BlackLion213

Hi FWind, each of the AIM-54 pallets weight about 400 lbs (4 are needed for carrying 6 AIM-54s - these are the tunnel mounted AIM-54s), plus the "front of the canoe" for the forward pallets weight another ~100 lbs IIRC. So front pallets are ~500 and rear pallets are 400, plus the shoulder adapter for the AIM-54 is plumbed for coolant so 2000 lbs of pylon weight is a fair estimate. Agreed, it does seem that they were a bit behind in recognizing the threat. Though 1982 is when the started the "Rising Fighter" program to better counter the BVR threat - this probably should have started a couple of years earlier. The outcome of "Rising Fighter" showed that defending against a weapon comparable to the sparrow was reasonably difficult and maintaining the advantage to the merge was difficult - this result lead to the decision to begin employing the AIM-54 against fighter threats. This need was further amplified by fielding the R-27, but the R-24 also exposed the need. It is perhaps also a reminder that military doctrine is a bit slow to change and that creating operational limits from the top down is not the best approach. However, these rules were not set in stone. During the Gulf of Sidra I (1981) Tomcats of VF-41 and VF-84 were armed in the 2x2x2 configuration and there were no existential CVBG threats in the theater. Clearly the squadron could carry the AIM-54 if they felt it was necessary - perhaps justification for using the Phoenix after the fact would be the bigger problem. Capability/adaptability > POWER ;) -Nick

Sure, if you wish. :) This is in fact the wrong story, but it is a widely held myth so it's also no surprise here. The AIM-54 was designed for the same mission as the AIM-7 and AIM-120: to destroy any air target that needed to be destroyed. It did have some unique capabilities to enhance its ability to shoot down bombers threatening the CVBG (namely the very long range and BIG warhead), but its other unique characteristic were desirable in any A-A missile, but could not be packaged into a smaller missile during the 1970s or 80s. The AIM-54 was tested against maneuvering targets from the get go and its performance against maneuvering targets (end game performance) was one of the biggest improvements over the AIM-7 sparrow. But better yet, here is an article and quote from a long-time Tomcat RIO: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/thi...cat-1725012279 This is an excellent book that discusses the development of the AIM-54 during the 1970s. Lastly, I always liked this picture. :) This image is of an AIM-54C attacking a drone during testing in 1983: Lovely aesthetics...don't you think? :D If you didn't expect to use a missile against fighter sized targets, why expend missiles in testing by shooting at fighter sized targets? FYI, if you want to simulate a Tu-22M Backfire, one uses a BQM-34 with a radar signature augmenter, not a QF-4. If it was all about the Soviet threat, the USN would have retired the missile in 1991-92. Still, there is a good reason that the AIM-54 was retired and not fitted to other platforms: the AIM-120. The AIM-120 was the dream, a missile smaller than the AIM-7, but with the fire and forget capabilities of the AIM-54. This dream was not possible in the 1970s and 1980s, but it was by the early 90s. 6 AIM-54s cost the Tomcat 8,000 lbs of weight while 6 AIM-120s weighs 2100 lbs - no comparison! No one wants to mount 8000 lbs on their light and agile fighter, so when the small version became available it was the obvious choice. The AIM-54 does have a few advantages, it has more range and its warhead is 3.5 times (!) larger than the AMRAAMs. But these aren't enough to offset the weight and drag. Just because the AMRAAM was a better package doesn't mean the AIM-54 was ineffective or not worthy of respect. But it was a missile of another era, modern technology made it obsolete (because of size, not so much capability) and it was taken out of service, though the AIM-54C guidance system formed the foundation for the AMRAAM's guidance system. But until 1992, the Tomcat's capability were unique and the AIM-54 was a glimpse at a future with the AMRAAM. -Nick

It's great that you guys found a reference cockpit that is in great shape and not totally dilapidated (like so many others). That cockpit looks almost operational save for the slightly askew glare shield. :) This one that I found in Alameda on Tuesday had not faired so well....mostly due to some dubious modifications. Reportedly for a movie set...sigh... Anyway, good luck with the trip! :thumbup: -Nick

