request AGM-87 Focus for the F-5E - Page 4 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2018, 12:38 PM   #31
Silver_Dragon
ED Translator
 
Silver_Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arafo, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
Posts: 5,502
Send a message via MSN to Silver_Dragon
Default

I think the "reality"of community has very confused with the real operations on a some eras.

Yesterday I was read some posts of a F-4/F-16 USAF pilot on Torrejon / Spain in the 1983 and Kussan in F-16.net, your history has very interesting.....

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....149798f5057070
Quote:
Yes.

Your game is set up in 1983. It was a different world 34 years ago. There was no GPS. No computers in the squadron. No targeting pods (as we know them today). We did absolutely zero training for a Middle East desert scenario. Aside from the F-15A and the few F-16s available, there were no look-down radars. The E-3A was brand new, and there was no JSTARS. There were no NVGs or FLIRs. Very few aircraft had a reliable INS. Our tactics were closer to World War II than what is common today.

On the other hand, in Europe there were huge numbers of F-104s, G-91s, Mirage IIIs, A-7s, an incredible variety of F-4s, F-100s, A-10s, F-111s, Mirage F-1s, Buccaneers, Lightning's, Alpha Jets, F-5s, Tornados, F-15s, the new F-16s, Viggens, Yak-15s, MiG-19s, MiG-21s, MiG-23/27s, Su-17/22s, Su-25s....and that was just the fighters.

At Torrejon I spent a year working in Wing Weapons and Radar Strike. (We were the mission planning cell, among other things.) We knew that on average it would be dark (night) half of the time, and we would have lousy weather half of the time. Combined, we only expected to have decent air-to-ground weather 25% of every 24 hour period, and we knew that a Warsaw Pact armored invasion would not stop for night or weather. Many of our bases in Central Europe were within 150NM of the potential FEBA, and we expected the bad guy tanks and artillery to get that far fairly quickly. We expected Spetznaz units with SA-7s to be operating in and around our airfields. We expected to be operating under chemical warfare attack. We expected and planned for something like a 10% loss rate per 24 hour period. A big concern was "holding back" enough aircraft to accomplish the inevitable nuclear tasking that would be ordered as we were overrun.

It was a different world.

How soon we forget.

I understand that you are making a game, not a retrospective real world training device. Games are supposed to be entertaining. Nobody is going to enjoy your game if they end up in a nuclear holocaust as they get overrun. You can do whatever you want in your game. You can have F-18s shooting Harpoon missiles at alien spaceships, or F-14s dogfighting Japanese Zeros, as a couple of (fun and entertaining) movies did back then. If you want to have napalm or a Hades bombs (as another really trashy F-16 movie had), go for it. If you want to have pilots with X-ray vision that can see tanks from 25,000' and AGM-65s that fly 12NM, that's okay.

It's a game!
__________________
More news to the front
Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings
My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893
DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104115
21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/
Silver_Dragon Youtube
Spanish 4Th Perrus Squadon Member: http://www.4thperrus.com
Silver_Dragon is offline  
Old 03-07-2018, 02:56 PM   #32
dimitrischal
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bananabrai View Post
@dimitrischal and Robert31178

I guess you did't get my point. I'm for example working on a 1993 scenario. We get a 2003 Hornet.
And my personal opinion is that I think it's quite boring to have one aircraft capable of nearly anything.
Such things are for lone wolfs. They join a server and do everything themselves.
Multi-role is nice but I like playing in a team and achieving something together. And in a good scenario everybody has only one task anyway...

That's why I would really appreciate a Rhino with AGM-78. At least we should get the AGM-45 I guess.
You really have me confused. We are talking about an F5E3 with an obscure AG weapon that didn’t really go far or was produced in any numbers to qualify a programmers time to implement. I wasn’t talking about F4s as this thread is about the F5.
The F5 is a very capable ground attack plane given the period it was designed. It can carry lots of ordnance and can deliver it with a decent amount of accuracy if you do your homework.
The F4E carried lots of guided munitions and could carry loads of the too.

What pisses me off is the firmly cemented mentality in the entire community that anything that doesn’t carry smart weapons is crap. This was cultivated from years of having only the A10C or the 25T as ground pounders. Now everybody thinks ground attack is strictly strafing tanks dispersed in combat deployment and any plane that cannot do that while maintaining a generous standoff distance is shite.

Most people will love the Bug and won’t even bother with either the F4 or the F5, ever.
No point in trying to coax them with obscure unicorn weapons that weren’t produced beyond a test batch( I’m looking at both the sidearm or the AGM87) to fly your favorite plane.
Address the audience that has the same interests as you and leave the lone wolfs do their airquaky thing. Most of them don’t have the capacity to fly a real plane without FCS and fight in it anyway.

Last edited by dimitrischal; 03-07-2018 at 03:00 PM.
dimitrischal is offline  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:16 AM   #33
Bananabrai
Junior Member
 
Bananabrai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ingolstadt, GER
Posts: 39
Default

The F-4 off topic thing was an example and another wish from my side. So lets not get into detail on that.

I can completely understand your point. I am actually not flying the A-10C nor the Su-25T.
What I actually use for A-G is the M2000C, mostly without GBUs. So please don't judge anyone before you don't really know him/her.

Bad-Karma got not quoted correctly in the first place. He worte:

"and since the F-5E currently lacks any a2g missile"

Coming quotes came without the bold word. So this was no "we only have crap stuff"-post.

Nobody ever started a poll or anything. This thread actually is for people who think this would be a great addition, at least as I understood the first post.
Anyway, it's not about any unicorn weapons on a unicorn plane.
We don't know any numbers on the AGM-87, and the AGM-122 is already in the game. Why would a 'Test batch'-only weapon be a problem?
I guess the -87 is not a very smart weapon by the way. It was more or less only capable of tracking IR targets during night, and it's accuracy is about the same as the GAR-8 on turning planes. So Homework will be required there as well.
Having two of those and miss one, you get one hit per sortie. It's even less then having GBUs and a JTAC.

What drawback are you having if Belsimtek things about our point? Sounds like a big one...
__________________
Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/user?u=9400790 YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Jethrosdetlef


Wish list: DCS: PA-200 Tornado, Improved Combined Arms, Improved Logistics
Bananabrai is offline  
Old 03-09-2018, 03:54 PM   #34
dimitrischal
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 213
Default

I wasn’t being judgmental nor did I want it to come off that way. I was just expressing my frustration in general about that matter.
My understanding was the E3 version didn’t have any missiles approved on it so why ask for a missile? Just cause it’d be good to have one anyway?
If anyone finds hard data belsim said they will do the Mavericks but all have failed to do so...
dimitrischal is offline  
Old 03-09-2018, 04:57 PM   #35
WinterH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bananabrai View Post
At least we are not taltking about Tomahawk, AGM-88, AGM-154 integration on the F-86...
Same difference
__________________
Modules:
MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen
WinterH is offline  
Old 03-09-2018, 07:32 PM   #36
SkateZilla
Moderator/ED Testers Team
 
SkateZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 17,923
Default

the U.S.A.F. F-5E-3 never had AGM-65s, It was an Export Program.

//Closed
__________________
Windows 7 Ult. 64, HAF922, FX8350 @ 5.31GHz H100 Cooled, 16GB DDR3-2133 GSkill,
2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz, Creative XFi Plat. Fatal1ty Champion,
3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Acer AL2002 (5760x1080+1600x900+1680x1050)
TM Warthog HOTAS, TM MFDs, CH Fighterstick, Pro Throttle, CH Pro Pedals, TrackIR4 Pro
SkateZilla is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.