The future of F-5E in DCS?

[Airj247]

I had never heard of the AGM-12 Bullpup before. It seems like an intrestimg weapon, I don't know how it intergeates with the F-5E though.

[Kev2go]

I had never heard of the AGM-12 Bullpup before. It seems like an intrestimg weapon, I don't know how it intergeates with the F-5E though.

 

it doesnt. hence why i said its shame we wouldnt get it.

 

IT was on the F5A Freedom fighter but not carried over to the F5E series AFAIK.

 

I dont know the exact reasoning behind it, but Id speculate that its becasue agm12 was deemed obselete by the 70s. instead for export option the AGm65 could be added on. Obviously with even the A/B models both are superior option to the Agm12. for Armor Busting and striking static targets given its a tv guided fire and forget missile.

[Airj247]

it doesnt. hence why i said its shame we wouldnt get it.

 

IT was on the F5A Freedom fighter but not carried over to the F5E series AFAIK.

 

I dont know the exact reasoning behind it, but Id speculate that its becasue agm12 was deemed obselete by the 70s. instead for export option the AGm65 could be added on. Obviously with even the A/B models both are superior option to the Agm12. for Armor Busting and striking static targets given its a tv guided fire and forget missile.

 

LOL, had me excited there for a bit!

[dimitrischal]

I love the old school bombing with the f5. Would rather see the bombs fixed than have mavs added but I can't see the harm in having it as an option.

My gripe is that dcs bombing is dominated by guided munitions to a ridiculous degree and the f5 and viggen offered a refreshing different approach to that. Wouldn't want to see the f5 turned into a another small maverick truck.

[Ronin14]

Both Mavericks and Refueling Probe would be amazing adds to the already current "best-in-game" aircraft (my opinion, of course).

 

I understand the difficulties with both.

 

Personally, I would prefer the AAR capability.

 

It would be great if Belsimtek decided to add a second version of the F5 (similar to Polychop's various SA-342 models) and have an export AAR version. I'm not sure the additional sales would justify the work, though. At the very least, I'd be in for an additional copy to send to my dad (trying to get him started on DCS soon).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#/media/File:Royal_Moroccan_Air_Force_F-5_Tiger_II_jet.jpg

Edited June 22, 2017 by Ronin14

[Airj247]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5#/media/File:Royal_Moroccan_Air_Force_F-5_Tiger_II_jet.jpg

 

Sadly that's the export version, we have the U.S version of the fighter, so no refueling probe. Though Mavs were still used (just lack of info)

[Kev2go]

I love the old school bombing with the f5. Would rather see the bombs fixed than have mavs added but I can't see the harm in having it as an option.

My gripe is that dcs bombing is dominated by guided munitions to a ridiculous degree and the f5 and viggen offered a refreshing different approach to that. Wouldn't want to see the f5 turned into a another small maverick truck.

 

But the Viggen is not dependent on manual bombing. it has computed assistance for unguided muntions. ITs primarily based around fire and forget anti ship missiles for its anti shipping role, and it also gets AGM65B mavericks for Armor busting ( RB 75 : Is it's Swedish Designation)

 

 

Aside from the Kh66, even the Mig21bis does have a very Primitive form of CCIP, and not strictly just for manual bombings.

 

F86F sabre, also has a primitive CCRP automatic release mode. for bombs.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Kev2go

[Airj247]

But the Viggen is not dependent on manual bombing. it has computed assistance for unguided muntions. ITs primarily based around fire and forget anti ship missiles for its anti shipping role, and it also gets AGM65B mavericks for Armor busting ( RB 75 : Is it's Swedish Designation)

 

 

Aside from the Kh66, even the Mig21bis does have a very Primitive form of CCIP, and not strictly just for manual bombings.

 

F86F sabre, also has a primitive CCRP automatic release mode. for bombs.

 

Rip, where did the F5 go wrong. :(

[Kev2go]

Rip, where did the F5 go wrong. :(

 

el cheepo export fighter. Didnt want to sell too high tech for export to certain countries, and at the same time to keep said product inexpensive.