Second article in the "How To Fight To Win In The F-14" series first posted by Captain Dalan: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8881/taking-the-f-14a-tomcat-on-cruise-for-the-first-time Nice stories about VF-24 on USS Ranger among other things. Enjoy! :D -Nick

Well, my current favorite 2 modules are the Viggen and F-5E (at least in terms of flight hours) with the Mirage and MiG-21 tying for third. I think it also depends on where you want to fly them and how complicated you want things to be. The F-5E is an excellent match for the NTTR and there are some nice campaigns from Maple Flag set there. In addition to learning A-A combat skills, it is also a chance to perfect your nav skills using TACAN and point to point navigation (a new skill for me). The F-5E is very easy to operate with benign, but lively handling. A smooth landing is not hard to achieve, but is also not a foregone conclusion. Its origins as a trainer a clear from its ease of operations, but the module is a very complete simulation that challenges your skills during A-A (since it is easy to fly, but hard to master in ACM - especially against 4th gen fighters that use it for DACT). The A-G part is 60's era weapons delivery with a simple reflector gunsight using either iron bombs or rockets. You could view the F-5E as a mini (and slower) F-105D if you have an interest in the era. The Viggen is very different, but also very worthy of you interest. It is a fast A-G striker with a broad array of weapons (Mavericks, iron bombs, manually guided missiles, sophisticated anti-ship missiles, and rockets). It is also VERY FAST, perhaps the fastest aircraft in DCS on the deck (I've seen ~mach 1.3 at sea level) and feels very powerful in burner. Also, the A-G radar is interesting to use and takes lots of practice. The Viggen also has rather complex systems, though the user interface is 1970s vintage and very different from the A-10C. Also, the instruments and user interface is fairly different from US aircraft, but also pretty familiar for those used to Western Aircraft. It is also fairly challenging to fly due to engine management and high induced drag with much AOA - it probably is the most likely aircraft to kill the pilot (virtually) in DCS - I regard this as a selling point, but not all feel the same way. However, it doesn't currently offer the complete experience of the F-5E (or A-10C) in NTTR (yet at least, more features are coming). But the artwork is a new high in DCS and it will take a lot of time to master while offering a very different A-G experience than the A-10C. Here is how I would decide: If you really like flying in NTTR with realistic missions and want a "sports car" of a jet (the Mazda Miata of fighters), focusing on the nuance of A-A while dropping ordnance the "old fashion" way - then go for the F-5E. It's an excellent module. However, if you want new A-G weapons, new A-G sensors, and a fast and powerful striker that operates very differently than the A-10C (it does have an english cockpit option that was just released) - then get the AJS-37 Viggen. Either way, you will probably be happy, but if A-G is pretty important the Viggen seems like the better option. If realistic NTTR operations is the priority, choose the F-5E. My 2 cents. -Nick PS - I also 2nd Apache600's point that the MiG-21 is a very well-rounded module and is now receiving more updates. It offers a similar experience to the F-5E handling wise, but is faster and a bit more interesting (IMHO). It also carries more weapons (like the gun-pods), but has been all over the map with recent updates. It still needs some tune-ups, but I still love flying it.

All true, the F-14D is in fact very different from the F-14B. The F-14A and B are essentially identical excluding the new engines and updated RWR (also updated on the F-14A around 1992, along with AFC 731, etc). The avionics in the F-14A (and therefore F-14B) were quite ancient by the early 1980s when the F-14D was under development. As a result, nearly every piece of avionics on the F-14D is new - not just converted to digital, but truly all new systems. Plus, all of the sensors (radar, etc) are new. It also has a completely new cockpit (only the throttle carried over IIRC). Overall, it's a similar transformation to the F-15C to F-15E from an avionics and systems standpoint (F-15E also had some structural changes to increase MTOW and redesigned cannon feed system/gun clip). The airframe, hydraulics, and control system (excluding a new aileron-rudder-interconnect) carried over along with the F110 engines. I do too....it was a mighty beast! -Nick

