DCS: F-5E!

[Kroll]

This may have been pointed out. Here's the sound track for the F-5 Sounds like Top Gun.

 

https://soundcloud.com/tags/btd

[OutOnTheOP]

Bis is beyond Vietnam era itself, infact service entry date of MiG-21Bis and F-5E is pretty close I guess. Also, R-60M for example, didn't exist in 1972 when Bis first entered service but it was later incorporated on it.

 

Therefore, I think F-5E should ideally have an arsenal starting from AIM-9J, including AIM-9P and AIM-9L & finally M. We already have P & M in sim. It is ok if it can only equip Sidewinders on wingtips, 2 Lima or Mikes are still plenty of air to air firepower against older aircraft. Maverick would be cool but I wouldn't feel too bad if chosen version won't have any mavericks. It looks like F-5 will have GBU-12 option, as well as a surprisingly sizable amount of bombs / rockets, therefore it wouldn't be out of options for air to ground at all.

 

Thinking of a possible multiplayer scenario. BLUE side have a limited number of A-10C to act as forward air controllers / target designators with their TGP. F-5E will be tossing GBUs at supersonic speeds and A-10s lasing them from a standoff position. RED side in turn, are defending against these strikes and trying to intercept and fight A-10C and F-5Es in their MiG-21Bis, while also trying to do some damage on BLUE ground targets. Could be a fun PvP event right? :). Especially with limited aircraft / weaponry available.

 

Sadly, it looks like they're modelling the bog-standard, earliest model F-5E, and only with stores approved by the USAF. ...Assuming that the loadout on the AI F-5E in-game now is an accurate reflection, and I see no reason to believe otherwise. This is very unfortunate, because the USAF never adopted the aircraft, and therefore had essentially zero motivation to expand the carriage clearances or authorized munitions beyond what was carried by the F-5A in the Vietnam "Skoshi Tiger" tests. So we're stuck with only the ordnance outlined in TO 1F-5E-34-1-1 (can be found at http://www.avialogs.com/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 Stores configurations on page 31)

 

To my understanding, the outboard wing pylons have the appropriate wiring and plumbing for Maverick or Sidewinder, but USAF never bothered to clear them. Certainly many other F-5E carry Sidewinder on the outboard wing pylons; it takes all of 2 minutes to find photos of it on Google. It's also quite easy to find examples of MERs with Mk81 and Mk82 under pylons 3&5, which is also not reflected in the TO or in the current AI F-5E. Interestingly, there are no TER or MER configurations whatsoever shown in that TO, so it's obvious that the TO is incomplete.

[Kev2go]

Sadly, it looks like they're modelling the bog-standard, earliest model F-5E, and only with stores approved by the USAF. ...Assuming that the loadout on the AI F-5E in-game now is an accurate reflection, and I see no reason to believe otherwise. This is very unfortunate, because the USAF never adopted the aircraft, and therefore had essentially zero motivation to expand the carriage clearances or authorized munitions beyond what was carried by the F-5A in the Vietnam "Skoshi Tiger" tests. So we're stuck with only the ordnance outlined in TO 1F-5E-34-1-1 (can be found at http://www.avialogs.com/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 Stores configurations on page 31)

 

To my understanding, the outboard wing pylons have the appropriate wiring and plumbing for Maverick or Sidewinder, but USAF never bothered to clear them. Certainly many other F-5E carry Sidewinder on the outboard wing pylons; it takes all of 2 minutes to find photos of it on Google. It's also quite easy to find examples of MERs with Mk81 and Mk82 under pylons 3&5, which is also not reflected in the TO or in the current AI F-5E. Interestingly, there are no TER or MER configurations whatsoever shown in that TO, so it's obvious that the TO is incomplete.

 

 

How could you come to that conclusion, when Belsimtek never specified what sub variant/block number they are working on?

 

I would find it unlikely that a plane with 3rd generation tech comparable to a mig21bis wouldn't be cleared when you have full fidelity 4th generation jet fighters being made like the m2000c and the f18c, which have much more advanced avoinics.

 

Also when the F5E top speed is only mach 1.6

 

 

.

 

Never statedi thought r60m was = aim9m, only that similar service dates.

