DCS: F-5E!

[Vedexent]

In what is it close to a Russian design? I don't see that in the airframe or cockpit ...

 

Not in the physical makeup - it's more the design philosophy.

 

( With a healthy does of "IMHO", and "YMMV" ... )

 

Russian philosophy seems to be "build it just sophisticated enough to get the job done, make the parts standardized, build it ruggedly, build a lot of them".

 

American design philosophy seems to be "build the best damn plane we can, with sophisticated bleeding-edge technology crammed into every system, and give our planes the most operational flexibility.".

 

Compare the A-10C and the Su-25. They both have similar battlefield roles.

 

Systemically the A-10C is way more sophisticated, and probably more flexible. Conversely it's more expensive ($US18M vs. $US11M), and more "fragile".

 

The Su-25 is not nearly as "mission flexible" (consider that the navigation WPs are all pre-programmed on the ground, and can't be changed in flight), but can effortlessly run out of broken, debris strewn airstrips, which would make an A-10C very unhappy. You can also blow out an engine, and belly land the Frogfoot, and have it combat ready inside a week.

 

Neither design philosophy is better than the other; they're just different. One approach maximizes quality and sophistication over numbers; one relies on rugged, lower tech, standardization of components, and weight of numbers.

 

---

 

The F-5, was designed as a smaller, lower cost, nimble, rugged (I've seen footage of the F-5 landing on grass strip runways), with parts and armaments which were designed to be simple to maintain, and were standardized with other existing weapons systems.

 

It's relative low cost, and ease of use, made it a natural for export; nations which didn't have the huge budgets of the U.S.A.F could afford to buy it, and run it - without having to build a large support infrastructure for it.

 

It's small, easy to run and maintain, and has "just enough" systems to get it's job done.

 

Which design philosophy does that sound like? :)

 

---

 

Note - I'm talking about the early variants of the F-5, mid-to-late 20th century.

 

The products of more modern upgrade programs - like the Brazilian FAB / Elbit Systems upgrade programs - may be a horse of different color, entirely.

[bernp]

I'm definitely interested in the F- 5e but holding off buying, since the trailer didn't tell me much about how this jet will be simulated. I'm hoping Wags will do a demo, like he did for the Gazelle and other modules, before the pre-sale is over. It's got to have something very special, since I own other modules that I still haven't gotten to. Also, I'll be buying the F14 for sure. So many fun modules, so little time to learn them all.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[King_Hrothgar]

I'm sure Wags will do a couple videos in the lead up to release. He's been doing those for all the recent modules.

[Hummingbird]

It's probably why it never caught on in the US Military (neither better, nor worse, just a really different "oddball" approach from the perspective of the rest of the armed forces - sort of the same way that some people hate the A-10).

 

 

I'd say it's more likely that it wasn't adopted by the US military exactly because it was a less capable design than any of the aircraft they already had in service or were about to get.

 

AFAIK it was meant primarily as an export from the beginning, or at least the F-5E was.

[Vedexent]

I'd say it's more likely that it wasn't adopted by the US military exactly because it was a less capable design than any of the aircraft they already had in service or were about to get.

 

Yes ... but kind of aside from the point.

 

The F-5 was supposed to be "less capable".

 

The two competing ideas were "5 super capable aircraft" vs. "10 aircraft that are capable enough - but not much more" - not 5 vs. 5.

 

I think you're right in that the institutional mindset of "bigger, faster, more sophisticated" is/was well entrenched in the U.S. military - so the "more capable" design is the one more likely to be chosen (and in this case was chosen), without considering the number side of the game.

 

Of course, it does not hurt in the slightest that U.S. Military budgets are so ample that "fewer" aircraft of more sophisticated design does not necessarily mean a small number of aircraft. The U.S. seems to be willing to spend to get both the capabilities and the numbers.

 

As for the F-5E - I think you're right; Northrop had switched focus to the export market by the time they reached the E variant.

[pepin1234]

I'm sure Wags will do a couple videos in the lead up to release. He's been doing those for all the recent modules.

 

This!

[Raven68]

I'm sure Wags will do a couple videos in the lead up to release. He's been doing those for all the recent modules.

This!

 

I'm sure there will be promos in the way of live stream in the near future. :)

 

Yooohooo Wags where are you????

[Kev2go]

Yes ... but kind of aside from the point.

 

The F-5 was supposed to be "less capable".

 

The two competing ideas were "5 super capable aircraft" vs. "10 aircraft that are capable enough - but not much more" - not 5 vs. 5.

 

I think you're right in that the institutional mindset of "bigger, faster, more sophisticated" is/was well entrenched in the U.S. military - so the "more capable" design is the one more likely to be chosen (and in this case was chosen), without considering the number side of the game.

 

Of course, it does not hurt in the slightest that U.S. Military budgets are so ample that "fewer" aircraft of more sophisticated design does not necessarily mean a small number of aircraft. The U.S. seems to be willing to spend to get both the capabilities and the numbers.

