It would not work this way. There are no controllable launchers blocked by the airbrake. Simply they packed loose countermeasures into the airbrakes that all deployed when the air break did. You would not control them simply with the addition of a block.
It wouldn’t even be flares. Based on the description it sounds like they stuffed the air brake full of chaff. That would all release when the air brake is opened.
Except those F5s deployed as test in Vietnam have no evidence to have been retrofitted with flares. None of the documentation around that deployment mentions anything about countermeasures. It wasn’t until 4 years later in 1969 where aircraft is similar roles (the A4E) were fitted with countermeasures and this was only due to the advancement of surface to air missiles. The F5Cs deployed in Vietnam had only to do with small arms fire, or at most quad 50 cal anti air guns. Yes the F5A was fitted with countermeasures eventually, but the timing around the deployment of the F5C, their intended purpose, and the situation on the battleground makes it unlikely those were actually also fitted during this time.
Pictures of the skoshi tigers also show no countermeasures as opposed to the picture of the F5A above.
See for example: TIGER ATTACK
But hey do as you please I guess.
Edit, noticed the article is paywalled, so here are the images of the actual F5C, have fun
It’s funny as well that during this 4.5 month testing of the F5 under the Skoshi program to provide evidences of its combat effectiveness to drive international sales, they were only used in the CAS role and were avoiding any enemy aircraft (Mig-21s). There’s no indication they were even ever fitted with AIM-9s and all the expelled ordinance during this period are just bombs and napalm dropped on Vietcong positions. There is not a single mention they ever engaged in any air to air combat.
But, let us just take a picture of a random F5A with the countermeasure modification installed and say that the F5C also must of had it despite all the evidence in documentation as well as photographic on the contrary @Smin1080p
Gaijin’s game, I get it, but at the very least they should be transparent enough to admit it’s simply added due to balance and financial considerations and do not have a basis in reality surrounding the F-5C. Maybe you should consider renaming it to the F-5A with the appropriate skin so it at least makes sense.
1- That’s off-topic.
2- Absence of equipment isn’t proof that it couldn’t carry them, and on top of that Smin posted image proof it carries flares.
See my images of the actual F5C as opposed to a retrofitted F5A. Thanks
F-5C is a modified F-5A.
Your images are not proof it can’t carry flares.
So we can start retrofitting things now based on what is possible instead of what was actually carried as weaponry on which the model in WT is based? Can I get my early AIM7 sparrows on the F6F-5N please? I really want to sparrow WW2 bombers out of the air.
The F5C is solely the designation given to those specific F5A’s deployed in Vietnam, there are no other F5Cs before or after. I gave actual pictures of those planes which very clearly shows they had no countermeasures, and none of the documentation around that deployment mentions any reference to having countermeasures either.
2 Likes
F-5A[C] had flares manufactured for that airframe & equipped with.
The fact you think F6F had sparrows manufactured for it discredits you as a source, permanently.
At least, or the very least, google?
F6F-5N was used as testbed for the early variants of the Sparrow missile in 1950.
1 Like
Tornados have wrong CM pods
Then that specific version could be added as an event vehicle.
@hjnbnb
Tornado IDS CM pods is correct. 56 universal packages, + a packet system which requires a countermeasures overhaul in WT to implement.
Yeah that’s what I meant. I don’t know the proper terminology sorry, and I know they can’t be implemented yet but it is still CMs.
1 Like
That specific version is already in the tech tree
1 Like
Nobody made the claim F-5Cs had flares on Vietnam. So I’m not really sure what the aim of this long rant is. It’s been clear for some time vehciles don’t have to have used something im service for it to be considered in game. If we know it’s technically possible, then it’s open for developer consideration.
The F-5C is a modified F-5A. We know the F-5A can be fitted with flares. So the Devs decided to add them to the F-5C also. Nobody has made any claim the F-5C used them. Because that’s not what’s required to add them to the game.
2 Likes
Then why don’t Chinese F-104G didn’t have CM pod? at least there’s no statement that says “ROCAF uses a unique flare dispensing system that can be activated by deploying airbrake” like the one you used to justify not adding CM pod to F-104J. That means they can and should be equipped with flares like their German and Italian counterpart.
1 Like
Alright, so this was solely done, not because its accurate for the F5C, but due to balancing reasons to give access to countermeasures as well as fitting AIM-9Es as flight performance wise it would be impossible to balance an F5 as it’s too good to sit on a lower BR but would lack the technology and weaponry to be competitive on a BR fitting for its flight performance.
Fair enough.
PS. It was not a rant, just stating what we actually know about the F5C. I meant no offense, but I know I can be a little direct/rough at times.