I was thinking the same and hope so! I would really love a theater for the Viggen. Awesome! Welcome to the club. :D I love this module, just wish I had more time to learn the complicated avionics (been pretty busy for a bit...). I recently have been pretty enamored with the Beachhead interdiction instant action and slowly working through the training missions (and flying at Mach 1.2+ on the deck next to Lake Mead!:pilotfly:). Also, for the additional stick and rudder challenge/fun, turn off SPAK - brings out a lot more dutch roll and the need to coordinate with rudder (which is a lot of what SPAK is adding, plus some other inputs). It's another thing that is a bit Tomcat-like, along with the engine behavior. Have fun Captain! -Nick

Yes, I have also lost the compressor "thumps". The stalls themselves are still present (based on RPMs, EGT, pressure ratio, etc), but the associated sound is gone in the latest OB patch. -Nick

I was hoping for a good ole' Q1 update, thank you for delivering! The Viggen and Tomcat updates/plans sound great....any info on the Forrestal class carriers? :music_whistling: -Nick PS - Not to mention the experience gained from creating the RM8A engine model - the TF30 shares quite a few characteristics with the RM8A (though I suspect the TF30 is still laggier, more sensitive the throttle transients, etc). But my experience operating the RM8A reminds me of my studies of the TF30. :) Captain Dalan....given your F-14A interests I think you would enjoy the Viggen and there is even a sale this week. :D

I haven't received mine yet either, though California is rather far away from Poland. When I ordered a stick extension from MFG (in Croatia) it took about 6 weeks (it's been about 3 so far IIRC). If not arrived in another 2-3 weeks should I email? -Nick

Thank you. :) -Nick

The Thud didn't have a rough time with enemy fighters - there were 17 losses over the entire course of the war (though the F-105 was pulled out of the theater in 1970). For those 17 losses, the F-105 scored 27.5 kills - about as good as the Phantom over the same period. The real problem were SAMs and AAAs - those accounted for 317 losses. But the Thud was not alone, losses for all US aircraft over the first part of the Vietnam conflict was appalling and it was all about tactics. The US entered the conflict with remarkable misconceptions about the enemies abilities and weapons. In 1965 and 1966, US Aircrews were taught that they could not evade SAMs, but their high speed made them invulnerable to AAA - AAA accounted for more than 60% of all aircraft losses over Vietnam! Tacticians figured that AAA simply could not track on a low flying aircraft moving at near Mach 1 - the Thud was really fast on the deck. But they forgot that gunners could use sector fire and simply saturate a section of sky. I'm not joking - they actually didn't think of this! As a result, USAF aircraft were forced down to low altitude to avoid the reportedly undefeatable SAMs (which could be defeated with reasonable tactics) and instead flew through tons of sector fire AAA which shot down scores of aircraft. All aircraft operating over Vietnam had really high losses, we lost 400 Phantoms over Vietnam....they weren't doing much better than the F-105 (if it was better?). The US simply unprepared in all respects, they didn't understand the true strengths and limitations of their weapons (no DACT during that period for example), but above all their tactics were very weak. As the war continued and these issues were identified, new tactics, ECM, chaff, missile evasion techniques, and eventually ACM training (courtesy of the F-8 crews - leading to the NFWS) would radically improve loss rates and mission success. We like blaming the machine, but in reality tactics and operator proficiency carries far more weight. The aircraft with the lowest combat loss rate in Vietnam was the A-7 - a combination of timing, improved sensors, vastly better tactics, and new weapons (walleyes for example). But the improved training of the late-60s and early-70s made all of the difference....or maybe gunners couldn't stand the sight of the SLUF long enough to gain a firing solution. :D -Nick

But this never happened.... LANTIRN was never mentioned or suggested as a likely feature. All mentions were pretty nonspecific: I don't recall an instance where the LANTIRN was suggested as even likely. It was true that it was "undecided" until recently, but how does saying "it's not impossible" or "I don't know" qualify as dangling a carrot? -Nick

About 8 minutes in zone 5 - give or take. Fuel flow at zone 5 was roughly 60,000lbs/hr per engine. Nearly identical for both the TF30 and F110. -Nick

