BlackLion213

I'm surprised by how hard it is to find a picture of the ASG-29 symbology, yet to find a single one. That said, it will probably be similar to these: A-4F (Super Fox) Another Super Fox: F-4E (ASG-26): F-4B(?) vs MiG-17 The AN/ASG-29 is of similar vintage to these, probably will be similar. Best I could find. -Nick

+1 Flawless delivery, couldn't have said it better. :D -Nick

Yes, I'm quite sure that it happened (likely at Pax River) since there were very specific approach speeds quoted for different degrees of wing sweep and with/without flaps in those configurations. Back in the early 1970s, those things were generally sorted out by direct testing (IIRC). Pax River has an area set-up with catapults and arresting gear for just this type of activity. Pax River catapult test, notice this "Carrier" has grass ;): -Nick

I agree with much of what your saying and the context/story in DCS has not been a priority (so it would seem), but I think things are changing. There have been five very high quality campaigns released over just the past 6 months or so. I think that a solid campaign rectifies a lot of the above mentioned issues and is essential for maintaining interest in DCS (beyond all of the new modules on the horizon). I have several of the new campaigns (NTTR campaigns) and I've barely scratched the surface. That said, my early exposure is that there is a HUGE difference between an instant action/quick mission and one of these campaign missions. The campaign missions are much more interesting and captivating. I see a few problems that I think would be easy to address for DCS. Firstly, a lot of aircraft are in Beta and don't have training or campaign missions. This makes the perceived learning curve feel much steeper and also gives the aircraft and it's mission no context. I don't have an answer for the best way to balance "early access" with the need for complete features, but I want the developers to certainly finish these items - they are really important for keeping the player's interest. The A-10C, for example, has excellent training missions and an excellent introduction. This really transforms the process of learning the aircraft and captures the feel of the in-game overview movies from the sims of the 1990s. I really hope that Eagle Dynamics and 3rd parties try to create training missions like those for the A-10C - I'd love to see a similar overview for the Hornet. Also, it would be great to have more media "in-game", mainly as part of the intro for missions and campaigns. Past sims from the 1990s needed this, because the in game experience was so much more limited - they needed the player's imagination to fill in missing visuals/drama. Hornet 2.0 was a pretty impressive game when I was an early teenager, but they couldn't capture much the real experience with tools like this: Clearly things have changed a bit: Still, these movies are still created for DCS and some of the recent ones have been very exciting. This recent one by Glowing Amraam totally revved me up for the A-10C: [ame] [/ame] I actually started learning the A-10C this weekend and got the campaign simply because of this video. It's really well done IMHO, but why not add things like this into DCS itself. Now that the sim is nearly photorealistic (again IMHO), why not us it to create awesome intro videos like sims of the past: [ame] [/ame] Glowing Amraam's videos at every bit as good (much better I think) than the intros of the past (except that this Jane's videos includes some VF-213 footage...maybe some day GA will do that too): [ame] [/ame] The Mirage 2000C trailer was also rather awesome: [ame] [/ame] I really think these videos should be part of the DCS GUI. If they exist, why not wrap them into the encyclopedia for example? Or create a way to watch them before choosing a plane to fly, or campaign, or build them into the module manager (might improve sales). I feel like it's a much better opportunity because you can create these amazing movies using footage from real gameplay, that's much better and more engaging. In the sims of the past, there was sort of a let down in that you watch the movie, then start gameplay - often they bear no resemblance to each other. That would not be the case today. I think if Eagle Dynamics continues the wise decision of producing DLC campaigns and integrates their existing media into the DCS GUI, it would address most of the concerns you mentioned. At least it would for me. :) It's nice to a have a little window dressing here and there. ;) -Nick

They don't, this was probably the most convenient moment for filming and that took precedence over the true mission for that particular flight. That said, F-14 TARPS missions were "self-escorted" and they did think about their A-A capability while carrying the pod. There is a story from 1986 when an F-14A attended a interservice recce meet. None of the other aircraft at the meet were armed and F-15s would regularly jump the recce aircraft to interrupt their photo run. This time, the F-14A turned to honor the threat and shot down the F-15. Had never happened at a recce meet before. The USAF commander for the event thought it was hilarious. This is another great story from the book: Grumman F-14 - Bye Bye Baby. -Nick

