Tirak

The belief that the F-14 has poor dogfighting performance has been prevalent for a long time, as people equate large with sluggish, and in terms of the F-14, at an altitude where it will drag the dogfight to this is not the case. As Blacklion stated, below 10,000ft, an altitude regularly fought at in DCS, the Tomcat has impressive maneuverability thanks to the lifting body design. The simple fact of the matter is, that the Tomcat has a great number of options when it goes into a dogfight. Almost anything that it cannot outclimb, it can out turn, which is a great credit to the design of both the lifting body, and the swing wing. Other wonderful myths about the tomcat include it can't dogfight because it was built as an interceptor, patently false as the F-14 was designed specifically because the original 'interceptor' that was to protect the carriers proved to be so unwieldy, that the Navy insisted on an air superiority capable aircraft that could do both roles, thus necessitating the swing wing, and i won't bother going into to talking about the Phoenix, as given your attitude about the aircraft in general I would assume you're one of the people who refuses to believe Iranian claims about the effectiveness of the missile. No one, you will find here, minds discussing the F-14s short comings, and there are quite a few, especially with the A variant, and the B is most certainly not without it foibles either, but if you want to talk short comings, make sure the complaints your raising are actually real, rather than spouting the myths from the crowd, and then raging at people who call you on them. As to the RWR issue, I have no doubt LN will implement it properly, however despite the tough talk of certain people on the forums, it is important to remember that DCS is in fact, a game. While the genre is indeed simulation, we play DCS, and giving options to people who want to alter certain things is not a negative, especially not when you can still play the game as realistically as you like.

Oh I love the hump :thumbup: For some reason looking at a Skyhawk without one always makes me think there's something missing, I much prefer the look, I was just wondering. Has there been any thoughts as to what weapons it will mount?

Really cool, Skyhawks are awesome little aircraft and I think given their size, range and armament, they're a perfect addition to DCS. One question though, is the A-4E supposed to have the dorsal hump? I thought that Es had a flat back, and Ms had the hump.

I wouldn't want an F-4E to fire AMRAAMS either, it couldn't do it. However his response was with regards to the F-4 ICE, which did use AMRAAMs.

Right here:

Of course, but I don't walk around saying you're wrong for having those preferences now do I? My issue doesn't come with people who want to play realistically, my issue comes when they insist that I shouldn't be allowed to play to my preferences. On the contrary, that is exactly what he indicated, that I shouldn't be able to fly upgraded 3rd gen fighters against 4th gen. I commented I would prefer them, he told me I was wrong for thinking such things, that's where the issue comes from, that's what makes him a pinhead, and that's why I commented as such. To the vast majority, like you and Winter, I have no issue discussing the merits of wanting an F-4J, or an F-4E, but that's because you two, and others like you, understand that there's no wrong preferences when it comes to aircraft.

People like you get it, we all have a way that we sim. Some people like you like the full on historical part that goes with high fidelity modeling, then there's players like me who like to have the high fidelity modeling then fit it into any scenario we feel like, and would prefer as many options open as possible. Both are fully valid ways of playing, and I have no beef with people like you. My problem comes when pinheads come along and say "No, your opinion is wrong, you can't play that way and have fun." Well the hell I can't.

No, it's a way of playing you don't like, which obviously makes it wrong, yeah, sure. No Mig-19, No Mig-17, no it's not enough.

Um, mate, the F-4ICE can use Amraams, that was the point of the upgrade. Believe it or not some of us enjoy using these platforms online, where the opposition we'll face are all carrying amraams. Until servers start switching over to earlier war restrictions and we get enough aircraft to fight in those enviornments, the multiplayer scene is modern combat, and as such, I'd rather that an aircraft that I adore can actually have a fighting chance despite its handicaps, rather than be cannon fodder for the next few years until the other third parties get around to releasing modules of the right years. Realistic combat and strict adherence to actual history, make for very boring games, and I find the attitude of people like you, who believe in limiting options so you can play in your littler sandbox to be annoying at the best of times.

Not at all, the F-14 has always been the long term project. Progress continues as usual I expect, but it is by far the most complex of the three. Currently is scheduled for 2nd half 2016, but you can rather safely assume that means a 2017 release at the earliest.

