F-5E-1

[LowRider88]

May I suggest that the DCS F-5E module include the F-5E-1 as a flyable version in addition to the existing flyable F-5E-3 version?

 

My reasons for this enhancement request are:

 

1. This is actually the version of the F-5E which saw the most actual combat around the world, in Vietnam, Egypt, Iran, Yemen, etc. It has more historical significance to the F-5E-3.

 

2. Playing an even simpler version for some of us is even more fun, as it is more a “pilot’s plane”, and represents more fun challenges trying to do more with less.

 

3. Seems very easy to implement. The external model is already in the game, and only need the rear RWR bulges on the tailpipe removed, and the inner cockpit polygons to be cleaned up and removed so they would stop hiding the actual cockpit. The current F-5E-3 cockpit can be copied and modified as per the actual pilot manual diagrams to remove the RWR, and countermeasure controls. The related scripts could be excluded.

 

4. The actual pilot’s manual for the F-5E does not seem to make distinctions with regards to the flight models between the F-5E-3 and the F-5E-1. In fact the manual focuses all diagrams regarding flight model on the latter. Since I hear FM modelling is the most time intensive, all the work is done. If anything the FM for the F-5E-1 could be adjust to have less AOA and directional stability, since it has less leading edge wing root extension surface area and did not have the shark nose. The thumb switch options would only need to be moved around slightly as well.

 

This would really fill out the module, since others like the L-39 offer multiple versions too.

I for one would find this version much more fun to fly, and more historically relevant and challenging version to tackle.

[LowRider88]

Just want to add that this version appears to be the one in the Top Gun movie (no rwr, chaff flare dispenser, shark nose), and therefore is the same early version used in the actual Top Gun school.

Great option for historical combat, reliving the movie, and DACT.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I'd love an F-5E-1, much more than the -3, particularly if it would be one of the variants with the refuelling probe and VOR/ILS.

 

 

There are some differences beyond the smaller LERX, lack of shark nose and automatic flaps. The radar worked similarly to the MiG-21bis' RP-22 in the sense that it could only lock targets along the jet's longitudinal axis. In terms of handling, weight distribution of different avionics might play a role, and depending on which variant you choose there may be further changes due to the long vertical stabiliser root (as seen in the F-5E-1 operated by Brazil, Chile, Indonesia Kenya, Morocco, Mexico and Tunisia), and the cockpit arrangement would be different as almost all operators changed the order of some instruments around.

[LowRider88]

Since they already have the 3D model for the base F-5E-1, maybe they can release it first and the probe, ILS as phase 2? I would be willing to pay non sale price for both upgrades if they were available for a reasonable price. Would of course been cooler if it was part of the original module.

[bies]

I hope they will include E1 together with the rework of F-5. Matt Wagner mentioned they would like to rework F-5 similar to Ka-50 and A-10C, probably they lack time right now unfortunately.

 

I also prefer real combat hardened variants.

[Rakkis]

Meh, I'd rather see an F-5S or F-5TH, especially if it were to be a more of a paid module upgrade like KA-50.

[LowRider88]

I hope they will include E1 together with the rework of F-5. Matt Wagner mentioned they would like to rework F-5 similar to Ka-50 and A-10C, probably they lack time right now unfortunately.

 

I also prefer real combat hardened variants.

 

From that comment, I can tell you are an air com at student rather than a sports car sampler :thumbup:

 

I hope they can add the E-1 to the core mod.

 

If they ever do an expansion set with say the F-5E recce version, the F-5A/C, or even a Talon, I would buy it all.

[streakeagle]

I would pay for an E-1. I prefer mainstream, historically significant variants to the present strategy of leaning towards the last/best variant flown. Give me aircraft that fought the most, not rare, low production birds that never saw combat.

[Chuck_Henry]

I would simply like ED to add ILS/LOC and VOR capability, at the very least. Put it on par with the T-38A in terms of IFR capability, especially since it is definitely going to be a while before the MV T-38A or C is updated for P3D v5.

[Noctrach]

It has VOR capability...

 

-> Radio to ADF

-> Nav mode to DF

-> Tune to station using first 4 radio dials (T=1)

 

example: Al-Ain International has VOR-DME station 112.6

Radio to ADF, Nav to DF, tune radio to T12.600

 

Voilá

[LowRider88]

I would pay for an E-1. I prefer mainstream, historically significant variants to the present strategy of leaning towards the last/best variant flown. Give me aircraft that fought the most, not rare, low production birds that never saw combat.

