Grundar

The lighter the aircraft the better the ratio. So guns only it would perform better than fully laden. With reduced fuel it would again perform better as well. As to the exact numbers? I am unsure as to exact numbers but IIRC, With fuel/minimal weapons I believe the F-14 A's Thrust:Weight is about 0.85 the F-14 B's (and D's) is about 1.10. That may not seem like a big difference, but it is. Those F110 engines were magic with the F-14. The B's will be a significantly better performer in the multiplayer arena - though I wouldn't write off A's as sitting ducks - if you can fly it to it's strengths it will perform very well.

The A and A+/B vary differently enough from each other that you will notice a difference. The engines are perhaps the most noticeable of these differences. The F-14 A's TF 30 engines provided 20,840lbs max of thrust each, would compressor stall if, the AoA was too high, if the aircraft was above 30000ft and if the throttle was moved too aggressively - causing oscillations in yaw, general control loss and flat spins. It allowed a max speed of Mach 2.3 and the thrust:weight ratio (at max take off load) was only 0.56 (quite low). The F-14 A+ (later B's) had the F110 engine which provided 20 (ish)% more thrust (about 26,700 lbs each). The engine was also much more reliable and could be handled more aggressively by the pilot. The Thrust:weight ratio (max weight) increased to 0.73. Link to differences between the two engines: [ame]http://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/engines.pdf[/ame] While both aircraft may seem the same they are quite different from each other. yes the F-14D was the Rolls Royce model with all the gadgets but given that many/most of it's systems are still classified it would lack that authentic feel of the older and less classified models.

There are systems/data in the F-14D that Leatherneck wouldn't be able to get their hands on meaning there would be a lot of "gap filling" in terms of capability - by this I mean the systems like LANTIRN 40K, T3, FTI (ie targeting systems) ROVER 3 was also implemented in a very limited few F-14D's I believe (basically a full motion videolink that could be sent to a FAC's computer/laptop). It would lack the fidelity of the F-14A, A+/B. The F-14D was most certainly capable of ground attack and was highly efficient at it, it gave the USN a very capable punch - the sad fate was it was replaced by an aircraft with less payload and range, but financially - better to run in terms of cost. The AIM-54 Phoenix was very much a symbiotic missile with the F-14 - The combination of AWG-9 and the AIM-54A and later C was a very strong deterrent. The AIM-54 was predominantly designed for destroying bombers/large strike aircraft - it (supposedly) had a rather sophisticated (for the time) ability to operate well in a high ECM environment not to mention it's own active radar guidance in the terminal phase - it could also pull some surprisingly tight turns it seems for such a large missile. It could also intercept cruise missiles and the AIM-54C model had a programmable ECM capability allowing it to be adapted to encountered ECM. With the AWG's ability to track 24 simultaneous targets in TWS mode (and hence yet another display of the need for an RIO) it could also then launch 6 AIM-54's on those targets. That is a hell of a lot of potential destruction headed the enemies way - especially of it was a bomber/strike fleet. The Iranians claimed AIM-54 kills and honestly I believe them especially when many of Iraqs aircraft at the time did not have RWR's fitted (it is also why those craft often were grouped with Mirage F1's which did have a RWR). A rear aspect shot from a Phoenix on a non-RWR craft would be a high probability kill I imagine. The Iranians have since created their own AIM-54, the Fakour-90, which is a reverse engineered AIM-54. The USN did launch some AIM-54C's in combat I believe, two launched though failed due to the motors failing and another was launched that struck the ground chasing it's target. Now a few things to consider - in the first Iraq war - where the F-14 was at it's "prime" the ROE prevented BVR engagements - which meant that that long arm the F-14 had was hampered. F-15's took the role of CAP due to their IFF ability which at the time, the F-14 did not meet the requirements of. So the sampling rate for AIM-54 missile failure wasn't potentially representative of it's actual failure rate. If the ROE were different we may have seen AIM-54 "kills".

You are a pro I can understand maybe 0.5% of it myself :P The one thing I miss from the old days of flight sims are the huge manuals you got with them. That Falcon 4.0 manual was fantastic stuff.

1000 views already lol, people are hungry for news. Young Cobra was crook for a bit so they are probably sitting behind where they want to be. I am enjoying the speculation though from everyone and the random guesses people are making based on any and all potential sources (ie Cobras avatar etc..) It'll all be announced in good time. Also Star Wars Ep VII is nearly here, the excitement train is running out of carriages to pull!

