turkeydriver

AIM-54C has a stated approx. 10% greater range. It looks like this missile will be the one we use. Just give me an accurate TWS launch capability at fighter groups at around 54nm and ill be happy.

Sounds like this release will be more than any Tomcat fan could have dreamed of. Thank you so much. I'll buy the F-14 and any product you make if the quality and commitment are that good!

The F-14A+ and F-14B are the same, no difference. They are both rebuilt As and new builds. All F-14Bs were F-14A+, the only difference being that the name worked with the maintenance data system.

A+ is the B, name change due to incompatibility with the maintenance data system caused the name change.

He tells the nose gunner where to go and what to do..... Seriously, a lot of strike leads are RIOs and they set the navigation and flight profile, do all the talking on the radios, and establish the intercept speed and bearing. The AWG-9 is an old set but the RIO had a lot of great control over what it presented. Also, one of the greatest advantages of a human RIO? Putting veteran pilots in the back seat to teach new guys ACM. This ability alone will be a huge benefit to an virtual squadrons. Can't wait to join one flying this great piece of hardware.

Ordinance and ordnance...........one is a rule and one is a bomb......thanks for the excellent explanation.

No need for the PS, you're preaching to the choir and asking us to sing the DUH song.... Only thing I've found that I give credibility to that defies the old record is that Duke and Willie's F-4J was hit by an Atoll, not a SAM as Duke claimed. No SA-2 emitting in the area, no known SA-2 site established in the area, and the last MiG-17 fight(5th kill, not a famous Colonel Toon/Tomb) was to delay that F-4 and ensure a kill after MiG-21s showed up. Duke got the kill and was headed home when a MiG-21 took an easy shot an hit him, but you've probably read all this....

Congratulations on defining yourself as a late GenX/early millennial that has been programmed to doubt everything except your own opinion. There are strengths and weaknesses to that..... The APX-80 shot was early on in the war and not repeated once we shot down one of our own F-4s trying to get a BVR shot on a MiG-17. Also, I find it humerous that you give complete factual evidence to a report from the opposite side without researching further to prove its validity. This is evidence that your self-proclaimed, informed opinion, due to "getting both sides of the story" is really nothing more than an action to satisfy a mental need to feel superior, like you have the answer, as opposed to finding facts, you've spoken up here only to dispute the facts stated, never to agree or further the discussion.............I'm an "old" genXer but I think you have defined yourself as a troll of the interwebs.....

add "based on much fact and evidence doused with a lot of biased naysayer opinion" to the end LOL.:D

I'm thinking the final version of the A that fought in Desert Storm, right along side the first F-14A+.

Problem with geniuses is that their smarts take on their own personality and they get idolized, they stop working with other ideas, and adopt an all or nothing attitude. That's asking for it.

I love the non-export MLD, the definitive Flogger and wish we had a maneuver comparison, but all the aerodynamic improvements really did was to eliminate horrible characteristics at AoA levels experienced during ACM- it could not technically maneuver. Of note was that one of the frontline units of the USSR in Germany at the time the Wall fell was still operating the MiG-23MLD and their pilots considered it better than the MiG-29 in some ways- most likely high speed interception.

Please understand this one very important fact. You pilots fought pilots, your jets did not fight jets. What I mean by this, is the US Navy very specifically ensures that the tax dollars spent on training are used efficiently. That means, every time we set up an ACM det, its not to schedule the two top pilots to fight and see who wins. It schedules and prioritizes the new guys to go get humbled by being beaten, and then learn how to overcome that by the end of the detachment. The same scenario happened when VF-32 fought the Israeli F-16s and the ignorant air combat magazines reported that the F-14s were trashed. The reality was, the nugget pilots got good experience. A verteran LCDR fought the best Israeli in a clean F-16A with his bagged out F-14B and fought him neutral for 5 minutes until the F-16 had to bug out for bingo fuel. The F-14 always wins the fuel fight-something every MiG besides the Foxhound has very little of. So while your statement about your MiG drivers beating F-14D crews is correct. It is only from a training perspective-to give experience and humility to the Tomcat drivers that need training, and to reinforce cohesion between allies. VF-211s F-14A had no problem beating JG3s MiG-29s on det in ACM in their 6.5g jets. Don't be surprised how nice this computerized F-14A and F-14B handle, I imagine a lot of the uninformed armchair commandos will cry foul, because they don't understand that much of the difficulty in flying the F-14 is moving an 80lb stick when under G. Computer pilots don't ever feel that.

It's hilarious, the Growler has a better wing because they decreased the outward can't on the pylons. I've read it's a better jet clean but who knows.

