BlackLion213

I'll get to work tonight. :thumbup: Also, do you want images of just the "Forrestal class" ships (CV-59 to CV-62)? Or also include images of the very similar "Kitty Hawk" class (CV-63 to CV-67)? -Nick

Plus, its a bit of an apples to oranges comparison (in some ways). The F-14B/D take-off in military power as there is a minimum airspeed for afterburner thrust, has to do with having enough rudder authority to maintain yaw stability during an engine out situation. I also read that some re-engined Tomcats were over-speeding their landing gear doors on take-off (from a magazine article around 2000 - not sure it thats really true). So taking off in military power it would have a longer take-off roll than its 4th gen brethren taking off in full afterburner. The F-14A used full afterburner for take-off and I've seen it in person. Its not a long distance, but certainly not less than 1200'. The F-14A (and B/D) can lift off at a relatively low airspeed given its excellent lift with the wings at 20 deg of sweep (not to mention full flaps if used - frequently weren't for land-based take-offs). That said, the F-14A doesn't make its best thrust with the TF30 at 0 airspeed, due to the long intakes. The installed thrust of the TF30 at 0 airspeed is 17,077 lbs of thrust (20,900 static thrust and 28,000 lbs at mach 0.9 and sea level). I'm not sure if the installed thrust figure accounts for the mid-compression bypass, which costs the engine another ~3000 lbs of thrust. The mid-compression bypass stabilizes airflow under conditions where turbulent air was common (landing gear deployed or AOA above 20 units (? IIRC)). This was one of the new features of the TF30-P-414 (vs the 412) that improved stall margin. As such, the F-14A does not make its best thrust in the take-off configuration, but thrust rapidly increases as the aircraft buttons up and gains airspeed. Still, on the Aerosoft F-14A, it gets airborne rather quickly (comparable to the Mirage - though on a totally different sim platform) and reaches about 400 knots by the end of a Nellis length runway. Seems respectable to me. Once you light the burners on the F-14B (again Aerosoft) the acceleration is mighty impressive. -Nick

Very true. -Nick

Very nice! Excellent "Speed and Angels" footage. This one is a favorite of mine! -Nick

Kind of....except the entire Black Sea map would be Soviet territory (save for a little bit of Turkey that does not have any air bases. I guess you could claim that the F-105s were operating from a forward base in captured territory, though F-105s didn't really do that in Vietnam - they preferred long range missions with refueling. Still, more 1960s oriented AI would help (early MiG-21s, MiG-19s, MiG-17s, Su-9s, and Su-7s, etc). My 2 cents, -Nick

I thought about the same thing, but the A-6E and A-7E were frequently tasked with different missions given their respective strengths and weaknesses. The A-6E generally performed precision strike (LGBs, Skippers, Harpoons) and night strike. While A-7Es were more day strike, SEAD (with HARMS/CBUs), some precision strike with Walleyes, and conventional strike with unguided munitions. Another thing though, in some ways it nice to have modules which are very different from each other, but that opens up logistical challenges as well. Leatherneck is already developing a new theater for the F-14: With the F-14 and A-7E on the way, it makes sense to flush out the other combat members of the airwing - all the infrastructure for an excellent environment (map, carrier ops, AI) and experience are already in place. Plus, both A-6Es and A-7Es went into real combat, attacked real targets, and sunk ships in the Strait of Hormuz, so both the A-6 and A-7 will have two combat theaters in place before they even arrive. If Razbam then jumps to the F-105, then they (or someone) needs to make a new map and such to properly place and employ it. That's a lot more work. I think that clustering modules that work well together make the most sense at the moment. I'd love an A-6E, one of my favorite aircraft (with the F-14, A-7E, F-15E, and Harrier - wow...Razbam seems to be reading my mind ;)). -Nick

I'm not sure either, every reference to the F-4D/E mention the E-2 variant. It will be tough separating wheat from chaff - so much of what is released (from a photo reference standpoint) is carefully controlled and is likely propaganda (like the R-27 photo most likely). Photos in places like "www.airliners.net" show the Tomcats unarmed in nearly every shot and those who are armed are carrying just a sidewinder or sparrow. I don't think they want us to know what they can or cannot do... -Nick

QUOTE=mattebubben;2709151] Thats one of the Few of the Special painted ones that are for the AJS 37 instead ot the JA 37. (and the only complete recolour of a AJS 37 i know of) Please continue...I love pictures! -Nick

