turkeydriver

PMHT? Get me on the same page. I'm not trying to argue, just been reading and researching and serving for over 20 years. What data are you referring to?

VMAX for an AIM-54 launch is Mach 1.8 and it wasn't tested beyond that- The AIM-54 hit Mach 5 before being launched at Mach 2.

Thanks, then I'd verify but I'm sure its for the IR Seeker that some F-14As had before all went to TCS.

They would not be for Siidewinder as the RIO doesn't play with that weapon whatsoever. They would be for slaving the radar to the TCS or IRST on the F-14D or the IR seeker set from the early F-14A. This allows for an radar emission free intercept for either an active AIM-54 shot, sidewinder shot, HOJ AIM-7 shot, or gun. Also great to use in heavy ECM environments. Think of it as the earliest generation of "sensor fusion"

I'd say if you flew "other" 4th gen and fought and beat tomcats after 1998, good job shooting down a bomber..... Additionally in training situations the "green" pilots tend to get the priority on flight hours to benefit the most. Rarely does an ACM scenario end up in an ace vs ace scenario. The other 4th gen fighters are easier to fly and more forgiving in ACM. The F-14 demands you to think more. If a fighter is easier to fly, you tend to improve your skills quicker. I'd say it makes sense that is was tougher to fly the F-14 and you needed to learn how to use both brains best to get the most out of the fight. I'd pick a top F-14 crew over any other 4th gen jet hands down. It just makes sense it takes more to be good in an F-14.

Just as easy- only cant use extra bodies to do it, just keep a MAF open the entire shift and sign it off at the end even if it only took 1.5 hours for repair. I don't do this, but I know in the 1990s when the F-14 man-hours were so "high" the mantra was to put as many people as possible on a MAF to get man-hours.

Maintenance man hours per flight hour are easily fudged. That 20 man hours per flight isn't anything near realistic as so many can't even get in the air right now. The squadrons swap jets to get enough up jets for cruise, they base your allowed man-power on how much your jet takes to maintain. If youre smart youll load up as many hours as you can in the hopes that they plus up your types squadron with more people. Theere isn't an F/A-18 built that is 20mmh/fh. Not a single legacy, super, or Growler.

So-like the crews have stated- the turkey's territory is Mach 0.5-0.7. Of course if you're a hornet, they live there too, but don't sustain energy like a turkey. I don't how you do it, but if you can live through 3-4 turns with a hornet you might be OK(with weapons, not a clean bug-that's cheating)

Also those 2 AIIM-54 shots referenced cant be classified as "miisses". They were not loaded correctly and the rocket motors did not fire, so they failed, they became expensive MK-83s. The only other publically acknowledged AIM-54C shot was at a MiG-23 which was supersonic and beamed then ran back home- thee AIM-54 tracked all the way but ran out of energy, with the MiG supposedly crashing after running out of fuel. That's a kill in my book.

Eh kinda but nor really. Joint force cohesion wasn't up to snuff in DS1. AIM-54 was carried but the F-14 had trouble tanking of the Air Force tankers at altitude with the 2/3/2 loadout+tanks. THe Air Force tankers flew at the higher cruise speeds Air Force aircraft flew at and assumed the F-14 tanked like and F-15. The F-15 had NCTR on its radar and could therefore satisfy all shoot criteria, the AWG-9 did not, even though it was discussed adding it in the early 80s. The F-14D's APG-71 had NCTR, but wasn't ready for combat in 1991. So the Air Force was correctly leery about using the Tomcat BVR over land- where there were always more friendlies than bogeys, and they were afraid of blue on blue shots. So it was decided the F-14 would do blue water defense and escort some strikes. During the strikes, the Iraqis specifically held their fighters until the F-14s flew by, then blasted at the attack aircraft- this is specifically why Mark Fox and wingman got their J-7 kills.

Balance the F-14? because this is a flight simulation........Picard facepalm needed. SO much social media misinformation in this thread. I'm going to develop a flight sim called Opinions Matter, where armchair commando opinion dictates the FMs and all parts of the "simulation".......

