They are real, and have been real.
The F-5C was withdrawn from service in 1966. The AN/ALE-40 flare dispensers it has in game didn’t exist until the 1970s. Ergo the F-5C can’t have used them in real life.
Remove its flares and then put it at 10.0 with the rest of the flareless vehicles then I guess is best option thank for your helpfull factcheck
1 Like
Eh, with current dogshit FM its fine at 10.7, but imo they need to fix its FM, give it its falcons (RB 27 and RB 28), then move it up.
As for this… no. What I would support is giving it the Kapsel KB / BOZ-100 countermeasure pod the S35E mounted, though. It was at least mounted to a draken, and would be the best option. (If added to the XS, it should also be added to the J35D and all future drakens.)
2 Likes
The F-5C didn’t simply disappear… It was handed over to Vietnam for further use in the war.
Hell… This picture was taken in 1971.
The date that it was removed from its original squadron is irrelevant.
What is relevant though is that the F-5A has been using AN/ALE-40 countermeasure pods ever since the 1980s.
The F-5C was a 1-off upgrade that was given to one squadron of aircraft with little to no documentation, the only substantiation of such being very few images with a history that seemed to have terminated in 1975 or so.
The only existing models of “F-5C” are F-5As painted in the original livery that the F-5C used. Apart from that, they seemingly never lived to the age to even think about receiving countermeasures… But do you know what did?
Oh right, these! The exact same airframe (save the obvious lack of a jettison capability and refueling hardware) that had existed fiftyfold in other various nations!
Funny enough, I spot a trend in them.
This conversation has been started and ended before you even had a War Thunder account… Believe me when I say that you aren’t going to cherry pick your way out of this.
2 Likes
@Morvran
lol J35XS is better than the F-5C in dogfighting and speed, and 6x AIM-9Js on top of that.
2 Likes
The aircraft in game is an F-5C, it is modeled as an F-5C and its intended to model the F-5C.
If it were intended to model a later model of the F-5A in service with a separate country during a separate time period that is how it would have been named and modeled after.
If the F-5Cs flares were to be historical it would no longer be an F-5C because the F-5C could not have possibly had the AN/ALE-40.
I actually support the F-5C having CMs because it can be placed in a more balanced position, what I do not support is the incorrect name and model as such.
P-3’s are very hit or miss in my experience.
it deserves 11.0 by sheer virtue of “not having to deal with IR missiles as it’s afterburner is so small it just doesn’t get tracked enough by literally every single IR seeker in this game”.
Can you tell me what the F-5C is?
Oh, right… An F-5A with a jettison button and visual impairment.
The F-5A can mount flares, the F-5C can mount flares.
If you think this is a conversation of “did an F-5C-specific airframe ever mount optional flares during its lifetime”, you’re in the wrong game forum.
F-15A.exe
It wouldn’t matter if it did, seeing as the F-5C was capable of mounting flares.
The F-5C’s flares are historical… It’s an F-5A with a stick leading to a fuel tank. Here’s a reminder of what F-5As typically look like.
So… You don’t support it?
3 Likes
They’re relatively middle of the road all things considered, it’s just the sheer number of them and the fact they can be used with an IRST that makes them pretty effective if the right scenario arises.
Problem word in that sentence is if though
BOZ-100 pod you say?
So like, 4 AIM-9P, 2 BOZ-100 and 11.0 BR? I don’t think 400 Chaff with 56 Flare is, you know, fair at 10.7.
1 Like
Let me say this simply:
If the F-5C was an F-5A I would be on board, it is not. I do not support the name of the F-5C, I support it being renamed to F-5A.
That is my entire point of view, it will not change.
The flares literally cannot be historical because historical means it mounted them at the point modeled in its service life. Just because it could doesn’t mean it did.
1 Like
This guy clearly isn’t A-7pilled
The F-5C is an F-5A.
I’m sorry to say, but you need a lot more views if you want a credible opinion. As said before, we’re in an arcade flight game where fictional aircraft like the F-15A are competitive in any remote way in air/air combat.
So… As said, the F-5A with a jettison button receives F-5A modifications.
Little to nothing in this game is historical. Something ahistorical would be slapping AN/ALE-45 onto the underside of an F-5A simply because the F-5E has it… What isn’t ahistorical is putting AN/ALE-40 onto an F-5C because it’s an F-5A.
Until it is named and modeled as an F-5A it will not be historical, the F-5C is a different thing. Very, very closely related and based off of the F-5A, but it is different because it has separate wiring in the form of the ejector button.
That is literally all I have to say. I cannot elaborate any more, if you disagree with me that’s ok but I don’t need to keep replying to a subject that will go nowhere. Have a good day.
brother we’re talking about Draken. that thing has enough thrust to make A-7 look like snail
I’m fine with it being moved up beyond that, assuming it gets the RB 27/28s and accurate FM.
F-5C is F-5C because it has armored seat, extra pylon for ground ordinances/different wiring or smthn, and refueling boom. remove all that and add ALE-40, then it can be F-5A. unlike what you seem to think, F-5C is a wholly different plane with different role altogether. they’re not even supposed to carry missile because it’s actual purpose was, and always is, to act as a COIN aircraft.
1 Like
11.3, AIM-23, Fixed FM (removed the FM “fIx” that idiot submitted earlier this year), BOZ-100?
I can agree to this. Don’t mark the price up though.
1 Like