DCS: F-5E!

[mattebubben]

I think the F-5E should have a All aspect missile.

 

But not a Aim-9L or Aim-9M but rather a Aim-9P4 or P5.

 

That would give it all aspect capabillity but a missile that is slightly less advanced then the Aim-9L/M

 

+ the Aim-9P3 and Later Aim-9Ps where common armament for F-5Es (internationally)

[Kev2go]

Did BST already say which radar they make?

 

Nope just a list of the ordinance it will get and that will only get the aim9b and aim9p at least on initial release.

 

Someone form ed partners commented that f5e will have rwr included.

 

But at the moment no news on the Radar type. Whether it will be the an/apq 153 or the an/apq 159?

[King_Hrothgar]

They specified F-5E-3, which implies APG-159-3

[pepin1234]

I think the F-5E should have a All aspect missile.

 

But not a Aim-9L or Aim-9M but rather a Aim-9P4 or P5.

 

That would give it all aspect capabillity but a missile that is slightly less advanced then the Aim-9L/M

 

+ the Aim-9P3 and Later Aim-9Ps where common armament for F-5Es (internationally)

 

Believe me. You don't need the best Aim-9 to do your job with the F-5. The F-5 have the same tactic of the 21. You don't need to get the advantage in the middle of the dogfight. You need to get this advantage before start the combat with a good ambush. You should not use the F-5 for a head on combat.

[Lt_Maverick]

IBTL :)

 

I see no F-5E module, all I see is a Mig-28 :P

 

Seriously though, the PC Pilot interview gave away they were making a brand new up to scratch external model for it, and from the level of detail it did look like a possible future module as it was much higher quality than some of the newer 3d models for the AI planes.

 

It also makes sense in relation to NTTR and Red Flag exercises :)

 

As a bonus, it's also a very widely exported aircraft with known uses in combat for various factions. It's a good fit for DCS.

 

 

Was just watching a video from 88 on Red Flag and the F-5s were the aggressors.

 

 

 

 

 

"The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down."- General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262.

 

 

JayRac3r/Lt_Mav YouTube Channel

[Kev2go]

They specified F-5E-3, which implies APG-159-3

 

Source? Don't recall them saying the exact f5 model on Belsimtek site or the forum.

[Kev2go]

Believe me. You don't need the best Aim-9 to do your job with the F-5. The F-5 have the same tactic of the 21. You don't need to get the advantage in the middle of the dogfight. You need to get this advantage before start the combat with a good ambush. You should not use the F-5 for a head on combat.

 

Aim9p4/5 is hardly the most advanced aim9, compared to the aim9m that you have on 4th Gen fighters

 

Considering different variations of the aim9p were commonly available by the late 70s there's no reason not to get the p4/5 the only reason mig21 didn't get r73 was because those required significant modifications.

 

F5 same tactic as the mig21? Not quite. Mig21 has the top speed. And better climb/ accerlation advantage over the f5. The f5 has to rely much more on wvr manuvering since that were it shines in compared to the mig

 

 

People seem to forget the mig21 can hold many more missiles 4-8 of them.

 

Also mig21 isn't the only aircraft out there. There are plenty of server on mp that allow all aircraft in pvp. Some would want to take on more advanced aircraft. There no reason to forcefully limit a planes armanent. Especially if it was commonly available. I'd like flexible modules that aren't specific to a certain conflict or war. The f5e was widely exported.

Just give the aim9p/4/5. The missile creator can always just limit what missiles a plane has available for use if. they happen to feel their precious migs will be too much threatened by the f5

 

So no matter how you try to spin it. F5 is under armed compared 5o the mig21.

 

A fair compensation for these shortcomings this would be the 159 radar and the inclussion aim9p 4/5 alongside earlier aim9p models and the aim9b

Edited November 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[cofcorpse]

Source? Don't recall them saying the exact f5 model on Belsimtek site or the forum.

 

This is the short answer:

 

It's not a matter of what else had. F-5E-3 is the model you want to check.

 

US used aircraft with APQ-159 radar, autoflaps, no air refueling, no ILS, no Mavs.

 

We will give more information in our updates. Also, I read all your suggestions, we will discuss them internally.

[dartuil]

Aim9p4/5 is hardly the most advanced aim9, compared to the aim9m that you have on 4th Gen fighters

 

Considering different variations of the aim9p were commonly available by the late 70s there's no reason not to get the p4/5 the only reason mig21 didn't get r73 was because those required significant modifications.

