F-5 Bomb Sight Update Request

[JordanTO]

Please update the F-5's bomb sight so it is more in line with the other aircraft. People might actually use it in multiplayer. Right now it's pretty useless. Please and thank you.

[razo+r]

1) update in what way?

 

2) it's pretty good in multiplayer

[Darcwaynard]

You need to learn how to adjust the depression angle of the sight based on what profile and weapon type you want to deliver.

 

I would suggest reading the manual section on air to ground ordinance delivery as well as fly the training missions.

 

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[JordanTO]

I'm talking about a real time updated bomb piper. Not a variable depression, static sight. It's too inaccurate. I'm just trying to make the F-5 more competitive. I'd like to see it in multiplayer but because it only carries 2 missiles and the bomb sight is so inaccurate no one ever uses it considering you can fly an F18 with 12 missiles or F14 can shoot up to 80nm. For people like Darcwaynard and razo+r who like it the way it is I'm sure the devs can add a feature to revert it back.

 

For more modern players, please update the sight, IFF and maybe add another air to air hard point so it may carry 4 missiles. Currently the jet is not competitive in multiplayer and people have no reason to use it. Thank you for your consideration.

Edited April 8, 2019 by JordanTO

[Knock-Knock]

[TLTeo]

That is not how the F5's gunsight works so no, it should definitely not be changed in DCS for the sake of "being competitive in multiplayer".

 

 

On top of that, with the gyro gunsight the F5 is perfectly capable of accurate strikes if the pilot knows how to use their jet.

[Darcwaynard]

if the pilot knows how to use their jet.

 

I think this seems to be the real issue.

ED isn't going to add extra hard points and a CCIP system to an airframe that doesn't have it in reality.

 

OP, in all honesty it sounds like you just need to practice your bombing profiles.

 

Look for the cold war server vs Mig-21 it should level the playing field a bit OR get a more advanced jet like the F-18C if you need the computer to tell you when to pickle.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[Fri13]

There is a reason why a all kind guided munitions were developed, and that is that you have anyways someone on the ground guiding you in and your task is to get bombs there. But in simulation that is a perfectly easy, while in reality you were dropping bombs like a throwing a sand on someones face from 5 meter range. You barely got anything in.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3262448&postcount=40

 

""Standoff": A little history on the Maverick missile; The F-4 and F-105 were the primary USAF air-to-ground fighters in Vietnam. They were "red reticle" or "iron sight" or manual bombers. We were terribly inaccurate, especially in combat conditions. I don't recall the exact numbers (and they were classified anyway) but to kill a Soviet tank, you had to physically hit the topside with a MK82 to kill it, and you had to get within something like 8 feet with a MK84. I worked with JMEMs a lot, and recall that an F-4D dropping 12xMK82 on a single pass had something like a 10% PK on a Soviet main battle tank. The main concern for USAFE was trying to stop waves of thousands of Warsaw Pact tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap. The MK20 Rockeye was one attempt to solve the problem. While better than MK82 GP bombs, it still had a pretty low PK. Another solution was the AGM-65. As I recall the AGM-65 PK was around 50% once launched. Therefore, an F-4 carrying 6xAGM-65 had a good chance of taking out three tanks, whereas an F-4 armed with 12xMK82 had a 10% chance of taking out one tank. Clearly, the Maverick was a much better tank killer than a GP bomb. Note that there was no mention of "standoff" with the AGM-65. It was not a "standoff" weapon, but a precision guided anti-tank munition."

 

How much better was a F-4 in bombing than a F-5E is?

 

We already don't have even the semi-realistic damage modeling in weapons:

 

Read the "Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?"

 

https://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_FULL_EDITION.pdf

 

And then make your own conclusions of the 155mm artillery shell and Mk-82 bomb differences...

 

Myth #1—It requires a direct hit with an artillery round

to damage or destroy an armored vehicle.

Not true; 155-mm rounds that impact within 30 meters

cause considerable damage (Figure 5). Air bursts using VT or dual purpose improved conventional munitions (DPICM) can

strip away communications, sights, vision blocks and

anything stored on the outside of the vehicle. These air

bursts are especially effective against soft targets such as

multiple-rocket launchers (MRLs). (See Figure 6.)

 

Myth #2—It takes 50 artillery rounds to destroy or

damage a tank. Not true. It takes one round (Figure 7). If

an artillery battalion engages an armored formation (54

rounds), more than one tank will be destroyed or damaged.

