ILS receiver for the F-5

[SabreDancer]

While watching this video (at 4:10):

I began to wonder whether it would be much work to add in an ILS receiver to the F-5. While the late 1980s USAF Aggressor F-5Es modeled in-game may not have been equipped with them, T-38s in the US and F-5Es flown by other nations possessed ILS receivers, and it would add a good deal of flexibility to the plane.

US manuals for the F-5E-1 include sections on ILS functionality and equipment, such as at page 1-100 to 1-106 of this manual: https://www.docdroid.com/51orrvC/northrop-f-5ef-flight-manual-pdf#page=111

And changes from the -3 subvariant I have seen do not mention that has changed. As the F-5 needs one more VOR/ILS panel and an added ILS mode to the existing TACAN/DF switch, and VOR/ILS functionality exists within other aircraft made by ED, this may be feasible with low developer workload.

The in-game Tiger is currently a fair weather fighter, unable to make a precision instrument approach, and would benefit greatly from all-weather landing capability.

Edited March 18 by SabreDancer

[=475FG= Dawger]

Non-Precision approach minimums are sufficient for what the F-5 does. 
 600 ft  universally and as low as 400 in some spots  

If the F-5 needs an ILS, it shouldn’t even bother to sortie. 

[SabreDancer]

I understand non-precision approaches can handle the job well enough in-game, but it's more fun to have one than not. Foreign customers in real life felt the need to have it, after all, as did the US on their T-38s.

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, SabreDancer said:

I understand non-precision approaches can handle the job well enough in-game, but it's more fun to have one than not. Foreign customers in real life felt the need to have it, after all, as did the US on their T-38s.

T-38 is a trainer and required the ILS for the curriculum. I imagine the foreign buyers put the ILS in for much the same reason, proficiency in procedures versus any combat usefulness. 
 

 

[Cab]

13 hours ago, SabreDancer said:

The in-game Tiger is currently a fair weather fighter, unable to make a precision instrument approach, and would benefit greatly from all-weather landing capability.

 

For the record, IRL PAR approaches can get a plane not equipped with ILS or GPS down to 200 feet.

[=475FG= Dawger]

3 hours ago, Cab said:

For the record, IRL PAR approaches can get a plane not equipped with ILS or GPS down to 200 feet.

I forgot about PAR/GSR. Those are pretty exciting IRL. 

TBH, the way the weather works in DCS makes ILS pretty useless. Trying to get ILS mins at one airport is going to sock in all the rest, generally speaking.

[Cab]

5 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I forgot about PAR/GSR. Those are pretty exciting IRL. 

Yes, they certainly could be.

My guess is the USAF made the decision PAR’s were sufficient for the F-5 and saved money not installing ILS. 

[SabreDancer]

I'd love to have PAR available in DCS, as well.

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

Yes, they certainly could be.

My guess is the USAF made the decision PAR’s were sufficient for the F-5 and saved money not installing ILS. 

Aggressor F-5’s were in the desert and if the equipment is installed it has to be maintained and the pilots have to maintain proficiency. Easy decision to not bother with ILS. And it really isn’t needed. 
 

In 15,000 hours flying all over the world in all kinds of weather, I probably needed ILS to see the runway less than 500 times, maybe a lot less than that. Never once in a desert. 

[Cab]

22 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Aggressor F-5’s were in the desert and if the equipment is installed it has to be maintained and the pilots have to maintain proficiency. Easy decision to not bother with ILS. And it really isn’t needed. 
 

In 15,000 hours flying all over the world in all kinds of weather, I probably needed ILS to see the runway less than 500 times, maybe a lot less than that. Never once in a desert. 

My thoughts exactly. 
 

Except to be precise, I believe Aggressor F-5’s were also based in England and the Philippines.