turkeydriver

The TF-30 doesn't just make 20k of thrust at every airspeed and altitude- It makes 30000lbs of thrust at Mach .9 at sea level. A light clean F-14A has a T-W greater than 1 if you're low on gas.

Also Glove vanes were removed from the F-14A+ and F-14B conversions and were not fitted on the new builds. Only the F-14B test aircraft (the red and white one from Grumman) had glove vanes. Despite the thinking that all F-14A units locked their glove vanes in due to maintenance and lack of need, some squadrons still used them.

They still retract, F-14s kept their doors on and have been refueling all their lives off of KC-135s, they were removed when the bomber mission came online and refueling off a KC-135 became an every mission task as opposed to occasional training or cross-ocean thing. Just note the F-14 tanked off the KC-135 throughout the majority of its career with the door on. They were removed when OEF and OIF made it too much of a risk to keep them on.

The US Navy did this as well for a while after 2001 until most units had transitioned to the Super Hornet. Might not apply to the timeline of this mod, but it would be a nice realism option.

Yes it is, that is where it was hard wired. The weight is offset by carrying a Sparrow or AIM-54 on the opposite side, but it isn't necessary.

Your post was excellent and very informative and clear, mine was a bit muddy.

Just stated more concisely what you showed. When people say "bombcat" they think of the LGB self designating bomber. Once Desert Storm 1 was over, the writing was on the wall and A-G training started ramping up. VF-103?(correct me if I'm wrong) carried LGBs over Bosnia and were lased by F/A-18s flying with them- that was 1995. The LANTIRN upgrade was just getting tested and finished then. The idea I get from LS is that the avionics fit for the two jets will be very similar-making me think no LANTIRN at all.

What blacklion said. They've already answered this. The F-14A is a mid-eighties, and the F-14B is 1995 version. F-14s were carrying and dropping dumb bombs since the early 90s, but were not LANTIRN upgraded and not prioritizing the mud mission about counter air. No F-14 used air to ground modes in operational service. The APG-71 could have been upgraded, but it never was. The baseline F-14A from the 1970s still had a CCIP mode AFAIK but that's it. If the launch is very successful, I'd imagine LS might consider a bombcat upgrade, but there is not one planned at this time.

I don't think you can get all the facts on the radar still. Here's a few thoughts to consider. AT THE TIME of introduction, the AWG-9 could track a target in TWS for an AIM-54 shot at a very low power signal due to its advanced receivers for the time. Espionage and the fall of Iran negated this feature that would have ensured instant death and was key to ensuring AIM-54 kills. It had many modes and the main display translated that data into a simplified tactical picture to allow the RIO to make the best time critical decisions to deter a multi-bomber, multi cruise missile scenario with the best chance for success. Above this screen the RIO, if crafty enough, could still manipulate raw radar data to see what the processor was trying to translate- this feature contributed most likely to the legendary reputation of the radar. Common beliefs and accepted understandings are: The AWG-9 was optimized for maximum detection range over water and not as good as the APG-63 in filtering out targets against terrain. AIM-7 shots still required STT of one target- and if the target had an RWR- you tripped it. It was a maintenance pain! A lot of modules, that could get shaken loose during the cat shot, and then reseat during the trap!

AIM-9G wasn't used as a primary weapon in the 1980s. It was all AIM-9L then AIM-9M on the Navy side. They may have shot AIM-9G at targets to use up old stocks, but didn't carry it on cruise for missions. If the SEAM was still used for the AIM-9L, I'm sure it will be modelled. It shouldn't be difficult at all.

B never carried an IRS/IRST. The early F-14A carried an IRS and the F-14D carried the IRST/TCS. So no, never, not in a million years.....

No worries- the TCS will be an awesome feature!

The old F-14A in the early-mid 1980s had more of an IRS than an IRST- not nearly as capable. The F-14D would need a separate build as its avionics are more demanding to simulate.

The operational bombcat was a cost effective solution. The 13 Mk-82s carried under the belly in the 1970s was a carry test only for the Marines purposes- it wasn't even thought of as an A-6 replacement at the time. When the bombs were carried like that they didn't separate well and the airflow would cause the Mk-82 to stay "flying" with the airframe. that's why you see the extension on the Phoenix pallets- its only to ensure clean separation. You can do a google search and find a patent for a new F-14 pallet that carries many more bombs plus probably more fuel or jamming equipment. That space if funded and developed could have made the F-14 a very effective jammer (EF-111 type), bomber (match the F-15 payload), and possibly tanker(a fuel and hose system pallet in the tunnel wouldn't have been a difficult design). Of course, the F-14 was designed with cold war mentality towards maintenance and you just cant launch or catch them as fast as Super Hornets because of the size and weight, but you would have a much longer ranged and capable jet. see here for an idea https://www.google.com/patents/US5476238?dq=F-14+weapon+patent&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CE0Q6AEwB2oVChMIwOGkpYP9yAIVVOpjCh2GzAXM

One of the F-14As that was used in that exact fight that killed a MiG-23 was rebuilt in an F-14D however. It is now at the Udvar Hazy Center Smithsonian in Virginia.

