The F-5 needs an upgrade IMO

[Frostie]

I'm not claiming it's a new argument, but it is different than the A-10 one he kept trying to insist on.

 

I think the point was, while guys ask for less weapons to promote realism, here we have asking for more weapons with realism taking an afterthought.

[Silver_Dragon]

I'm not claiming it's a new argument, but it is different than the A-10 one he kept trying to insist on.

 

The A-10C superior Block suite, weapons and system upgrade "claim" has actually "locked" by contract..... if you like a more advanced aircraft need enter on the tumultuous scenery of broken a military contract and extend renegotiation with aircraft builder / USAF / ANG to get that "secret" clearance to a entertainment module. Very similar to VEAO Eurofighter Trench Ib vs more advanced Trench, system and weapon capabilities, locked by contract.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Silver_Dragon

[Tirak]

I think the point was, while guys ask for less weapons to promote realism, here we have asking for more weapons with realism taking an afterthought.

 

But it's a false point. The guys asking for less weapons were arguing in favor of doctrinal realism. The A-10C as modeled in game, the variant we actually have is capable of mounting and using 6 maverick missiles, but due to doctrinal reasons, real world pilots do not.

 

The F-5E-3 as modeled in game, cannot use more than 2 sidewinders. Not because of a maintenance decision, not because of standard practices, but because it cannot physically mount them and use them. Requests to either give it a capability it does not have or to upgrade to a different module is a completely different argument, than that of the A-10.

[cichlidfan]

The basic problem is that it would be financially unsound to build a slightly different version of the same aircraft, at this point in time.

 

The number of people who would buy both is very, very small making the return on investment, most likely, too small to recover the development costs.

[Exorcet]

this is where Flight/Wingman tactics come in..

Very true, you're limited to only two missiles if you have just one plane.

 

Lack of ammunition also leaves you far from useless when working with other aircraft. Really, no matter how many missiles you have, shooting should take a tiny minority of your time. Even the Su-33 can empty all 14 missiles in seconds.

 

The interesting thing about air combat is how it develops in my opinion. For that, the F-5 is as interesting as any other fighter. The one thing that I think may be lacking here is support assets. These small fighters rely more on external radar guidance than the newer, larger planes. DCS right now is really lacking in this area. There is AWACS, but it's not very competent or helpful.

[lunaticfringe]

...you suddenly find yourself not being very useful' date=' you're a spectator/target.[/quote']

 

And that's what literally happens with F-5s IRL.

 

It is the nature of the type. Complaining about the fact that a short-range lightweight day fighter with limited stores capability to make it cost effective for export-restricted nations shares these traits in a simulation is nothing more than tilting at windmills.

[outlawal2]

18 pages on this oft-repeated topic? Seriously? We have now crossed into the land of TROLLING as the reasons have been stated repeatedly. AGAIN

 

The plane and revision was selected by the DEV for some very specific reasons that we are not aware of. TRUST ME when I say they don't arbitrarily select a version as they have been berated with these kinds of threads repeatedly.. They have their reasons and it is often legalities or access to a specific airframe that may be the decisive factor..

 

As for trainers and the statement that they should never have been made.. That is your OPINION nothing more.. Don't give it more credence than it deserves as your opinion is no more important than any one else's here..

 

It always kills me when people say a particular plane is of little value in a particular form even though THOUSANDS of them were produced and used successfully.. They may be of little value to YOU and how you would use them, but once again this is more a function of you rather than viability of the plane..

 

If you don't like the model provided then by all means don't buy it..

[ST0RM]

Yes there are actually people that are flying A-10 with max 4 Mav while 6 can be loaded in DCS due to the fact that in reality the inner missiles would burn the tires.

 

I fly like that. Max 2 per LAU, or more often, single Mav per rail with a good CAS mix.

[Frostie]

Requests to either give it a capability it does not have or to upgrade to a different module is a completely different argument, than that of the A-10.