 

The US AF , Navy and Marines simply flew them as Aggressors to simulate Mig21's so they didnt care to have more modern bombing systems. The F100D super sabre which was usedCAS/ Strike fighter role in the Vietnam war also relied on manual bombing, although it was early supersonic deisgn. ( though the D did at have an autopilot)

 

Though to be Fair the F86F in question is a block 35, A version that included labs system ( for toss bombing nukes) and the automatic bombing modes and was a smaller production run. The rest of of F series blocks which ware far more mass produced did not have those features. This sabre in question that BST gave us was not even present for the Korean war , especially given its post war Retrofitted to have the Missile panel/ wiring for aim9b ( but i digress here)

 

IIRC a premier frontline Fighter like the F4 phantom did have a A/G ranging mode, within its radar, that would be aligned to how many mils you depressed your sight, that you could lock, to give you a indication of when to release for unguided muntions.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Kev2go

[tom1502]

Upgrade to F-20? :music_whistling::lol::thumbup:

[dimitrischal]

But the Viggen is not dependent on manual bombing. it has computed assistance for unguided muntions. ITs primarily based around fire and forget anti ship missiles for its anti shipping role, and it also gets AGM65B mavericks for Armor busting ( RB 75 : Is it's Swedish Designation)

 

 

Aside from the Kh66, even the Mig21bis does have a very Primitive form of CCIP, and not strictly just for manual bombings.

 

F86F sabre, also has a primitive CCRP automatic release mode. for bombs.

 

Agreed, my point was that dcs bombing is dominated by smart munitions to an unrealistic extend.

I also agree that the viggen isn't in the same league.

However I cannot see why this urge for smart weapons all the time. We play dcs looking at a screen that displays another screen in which we slew a designator tab...

[Jowen G. Bruère-Dawson]

hello there.

 

Since you all seems to have a great experience in the F-5 I would like to know what your thoughts about the F-5 roll rate with the wingtips AIM-9. I feel like the F-5 is more manoeuvrable (concerning roll rate only) with a heavy payload than with only 2 Sidewinders. I mean, the roll rate is pretty low for such a manoeuvrable aircraft.

 

I'm wrong ?

 

Thanks have a good day

[SkateZilla]

Mavericks were not used on the U.S. Variant, it was also an Export Option.

 

USAF Tested them, but never added the Capability to Fleet.

[Dino Might]

No need to make fun of guided weaponry,y that give it more depth to use as a additional option. keep in mind due to lack of realistic splash damage Mk82s are really only effective against softer targets. you pretty much need direct hits against Mbt's.

 

because even the 21 has a guided missile. tell that to the mig21 pilots.

 

Besiides that model shouldnt evne have grom given the RL BIS never was armed with it, becasue RP22SMA radar couldnt guide it.

 

OFC a maverick is overall better given its a TV guided fire and forget missile. A AGm12 bullpop would be fun to use, and and closest counterpart, but given F5E's never used them though.....

 

Keep in mind that these would only be the early Agm65A/B series and not rocking with AGM65D or H series.

 

Even with realistic fragmentation, you will still need a direct hit with Mk82 to kill a MBT. Even then, it's questionable whether you would do enough damage. You might score a f-kill or m-kill, but doubtful you will get a k-kill like we do in DCS.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Dino Might

[emko]

I'd also like to see this refined. But is it possible to have realistic fragmentation and damage model with today desktop computers (or laptops)?

[Kev2go]

I'd also like to see this refined. But is it possible to have realistic fragmentation and damage model with today desktop computers (or laptops)?

 

ofc it is. the effects simply haven't been updated yet.

 

 

Just look how DCS 2.0 edge engine was a huge upgrade over the older dc 1.2 with dx 9. 2.1 brought the new lighting effects and such with Normandy release, And the map has pretty high detail and also collision with objects such as trees introduced.

