VZ_342 Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 *holds pylon like it’s a bowl* According to the (actual) Wikipedia article, the F-5 can carry up to 4 missiles: Armament Guns: 2× 20 mm (0.787 in) M39A2 Revolver cannons in the nose, 280 rounds/gun Hardpoints: 7 total (only pylon stations 3, 4 and 5 are wet-plumbed): 2× wing-tip AAM launch rails, 4× under-wing & 1× under-fuselage pylon stations with a capacity of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of: Rockets: 2× LAU-61/LAU-68 rocket pods (each with 19× /7× Hydra 70 mm rockets, respectively); or 2× LAU-5003 rocket pods (each with 19× CRV7 70 mm rockets); or 2× LAU-10 rocket pods (each with 4× Zuni 127 mm rockets); or 2× Matra rocket pods (each with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets) Missiles: 4× AIM-9 Sidewinders or 4× AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile 2× AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles AA-8 Aphid, AA-10 Alamo, AA-11 Archer and other Russian/Chinese AAMs (Iranian ver.) It’d really improve the F-5 in AA. And, I’m sure it would be easy™ to do. :smilewink: Please, and thank you.
razo+r Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 Easy to do, yes. Realistic with our model, probably not. 1
Lithion Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 *holds pylon like it’s a bowl* According to the (actual) article wikipedia... Let me stop you there, wikipedia is utter shite in these scenario's. The summarising specifications are usually a mix and mash of whatever the previous models are capable of. If you carefully read the page, you'll see only Singaporean F-5E Tiger III's get a different X-band radar for firing the AMRAAM. If you follow our version, F-5E Tiger II: Single-seat fighter version with AN/APQ-159 replacing earlier AN/APQ-153 in F-5A. If you follow up on that radar, it'll state: The radar offered no air-to-ground modes at all, nor was it capable of firing the AIM-7 Sparrow in spite of its BVR-capable range. If it's not able to fire sparrows, don't count on it guiding AMRAAMs. T.16000m HOTAS + Pedals || TrackIR5 || Win10 64bit || 120+500GB SSD, 1TB HDD || i5 4440 @3.3GHz || 16GB RAM @ 1600MHz || GTX1070 G1 || FCIII, L39ZA, AJS-37, Normandy '44, Persian Gulf, Channel F/A-18C, Bf-109 K-4, WW2 Asset Pack, CA, P-47, F-16
Ala13_ManOWar Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 Those 4 missiles are obviously in a modern overhauled version, not the stock F-5E, so there's no point in trying to show that as a proof of anything. S! "I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice
Tiger-II Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 The (DCS) F-5E can carry 4x AIM-9 now??? The only thing she can't carry are AIM-120. Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."
VZ_342 Posted December 22, 2018 Author Posted December 22, 2018 So ya’all are saying even though the F-5 can carry 500 lbs bombs on the wing pylons, the USAF never thought of hanging 115 lbs AIM-9 missile on it? Imho, it’s pretty foolish to dismiss Wikipedia “just because it’s Wikipedia.” Feel free to come up with legit counter-sources. For myself, I’m going to be buying the -1 flight manual to check out weapons loads re: AIM-9. I’m not seriously discussing the Sparrow or the AMRAAMs.
Lithion Posted December 22, 2018 Posted December 22, 2018 So ya’all are saying even though the F-5 can carry 500 lbs bombs on the wing pylons, the USAF never thought of hanging 115 lbs AIM-9 missile on it? Imho, it’s pretty foolish to dismiss Wikipedia “just because it’s Wikipedia.” Feel free to come up with legit counter-sources. For myself, I’m going to be buying the -1 flight manual to check out weapons loads re: AIM-9. I’m not seriously discussing the Sparrow or the AMRAAMs. I'm not dismissing wiki, just the mere copy/pasting it as facts in these threads. As you could see I used wikipedia to explain to you why the request was based on erronous data. T.16000m HOTAS + Pedals || TrackIR5 || Win10 64bit || 120+500GB SSD, 1TB HDD || i5 4440 @3.3GHz || 16GB RAM @ 1600MHz || GTX1070 G1 || FCIII, L39ZA, AJS-37, Normandy '44, Persian Gulf, Channel F/A-18C, Bf-109 K-4, WW2 Asset Pack, CA, P-47, F-16
VZ_342 Posted December 22, 2018 Author Posted December 22, 2018 Well, a quick Google produced the manufacturer of missile-hanging technology, and they say the F5 is only certified for two AIM 9s. So I reluctantly withdraw my request. ...furiously writing a letter to Santa....