 

F5 same tactic as the mig21? Not quite. Mig21 has the top speed. And better climb/ accerlation advantage over the f5. The f5 has to rely much more on wvr manuvering since that were it shines in compared to the mig

 

 

People seem to forget the mig21 can hold many more missiles 4-8 of them.

 

Also mig21 isn't the only aircraft out there. There are plenty of server on mp that allow all aircraft in pvp. Some would want to take on more advanced aircraft. There no reason to forcefully limit a planes armanent. Especially if it was commonly available. I'd like flexible modules that aren't specific to a certain conflict or war. The f5e was widely exported.

Just give the aim9p/4/5. The missile creator can always just limit what missiles a plane has available for use if. they happen to feel their precious migs will be too much threatened by the f5

 

So no matter how you try to spin it. F5 is under armed compared 5o the mig21.

 

A fair compensation for these shortcomings this would be the 159 radar and the inclussion aim9p 4/5 alongside earlier aim9p models and the aim9b

 

I agree with you. Please LNS dont limit the F-5E armament. I can explain my point of view :

-On MP there arent only mig-21s , there are mig-29 , su-27 , su-33.

-Remember there are unannounced aircrafts.

-Everyone may plan other things than F-5 vs mig-21.

 

I dont mean give it bvr or aim-120 but do it the most capable possible on the F-5E-3 if the player is joinning a mig-21 vs F-5 server he will use the armament for mig-21 vs F-5and the server can restrict armament.

Remember F-5 (1962)isnt really the direct opponent for mig-21(1959) but the F-4 (1960) is.

 

Dont beat me. :)

[Nerd1000]

Aim9p4/5 is hardly the most advanced aim9, compared to the aim9m that you have on 4th Gen fighters

 

Considering different variations of the aim9p were commonly available by the late 70s there's no reason not to get the p4/5 the only reason mig21 didn't get r73 was because those required significant modifications.

 

F5 same tactic as the mig21? Not quite. Mig21 has the top speed. And better climb/ accerlation advantage over the f5. The f5 has to rely much more on wvr manuvering since that were it shines in compared to the mig

 

 

People seem to forget the mig21 can hold many more missiles 4-8 of them.

 

Also mig21 isn't the only aircraft out there. There are plenty of server on mp that allow all aircraft in pvp. Some would want to take on more advanced aircraft. There no reason to forcefully limit a planes armanent. Especially if it was commonly available. I'd like flexible modules that aren't specific to a certain conflict or war. The f5e was widely exported.

Just give the aim9p/4/5. The missile creator can always just limit what missiles a plane has available for use if. they happen to feel their precious migs will be too much threatened by the f5

 

So no matter how you try to spin it. F5 is under armed compared 5o the mig21.

 

A fair compensation for these shortcomings this would be the 159 radar and the inclussion aim9p 4/5 alongside earlier aim9p models and the aim9b

 

One could argue that even a tail aspect only sidewinder has the speed and rate of climb advantage over a MiG-21. A BnZing MiG would have to kill the F-5 on the first pass or the tables would very quickly be turned thanks to the F-5's superior agility in a dogfight. Under those circumstances, he'll either get you with his first shots or you'll get him (That is, if the MiG misses or fails his pass he'll be in perfect position for your sidewinder shot).

 

The F-5 is on the other hand at a disadvantage in heads-on confrontations without an all aspect sidewinder or a radar missile like the R-3R. That said, the R-3R is a rather limited weapon in that it cannot attack targets below the horizon, and should have trouble with chaff or agile targets (it's performing better than it should at present).

[pepin1234]

If Belsimtek want to balance the combat with the Mig, I don't agree the idea to add moderns Aim-9 with seekers that allow a head on combat with shot and forget capability.

 

This will be a very good performance compared with the Mig-21 missiles even when they are radar guided. Just take in count the Mig-21 is a 2th generation design and the Bis version is a 3th generation "upgrade". The F-5 is a late 3th generation aircraft, this bird performs really good in close combat. Mig-21Bis is a 70's upgrade, only adding the R-60 a bit after, if you look the F-5 of the 70's you will get there a real two A-A missile F-5.

 

By my side the best and realistic idea is add The most modern Aim-9 of the late 70's (highly superior than all known in that moment)

 

If they make a four Aim-9m version, I really don't know if gone be fair or whether is a balanced there. Should be tested... But for sure is not realistic because the different weapons/upgrade era.

Edited November 12, 2015 by pepin1234

[Zebra288]

If Belsimtek want to balance the combat with the Mig, I don't agree the idea to add moderns Aim-9 with seekers that allow a head on combat with shot and forget capability.