 

Totally agree with you. Another example is the Bf-109. If you read the history for the variant DCS selected, it was only used for about 2 months worth of combat in a few battles. They should have picked the F model instead, something that does not stick out as out of place in the wwii maps they selected. As a Digital Combat Simulator, why do our missions have a hodgepodge of mismatched planes that don’t simulate reality?

[Kev2go]

F5E3 made more sense for gameplay.

 

The version they were aiming for ws aggressor version not a specific export version, although from capabilities point of view F5E1 would be too simplified. F5E3 makes far more sense.

 

Flare/Chaff and RWR are a staple even in a legacy aircraft from older generation.BSt even made it clear part of the reason for the F5E3 was consideration as a direct competitor to the Mig21BIS even the BIS has RWR and Countermeasures. F5E1 would just be hands down inferior in avionics.

 

 

That being said you can still have an F5E3 without RWR. In fact USAF aggressor versions never had ALR 87 RWR ( or any RWR for that matter) or An/ALE40 Counter measures.

 

 

AS ive said in other threads the current F5E3 is something a of hybrid franken model between a USAF F5E3 and a US navy F5N ( buyback Swiss modded F5E3's)

 

SO when ED does thier F5E remodel they should split into two variants. Far less work to make a agressor F5E3 and Swiss F5E3/USN F5N than it would be to make an F5E1.

 

All they have to do is remove RWR and countermeasures for a USAF F5E3, and to turn the current F5E3 into F5N/ Swiss F5E3 the only two obvious point they need to do is replace analog AN/ARC164 for a Digital Radio set, and add the AN/ASN 117 INS.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

May I suggest that the DCS F-5E module include the F-5E-1 as a flyable version in addition to the existing flyable F-5E-3 version?

 

 

4. The actual pilot’s manual for the F-5E does not seem to make distinctions with regards to the flight models between the F-5E-3 and the F-5E-1. In fact the manual focuses all diagrams regarding flight model on the latter. Since I hear FM modelling is the most time intensive, all the work is done. If anything the FM for the F-5E-1 could be adjust to have less AOA and directional stability, since it has less leading edge wing root extension surface area and did not have the shark nose. The thumb switch options would only need to be moved around slightly as well.

 

 

 

which manual year publication or revision are you actually possesing?

 

I have USAF series F5E manual 1984 pub (1990 revision) as well as the NATOPS USN F5E/F/N manual from 2006. And those pubs definitely also has charts that pertain to F5E3/ LERX improved models.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Kev2go

[streakeagle]

Supposedly, gameplay and game balance have nothing to do with the actual features/modeling of DCS World modules. It could and probably should affect which variant is selected to be modeled, but they are supposed to model the selected aircraft as close to 100% real as possible with available documentation.

 

Having said that, the F-86F is another case of ED making a franken airplane to fit their marketing goals rather than model a real aircraft as accurately as possible.

 

How about providing a 100% accurate variant and have checkbox options to provide the extra features than enhance gameplay but don't reflect reaility? That way, I get what I came to DCS for in the first place: maximum realism possible within current technology constraints while at the same time satisfying those looking for "play-balance".

 

If the goal was to provide a historically accurate opponent for the MiG-21bis, ED missed. It should have been an F-4E or a Mirage III, not a fictional suped up aggressor with a RWR and decoy dispenser.

[Kev2go]

Supposedly, gameplay and game balance have nothing to do with the actual features/modeling of DCS World modules. It could and probably should affect which variant is selected to be modeled, but they are supposed to model the selected aircraft as close to 100% real as possible with available documentation.

 

Having said that, the F-86F is another case of ED making a franken airplane to fit their marketing goals rather than model a real aircraft as accurately as possible.

 

How about providing a 100% accurate variant and have checkbox options to provide the extra features than enhance gameplay but don't reflect reaility? That way, I get what I came to DCS for in the first place: maximum realism possible within current technology constraints while at the same time satisfying those looking for "play-balance".

 

If the goal was to provide a historically accurate opponent for the MiG-21bis, ED missed. It should have been an F-4E or a Mirage III, not a fictional suped up aggressor with a RWR and decoy dispenser.