Easy, if you got the Schlitz on the jet and the muscles to snap it. Watch airshow vids from crew perspective- you can here the RIO remind the pilot to "watch the G" coming out of every dive. Hoser Satrapa put +10g in a defensive break that produced an "aluminum cloud" to break Hawk Smith's track during AIMVAL/ACEVAL. A plane captain from a reserve squadron reported seeing +12g. It all depends on the speed of the jet when you make that hard pull.

But the TF-30 was a faster motor........F-110 was better for acceleration to Mach 1.6 and energy sustainment and building, but the TF-30 was faster up high.

That would depend on the reality of the TU-22 AI and cruise missile coding. In Third Wires survey sim, before they NERFed it, You caught a slight bit of reality in that you NEED to kill the bombers before they shoot, if the cruise missiles are high altitude/high speed VAMPYREs. Your flight of 4 can have a 95% hit rate with your AIM-54s and the 4 missiles that beat your screen kind of ensure one will get through and kill your carrier. I'd like to see how 18-20 F-14s (rest down for maintenance) in a 1980s deploy launch with 2IR/2SAHR/4 AIM-54 to protect the carrier when the fleet gets attacked by a surrounded mixed bag of TU-22 and TU-95 shooters going high and low from all directions. AEGIS would be very busy shooting as well.

From the educated horses mouth, as it were. F-14 is an air dominance king. End of story.

The bigger F-404-GE-401s really only offset the weight gain off the F/A-18C with the fat APG-73 in the nose. Best F/A-18 in ACM is a pre-mod Lot IX with the light nose and lower weight- you could fight that thing in high AoA at 70 knots and still point the nose. The heavier APG-73 nose didn't play as nice. That's from VFC aviator.

Let me clarify something. F-14s don't have traditional drop tanks in the same sense the Air Force does. They are external tanks that don't carry near the penalty of the big underwing tanks of the F-15/16/18. There is no G limit with them empty and they can be flown to Mach 1.8 fixed. So the F-14 drop tank idea is really a moot point. You can drop them when necessary, but launching off a carrier headed to a fight- you will burn the gas off the tanks first. If you're in an F-14 and the you've put yourself in a situation where the minute performance gain is needed just means you're a crap aviator.

Thanks BL213, that's my understanding as well. It may cause confusion if TDs for the fleet were released with F-14A and B grouped together- making people think the F-14B was included, but in reality of F-14A BUNOs were listed under applicability.

Just because I haven't seen it....are the glove vanes welded shut on the B or removed? The fairing doesn't look like its welded, it looks like theyre not installed. Was this only for the rebuilds? Please give me a reference. Touching these birds in 2004 showed no signs of having glove vanes, where as you can clearly see them shut on F-14As.

38 new build F-14A+(F-14B), 32 converted from select F-14A models in the fleet for a total of 70 produced for the fleet.

Any person that quotes "Sparrow" kill percentages is quoting nothing. There are so many different factors let alone the F and M being completely different weapons that accounted for the majority of kills in Desert Storm 1. The Ault report does a good job of placing the blame in all the correct spots.

You've read wrong. Targets pulling 6g were tested against. NOT saying the missile is an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder, but the early missile could kill a 6g target WVR (rocket motor burning) and the AIM-54C improved Target Detection Device allows for a broader engagement spectrum, however that is defined.

Its not an IRIS-T or AMRAAM. It has been tested against maneuverable targets and successful- but AFAIK those are all very close BVR or pure WVR shots, when the motor is still burning. Please keep in mind that the warhead is 100lbs of HE and doesn't need a DH to kill you. For that reason alone it just needs to get close enough to do damage. When an airplane suffers airframe damage under G(maneuvering) bad things happen. If you survive wounded- the 2nd missile will destroy you.