Dave "Bio" Baranek mentions that the AWG-9/Phoenix was very effective in a heavy ECM environment - I can't remember if he mentioned this in his book Top Gun Days or on his website or I might of even heard it on Aviation Xtended's podcast about the F14 (that was a great one too). Dave was quite impressed with the Phoenix's capabilities it seems and given his experience with the F14 RIO position I would take his word seriously. Given that as you mention the threat to the carriers were long range squadrons EW support it sounds like the AWG-9/Phoenix combo would of been of great use within those situations (and hence what it was designed for - long range destruction of aircraft threatening the carrier group).

lmao was thinking the same thing. I would love to see a Viggen, would love a Drakken more - Leatherneck will produce something wonderful though, of all the third party devs these guys seem to produce the highest quality (Mig 21 is a wonderful module)

The actual pictures of the SU-24 show it with flames burning out of it's tail suggestive of a missile. I read that the Turkish airforce shot it down, while somewhere the Russians have stated it was due to proximity to artillery. Pilot dead and one other alive by the sounds of it. The Turkish military has come out and said the aircraft was warned multiple times so it doesn't seem to have been a "hair-trigger" response. Iran and Syria both operate Su-24's so the initial impression would be - who does it belong to? Is it in the hands of ISIS? I guess further from there - was a visual ROE in place? or was it simply warn off then engage when no response achieved?

I really like my X55 haven't had a problem with it so far, though there are a lot of various reports out there regarding various issues - that said you can also find issues for any joystick you care to google for. I would of loved to grab a Warthog, but can't justify the expense and the fact that with no twist stick - it means forking out for pedals as well. I have no problem with buying separate pedals as they are much more superior to a twist stick but with the Warthog you don't even have that option were as on the X55 you get a twist stick. So it's potentially another added expense. The X55 stick itself is very large so if you have moderate to small size hands or stubby fingers you will find it a somewhat uncomfortable to use to reach all the hats. The software for it does have many issues, I just program the stick including mode switches through DCS it self - but not using the software rules out the mouse nipple on the throttle. The X55 has various springs you can insert for various stiffness as to your liking, soft springs great for helos, stiffer great for jets etc.. The throttle also can be used as a right or left or with the throttle lock engaged as one throttle (though I assign mine individually to the engine and use the lock to move them evenly; unless of course of an engine fire than I can separate them and shut down an engine etc..) There is also a dial to alter the stiffness of the throttle, again you can change to what feels comfortable for you - you won't be ramming these throttles full forward in the blink of an eye. The joystick and throttles don't have particularly heavy bases so if you are using to really heaving on things you might find the pieces sliding around - they do come with pre-drilled bolt holes though if you wish to secure them. At the price range and what was on offer - the X55 hit the right spot for me, I consider it to have been a good investment for my money/time.

The Pigs suited our airpower needs really well - it was fast, capable and more importantly had a great range - a very important consideration in our region. We converted four F-111C's into RF-111C's and while we didn't we should of at least had a few EF-111's. The F-111C was continually updated and was a very capable strike aircraft for us, unfortunately age got the better of her as wing stress problems, scouring US boneyards for F-111 wings and budget constraints took their toll on her appeal. The Pig was also at a point where it was costing around 180hrs of maintanance for 1hr of flight. They retired her in 2010 and are currently using Super Bugs as it's replacement (awaiting F-35) . Probably the worst thing about the Pig was that there were many maintenance/ground crew who acquired serious illnesses from handling the fuel tanks of the F-111 - thankfully they were compensated and standards were changed to prevent/lower future such problems - sadly it cost the lives of quite a few crew. There is a great quote on wiki regarding the deterrant the F-111 was when a during a heated debate between Indonesian and Australian defence ministers was defused by our defence counterpart saying "Do you realise the Australians have a bomber that can put a bomb through that window and onto the table in front of us?" The Pig was beautiful now I can only see her in pictures or at the various aviation museums around Australia. I would love to see a DCS level module of her.

Great post Blacklion and pretty much surmises everything that I've read about the AWG-9. I look at the AWG-9 and I admire it for what it was and that was a long range radar capable of allowing rapid engagement of threats. When I think back to the state of the world in the 70's and 80's and when I imagined another World War scenario or if the Cold War went hot; those F-14's in the fleet would of been launched en-mass (with E2 support and other fleet aircraft) and the incoming wall of Bears and other soviet aircraft would of been greeted by a mass wave of Phoenix missiles. One thing about the phoenix that always seems to pop up when I read about it - especially any of Bio's stuff, is that it seems to have had a wonderful ability to be very capable in a high EW environment. Of course even if the world again erupted into war back then maybe we would of seen much smaller level engagements, but I always did imagine that wave vs wave and that phoenix tsunami. I would also point out that ROE these days often seems to require visual identification which tends to nullify those wonderful phoenix ranges. But damn it would of been a big deterrent to an enemy. I guess there is also to consider that the AWG-9 and phoenix were intertwined and that the limitations erupted from that forced symbiosis. Also that old analogue stuff was prone to been shocked about from launches off the deck and it was fairly common to see some sort of component failure. Man just feel like I kicked a dog or something, talking bad about the F-14 :/

