Would appear that document is export restricted and also not older than 30 years.
9 Likes
That is clearly a 2004 version of the document which is no indication of the pre-1983 variant seen.
There is no mention of AIM-9P-4, only references to AIM-9M and AIM-7M, so the material was written at least after 1983 and before 1990.
Also, cover of the manual shows a digitized T.O. 1-1M-34. T.O. 1-1M-34 used in the report is a non-digitized version, so the two are different.
Even if we can say that distribution statements apply to 2004 and later, we can’t assume that they apply to older versions.
4 Likes
Might I make the point that you can’t likewise assume the older versions are cleared for release? More to the point i’ve seen no official confirmation that those documents, regardless of year, have had their export restrictions lifted/removed.
If that is the case might I suggest you post such confirmation as soon as practicable.
4 Likes
There’s no problem, so there’s nothing to explain. There is no Distribution Statement B/C/D/E (CUI) in the manual and it is over 30 years old, so it is considered safe. If the manual was from 2004, it would not be available, but since it is 1983-1990, it is safe.
4 Likes
It may be missing the cover page, which is odd though?
If it had been digitized (Like as shown in the 2004 version of the same manual) and there was something that could only have been added after 1990, we would have said that the material was unavailable or need additional proof of declassification, but since there is no such thing, it should be considered safe under the presumption of innocence.
2 Likes
Everybody who has sources get ready to report all the planes that should have 9Li
of top of my head:
- removing aim9m from sweden
- as suggestions for italian planes
6 Likes
AIM-9C has a 38 second guidance time source GUIDED MISSILE AIM-9C, SIDEWINDER 1C-SAR
(Formerly Guided Missile Mk 30 Mod 0)
DESCRIPTION, OPERATION, AND HANDLING
THIS PUBLICATION SUPERSEDES NAVWEPS OP 3351 ADVANCE COPY DATE NAVORD OP 3351 chapter 1 page 1
Seeker detection and tracking range should be similar to 9L, perhaps slightly worse, while turn performance, IRCCM and proportional navigation gain should be lower (how quickly it responds to target motion). This is due to a number of factors that are hard to get into without explaining a lot of technical background, unfortunately.
Might be able to mount two winders + sparrows which would put it on par ordinance wise with the ADFs.
I don’t think it did sparrows, even if it did the F-5 radar can’t guide them. I’d say its more on par with an early F-16
Ah wait thats not the F-20, critically dumb, sorry.
It’s all good lol, at least you admitted a mistake. Some people don’t do that.
Anyway a while back I remember reading that there was some F-5s in USAF/USN service that got upgraded with an AN/APQ-63 radar… or something. That can guide sparrows so assuming the hardpoints were wired correctly there’s a Sparrow capable regular F-5.
But, regarding the picture I sent, I was thinking of it like a new F-5 to attempt to bridge the gap between the F-5E and the F-16A; probably with AIM-9P-4 and AIM-9L or something, with two extra that’s a pretty formidable opponent even if the airframe is 20 years outdated
Tbh the current F-5E is just painful, would rather it be brought up to this standard rather than further bloating the line.
If anything it would just be a foldered vehicle which to me is just more unneeded grind.
It sounds like something the US would have done, perhaps as a precursor to the F-20
I personally like foldered vehicles because its more of an “if you want it you can get it” and not a required thing. Like if the A-7s were foldered and before the A-10; you could get both or you could just skip straight to the A-10
Also, changing the specs of a plane to be better is like feature creep at its worst and I am not a big fan of that at all. Imagine if they suddenly gave the F-4C the AIM-9Js we know it had. Same idea. So, one early F-5E (in game) and one later F-5E with AGM-65D, 9L, 9P-4, two extra IR hardpoints, etc., but the second one is completely optional. Could be cool
See that’s what you’d think, right? But I’m 90% sure this upgrade package was made in the 2000s.
Wasn’t the F-20 a bit of a flop/canceled? . Maybe they were exploring an export upgrade package for the F-5 as many nations used (and still use right?) the F-5 that upgraded its radar and hardpoints.
Oh I agree with you, yet at the same time I’d prefer if the foldered vehicles are simply unlocked from the getgo. I’ve grown tired of spending time spading and unlocking vehicles after all this time.