The F-14 was originally intended to be multi-role, but when the Marines backed out the Navy did not proceed with any weapons separation testing or racks to support A-G ordnance. The F-14 did have CCIP functionality from the start, but it was not cleared to carry any bombs till 1992. Grumman published publicity photos of the F-14A with MERs, but those weapons were never dropped or tested. CCIP capability and BRU-32 bomb racks are currently planned according to Heatblur. The core A-G capability of the aircraft is also still planned and Mk 82s-84s will be available. This is part of the problem with managing expectations in an aircraft with a long service life - the aircraft's mission dramatically changed over time. The "F-14 experience" means a lot of different things to many different people. For the first 18 years of the aircrafts 32 year service history, it only carried A-A weapons with no exceptions. From 1992-95 there was a transitional capability of unguided iron bombs. Only for the final 10 years did the aircraft have precision strike capability (courtesy of LANTIRN). This era was very important for the F-14 and an interesting change, but it only represented the final third of its life span. That said, recent history is often best remembered for obvious reasons, but it is only one facet of the aircraft's existence. The announcement of the Forrestal class carrier to accompany the DCS: F-14 module put an emphasis on early operations (Heatblur previously mentioned mid-80s for the F-14A and mid-90s for the F-14B). USS Independence made one cruise with a LANTIRN equipped F-14A squadron (VF-154 in 1998 ), but otherwise none of the Forrestal class carriers carried LANTIRN equipped F-14s. This set the stage in my mind for the module to focus on earlier operations. I think it would be great if Heatblur discusses its "vision" for the module, that might help potential customers to better understand their priorities since the F-14 took many different forms during its lifespan - setting expectations. I certainly understand why many would be disappointed with this announcement (I wanted LANTIRN too), but like the real F-14: the Heatblur module has the potential for a long operational life with many future upgrades. The module already represented a mammoth undertaking, not every potential feature can be offered in the beginning. Not the answer that many want, but it the answer that we have. My 2 cents, Nick

Thank you for the update and clarification. :) Is the current plan for both the F-14A and F-14A+/B set around the late 80s to ~1991? Basically when there were F-14As operating off USS Ranger, USS Forrestal, and USS Independence with the F-14A+ deployed on USS Saratoga? This would make sense given the planned F-14 versions and associated carrier. Thanks again for the info! -Nick

Good evening, Neptunus Lex was a F/A-18 pilot and outstanding blogger who posted regularly from ~2004 until 2012. He was one of the first new F/A-18 pilots who started his fleet career in the mid-80s. He was an excellent writer who discussed all aspect of naval aviation, his stuff was both fun to read and granted excellent insight. I learned a ton from reading his posts. Though he retired from the USN, he missed the world of aviation and returned to the cockpit as a pilot for the private firm Airborne Tactical Advantage Company in F-21s for DACT at NAS Fallon. https://www.wired.com/2012/03/blogger-crash/ He crashed on landing in poor weather in 2012 and his blog was taken down by family. I thought his works had been lost, but a fellow reader archived some 70% of his posts. These archives have been compiled with additional works by other pilots and posted here: https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/ If you enjoy Naval aviation, I highly recommend this site. It mostly relates to the Hornet though he does frequently discuss the Tomcat - both in good and bad ways (through the eye of a Hornet pilot). Here is a quick F-14 story courtesy of a former A-6 driver: https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/we-meet-the-f-14/ These posts are from Lex concerning operations in the Arabian Sea and off Oman in the late 1980s: https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/night-in-the-barrel-part-ii/ https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/air-strike/ There are tons of stories contained on the site and a search feature. I hope you enjoy the read and I'm looking forward to reading these stories again. I missed them. -Nick

No, LARping is really most like DCS multiplayer and I don't see TARPS getting as much use in MP. It really is a tool for single player campaigns and giving a SP mission a reason to fly a precision route at 600 knots on the deck, followed by a pop-up to 5K-10K feet for the photo run - evading AAA and SAMs. Otherwise, Tomcats generally don't spend much time down there. I originally planned to have single player missions escorting TARPS, but having the option for player operated TARPS adds more variety. Plus it shifts the CG of the aircraft and can change flight dynamics a fair bit, especially for failure management and such. -Nick

Definitely not a problem (at least not yet :)). Please stop watching the videos if this causes anxiety. -Nick