Many of us (at least me!) are very interested in TARPS missions. High-speed/low altitude runs through SAMs in the F-14A or F-14B - sounds pretty awesome and would expand the scope of available missions for a campaign, etc. However, best not to press the issue as things stand currently. Leatherneck has already stated that they plan to release future content (which I take as at least DLC campaigns and possibly more) and the F-14 module is likely to evolve over time with new capabilities and possibly new sub-versions (addition of DFCS for example, F-14B Upgrade, etc). Getting the F-14A/B up and running with all the new tech is a pretty big undertaking. I say lets talk more about this stuff once the module is out and Leatherneck is thinking about their next steps. :thumbup: -Nick

Well, the Navy had already decided to continue the Jolly Rogers tradition (dates back to WWII) and many squadrons (both VF and VFA...) were applying. The alternative would have been the name and insignia taken over by an F/A-18C squadron. The Tomcat community would have none of that! In fact, I heard that the Tomcat community was concerned that would happen and were relieved to hear that VF-103 cinched it. -Nick

Very nice! Glad you couldn't help it. :thumbup: I'm going out on a limb here...are you a fan of high Alpha maneuvers? ;) Also, your video lead me to this one (recommended by youtube): [ame] [/ame] It's pretty good, classic F-14A airshow performance from the mid-90s. Brings back lots of memories, I can still feel those burners rattling my sternum. :D -Nick

Yes, VF-114 was very famous back in their day, more so than VF-213, at least in the Tomcat community. VF-114 probably would have been saved, except that TARPs squadrons were chosen to stay (there were no other USN recce assets except for TARPs equipped F-14s). Though there were a few unfortunate exceptions: the decision to disestablish VF-84 when it was the airwing TARPs squadron is surprising. Though it took no time for another squadron to assume their identity. -Nick

Well...yes! I have seriously enjoyed watching your videos and learning how the MiG-21 can be effectively employed against the modern fighters. It's impressive stuff and a great education. Thanks for posting all these videos. The recognition seems quite cool and fitting. -Nick

Hi CheckGear, Thanks for posting this video, I love stuff like this. I remember looking at the TV guide every weekend to confirm that "Wings" would be playing. It was such a great show in it's day (my expectations were different back then) and every week I hoped to see an episode devoted to the F-14. Sadly, I didn't get to see their F-14 episode till it was posted to youtube (only took ~25 years..:)). Here it is and I still enjoy watching it: [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] Also, thank you for this part. :D It seems that you can't make a real Tomcat film without VF-213! ;) I remain impressed by their degree of media coverage, even before they became one of the last remaining F-14 squadrons. Of course, seems quite fitting to name a Tomcat squadron after a big cat (king of the beasts...:D). I suppose it's too good to pass up....but maybe I'm biased. :music_whistling: -Nick

That is a TARPS pod, I guess it wasn't an air intercept mission. F-14s could also carry a "travel pod" on that hardpoint. I know because there was often one attached to F-14s at airshows when I was a kid. It was a simple thing that looked like a small fuel tank, but the pilots would pack a change of clothes/misc items into it. Otherwise, the only thing carried on that station was the TARPS pod. All F-14Ds were hardwired to carry it, but only select F-14As/Bs. TARPs equipped F-14s lost the most rearward sparrow station (for the F-14A/Bs) and couldn't carry the LANTIRN (IIRC) because the TARPs control panel occupied the space used for the LANTIRN controls. -Nick