Why settle for an old version, when if you get a new one, like say the ICE, you could always just slap on older weapons and make due, while those of us who wanted to use Phantoms in the modern servers could as well :P

While the aircraft has its faults, turning with an Air Superiority Loadout isn't one of them. The Tomcat features a truely fantastic lifting body, which as long as you're not hauling weapon pallets, gives quite fantastic results. Top Gun would look for the tactics that would work best against an opponent, and because of the monsterous power of the Tomcat, and the less throttleable nature of the TF30s, combined with the excellent lift provided by the 'pancake', it was considered best that if you had a small nimble fighter with inferior power, climb. It is the most optimal tactic, and also a holdover from the phantom days. However, against an aircraft that can climb with you, odds are you can out turn them, which is why if fighting say, an F-15, cat pilots could make use of the their vastly superior low speed characteristics to run rings around them. The Tomcat is big, and has a lot of roll inertia, pilots describe it as being a little sluggish at the controls, something the digital flight controls did improve, but to say she can't turn is flat out wrong. Is turning best? Generally no because you have so much power to go up with, and if you want to conserve energy, banking speed into altitude is better than just turning flat and burning speed to move the nose around flatly. I think that we're going to see a lot of angry pilots of other aircraft complaining because they don't understand the advantages the Tomcat has.

He's saying the hook doesn't matter because with an F-5, your landing speed for a carrier to be able to actually see it over that long needle nose would be so high, you'd rip off your gear first. Though even if you did manage it, the hook would rip off your aircraft anyway since it's not reinforced like the tailhook on a carrier aircraft. The hook is meant for runway arrestor gear, which inflicts significantly less g loads on the aircraft it's trying to slow down since it still has a whole runway to slow you down, think of it like a drag chute you don't carry with you.

Oh probably around the time when the actually put up their own official release announcement, sooo. give it a few more months...

Thank you for clearly knowing nothing about the F-4, the door is that way, please use it.

I'm talking about the visibility of the real life cockpit, the way that front window is set up it's got to be a huge problem for looking out the front of the aircraft. I wonder why it was designed like that.

2 we have conflicting information for, I'll admit my math was wrong on 4. Though fun fact, NASA does use the Phoenix. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/research/Phoenix/phoenixmissile.html

Which is fine, just don't try to play it off as "oh well, it didn't meet our criteria, the same criteria we've used before." Call it what it is. It was an arbitrary decision made because of the backlash when we started talking about it, not because it's any less realistic than a Sapphire equipped MiG-21 slinging Groms around.

I note that it says these ranges are at a 5m^2 rcs target. From my, admittedly brief looking, the Su-27 has 15m^2 cross section. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

The only way that is true is if the F-14B Tomcat LN is modeling does not have the so called "bombcat" upgrade, as the bus required for AMRAAM employment was included on the aircraft as it was required for use of the LANTIRN pod. The only reason why the AMRAAM is not part of the "legacy of service" of the F-14, is solely based on the fact the aircraft was retired early. AMRAAM integration had been planned from the inception of the program, merely the loss of Cold War era budgets resulted it being cut. Furthermore, the entire weapon "pallet" concept existed so that new and unplanned for weapons could be integrated with minimal modification to the aircraft as well as to assist in aircraft turnaround. It could easily be argued that weapon flexibility was indeed part of the "legacy of service" for the F-14 as designed.

Really? That's where you draw the line? It's literally the same thing. The F-14 could carry them and just needed a slightly different radar to use it. The MiG-21 could carry the Grom, but needed a whole different radar to use it. It's literally THE SAME THING. Literally. As in, the actual original definition of the word.

Surprisingly, it really is that bad.

Depends on what I'm looking to do. For example, i could just go into STT mode and light up your world and suppress you. You don't know how far away I really am, all you know is your RWR is screaming bloody murder, i can keep you pinned without firing a shot. And where are you getting these ranges from? In my looking, I'm seeing TWS mode working out to 104 miles, and detection ranges of bomber sized targets at 250m.

So you will be rolling and evading from the moment you pick the F-14 up at 150nm? Will the Su-27 RWR even pick up a spike from that range? Anyway, we will see when it finally happens. Because LN is making the missile special, I have faith that it will be modeled correctly, which in the current DCS environment means it's going to so vastly outperform everything else, the complaints on the forums will be long and numerous. And it is because of that reason that I am fairly certain the weapon will be banned. Hell, the R3R got banned because the SPAAMRAM crowd didn't like that it was accurate at 5nm against an unmanuvering target. If I'm honest, that really, really irks me, because I'm going to have to watch my very favorite aircraft be sidelined because whiny players won't want to adjust their tactics to suit an F-14 being on the field. And while I agree, there are things you can do to make the Phoenix less effective, I question the playerbase's willingness to adapt, when they can more easily go on the forums and bitch to high heaven.

You mean like this? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=104154