turkeydriver

Do some research and you will revise your statement. The F-14 is every bit a dogfighter, but it is not an F-16. Don't take my word for it, talk to the people that flew it.

Ooh yes, need the ability to do a high alpha low speed cross couple to swap ends. DCS engine models alpha beautifully.

An F-14s min radius turn, depending on weight and air density, is typically around 330-360kts. That's a "NATOPs" min radius turn- both engines operating at the same setting, "legal" flaps, etc. This discussion then turns into rate vs radius.....enter Boyd...yadayadayada. At those slow speeds you have entered the Tomcat's world. However, no Tomcat is ever going to follow an F-16's 9g turn and match its rate and radius at the same time. It could fly faster and try a bigger radius with equivalent rate, or a slower speed match the rate with a smaller radius. Note that while the tested F-14s demonstrated +9g/-5g, this didn't give a jet that's going to last for 6000 hours. It caused a LOT of excess maintenance. The wing sweep programming(mach sweep programmer) was changed from the first jets, where it was scheduled for maximum lift and caused too much bend in the wings, to maximum Ps. So your F-14, though underpowered in the A variant and not able to rebuild energy as quickly as an F-15, does sustain energy very well as long as the fight doesn't involve a lot of vertical at heavy weights.

I'm not doing a level comparison. Just stating that Iraq probably used Soviet tactics that described staying low and angling for weak coverage areas on the F-14/F-15/F-16 RWR. The MiG-29 maneuver kill was a case specifically where the pilots were surprised by a MiG-29 trying to ambush them. It's described as such by the pilots themselves. The overall tone here is getting abrasive discussing possible Soviet tactics versus 4th gen US fighters....perhaps I've touched a nerve? I have no intention of doing so, just trying to be involved. Back on topic, is the flight model going to be NATOPs specific? Or do you intend to "allow" NATOPs forbidden maneuvers that were used ( and increased ground maintenance time), such as flaps above a specific airspeed during ACM?

While the F-15s amazing APG-63 proved themselves in Desert Storm, it's clear the Iraqis used this tactic to good effect. Despite all of the detection and kills, a good number of Iraqi aircraft escaped to Iran AND there were a few cases when superior American tactics were the only thing that saved them. MiG-29s attempted to ambush F-15s, and there more than a few surprise blips on the radar. So the tactics were definitely written as "your aircraft is inferior, so only do this" within saying exactly that.

Also at that time AWG-9's TWS didn't trip an RWR at range, it was designed that way, so you could take a missile shot and guide it with no warning. Once the AIM-54s radar went live, if it tripped your RWR you had something closing at ~Mach4-5, inside of 12 miles. You do that math, very little time to react.

Thanks, I've only read very little Eastern stuff and a lot of Western. Edited my post. Do the tactics describe how to get within range-like the MiG-23 tactics of low altitude+beam and when in range, zoom in, shoot, and run? Or do the tactics give any detail on defeating BVR shots while trying to get within range to employ your weapons?

Thank you for insight.

thanks for the info!

Regarding the AIM-54........ Study the particulars on the "misses" genius. In the instance where the missile guided against the MiG-25 ( which was flying a power curve of sorts-designed to instigate a reaction by penetrating the Southern NFZ at high speed then turn and dive- instantly defeating every BVR missile shot) there were also F-15s in the Area that missed with AIM-7s and AIM-120s. The flight was a mixed flight of an F-14D and F-18C, the F-18 was left in the dust and had no chance to get into a missile launch zone. The other circumstance would have been an easy kill where the weapons were launched at a target in the "heart of the envelope." However, a new ordnanceman had checked onboard and incorrectly installed the AIM-54s, when they were fired, they dropped and their rocket motor safety pins were sheared intact instead of separating correctly. This had no fault on the missile's part. What one must consider in all fact, is that the AIM-120s success is in a very large part due to the platforms that launch it. Sure it has limits and flaws and faults, but its lack of use due to high cost- and strategic preservation for only anti bomber shots during the 70s and 80s, led to a lack of loading proficiency and reliability of the weapon. Used and loaded as common as an AIM-7 or AIM-9, I have no doubt promising a very high PK.

Tom Cooper has a lot of accuracy but of course like most forces- there is exaggeration. The truth lies somewhere in between. We think we were able to permanently sabotage every AIM-54 and all the F-14s but that just isn't the case. Tom Cooper's book has too many stories that can't be made up. The problem lies in MiM-23 batteries claiming AIM-54 kills, and the differing accounts of Iran and Iraq's war records. Iran claims that the French tested a few Mirage 2000 in Iraq. Iraq and France deny this AFAIK. The F-14A tech is old now, and solid state manufacturing would allow bypassing certain parts that were difficult to procure in the past.

KC-135 only, KC-10 had a soft basket that was preferred to tank off of.

From what I've read there where restrictions you could get around, and from what I've heard these were slow speed, high alpha restrictions, as well as the famous rolling restrictions. the test F-14DTomcat for DFCS was testing max roll( the F-14 has no ailerons, so it doesn't roll as fast as an F-16), the DFCS allowed for such response that the F-14 easily exceeded 4g rolling(-y-axis g, not the normal +/- of the X axis) and damaged the engine bay daily doors. Thus the restrictions were put into place. The DFCS may have been an overall ACM hamper for the B/D, but when an A squadron (VF-41?, VF-211?) took their jets to Germany on an ACM det in with the MiG-29s, the Luftwaffe pilots remarked they had never seen Tomcat's fight so well and they scored admirably.....

