Weapons regarding F5E Tiger II

[Kev2go]

Yes the r60m isnt a all aspect missile, have never gotten any locks from the front nor ever pulled off a head on kill. So Limited all aspect is fair label.

 

Can get locks form wider angles, yes, sides, under, and sometimes from the top, but not the Front.

 

The aim9P ( p3) is in essence a limited all aspect IR missile similar in performance, and arguably a counterpart to the R60M, though i do agree due to the F5s limited missile capacity it ought to get a Aim9P4 or P5 all aspect convert.

 

ultimately the best firing solution even for a true all aspect IR like the aim9M or R73 is directly on the six where the most heat is emitted from the engines.

[Schmidtfire]

Never from the front? Flying Mig29 or Su25? It is all-aspect when flying FC3 modules. Using the MiG21bis is a different story, its only rear and maybe sides. LN had their own R60M with all-aspect cabability, but It was removed.

However, seems like we're drifting off topic a little bit here...

Edited June 10, 2016 by Schmidtfire

[Kev2go]

Never from the front? Flying Mig29 or Su25? It is all-aspect when flying FC3 modules. Using the MiG21bis is a different story, its only rear and maybe sides. LN had their own R60M with all-aspect cabability, but It was removed.

However, seems like we're drifting off topic a little bit here...

 

 

i dunno maybe the mig21 has a earlier block of the R60M?

 

i dont know why the R60M on the mig21bis wouldn't have frontal lock capability but the R60M would on the FC3 modules.

 

I wouldnt know because i never bothered with R60m When you had the R73 option.

[TomCatMucDe]

i dunno maybe the mig21 has a earlier block of the R60M?

 

 

 

i dont know why the R60M on the mig21bis wouldn't have frontal lock capability but the R60M would on the FC3 modules.

 

 

 

I wouldnt know because i never bothered with R60m When you had the R73 option.

 

 

 

LNS will update the R60M to all aspect in the next update

[Kev2go]

LNS will update the R60M to all aspect in the next update

 

 

so will old non M r60 get better performance of current r60m?

 

 

well either way, you cant call it limited all aspect if you can still pull off a frontal lock and successful hit.

 

 

I think this that settles it. if Mig21bis gets an all aspect r60m, then F5E tgier 2 will 100% needs to get a aim9p4 somewhere down the line after its release.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Kev2go

[LegoHeli]

With all due respect.

 

This is not Battlefield. This is not Ace Combat.

 

The planes are not supposed to be balanced well and fairly against one another. They're supposed to be simulations. And for once a soviet plane is going to have advantages in weaponry over and American one, and everyone is arguing about AMRAAMs, better AIM-9s and so forth.

[mattebubben]

With all due respect.

 

This is not Battlefield. This is not Ace Combat.

 

The planes are not supposed to be balanced well and fairly against one another. They're supposed to be simulations. And for once a soviet plane is going to have advantages in weaponry over and American one, and everyone is arguing about AMRAAMs, better AIM-9s and so forth.

 

Yes but its one thing when it comes to weapons an aircraft should not have (based on setup timeframe etc)

 

But thats not the fact here.

 

We are getting a Later F-5E with the APQ-159 radar and the more modern RWR.

 

So by that point the Aim-9P4 was already in service.

 

Most likely any nation buying that tier of F-5E would get the Aim-9P4 missile for it as if they spend the extra money on getting the most capable F-5E possible they would not pick the inferior missiles.

 

Sure if we had a early 1970s F-5E being modeled then i would be OK with no Aim-9P4.

 

But this is a Late 70s early 1980s F-5E.

 

So the Aim-9P4 should very much be a part of its arsenal (and most if not all F-5E users that operate aircraft equipped with the APQ-159 radar use the All aspect Aim-9P4 or Aim-9P5 variant)

 

So in this case it would actually be un-realistic to limit this aircraft to only the Rear Aspect Aim-9P3.

(It should have both and not be limited to only one of them)

 

It would be like making a Mig-29 but not giving it the R-73 and limiting it to R-60s...