[dimitrischal]

Even with realistic fragmentation, you will still need a direct hit with Mk82 to kill a MBT. Even then, it's questionable whether you would do enough damage. You might score a f-kill or m-kill, but doubtful you will get a k-kill like we do in DCS.

 

I'm pretty sure a direct mk82 hit will ravage any tank out there.

I might sound a bit bold but a direct dud hit would cause massive damage too.

We just need to wait for the bombs update.

[Kev2go]

I'm pretty sure a direct mk82 hit will ravage any tank out there.

I might sound a bit bold but a direct dud hit would cause massive damage too.

We just need to wait for the bombs update.

 

yup a direct hit would destroy a tank.

 

If single 500 lbbs Gbu12 have been proven kill a tank then im sure so could a dumb mk82 assuming it landed a direct hit

[scorpion80]

About AN/APQ 159:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APQ-159

 

http://usdynamics.org/literature/general/AN_APQ-159.pdf

[twistking]

I hope i don't derail this thread with my humble wish/request for a vintage usaf "bare metall" livery to be added to the f-5 in the future.

it sure would look great with the deferred shading...

 

there is a good looking, fictional spanish livery which comes close, but i would prefer the real deal;)

 

[Sarraceno]

Spanish liveries in the F-5 are no fictional at all... bit yes that skin in the photo looks cool. Fishbed has an awesome, even unmarked, bare metal skin too... and its glorious

[Erk104]

I think the maverick would be welcome obviously it was carried by F-5s some where even if it wasn't the US variant. Belsimtek modeled the US variant however I am not sure why.

 

Equally, they also modeled the uh-1h with the apr-39 blisters without the apr-39. Belsimtek was trying to model a Vietnam era helicopter with 1980s fuselage.

 

Both F-5 and Uh-1h are great mods I love them both. No evidence that a maverick was ever carried by a US variant or not. The F-5 in DCS seems a bit lacking in guided weapons considering its the same price as the other mods of the equivalent era that have guided weapons.

 

I seriously doubt people are conistantly using the F-5 as a imitation mig21 when they can just fly the mig21. No they are using it as a quick interceptor or a dedicated ground pounder. The US didn't use it for this so why do we have these weapons. The US used F5Es as aggressors.

 

Again I love this mod however having a maverick would make its worth much greater in game.

[twistking]

@sarraceno: ok. thx for clarification. i just assumed the livery in question was fictional, maybe simply because it seemed to be too cool to be real;)

 

@erk: i agree that mavericks would really expand the f-5es module. i totally love the f-5e module, but i would agree that it is somewhat limited in scope, compared to other modules. this is obviously because the f-5e is just a simpler aircraft than other dcs wings. That said, it would really add to the value of the module, if the f.e. weapon options could be expanded as far as realistically feasible.

 

I would also love to see some more MER options:

I realize, that the aircraft in the picture is not a f-5e, but probably an "a". From my understanding, the "e" lost the MER capabilities on the wing pylons. With so many different variants being built for export though, i wonder, if there is no f-5 which is relatively similar to the "e" but still has MER capable pylons, or other interesting features, that could be added to the module, without having to built a completely different version. It would of course have an own designation within dcs, to seperate it from the stock f-5e.

 

Additionaly there should be quite a lot of weapons, the f-5e should be able to carry without modification;

Examples being the GBU-16 and GBU-10. (gbu-10 on central, gbu-16 on wing or central)

Edited August 21, 2017 by twistking

[Balzarog]

I had never heard of the AGM-12 Bullpup before. It seems like an intrestimg weapon, I don't know how it intergeates with the F-5E though.

 

The USMC F-4B and F-4J that I worked on from 1970 to 1973, carried Bullpup missiles. I don't know if they were AGM-12s (I was hydraulics/pneumatics) but they were Bullpups. I'm pretty certain they were air-to-air.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Balzarog

[probad]

bullpup's an a-g missile, maybe you are recollecting the falcon?