Ditto on lunaticfringe and Mathius. I was lucky enough to order the World Air Power Journal book as soon as it was available for order, but the information the GREAT BIG BOOK OF WARPLANES (lol love that title), cannot be understated. For information on the F-14A, there is a very old book, that does a better job than any book, explaining the impact the F-14 would have. It also shows EM diagrams, with values removed(then classified data) that showed how much better the F-14 was than the MiG-21 and also showed the -401 engine F-14B. It's called Tomcat Aero series 25, by James Perry Stevenson. It does a great job explaining AWG-9 radar modes and showing some display information.

That's unfortunate, glove vanes were operationally up unit what? 1984-85? There's a video on youtube with Dale flying an F-14A using glove vanes manually to get a tighter turn with swept wings at low level- I had never seen that before.

What block standard was the most common block fleetwide in say 1992? I'd go with that one. Unless the intent is to have more difference between the F-14A and A+ than the engines, I was thinking they would be as close to each other as possible just to ease development.

I'd really like an F-14A stick, I just wonder if the thumb wheel for flaps should function as an axis or multi position switch. If it can be made to work accurately, awesome! If not, an F-14D stick might be easier as the Gun/SW/SP/PH select switch is replaced by a weapon select Hat.

Yeah thats a bad assembly job, sorry you got a bad deal.

Are you hamfisted? I've had my Warthog since 2011 when it replaced my stolen Cougar. It has had zero hardware issues. The Cougar had one switch break in 10 years. Whats wrong with the quality?

......Adversary F-5 skin is already in the game...... thinking its Miramar or more likely Fallon.

Who is working on the WH stick?

F-14As had only a 1553 digital data bus, and this is why they couldn't drop JDAM, They could have been upgraded, but there was no need, they were effective LGM carriers- VF-154 dropped GBU-24 Paveway 3 on several occasions and lased with their own LANTIRNs. VF-41 drop PaveWay III during Kosovo, but with it being a first time think and the crews not being wholly proficient, the results were not as expected. They were trying to seal a cave entrance that hid a lot of MiG-17 and MiG-21. The bomb hit the mountain and buried deep before detonation, possibly collapsing parts of the cave.

While I fully appreciate EM diagrams and the use of mathematics to explain physics, I appreciate more what the charts don't show. The F-14 is a bread and butter vertical fighter WVR. This has nothing to do with its TW ratio, it has everything to do with it being a giant wing with 2 engine pods. Its maneuvering devices and weight distribution allows yo-yo maneuvers tighter than other aircraft and it retains its energy better than most other fighters doing this. The F-15 and F-16 are superior at higher speeds, and the F/A-18 will always be easier to control, but the MiG-23 cannot maneuver with any fighter made after the F-4. The MiG-23 can zoom and boom, climb , and accelerate, at eye-watering speeds. The MiG-23MLD goes a long way fixing the deadly problems the MiG-23 encounters during dogfights, but early MiG-23s disintegrated in the air at loads of 8g or more. F-14s only require an overstress inspection and after repeated abuse, intense maintenance such as bulkhead replacement due to cracks. What you must understand as an armchair commando like 99% of us(non-fighter pilots), is that if any of us where given the training and ability to fly and fight all of the fighter aircraft in the world we would come to the following conclusions: 1) initially we would be impressed by those airframes that are easier to control-this makes learning ACM tactics a less intense task. 2) After a few hundred hours in each type, we would learn that each type has specific strengths that you must counter or they will use that strength to beat you 3) After a 1000 hours or so we would learn that now being able to "wear the aircraft like a second skin", we can perform maneuvers and have a bagful of tricks that aren't defined by NATOPS or diagrams(like cross coupling stick and rudder inputs to swap ends instantaneously). EM diagrams show that the MiG-29 and Eurofighter Typhoon to be on par aircraft, reality proves the Eurofighter to be far superior, every time. My advice, pick one aircraft, know its strengths and weaknesses cold, and then make your enemy fly to your strengths.

They modified only 2 F-14a to carry the Hawk, and it was unable to reliably track the AWG-9s beam. Not a single Hawk fired from either of the two ever hit a target.

Bombcat...... It's a name created by people on the ground who saw bombs on a tomcat..... The upgraded F-14Bs weren't upgraded "to carry bombs", as any tomcat could do this. The VF-41 F-14As that dropped GBUs in Bosnia had no upgrades whatsoever. The upgrade you are referring to is the F-14B(upgrade) and this can be seen sometimes on the side of the jet just above the BuNo. What it did was upgrade the capability of dropping bombs. It upgraded the databus(allowing for JDAM carriage-this is why those F-14Bs and Ds could drop JDAM and F-14A could not), replaced display components in the RIO seat(crystal clear huge screen for accurate laser designation-this is directly responsible for the huge display in the F-18F backseat), the control grip from the A-12 on the left hand side(looks like a backseat F-16 throttle, but its just for LANTIRN control) and a few other upgrades. Bombcat is an airshow name. Now to topic, I'd like these upgrades but later and if it isn't too difficult. We need an accurate stores management system first and I gotta see how the RIO seat looks before I want this capability. Though FAC(A) mission in multiplayer would be amazing. In one mission during Desert Fox, a single F-14 crew took out 2 A-A gun emplacements and then lased for 8 more Hornets using AGM-65E and GBU-12. That capability would be great fun, as long as its done correctly.