 

 

 

IN war you have aircraft that end up meeting each other in battle, and end up being historical opponents, but not necessarily contemporaries. IN other cases you have aircraft that are contemporaries ( even if only roughly or in a dissimialr fashion due to doctrinal differences) where they did face off, but in other instances may have not ever actually faced each other in battle but becoming the quintessential what if.

 

The F4E would have been much harder to make due to multiicrew and needing an AI like jester for single-play, and it was put on hold in favour of F16C. Mirage F1 project was taken up by aviodev and mirage 3 is planned by Razbam. SO it would not make sense for different companies to encroach on each other by trying to make the same jets.

 

In the end the main focus of the F5E is aggressor use for NTTR, as you can see from the official campaigns but yes F5E is very valid opponent to the Mig21, and BST did officially make such a statement that consideration for F5E made for adversary to the Mig21.

 

"we are especially concerned about game balance in DCS World. The best rival for the beloved by users MiG-21bis is an American fighter F-5E Tiger II, developed by the Northrop in the second half of the last century."

 

https://belsimtek.com/news/1553/

 

 

Although balance is not priority in sim, it is possible by trying to select a rough contemporary even if they may be dissimilar. Lets be honest because of the F5E the Mig21BIs has a contemporary from its generation. If not the F5E the Mig21BIS would not be able to have dedicated dual servers. The only option would fly Mig21's against teen fighters.

 

ANd IRL F5E's did fight Mig21's ( including BIS models) in smaller wars like the Ethopia/Somalia war but also in larger scale conflicts such as the IRAN Iraq war, even if it doesn't have the sort of infamy or nearly as mainstream appeal as an F4E. The F5E is one of those underappreciated aircraft. It was a good choice to give it a place in a simulation.

 

Yes the F4E could also make a good adversary the Mig21BIS but honestly Mig23 is more of a phantom contemporary than Mig21biS which isn't a true 3rd generation fighter ( at least not by western standards) It even lacks any medium range missiles. Granted the mid to late life migs have PD radar so i suppose F4J/S would be more comparable but overall Mig23 is what is considered proper gen 3. Similarily the Mirage 3 is a generation 2 jet. Its more a contemporary and a historical opponent to earlier Mig21's like the MIg21F13 and MIg21PF, wheras the Mirage F1 would be regarded a more appropriate contemporary against Mig23's, and late model Mig21's.

 

 

It depends on how you look at it. They way i look at is that the F5E aggressor isn't unrealistically souped up with RWR and CM dispensers , but rather unrealistically "souped down" since its basically an F5N ( which arw Swiss F5EE buybacks) but lacking digital radios, and INS. Although F5E's in export use certainly did exist in similar configuration such as the Taiwanese F5E3's which do have such exact features, but merely with AN/ALE40 panel being placed in the very front of the Left console panel.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Kev2go

[LowRider88]

which manual year publication or revision are you actually possesing?

 

I have USAF series F5E manual 1984 pub (1990 revision) as well as the NATOPS USN F5E/F/N manual from 2006. And those pubs definitely also has charts that pertain to F5E3/ LERX improved models.

 

I have different versions.

I have the OCRed one which someone posted on this site, which is such a time saver for finding details.

 

I have 1978, 1980, 1984, the weapons manual, can't remember which year.

Too bad the weapons manual is not OCRed. So much harder to search.

 

Did you pay for yours? If not, maybe you can share? I can share what I have. We can do a swap lol.

[LowRider88]

F5E3 made more sense for gameplay.

 

The version they were aiming for ws aggressor version not a specific export version, although from capabilities point of view F5E1 would be too simplified. F5E3 makes far more sense.

 

Flare/Chaff and RWR are a staple even in a legacy aircraft from older generation.BSt even made it clear part of the reason for the F5E3 was consideration as a direct competitor to the Mig21BIS even the BIS has RWR and Countermeasures. F5E1 would just be hands down inferior in avionics.

 

 

That being said you can still have an F5E3 without RWR. In fact USAF aggressor versions never had ALR 87 RWR ( or any RWR for that matter) or An/ALE40 Counter measures.