Sorry, went nuts with my explanation. :) Glad you like the pictures. -Nick

Yeah, I noticed that...but was trying not to say anything. :music_whistling: That said, Leatherneck's plan to not have aerodynamically functional vanes (though the 3D model will deploy them if wished) is quite reasonable. It's hard to find good documentation on the issue of when the vanes were deactivated and it seems that it was not standardized in the fleet. Here is a quote from a VF-211 maintainer: Another quote from a VF-101 AMH in the 1990s: Here is the source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1216573825/Any+F-14+Tomcat+experts+here-+(Glove+vanes) Anyway, from reading other tidbits, it seems that there was no fleet-wide policy concerning the glove vanes. Squadrons made their own decisions and many chose not to keep them operational, but there was no deliberate effort to deactivate all them (from what I can tell). So during the 1980s, a squadron may have a mix of aircraft with functional and nonfunctional vanes. Basically, if an aircrafts vanes started to act up, they would cap the hydraulic lines, and leave the actuators in place. Some squadrons tried to keep the vanes operational (probably - I haven't seen this in writing yet). To me, based on what I've seen/read, a mid-80s F-14A with deactivated or functional glove vanes is accurate. If deactivated is better for Leatherneck, then they should stick with that - the workload for the F-14 already seems quite high. (I'll also admit, I'm not a huge glove vane fan for whatever reason, so it doesn't bother me). Perhaps it will be another feature (still optional I hope) that will creep into the F-14 after release for those who are interested. :) -Nick

Don't worry Hummingbird :) ....it's a reference to the use of landing flaps only. The F-14 had 3 slat/flap settings: retracted, maneuvering, and landing. It became common practice to use the maneuvering flaps for takeoff depending upon load and often Tomcats would take-off from shore bases without any flaps. Catshots and traps would use landing flaps in all cases. This picture shows maneuvering flap takeoff. Notice that the most inboard portion of the flap is retracted: Here is a take-off without flaps: The maneuvering flaps could be actuated either by the air-data computer or manually via a button (or thumb wheel?) on the control stick. Firing an AIM-9 with the maneuvering flaps deployed was absolutely fine. The issue is that pilots would sometimes deploy the landing flaps to improve high-alpha low-speed handling during knife-fights. The landing flaps overspeed at 225 kts, so these were pretty low-speed maneuvers, generally below 200 kts. A pilot on the Tomcat Sunset forum (Cosmania - former VF-143 F-14B pilot) said that the problem with the AIM-9 was that the motor ignited on the rail. With the inboards flaps fully deployed, the motor would burn the flaps and the concussive force could damage the actuator (don't know if it was theoretical or proven). However, he was also firmly of the belief that if he really needed those flaps to make the shot with an AIM-9, he would take the shot and buy a case of beer for the maintainers. :) Better to come home with burned flaps than not at all. He didn't mention any issues with seeker FOV, but looking at the relationship between the leading edge of the wing and the AIM-9 seeker...I don't see how this is possible. Might be an inaccurate recollection - that happens to the best of us. Here is a picture for references purposes: The seeker is well-forward of the wing leading edge and slats. Though I could see the most rearward portion of the missile striking the slat...maybe? Luckily, I don't see any limitations on the list that would actually be an issue during real combat, just another Tomcat thing to talk about. :) -Nick

More F-14 videos from the late-80s. The first series of videos feature all the aircraft of the airwing. The first is from work-ups at NAS Fallon. The second two videos were mostly shot on the USS Carl Vinson and USS Nimitz. [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] [ame] [/ame] The first video takes place at NAS Fallon during work-ups for CVW-11 in 1989. It also features a cameo by these handsome devils. :D You can easily identify VF-213 (and VF-114) F-14As by their distinctive false canopies as seen here: A cool and distinctive feature among the otherwise uniform TPS F-14s - I think it looks cool. :) The last video is in cockpit footage from the Gulf War, courtesy of VF-14. [ame] [/ame] We're getting there, just another 10-11 months and you'll be able to do this with TrackIR! The last video is from USS Forrestal, again late 1980s. [ame] [/ame] It includes footage of VF-31 with their classic "pencil" scheme. :D Happy Watching! -Nick

Nice find, I hadn't noticed that. :D The F-14 was a bit of a maintenance nightmare, even when new. But the carrier environment is really not conducive to a long airframe life. Between catshots, arrested landings, and constant salt exposure - nothing seems to withstand that well. I remember talking to a S-3 pilot at the Miramar airshow in 2005 (shortly before it was retired) and the pilot said that every catshot resulted on some form of failure (mostly electronics). He was convinced that it was time for them to go. Now it seems that plastic and digital Hornet is suffering the same fate. I still don't know how VF-154 managed to have the best airframe availability of their cruise back in 2003 (some of their airframes were almost 30 years old). Rolling scissors should be fine, I think they are mostly referring to aileron rolls. Adding pitch to the maneuver changes the equation a bit and, as the article mentions, the same thing is actually prohibited in the Super Hornet as well. There isn't much tactical value to a sustained aileron roll, the effective mass (from a target/taking hits standpoint) is static. There probably is a risk-benefit assessment when deciding what maneuvers to discourage/prohibit and there isn't much tactical value to sustained aileron rolls. -Nick

