Second new bug report
[Dev] NF-5A - Missing ‘R/B D’: “Rocket and Bomb Dispenser”: Community Bug Reporting System
1 Like
wait is this pre-order pack is a scam coz like 70USD just for a f-5A with more CM only
why does it so expensive
and you said ECM was equipped, how is it exactly
Please rephrase your question.
I didn’t have anything to do with pricing. The pricing is based upon the Rank of a vehicle. All rank 7 planes are 69.99 GJN. Take it up with Gaijin’s marketing department.
The NF-5A is not an F-5A.
The NF-5A has a lot more differences than ‘just more countermeasures’.
The ECM pod is installed right above the engines and those triangular boxes on the top left and right on the sides of the engines.
Please read the articles above. You’ll find answers to most, if not all, of your questions…
10.3 with AIM-9N is wild surely it’s a mistake
Thank you for your reply and answers
I dont think i need to rephase my questuon but anyway
I just realise that im comparing its stats cards to a F5E, seems it should be better then a regular F5A？Im not sure, i haven’t check yet
But as far as i concern, does the ECM we’re talking here is same as the one on Su39？
Thanks
That’s correct! The NF-5A is an improvement on the CF-5A, which in turn is the Canadian Canadair licence produced variant of the Northrop F-5A. The F-5E is based on the improvements introduced on the NF-5A, such as the cockpit, canopy, ECM, engines, etc.
No it’s not, as far as I know it’s mostly the RWR system paired with countermeasure pods. This system is from the 1980s. As can be read in my post:
I could see it going up in BR for Ground Realistic Battles. As for now on the dev server it’s definitely 10.7 in Air Realistic Battles, as can be seen in the first picture of this thread.
denied
We don’t know what to do about that, the values used by Gaijin are absent in any Government or Military documents. The bug-reported values are the only ones present in any documentation and tests.
i think they want exact value on installed engine since mounting and normal air enviroment would give different thrust value
but most modern aircraft doesnt suffer alot from this
usually the installed engine would maybe have 1-5% less thrust
“channel loss” is informerly used to describe this although its not official(but gaijin devs/mods use this)
i say they should buff it closer to the value on bench test
from what i research older jet has much higher CL(around 10-25%, condition dependant) than modern jets(around 1-5%, condition dependant)
also idk how gaijin calculate thrust of installed engine
i think they just made up numbers to balance it out tbh
Ah, that makes more sense. I’d still think it should be 11.0 in ARB as it seems to be more akin to the F-5E than A/C, but at least it’s not 10.3
By the way, do you know where the additional 30 large cal CMs are mounted?
I don’t, but I am aware of the ALE-40(N) mount: 60 chaff/flare.
ALE-40(N). This is a special variant designed for the Royal Netherlands NF-5 and consists of a CCU(cockpit control unit), chaff/ flare programmer, and two dispensers. It is skin mounted on the aft fuselage. A similar installation was used on the F-104. (Compared to the normal US F-5E ALE-40(V) dispensers, that could only launch 30 normal flares, 15 on each side.)
However, later manuals do mention the additional 30 large-calibre flare countermeasures. I have not yet seen what that installment was called, but is was located near the root of the tail. As far as I know, the ALE-40(N) dispensers (which were further upgraded in their last phase) are just larger than their counterparts on the F-5E, which would explain the additional 30 large countermeasures.
Some illustration of the normal ALE-40(N) (clearly 10x3 layout):
An example of the old 5x3 (large calibre) flare layout:
1 Like
According to this website, the 6x3 is flares and the 10x3 is for chaff! AN/ALE-40 chaff dispenser
Weird if the additional CMs doesnt have a physical origin…
Yeah, the N variant of the ALE-40 also has a 10x3 flare variant according to some sources:
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=631
More on the ECM (from archieven.nl: Archieven.nl - 765 Vliegtuigtypen (NIMH / Nederlands Instituut voor Militaire Historie) ):
1 Like
Interesting! Yeah, i guess the type of CM would play into how many are stored in the dispensers. E.g., a pair of AN/ALE-40 can hold 60 chaff, 60 small flares or 30 (36?) large flares.
This might be why its got 30 additional large flares, if there is no physical launcher on the model
1 Like
This is blatant pay to win at 10.7. It has significantly more powerful engines that makes it approach the F-5E’s TWR. And a missile which is a significant upgrade over the 9J. It seems to have the gimbal limits and seeker FOV the 9L according to the HUD circles.
The AIM-9N is also known as the AIM-9J-1:
In 1973, Ford began production of an enhanced AIM-9J-1, later redesignated the AIM-9N. The November model employed a similar configuration to the Juliet, but the three main printed circuit boards were substantially redesigned to improve seeker performance. Close to 7,000 of this version were built. The Hercules-Aerojet Mk.17 rocket motor was retained. The Sidewinder Story / The Evolution of the AIM-9 Missile & https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html
According to most sources it’s a minor improvement.