That was a different version of the TF-30 for the F-111-don't know what the differences were other than possibly the accessories attached differently....just remember the TF-30 can hits 30000lbs of thrust installed in the F-14A at Mach0.9 at sea level ( supersonic fly-bys=no sweat:D). The engines could be slammed from full AB to idle and back without coughing and dying, and this was important. The no take offs in AB were allowed on the carrier but necessary as the JBDs couldn't take 2 F-110s blasting in full AB and ashore, if one motor did fail on take off, the rudder cannot compensate for the thrust, so its a no win scenario. this is why all F-14B/D demos wait until clearing the mainmounts before lighting AB. I'm sure all of you know, the top speed is also limited as Mach 1.8 for F-14B/D because the rudder cannot compensate at high speed if a motor quits.

AH ok F-14B/D BTW, not B/C. We would need power graphs of the motors though correct, I don't think its that easy to just 15k of thrust throughout the envelope, the response isn't automatic like AFAIK, but I'm no engineer.....yet:D

We need to see the power curves for the engines- FYI the TF-30 engine that we call a 20k lb thrust motor actually makes near 30k lb/thrust at sea level at mach 0.9, and the F-14B/D F-110 as a 27k lb/thrust motor makes more like 34k in that same regime. These power curves will be important in identifying the best speeds to fight these aircraft at.

Picking different weapons is the easy part- but the aircraft needs to have each pylon modeled independently, except for the tanks and the sidewinder stations. You should be able to load a strange "peacetime" Cold War CAP patrol load of 3 sidewinders, One AIM-54 and one AIM-7, distributed to minimize asymmetric load. I'm very interested in taking an 2 AIM-9/2 AIM-7 + TARPS on a high speed, low-level BDA. I've seen strange live loads if an AIM-54 on a Phoenix pallet next to a CBU or MK-82. A lot of research needs to be done to determine what configurations were cleared.

Maneuvering devices on auto/not functional does not refer to the glove vanes, it refers to the auto maneuver devices on the wings-flaps and slats. So the F-14B/D have graphs for auto/ not functional just as the F-14A does. The performance manuals were classified up until retirement and I do not know if they have actually been released or remain classified, so be careful digging around for that stuff unless you know its OK.

Horizontal tail surface lift and response should benefit the F-14 based on area alone, but the F-15's dogtooth and design might make them more effective than their size would by themselves. Also I've "heard" of a former PC resetting the diagnostic box after reading 14G after an ACM flight-that aircraft would be HARD DOWN for inspection, and while Grumman Ironworks get the jet in the air for 30+ years, the older airframes were so tweaked that the aircraft needed special adjustment just to get the access panels closed. Some blame the airframe stress was due to the carrying of bombs, but only frequent carriage of MK-84 sized bombs with maneuvering and landing would add any real stress. I'd bet money that all that tweaked airframe is from a life of hard ACM.

Ouch, had not idea as the book "looks" to have support from the Navy, and it never says the graphs are accurate, but you can't show kind of info and not be able to figure out what's missing. It didn't highlight any frequency or tactics-just performance capabilities that should have told the Soviets "Crap! We must develop the SU-27, MiG-29, and MiG-31 or we're totally hosed!" I figure it might have been an intentional Cold War "oops" to let them know we're not faking a claim here, this jet can do what we say it does.

That top chart looks to be a scan of the charts that had values removed from the Aero series F-14 book. It also included charts for the original PW401 engine F-14B, which had a sustained 8g curve right at both ends of .8 Mach.

Warhead, and complete control? AMRAAM makes its own decisions once its radar lights off correct? More likely, is the AIM-7P is a conversion kit(cheap upgrade of existing stocks) that produces a reliable and known weapon. The AIM-120C-7 and D have had motor reliability problems that was only recently solved. They might have been purchased as an insurance policy against low known good AIM-120 rounds.

I've only got fleet stories-akin to fishing stories, but one story, only one I've heard came from an AE on a mid 90s cruise who said that an F-18 driver bet he could outurn an F-14, so they settled it in the air, behind the carrier.( no idea to the credibility, as the Skipper and CAG would have fried if anything happened) but they entered a turn aft of the carrier at co-speed with altitude separation. You can expect the F-18 used his pinky paddle to allow a tighter turn, and the F-14 driver pulled for all he could. The F-14 pulled a tighter turn to 180 degrees but, said AE witnessed several panels fly off the F-14. When the jets landed they were both inspected and the F-14 was craned off after the cruise finished. Other than that, after talking to many F-14 crews and maintainers, I've never heard a single instance of an overstress incurring more than the extra maintenance time to do a full inspection. One particular note is an LM F-35 rep at Andrews AFB Open House in 2003, stated that the F-14s best turn in dogfighting really was 6.5g for rate, radius, and energy sustainment. Putting 8g on it didn't get you that many more degrees and nobody pulls a turn like that for 360 degrees in a dogfight. So, airshow degrees and seconds aside, instantaneous is what really matters, with sustained rate primarily being a indicator of energy management. I missed a lot of this discussion, but it's becoming a pointless F-15 vs F-14 thread(internet trolls rejoice).

There you go, let's get back to Tomcat's then. If there is any discussion on where DCS can improve its work, lets focus on A-A missiles and AI, and post it in the correct forum. Good night, that F-15 can turn......