 

This will be a very good performance compared with the Mig-21 missiles even when they are radar guided. Just take in count the F-5 is an early 4th generation aircraft, this bird performs really good in close combat. Mig-21Bis is a 70's upgrade, only adding the R-60 a bit after, if you look the F-5 of the 70's you will get there a real two A-A missile F-5.

 

By my side the best and realistic idea is add The most modern Aim-9 of the late 70's (highly superior than all known in that moment)

 

If they make a four Aim-9m version, I really don't know if gone be fair or whether is a balanced there. Should be tested... But for sure is not realistic because the different weapons/upgrade era.

 

It will only be balanced with the 21 if the R3R gets fixed and no longer has a 100% pk :lol:

[QuiGon]

I hope they don't focus too mutch on balancing. They should only focus on keeping it real!

[pepin1234]

the R3R gets fixed and no longer has a 100% pk :lol:

 

Do you have time to maneuver enough when you get a Warning launched with a shot at 5-7km in Headon?

 

If you simulate the RWR of the 70s probably you don't get a A-A warning or this gone be a bit after when the missile is in middle course, so against F-5E in real must be worst.

 

Do you wanna downgrade the Mig-21Bis or you want to add two more missiles to the F-5? Probably you like both...

Edited November 12, 2015 by pepin1234

[lmp]

As far as balance goes though, I'd rather fly the F-5 for the RWR alone assuming it's similar to more modern ones. The MiG's is useless.

 

I'm no F-5 aficionado and I might be totally wrong here, but I think the F-5E had no RWR at all? Certainly the one currently in the game doesn't have one and wikipedia, flawed as it may be, seems to suggest that as well.

Edited November 12, 2015 by lmp

[mattebubben]

The F-5E should probably only have the 2 air to air missiles.

 

It gained the abillity for 4 in the late 80s with the development of a new low drag wing pylon (standard Pylons caused to much drag for the extra 2 missiles to be worth the drag penelty in air-air combat)

 

So 2 Aim9s was the norm for most F-5s (production standard)

 

But they really should get Aim-4Ps atleast.

 

And you guys keep Talking about how crappy the R-60is.

 

Its actually not.

 

the R-60M is quite capable for what it is and its a 1982 missile

so its a later missile then the Aim-9P4.

 

I think the F-5E should atleast have 3 air-air missiles to pick from-

 

Gar-8 (Aim-9B)

as the low end.

 

Aim-9P3 on the mid end (that is probably the Aim-9P we have no even though the missile preformance might not be correctly modeld yet)

 

And then Aim-9P4 on the high end

(maby P5 but i feel P4 would be more proper)

 

Both the P4 and P5 are know to have been carried on F-5Es by multiple nations.

 

 

And there is reason to think that the P4-P5 are automaticly Compatible with aircraft able to use the earlier Aim-9P missiles (Made to be Compatible)

 

I know for A fact that multiple Nations Used All Aspect Aim-9Ps on there F5Es.

 

The Aim-9P5 was used on the F-5Es of Switzerland and Austria.

 

And Aim-9P4s On F-5Es in Saudi Arabia,Taiwan,South Korea Aswell as Jordan.

 

Aswell as others.

 

So the Aim-9P4 was very widley used and exported for use with the F-5E.

 

Some Nations Chose the Aim-9P4 or P5 because it was compatible with both their newer and older aircraft instead of buying Aim9Ls that where only compatible with the newer aircraft but for many nations it was not a choice as the Aim-9P4 was avalible for alot of nations that could not buy the Aim-9L either for Cost or political reasons.

 

So if it has the APQ-159 they it really should have the Aim-9P4 aswell.

 

And this would not unbalance things...

 

Have any of you guys shouting of how bad the Mig-21 is actually flown the thing?

 

If used right it can be quite formidable and giving the F-5E the "worst" All Aspect Aim-9 wont give it that "large" of an advantage over Mig-21s with 4 R-60Ms and 2 R-3Rs...

Edited November 12, 2015 by mattebubben

[WinterH]

I do think it would be good to have some all aspect missile available but I would also want to voice another side to argument : even if we get AIM-9 L, M or P4 / P5, I would like current reat aspect only and smokey AIM-9P to also remain an option. It is almost the same thing as R-13M and would be good to keep as an option for missions in late 70s or simulating poorer airforces.

[dartuil]

Dont forget Mig-21 have the R-13M1 with better range than R-3R.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4012580/Mig_21_weapons_questions

WinterH i will give a link where u talk :

-RS-2US is, indeed a beam rider and not SARH.