Edited June 11, 2016 by mattebubben

[ViFF]

Which AIM-9P do we have in DCS? is it the 3 or 4?

[WinterH]

If it was 4, we wouldn't be having this discussion :).

 

We have the rear aspect only version in DCS currently.

[mattebubben]

Which AIM-9P do we have in DCS? is it the 3 or 4?

 

The visual model is based of the Aim-9P3.

 

But we dont really know if everything else is also based of the Aim-9P3 or the P1 or P2 variants.

 

(all Rear aspect variants)

 

But my guess would be the P3 as i think its the most common of the rear aspect variants.

 

The all aspect variants are the P4 and P5.

Edited June 11, 2016 by mattebubben

[Jugdriver]

Yes the r60m isnt a all aspect missile, have never gotten any locks from the front nor ever pulled off a head on kill. So Limited all aspect is fair label.

 

 

I have been killed by folks flying Mig 21's firing R60 M's from the front multiple times back when the Mig 21 vs Mirage servers were popular (when the Mirage was new). One of the guys even commented that he was surprised he was able to lock and hit me with it, I am not sure if LN toned it down since but they certainly have good performance for a "limited aspect" missile.

 

I am feeling pretty confident we are going to see an all aspect AIM 9P4 as Mattebubben mentioned it fits for the time frame of the Tiger II.

 

JD

 

AKA_MattE

[Bersagliere81]

The following armament is planned to be available for the player:

1. Two 20-mm caliber M-39A3 cannons with rate of fire of 1500-1700 rounds per minute and ammunition of 280 rounds per gun;

2. Two heat-seeking missiles (AIM-9B or AIM-9P) (currently we are considering these versions);

3. Unguided bombs:

· 5x Mk-82

· 3x Mk-83

· 1x Mk-84

· 5x Mk-82 Snakeye

· 5x M-117

· MER-5 5x Mk-82

· MER-5 5x Mk-82 Snakeye;

4. Cluster bombs:

· 5хCBU-52B;

5. Guided bombs:

· 4x GBU-12 (buddy lasing or ground laser designator);

6. Unguided rockets:

· 4x LAU-61 (x19) (LAU-3 or LAU-60 could be added later)

· 4x LAU-68 (x7);

7. Flare dispenser:

· SUU-25C.

 

 

 

 

 

The teaser video shows the F-5 dropping at least 7 Snakeye.

I am not trying to be fanatic, but I was wondering if it could carry triple ejection racks for mk82

Edited June 16, 2016 by Bersagliere81

[Custard]

· MER-5 5x Mk-82

· MER-5 5x Mk-82 Snakeye;

 

The teaser video shows the F-5 dropping at least 7 Snakeye.

I am not trying to be fanatic, but I was wondering if it could carry triple ejection racks for mk82

 

It has MERs

[WinterH]

No TERs, only a MER on centerline, but that one can carry 5 pieces of Mk82 (either normal low drag or snake eye high drag type). So with 4 bombs under wings and 5 under centreline you can carry 9 bombs, which is not bad at all especially seeing how tiny the F-5 is. On top of that you can still carry 2 Sidewinders alongside.

 

Compared to it's primary rival in DCS, the MiG-21Bis, even though it is bigger and has significantly more engine power, it can carry a maximum of 8 x FAB-100 and 2 x FAB-250, or 2 x FAB-500 and 2 x FAB-250. Also, with these bomb loads, there will be no pylons left for an air to air missile. 9 x Mk 82 means more warhead weight than 8 FAB-100 and 2 FAB-250 combined, as a Mk-82 is close to FAB 250.

[mattebubben]

Well not sure a about the triple ejection racks.

 

But we do have the 5x Multiple Ejector Rack for the Center pylon.

 

so with the Multiple Ejector Rack on the centerpylon that makes for atleast 9 MK 82s (Snakeeyes or otherwise).

 

But that list is also old so there will hopefully be some additions to it.

(i especially hope for the additions to Zuni Rockets)

 

And also id say if the Wing pylons are incapable of using 3x MERs then seeing as one of the wing pylons should be MK-83 capable id probably go with 7 MK82 and 2x Mk-83 or 5x Mk 82 on the centerline 2x Mk83 on the wings and 2x rocket pods.