The seeker comes on at 20km away, 30km ABOVE you at least, its dropping (like AIM-120D and C7) to keep any possible energy for end game. So the "20km" is angular. Do we know for sure that the radar ALWAYs turns on as soon it gets within range? Can the Tomcat tell the missile to hold off if the radar picture determines the target is unaware? Regardless, the effective range really ise ~16km head on due to angular data. If your RWR and jamming is looking up, it will be effective, most 1980s and early 90s RWRs and jammers are NOT AFAIK. They're strongest lobes are out in front and behind with maybe 30 degrees for the strongest signals. Fighter RWRs and Jammers are primarily purposed to detect the fighter threat and allow you to react to it before you're shot at- not primarily made to detect active missiles and provide you the information necessary to defeat it, if you close with the bandit, trusting your RWR to faithfully tell you when to break, you'll be grounded by your skipper if you someone make it back. You should run if you have an F-14 on the radar screen. If you have any data whatsoever real world on how eastern avionics was designed to detect and avert/defeat an AIM-54 shot, please inform me. Of course ECCM and guidance improvements matter, the AIM-54C IS a more effective fighter killer but was not funded primarily so- those improvements are in to make it an effective cruise missile killer and adapt to jammers that had been tuned to defeat the AIM-54A(once the Shah was overthrown in Iran and the tech presumed compromised). In any war scenario unless you were out to meet SU-27/MiG-31, the AIM-54s were meant to be saved for the TU-22/95/16 missile shooters and their Vampyres. The newer tech allowed for better targeting but AFAIK the controls were not modified- same missile rocket, body, and control response. I understand you disagreeing, please don't claim my statements as untrue just because you disagree with how they are written. You can negate all my posts by producing an interview from a pilot who detected an AIM-54 launch against them at range and defeated it because of RWR/Jamming/maneuvering. You will get opinions from pilots who practiced that to defeat it in training. The problem is its a waste to brief, launch, climb, and turn in just to die from an AIM-54 shot at 40nm. Every one of those guys who "beamed" and applied ECM and the lead instructor said "continue" didn't truly defeat a real AIM-54 shot. This wasn't because they're actions were 100% effective against AIM-54s. It was to allow the training dollar to be maximized. If we are talking a sub angels 15 target that takes evasive action, that big AIM-54 will definitely bleed like crazy if it tries to turn in the thick air down low, but the AIM-54 is still dropping from60-70k as it adjusts for maneuvering through 30k. You don't see it at all, you're doing you're best to translate the 3d picture from your 2d RWR. Most likely you are just dead. Its a completely different weapon to train to defeat from an AIM-7/AIM-120A-C5. You're radar lock is harder to break because you're fighting a pulse lock at close range- you're not gonna beam because its not strict Doppler. If you time it right and remain at corner velocity perhaps you'll run it out of steam. I'd imagine there are few cool cats who could reliably do this. We just don't have the data to claim how effective eastern equipment is at defeating AIM-54. Its all theory, simulated as best we're able to, based on the provided data. But as my wife proves daily by merely analyzing those noises that come out of my mouth- I am mistaken rather often. IF you say you have hard data that proves otherwise, I stand by to be enlightened.

The REALITY is we're a bunch of armchair commandos who think our book research and education validate reality based on the public knowledge available. Most of the time this ignores the human in the loop and gives way too much credibility to (random book) and (random pilot who flies KC-135s but once refueled a tomcat carrying AIM-54s). Reality was the AIM-54A was tested from and fired in MADDOG mode and fired at a closing target that broke DOWN and HARD (6g) to defeat the missile radar(beam). The missile test was a success because it passed within "lethal distance" of the QF-86 drone. This most likely was done to save the drone, not because the missile didn't fuse properly, and to observe how close the missile could get to a DH on a maneuvering target. Short answer- yes, no problem, your in-game RWR wont give you the time to react, but an effective ground based EW or AWACs should give you enough SA to react to it. Remember it is dropping down from on high- so your forward aimed jamming and RWR doesn't matter. If you have an high end RWR (Western type) It may be slightly more effective depending on your antenna installation and direction. Remember the MiG-23s tactic against the F-15/F-16 was to attack from below or above as the RWR coverage wasn't effective there. When the shots in Iraq missed, it was because of a bad missile install(rockets didn't arm), and a perfect high speed profile flown by a MiG-25 that also dodged multiple AIM-7 and AIM-120 from F-15s. FWIW the missile tracked perfectly, but was ran out of Schlitz due to a high speed beam and run by the MiG-25. This of course from public documents.