-R-55 is indeed an improved late IR version of K-5

-Wikipedia is Wikipedia, so take those range figures with a grain of salt at least. But those big ranges mean high altitude range of missile, where it will have less drag and will have much longer range than lower altitudes, of course I still would not expect even half of 30 km value even then. Note, that there 4 variants of this particular missile in sim, with fairly different capabilities :

* R-3S : AIM-9B copy, requires miracles and divine intervention against agile targets

* R-3R : Same missile with SARH guidance

* R-13M : Improved missile with longer range, larger warhead, better seeker, seeker and missile both can track targets pulling more Gs, and missile itself can pull more Gs, can be fired while launching aircraft pull about 3.5G, where R-3S can only be shot while pulling about 1-2G. Though, it is still a rear aspect only missile.

* R-13M1 : Further improved, roughly equivalent to rear aspect only AIM-9P versions.

-K-13 does, indeed have longer kinematic range than R-60, advantage of R-60 is, it is more agile, can be shot when closer to target, can be shot while pulling as many Gs as you like and still track. Also, R-60M is kind-of all aspect, seems it can't aquire head-on, but can lock and engage from most other target aspects.

-It was GUV gunpod, it didn't make the release, but it wouldn't really be that efficient to be honest, same pod that Mi-8 can carry, it has one 12.7 mm and two 7.62mm gatlings, almost strictly against soft targets. Overkill against softs, almost useless against hards UPK-23 is available, and a better option all around. I agree that it is cool, but it is just that, and nothing more

 

So far I've found that for ground attack, and putting nukes aside, best option is S-24 rockets. Kh-66 is also nice and fun, but to use against vehicle size targets I honestly am not sure whether it brings any real advantages over S-24 option, and is more complex to utilize. If targets is large like a bridge, building or ship, where you can put your pipper on from a distance with ease, than Kh-66 of course is better.

 

S-5 rockets aren't very powerful, but are a decent option as well, and you can carry a lot of those (though watch out not to drop those pods by pulling too hard from dives, so far, I do that all the time :D)

 

Bombs are nice but, due to the fact that only way to get an accurate pipper is a shallow dive, which will bring you very close to target to get that pipper, and the fact that MiG is not quite a dive bomber at all, I've found them to be very finicky to employ. Though, I am trying toss bombing, it may be a fun option, it works with Nuke, so may be with some improvement may work with ordinary bombs too (slight jab at DCS : I'd really love if we could set burst time for cluster bombs... it would be awesome to toss them... it is a real shame, currently all cluster bombs besides CBU-97 and CBU-105 feel almost useless, and those are useful only because of guided submunitions)

 

GSh-23L Gun itself, (and presumably gunpods since they are the same GSh-23) is fairly decent when you can hit the targets, but, it has quite short range compared to other things we are used to strafe with, and as mentinoed before, MiG isn't quite a dive-attack platform, so gun strafing can be effective but tricky, and induces a large chance of lawn darting

Edited November 12, 2015 by dartuil

[mattebubben]

I do think it would be good to have some all aspect missile available but I would also want to voice another side to argument : even if we get AIM-9 L, M or P4 / P5, I would like current reat aspect only and smokey AIM-9P to also remain an option. It is almost the same thing as R-13M and would be good to keep as an option for missions in late 70s or simulating poorer airforces.

 

 

Thats what i said in my post.

 

Keep the Gar-8 (Aim-9B) and a rear aspect Aim-9P

(Aim-9P3 wich is the supposed to be the Aim-9P ingame)

 

And then a Aim-9P4 all aspect as the "Top of the line" alternative

 

That would give you Missile Options for all type of missions.

 

And only one of these 3 missiles would need to be added from scratch.

 

The Aim-9P4 would have to be added (Aim9L could be used as a base with slight tweeks in Agillity and Seeker Capabillity)

 

The Aim-9P3 is already in the game (aim-9P) but would probably need to be overhauled to more accuractly represent its preformance since i dont know how well modeld it is atm.

 

And the Gar-8 (Aim-9B) is already ingame and "Up to Snuff" so nothing would have to be done about it.

 

And seeing as they dont have to really model any other "New" weapons that are not already in the game i think an Updated Aim-9P(3) and A New Aim-9P4 would be the the least they could do weaponwise.

 

(Most Airplane modules like the Mig-21 / Mirage 2000C have many more missiles they need to either add completly or severly overhaul).

 

If this Module comes with Just the Gar-8 and Un updated Aim-9P as it is i dont know if il get it.