Only point I wanted to clarify was that if you were flying air defence/escort/kill jets, it spoiled the pilots and was used a lot. We tend to gloss over the non-OIF/OEF time period in its life but man those were the glory days, once the g-restrictions from shavings in the wing pivot were solved and the afterburner liner problem with the F-110 was fixed you couldn't touch an F-14D in Air to Air.

I have completely different info. The IRST on the F-14D was very useful and relied upon as it matured-to the point of pilots relying too much on it. This is why the exact system was updated slightly and seen important enough to mount on the SuperBugs external tank. Early on the system was a grey fairing since it wasn't ready yet, but the IRST gave the F-14D unique capabilities. Once the Tomcat was viewed as retired from Anti-air service and used primarily as a bomber- the system saw little use only because its wavelengths were set for Air to air use- hot motor/airframe against a cold sky. LANTIRN/SNIPER use a completely different wavelength to effectively track ground targets and really only use their TV trackers and shorter range IR spotters for air to air. Therefore the IRST was not needed or used once the F-14D started hauling bombs 100% of the time. The IRST on the 1994ish F-14D made it effective against radar stealth aircraft as long as their exhaust plume was detectable. It gave bearing and azimuth info- a system like that today with a good onboard computer could calculate range against a known set of targets and allow active radar missiles to launch and get mid course guidance solely from the IRST. Don't know if any operational jets use it that way but its entirely possible. The F-14A and F-14B we will get has the TCS which will be great fun to use.

The Caged and SEAM modes were brand new in the 1970s, but have been a feature on basically all fighters in a sense since that time. The capability is already modelled in DCS and shouldn't really need any length of time spent to make it unique to the F-14. SEAM was seen as needed once the target acquisition of the seeker head of AIM-9G and more importantly the AIM-9L/M showed that new radar modes could enable the expanded engagement off boresight of these weapons. Basically, when the generic fighter radar is in an ACM mode(narrow width and long vertical scan), when the radar grabs a target 20 degrees nose high, if the weapon can see it you can shoot. HMCS have made this redundant, as the AIM-9X and Archer types would be limited by being slaved to the radar in ACM. SEAM was mearly an evolutionary step of the avionics keeping pace with the weapon. I wouldn't worry about any of these modes not being implemented, although using boresight for an AIM-9 in a F-14 just doesn't make a lot of sense.

I must spread rep around before....... That's it, good stuff Blacklion213.

I thought the TF-30 was special at low altitude and Mach 0.9 in the tomcat, but the F-110 had insanely high thrust in the same regime- installed in F-14 its quoted ~27,000 lbs of thrust but at mach0.9 and sea level in the F-14 I think it makes something like 35k lbs of thrust. Don't remember where I saw that though, so check me.

From the charts I've looked at, high and fast, the TF-30 starts climbing away from the F-110 with thrust, From Mach 1.7 on up above 30000 feet IIRC. The engine was a great straight and fast engine, so it was ideal for the F-111, not so much for quick speed, G, and acceleration changes though. The axiom F-14A pilots used was "set it and forget it" when dogfighting in the F-14A. that is, set it in afterburner and don't touch it until you're done fighting, so you better win quick. Dale Snodgrass moved the throttles while fighting though, I'm sure he experienced his own share of compressor stalls. We should try to get retired CDR "Heater" Heatley to offer some advice on the subject.

This would effect 1% of the possible F-35 pilots.....everyone else would be an average sized or larger human of 160lbs or more. The helmet would make all the pilots have thick fullback necks so it shouldn't be as big an issue as is being made of it.

We will need to practice sound interceptor tactics, mostly based on defensive and offensive 2 ship maneuvers. Whenever we have a live RIO sitting, they will need to control the flight up to the merge. We'll need to practice who scans high, who scans low. I'm in if we can get this rolling.

The TARPS was a staple of the Tomcat community and mission set from the early 80s until retirement. Of the two squadrons associated to a carrier Air Wing in the 1980s and early 90s, one squadron had tomcats wired for, and crews trained for the TARPS mission. It was vital to carrier battle groups and area commanders for the information it provided at the TACTICAL level. All F-14Ds were wired for and could carry the TARPS pod in all its iterations, wet film TARPS through TARPS DI. This system is essential and needs to be a part of the release and campaign period.

The intent is for simulation during the time period- not balance. Why turn it into Ace Combat? R-77 was a MiG-29 only missile until when? AIM-120D is just coming online 11 years after the AIM-54 retirement. Spoofing an AIM-54 at range isn't difficult as long as you understand where the missile is and break AWG-9 lock before the AIM-54 goes active. Realism states that the Russia answered the West's technology and BVR advantage with numbers and low-level tactics that zoomed to the F-15/F-16 directly from beneath and firing. The SU-27 can play BVR with F-15s but the MiG-29 is more limited and should eat shots before getting to take one with any chance of a hit. This is what needs to be simulated-not everyone with a fighting chance. The SU-27 and MiG-29 post 2000 are not simulated and no hardware should be. This should be a 1990s game not a "best version of each jet no matter the time period or numbers built"