Just for fun, lets have the same conversation about another topic. Chef (developer with funny hat): we are cooking your chicken and here is a quick glance at how its done and what spices we plan to use. Alarmist patron (forum-user) #1: my god! Have you noticed that the chicken isn't fully cooked? Chef (developer with funny hat): Yes...that's why we are cooking it. Alarmist patron (forum-user) #1: But it's undercooked, I don't like under-cooked chicken. Chef (developer with funny hat ): Yes...that's why we are cooking it. Alarmist patron (forum-user) #2: I can't eat undercooked chicken, I'll get sick. Chef (developer with funny hat): Yes...that's why we are cooking it fully. Alarmist patron (forum-user) #2: But it's not cooked yet! Chef (developer with funny hat on): Yes, we are cooking it but decided to show you the kitchen. You see the crackling heat and rising stream right? It is still cooking. Alarmist patron (forum-user) #2: I can't take the chance of getting sick, I demand prophylactic antibiotics so I won't get sick. Chef (developer with funny hat): You don't need drugs, we are going to fully cook your chicken. Alarmist patron (forum-user) #3: Under cooked chicken is going to be such a problem around here - why won't the chef cook it. Chef (developer with funny hat): That's why we are cooking it! This keeps up and no one gets to the see the kitchen for rather obvious reasons. Please wait till things are done before commenting on done-ness. Heatblur has seen all of the same videos and they plan to make it look just like those. If you are playing the module in early access and have serious problems, please let them know. Otherwise, please remain seated while they cook the chicken! -Nick

Turns out there is one maker for both since there is no high quality single player combat sim for the F-14 that includes carrier ops, A-A, or TARPS set in the 1980s or 90s. Hence the confusion, you think what I (or other players) want exists elsewhere - but it does not. So checkrides should be included in DCS, luckily you don't have to buy them, but they have the same point as blowing something up - the appreciation of the user. Equal value and equal stake in terms of development. There is no persistence for anything in DCS, so checkrides offer as much as nything else. I still need TARPS HUD functionality and feedback to the underlying F-14 module. But mybe that means that TARPS modeling would be easy and definitely should be included. But again, you are valuing different DCS tasks asymmetrically when they carry equal weight in the eye of many users. If no one offers development time to it, then it won't exist and there will be no gameplay for me. You are recommending neglect of my interest to support yours...why? Didn't realize you where a shareholder...because if you are not the discussion is rather pointless. :) Perfect, then we finally cleared this up and we can move on! :) Please PM if you wish to discuss further. Have a good night. -Nick

Alright, so lets say I prefer Canadians checkers and would rather play it - should I object to a 3rd party's plan to build pieces and a board for it? Should I instead say "I would really like it....but adding more chess pieces would be easier so please change back to chess"? That argument makes great sense when you prefer chess, but no sense when you prefer Canadian checkers. If you can create new pieces and a new board to support your interests, why shouldn't you? Why does the game need to maintain the status quo? On the second point, you may not say that a particular form a gameplay is wrong, but you will say it is silly or pointless - how is that different? Similarly, lets say I prefer watching documentaries and you prefer anime. Should I be able to take the position that anime production should be halted to make way for more documentaries on the basis that "documentaries have some value"? They are both forms of entertainment, should one be prioritized just because some feels they have a justification (constructed of flatus and moonbeams...). Both are entertainment and simply serve the purpose of distracting the mid from the rigors of daily life. Creating a hierarchy is pointless because things like educational value do not relate to the entertainment value. Why would one be superior to the other? It's all about user preference, hence both exist to fulfill different wants. Case in point: So you are saying that any task in DCS that doesn't result in an explosion is pointless? So missions that have check rides or criteria besides unit destruction are of no value? This is pretty narrow-minded and there are many DCS players who would disagree with you. Plus, you can create mission criteria that create tangible effects from completing a task. I would prefer to create a whole scenario since I find that far more interesting. Why is that wrong? Why would one form of gameplay be more worthy than another? This argument sounds like a "red vs blue" argument - you prefer red so anything that supports blue is wrong. Please explain how your argument differs from this logic? There are no serious issues on this forum - we are discussing a game. I'm not using inappropriate humor, but commenting on this fact of life: if you want something done to your precise specifications and preferred price you may need to do it yourself. How is this facetious? It seems to be that you have a multi-player centric view of DCS. Thats fine, but not everyone wants or is able to play multi-player. I prefer realistic operations which is not the forte of servers like the 104th. Something like a multi-player squadron is not feasible given the variability of my schedule and limited hours available for me to play DCS (demanding job, family, etc). So why is that less worthy of support than "lord of the flies" MP? I still don't see an argument, just an expression of preference. I realize that you'd rather have LANTIRN (as would I), but TARPS is not the replacement as Cobra said. Instead they are adding a feature that I've hoped for since the announcement in 2015, but didn't expect. Why shouldn't they create it? Just because you don't see the use? Just because there are no explosions? Lastly: With those sims, you pay for improvements or additional aircraft provided by other companies. The entire world (in lower detail) is available in the base sim (which costs money - unlike DCS). It's not a need, it's a want. If the idea bothers you, why not just stick the included features? These add-ons are unrelated to the company that produces the base sim, is it wrong for them to offer improvements? Should additions be banned because they cost money? How can you expect people to devote themselves to creating these items without a return for their efforts? I don't regard any 3rd party developer as my buddy, but when they create something that I have always wanted or products that I hugely enjoy (like the Viggen and MiG-21) I should at least show my appreciation. To focus so much energy on the faults or parts of the module that doesn't match my expectations feels like "nickel and dime-ing" too. :) -Nick