 

But if they put some effort in on turning the Aim9-P into the P3 and adding a P4 it will be a Pre Purchase for sure.

Edited November 12, 2015 by mattebubben

[Bewsher]

Tweeking it would be easy. Make a new edit and increase or reduce paramaters in missile data.lua file from other AIM entries. All i want from BST is a post Vietnam F-5E that has 2 winders mk-82 ,M-117 centreline Mk-84 and 2 GBU-12 thrown in for the heck of it. And yes give us the later 159 in it not the 153 for better balance. Oh yes the AIM model may have to be modelled if so.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Bewsher

[Kev2go]

I'm no F-5 aficionado and I might be totally wrong here, but I think the F-5E had no RWR at all? Certainly the one currently in the game doesn't have one and wikipedia, flawed as it may be, seems to suggest that as well.

 

 

Somones from ED team said the F5E will come with RWR

 

RWR is planned.

 

 

Only base models had no rwr. Upgrades from An/Apq 153 to An/Apq 159 radar was common, as well as an option to to install rwr.

 

 

 

 

 

And heres a technical Manual to F5E-34. Posted it earlier, but will repost, for the people new to the topic.

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/to-1f-5e-34-1-1-f-5e-f-tiger-ii-aircrew-nonnuclear-weapons-delivery-manual-to-1f-5e.html

 

p31- armament stores

 

pg 32 - 43 ; An/APQ 153 radar

 

pg 44- 60; An/APQ 159 Radar

 

pg 61-71 ; Gunsight

 

Manual is very thorugh but i just wanted to highlight the main points of interest.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[Custard]

Yeah Kev2go, I was just about to post that.

 

 

Can we stop all this AIM-120 nonsense now?

[mattebubben]

Yeah Kev2go, I was just about to post that.

 

Can we stop all this AIM-120 nonsense now?

 

 

Well the F-5E modeld should not use the Aim-120 (since its not one of the new upgraded models).

 

But there Are F-5s that can carry Aim-120s.

 

And im not even sure that this chart is for the F-5E BT is making.

 

We are getting the F-5E-3.

 

While this is titled F-5E34-1-1.

 

And i have no idea what that means =P.

 

Also it appears to just have the APQ-153 wich would make it a different variant from the one we are getting.

 

And i have not seen anyone Talking about Giving the F-5E-3 Aim-120s.

 

There have been ppl suggesting modeling one of the Multiple Variants (F-5EM,F-5S,F-5E Tiger III) that can use the Aim-120 but ive not seen anyone suggest giving it to the "basic" F-5E.

Edited November 12, 2015 by mattebubben

[Kev2go]

Well the F-5E modeld should not use the Aim-120 (since its not one of the new upgraded models).

 

But there Are F-5s that can carry Aim-120s.

 

And im not even sure that this char is for the F-5E BT is making.

 

We are getting the F-5E-3.

 

While this is titled F-5E34-1-1.

 

And i have no idea what that means =P.

 

Also it appears to just have the APQ-153 wich would make it a different variant from the one we are getting.

 

And i have not seen anyone Talking about Giving the F-5E-3 Aim-120s.

 

There have been ppl suggesting modeling one of the Multiple Variants (F-5EM,F-5S,F-5E Tiger III) that can use the Aim-120 but ive not seen anyone suggest giving it to the "basic" F-5E.

 

 

 

Again why are a handfull of people saying we are getting the F5E block3?

 

I only posted the block 34 because the manual is from august 1979( only one i could find), and it isnt a mnaual for the block 1 ( earliest F5E)

 

But no one from belsimtek has yet specified what block of the F5E they are making, Whther its on thier site or here on the forum????? So why try to claim its going ot be X model only?

 

 

If anything is certain we are not getting the F5E1 since that would mean no rwr.

 

 

And the armament stores of the source i posted pretty much matches what the F5E is going to be getting . Save for the Gbu12s.

 

 

http://www.belsimtek.com/news/1558/

 

 

But It doesnt say what block is being developed. So saying its going to be the F5E block 3, when its not confirmed is spreading mis information.

 

lets wait until someone from ED or belsimtek confirms this, instead of speculating.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Kev2go

[VincentLaw]

But It doesnt say what block is being developed. So saying its going to be the F5E block 3, when its not confirmed is spreading mis information.

 

lets wait until someone from ED or belsimtek confirms this, instead of speculating.

This is the post being referred to. It is not an official announcement, but it is not misinformation either.

It's not a matter of what else had. F-5E-3 is the model you want to check.