turkeydriver

Bad info. The AIM-54 has a max launch range in TWS mode at around 84nm from the target. The enemy RWR most likely will not have picked this up and will be relying on ground controllers to alert it to the F-14s presence. This is why the long range AIM-54 shot is effective against any target that can be tracked. It depends on the strength of the enemy RWR to pick up low-emission AWG-9 RWR pulses. No problem today, big problem in the 1980s -early 1990s. If you try for a super max range shot in STT, you can throw everything out the window. The AWG-9 is blasting a ton of energy at a dedicated target, tripping the RWR and max range and indicating to the enemy a shot has most likely been fired. TWS mode doesn't give any such indication. Realistic DCS multiplayer against the F-14 should go like this. You receive a RWR indication of an F-14 sweeping the area. You don't know the range or if a shot has been fired. You maneuver to break lock or F-pole a bit to defeat the possible inbound missile while attempting an AE Alamo or AMRAAMski shot. You only get an indication of an AIM-54 tracking you once it has activated its radar at 10-12nm from you. If you beam or run you beat the missile you never knew was in the air. If you do what 90% of new players will do, try to continue to close and kill the F-14, you will then have to defeat a weapon dropping with kinetic energy- Mach 1.5-2.0 possible at the end game, dropping from way up high. You haven't trained for this, you only train for near co-altitude evasion, so adding that new dimension will throw you off, perhaps you dodge the 2 that were launched at you and then beam hard again to defeat the 2 AIM-7, then die to the 2 AIM-9. You're not fighting an F-15, You're not fighting a MiG-31. You're fighting both at the same time. Once you understand the AIM-54 engagement envelope, and the AWG-9s limitations, you should have better engagements. If the systems are simulated with as much accuracy as possible, you should understand attempting to defeat an F-14 over blue water is stupid for anything that can be tracked. You need max awareness of where the F-14 is and when it is shooting, otherwise its guess work if he is tracking you and shooting you(except for STT AIM54 shots- which are stupid against anything that can maneuver)

Sarcasm edited out.

As I understand it- a small number of AWG-9 sets were modified with NCTR in the early eighties but the funding was removed, how this happens with an AWG-9 I don't know. I do not have information if these sets were specifically tracked and used or the system disabled. Regardless, F-14 crews didn't train or deploy with the system for the 1991 Gulf War. The F-14D had NCTR from the start with the APG-71 as well as Link-16 and the way F-14Ds datalinked to control airspace was like the way MiG-31s do now. You can control humongous amounts of airspace with a small amount of F-14s.

Sarcasm edited out........ The F-14 is heavy, and does not roll like smaller fighters-but this due mostly to lack of ailerons(swing wing). The weight of the AWG-9 and 2 person cockpit limits alpha maneuvers at low speeds. The early F/A-18As( Lot IX and earlier) had a lighter nose that you could point everywhere at very low speeds. The later models with the APG-73 had a heavy nose that impacted their low speed authority. Corner Speed is anywhere from 330-360 knots depending on weight and altitude in the F-14, this will give you comparable turn rates to other fourth gen fighters.

I think Iran has the capability to just about reverse engineer anything they can get the materials for....that's all I'll say about that.

I'm very sorry I think all of this capability would be very cool but there isn't one video showing an actual MiM-23 FIRING and HITTING a target after being launched by an F-14. It cannot tune to the AWG-9. What you've read is largely intentional misleading information to fluff their jet's capabilities. It is amazing that they fly at all but I seriously doubt the ability to maintain the AWG-9 as a fully capable system and doubt all press releases that state otherwise. I think a very realistic capability is long range search and attacking with AIM-9Js. If Iran had a radar missile capability they would film it in HD4k resolution and send to every News outlet in the world. What they have now are press releases and ideas and prototypes and drop tests and separation tests and models. What they have not demonstrated in the past twenty years is the ability to destroy an A-A target with an American made radar guided weapon. I'd guess their MiG-29s are in better shape. ( this coming from a 20 years avionics tech)

Not quite. Super Hornet was developed long before the F-14 was cancelled solely because of its anemic range and lack of weapons bring back ability. It didn't have the same wing and existed only in drawing and idea form, but the cancellation of the Tomcat allowed it to be funded as it was the only design that could be funded as an interim replacement until the arrival of JSF.

No. it was most definitely not ever. It was launched from but cant work with the AWG-9. It was a local propaganda tool.

Too bad it wasn't funded eh? http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/mats/f14-detail-agm88-01.jpg

You know if this was on kickstarter it would have raised more money than Star Citizen.....just saying..... Looks great! keep testing! Thank you for your HARD WORK!

Great analysis!!!

Thanks Nick- great read!

For maneuvering and acceleration under G the TF-30s were not suited, but I'm pretty sure the TF-30 out performs the F-110 at high speed and altitude. Given you're rarely in those conditions, but the charts I looked at had the TF-30 above angels 30k and above Mach 1.4 maybe? start making more thrust and start walking away with more acceleration until the placard limit. I don't know how much testing time was devoted to getting the ramp scheduling set for max acceleration at altitude though for the F-110. I do know the B/D had the reputation for the best acceleration on the NTTR range during detachments- easily first jet to Mach 1.6(max speed at the range AFAIK). This is prior to the F-22 and Eurofighter coming on the scene. Feel free to shoot me down with science. I'm all about the F-110 being an actual fighter engine that performed better in 90% of the envelope, I'm pretty sure that the TF-30 took the altitude and speed numbers though.

