BlackLion213

It is doubtful that Iran has 60 operational airframes, but they did stage a mass overflight of Tehran with ~40 aircraft as counted my western observers. Who knows how many were combat capable. The idea of the F-14 acting as an AWACS was proposed by US observers in the region during the Iran-Iraq war, based on Tomcats orbiting for long periods with their radars searching. The thing is...these Tomcats were generally observed in populated areas with a well defined ground radar network. Meaning places that already had early warning capability that was likely better than the AWG-9. Per later IRIAF reports, these Tomcats weren't "awacs-ing", but the mere presence of airborne F-14s was a solid deterrent to IrAF strikes, especially by 1983 or so. This made a huge difference when the "war of cities" fired up mid-way through the conflict - a dark time. -Nick

WOW!!! Huge improvement over the TCS on the old model (which had some shape issues). Textures look insanely good! :D This is highly representative of the appearance in fleet Tomcats. I can attest to that from both my airshow experience (20-25 years ago...) and the appearance in pictures. Its a "high-touch" area and would get pretty worn and touched-up. Paint on the ALQ-100 antennae was variable depending on wear, but this overall appearance is perfect to my eye for an active line-bird. :) -Nick

Wow, very nice collections! I might need to make my way up there some time. Thank you for sharing the photos. -Nick

Heatblur confirmed on facebook that multi-crew works now. I still vote that the Harrier will be first out. Razbam has said Q3 and they released the Mirage with a fair bit left to do. I bet they will keep to their estimate, its more a matter of how complete the module will be. Between the Hornet and Tomcat, hard to say. Per Cobra's updates (facebook, here, etc) the Tomcat's functions are maturing rapidly with operational multi-crew, EFM, radar, weapons, carrier physics, etc. I think they will release in 2017. More a matter of how much time the Hornet needs - we will have some insight there in a few weeks. Either or both could make it in 2017, really hard to say at this point. -Nick

They roll and pitch with the new water in 2.1. I confirmed that with some "carrier ops" in the UH-1. :) The overall effect looks great on deck and the rate/magnitude changes with sea state. -Nick

Actually, this aircraft was designed around the Phoenix missile and was meant to be a stand-off weapon system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer However, it was clear that this aircraft would be really vulnerable and it was decided that a higher performance aircraft was needed. The F-111B appeared to be the solution, but simply didn't have much performance. Interestingly, the F-111B's poor performance in the approach configuration was as responsible for its demise as its poor fighter performance. The F-14 emerged as Vietnam was proving that any fighter in the US inventory had to be able to dogfight well. Grumman offered to create a new program from the major components of the F-111B project (of which they were the USN subcontractor) using major avionics and engines (on an interim basis in their mind). Grumman started with a design optimized for the 4x4 sidewinder/sparrow load-out and dogfighting, later figuring out how to cram the AWG-9 and Phoenix system into the aircraft. This led to the wide central tunnel and fuselage lift was discovered only during flight testing (fuselage otherwise would have resembled that of the F-15, reportedly). So the F-14 was built to be a fighter that could carry the Phoenix, not the other way around. -Nick

Even with placeholder artwork, this is pure awesome! :thumbup: The wait gets harder everyday, but love the progress! -Nick

Yeah, the rudder authority was an issue too, especially for shore operations. From my readings, there were 3 factors that compelled the USN to require mil-thrust-only cat-shots for the F110: - The burners would over-heat the JBDs and lead to failures (internal plumbing failures iirc) - As you said, the Vmca was climbed a fair bit (I think to 170-180 KIAS, I need to check my references). - The aircraft could easily overspeed the gear doors unless pilots were very prompt in commanding gear up on shore take-offs. Also true during carrier ops, pilots would usually retract the gear before selecting AB with the F110s. As you can see here: It was the same for both the B and D, I think around 170-180 KIAS, but I should double check that. I have the F-14D NATOPS around here somewhere.... -Nick

I second! :) Thank you for doing the math Captain Dalan - very helpful! :thumbup: -Nick