Lucas_From_Hell Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 For what it's worth a few operators have used an adaptor to hang Python 3 (and MAA-1, in Brazil's case) missiles on the outboard underwing pylons without major changes, but none of those were done on the exact F-5E batch we have.
CybrSlydr Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 The OP's post is why, despite my love of the design and look of the plane, I wish they'd gone with the F-20 Tigershark instead. Much more capability as well as more modern avionics.
Mars Exulte Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 Except the F-20 was a deadend prototype. There were upgraded F-5 versions that could use a variety of weapons, just not the one we have :p Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти. 5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2
Kev2go Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 Except the F-20 was a deadend prototype. There were upgraded F-5 versions that could use a variety of weapons, just not the one we have :p so what if it was? at least it actually existed in the F20A combat demonstrator variations, and would have bee ready to go into production in that configuration https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136404 should a 3rd party want to F20 tigershark would be a very viable module especially compared to that. Build: Windows 10 64 bit Pro Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, WD 1TB HDD
jamie_c Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 For any future queries on this subject, this is all boom boom stores the F-5E3 could carry. 2
tom_19d Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 For any future queries on this subject.... Are you sure that is where you want to stop all debate? I like my GBU-12s in team play, I would hate for ED to take them away:). In all seriousness a comprehensive and appropriate list is easily available for the finding, it just runs afoul of rule 1.16 to post a snap. (And sadly it will still show only 2 sidewinders allowed). Multiplayer as Variable Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”
jamie_c Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 Oh I'm never against debate, it's just easy when the 1979 document agrees with a newer reference that can't be posted. It doesn't rule out that further development could have happened of course. I doubt even a document signed off by a USAF star rank confirming the stores limitations would convince some. As for the GBU-12s, as a former ground guy, I could never say no to fast air carrying more bombs, the more precise the better!
tom_19d Posted December 23, 2018 Posted December 23, 2018 I get ya, I was just pointing out that the GBU-12s don't appear on that picture haha. Anyway thanks for your service. Multiplayer as Variable Asus Z97-A - I7 4790K - 32 GB HyperX - EVGA GTX 1080 Ti - Corsair 750i PSU TM Warthog HOTAS - TM Cougar MFDs - CH Pedals - TrackIR 5 - Samsung RU8000 55”
Slazi Posted December 26, 2018 Posted December 26, 2018 I was just thinking about this. Anything stopping us carrying laser guided mavericks?
razo+r Posted December 26, 2018 Posted December 26, 2018 I was just thinking about this. Anything stopping us carrying laser guided mavericks? Realism?
Slazi Posted December 26, 2018 Posted December 26, 2018 Realism? That's fine if that's the case; is it?
razo+r Posted December 26, 2018 Posted December 26, 2018 I've found this here: "lack of documentation" is the main reason to stop us from carrying the mavericks.
Slazi Posted December 27, 2018 Posted December 27, 2018 Interesting. Is it possible to launch laser guided mavs from sound cues? I guess that wasn't a thing. Oh well, I'll stick with GBU fun!
DmitriKozlowsky Posted December 30, 2018 Posted December 30, 2018 F-5M had expanded weapon carriage and had all wing pylons plumbed for air-air missiles. F-5E variant ED and BELSIMTEK chose could only carry 2X Aim-9 Sidewinder on wingtip pylons.
Zakatak Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 To be honest, considering we are flying these planes in totally fictional scenarios, often in major wars between NATO and Russia, having a slightly fictional modification done to the aircraft (which could and would be done fairly easily) wouldn't bother me. Giving this plane more than 2 A2A missiles would make it a lot more useful.
naizarak Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 every time there's a sale i'm tempted to get the f-5 but then i remember it only has 2 rear-aspect sidewinders and would be useless in most servers. shame. 1
DmitriKozlowsky Posted January 29, 2019 Posted January 29, 2019 We want realism. Part of realism is not having everything you want. Even within fictional context. In RW, aircraft pylons have to plumbed and wired to accept weapons and compatible electric-data bus to communicate with aircraft's navigation and weapon delivery system. Airframe has to strengthened or adjusted for worst case scenario, and then tested to destruction for clearance. In DCS IMHO, new capabilities could be implemented via MLU or Tranche mods. Commercial mods, that are reasonably priced. For F-5E, I would love for ED/BST to develop F-5M upgrade module, that makes F-5E a late mode variant F-5M of Brazilian Air Force. New radar from F-16, new weapons from Israel , US, and Europe. Glass cockpit, EGI (GPS Intertial navigation), increased engine thrust. Certainly every single 3rd and 4th gen and up module for DCS should have NVG. Having NVG compatible cockpit is nice, but is not critical. But being able to deliver ,non-JTAC guided, ordnance at night should be a universal capability in DCS.
Recommended Posts