I've heard that the Tomcats did carry LGBs and buddy lased with the Hornets shortly before they received LANTIRN. But I'm not sure if this became a widespread operational doctrine or if it was a one-off type of thing. But from a carriage standpoint, can you carry an LGB if you can carry a Mk. 82-84? I think you can. -Nick

Tirak, since you seem to prefer this format: This is a game. I enjoy these processes (TARPS) and for me the results and benefits are tangible. The purpose of the game is entertainment. Attempts to justify forms of gameplay as superior or more worthy are silly and narrow-minded. Of course you prefer to do things that you enjoy - everyone is like that! But people also want different things, why is that hard for you to grasp. Tirak, everything you do in DCS is make believe crap - you need to reconcile that and come back into reality. Your gameplay and gameplay preferences carry no more weight than anyone else's. Whether or not your gameplay is scripted - you are using a computer to pretend you are sitting in an airplane. Please look in the mirror and stop trying to portray it as meaningful or important. Enjoy your game and allow other people to enjoy theirs - why the attitude? So is your dismissal of my interest in TARPS - why haven't you noticed? Pot calling the kettle black. I'm not, but I'd rather pay more to have both an F-14A LANTIRN and F-14B LANTIRN (with or without DFCS) in addition to the F-14A and F-14B from 1985-95. If that needs to cost money - I'd pay it. I don't expect Heatblur to take the approach you mentioned. I'd say you are being pretty reactionary and paranoid. Why assume the worst about the situation? Why so "glass half empty"? I'd love to, but I'm responding to you facetious and sanctimonious statements. Can dish it out, but can't take it? Please look at your own statements and attitudes about other's preferences - they are condescending, baseless, and sanctimonious. Why so obtuse? -Nick

Tirak...you are playing a sim, you are role playing...what do you think that you are doing? TARPS missions were real missions and important missions, they had escorts and sometimes accompanying strike packages for SEAD. The data could be used for many things, including subsequent strikes. But to say that replicating it has no purpose because there is no dynamic campaign is silly. TARPS pilots didnt review the pictures (in general) or use them for their own purpose. It was for strike planners and battle group commanders, not the "player". Also I'm not saying that LANTIRN is out of place, I'm saying that it looks like the HB F-14B will more closely match the F-14B as it was 92-95. No comment on whether that is right or wrong (not that there is right vs wrong for these things anyway), I'm simply telling you what I see and how that fits with a Forrestal class carrier. But as you said, my operational timeline for deployed F-14B LANTIRN is correct. Lastly, please develop the LANTIRN for Heatblur so that they don't need to charge for it. I'm sure you would do it for free. If you are not willing, please stop asking others to. I see that you are struggling to see other perspectives on DCS, but please stop being the pot that calls the kettle black. LANTIRN will happen when or if it happens, let thing play out. -Nick