Yes, a Baltic map would be great. We still don't know where the F-14 map will be placed geographically, but I'm not expecting it to be a great map for a F-4E module (could be - no way to know at this point!). -Nick

+1 -Nick

Sort of true, though I also think that is a classic misconception. That was a classic belief in Orthopaedic surgery, there is still brute force involved in many surgeries/procedures (I can be quite tired at the end of a day:)). And yet, I can't remember a single instance where a lack of power/strength prevented a female Orthopaedic surgeon from completing something. I think the brute force issue is really over-rated. -Nick

I think the right variant would depend entirely on what scenario the developers intend to create. The only map that is currently planned and works well for the F-4 would be the Straight of Hormuz, which would allow for F-4E operations with the IRIAF (Iran). Otherwise, NTTR kind of supports the Phantom, but not for real combat. So I would expect an F-4 module to come with a new with period units map to get the most out of it. As many have mentioned, there is a really broad variety of scenarios that could be very interesting - the Phantom saw it's share of combat. As an American, I think of Vietnam mostly, but the Yom Kippur War would also be very interesting. A fictitious (dirty word around here?) conflict in the 1970s with North Korea could also use the F-4 for both the USAF and RoK Air forces. If there is an interest in multiple variants, then I would like to suggest the F-4B (USN) and F-4C (USAF) - they were very similar, the most similar of the USN and USAF variants with the same radar, avionics, engines, aerodynamics. Only the cockpits differed really (WSO had dual controls vs RIO without controls in the USN version). It would be comparatively easy to create an F-4B and F-4C, versus say creating an F-4E and F-4J that were much less alike. A F-4B and F-4C could both be used in an early Vietnam scenario, allowing representation for both the USAF and USN. Of course, doing so would require a BIG map since the Gulf of Tonkin and USAF bases were quite far apart. Though creating 2 smaller maps might also be quite feasible since the maps would share so much content....just thinking. :music_whistling: I really do like the notion of 1960s carrier ops and the foundation for carrier ops seems to be coming along quite well. :thumbup: -Nick