I thought the same, though the IRIAF did manage to successfully fire a HAWK from an F-14. Though getting the HAWK to fire might be simpler since its US made with US avionics. Of course the HAWK proved to be more or less useless as an A-A weapon. It had way too many restrictions built into its guidance (max altitude limits, limited range, etc). Getting the R-27 to integrate with the AWG-9 seems like a mighty feat, but certainly the IRIAF had a lot of time to work on it. It would be a big upgrade from the AIM-7E-4 (the most advanced version of the Sparrow in the IRIAF), its hard to know how many avionics are even original at this point. The IRIAF did manage to receive Tomcat spares for a few years, courtesy of the Iran-Contra affair. Most of the shipments were TOW missiles (over 2500 units) and HAWK SAMS, but several shipments were listed as "aircraft and missile spare parts". One of the shipments that exposed the operation included a complete F-14 canopy. Luckily, IRIAF Tomcats have been planned all along. Yes, especially since both the F-14 and F-4s used them extensively. There inventory of Sparrows was probably quite good at the start of the war since the Sparrow had been operational with the IIAF for a while. The IIAF ordered 714 Phoenixes, but only about 300 were delivered (though I've read a few different estimates - another said 496). -Nick

Sorry for the mis-interpretation. :music_whistling: At least based on what you said here, we do in fact agree. :) -Nick

Exactly. Dave "Bio" Baranek commented on that exact issue in his book. The Top Gun instructors mentioned the visible camera pods and the Director figured that no one will recognize it as out of the ordinary (>90% of people anyway). -Nick

Yes, that was an external camera mount for aerial filming. NL104 of VF-51 was the "camera-bird" as the called it and it was heavily featured in the movie. It was modified by Grumman to carry internal and external cameras. There are lots of scenes where it is wearing a camera pod of some sort in several different locations on the aircraft. -Nick

Thank you, I saw that a few months ago - looks promising. The only thing is that I am an ardent Tomcat fan and the LNS Tomcat is going to be set in the mid-80s (F-14A) and mid-90s (F-14B). The USS John Stennis wasn't operational till ~1998 (first real deployment). Other carriers of the same class (especially USS Nimitz, Ike, Carl Vinsion, and TDR would fit in better with the Tomcat). Of course, I'll be happy with what I can get. ;) -Nick

Yes, I agree with nearly everything you said. If anything, I think DCS is more fun with less effective weapons. Less effective weapons emphasize tactics and training, plus it gives more opportunities for older aircraft to hold their own (MiG-21, Mirage F1, F-5E, etc). A lot people don't want their favorite aircraft to be at any disadvantage. Plus, I think the Tomcat will be just fine without the AMRAAM. :D Yes, there would some advantages to also having it, but not enough to override realism IMHO. Here is the part I don't agree with: The Super Hornet is a less desirable airframe than the F-14. It's slower, less effective in the vertical, carries a lighter payload (in practical terms, not load every pylon and take one lap around the field terms). It has become a fine tanker however...:thumbup: I think the Super Hornet still would have happened even if the Navy got the 250-300 F-14Ds that it needed, but the two would have served side-by-side. The Super Hornet was not originally approved as a Tomcat replacement, it was approved as a modification to address known short comings with the F/A-18C - namely range, payload, and bring back. It also had one of the most troubled births of any aircraft used by the USN. I talked to a E-2 pilot stationed at Pax River (this was 1999) and he was amazed by how many aerodynamic bugs it had. It took years to deal with transonic wing drop, weapon separation problems, excessive buffet at transonic speeds. The weapons separation problem was solved by canting the pylons outward a bit, which further diminished performance by increasing drag. It didn't quite meet expectations for range after these improvements, but it was the only Navy aircraft available in the pipeline. The Tomcat's greatest fault was not the TF30 (that is probably the 2nd greatest fault) - it was the immense cost of buying and maintaining them. The maintenance issue was substantially addressed with digital avionics, those analog avionics were really complicated and difficult to upkeep. Remarkably, the Tomcat had better airframe availability in the 2000s than the Hornet (A+/C) - part of the Hornets favorable comparison in the 1990s was the newness of the airframe vs 20 year old Tomcats. But the acquisition cost always made it a favorite target for the GAO and any attempt to reduce cost (like buying fewer F-22s today). When the Hornet could do some of the same things, it made it very appealing - more airframes for less cost. Those numbers on a spread sheet is hardly the whole picture, but it is a big part of the decisions. The Hornet also has numerous supporters and is really good airplane, but the Tomcat was not filling in a gap till the Super Hornet arrived. The USN maximally utilized their Tomcats till the end and certainly would have kept them longer if allowed. It is the only US aircraft that had a reverse transition - it left the reserves first, then front-lines. It wasn't perfect, but it was a remarkably good airplane. Now the Charlie Hornets are becoming the same maintenance nightmares as the Tomcats...a life at sea is not an easy one. ;) -Nick