 

In that case i would consider R60m is close in counterpart to the Aim9P? It's not a full aspect missile & it predated the Aim9L/M.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Kev2go

[OutOnTheOP]

How could you come to that conclusion, when Belsimtek never specified what sub variant/block number they are working on?

 

I would find it unlikely that a plane with 3rd generation tech comparable to a mig21bis wouldn't be cleared when you have full fidelity 4th generation jet fighters being made like the m2000c and the f18c, which have much more advanced avoinics.

 

You need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that Belsimtek wouldn't be cleared to make the simulation (in fact, I'm quite sure they HAVE been), I said that the USAF variants of the F-5E, in real life, didn't get cleared to operate very many weapons loadouts, because the USAF never intended to use them for actual wartime operations.

 

As to why I think that's the version we're getting; well, as pointed out earlier, the new AI F-5E is a lot of effort to go through just to make an updated AI model, and to make whole new weapons and loadouts *right* before the playable module would be a lot of duplicated effort. Of course, it is entirely possible that they only included the *simple* new weapons, and that the more complicated new ones (like Bullpup) are still in-progress. However, it takes no more effort to implement 4 sidewinders than it does to implement 2, so that heavily implies the two-sidewinder variants... which means almost certainly the USAF super-basic capabilities version.

[ФрогФут]

To my understanding, the outboard wing pylons have the appropriate wiring and plumbing for Maverick or Sidewinder, but USAF never bothered to clear them.

In order to operate Maverick, you need to have radar version with specific screen in cockpit, which allows you TV image.

[Kev2go]

You need to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say that Belsimtek wouldn't be cleared to make the simulation (in fact, I'm quite sure they HAVE been), I said that the USAF variants of the F-5E, in real life, didn't get cleared to operate very many weapons loadouts, because the USAF never intended to use them for actual wartime operations.

 

As to why I think that's the version we're getting; well, as pointed out earlier, the new AI F-5E is a lot of effort to go through just to make an updated AI model, and to make whole new weapons and loadouts *right* before the playable module would be a lot of duplicated effort. Of course, it is entirely possible that they only included the *simple* new weapons, and that the more complicated new ones (like Bullpup) are still in-progress. However, it takes no more effort to implement 4 sidewinders than it does to implement 2, so that heavily implies the two-sidewinder variants... which means almost certainly the USAF super-basic capabilities version.

 

Ah sorry for the misunderstanding. But the super basic version doesn't have rwr. Rwr is a must. Even the mig21bis has one. Not being able to realize your being locked by a aircraft's radar or by a Sam is a significant disadvantage. It's needed for balance.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Kev2go

[pepin1234]

the question is. The units deployed in Vietnam had RWR??

 

if yes, the RWR is welcome.

 

if not, better leave with non RWR for a better Vietnam simulation.

 

but at this point I still don't know if the Vietnamese Mig-21 version had RWR, good point...

Edited November 5, 2015 by pepin1234

[King_Hrothgar]

Neither aircraft served in the Vietnam war. The F-5A and C were used there, not the E. Additionally, the MiG-21PFM was the most modern aircraft used by the north. It predates the Bis by about a decade and is far less capable.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Neither aircraft served in the Vietnam war. The F-5A and C were used there, not the E. Additionally, the MiG-21PFM was the most modern aircraft used by the north. It predates the Bis by about a decade and is far less capable.

 

Actually, a number of E models were in South Vietnamese service and, after the fall of Saigon, one ended up in Soviet hands.

[King_Hrothgar]

I thought that was an A. Either way, the MiG-21Bis definitely wasn't there. But it did fight F-5E's in the skies over Iran/Iraq in the 1980's along with the SA-342 Gazelle, MiG-29A and Su-25A. I'd much rather see one of those F-5E's represented. :)

Edited November 5, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I thought that was an A. Either way, the MiG-21Bis definitely wasn't there. But it did fight F-5E's in the skies over Iran/Iraq in the 1980's along with the SA-342 Gazelle, MiG-29A and Su-25A. I'd much rather see one of those F-5E's represented. :)

 

Yeah, there weren't any bis model Fishbeds, but a few Tiger IIs were present. IIRC, the bis didn't even enter into line units in the VVS until about '76-'77.

