DSplayer

The thing is that the F-14 never operationally carried the AIM-120A. The F-14, however, was the aircraft that fired the AIM-120 in tests at the Pacific Missile Test Center at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California. Heatblur isn't Gaijin Entertainment, they aren't going to add the AIM-120 to the F-14 simply because it carried it and fired it in a testing environment. Here's what Naquaii said on the topic in January:

Not exactly 100% related to the topic but what does "i motion" or "im motion" mean in the title of the post?

Maybe the whitepaper is out of date for the info they found? That's the only explanation I could think of besides a mistake. Overall its pretty interesting how the AIM-54C is lacking in performance in comparison to it's older counterpart.

Would probably require some licensing from Garmin but I think it could be done and would be a unique addition to the RIOpit.

Looking at the values in Weapons.lua for the AIM-54s' motor data, it appears that the AIM-54C's motor is actually weaker than the AIM-54A-MK47's which makes it the weakest AIM-54 in terms of motor performance. The only advantage it has currently is the better CCM resistance (0.25 instead of 0.3), smokeless motor, and higher Nr_max which allows it to turn more in a turn (not that useful with the 54s since they drain so much energy). AIM-54A-MK47 AIM-54C-MK47 Here's a link to a difference checker with the values that I copied and pasted from the lua for both missiles: https://www.diffchecker.com/xYjSVkL9 These improvements will probably come when the new API comes within the next 5 years.

In my experience, if the person that changes the ALE-39 also rearms the aircraft, the loadout is correct. But if, for example, the RIO changes the ALE-39 but the Pilot rearms, the ALE-39 setting that the pilot chose is used (which is generally the stock setting). This can also happen when you rearm multiple times from both people (RIO changes ALE and rearms and then the Pilot rearms the aircraft at a later time).

Oof. The image was mislabeled where I found it. That is true.

Slightly diverging from this topic but here's an image of a JF-17 carrying maybe a PL-5 derivative on a pylon between the SD-10 double and the wingtip pylon. Idk what block it is tho. And here's an image of a JF-17 model at the AVIC booth somewhere with SD-10s (?) at the inner most pylons and PL-5s on the rest.

Recently HB was able to follow some leads and finally was able to confirm the addition of the AIM-54C's ability to go active on its own. I'm now wondering if HB was able to find some more things that could improve the AIM-54C's performance (better CCM, improved motor performance, better range, etc.) or even the later AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed models.

I know that Link 17 on the JF-17 (I know, not a very good comparison) can show closure rate of datalink contacts but I'm wondering if Link 4 can as well. Datalink on the F-14 can show the velocity vector of a target and if you hook a target with the HCU in the 14, it just shows a zero.

The October 14th Open Beta patch, yes. I'd assume it would maybe look like how Petrovich does his thing in the Mi-24 but probably more refined.

Back to the original topic, I really hope that when the new API comes out, it solves the issue that we saw where 54s just bleed speed and let themselves get notched.

A method of doing it got fixed. I just found another way to do it.

Bug: TCS can guide a Phoenix and not give RWR warnings Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes If not 100%, how often out of 10: 10/10 How to reproduce/description: Method 1: Step 1: PD-STT target and make sure TCS tracks target. Step 2: Pull trigger and break lock before the missile goes off the rail. Step 3: Make the radar slave to the TCS. Result: The target may receive a brief RWR launch warning but this will soon disappear and the missile will now guide silently towards the target that is shown on the TCS. Method 1.5: Step 1: PD-STT target. Step 2: Pull trigger. Step 3: Get TCS acquisition on target. Step 3: If target track is lost, slave the radar to the TCS. Result: The target will get a RWR warning for the portion of time that the Phoenix was guided via PD-STT but when tracking is switched to the TCS, they may not continue to receive a RWR warning. Method 2: Step 1: Bug target in TWS Step 2: Launch missile like typical TWS launch. Step 3: Make TCS slew to the target that you fired at (has to be the same target) Step 4: If you lose track on target, you can slave the radar to the TCS and continue to track the target as if it were PD-STT with the TCS. Step 4.5: If you didn't lose track, you can just slave the radar to the TCS before the active signal is sent and guide it like in Step 4. Result: The target will not receive any RWR warnings at all of a Phoenix heading their way and will die knowing that they were only getting F-14 nails. DCS Version: 2.7.6.13436 Open Beta System Specs: i7-8700k GTX 1080 Ti 32GB RAM SSD Samsung 1TB 860 EVO OS: Win10 Peripherals: Joystick: Saitek X56 Throttle: Logitech X56 Headtracker: TrackIR + TrackClipPro Track: Tracks files are too big so I couldn't include them here. Video/ Screenshots: Method 1: https://streamable.com/mmsfag (Excuse the language that is used in the video, I was messing around with some friends after discovering the bug) Method 2: https://streamable.com/b3txlh (Excuse the language that is used in the video, I was messing around with some friends after discovering the bug) Mods: Quaggles Custom Keybinds Message me if you require any help recreating this problem.

Hey that would be a nice mod.

Okay. Just wondering since when using PD-STT with the MLC off against a target in a look down situation, they can notch and still cause a loss of lock. But, if I’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, the lock shouldn’t be broken in that situation. Sorry if I’m misunderstanding what you’re explaining.

On the topic of STTing someone, how well would PD-STTing someone with the MLC off fair in similar conditions to what @SgtPappy laid out? Would locks still be lost if they enter the notch in a look down situation or is it supposed to maintain track even when they’re notching?

Jester doesn't do anything since he can't do anything in that situation.

I use RWS' large scan area to get SA then switch to TWS to engage targets.

The TCS elevation indicator next to the radar elevation next to the DDD doesn't move unless you're locked up to a target (only slaved to the radar and radar is actively tracking the target) and not when you're manually slewing it around with the HCU. I don't know if this is how it is on the real aircraft or it's simply a bug. Manually slewing with HCU with TCS slewed to almost the bottom of it's gimbal limit. TCS slaved to radar's STT lock with TCS acquisition TCS slaved to radar without TCS acquisition TCS acquired target but radar is not STTing that target.

I think this is in store for the F-14A-135GR Early.

Aww man. When do you guys think it will be available for OB release at the earliest? November-December-ish?

Yeah, I’m “patiently” waiting for the EIGT and maybe the new missile API. I also hope all those bug fixes and changes make it in as well.

Sad that there are no new fixed that ED put in for the F-14 for today’s hotfix.

You very well can start your own forum post about all the missing features of the AWG-9 with the info you have and try to get them added.