Blaze1

Tank50us, I hope you have an NBC grade bunker in close proximity available to you.

Yep, that's what I've been saying.

Here is a link to that article which was published in Naval Aviation News January 1982. HB have known about that article for a long time, but it still leaves unanswered questions about the -54C's guidance methods.

That's not the document HB is using for confirmation.

Ah, okay.

Southerbear, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "...they wanted to release the normal F-14A/B manual...". To whom did they want to release the normal F-14A/B manual, so are we talking about the FOIA process here or general access for those requiring the manual for their jobs? The F-14 has always had an unclassified (but ITAR controlled, when ITAR became a thing) NATOPS e.g NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1 (for the F-14A) and NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1 (for the F-14D) and a classified confidential NATOPS supplement e.g NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1A (for the F-14A) and NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A (for the F-14D). So the -1A manuals aren't new relative to -1's, they have always been the supplementary documents. Classifying documents is expensive and can make learning more difficult for the crew, as access would be restricted to "The Vault", so that's part of the reason as I understand to have the separate volumes.

I must admit that I'm glad it was re-bumped, because it's an interesting topic.

Thanks for that info WobblyFlops, as I wasn't aware of the associations or lack-thereof some of the developers had with manufacturers.

Not really. I think most of us know this. Heatblur were given leeway to create an F-14A/B sim, so if the technical data did become available for the 'D', there's a strong possibility (in my opinion) they'd be given the opportunity again to develop another excellent simulation.

So to be clear, the unredacted manual is still classified confidential due to IRST, while the redacted version is unclassified but falls foul of ITAR and this was specifically mentioned by the Navy in their official correspondence to you and or your friend?

That bomb looks like a 1000lb'er to me.

While I agree with the general principle of what you're saying shagrat, it doesn't apply to the example I described. The US government generally considers articles in the US public domain as having been exported due the lack of control over such items. In that earlier post where I cited previous experience, if the documents were available to US citizens exclusively, it would have required them to submit identification proving their nationality and that wasn't the case. It was available to all nationalities. If you managed to make and F-14D in your backyard (ignoring any law on arms) and sold it, copyright may be the issue rather than anything else.

If you're referring to the -1A, there's no distinction made between commercial and none commercial matters. The technical data is simply export controlled.

Well isn't that a stroke of good fortune! Because the thread has moved on from "Why can't HB do an F-14D sim".

Some of that reasoning may be flawed.

Always good to hear from you on these matters lunaticfringe. For some of the older -1A manuals, there's a printed notice stating they're exempt for the GDS (General Declassification Review), but have a specific declassification date marked e.g "Declassify on 31 December 1985". From around 1979 or 1980, this method of establishing a specific declassification date seems to have been abolished and in its place a date given for a declassification review. The exemption does imply that the manual is unclassified. The response I received in 2014 that it was being withheld because it was classified was "FOIA Exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (1)" as well as "FOIA Exemption 3, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b) (3) Specifically, 10 USC § 130" with this second exemption being used for export controlled items. The original poster (Southernbear) mentioned the requester had asked for a redacted version of the manual. I wondered if the unclassified status was applied to this redacted version, but I don't think the FOIA review & response process works like that. I hear what your saying about the FOIA process. I just posted on a discord channel a couple of days ago about some of the issues with it. Someone recently asked NATEC for a copy of an A-6 manual and was denied (NATEC does have the copy). I know for a fact that this manual is a available to the public in a government library archive (I think a navy museum) and the public are free to make copies of it. This isn't the first instance either, so it appears the various agencies on occasion lack clear communicate paths concerning the status of the manuals they control. BTW how did you manage to get in contact with the specific officer responsible for the review?

I'm not sure if the Navy said 'yes' to the Hornet and even if that was the case, as far as I'm aware they're not supplying ED with technical data, other sources are.

Not that one cha5er, that's the unclassified NATOPS manual (NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1). The one in question is the Supplemental NATOPS manual NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A.

I was pointed to this thread by another member because I thought the FOIA process was quite interesting. You mentioned that the documents in question are unclassified, specifically NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1A (1997). I received a response to an FOIA request for the same manual back in 2014. The response stated the manual was confidential and as a result being withheld completely. It's possible that during the intervening years the manual has subsequently been declassified, however I'd be surprised if that was the case, so when you say "the documents are unclassifed", I assume you mean after redaction of systems and modes pertaining to the APG-71, ALR-67, ALQ-165 ASPJ, AIM-7M, AIM-9M etc?

There're probably pills and or a change of diet that could help with that. Best to consult a doctor.

By the late 70's/early 80's, the 'D' received upgrades that significantly improved reliability. It was a complex system that required experienced Mx crews to work on it and apparently around the time they began to get good at it, they were promoted, with the less experienced crew then taking the reins.

The 'D' wasn't experimental, it was a digital variant that entered production. While the digital system was a maintenance nightmare to begin with, those troubles were eventually ironed out. The only downside of modelling a 'D' would be that it could only haul dumb a-to-g munitions (save dropping LGBs for a buddy).

The F-111F would be the obvious choice due to its PGM capability and action during Desert Storm, but I'd really also love to see an F-111D with that beautiful digital cockpit.

The KA-6D could deliver non-nuclear munitions, however these had to be delivered visually with the manual release mode.

I agree.