F-5C Flares need to be removed. It is FICTIONAL

[Vamilad]

@Morvran

The better argument to fight for now, is to fix how IR signatures work in-game. Currently, they focus ONLY on the engine temp, not the exhaust temp. This means that an F-5C on full reheat is actually a colder target than many other aircraft at its BR

@Morvran

This makes its flares more effective than they should be and the aircraft a LOT harder to fight than many other aircraft. Overhauling how IR signatures work would result in a massive change to the game’s dynamics. Flares would be less effective on their own and to defend against a missile, you’d need to take more action.

IRL, missile systems like the Aim-9L would be unaffected by flares when fired in rear-aspect against a target that was on reheat. It is not in game

@Morvran

Fix the game, and you’d fix more than just the F-5C, without moving the problem elsewhere. Its cold engine nature would still make it a menace, even without CMs and at a lower BR. No one complains about any other aircraft at that BR having flares.

This is an immense amount of effort versus removing the ahistorical flares from one plane.

[Morvran]

This argument has been on-going for years. No one has been able to provide suffecient evidence to prove that fact to gaijin. Simple. So what other options are there?

Besides removing its flares would reduce sales. Which is something you care deeply about

[Vamilad]

@Morvran

This argument has been on-going for years. No one has been able to provide suffecient evidence to prove that fact to gaijin.

What? Gaijin knows the addition is ahistorical they did it for balancing reasons. The current BR makeup of Air RB no longer necessitates this change. Either the F-5C needs to be moved up in BR or its flares need to be removed.

[Morvran]

@Vamilad

Either the F-5C needs to be moved up in BR or its flares need to be removed.

But that would reduce sales.

[Vamilad]

@Morvran

Besides removing its flares would reduce sales. Which is something you care deeply about

I care about historical accuracy I do not enjoy fake vehicles in my game. If I did I would be playing World of Tanks. Remove its flares and place it at 9.7 if necessary.

[Vamilad]

@Morvran

But that would reduce sales.

The vehicle is about to be usurped by the F-20 it would encourage sales of the more profitable plane which is the more logical choice. Reducing the effectiveness of the F-5C would boost sales (of the F-20).

[Morvran]

@Vamilad

I care about historical accuracy

So submit a bug report with the correct evidence for that. Others have tried and they’ve all been rejected

@Vamilad

they did it for balancing reasons

Flares have never been added for “balance” otherwise I want the Harrier Gr3 CMs on the Harrier Gr1.

[Vamilad]

@Morvran

So submit a bug report with the correct evidence for that.

Again I do not understand your confusion.

@Vamilad

Gaijin knows the addition is ahistorical they did it for balancing reasons.

It’s not an unknown thing, Gaijin intentionally gave it flares this is a noted change.

[Vamilad]

@Morvran

So submit a bug report

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0wOFnV9yIJi9

[_Fantom2451]

Not all SPS-141 pods were with CMs. There are some variations of it.

[PercussionCap]

@Vamilad

Gaijin knows the addition is ahistorical they did it for balancing reasons.

Only done for this one plane, not say… the F-4F Early or F-1, both at the same br in ARB, both lacking flares.
But of course, one of them is a premium.

[TyphoonCro]

@PercussionCap

F-4F Early or F-1

That’s why there’s F-4F in tech tree with countermeasures… Though at 10.7
F-1 never had any sort of countermeasures to my knowledge

[PercussionCap]

Yes, that’s my point. Both of those planes are 10.3 without flares; unlike the F-5C they didn’t receive any.

[IBurntTheToast]

You do not want an F-5 at 9.7.
It would demolish that entire BR range.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

Another Vamilad certified BR opinion

[IBurntTheToast]

While the F-5C didn’t operate with countermeasures in US service, the C is simply just a redesignation of the initial F-5A Freedom Fighter. (if I recall) the “C” designation was only assigned to demonstrate the F-5 platform in Combat through using it in a ground strike role in Vietnam the F-5A and F-5C are practically identical. Since Norwegian F-5As mounted countermeasures, Gaijin added them to the F-5C to make it a more enticing option to purchase or for balancing since they’d (technically) be capable of mounting them.

It’s no less ahistorical than Swedish 30mm cannons getting Tracers recently.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

Two sources do not make up for the 4+ countries fielding F-5A/Bs with ALE-40 pods attached to the sides.

[IBurntTheToast]

Seriously, I cannot comprehend how someone can have such bad takes regarding BR.
Dude also suggested moving the MiG-23ML series down to 11.0 to make them stronger so they sell more or something like that.

[TheArcticFoxxo]

Yup…

@IBurntTheToast

I cannot comprehend how someone can have such bad takes regarding BR.

It isn’t just BR, either. I think he’s just wired like that from factory ;3

[MajloActual]

@IBurntTheToast

While the F-5C didn’t operate with countermeasures in US service, the C is simply just a redesignation of the initial F-5A Freedom Fighter. (if I recall) the “C” designation was only assigned to demonstrate the F-5 platform in Combat through using it in a ground strike role in Vietnam the F-5A and F-5C are practically identical.

A quick look on the F-5 wikipedia page:

Twelve F-5A Freedom Fighters were tested by the US Air Force for four and a half months in Vietnam. Modified at Palmdale plant by adding removable, non retractable air-refueling probe on the left side, 90 lb of external armor plates under the cockpit and engine, and jettisonable stores pylons.

@IBurntTheToast

Since Norwegian F-5As mounted countermeasures

American F-5A and F-5C never mounted countermeasures. Even though technically possible, it doesn’t matter, it was never done. It should be as simple as that…