.

[Flycat]

And do you still think Flanker E is the same as A or the Fulcrum F is the same as A?

The wingspan, the sharp, the structural, the cockpit or the avionics is different.

Flanker E is bigger than A, and nearly changed everything. The Fulcrum F is totally different with A, just like the plastic bug is different with F-18.

The "The STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PLANE IS DIFFERENT"&"The planes look similar, but they are radically different" just for you. Check your point before you post it.

[Flycat]

Northrop try to give F-5 the BVR capability then developed F-20 for out board buyers.

Actually F-20 is typically F-5 with heavy developed, and new designation is just for good hearing for those buyer, Just like I said it's called F-5GGGGGG before, it's still a F-5. And it was compared with the F-16A, then lose the match because the policy changed, only very few number of plane built out. Don't dreaming it's a new designed aircraft, it's totally based on F-5E. Yea, maybe add up LEX or some other thing, however it's still F-5 based aircraft.

Everyone knows this fact.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Flycat

[Bewsher]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-153

 

If they model it on the APQ-153 its short range. The next one up is for the late model F-5E. Moneys on the 153 being modelled given the radar shape.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

The production F-5E Tiger II used two radar sets, the AN/APQ-153 and the AN/APQ-159. Both of which did not support BVR engagement. The 159 offered BVR capable range but was, itself, not capable of designating a target for the AIM-7 Sparrow.

 

Emmerson Electric offered the AN/APG-69 for F-5Es, finally giving it the ability to engage with AIM-7s. F-5E modernization programs often utilize this set.

 

This was a possible candidate for the F-20's radar, but was turned down in favor of GE's AN/APG-67.

 

Either way, most resources on the subject would be referencing original aircraft specifications and, thus, no BVR for the F-5E will probably reach DCS. In addition, if the F-20 is an F-5, then so is the F/A-18 as the Hornet traces its lineage to the F-5 as the YF-17 Cobra is a derivative. At some point, changes made to an aircraft and new roles demand that an aircraft's designation be changed to reflect that. Being referred to as F-5G initially is for the sake of the manufacturers and any involved in development. The changes that went into the F-5G demanded that it be given a new designation, thus F-20. It's the difference between a Flanker-B and a Flanker-C. To be more clear, it's the difference between the fighter-interceptor Su-27S and the Multirole Su-30. These are different aircraft with different capabilities and limitations. They're part of a family of aircraft, they are related through derivation, and related very closely. But, they're still different aircraft.

 

It'd be nice to get that BVR capability, however.

Edited October 26, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[dartuil]

Never noticed F-5E WAS CARRIER READY or I misunderstood? Sorry english isnt my first language so u can correct me.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Never noticed F-5E WAS CARRIER READY or I misunderstood? Sorry english isnt my first language so u can correct me.

 

It isn't. It does possess a tail hook, but that's for the purposes of emergency landings and to prevent over-runs. A lot of land-fighters in USAF service have these:

 

 

Just a few more!

Edited October 26, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[dartuil]

It isn't. It does possess a tail hook, but that's for the purposes of emergency landings and to prevent over-runs. A lot of land-fighters in USAF service have these:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few more!

 

 

Thank you buddy!! :)

[Snoopy]

I want an F-5F to use as a western trainer. The "E" model will be fun to use as an aggressor and maybe a single seat trainer in the track to the F/A-18C when it's released.

[Tirak]

Northrop try to give F-5 the BVR capability then developed F-20 for out board buyers.

Actually F-20 is typically F-5 with heavy developed, and new designation is just for good hearing for those buyer, Just like I said it's called F-5GGGGGG before, it's still a F-5. And it was compared with the F-16A, then lose the match because the policy changed, only very few number of plane built out. Don't dreaming it's a new designed aircraft, it's totally based on F-5E. Yea, maybe add up LEX or some other thing, however it's still F-5 based aircraft.

Everyone knows this fact.

 

You really just don't get it do you? I'll give you another comparison, since you don't seem to understand. During the production of what would become the A-7, Vought decided to base their aircraft on their already successful F-8 design, thinking that it would give them an edge selling to the Navy based on parts commonality, While the F-8 was what the design is based on, the two are radically different aircraft. They look similar, and one is based on the other, but you can't say that the F-8 Crusader should be able to cart Walleyes, Mavericks and Shrikes because the A-7 can. Just because an aircraft is based off another, doesn't mean the designs are at all compatible with each other. You need to learn to understand this fact, because right now all you're spouting is absolute nonsense. :doh:

Edited October 26, 2015 by Tirak

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I want an F-5F to use as a western trainer. The "E" model will be fun to use as an aggressor and maybe a single seat trainer in the track to the F/A-18C when it's released.

 

Aggressor, hmm? Why settle for that when it was a frontline fighter for a lot of nations? It still is for some. :thumbup:

 

 

EDIT: Not F-5Es, but F-5Cs. Who cares, Skoshi Tigers over Vietnam!

 

Edited October 26, 2015 by MiG21bisFishbedL