F-5E update (Wags AMA)

I see that many prefer modern aircraft, the F-5E just the way it is, perfect, being a variation of the early models. Yes, it needs a few updates (code), but wanting to modernize, make it current, that's awesome, everyone wants a rafale, f-35, f-22 on DCS, that's pretty cool, but flying cold war planes is much better, it's not a WWII or a G5, even a G4, or G4 ++ ok, besides it would be flying a computer that makes everything invincible!

Is aerobraking thing this? Starts at 00:37

 

No! That's nozzlebreaking! :lol:

Is aerobraking thing this? Starts at 00:37

 

I bet the pilot was singing this during that landing:

What would be the benefit of trimming nose up and flying the approach in an out of trim condition?

You missed a) the original I was replying to, and b) half my quote, so you missed all the context. Someone was remarking you couldn't aerobrake hands off, and I suggested you could if you trimmed excessively nose up on approach - and then mentioned how I didn't think it was a good idea.

I see that many prefer modern aircraft, the F-5E just the way it is, perfect, being a variation of the early models. Yes, it needs a few updates (code), but wanting to modernize, make it current, that's awesome, everyone wants a rafale, f-35, f-22 on DCS, that's pretty cool, but flying cold war planes is much better, it's not a WWII or a G5, even a G4, or G4 ++ ok, besides it would be flying a computer that makes everything invincible!

Pretty much. I'd like to see one of the *in-period* variants with slightly more armament to make it a bit more equivalent to the Mig-21 we have, but yes, no Singapore version with amraams thanks. I'd not buy a F-35 either - F-22 perhaps only because it's a bit of a crazy airframe, and I'd be more interested in a Tranche 1 Typhoon ( which is old enough that they're being retired ) than Rafale and that's again because the Typhoon airframe is nuts. Gen 3 planes seem wonderful from a gameplay perspective, I wish there were more - and the complex systems coding is a lot less complex for them.

In real F-5 landings, the plane is kept on rear wheels for a while for aero-braking. In DCS, no matter how soft you land, how fast or how slow you land, after the main gear touches, the nose wheel "wants to" reach to ground immediately. I am not sure about the FM, but this needs a fix.

 

Currently after the touchdown you need to add some pitch with your stick to keep the nose up, and usually this leads to small oscillation.

I don't think that this is wrong. If you look at the various youtube videos youi will see that there actually is aft stick input necessary at touchdown to prevent the nose from dropping.

The oscillations are happening IRL as well...

Every new version of the f-5 would be another module. They will ask a fee just to add rwr and two a/a missiles to the ka-50! I want to be clear: it's absolutely fair they ask for a fee: noone works for free. But the point is a glass cockpit or maverick f-5 would be another module, not an upgrade / overhaul. And - be It free or pay - new graphics and fix of old (like Mathusalem!) bugs (rwr above all) would be more than enough for an upgrade... of this module. If we deal with other new f-5 modules, I'm not for them but that's another story.

peronally beyond bug squashing for the f5 i dont see a reason for them to touch it, it looks good as is and i dont think its too dated, if however they do touch it, i would suggest making a completely different varient, be it a two seater or otherwise, why? because sure they could do a ka-50 and add a few things here and there but what would be the point? i guess thats okay if you like flying the f5e but it doesnt exactly expand on variety, a two seater, one armed with mavs, or one thats able to air refuel would be a nice refresh of the f5 experiance without making it feel like its too much.

that is however my opinion and i understand everyone has their own preferences, tranch 1 typhoon would be sweet though, or a tornado, or a buccaneer with the anti ship missiles, nuclear armament or convention ordanance.

Only reason I brought up the 4x Sidewinder version was I think I read that it's the version they were originally trying to do in the first place. I'm a bit dubious of the RoI of a paid variant, but we'll have to see with the Ka-50 I guess.

the complex systems coding is a lot less complex for them.

this may not always be true. in the real world, more "primitive" systems may be simpler to manufacture, but that's because their operative principles rely more on the underlying architecture of nature itself. this architecture does not exist natively inside the computer and needs to be coded for, and so ironically primitive systems can be quite complicated to simulate properly.

for example, wood and fabric ww1 aircraft are much more complicated to simulate on the computer than they are to build in reality due to the sheer number of interactions created by their construction methods.

im just saying it's a bit callous to assume that building things on the computer is anything like building things in real life.

Apart from other upgrades, one that is really necessary to be updated is the central line that separates the aircraft in two sides.

Hi guys!

Seems that this is a thread used for the F-5E updates...

I'd love to see the radar updated and AGM-65 Maverick added...

Northrop Grumman Photo of the F-5 below.

The DCS version has the V3 159 radar that doesn't have a video for the AGM 65 but I believe it would give the F-5E an extra point here on DCS.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/MediaResources/Pages/Photo.aspx?pid%3DTI-10039_017%26rel%3D%2F%26name%3DPhotos

Yeah,I think they’re going to keep it simple since they’re not going to make a lot of money on an update

See 2:10 in this video:

The Turkish F-5s are upgraded with F-16 avionics. They can drop CCIP-CCRP etc. They also have the same ICP panel with F-16. They can launch AMRAAMs and other fancy weapons with improved radar. You can think of them as F-16s in a different airframe.

