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) ):
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
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.
| 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
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.
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…
My bad then. The circles for the 9J seem to have been changed then. I haven’t noticed as I mainly play sim and can’t see the circles anyway.
Wait, a F-5E equivalent with similiar missiles at lower BR? Am i missing something?
It still has relatively significant worse engine performance compared to the F-5E and lacks a radar. (A radar, which I might remind you, that makes one of the best jet dogfighters in the game even more deadly, by having a ballistics computer for its guns.) It could come at 10.7 or 11.0 in ARB either way. Most BR’s on the dev server aren’t final, so we just don’t know at which BR it’ll come.
It also lacks Bullpups or mavericks.
The NF-5A sits between the US F-5A and the US F-5E in terms of weaponry and flight performance, but should be the most manouverable of all US F-5 models ever produced (by a slight margin when using flaps).
Its most comparable variant is the F-5C, but even that one doesn’t come that close.
I’m a student aircraft mechanic currently in training in the Netherlands. At our school, we have an NF-5B on display—the two-seat version of the NF-5A.
I’ve learned that the NF-5A has a flap system with three positions for the trailing edge flaps:
The leading edge flaps have two positions:
in game the NF-5 has four flap settings: Up, Takeoff, Landing, and Combat. However, this is not accurate. In reality, the “Takeoff” and “Landing” positions are the same (fully extended flaps), so the game’s flap options do not reflect the actual aircraft’s system.
the landing gear doors are not accurate compared to the real aircraft. The doors should be closed when the gear is down.
They only open when the gear handle is moved to the UP position — the doors open, the gear retracts, and then the doors close again.
The same happens in reverse when the gear is lowered: the doors open, the gear extends, and the doors close afterwards.
Should you have any proof of this and wish to tell Gaijin, consider making a bug report: Community Bug Reporting System
Gaijin devs most likely will never see this thread (which will also be closed down this week and will be unaccesible after that).
Well, I’m not too well versed in the NF-5, bar it being Canadair(and the mods Canada did to theirs), but iirc, one of the mods shared between the two should be a shorter takeoff compared to at least the F-5A.
I can’t get the dev server, so I’m here asking if that’s true(for both in-game and RL).
It does have more engine thrust and thus a shorter take-off length, if that’s what you’re asking. And that holds true in-game.
I see. It’s been a bit since I did anything with the CF-116s, so I don’t remember what gave it better take-off length, so I’ll have to assume that’s it.
Good to know.
done. thanks for the link. now hope they use the info I have given them
Your title mentions the NF-5B, which isn’t in the game, maybe consider specifying that these flap characteristics are also present on the NF-5A, which will come to the game.
Edit: for those interested to read the report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/R8ixnibPmqzk
Closed with the following mention:
One report = one bug.
That is, you need to file one bug report on the flaps and another report on the landing gear doors. Then the report can be accepted.
Also, please attach the entire manual to the report.
Yes, I’ve seen it and made two new reports separately.
flap positions:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hpFxRwnARKhI
landing gear doors:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jheSk3VB4Q7a
I believe they also extended the frontal landing gear!
Yes, raised nose gear.
