RSAF F-5S
-
Hey guys. I know this is random but do any of you have any resources regarding the F-5S? Or perhaps you have vast knowledge of the fighter. I would really love to learn more about it. Thanks!
-
whatever can be said openly here, can also be found on wikipedia.
thats open domain information for you. if its on wikipedia, its probably what you want/are looking for. anything more than that, is beyond my ability and capacity to answer you.
-
Hey thanks for the reply. I have searched wikipedia.. but i'm afraid that there's very limited imformation on the F-5S... thanks anyway!
-
well. depends on what info you need.
interior or exterior?
if youre making a model. or just interested to know. lols
-
Originally posted by arball:
well. depends on what info you need.
interior or exterior?
if youre making a model. or just interested to know. lols
Well more like the general info about the plane lah... cos i'm really interested in it. Naw i'm not building a model. Seems hard to find info anywhere about F-5S lol. -
For one, you can look up on the F-5.
The known upgrades to the F-5S was on wikipedia the last time I checked. Grifo-radar w/ AMRAAM integration. Python4 integration rumored, + upgraded cockpit to that of 4G aircraft standards.
-
Wiki's info is a little unreliable. Official Mindef factsheet link on the F-5S upgrade: http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/1998/jan/07jan98_nr/07jan98_fs.html A little data on the Grifo-F: http://www.aiad.it/upload/aziende/azienda_110/grifi.pdf Other than that, the standard F-5E and F specs apply.
-
Originally posted by Pentaxdude90:
Well more like the general info about the plane lah... cos i'm really interested in it. Naw i'm not building a model. Seems hard to find info anywhere about F-5S lol.
main thing was the radar was upgraded, needed to remove 1 gun. avionics is upgraded, including HOTAS. that's the main component is that the avionics is really good, so the platform still remains relevant and survivable in our region.added a aerial re-fuelling probe.
manouvring performance is about the same as an F5E as the powerplants are still the same, no upgrades done to the engines or the airframe.
if you went to the openhouse recently you'd probably see all the updated specs on the board next to the display, thats about as accurate you'll get for public knowledge. :)
-
+ data-links, built-in chaff/flare launchers & ECM from X country, DASH 3 HMS for AIM-9M or e rumouerd python 4.
With their radar they r very deadly aircraft in BVR engagements
-
Originally posted by spartan_6:
+ data-links, built-in chaff/flare launchers & ECM from X country, DASH 3 HMS for AIM-9M or e rumouerd python 4.
With their radar they r very deadly aircraft in BVR engagements
eh, BVR? Aim-9s and the rumoured Python-4 shouldn't be considered BVR capability. both still quite short ranged. unless you're saying our F5s can carry BVR missiles, would really like to see a pic of our jets with that capability.. -
Considering that the AGM-65 is heavier than the Aim-7, weight is not an issue for F-5 integration. Also, Elbit has been integrating missiles like the Derby onto Indian air force planes eg mirage 2000H so it is not inconceivable that BVR missile capability can be incorporated. However, in order to happen, an upgrade to the launchers must happen or the aircraft must be able to be configured with the latest LAU-128/9 launcher series or the older LAU-106 series (for the Aim-7) or upgraded to -D config (for the Aim-9X). I don't think the technology is beyond ST/Elbit. But whether such integration actually happened is a state secret. The point for many observers is that if it was merely an avionics upgrade, it wouldn't have needed a HMS sight (as highlighted by others many times before). HMS sights complements off bore missiles and the current AIM-9s (excluding the -X) are far from off-bore sighted. Chile's upgrade involved the Python and possibly the Derby as well. Factor in ST eng's boast about its F-5 upgrade being the most advanced and bringing it to F-16 standard (see annual reports). Considering the closeness of the Israel-Singapore relationship and the value vs cost of such integration, I would have to seriously factor in such capability in mission planning, if I was a potential anti-SG aggressor. But if it did happen, there is also an issue with training, live firing testing etc. Having a missile without tests and training reduces the utility of the missiles. Such training can be compensated in ground simulators, ACMI (the RSAF have 4) and consistent training with the HMS which is something that the RSAF does. Further with integration of paveway II and III capability to the F-5s, one wonder if something like this could already be in inventory.... http://www.sargentfletcher.com/bus_dev/flyer_lite_pod.pdf More added capability and shooters.....
-
If u dont know, our F-5S r AMRAAM capable
-
i tend to agree with slim10's explanation that the F5s need to be configured properly to carry the missile as well as shoot it.
i think the radar and avionics should be amraam capable but doesn't mean the aircraft can carry it yet unless the launchers are modified and there are suitable weapon stations for carriage. which wing station would they possibly mount the amraams on? but then again all these would be tip top secret eh.
so far most examples of F5s being BVR capable worldwide carry the derby so i say that would be the best guess if ever they were BVR capable.
furthermore our F5s don't have those 'bird-slicer' type IFF like the F16s right? firing off a BVR missile without positive identification is quite risky.
-
Yup. No need to see AMRAAM on F-5. See launcher enough but haven't seen one other than LAU-100/101/117 on F-5S photos.
