BlackLion213

Hmm....interesting theory... Why not just fly the Hornet? Well, while we're at it: the F119 engine was checked for fit in the F-14B/D airframe, we should get those as well! Also, the amraam launchers should be twin launchers (as shown on the picture at the beginning on this thread). So then we get a 70,000 lbs of thrust Tomcat that carries 12 amraams...I see the appeal.;) -Nick

There is a RWR threat panel display option for the Pilot's HSD display in the F-14A (shows the same info as the RIO's right-sided display). The F-14B also has a dedicated RWR display on the right upper instrument panel, the same type installed in the early F/A-18A/C. In both cases, it is much less sophisticated than the TEWS system in the F-15C - you're right, it will be more work. :) -Nick

Great overview Grundar! -Nick

Is there any opportunity to briefly discuss the Theaters in the March update? A few small details on the Tomcat (like the location ;)) or Viggen theater would be greatly appreciated. :) I'm looking forward to the March update. :thumbup: -Nick

I think that is largely the extent of it. The windscreen changed very slightly (eliminated the internal reflective coating) and I read that the glove vane area was slightly reshaped (I can't see it myself). The other changes that I can think of were all internal (cockpit and ejection seats, HUD, avionics, ARI, etc) - but these are not external airframe changes. Things like antennae changed over the years (on all Tomcat models), but otherwise the external changes from F-14B to F-14D were not extensive. -Nick

Luckily, this photo is actually from 1988 - the heart of the LNS F-14A timeframe. :D (Hint - the glove vane says "USS Theodore Roosevelt - first cruise was 1988-89) I think this scheme will most likely find its way into the module...at least based on Cobra's past avatar. And here is another squadron with a similar glare panel, again from the mid-1980s (1985-86 here): A lot of squadrons also used the "truncated" version on their hi-viz CAG/CO aircraft. Here is one from 1988 with VF-14: The MiG-21Bis has a really nice variety of liveries - I bet we can expect the same for the Tomcat and perhaps a bit "amplified" if we are lucky. I do hope they give "priority" to schemes that match the LNS Tomcat's timeframe - though they have already stated that they will include liveries from a few different eras. I think there will be many to choose from. :thumbup: -Nick

:megalol: I fondly remember Fire Birds from when I was a kid (hence I had to mention it in this thread :)). I definitely place it in the same class as Top Gun. The only real advantage that Top Gun has over all the other aviation movies (IMHO) is an abundance of really high quality flying footage. It still remains more or less second to none (excluding the likes of "Fighter Fling" of course - I'm referring to studio produced films). Though it turns out that Amazon has Fire Birds on instant - I might have to take a walk down memory lane tomorrow. :D -Nick

Great gif and picture Frisco! :D -Nick PS - I'm a big fan of these as well! Varks and Lions! Good times!

King Hrothgar, I kid! I rather enjoy your posts and perspective. I merely saw the opportunity to respond to your joke with numbers that could almost seem relevant. :P Talk about the pot calling the kettle black......:D I would certainly buy an AH-64, BTW. Jokes about Fire Birds aside (which seems to be all that is said about that movie :)) - the AH-64 is a really intriguing machine that I would love to fly. I just like to poke fun at things....you know the feeling right? ;) -Nick

FWind, I'm impressed and grateful for your thoroughness. Thank you for posting all of these interesting facts and finds, it's answering a lot of questions that I have wondered about for quite a while. :thumbup: -Nick

Well, lets see: Firebirds (1990) Grossed $14,800,000 in domestic ticket sales (for you, I rounded up ;)). Top Gun (1986) Grossed $356,800,000 in domestic ticket sales. You never know....but your horse is looking a little gimpy King Hrothgar... :smilewink: -Nick

I knew this day would come....;) I'm easy and like nearly every F-14 squadron. However, I really like the look of plain grey Tomcats, partly because it is the way the aircraft usually looked operationally and because it shows of the true shape of the aircraft best (the same way that most car designers prefer to first see their creation in silver). Here is my favorite F-14B scheme: I have many favorites when it comes to F-14As :D I like this VF-14 scheme, TPS with just a touch of color: I know that the VF-111 "sharkmouth" is very popular, but I like the F-14's nose better without it. I am a big fan of this TPS VF-111 scheme, its in my top three (look further for the other 2): For a Hi-viz Tomcat scheme, nothing compares with this VF-114 scheme from their 1986 World cruise. I love the colors with some additional interest from the false canopy. Always strikes a chord for me, just awesome in my book! Lastly, my favorite squadron is....don't have to say it do I? ;) VF-213 has always had relatively simple markings that just look right to me. Their insignia has changed a bit over the years, but the Lion from their 1986 (and 1988 ) cruise looked the best stylistically. They returned to this Lion emblem for their final years with the F-14D (though slightly bulkier), a wise choice! :D Their 1980s TPS Tomcats also had a false canopy like their VF-114 brethren - makes the cool TPS scheme a bit more interesting and unique. Thanks for asking Hummingbird. :) -Nick