 

 

AS ive said in other threads the current F5E3 is something a of hybrid franken model between a USAF F5E3 and a US navy F5N ( buyback Swiss modded F5E3's)

 

SO when ED does thier F5E remodel they should split into two variants. Far less work to make a agressor F5E3 and Swiss F5E3/USN F5N than it would be to make an F5E1.

 

All they have to do is remove RWR and countermeasures for a USAF F5E3, and to turn the current F5E3 into F5N/ Swiss F5E3 the only two obvious point they need to do is replace analog AN/ARC164 for a Digital Radio set, and add the AN/ASN 117 INS.

 

I am all for having every single variant of the F-5/T-38 in DCS, and would make good use of them, all old variant or new..

From what you say the newer variants would be easy.

But I am still convinced the F-5E-1 would be easy work to do.

Just need to clean up the polygons and disable and move some shapes, scripts.

 

I already tried to replace my F-5E-3 with the 3D for the F-5E-1, and disabled the RWR and reduced countermeasure counts.

Just certain things are locked to me.

 

Having the chaff/flare, RWR is definately cool. But I am just not into what if scenarios. And all the combat has been done with the F-5E11 as I understand it.

 

I use the RWR for the DACT scenarios, but this scenario gets played out after a while.

 

I like the F-5E-1 because when it fought, it had no countermeasures. It fought MiG-21MFs in some occasions, where the MiG-21MF may have had the RWR but the R-3S, while the F-5E-1 had the Aim-9J. So in this scenario, the F-5E-1 had the disadvantage of no RWR, but had a far better dogfighting missile. It didn't have chaff/flare, but didn't need it against the R-3S as much if the pilot was good at manuevering.

 

It is so much more fun when planes are balanced but not because every single variable is the same between opponents. But because they have their own qualities that are so drastically different, but some how balance the playing field.

 

This is something I want to experience on top of existing DACT scenarios.

[LowRider88]

Supposedly, gameplay and game balance have nothing to do with the actual features/modeling of DCS World modules. It could and probably should affect which variant is selected to be modeled, but they are supposed to model the selected aircraft as close to 100% real as possible with available documentation.

 

Having said that, the F-86F is another case of ED making a franken airplane to fit their marketing goals rather than model a real aircraft as accurately as possible.

 

How about providing a 100% accurate variant and have checkbox options to provide the extra features than enhance gameplay but don't reflect reaility? That way, I get what I came to DCS for in the first place: maximum realism possible within current technology constraints while at the same time satisfying those looking for "play-balance".

 

If the goal was to provide a historically accurate opponent for the MiG-21bis, ED missed. It should have been an F-4E or a Mirage III, not a fictional suped up aggressor with a RWR and decoy dispenser.

 

100% agree with you :thumbup:

[streakeagle]

I understand an F-5E-1 isn't on the table no matter what anyone posts on the forums. It is not economical to make variants of the same aircraft type when a completely new type will garner far more sales.

 

But how about this either:

 

1) Make the F-5E-3 100% identical to an F-5E-3 in USAF service as an aggressor. If that means no radar, no rwr, no decoys, etc., then so be it. If they can find at least one example that has a particular feature, then go with it. But model that example, don't mix features from separate examples to build a fictional franken plane. Provide checkbox options to add missing features like RWR and decoys or provide a second variant with the fictionalized extra options.

 

or 2) Choose a real variant that is very close to the setup of the current F-5E-3 and make it 100% compliant with that variant in appearance, features, and functionality.

[LowRider88]

I understand an F-5E-1 isn't on the table no matter what anyone posts on the forums. It is not economical to make variants of the same aircraft type when a completely new type will garner far more sales.

 

But how about this either:

 

1) Make the F-5E-3 100% identical to an F-5E-3 in USAF service as an aggressor. If that means no radar, no rwr, no decoys, etc., then so be it. If they can find at least one example that has a particular feature, then go with it. But model that example, don't mix features from separate examples to build a fictional franken plane. Provide checkbox options to add missing features like RWR and decoys or provide a second variant with the fictionalized extra options.

 

or 2) Choose a real variant that is very close to the setup of the current F-5E-3 and make it 100% compliant with that variant in appearance, features, and functionality.

 

I don`t know about that, I heard the MiG-19 will have an earlier version once the current one in established.

Given that it seems so easy to do, I don`t understand why it can`t be done.

I would pay for a delta, whether old or new version.