 

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, the point was not comparing what modules can and can't do and nothing to do with the 'I want to keep 6 mavs' party.

 

The point was on the polar opposite of peoples requests, one wanting more added, change for their own benefit where others wanted more taken away, change to represent realism.

[Tirak]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, the point was not comparing what modules can and can't do and nothing to do with the 'I want to keep 6 mavs' party.

 

The point was on the polar opposite of peoples requests, one wanting more added, change for their own benefit where others wanted more taken away, change to represent realism.

 

But a A-10C with 6 mavericks is completely realistic. The aircraft can mount them. It requires no additional changes, programming or modification. The F-5E would require rewiring to allow for additional sidewinders on the wings. The A-10 argument is about a doctrine, the F-5 is about physical reality. These are not comparable arguments to make, period.

[Frostie]

But a A-10C with 6 mavericks is completely realistic. The aircraft can mount them. It requires no additional changes, programming or modification. The F-5E would require rewiring to allow for additional sidewinders on the wings. The A-10 argument is about a doctrine, the F-5 is about physical reality. These are not comparable arguments to make, period.

 

There is no argument, like the guy told you, forget the secondaries such as which module, what weapons etc. and focus on the different approach to requests made by the two parties, I see why he gave up trying to explain it to you.

 

It is not about comparing module realism it is about peoples attitudes.

[Capn kamikaze]

You're trying to draw parallels between the old A-10C loadout arguments, and this argument. They cannot be compared as they advocate for very different things. This argument being had has to do with modifying an aircraft, either to have unrealistic capabilities, or to present a different version all together.

 

The arguments about the A-10 are about doctrinal decisions, not physical limitations. They cannot be compared.

 

NO, it is not about modifying an existing aircraft to make it unrealistic, or changing it into another version it is about ADDING an additional version.

 

What is so difficult to understand about that significant difference?

[Capn kamikaze]

I think the point was, while guys ask for less weapons to promote realism, here we have asking for more weapons with realism taking an afterthought.

 

Realism is not taking an afterthought if there are versions of the aircraft that can carry more weapons.

 

Unrealistic would be a Spitfire with AIM-9's, a version of the F-5 with more than two missiles is not unrealistic.... it is simply another version.

[Frostie]

Realism is not taking an afterthought if there are versions of the aircraft that can carry more weapons.

 

Unrealistic would be a Spitfire with AIM-9's, a version of the F-5 with more than two missiles is not unrealistic.... it is simply another version.

 

Yes sure but the basis of your request was to make you more effective in mp, how can I make this better but not unrealistic, by calling a kitten a tiger that's how. :)

[Kev2go]

And that's what literally happens with F-5s IRL.

 

It is the nature of the type. Complaining about the fact that a short-range lightweight day fighter with limited stores capability to make it cost effective for export-restricted nations shares these traits in a simulation is nothing more than tilting at windmills.

 

its got a radar + rwr, it can detect aircraft out of visual range, during night, or in worse weather conditions, whereas a true day jet fighter would be something along the lines of F86F or Mig15bis having to acquire all targets visually in such conditions which would be nigh impossible without any assistance from a GCI, all the way until a visual contact.

 

 

the all weather fighter is a pretty subjective term, as now F5 is entirely obsolete, but for its day it would have been capable of doing so, even if it was economical plane, nor the most sophisticated on the market.

 

Anyways as far as effectivness goes its good enough of a cost effective fighter to exceed the capabilties of earlier pre 3rd generation Mig21s, which would have been equally abundant for export for equally poor neighbors and still be capable enough to engage the later BIS model of the Mig21. So i agree it fits just fine in DCS, specially as a "agressor aircraft" for training.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Kev2go

[zcrazyx]

Okay this is getting out of hand, BST have said that should anyone come up with documentation for the AGM-65 for example then they will look into it, yes it would be a different aircraft to the current F-5 we have however it means they are at least willing to add things and are in fact listening, BST will choose what they wish to model based on legally available documents lets just leave it at that.

 

I request that this thread be locked.