Brazilian versions are even more modern from what I saw here. This is just too complicated inheritance and upgrade story.. Maybe after ED has no more planes or maps to model in 2040s, they will offer upgrade packs for our F-5s :)

See 2:10 in this video:

 

The Turkish F-5s are upgraded with F-16 avionics. They can drop CCIP-CCRP etc. They also have the same ICP panel with F-16. They can launch AMRAAMs and other fancy weapons with improved radar. You can think of them as F-16s in a different airframe.

 

Brazilian versions are even more modern from what I saw here. This is just too complicated inheritance and upgrade story.. Maybe after ED has no more planes or maps to model in 2040s, they will offer upgrade packs for our F-5s :)

Those are F-5A Freedom Fighters, not F-5E Tigers, and no, turkish Tigers cannot use the AMRAAM.

See 2:10 in this video:

 

The Turkish F-5s are upgraded with F-16 avionics. They can drop CCIP-CCRP etc. They also have the same ICP panel with F-16. They can launch AMRAAMs and other fancy weapons with improved radar. You can think of them as F-16s in a different airframe.

 

Brazilian versions are even more modern from what I saw here. This is just too complicated inheritance and upgrade story.. Maybe after ED has no more planes or maps to model in 2040s, they will offer upgrade packs for our F-5s :)

A panel doesnt mean they are the same, they are no where near an F-16's Capability Avionics wise.

Those are F-5A Freedom Fighters, not F-5E Tigers, and no, turkish Tigers cannot use the AMRAAM.

Yes, my bad. They are slightly different in fuselage as well.

Again, likely would be just a graphics update, wouldnt expect any newer systems as the initial problem with documentation still hasnt been resolved afaik

this may not always be true. in the real world, more "primitive" systems may be simpler to manufacture, but that's because their operative principles rely more on the underlying architecture of nature itself. this architecture does not exist natively inside the computer and needs to be coded for, and so ironically primitive systems can be quite complicated to simulate properly.

for example, wood and fabric ww1 aircraft are much more complicated to simulate on the computer than they are to build in reality due to the sheer number of interactions created by their construction methods.

 

im just saying it's a bit callous to assume that building things on the computer is anything like building things in real life.

I spent many years writing software, & some time distilling physics & systems for a few sim DLC. The FM is the same amount of work no matter what the age of the aircraft, the artwork is obviously dependent on the model itself but externally, honestly they're not that different even for large aircraft ( the interior of a large aircraft is another matter ), a piston engine is rather more complex than a turbine to simulate in depth, but the sheer quantity of systems to model on a modern aircraft is *horribly* time-consuming, especially the interactions between them. It's not just creating them all, it's all the debugging work that also scales.

This is a launch from a Seasprite chopper, you can asee the display. Should be similar to the F-5

im really glad to hear this from wags.

Hoping we get an more authnetic F5E variant(s) to the nation and service(s) being operated by, just as eventually ED remodelled P51D to the P51D25 and D30.

By this i mean split into a proper USAF F5E ( No ALR87 or ALE 40) and the other one a Swiss F5E, which would keep the ALR87 RWR ( which is export derivative of ALR 46) and AN/ALE 40 Countermeasures, but require addtion of Digital radios and INS for a proper Swiss representation. An F5N on the other hands are USN buyback Swiss F5E's buyback's but with guns removed. so assuming Swiss manual isn't able to be found F5N manual would be otherwise applicable to develop it due to this fact.

My F-5 wist list, not that I'm awaiting an update but just to put it out there:

- ILS (IRF capability)

- Tip tanks

- Sidewinders on under-wing pylons

- Mavericks

- 2 freq radio

- Oh also an outside air temperature gauge to turn on the anti-ice appropriately. I didn't read the real manual though so I don't know the exact operation. Maybe you don't need it.

Preferably no digital stuff because it would ruin that nice time period simple analog aesthetic. Ideally, instead of chasing a very specific version, I think it's best to bring out the most of F-5 while also keeping it classic, that is to say no crazy 4th gen+ upgrades (we have the 18 and the 16 for that). Of course integrating all these different features will also be an entirely new development challenge for the module.

Another thing: Is AIM-9X backwards compatible with older models? That could be interesting to play around with. A scenario where a modern day operator of old F-5 gets their hands on x-rays as a quick upgrade of sorts to fight a superior foe.

Global Security says the 9X is compatible with 9M launch systems. Our F-5 has 9Ps which are derivative's of the J/N so I don't think the F-5 can talk to a Mike or X-ray.

My F-5 wish list:

- Updated textures and 3d model to better work in 2.5, just like for the a-10c

im really glad to hear this from wags.

 

Hoping we get an more authnetic F5E variant(s) to the nation and service(s) being operated by, just as eventually ED remodelled P51D to the P51D25 and D30

That would be nice.

I'd like for them to rip out the ALR-87 for an "older" cold war era F5E... Rather than the "swiss model" or give us INS like the swiss model has etc.