They certainly lose a lot of style points for this and it is not actually that common. Navy fighters see little to no benefit to lighting the burners in terms of wave-off performance (at least for the F-14 there is no real difference). I suspect these blower landings are pilots who hit the deck having corrected a high ball and touched down at lower RPM than normal. They get get nervous and push into the AB detent. Not normal procedure and generally a sign that something went wrong. I don't think anyone said it was a design requirement, but it is a desirable trait. If the USN didn't care about light discipline, they wouldn't operate at night with three small lights on the boat or use red ambient lighting on deck (though this may have changed in the 2000s). It is not ideal that an enemy would be so nearby undetected or undeterred, but it would also suck if you then painted your position for all to see when they may have passed you by without notice. If the Navy didn't care, the carrier would be brightly lit to improve aviation safety, controlling light emissions is important just like controlling electronic emissions. So if the Navy can launch an aircraft without using the burners, it will and it prefers it that way (which Hornets often do BTW along and F-14As did under GW of 60,000 lbs). But if it needs the burners for a safe launch, it will do what is needed. If it is raining outside, you still go to work right? Better to have an umbrella, but the lack of it won't stop you - helpful, but not mandatory. The real benefit of the F110 was the reliability and thrust; the other stuff was just "nice" and helped justify the program to budget oversight. Even the fuel economy stuff proved to be a wash. The F110 powered Tomcats got off the cat with another 500-600 lbs of fuel because they didn't need burner, but burned another 100-200 lbs/hour on station. Though fuel economy would be more noticeable during ACM due to the better thrust-specific consumption in burner. Plus the F-14B/D was notable for NOT being able to launch in burner. The JBDs couldn't take it. There is actually a special procedure for testing installed F110s on the deck by individually staging up each engine and holding for 15-30 seconds with at least a 30 second cool down for the JBD between runs. The Hornet need not worry about this because...well....you know (yes - I am suggestively flexing my small finger as I write this). :P -Nick

Yes, there were conditions where the TF30 was very powerful and capable, but fighters need to adapt to a wide variety of conditions and medium to high altitudes were not so good for the TF30. Things were far from hopeless at high altitudes, Tomcats regularly cruised on cross-countries at 40,000'+. But the aircraft were generally clean and climbed to that altitude slowly. Thrust was also rather speed dependent: higher KIAS led to better engine response and thrust. At sea-level and mach 0.9, the TF30 pumped out 28,000 lbs of thrust (nearly as much as the F110 that makes 30,000 lbs under the same conditions). It seems that the fundamental flaw in the TF30 design was a large fan unit/low pressure compressor that was not optimized compared to later designs (or perhaps the interface between the LP and HP compressors since porting the HP compressor stabilized airflow). Makes sense, the fundamental design dated to 1958 and fluid dynamics were MUCH better understood by the late-70s and early-80s when the advanced turbofans were entering service. This inefficient LP compressor was heavy, so it would block airflow during rapid engine transients (accelerates slower due to its mass). It also was not nearly as good at delivering air to the high-pressure compressor as later designs. So during conditions where flight delivers a good stream of air (high speeds, dense air at low altitudes, or both) the engine was very powerful and dependable - especially in zone 5 burner. But create conditions where the stream was not so good: low airspeeds, high AOA, or very high altitudes - thrust suffered since the compressor was not delivering adequate airflow and stall would occur if things got bad enough. Hence high-altitude performance and thrust was not so good at medium to low airspeeds. But some conditions would give the TF30 a big boost while the F110 had little gains or losses from external conditions (a sign that the F110's compressor would deliver optimally irrespective of conditions). Interestingly, the TF30 would rarely flame-out after a stall (perhaps a byproduct of all the modifications to improve stall margin), but the engine would instead fail to respond the throttle commands and eventually catch fire when TIT climbed enough (generally took about 30 seconds of a "hung-stall"). It generally had to be shutdown to clear a hung-stall. Also, forcing the F-14A into a high-AOA flight regime would not only bleed airspeed due to high AOA drag, but also because it would open the mid-compression bypass valve of the TF30 and cost the engine another 15% of thrust (it opened between 11 and 16 units of AOA depending on speed). This improved stall margin at high AOA, but cost thrust. From what I've heard, pure AOA related stalls were uncommon unless airspeed was quite low (like 100 KIAS), but the beta movements caused by wing drop and yaw above 20 units AOA was a real concern. Still, the F-14 didn't need high AOA to generate an excellent ITR (one of its virtues) and high AOA performance was also hindered by wing-drop and yaw - so high AOA was not necessarily the way to go for any F-14 model. Really the limiter for the F-14A was energy and effective energy management could keep it in the fight against any opponent. Its worth mentioning that exchange rates between F-14As and F-14B/Ds in training flights were actually fairly close (with F-14As routinely defeating F-14B/Ds in training flights). But there is no question that the F110 made the F-14 a much easier aircraft to use and much safer. I have also heard that the TF30 Tomcats were "faster" - meaning they could break mach 2 easier. Above ~mach 1.8 the TF30 made more thrust. However, the operational difference between the TF30 and F110 was even bigger than the numbers might suggest because the military power outputs at medium-high altitudes (where most fighters fly) was so much better. -Nick

