Southernbear

The AWG-9 is better for the fighter role, it can save more track files and is over all a more powerful radar. Although it could be said in the multirole aspect the APG-65 does also have the Ground radar option to consider. In terms of A2A I would say the AWG-9 is better but you also have to keep in mind that its older tech and was always designed to be used in a 2 person set up. It also perhaps on personal preference. The AWG-9 uses Sector PPI type display which for new comers could be seen as a scope that makes more sense in their head. On the other hand the Navy during the 1990s and 2000s change standards with the Hornet and with the F-14B/Us with the PTID and F-14Ds once they got the MFDs to play with and switched to the traditional B Scope display as seen in the F-16C and F/A-18C within DCS which over all gives better symbology due to being on a MFD and thus a little bit more tactical awareness. In terms of a pure fighter aircraft the AWG-9 is slightly superior but the F/A-18A-C were never designed as Air superiority aircraft alone. So taking the aircraft at face value it pretty much all depends on the situation and needs at the time.

Oh and one more thing, even if you didn't ACTUALLY break anything, the F-14 Gyros for it's INS would be pulled out of alignment with extended G or high G so while your plane itself might be fine after doing 1 too many 9-10G pulls you'd find that your CCIP and CCRP capability as well as your Navigation would either be inaccurate or completely useless.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The tomcat doesn't have a G limit...well not the traditional Modern fighter aircraft sense, as it doesn't have a digital flight computer to limit your imput so you can keep pulling till you break something. As this "something" can vary from plane to plane you need a blanket number. From Grumman it was 7.5Gs and then for safety reasons the Navy pulled that down to 6.5. There are documented cases however of planes routinely from the USN reaching 8-9Gs with no issues as well as one unsubstantiated report form an Iranian pilot during the Iran-Iraq war which ended up maxing out the G dial which had a max of 11.5Gs itself, in a dogfight while still being able to fly home. the Pilot suffered knee injuries, the RIO was in a neck brace for a few months and the plane had a total of 9 airframe structural fractures which grounded it for 2 years. But it flew home and didn't fly apart. (According to the allegded story according to Col. Fereydoun A. Mazandarani and his RIO Maj. Shokraee-Fard)

As for the 13.3G thing, yes they were concerned due to the long but thing wings that at high G they would snap off...but that is not to say the F-14 is a 13G aircraft. Because it turns out the engines rip out of their nacelle before the wings snap off...and thats what they found out with those tests.

Could be, though it was my understanding a overheated engine would catch fire or just quit rather then complete break up of the aircraft but its possible it was that.

I mean I'm all ears if this was the case as I'm sure HB would be too, if nothing else your evidence would be a good read if you could provide it.

I suppose part of the reasons people have such strong reactions could be in part to ED not holding the same standards as Heatblur. I'm pretty sure this argument happened almost 1:1 in C.W. lemoine's Tournament event thread with the aircraft being limited not to use flaps and to G factors of the books, thankfully they changed it to 7.5 as per Grumman rather then the Navy's 6.5. (Now I'll use the F/A-18 as an example but I'm sure there are other planes that have similar "quirks" that IRL wouldn't have been used the way we use them in this Sim.) But in another way they also helped the Tomcat by limiting the paddle switch use in the F/A-18 and thats the smoking gun. Even without the flaps if you get 2 good pilots and not allow the F/A-18 to use it's paddle switch then not let the F-14 use it's flaps it will not only match it but in most situations be slightly better then the F/A-18 which is what we saw in that event with the finalists being in, guess what? F-14s. I suppose the issue now in it's wider scope is as Heatblur has changed the flaps completely because they strive for realism but because ED doesn't hold the same standard there is no real penalty or negative for example a Bug pilots to abuse their Paddle switch constantly since we now don't have our Ace in the hole anymore. U could even look at 2019?'s SATAL engagement where as quoted by one of the HB Dev's who was part of it said "a FC3 module that will not be named", just to be diplomatic, managed to snatch victory away from the F-14s which had made it to that stage of the competition just because of ease of use and simplicity of FC3 planes compared to not only a full fidelity module but the F-14 no less (Remember they had to also use Human RIOs for that event so no Jester). Now as a glass half full person I would personally turn this around into a positive and say that after this change, if you manage to shoot down a F/A-18 or any other plane that has these kind of "quirks" in BFM or ACM then that makes you automatically the better pilot in that engagement. It also means they no longer have any leg to stand on if they try and tell you your wrong because YOU did it legitimately. Remember boys and Girls, Tom Cruise didn't need no silly gamey Flap strats to beat Viper in the A-4 or the Russians in their Mig 28s, He just needed Kelly McGillis, Grumman engineering and the wibbly wobbly vibes of Scientology!