 

But either way this beauty should have a pretty decent Air-Ground Load.

 

its only a matter of training enough to where you are competent with hitting with them.

Edited June 16, 2016 by mattebubben

[Bersagliere81]

Pardon I had no idea what MER meant :D Actually not even TER

[Tirak]

No TERs, only a MER on centerline, but that one can carry 5 pieces of Mk82 (either normal low drag or snake eye high drag type). So with 4 bombs under wings and 5 under centreline you can carry 9 bombs, which is not bad at all especially seeing how tiny the F-5 is. On top of that you can still carry 2 Sidewinders alongside.

 

Compared to it's primary rival in DCS, the MiG-21Bis, even though it is bigger and has significantly more engine power, it can carry a maximum of 8 x FAB-100 and 2 x FAB-250, or 2 x FAB-500 and 2 x FAB-250. Also, with these bomb loads, there will be no pylons left for an air to air missile. 9 x Mk 82 means more warhead weight than 8 FAB-100 and 2 FAB-250 combined, as a Mk-82 is close to FAB 250.

 

You missed 8 x FAB-100 and 4x R60M :music_whistling:

[Cool Breeze]

Pardon I had no idea what MER meant :D Actually not even TER

MER- multiple ejector/ejection rack

TER- triple ejector/ejection rack

[WinterH]

You missed 8 x FAB-100 and 4x R60M :music_whistling:

 

Well yeah that's an option :D but 8 FAB-100 is more or less same with 2 x cluster bombs :D.

[Kev2go]

You missed 8 x FAB-100 and 4x R60M :music_whistling:

 

100 kg are pretty light so :music_whistling:

 

100KG = aprox 220 pounds.

 

so x8 100 KG bombs < x5 500 lbs mk 82/ mk82 snakeeye.

 

 

8 x 220 lbs = 1760 lbs total for the Mig21.

 

5 x 500 lbs = 2500lbs total for the F5E .

 

 

but thats just the mer, under the fuselage. you can add another 4 bombs per each underwing pylon, so that would total to 9 bombs. Furthermore, the F5 also has 750 lbs m117 bombs.

 

 

 

 

 

so nope

 

F5E still out carries the MIG in the ATG Ordinance Dept. Even if you got rid of the r60s, to make more room for a pair of extra bombs.:smartass:

Edited June 17, 2016 by Kev2go

[bC3660]

I thought a MER could take 6x500lbs MK-82

[Tirak]

I thought a MER could take 6x500lbs MK-82

 

When mounted on an F-5 it can't because of spacing, the bottom bomb of the rear set doesn't give enough clearance.

[Ramsay]

I thought a MER could take 6x500lbs MK-82

The MER-5E multiple ejector rack (MER) is capable of carrying five MK-82 LD or MK—82 Snakeye I bombs.

 

T.O. 1F-5E(II)-34-1-1, Change 2, 1st June 1977

MULTIPLE EJECTOR RACK, MER-5E

 

The MER-5E multiple ejector rack (MER) (figure 1-2) is carried on the centreline pylon and capable of carrying five MK-82 LD or MK—82 Snakeye I bombs.

 

The MER consists of an adapter assembly with 30-inch suspension lugs, a control panel on aft end of assembly, and five individual ejector racks: a cluster of three racks forward and two racks aft.

 

Each ejector rack contains 14—inch spaced hooks, swaybraces, arming solenoids for nose and tail fuzing, sensing switch, electrical timer for release sequencing, and an electrically activated gas ejector system utilizing one ARD 863-1 impulse cartridge.

 

Safety devices consist of an electrical safety pin inserted in the control panel to open the electrical circuits to each cartridge breech and a safety lever on aft end of each ejector rack to mechanically lock the hooks in the closed position.

 

Refer to figure 1-2 for location and function of MER controls and light.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Ramsay
Add MER-5E diagram

[Tirak]

[Darkbrotherhood7]

 

Wow, that's impressive!