the first F.58 were essentially F.6, but they later got some more Hunters based on the FGA9. This is the new F.58A (early). It also shouldn’t have the RWR.
The Squadron Hunter is a F.58A (late), so based on the FGA9 with upgrades such as the RWR, Flares etc. Of course named wrong by Gaijn as the F.58
1 Like
F.58 and F.58A are practically the same, F.58s former RAF F.6s while the F.58As are new built FGA9, which is really just the export name for the F.6 though it had a few minor modifications. If I remember correctly though the Swiss F.6s were brought to the same standards as the FGA.9s when they were sold. They just kept separate names for some reason.
I’ve still seen no proof of it, and all the people of the air force (Tiger pilots, ground crew) I asked about it all very adamantly insisted our Tigers never got a radar upgrade to the APG-69. Also the pilot manual from 1996 explicitly mentions only the AN/APQ-159.
The sets are very similar so it’s possible the modification just slipped under the… radar. Manuals are also not always kept up-to-date with every modification, at least that’s what I’ve found.
It also makes no sense to me why they USN would bother putting in a decades old radar that was almost certainly no longer being produced when they received the F-5Es.
1 Like
Similar? How?
One is a poor short range radar with neither look-down capability nor IFF, the other a quite powerful PD radar with TWS and even GMTI modes.
Also, your source is just some text, and proves nothing. (I’d gladly be proven wrong, btw…)
This is the full source: Aircraft Report: Adversarial F-5 Tigers
The APG-69 doesn’t have GMTI. Doesn’t even have modes for air-to-ground weapons delivery. In reality it only had ground mapping.
Also, does the manual state APQ-159 or APQ-153?
Key Aero is a published magazine, so they do accept them as a source, and there are other sources out there saying similar things so it’s possible that’s the reason they used the APG-69.
The dev-server thread is now in the Machinery of war category and open again:
3 Likes
Just got info from Smin, and he says that publication is considered 3rd party at best, and not considered a reliable source… = /
3 Likes
I mean, the hunter F58A in the TT really isn’t a thing is it?
it’s also 9.3 while being better than the F6 for britain?
The British one gets sraams
1 Like
SRAAMS are trash. And they’ll be that way until Gaijin un-nerfs their flight characteristics.
1 Like
The mirage IIIS C.70 without at least AIM-9P-3s and the F-5E without P-4s or P-5s sadden me 😞
5 Likes
Have you used sraams¿ xD
they twizzle out and explode past 700 meters in any launch bar a direct dive, in which case they may reach up to about 900 meters.
They are a useless missile and two aim9E’s is substantially better at a lower BR, while also having a CCIP for bombs, and and RWR whilst retaining all the same flight charactaristics.
hell i actually think its engines better as RN the stock F58A 1971, puts out the same thrust as the spaded F6.
Yeah the F5 at least is an F5E, the Mirage could of got its p-5 equivelants and been a proper menace.
ah well itll suck with 9Bs