It is a very subjective but I'll try to answer it as best I can using my opinions and what I've seen. It really depends on what your looking for too. I would say if your looking for the "most realistic", bug free, mostly complete and best value for money while still being useful in a multiplayer environment as well as something you've heard of possibly as a child? its gotta be the F-14. Yes it is a full priced Module but its mostly all there compared to other modules and for that full price your actually getting 4 different planes rather then 1 plane or a Frankenstein module of several different versions of the plane in 1. For the same price as the F/A-18 or F-16 you get the F-14A 95-GE (Iranian plane) 135-GE early and late as well as the F-14B and it is my personal opinion that the F-14 is one of those planes that is easy to fly but hard to master. Meaning its relatively easy to take off, land and get kills with but you have plenty of room to learn more about being a pilot as well as the WHOLE RIO pit if you so choose which is why I would say its ok for people first getting into DCS. However even it has its issues. The main being its a true fighter aircraft and until we get Jester LANTIRN the best you can do for SEAD/Ground attack would be CCIP/CCRP...otherwise you either got dumb bombs and rockets or need someone else who knows the LANTIRN system to do true GBU attacks and again that doesn't answer the SEAD issue. As well as this it doesn't have a digital fight computer so it's dogfighting is a lot closer to a warbird then it would be say a F-18 or F-16. That isn't to say you can't match or out perform them but it takes a lot more effort to do so and it also doesn't teach you skills that can be useful in the other planes. There's the F/A-18 which used to be ED's poster child. Its jack of all trades but master of none in my opinion. It can DO everything but more specialized planes will certainly do things better and imo once the F-16 is actually near 100% Finished I feel the Viper will take it's place, F-14B and F-16 will give the F-18 a run for its money in a dogfight and AGAIN in my opinion they are better in BVR due either the AIM-54 having much more range or the F-16's interface being much nicer and clearer. Of course the F-18 can also load more missiles then both so that should also be thought about. Theres also the F-16, on paper it has the possibility of being the best, relatively easy to learn, can do most things well aside from anti ship warfare but thats because its missing the weapons to do and is in part because it is the youngest module from ED and all the issues with said fact kind of weigh it down. You also don't get Naval ops as an option unlike the last 2. There has also been funky stuff happening to its weapons. so for example while it *has* HARMs...they don't do what they can do on the F/A-18 as of right now so in regards to SEAD the F/A-18 is still better then it FOR NOW. So I would say the F-16 is very much up there on paper but is atm very much a WIP. Then there is the JF-17. I suppose the only issue I would say about it is that its a JF-17. While I know there would be a few people that would, generally it isn't a plane people would say "I'm going to get into DCS because it has the JF-17" But in terms of what it can do within the sim and to what quality it does them. I would say its better then all 3 depending on the situation....but again it doesn't really have that hype around it. The Jeff is defiantly a sleeper module. Then there's RAZBAM...the Harrier is fun for harrier things as well as the M2000 but it can be said RB ain't the greatest when it comes to releasing a complete and stable product either. The Harrier being more ground attack focused but more dynamic then say a A-10 or Su-25 and the M2000 being even MORE of a dedicated fighter then even the F-14 so don't expect to be dropping warheads on foreheads in the baguette either. There is also legacy planes like the Mig 21 or F-5 and others which can work in a modern environment you just need to. TL : DR - If your looking for a realistic experience with really good value for money and bug free the F-14 is the way to go. - If your looking for a "do everything" plane that is mostly feature complete but a little rougher to learn the F-18 is the way to go. But if you don't mind not being a "US plane" or something you've heard of before then the JF-17 is also a good buy and is a little easier to learn. - If you want a "do everything" plane but don't mind waiting for fixes and features and have some patience? the F-16 is a good choice and is in general easier to learn then the F-18. - if you want anything other then that? then get the plane that suits what you want...be it a ground attacker, A-10, Su-25, AV-8B ect or something specific like a Mig 21, M2000 or F-5

>When people ask why the A when you have the B? >Me sitting in the corner rocking back and forth "Just...just you wait till the 135-GE Early with AIM-9Hs, AIM-7E4s and the literal Rorschach test that is the ALR-45 RWR comes,...I'll show you....I'll show you all!"