:megalol: Though one other factor is worth mentioning with all of these stories: politics. Not national politics or Cheney stuff, I mean pilot egos and beliefs. The F-14 was lucky to become a very famous aircraft and very recognizable to the public, primarily because it starred in the most popular (popular for the general public) aviation movie of all time....you know the name. ;) No movie about combat aircraft has been so popular or widely watched by the general public. I remember being in high school (late 90s) in a geology course and the teacher was discussing the kind of work done on an oil rig, namely the risks, etc. He compared it to the risk of working on the deck of an aircraft carrier and one of the girls asked "Aircraft carriers are dangerous?" and another girl replied: "Just watch the beginning of Top Gun and you'll get what he means". It seems like just about everyone has seen it, which then creates this irritating scenario for the typical, mighty-ego-ed US Fighter pilot: "What do you do for a living", she asks. "I fly fighter jets", pilot replies. "Oh! The airplane from Top Gun", she asks. "No.....one of the other ones". :( Since every US pilot of a 4th generation fighter believes that he flies the awesomest fighter ever made, it hurts the ego to have another fighter depicted in the most famous aviation movie. They've heard of and seen the F-14, but not your fighter... So suddenly, the F-14 has a huge target on it's back because what ever fighter you fly, it has to be WAY better than the F-14. Good example is from a post on the Tomcat Sunset forum (Dave Parsons?). They tell a story about an Eagle Pilot (still in training I believe in Virginia) just after the release of Top Gun, calling their local paper to brag that his Eagle could blow the F-14 out of the sky and what a huge mistake it was for Paramount to star the F-14 instead of the Eagle. Of course, the crews at Oceana read the article and called over. They asserted that this pilot clearly wouldn't mind a little 2-V-2 against a pair of VF-101 Tomcats to confirm his claim - the pilot could have an instructor for a wingman. So they went at it, instructor and student from VF-101 vs Instructor and loud mouth in the F-15C....and both Eagles got gunned. The Eagle instructor did say that his student wouldn't be calling any more reporters for a while. :D But this is just one famous example, I honestly believe that many non-Tomcat US pilots have been conditioned to claim that the F-14 (especially the F-14A) is easy pickings and no real fighter, just to balance out it's fame and their egos. It's true that the F-14 did have real faults and was far from perfect, but stories and statements from many other pilots don't match the numbers or stories from Tomcat pilots. I remember one F-14A pilot from the Sunset Forum stating something similar: "I'm not sure why these guys (F-16 and F-15 pilots) claim to have never lost a fight against us, I've shot down so many of them in DACT, but they claim it never happens - WTH". Of course, Paramount didn't "choose" the F-14 as their star, it was the aircraft flown at Navy Fighter Weapons school (Hornet was brand new, there weren't any fleet Hornet pilots at Top Gun in 1985 IIRC), which was the topic they chose for the movie. Hardly a knock against the other fighters. Lastly, a few other things generally supported my guess here. The first was that so many other 4th gen pilots claimed that the F-14Bs and Ds were really tough opponents and they had to work like crazy to beat them - totally different than the F-14A, they would say. Yet...the Tomcat pilots tell me that F-14As defeat F-14B/Ds in DACT all the time - it's not that lopsided. The GE Tomcats win more, true, but it's hardly 90:10. So why is the F-14B/D hugely challenging and the F-14A easy pickings?? Also, I ran into a VF-213 pilot at the Dayton Airshow in 1999, he wasn't there with an F-14 (no Tomcats that year :(), but I talked with him for a few minutes. They had just transitioned to the F-14D and I asked him how much better his maneuverability/ACM ability was. I was expecting - "way better, everything is different". Instead - "About the same...I love the ability to move the throttles during maneuvers and I can fly minimum radius turns all day without having to trade altitude for speed, but maneuvers and tactics are about the same". He mostly talked about how much better the HUD was and the big upgrade in RADAR capability/reliability. I know that tons of Tomcats lost DACT matches to Hornets, Eagles, and Vipers...but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that things are not as lopsided as those pilots would claim. Pilots are like fisherman you know....:D -Nick

Great post Tirak. The Tomcat misconceptions are pretty pervasive, even among real pilots. Dave "Hey Joe" Parsons had a couple of great stories about facing F-16Cs when he was a RIO at VF-32 in the late 1980s (flying F-14As). His first was walking into a debrief after scoring a gun kill on a F-16C in 1 v 1 DACT. Apparently, the Viper pilot looked rather despondent and was rather surprised with how the engagement preceded. He had never fought Tomcats before and was told that they couldn't fight 1-circle against the F-16. The F-16's expected this DACT to be easy, they ended up losing the exercise based on exchange ratio. It seems that the most common error for the losing Viper pilots was letting their airspeed fall below 350 kts in a sustained turning battle, especially one-circle fights. The second story from "Hey Joe" was that one of their VF-32 pilots was retiring from the USN and was trying to join a ANG squadron near where he planned to retire. The story was that he was good to go from an administrative standpoint, but the ANG squadron wanted him to audition (I've never heard of something like that before). So he took an F-14A cross country for a day. They did 3 set-ups and the Tomcat pilot won all 3 against a block 30 F-16C wide-mouth. They were impressed and he joined a few months later. They also didn't have much experience with the Tomcat and were rather surprised by how things went. These are simple anecdotes and should not be construed as a score card...:music_whistling: But plenty of real life pilots also underestimated the Tomcat based on other's stories or how things looked on paper. -Nick

Excellent posts and thank you for the link. I'm learning a ton from you're posting. :) -Nick

Yeah, I accidentally posted it twice myself. :) Thank you for the repost - it's one of the most interesting and enjoyable Tomcat articles that I have read for a long time. More is better. -Nick