You have my attention! Go on....:smilewink: -Nick

Love that splinter camo - that is a fine looking machine. :thumbup: -Nick

Ouch! The A-10C isn't my favorite, but it certainly isn't a boring, joyless, feckless....OK, I'll stop. ;) Also, I'd characterize the MiG-21 as more of an AC 289 Cobra, not that much power, but light, very quick, engaging, but tricky to properly employ. Building on the car analogy, let me ask you this: do you prefer driving your car or using the infotainment system? Do you know the specific manufacturer (or subcontractor) for the Navigation system, but can't remember the engine's cylinder count? If you enjoy the actual process of flying (stick and rudder skills), then the MiG-21 is your bird hands down. It's also my favorite module (though the Mirage 2000C is coming along nicely) and certainly the most rewarding aircraft to fly in DCS. It also has the best sense of inertia built into the flight model (IMHO). I recently figured this out. Since the module was releases, I couldn't figure out why I preferred it's flight model, but it came to me this weekend while flying. The MiG-21 flight model really conveys a sense of mass when you throw it around. All of the PFM/EFM flight models in DCS are excellent, but I really think that the MiG-21 captures that sensation beautifully. It is, however, not the king of the skies or a true multi-role fighter. It can drop bombs and use rockets, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the A-G capability of the A-10C. It also is a total underdog in A-A against US 4th gen fighters, but that is part of the fun in my mind. In favor of the A-10C, it has excellent campaigns for both the Black Sea Map (Enemy Within) and NTTR (Red Flag 16-2). The current DCS environment is very well-suited to it and it is very well-loved on this forum. I haven't flown it much yet (need to spend a lot of time reading....then I just start flying the MiG-21 :)). In summary: want to fly? Get the MiG-21. Want to use a FLIR, smart bombs, a massive cannon, and really destroy ground targets? Get the A-10C. My vote is get the MiG-21, it still has my full attention after more than a year of near daily flying - it's really, really good! -Nick

Certainly, though it's interesting that IRIAF F-14s spent little to no time in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm not sure why, it might be that Bandar Abbas is not secure enough, being so close to the coast and vulnerable to Iraqi (or US during the late-80s) strikes. The Iranians primarily based their Tomcats at Khatami (the original Tomcat master base near Isfahan - beautiful place BTW, my parents visited Isfahan a few years ago) and near Tehran and Shiraz. There was a brief detachment to Bushehr as well, probably to reduce flight times for the standing Tomcat garrison of Khark island. Certainly Tomcats could have flown to the Strait from Shiraz or Khatami, it's a distance of around ~200 nm, well within the Tomcat's combat radius. There was one report of a detachment of F-14s operating at Bandar Abbas in 1988 (based on one statement by the USN), but this was just after the USS Vincennes shot down an A300 flying from Bandar Abbas and claimed it was an IRIAF F-14. They may have been trying to make their mistake seem more plausible, especially since no USN forces had encountered an IRIAF F-14 during their time in the SoH. It's possible that USN F-14s may have logged more flight hours in and around the SoH than the IRIAF - kind of ironic! That said, I welcome IRIAF scenarios in the Strait, both for the F-14A and F-5E. But most scenarios would probably pit the IRIAF against US/NATO forces, there wasn't much IRIAF vs IrAF combat in the Strait - it's a really long flight for IrAF fighters (though IrAF Mirage F1s would fly there to launch exocets - the IRIAF would enjoy shooting those down). -Nick

Another nice pair of NSAWC photos. :D Both of these photos are from the year 2000, so they are upgraded F-14As (NACA type gun vents, Modex 20 has upgraded ECM blisters). And two more favorites of mine. :) VF-41 visiting Spain for some DACT against Mirage F1s (possible in our near future!) in early 1989 - first TR cruise. VF-84 visiting the UK on the same TR cruise, unique 2-color TPS scheme - nice! -Nick