Now yes, this is a bug but I haven't put it in that section for a reason, 1, I think this is just amazing and frankly HB can take as long as they like fixing it because its hilarious and 2, its not practical...this is only possible at or above 70,000ft and at that altitude if you go off Afterburner the lack of air will cause both engines to stall instantly. As well as the high speeds screwing with the jet like telling you your in a stall and many other failures. Someone who isn't me posted on a Discord that the F-14A at such altitudes could reach Mach 3 so I just had to see for myself. Sure enough it does. Obviously with the TF-30's and the ramjet effect at high altitudes something hasn't gone quite right. I believe its this because you reach your "normal" Mach 2 speed (Btw its very funny being at Zone 5 while only sipping 1,500Ibs and hour) and then suddenly your speed, fuel usage and engine temperature will start to slowly keep rise in what could be described as a runaway feedback loop effect. Now right after reaching my max speed of Mach 3.37 the plane exploded, idk if its me hitting the map boarder, the game not liking people approaching 2000knts or that even at ~75,000ft Mach 3.37 was just too much for the F-14A's structure but whatever the case. While this bug is around I will use it as a mock up for an SR-71, seeing how different SAM systems deal with very high and very fast objects but I thought I would share this trick. I've only tried it with no pylons, tanks or weapons with full internal fuel, but as I said I don't think realistically this will be an actual issue that would effect many individuals or servers, for example in my first attempt at 65,000ft my speed was capped at in the 1,700knts or about Mach 2.8 and my engines temps just kept going up and up till I ran down to 1,900Ib of fuel and decided to go straight up to 130,000ft. It was very pretty up there. But yeah once the effect starts to happen the engines start to draw more and more fuel so its not like your gonna see F-14As cruising around at Mach 2.8-3.1 at 70,000ft+ and hell idk even know if it will work with weapons and tanks on the plane. TL : DR, F-14A can do Mach 3 at 75,000 feet, yes its a bug, but its not practical in combat what so ever.

Wait...the Link-4 does talk to other fighter aircraft? I was reading up on the ADCOM F-14 (unofficially the F-14C for the USAF) and it was my understanding that at the time it wasn't a requirerment for Datalink to talk to other fighters in the area for the Navy and rather just talk to the AWACS. Part of the ADCOM proposal was to allow for the Link-4 to talk to other friendly fighters in the area as it was a USAF standard.

1980, that is when the first F-14As were going to be upgraded to 135-GE standard and the new 135s were being rolled out. It was then deemed that the Glove vane actuators should be disconnected to reduce ground crew work load or wielded shut all together.

Unless the feature is yet to come and isn't in game I can't find it. As this feature is a bit of an "Off the books" thing the NATOPs Manuals don't really say where it is and when I jumped into the F-14A this morning it wasn't in the leg well breaker panels for the pilot where I thought it might be, So as the titles say, assuming its actually functioning in game, where is it in the cockpit?

TWS itself does not give you any more warning other than an RWR reading saying "Oh there a enemy plane over there" the AWG-9 as well as other radars is still searching the sky like in RWS but stores information on targets, analyses them, and then applies the the math to tell if the target in relation to your speed, altitude and heading allows for a "good" firing solution and then gives you the shoot que. When the missile is fired it is getting corrective commands based on whats in the computer and that track file. This can range from one command every 5 seconds at huge range 60-80nmi shots to several every second for say 30-20nmi shots. Regardless, its not until the missile gets the active command and switched to its on board radar homing does the enemy plane's RWR pick up the threat because the radar is "staring" at the plane. You can achieve the same thing with STT/PD-STT as the radar on the aircraft this time is using all of its energy and time to "stare" at that plane only *most* RWR can differentiate between Aircraft and missile radars which is how you can get a Lock and missile warning. As for the A-10 and *very few* F-16s, they use along with their RWR several cameras running in real time connected to a computer running a algorithm, this algorithm is scanning the video feed for trails of smoke which could indicate a missile launch such as a MANPAD and warn the pilot. Because this system is optical it means the RWR system in those planes could detect even IR missile launches such as AIM-9s, R-60s, R-73s and the mentioned MANPADs ect which normal RWRs do not.

Would be nice if the 135-GE early gets access to the AIM-9H and AIM-7E4...but HB has already said while they are working on trying to get them its still not confirmed.

This is probably because as they've said many times that the INS issue is a ED missile API issue and they can't fix it till ED changes the things they need to change?