None of these issues apply to the B, with a lot more thrust the Tomcat doesn't have to worry much about bleeding energy and it can sustain minimum radius turns very well. As depicted by Tom Clancy in "Carrier" (nonfiction), the F-15s struggled when the F-14 got the F110 since their prior tactics quit working. This was especially true at the medium altitudes of most DACT training. The TF30s worst regime was military power at high altitudes - one Tomvat pilot quipped "The only thing the TF30 dos below 250 KIAS and above 25,000' is convert JP5 into noise". At high speeds things were better and down low things were much better. -Nick

From what I've read, getting slow during DACT was one of the worst mistakes a Tomcat pilot could make (F-14A). With less thrust than its 4th gen counterparts, energy management is very important and nearly every combat aircraft becomes quite vulnerable when low on energy. The F-14A's best performance is in the horizontal and most Tomcat pilots favor a one-circle fight and will try to press their advantage quickly. However, if they overdo this just a bit, they end up slow and with few options for staying in the fight. I think the F-15 defensive maneuver is trying to bait the Tomcat crew by offering them what they want (horizontal fight) and hoping that the Tomcat goes for broke. Plus, they are talking about defensive maneuvers with the enemy ideally positioned to their 6, most aircraft have limited options for winning this fight against a modern opponent. This strategy of hoping the Tomcat bleeds off too much energy seems as good as any imho. :) -Nick

It is! That is the pilot armament panel just above the VSI. I see photo-realism is coming to DCS and soon! I didn't expect it to look THAT good! :D Heatblur did confirm on FB that the shot is in-game. -Nick

For some reason it takes about 60 seconds for the washed-out effect to disappear and then things look great. I wonder if some of the complaints over deferred shading is not giving things a chance to settle. This problems seems to happen much less after loading a few missions, but seems to occur every time I restart DCS. The effect is present during lower lighting (dawn/dusk) as well, but fades much faster. If the daylight still looks washed out, wait 60 seconds and see what it does. To me the daylight lighting effect is now much brighter and realistic, especially for a place like Nevada with very intense daytime sun. -Nick

Great find! :thumbup: I met a recently transitioned F-14D crew (just finished the transition from the F-14A) from VF-213 at the Dayton air show ~1998 or 99. Of course, they loved their new F-14Ds and were very impressed by the new tech and power of the F110s. I asked if they noticed a big improvement in ACM capability or maneuverability. The pilot gave me a funny glance and said "no....but I can now sustain minimum radius turns without trading altitude for airspeed. I guess that will open up some options and the engine reliability will make a difference too" (probably paraphrased a bit after 18 years). So the re-engined F-14s can sustain that impressive ~180-270 turn rate while the F-14A has to either "take it downhill" or reduce its rate of turn to match the available energy. Bio Baranek said that one of the ACM decision points of fighting something like the F-15 was deciding when it was worth it to trade energy for position and that keeping airspeed up was important. -Nick

Like Probad said, all things are relative. :) Compared to the F-4 Phantom, A-4, or F-5 - the Tomcat (A-model) performed quite well in the vertical. The major advantage of the Tomcat versus the Phantom in the vertical is that it lost a lot less speed during pitch-up and could vertically extend with a much lower starting airspeed. The Tomcat needed about 350 KIAS of starting airspeed to vertically extend vs 450 KIAS for the Phantom (according to "Hawk" Monroe - first CO of Topgun). Against the F-5, the Tomcat had a much higher pitch rate and better ITR/STR. Compared to the A-4, the Tomcat's much greater power gave it a big edge in energy maneuvers, but best to avoid turning fights against the Skyhawk (scooter). However, things are different against 4th gen fighters. It also depends if you are referring to the F-14A vs the F-14B/D. The re-engined F-14s are very capable in the vertical and perform well in a turning battle as all versions of the F-14 have excellent pitch rates. Roll-rate is a limitation, so best to avoid flat scissors. Against the F-15, the Tomcat (B/D) performs better in a turning battle below ~450 knots and can more or less match the F-15C in energy maneuvers/vertical maneuvers. Against something like the F-16, the Tomcat (B/D) can use some tricks like asymmetric thrust to generate very high combined rates of pitch and yaw to aid rolling scissors. Also, very few fighters perform as well in a turning fight around 300 knots. However, Vipers have so much power that they only find themselves slow if they make a mistake and they can quickly regain their energy. I have read less about Tomcat encounters with other 4th gen aircraft. The F-14A has a tougher time against all 4th gen opponents compared to the F-14B/D. It is far from hopeless, but energy management is essential. The same airframe performance that gives the F-14 excellent pitch rate is still present, but it is much easier to bleed off energy and end up slow. The F-14A's relative lack of excess thrust means that it can only sustain max performance turns for about 180 deg before airspeed loss starts to limit available G, especially between 10,000' and 25,000'. Below 10,000' (and especially 5,000') the TF30 makes a lot more thrust in zone 5 and relative performance is good deal better. Not to mention the issues of engine reliability at high AOA or rapid throttle changes, but no need to go too far down the rabbit hole. :) I hope these tidbits help to answer your question. -Nick