 

As for the F-5E - I think you're right; Northrop had switched focus to the export market by the time they reached the E variant.

 

 

funny enough the USAF mindset was changed partially thanks the fighter mafia.

 

Looking at the F16A in the late 70s. at the time it was a just a heatseaker platform meant for close in dogfighting , not as sophisticated as the air superiority F15A, more powerfull radar, and BVR capability

 

so reallisitcally the F5E would have been to the F4 phantom ( had it bee put into service) like the F16 was to the F15.

 

A cheaper plane meant to compliment the more more expensive & sophistcated but lesser produced plane.

[Hummingbird]

funny enough the USAF mindset was changed partially thanks the fighter mafia.

 

Looking at the F16A in the late 70s. at the time it was a just a heatseaker platform meant for close in dogfighting , not as sophisticated as the air superiority F15A, more powerfull radar, and BVR capability

 

so reallisitcally the F5E would have been to the F4 phantom ( had it bee put into service) like the F16 was to the F15.

 

A cheaper plane meant to compliment the more more expensive & sophistcated but lesser produced plane.

 

Well I guess the difference was that the F-16 was designed based directly Boyd's energy maneuverability concept, thus it was second to none in pretty much every performance parameter. By comparison the F-5 lacks behind the F-4 quite badly in two of the most important, speed & climb rate.

[Kev2go]

Well I guess the difference was that the F-16 was designed based directly Boyd's energy maneuverability concept, thus it was second to none in pretty much every performance parameter. By comparison the F-5 lacks behind the F-4 quite badly in two of the most important, speed & climb rate.

 

 

yes but F5E's capabilties its, easily enough to take on the most common threat at that time, the Mig21 series, which were not just soviet, but employed by Warsaw Pact nations, and many other places around the world.

 

 

soviets themselves were impressed with the F5E, when North vietnam handed a couple sent to USSR for evaluation.

 

 

F5's speed and climb is goodd enough for what it is.

 

 

the Mig21bis's tumansky engine was said to be close if not on par with the F16A engine. IN comparison F15A would also outclass f16 in acceleration, climb, and also in speed.

 

so if anything F16A may have as well been a more advanced 4th generation F5 , due to a similar role, and both being popular for exports due to the Price / performance ratio. F5.

 

 

SO F5 would have made a nice compliment for the F4 phantom, usefull to close the gap, and performing close in dogfights, and second as a lighter tactical fighter bomber. for bombing id consider the F5 better due to its maneuverability and ability to aproach in at a lower speed. without stalling out.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Kev2go

[Hummingbird]

The difference is that the F-16 could also operate as a fast interceptor because of its exceptional speed & rate of climb (together acceleration incarnate), two areas where it was very close to the F-15 (I actually think an F-16 climbs slightly faster) whilst at the same time being more agile.

 

By comparison the F-5 would've never worked in the interceptor role, it was simply too slow in climb & speed, also in comparison with the MiG-21, an aircraft it wouldn't have been able to head off.

[dartuil]

Stream about the tiger by WAGS.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Stream about the tiger by WAGS.

 

This one? haha

[dartuil]

Yep buddy!

[Raven68]

Stream about the tiger by WAGS.

 

Did not expect them this soon to be honest...

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Did not expect them this soon to be honest...

Same!

I hope to see more teasers about the F-5 in mid-june!

[mwd2]

Same!

I hope to see more teasers about the F-5 in mid-june!

 

He said (in the video), next video will be Navigation and Landing - after this AA weapons and the third video about AG weapon.

[MAD-MM]

On the F-5 Video Stream yesterday, the F-5 carry two different Rockets, right Wing seam's like normal AIM9, but what is that on the left?

Possible training Missile?

[Vitormouraa]

On the F-5 Video Stream yesterday, the F-5 carry two different Rockets, right Wing seam's like normal AIM9, but what is that on the left?

Possible training Missile?

 

That's the AN/ASQ-T50. Aircraft Instrumentation Pod, at the moment it does not do anything, It's just a 3D model.

[Lenux]

Is ( was ) F-5E better than F-15C , generally speaking ?

[Einherjer]

Define "better"

[Lenux]

Everything.

[Einherjer]

Yeah the F-5E is cheaper and was built in high numbers, and it's available in many countries! And it has a tailhook. but can't be refueled in air but is much smaller.

and it can do air to ground delivery!

That's quite good.

 

Oh and it's a whole generation older than the f-15... But it's clickable

 

But maybe the p-51 is even "better" because it was one of the most popular aircraft ever built...

 

So, in which way you want to know what's better?

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Is ( was ) F-5E better than F-15C , generally speaking ?

It never was, dude!

[Custard]

Everything.

Well, aside from its impressive turning performance... no.

If you want a plane to take on the Su-27 & Mig-29 this isn't it. However if you want to fight the MiG-21 and other legacy 3rd gen aircraft then it'll do just fine.