Tbh yes, thats why I didn't use that as an option. We have yet to have a developer make a "map pack" and even Heatblur currently is the only developer thats giving us anything more then 1 playable product from 2 seperate dates for the same price as others. Even people like TrueGrit are just going to add something like the AIM-132 on the end of the EF-2000's development cycle rather then making a fresh dedicated aircraft for British players. So until I'm proved otherwise in the map department I'm assuming that the $40-60 price gap only allows for 1 map without the risk of loosing profits. for a Korea map this would be extremely evident too (even more then most) as since the 1950s to present South Korea and at some extent even North Korea have exploded industrial wise. Its not something you could overlook as easily as say the Channel map (when doing Cold War missions on that map vs WW2 stuff)

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/478840911493726218/765492891194884096/Tacview-20200927-194405-DCS-Bomber_Interception_over_Iran.zip.acmi If it works, this is a text book AIM-54 intercept on a Bomber intercept mission I run sometimes with friends, you'll see that the fighters and bombers don't react till the missile is within visual range (which is about 30-20nmi) If I remember targets were at about 65 miles and we were going near Mach 1 at launch at about 35-40,000 feet Forgive my use of AIM-7s, I still have yet to have a reliable doctrine of when to fire them in an intercept and they tend to go dumb on me, as well as the fighter AI being a little jank once we've merged...they don't seem to like to defend their bombers but once we engage them ourselves they start to do things. I made the mission to teach friends about the use of the AWG-9 and getting comfortable with 40-60nmi shots which mathematically their AIM-120C5s should be able to do but can't and knowing when your able to reliably reach out and touch someone is half the reason this thread exists so yeah. Plus its quite old (the mission) so some things might be wrong with the AI. I didn't know how to get Tacview files to upload so hopefully a URL to the Discord download is also fine.

TWS should not give a target a "track" indication on it's RWR. TWS works by scanning the target as the radar passes over it and storing it's last known position as a track file. Once the missile is fired it gets updates based off that information and is updated every time that target's position is updated when the radar passes over the correct Bar/azimuth (for every long shots corrective updates could take as long as 5 seconds before transmitting where as short range ones could only take half a second). Either way the target only gets a missile warning once the missile goes active. However in STT and P-STT where its tracking an aircraft with a live feed then yes, the RWR would give a warning.

What I will admit though is only enemies that like fighters and such (presumably with an RWR) will react. Large planes like Tu-160s, Tu-22s, Tu-142s and Tu-95s ect typically fly straight in my experience and don't start to turn till they actually see the missiles but by then and due to their size its too late so 50-60nmi shots are quite reliable against bombers...ironically what the missile was designed for.

Yeah but hold on...isn't the IFLOLS still not working for the F-14? Like I know it pops up and everything but last I heard it is still giving you an approach angle appropriate for an F/A-18 and not an F-14? Meaning for the most part its useless (aside from I guess night ops) as I'm sure everyone here can eyeball a pretty decent landing anyway...trying to use the IFLOLS if this is still the case then will never give you that perfect landing.

This video will go more indepth of what I've mostly already covered and you'll see the AWG-9 Shoot que (target flashing) in more detail here.

Something else that might help is not to screw with the radar till you've become more in tune with it first. As manually setting jester to scan out to 100 or 200 miles I find can make Jester go dumb and not want to lock up targets. So I would advise getting your bearings on enemy targets then switching the radar distance back to "Auto" On Auto Jester defaults to about 100nmi and since the max ever shot the Heatblur team has achieved is 127nmi going really high and really fast, and that, as you said most of the time TWS engagements are best at about 40-60nmi you have plenty of range. Hell because of the battery life thing you don't have to worry about being shot back at till at least 40nmi and thats assuming the targets have either AMRAAMs or SD-10s...otherwise you looking more at 20-30nmi...so you have plenty of time to get your missiles off.

It should also be noted that despite USAF and or USN doctrine employment of the AIM-54 on a large scale would be an unusual event and thus quite possibly outside the normal envelope of the "28,000 feet" ceiling for most operations. So your issues might be related to altitude. I would suggest firing AIM-54s no lower then 30,000 feet in a TWS, 40-80nmi intercept type engagement to get their full effect and would recommend 35-40,000 feet AND popping up the nose slightly to "manual loft" the missile as it gets a little bit more range out of it as its not using fuel to steer itself up into a loft This is of course if you not already at this altitude.

Here is an example of both aircraft and AWACS IFF working together, notice that all but one of the friendly targets have been IFFed and the symbol is now a complete circle, where as the enemy targets in the top left only have an arrow pointing down (meaning only the AWACS has IFFed the target) and likewise with the 1 friendly target in the middle of the scope