I'm pretty confident that the Leatherneck F-14B will get LANTIRN at some point. The real question is will it have it within the first year after release IMHO. I'm still hoping. :) -Nick

No problem, just curious. :) -Nick

Hi Silver Dragon, I read that ED is developing the "CVN-71 Nimitz" aircraft carrier (per your words :)). The newsletter mentioned a "Nimitz class carrier" - do you know that it is the USS Theodore Roosevelt - CVN-71? Interestingly, I googled it and CVN-71 hasn't changed much at all from 1988 till 2010. The major visible features (masts, etc) seem more or less the same. Might be a great choice to represent a current and 1980s Nimitz carrier - just a thought. Thanks for the info and continuous updates! -Nick

The document stated that F-14s using LANTIRN needed the PTID. Like you, I'm not totally sure that is correct for all timeframes. But it seems likely from this report, that all F-14 squadrons that actively used the LANTIRN had the PTID upgrade. Also, the first squadron that deployed with LANTIRN was VF-103 in 1996. Their jets were modified prior to deployment for LANTIRN and one of the upgrades mentioned was NVG compatibility of the cockpit. I'm pretty sure that one of the critical NVG compatibility changes was the replacement of the RIO TID with a PTID (again, stitched together from multiple reports - wish someone would publish the complete "LANTIRN recipe"). From everything I can tell (and I just checked again), no F-14s as delivered to the USN had A-G radar. The APG-71 with it's synthetic aperture could perform A-G tasks, including ground mapping, but the F-14D lacked the necessary software. There were plans to upgrade the F-14D's APG-71 with the right software - part of the "Block 1 Strike upgrade" that was later cancelled. Plus, there were only 55 F-14Ds produced and the remaining F-14s all used the AWG-9 which could not be upgraded for A-G. In fact, the lack of these functions was one of the major reasons cited by the GAO for not funding the Block 1 F-14 upgrades. [ame]http://gao.gov/assets/230/220364.pdf[/ame] The F-14B never received any radar upgrades, it has the exact same AWG-9 used by the F-14A and remained unchanged throughout it's service life. So luckily, Leatherneck does not have to worry about A-G radar for any version of the F-14. ;) The F-14's impressive strike reputation was built on LANTIRN, the F-14's range, effective payload, loiter capability, benefits of 2 crew members, and what they pulled off during the development/implementation of FAC(A) missions. The F-14 didn't look so great on paper with respect to check boxes (as the above PDF demonstrated) but mission/theater commanders agreed that it was the best USN precision strike platform available (even a few Hornet pilots have admitted that ;) - like Neptunus Lex). Those crews did a whole lot without many electronic aids. -Nick

Great finds FWind! And this does clarify it, a LANTIRN equipped F-14A or F-14B should have the PTID (MFD). The F-14D didn't need it, but many still had it installed in the late-90s. I can see why LNS would hedge on this decision. If the differences prove tricky to model, require cockpit mods, development of LANTIRN, and might need some tweaks to Jester AI so that it uses the LANTIRN properly - it might be a bit much for the initial release. Releasing the F-14A set in the mid-1980s and an F-14B in the mid-1990s (able to drop bombs, but needs buddy lasing for LGBs) would offer lots of excellent game play scenarios and mission possibilities. I think that a future upgrade option for both the F-14A and F-14B would be a good idea, perhaps as part of a new Theater for late-90s or early 2000s operations. This package would update the 1980s F-14A to late 90s standard (update the gunvents to F-14B standard, RWR, etc) and add the PTID with LANTIRN and GPS (and possibly DFCS). The F-14B could be upgraded to "F-14B Upgrade" standards with the mentioned avionics upgrades (PTID/MFD, GPS, LANTIRN) and perhaps DFCS. This would effectively create 4 different F-14 models in DCS spanning a 20 year operational period (without compromising the fidelity to operate across that wide time-frame). I think such an upgrade would be really cool and would keep the F-14 continuously upgraded in DCS. Such an upgrade would also pair very well with a new Combat theater or campaign. These 4 models would contrast very well with each other. I think this is what TurkeyDriver recommended in a past post. :) Also, I really don't think that this qualifies as the "nickel and dime-ing" that Tirak complained about since it would create new models that operate during a different era with a bunch of changes. It wouldn't simply be a matter of adding LANTIRN alone. My 2 cents, Nick