The F-14B (upgrade) and F-14D had the necessary databus to carry the JDAM. An F-14B of VF-143? dropped JDAM in Afghanistan with pre-loaded coordinates in 2001-which is strange because this was prior to the fleet upgrade. F-14Ds had the necessary 1760 databus from day 1. F-14A's never carried JDAM. ALl F-14D and B units carried JDAM by late 2002 and used this in "Shock and Awe" on opening night. VF-31 andVF-213 were upgraded to carry the GBU-38 500lb JDAM for their final combat cruise( same time as the ROVER capability was added).

Kev2go the SH did not address the shortcomings of the legacy F/A-18- they attempted to. What you are reading is advertising. The Supercarrier concept is crippled by the E/F/G series of aircraft. The idiotic wing it left the factory with marginalizes any range given by the extra gas. The "cost" savings are a lie because the necessary upgrades they later received via Block2 were separate funding items(ATFLIR, APG-79, AIM-120D and C-7). The extra pylons are negated because you rarely see SH carry a dual load other than AMRAAMs on a pylon due to greater drag. Some E/F squadrons don't carry wing tanks on the inboard stations because the majority of the gas is used to carry the tank. The S/H succeeds only as a stop gap and is effective at dropping small GBUs on 3rd world countries. As for saying the F-14 was built to be an interceptor only and that is it's only strength.....well I guess that children's book of fighter planes is a fun read but not really accurate. Read about the units brought inland for dedicated SOF support during OIF. The F-14s were requested over the F-15E, F-16, F-18 units there as well due to its range and ability to reach the area faster than all the other bomb trucks. The ancient F-14A had a much larger screen for showing a LANTIRN image than the F-15 and it allowed for greater accuracy. Yes, aging aircraft find new roles to fill out their service lives, but the F-14 was built from day to take these missions. Just because the Navy focused funds and training on fleet defense during the cold war doesn't mean the aircraft wasn't built to do other missions. You would be accurate in stating the AWG-9/AIM-54 was purpose built for intercept work. When they discovered A/G modes could be added, they decided the funding was too expensive. They made the same decision with the APG-71, although if there was an F-14D flying today, imagine what it would do with an AESA antenna and A-G modes.

After years of seeing"cost" as a reason to justify anew platform, the term cost is completely poltical- the "savings" are never returned to the tax payer but are used to buy something else. So while the F/A-18 A-F is cheaper to maintain per flight hour, carrier maintenance is much higher on arresting and catapult gear and additional sorties for tanking are generated to meet a similar tomcat profile mission. Also- the Hornet SLEP programs are extremely costly and have largely negated Tomcat maintenance costs. So as a single unit, by itself the Hornet is cheaper. As a lifecycle weapon system, it doesn't really save the US Navy squat. The savings is real for the VF squadrons that went to E model Hornets and saved money on back seater training. That's about it.

FWIW, the F-14A carried and released guided bombs prior to the Lantirn upgrade over Bosnia. F/A-18Cs lased the target and 2 VF-41 jets dropped either GBU-10 or GBU-16 on an ammo-depot. These jets were unmodded other than the modified Phoenix pallets.

FYI "roger that" while popular isn't quite part of navy lexicon. It has an Army origin with an original intent of "f#$% you". Copy is more popular and used in comms.

The ventral fins give stability at high AoA when the vertical stabs aren't getting a lot of airflow across the rudders,(aerospace engineer- make this sound better or correct it). They have small intakes for cooling air for the afterburner duct.

I'd like to edit and say 6.5g and/or a 330kts corner is gonna be best for the F-14A depending on weight and altitude, the B could possible sustain more g at corner depending on the fidelity level of simulation and where the game tells us it breaks.

Oh yes, its plenty strong!! Just meant that the radius and rate at 6.5g is sustained and better for fighting than putting more than that on the jet and bleeding energy. You can put your Hoser Satrapa 12g pull on the jet but you're just going to stop it and be a huge target out of energy. At that point anything can hit you.

You can thank the F-14A'ss Mach sweep programmer for giving IBM their plan for the CPU.

That's at sea level- if we're dogfighting at sea level, we'll burn up the gas quick- higher altitude fights should be more accommodating. With the F-14B, we will be managing the throttle during ACM to avoid putting too much energy on the jet to maintain position- it'll be too easy to overshoot and ruin shots if you're in Max AB with 2 F-110s. You're making plenty of excess energy above 300 knots in most situations except pure vertical, we'll be snapping the wings off the jet for the first few weeks trying to learn to stay in the 330-420kts area and realizing 6.5g is better than 7,8, 9.....12g at winning the dogfight.

These shouldn't affect us as long as we avoid throttle movement while maneuvering under high alpha and g. Just set it(afterburner for ACM) and forget it and you shouldn't have to worry about compressor stalls. You can induce them repeatedly easily though if you want to very easily.

This is not correct at all. This is why when you watch multiple missile shot clips w/ audio, you hear the audio "your shot" which is one of the crew handing the launch to the other crewman. Pilot has complete control of guns and sidewinders. Pilot/Rio can both launch AIM-7 and AIM-54