No worries, they'll just capture the good parts of Top Gun without the F-14, USS Enterprise, or San Diego..... Oh wait.... those were the only good parts. :D -Nick

You're right, my numbers were for the 400 version of the F404. With the 402 the Hornet is a little bit better: 1.14 vs 1.10 for the F-14B. This is at combat weights of half internal fuel and 2 sparrows and 2 sidewinders. Not max TOW. -Nick

The Tomcat actually has more pitch authority with the wings swept, but higher induced drag. So the ITR is better swept, but STR can suffer do to the energy bleed. Also, yaw stability is not as good with the wings swept and it is easier to build up AOA to a point where departures are more likely. The loaded T/W for the Hornet is bette than the F-14A, but less than that less than that of the F-14B. The Hornet does have an advantage with high AOA flight, but it also suffers from very high induced drag at high AOA with the attendant effect on STR. It will be interesting to see how the Hornet and F-14B match-up (the F-14A is at a disadvantage, but also performs pretty well below 10K'). -Nick

The textures for both the Viggen and MiG-21 are being converted to work with PBR and the new shaders as we speak. I don't think that either was updated for the Backer's release. Both Rudel and Cobra847 have posted photos of their progress though: -Nick

Compared with the above image, this new one from Razbam's Facebook page looks much nicer at mid-day: I think that NTTR will look really great with the fixed clip-maps and new lighting, though deserts are demanding environments visually since so much rests on just the textures given the lack of trees and such. -Nick

That is beautiful! For me, the 2.1/2.5 lighting upgrade is about as significant as the upgrade from 1.2 to 1.5 (IMHO). It looks much better and I can't wait for all of the maps to use these upgrades. Also....I really want a Korean map for our awesome MiG-15 and F-86, this video doesn't make the wait any easier. :) -Nick

I can see why someone would take this perspective and I have wondered the same at times. However, there is more planning in the background and both the 3rd parties (most of them) and ED are thinking about how it all fits together. The problem is that most of these projects are very nascent and the next steps aren't being discussed. Detailing the roadmap has led to strife in the community at times since those who are not interested in the project will view it as a waste while others can't believe it isn't done yet. As such, we get only a glimpse of the next step and the end point can be difficult to visualize. DCS WWII is the perfect example - by the end of the year with the Normandy map out and the asset pack quite complete, it will be an awesome and complete experience for the WWII birds that spent the last 3-4 years totally out of place and seemingly a distraction from "real projects". One thing I can say, ED is actually very selective about licenses and doesn't allow 3rd parties to simply say they want to do a project and grant exclusive rights. ED was less selective in the past, but now they won't grant contracts for projects that are down the line (like set to start after 2 others are completed by the same 3rd party) or things that are totally out of left field. There are unannounced modules that will be perfect compliments to other pending modules (not necessarily opponents mind you, but complimentary aircraft) and there are other components like map and AI that are on the way for modules that seem like outliers currently. But when a full DCS module takes 3-4 years and the accessories (map and AI) take another couple years, the full project simply takes a long time to realize. During that period, things may not make sense. ED is also very tight lipped about future projects and now seem to focus their announcements on what is next (like Normandy currently), but there are hints. Wags' stream from March 2017 had a module tile labeled "DCS F-15C" which is notably distinct from "F-15C for DCS world" and the regular F-15C tile that was next to it. Wags has proven to be pretty deliberate with his hints and this was the same hint that lead to the realization of the F-5E. Right now, ED seems pretty focused on either modern or WWII and both make great sense in the context of their existing work. Similarly, Razbam is creating the AV-8B that matches the modern DCS timeframe perfectly and adding ship AI to compliment it. Heatblur is creating a new Forrestal class carrier and such for the F-14 and has hinted at more. Belsimtek isn't talking right now, but I have little doubt that they will make a good decision concerning their next module and eventually I hope to have a theater/AI for the F-86/MiG-15 as well. VEAO's plan doesn't make sense to me....but maybe something will change my mind someday. -Nick

Alright...since I like the cut of your jib: The quality of the work here is simply unbelievable! I still can't quite believe that this is a home flight sim that actually runs well in VR. Simply staggering. :thumbup: -Nick