It has been in progress for quite a while as Silver Dragon said. Plus, it was a FSX/P3D aircraft before it came to DCS. I'm glad you brought this up, there are a few interesting insights worth mentioning with this project. Of note, Razbam developed the AV-8B for FSX a while ago and are already very familiar with the aircraft. Firstly, I have only seen the exterior mesh recently redone and in game for DCS. All the other screenshots/renders are based on the FSX assets and need to be extensively upgraded or redone (as mentioned by Razbam). Also, though a VSTOL fixed wing aircraft would be new to DCS, the Harrier is not a very complicated aircraft from a systems standpoint (compared to the Hornet, Tomcat, or Viggen). It's certainly more complicated than the F-86 or F-5E, but certainly not the ASM nightmare that the Hornet represents. Another interesting insight, Razbam recently switched from their original plan to do the British Gr.7/9 to the AV-8B. Because: The message, you never know how long it will actually take to develop a module. Things could be moving along quickly and smoothly till you try to develop some new tech or variation on an existing feature. Dealing with that feature could add months or years onto the project, even if it seemed straightforward. VEAO had their P-40F on pre-sale last September, but they've hit a series of very challenging bugs and the module still isn't ready (even though it was very nearly done for DCS 1.2.16). So no one really knows how long it will take to complete a project, especially one with new features. Leatherneck also is developing three modules simultaneously with new maps for all three and lots of new features (carrier ops, ground radar, thrust reversers, variable geometry wings, multi-crew, avionics that are much more complex than the MiG-21). The Tomcat is one of the most popular combat aircraft of all time and very popular around here (judging from the response). Yet, it has been minimally represented in flight sims - because it is a very difficult aircraft to properly simulate. I am very confident that we will have an F-14A/B in DCS and that it will be very impressive - but hard to know how long it will take to complete, it's a tough project (even among DCS projects and all DCS modules are tough projects). I wouldn't compare it to the Harrier and expect it to progress at the same rate. That said, the Harrier looks very promising and I hope that Razbam stays on track. Their Mirage 2000C is excellent work and I really enjoy flying it. I bet the Harrier will also be excellent and welcome addition; though I'm still hoping we get the Tomcat first. :D -Nick

Great post StreakEagle. With DCS striving to be very accurate with regards to systems and the onboard systems of a service aircraft constantly evolving - it's not really possible to develop a module that is truly realistic for a broad scope of scenarios. This means that a developer needs to create their module with a very specific era and use in mind. Even if someone develops an F-4E, it is likely that the particular version would only be truly accurate for one country operating over a 3-5 year span. As a reference, look at the Mirage 2000C. There are lots of operators besides France (like UAE for the SoH map), but many of these operators had different radars (most had RDM) or different ECM suites (subcontracted by a different company or a totally different country) - so the current DCS Mirage 2000C cannot accurately simulate the Mirage 2000E used by UAE. I think it's "good enough", because we still need some suspension of disbelief to enjoy this hobby. Otherwise, the user will never be happy. It seems that the best way to develop DCS module is perhaps opposite of what most would expect. The developer should probably develop a compelling campaign that fits their greatest interest in the aircraft, cross checking that the theater is feasible, then create the version that matches that scenario. Otherwise, it's easy to create the version that sounds coolest or strikes an emotional chord, only to realize that it can't really be used the way they planned. Good example, a USAF Vietnam scenario would require a huge map with long transit times. The USN versions had shorter missions and developing that theater would involve less land, so less work. Or you could create the Yom Kippur War with the IAF, which operated some 30 F-4Es. The map is not too huge and there was a lot of action. In any case, I think the version should match the planned scenario - for MP the exact version doesn't really matter as long as there are some reasonably contemporary peers to fight (all things are relative - no matter how it's done, people will complain - like death and taxes ;)). -Nick

I think so, but it's hard to confirm. The original list of cockpit modifications includes an adaptor from HARM testing to mount and communicate with the LANTIRN pod, MIL STD 1553 data translator, hand controller from the A-12 program mounted where TARPS jets mount their TARPS controls, GPS, and thats all that I see. An article on LANTIRN integration mentions that they were able to get the LANTIRN pod to project data in parallel with the existing INS and AWG-9 symbology without making software changes to integrate the systems. The MFDs were added shortly after LANTIRN, but it's not clear if it happened at the exact same time. Many squadrons also added NVG compatibility at the same time, which I think did require replacing the fishbowl with an MFD. The originally described LANTIRN integration used existing AWG-9 cockpit controls with the new hand controller per my references. So my real answer: maybe ;) -Nick PS - it might not be the development LANTIRN itself that is holding LNS from deciding to offer it. The real challenge might be getting Jester AI to use it properly. The Tomcat crews manually ID'd and slewed the designator on to targets (from what I read), it could be tough to program AI to recognize targets on the screen. There might be good work arounds or maybe that AI program is not difficult - just guessing here. :)

You're right, the upgrades were rather piecemeal. LANTIRN integrated from ~95-97. MFDs replaced the RIO fishbowl ~97-99 (first on F-14Bs, later on the F-14A). Sparrowhawk added ~2002-03. So an F-14B with just LANTIRN, LANTIRN+MFD, or all 3 could be correct. Depends on the exact year and squadron of interest. -Nick

Last few to round things out. :) There are also a few images of other aircraft taken by Dave Parsons. I might have over done this a bit. :smilewink: I'll take a photo break for a while. Best, Nick

Here you go: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139870 -Nick

A few more, Dave Parsons has about 100 pictures on his FB page. Another shot of AC210 on a TARPS mission carrying the AN/ALQ-167 -Nick

Probably, the function of these two systems is pretty similar. But there may be code-based or politics/procedure based reasons why it is not possible. -Nick