Please sir, may I have more missiles?

[VZ_342]

*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]

Easy to do, yes. Realistic with our model, probably not.

[Lithion]

*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.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

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!

[Tiger-II]

The (DCS) F-5E can carry 4x AIM-9 now??? The only thing she can't carry are AIM-120.

[VZ_342]

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]

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.

[VZ_342]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Kev2go]

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.

[jamie_c]

For any future queries on this subject, this is all boom boom stores the F-5E3 could carry.

 

[tom_19d]

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).

[jamie_c]

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]

I get ya, I was just pointing out that the GBU-12s don't appear on that picture haha. Anyway thanks for your service.

[Slazi]

I was just thinking about this.

 

Anything stopping us carrying laser guided mavericks?

[razo+r]

I was just thinking about this.

 

Anything stopping us carrying laser guided mavericks?

 

Realism?

[Slazi]

Realism?

 

That's fine if that's the case; is it?

[razo+r]

I've found this here:

 

"lack of documentation" is the main reason to stop us from carrying the mavericks.

[Slazi]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

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.