In-game they are identical
| Name: | AIM-9J Sidewinder | AIM-9N Sidewinder |
|---|---|---|
| Physical properties | ||
| Mass: [kg] | 76,93 | 76,93 |
| Mass at end of booster burn: [kg] | 58 | 58 |
| Mass at end of sustainer burn: [kg] | - | - |
| Calibre: [mm] | 127 | 127 |
| Length: [m] | 3,05 | 3,05 |
| Engine properties | ||
| Force exerted by booster: [N] | 18100 | 18100 |
| Burn time of booster: [s] | 2,2 | 2,2 |
| Raw acceleration at ignition: [m/s²] | 235,28 | 235,28 |
| Specific impulse of booster: [s] | 214,43 | 214,43 |
| ΔV of booster: [m/s] | 594,15 | 594,15 |
| Booster start delay: [s] | 0 | 0 |
| Force exerted by sustainer: [N] | - | - |
| Burn time of sustainer: [s] | - | - |
| Specific impulse of sustainer: [s] | - | - |
| ΔV of sustainer: [m/s] | - | - |
| Total ΔV: [m/s] | 594,15 | 594,15 |
| Fuse and warhead properties | ||
| Explosive mass: [kg of TNT equivalent] | 7,616 | 7,616 |
| Warhead: | SAPHE | SAPHE |
| Penetration: [mm] | 58,08 | 58,08 |
| Proximity fuse: | Yes | Yes |
| Proximity fuse range: [m] | 5 | 5 |
| Proximity fuse shell detection (80-200 mm): | Yes | Yes |
| Proximity fuse delay: [s] | 0,5 | 0,5 |
| Impact fuse sensitivity: [mm] | 0,1 | 0,1 |
| Impact fuse delay: [m] | 1 | 1 |
| Guidance properties | ||
| Guidance type: | IR | IR |
| Guidance start delay: [s] | 0,5 | 0,5 |
| Guidance duration: [s] | 40 | 40 |
| Seeker warm up time: [s] | 1 | 1 |
| Seeker search duration: [s] | 20 | 20 |
| Field of view: [degrees] | 2,5 | 2,5 |
| Gimbal limit: [degrees] | 40 | 40 |
| Track rate: [degrees/second] | 16,5 | 16,5 |
| Uncaged seeker before launch: | Yes | Yes |
| Maximum lock angle before launch: [degrees] | 40 | 40 |
| Minimum angle of incidence of the seeker to the Sun for it to not capture the Sun: [degrees] | 10 | 10 |
| Baseline lock range from rear-aspect: [km] | 5,5 | 5,5 |
| Baseline flare and Baseline IRCM detection range: [km] | 8 | 8 |
| Baseline head-on lock range against afterburning target: [km] | 1 | 1 |
| Maximum lock range (hard limit): [km] | 11 | 11 |
| Maximum break lock time: [s] | 3 | 3 |
| Can be slaved to radar: | No | No |
| Proportional navigation multiplier: (affects how far ahead it attempts to lead) | 4 | 4 |
| Base indicated air speed: [m/s] | 1800 | 1800 |
| PID proportional term: | 0,0025 | 0,0025 |
| PID integral term: | 0,0406 | 0,0406 |
| PID integral term limit: | 1 | 1 |
| PID derivative term: | 0,0006 | 0,0006 |
| Flight characteristics | ||
| Drag coefficient multiplier (this is not the only value affecting drag, just because it’s higher than another missile’s doesn’t mean it actually has higher drag!!): | 3,3 | 3,3 |
| Maximum fin angle of attack: [degrees] | 16,2 | 16,2 |
| Maximum fin lateral acceleration: | 17,6 | 17,6 |
| Wing area multiplier: | 1,4 | 1,4 |
| Start speed: [m/s] | - | - |
| Maximum speed: [m/s] | 1000 | 1000 |
| Maximum statcard (useless) speed: [Mach] | 2,5 | 2,5 |
| Maximum statcard (useless) launch range: [km] | 18 | 18 |
| Minimum range: [m] | 30 | 30 |
| Flight range limit: [km] | 18 | 18 |
| Maximum G-load: [G] | 20 | 20 |
| Maximum statcard (useless) G-load: [G] | 20 | 20 |
| Flight time when pull limit reaches x%: [s/%] | - | - |
| Flight time when pull limit reaches x%: [s/%] | - | - |
| Thrust vectoring: | No | No |
| Thrust vectoring angle: [degrees] | - | - |
| Additional Notes: | Identical to the AIM-9J currently. |
Source: Gszabi99’s Guided weaponry munitions data sheet: Guided weaponry data (in-game values) Honorable mention for Jaek_ for making amazing videos on missile on YouTube If you want to reach enlightment, then you have to spade the Italian heli line, no talisman/ premium/ boosters - Google Spreadsheets
In-game comparison:
NF-5A (WIP: AIM-9N)
J35XS (AIM-9J)
Both IR seeker heads, gimbal limits and FOV are visually and code-wise identical on the dev server
Please remember that everything you see on the dev server isn’t final and subject to change.
1 Like
Go to a test flight and prep a missile. Observe the circles in the HUD. The outer ring is much bigger and the inner circle much smaller than on the 9J. You can also lock on to a target and launch at an extreme offset with the locked target on the outer edge of the big circle, which in the case of the 9J would be way out of the big circle. Of course it could be that the HUD circles are wrong on the 9J. In the case of the 9N they are identical or nearly identical to the 9G/H.
Please provide pictures, I have done the same test in my reply to you
According to my test on the dev server they are identical…
1 Like