_BringTheReign_ Posted January 13 Posted January 13 F-5E Missing AIM-9M for wingtip stations. In accordance with the NATOPS, version NAVAIR 01-F5AAA-1 (published 2006), our version with the dorsal antenna (Purchased by America from Switzerland) carries the AIM-9M. This is a valid, publicly referenceable document. Pylons that carry the AIM-9M can also carry the AIM-9L by default. Please include AIM-9M & AIM-9L for the F-5E Remastered module. 3 .
nairb121 Posted January 13 Posted January 13 29 minutes ago, _BringTheReign_ said: F-5E Missing AIM-9M for wingtip stations. In accordance with the NATOPS, version NAVAIR 01-F5AAA-1 (published 2006), our version with the dorsal antenna (Purchased by America from Switzerland) carries the AIM-9M. This is a valid, publicly referenceable document. Pylons that carry the AIM-9M can also carry the AIM-9L by default. Please include AIM-9M & AIM-9L for the F-5E Remastered module. If you have a valid public source for this document can you also provide it in response to Nineline's comment here? I was not able to find one. 2
_BringTheReign_ Posted January 13 Author Posted January 13 (edited) Example Swiss buyback F-5E at NAS Fallon: Edited January 13 by _BringTheReign_ 1 .
_BringTheReign_ Posted January 16 Author Posted January 16 (edited) On 1/13/2025 at 3:03 PM, _BringTheReign_ said: Example Swiss buyback F-5E at NAS Fallon: According to Wags this is the version you have modelled in DCS, which has carried the AIM-9M/L: null Edited January 16 by _BringTheReign_ 2 .
ED Team NineLine Posted January 22 ED Team Posted January 22 Sadly we need a little more than a picture. It could be nothing more than a CATM. Thanks! Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
BalkanBattler Posted January 22 Posted January 22 2 hours ago, NineLine said: Sadly we need a little more than a picture. It could be nothing more than a CATM. Thanks! It's in the NATOPS, scroll up 1
nairb121 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 1 minute ago, BalkanBattler said: It's in the NATOPS, scroll up They have not acknowledged the NATOPS as a usable source - no one has yet produced a valid public source for it. If provided though, it would also be the needed documentation for the digital radios and INS.
BalkanBattler Posted January 22 Posted January 22 7 minutes ago, nairb121 said: They have not acknowledged the NATOPS as a usable source - no one has yet produced a valid public source for it. If provided though, it would also be the needed documentation for the digital radios and INS. I'm 99% sure it was available on eflightmanuals.com until like a couple of weeks ago... @Kev2go where did you get your copy? Is that something that can be shared with @NineLine and team? 1
nairb121 Posted January 22 Posted January 22 5 minutes ago, BalkanBattler said: I'm 99% sure it was available on eflightmanuals.com until like a couple of weeks ago... @Kev2go where did you get your copy? Is that something that can be shared with @NineLine and team? It was once findable online, but that isn't necessarily an indication that it is unclassified/unlimited distribution, which it would need to be for ED to use it legally.
BalkanBattler Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Just now, nairb121 said: It was once findable online, but that isn't necessarily an indication that it is unclassified/unlimited distribution, which it would need to be for ED to use it legally. Then how did they model the RWR for this module? That's only referenced in said NATOPS.... are you and @NineLine telling me this module is illegal? It's an F-5N, they carry the -9M, image included above from @_BringTheReign_ I don't see what the problem here is. Like seriously guys, what actually is happening here? We can make the F-35, but jumping from AIM-9P-5 to AIM-9L/M is ILLEGAL? So if I LUA some AIM-9M's onto the module, I'm committing a crime? Seriously @NineLine your own devs used the NATOPS to model the RWR, just check the stores page. You already have the document in your possession as referenced in multiple threads from 2016. 1
ED Team NineLine Posted January 22 ED Team Posted January 22 3 hours ago, BalkanBattler said: Then how did they model the RWR for this module? That's only referenced in said NATOPS.... are you and @NineLine telling me this module is illegal? It's an F-5N, they carry the -9M, image included above from @_BringTheReign_ I don't see what the problem here is. Like seriously guys, what actually is happening here? We can make the F-35, but jumping from AIM-9P-5 to AIM-9L/M is ILLEGAL? So if I LUA some AIM-9M's onto the module, I'm committing a crime? Seriously @NineLine your own devs used the NATOPS to model the RWR, just check the stores page. You already have the document in your possession as referenced in multiple threads from 2016. Reel it in there... I didnt say anything about NATOPs or about using it or not, I only commented on the picture. I will have to ask about what sources we have. 1 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
evanf117 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 11 hours ago, NineLine said: Sadly we need a little more than a picture. It could be nothing more than a CATM. Thanks! the Spitfires bomb load did not need more than a few pictures and that missile isn't painted as a CATM on the other hand, as far as im aware USAF aggressor F-5's didnt have guns or radars, so why dont we get the guns and radar removed from our F-5? Edited January 23 by evanf117 3
Recommended Posts