Great post TurkeyDriver! Though I think that changes to the F-14's career trajectory and weapons would depend heavily on when this "All out war" occurred. If it had happened in the 1980s, then the F-14 would have been loaded and operated exactly as it did for operations of the timeframe and Desert Storm. During that period, the F-14 was already carrying the most potent air-to-air missiles available in the US inventory. While big conflicts do open up funding for the military, there are a lot of competing interests and there is no guarantee that any particular airframe will receive special or additional attention. If a big conflict broke out in the late-80s or early-90s, the F-14D would have almost certainly been built in bigger numbers. Back in 1992, the Navy strongly insisted that it needed "at least" 250 new build F-14D to meet the expected threats of the 1990s. The Secretary of Defense cancelled the F-14D program in favor of an updated Hornet, that wouldn't have happened with impending or active large conflict. They wouldn't save funding for a future aircraft (8-10 years away) when the Navy needed aircraft for an existing conflict. If a lot of F-14Ds were being built, they probably would have been equipped with the AMRAAM which was entering production at the same time, but those things take time and it's hard to know how long it would take to reach fleet units. The one thing that is certainly true about War, it gives alarmingly frank feedback as to what is working and what is not. Changes to F-14 operations, payloads, and upgrades would be directed by real combat experience. If things were going well and loss rates were deemed "acceptable", then very little might have changed. If losses seemed excessive for say, F-14A units due to engine troubles, then remanufacture to the F-14B would have been a logical priority. However, improvements to existing weapons (like creating an AIM-54D/E) might have been faster than getting the AWG-9 and AIM-120 to talk well with each other. Also, operational changes may have happened in lieu of aircraft upgrades to address shortcomings. The last time there was a conflict like you are describing, it was the 1940s. Aircraft and weapons were simple, building and testing were comparatively fast. Nowadays, even with war expedience, it could take years to correct short comings of an aircraft or weapon system - especially if the solution needs to be sought, tested, manufactured, and then integrated. The development time for the F-22 was longer than the front-line service career of the F-4 Phantom, things are different these days! I personally think that a serious conflict would have seen the F-14 operating the way it did in the real conflicts of the 20th century. It would have gone to war with the weapons and airframes that were available and fought hard. Over time, things might have changed with a prolonged conflict, especially if things weren't going as well as planned. But who knows what those changes might have been, real war has commonly defied expectations. My 2 cents, Nick

It did! :) Though this picture is not an "adversary" aircraft per se. It's from one of VF-213's DACT detachments to El Centro around 1987. Here is another picture of NH200 from the same det: This photo shows that the underlying paint scheme is regular TPS and the black marks are actually water paint. They applied these disruptive black splotches for the detachment then washed them off after the week of DACT was over. VF-2 did the same around the same time frame, here is one of their hi-viz birds fully muddied with water paint: The Tomcat was used as an adversary aircraft by NSAWC. It wore many different schemes, some were quite standard: Others were quite stunning! This is their "Flanker scheme": Here is another that seems more "MiG-31" oriented: And a simulated "IRIAF" scheme: "Flanker" and "IRIAF" flying together: This one looks like a shot of a IIAF Tomcat on it's way to delivery: They wore US markings till they reached Iran. There are quite a few photos of F-14s and F-4Es on their way over usually coming off the Tanker. My guess at least. :) -Nick

I don't see a valid argument on your part either. But you're not making an argument, you're expressing your preference. As am I, so we'll agree to disagree since we want different things. Plus, the Tomcat did go to war without the AMRAAM, several times in fact. You can certainly add that capability yourself as GGTharos said, but it's a bit much to ask it of Leatherneck. They have decided to create the most accurate Tomcat module possible and creating fake HUD symbology and avionics software for the AMRAAM is counter to that goal. But again, we can agree to disagree. But Leatherneck has already spoken on this issue, no AMRAAMs are coming for the Tomcat - but you can still add it yourself if you wish. -Nick

Dang it Hummingbird - now I want this thing bad! :D Great video though, thank you for sharing! I love these period videos. -Nick

The F-4 did have a reputation for staying nice and steady in the groove during approaches (contrasting sharply with the F-14 that wandered constantly and tended to float - needing endless corrections). However, the MiG-21 is also quite steady on approach, you just need to monitor it's speed diligently (like you would in the F-4). The only part of the MiG-21's landing that is a bit challenging is touchdown, since the landing gear won't tolerate much descent rate on contact. The F-4 would be much more forgiving at touchdown because their landing gear is much more robust (the USAF and USN Phantoms had the same landing gear structure, though the tire dimensions diverged after the F-4B and F-4C). With an easier touchdown, I think the F-4 would be easier, but the general experience of flying the approach would probably be quite similar in my estimation. The F-4 didn't have a great reputation for low-speed handling either. -Nick

It's the same as the pilot's. The RIO has a simple MFD (not like the MFD everyone is used to, it has just a few available pages) on the right lower side of the cockpit. It can be seen just behind the RBF tag here: It displays the same information as the pilot's HDI (the lower of the two stacked screens): This MFD can display different navigation pages/modes and RWR/ECM data. The pilot's HDI can also display info from the RIO's TID. In the F-14A, this MFD is the only display for RWR and ECM data. The F-14B has an additional RWR display for the ALR-67 in the pilot's cockpit, I'm not sure if the RIO received one as well. One inherent limitation of the F-14A's set-up is that the pilot cannot have both radar and RWR data displayed at the same time (though the RIO can because of the TID). This was rectified in the F-14B by providing a new RWR display for the ALR-67. Here is a photo, the RWR display is nestled into the top right quadrant of the instrument panel, near the radios: -Nick