 

Myth #3—Artillery cannot engage moving targets. It is

difficult, but it can be done. The issue is not lethality, but

the tactics, techniques and procedures to hit the moving

target. Units must train to shift fires.

 

Myth #4—Modern armor cannot be defeated by artillery. Tanks are designed to kill tanks, and

most of the armor is designed to protect against direct fire. HE rounds

with VT or delayed fuze and DPICM are very capable of

defeating “modern” armor (Figure 8).

 

Myth #5—Armored vehicles can button up and drive

through artillery fire. Yes, they can. But as soon as they

button up, their ability to see is reduced by approximately

40 percent. And as they drive through the artillery fire,

there is a high probability they will have mobility and

firepower damage or that the formation will change its

direction of attack. The results are delay and suppression

of armor.

 

 

http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/SVP-24_a003342001.aspx

Edited April 8, 2019 by Fri13
Added the videos

[RustBelt]

I'm talking about a real time updated bomb piper. Not a variable depression, static sight. It's too inaccurate. I'm just trying to make the F-5 more competitive. I'd like to see it in multiplayer but because it only carries 2 missiles and the bomb sight is so inaccurate no one ever uses it considering you can fly an F18 with 12 missiles or F14 can shoot up to 80nm. For people like Darcwaynard and razo+r who like it the way it is I'm sure the devs can add a feature to revert it back.

 

For more modern players, please update the sight, IFF and maybe add another air to air hard point so it may carry 4 missiles. Currently the jet is not competitive in multiplayer and people have no reason to use it. Thank you for your consideration.

 

The F-5 is what it is. What you seem to want is an F-20 Tigershark, which given that they are working on an F-16 now, means that's not going to ever happen since the F-16 does the job better.

 

The F-5 is competitive with the Mig-19, both ugly little Trainer/Fighters, and the Mig-21. Aircraft that are CONTEMPORARY to it.

 

Your'e basically complaining that a 1962 Corvette isn't competitive with a 2018 Porsche 911 GT3 Cup.

 

ED has repeatedly gone on record that they are not here to make the aircraft Competitive for multiplayer, their goal is to make them true to their abilities. DCS may not be the game for you.

[VZ_342]

“Competitive” means equalized abilities...which is good in sports, but in actual combat you definitely don’t want, and definitely don’t get.

 

DCS is not a sport sim, it’s a combat sim. Having a “less than capable” fighter means your skills as a pilot must become better than the newest, bestest planes and pilots. That’s part of the fun that is DCS. Learn it, live it, love it!

[SorelRo]

Nothing more satisfying than placing your bombs right where you want them to be while using a fixed sight.

[Volator]

Nothing more satisfying than placing your bombs right where you want them to be while using a fixed sight.

 

This!

 

Being effective in the F-5 is so much more satisfying than with any of the modern-era planes. Anybody can "put the thing on the thing and pickle", but mastering the F-5 in combat is what separates the pilots from the players.

 

That being said - yes, it is really difficult to bring in bombs on target precisely in the F-5. After months of practice with the real weapons delivery manual at hand I'm still not satisfied with my results.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

no one ever uses it considering you can fly an F18 with 12 missiles

 

There's a situation where an F-5E would actually be really competitive. Throw 12 missiles on an F/A-18C and watch with amazement as a Hornet becomes a Dung Beetle.

[Svend_Dellepude]

This!

 

 

 

That being said - yes, it is really difficult to bring in bombs on target precisely in the F-5. After months of practice with the real weapons delivery manual at hand I'm still not satisfied with my results.

 

Which was also how things were IRL back in the days AFAIK.

[mjbrennan99]

Which was also how things were IRL back in the days AFAIK.

 

 

 

 

I'm finding that high drag bombs at 500 feet are pretty accurate. All the other modes of delivery are a crap shoot.

[Knock-Knock]

I'm finding that high drag bombs at 500 feet are pretty accurate. All the other modes of delivery are a crap shoot.

 

You 'just' have to be very accurate with all the parameters. Dive angle, release height and a release speed being the most important ones. Deviate with one of those and the low drag bombs fall short/long. Add to all this, wind. Does not take much wind to alter their flight path, be it crosswind or head / tail wind.

Since wind is such a big factor, then I note down wind direction and speed, and when preparing for my delivery or deliveries, I set my HSI course needle to wind direction. Gives me a better visual on how much I have to compensate for wind. With about 3-4 kts crosswind already, its enough at a 2000 feet release, to push the bombs off target by about 30 feet.

[Count von Altibar]

What dive angle speed and reticle depression do you use for 500 feet release? I'm always trying out different combinations looking for the holy grail.