100/101 tip is tapered...
http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/F-5_689071_73_med.jpg
129 tip is rounded. RSAF version on F-16 is 129A/A.
http://www.marvineng.com/mec/
Further need something like below to integrate python and derby. No official news of any such integration into RSAF.
http://www.geotestinc.com/Product.aspx?model=LAU-129i
-
btw, tot I highlight that the python 4 is compatible with all standard AIM-9 capable launchers so that's a different issue.
-
Regarding wingtip weight, the F-5A/Bs carried 50 gallon wingtip tanks which would translate into ~340lbs. The Amraam weighs about there but still think underwing is the more logical location.
-
Believe me our F-5S r AMRAAM armed tat all i can say
Wingtips i dun know
-
There are a few more stuff on the aircraft that is not public domain. But they will give the F-5 a large capability margin and hopefully when used in anger would also surprise an enemy.
-
Originally posted by cheeze:
i tend to agree with slim10's explanation that the F5s need to be configured properly to carry the missile as well as shoot it.
i think the radar and avionics should be amraam capable but doesn't mean the aircraft can carry it yet unless the launchers are modified and there are suitable weapon stations for carriage. which wing station would they possibly mount the amraams on? but then again all these would be tip top secret eh.
so far most examples of F5s being BVR capable worldwide carry the derby so i say that would be the best guess if ever they were BVR capable.
furthermore our F5s don't have those 'bird-slicer' type IFF like the F16s right? firing off a BVR missile without positive identification is quite risky.
BVR engagement is not cleared by IFF alone. Normal ROE applies. Visual identification unless cleared by AWACs.
-
Cheeze is probably referring to the lack of interrogator on the F-5.
The APX-109(v)3 IFF on the RSAF F-16s...
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/apx109/index.html
Shotgun, you are right though. Shot clearance can be given by AWACs, GCI or buddy aircraft.
-
yeah i was referring to the lack of interrogator on the F5.
it really helps alot on the B-scope when you can decipher faster which one is friendly or not.
but of cos with the use of BVR weapons it is restricted by shot clearances due to ROEs and visual identification which means you have to get close enough to the other jet then might as well just shoot off with an Aim 9 for example.
but the mighty little F-5 "BVR" capable would still carry missiles that would not be able to exploit their full potential due to the aircraft's lack of performance compared to newer fighters which can fly faster and higher, in those high altitude regimes the F-5 doesn't perform all that well. but being BVR capable is a whole new ballgame which isn't that bad after all. new capabilities if there actually is.
-
No longer makes sense to use F-5 in the primary interceptor role. Not when BVR-capable F-16s (and shortly F-15s with F-35s coming online within the next decade) are available.
F-5 are probably relegated to A2G already. With HMS-linked pythons/Aim-9s on wingtips, it still provides a reasonable self-defence capacity.
-
Originally posted by cheeze:
yeah i was referring to the lack of interrogator on the F5.
it really helps alot on the B-scope when you can decipher faster which one is friendly or not.
but of cos with the use of BVR weapons it is restricted by shot clearances due to ROEs and visual identification which means you have to get close enough to the other jet then might as well just shoot off with an Aim 9 for example.
but the mighty little F-5 "BVR" capable would still carry missiles that would not be able to exploit their full potential due to the aircraft's lack of performance compared to newer fighters which can fly faster and higher, in those high altitude regimes the F-5 doesn't perform all that well. but being BVR capable is a whole new ballgame which isn't that bad after all. new capabilities if there actually is.
Well, it depends if its an all out shooting war. Then there is a matter of what the contact is doing, where it is etc.
Say the target is in a pre-established zone (No Friendlies or Neutrals are supposed to be there) where BVR ROE is slightly looser, the pilot can take a shot if he deems it necessary. However, as in Desert Storm, only certain aircraft (F-15Cs) dedicated for Air Superiority missions will have automatic clearance for BVR.
Then there is a question of what that guy is doing. Interpreting the data from the B-scope, you can take a guess whether this guy is hostile and whether he's a threat or not.
If he's moving high and fast and towards you, he's probably hostile and a threat.
If he's low and slow, he might be a non-threat aircraft.
Given laxed BVR ROE, its up to the pilot to make the call. At least from what I read from some of Tom Clancy's books. I think it was "Every Man a Tiger."
-
Yup, designating weapons free zones applies. However, SG operates in a tight airspace dimension. Weapons free zones can restrict A2A aircraft in terms of ACM so design of such zones is important.
Don't forget potential aggressors know that and won't make life that easy either. They could fly in commercial air traffic routes, duplicate flight profiles of commercial aircraft, use terrain masking etc.
Too many variables to consider. Having Awacs guidance is a boost.
There were cases of F-15s not getting IFF signatures in Gulf war. They even got Awacs clearance but on visual id found the targets to be friendlies. Those are issues of large scale air battle management.
-
Official data from the 2008 open house. Note LGB capability already incorporated.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/churchwolf/2823636681/
F-16 AMRAAM capability acknowledged....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/churchwolf/2823660813/in/set-72157607082492708/
Found a pic of the F-5S with a centreline BRU-33 MER rack.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/301-400/walk341_F-16/images_Yusof/Pict0151.JPG
With wing pylons for bombs.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/301-400/walk341_F-16/images_Yusof/Pict0167.JPG