[pepin1234]

Make a Mig-21PFM should be relatively easy taking the Mig-21Bis. I will pay a PFM version as a new module for my collection, as well a F-5E or the rest of Vietnam war birds

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Make a Mig-21PFM should be relatively easy taking the Mig-21Bis. I will pay a PFM version as a new module for my collection, as well a F-5E or the rest of Vietnam war birds

 

There's actually a great degree of change between MiG-21s in terms of their performance, especially in terms of CG. It may not be as easy as just reducing thrust performance.

[WinterH]

Well, F-5 of any version was a rarity in Vietnam unless I'm mistaken. Even if not, it would be F-5A that was more relevant.

 

F-5E vs MiG-21Bis is pretty darn good to have, it does not need to be related to Vietnam War to create a good match-up.

[Dudikoff]

Neither aircraft served in the Vietnam war. The F-5A and C were used there, not the E. Additionally, the MiG-21PFM was the most modern aircraft used by the north. It predates the Bis by about a decade and is far less capable.

 

PFM? AFAIK they had some MF's (which are much closer to the bis) later on or I'm missing the context?

[pepin1234]

There's actually a great degree of change between MiG-21s in terms of their performance, especially in terms of CG. It may not be as easy as just reducing thrust performance.

 

Not sure about that. Probably the PFM have better maneuverability than the Bis version. The 7th extra internal fuel tank added to the MF/Bis was a new challenge for the engineers because the weigh.

Edited November 5, 2015 by pepin1234

[Kev2go]

Well, F-5 of any version was a rarity in Vietnam unless I'm mistaken. Even if not, it would be F-5A that was more relevant.

 

F-5E vs MiG-21Bis is pretty darn good to have, it does not need to be related to Vietnam War to create a good match-up.

 

Agreed

 

yeah it doesnt have to be vietnam related, especially when both mig21bis and F5E were widely exported, and the F5E was more prominently used after the Vietnam war.

 

 

same with belsimitks F86F sabre. even though most people associate it with Korea, & its primary adversay the mig15, the F86F they designed was post korean type (block 35) with LABS system as well as Retrofitted avonic to arm heatseakers, latter which did not start appearing until circa 1956 and beyond.

 

 

 

So yeah no reason to limit tech for F5E and force to vietnam era standards ( when it went into service circa 1972-73), when the idea is to have a closely matched aircraft in avionics/ capabilities to the mig21bis, which was the last pproduction of the mig21, and did not serve in vietnam

 

if a person really wants to have a vietnam war scenario they could just limit Missile or ordinace based on the time period.

 

Like already stated US never used the F5E outside of Aggressor unit function.

 

the F5E did not see any meaningful service by the South Vietnamese.

 

If any F5 variant that could be a considered a true vietnam bird would be the F5A which was exported in larger numbers or the F5C skoshi tigers which americans sent for combat evluation.

 

Sorry but if you want a true vietnam era bird, with plenty of combat service by the USAF you have to wait for an F4 Phantom( preferably the E model) . But even that aircraft still served post vietnam with USAF front line service until the F15/ F16s started showning up in Numbers.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Kev2go

[ФрогФут]

Rwr is a must.

RWR is planned.

[howie87]

I'd love to see functional air-to-air Tacan like in the A-10C. Not sure if the F-5E was capable of this though.

[cofcorpse]

Don't know about TACAN, but ADF with bearing to ground and airborne stations should be there

 

Upd: Yes, And TACAN also. Just like A-10, I think

Edited November 5, 2015 by cofcorpse

[Paganus]

RWR is planned.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

Well that settles that question.

[dartuil]

the question is. The units deployed in Vietnam had RWR??

 

if yes, the RWR is welcome.

 

if not, better leave with non RWR for a better Vietnam simulation.

 

but at this point I still don't know if the Vietnamese Mig-21 version had RWR, good point...

 

All I care is to have the most posisible capable F-5E.

I hope BST will not make the last variant possible.

[Stratos]

RWR is planned.

 

Thanks for the info!

[Kev2go]

RWR is planned.

 

Thanks that's good to know

[pepin1234]

RWR is planned.

 

Is better. The F-4, F-105 and A-7 had RWR, so is better the F-5 have it too