It's a wonderful module. I'm not using the beta version of DCS yet so I haven't encountered any of the new bugs as far as I can tell - presumably it's all related to 1.5 changes. LN are on to the fixes though, they have never come across as the guys who would just stop supporting because it's "too hard". The quality of this module is what makes me so excited for my favourite aircraft - The F-14 (and favourite squadron - VF-84 - what a Cobra avatar!), and of course their two unannounced modules. The Mig-21 was not an aircraft I had any interest in initially - then I saw a few posts regarding it, I decided to pony up and was hellishly impressed with it. It oozes quality and care. So I went from having no interest in the aircraft at all to being extremely interested and satisfied. The overall success of DCS depends on modules with this sort of quality.

Sounds fantastic, can't wait for 2.0. All these wonderful aircraft coming up as well, LN's F-14 in that environment would be a true joy for me to play.

I must say I'm trying the demo of Tacview and I find it wonderful and as soon as I clear the expenditure with the Minister of Finance (aka The Wife) I shall be picking this up. very valuable in helping me assess what I am doing right and wrong especially with SAM avoidance with the Su-25T which I am enjoying much much more than I thought I would.

I am a 190 advocate as I find the 190 the most enjoyable to fly. It can be initially quite difficult to take off and land with it, especially with heavier fuel loads - you will need rudder and she has a tendency to try and drop a wing as well on takeoff. It has great performance and good armament, just don't get caught in a turning fight with her - that's where the 109 exceeds the Dora spectacularly. The 190 was also the first ergonomic cockpit with more of a HOTAS setup than previous WW2 aircraft - makes it easier to access and read instrumentation imo. The Ez-42 Gunsight is also fun to play with once you get used to how it works.

Given the hints in Cobra's avatars (if they are indeed even hints) an F4U seems likely as the WW2 prop craft and the other craft I still believe will be a Viggen variant. Would love to see a Zero. If Cobra's new avatar is something to go by then it would be something that was with VF-84 - so that doesn't rule out a Fury. I believe the F-4 is on another third party developers list for bringing to DCS so not sure if Leatherneck would look at it.

Dynamic campaigns most definitely, especially ones that allow you to establish a "career path" as that adds to the immersion - in my opinion. It's the biggest glaring "omission" that I first noted with DCS - there are these wonderful systems and modules yet all it isn't showcased like it could be with dynamic campaigns.

Does appear to be from VF-84 and even more interesting is the operational history of VF-84 - in it's 1955-1995 iteration they flew not only the F-14, but the FJ-3, F-8 Crusader and the F-4. Perhaps there is hidden meaning within that? Or perhaps he just likes the Jolly Rogers, they are my favourite squadron too for old school F-14's

It is certainly a majestic looking aircraft and it's howl on take off is impressive as well. Designed by the same gentleman who designed the Lancaster how could it not be a wonderful looking aircraft.

It's always tough to come up with an absolute favourite - Freddie Mercury though he is always near the top, wonderful singer.

F-14 by Dynamix on the C64. hard pressed to call it a "sim" but damn was it a lot of fun "Got two bogeys at six o'clock, lets rock n roll!" I can still remember that voice from the game when it started. I was a killer in that F14 heh The C64 didn't feature TARPS missions like the then PC version did, but it would occassionally bug out and crash and reveal a screen full of patches, including TARPS. My first "serious" sim would have to be Flanker 1.0 then of course the wonderful Flanker 2.0 then 2.5! Loved the Janes series as well - Longbow, F-15, F/A-18, ATF and of course later on EAW, IL2 etc..

Huh? I don't know that! ARGGGGHHHHHHH hehe love that movie.:thumbup:

Very true! The West Germans flew the 104G I think which was equipped by default with upward firing ejection seats - or at the very least they had the sense to switch to upward firing seats prior to purchase and had a variant made for them. It's interesting that they chose a 104 to do low level stuff in, sure it's fast and has a very slim visual profile but aerodynamically you just look at those stubby wings and think "Crap! can it fly?!"

The F-104 (in it's downward ejection seat variants) was a nice crater maker as well. Problems at take off? Roll the aircraft 180 degrees to eject! :joystick: :huh: Think the Germans lost quite a few craft and pilots before they sourced upward firing ejection seats.

Hopefully we see a Gotland map or some such thing be bundled with a Viggen - it would fill a great spot in that Coldwar era with the F-14, Mig 21Bis etc.. flying as well. More maps for DCS is direly needed.