Swordsman422

For me, it's the longest serving and most common variant. The F-14B came along in 1988, so it doesn't necessarily fit into several Cold War scenarios. Later in life it was the first variant to drop bombs in anger, first on the scene in OEF, only Tomcat variant to operate from land bases in support of special operations forces, and still didn't lose an ounce of its formidable air-to-air capability. And I'm sure plenty of others are probably more excited about those older, high-visibility liveries, especially "everyone's favorite" with bones on it.

If you want DFCS in the Tomcats, you may as well also ask for the PTID and (in the case of the B) Sparrowhawk. All these systems are outside the boundaries for the F-14s we're getting, which are reflective of aircraft in service 1995-98.

The 3-in-1 is the texture for the LOD. MOST of the cells on the 3-in-1 are 12.5% size of the master images. Others are 25%. This is definitely something you need to edit. The LOD step down distance is still close enough to tell.

That doesn't confirm whether the chinpod will just consist of the ALQ or if it will only have the option for the bullet fairing. It would be great if it was a 90/95-GR. Regardless, at least the Iranians are getting a Tomcat. Some of those IRIAF camos are awesome. Glad to see the Navy A will definitely have LANTIRN capability.

He was probably referring to the camera tube itself and having the system disabled vice having the ALQ-100 only. Also, the option for clean nacelles when the fuel tanks aren't loaded has been part of the plan for all the variants since the beginning. I'd like to actually read his comments if you can find them. The TCS wasn't universal on Navy birds into the late 1980s. Squadrons returning from deployments were often required to turn over their TCS cameras to squadrons outbound, and not every plane had one. I hate to use Top Gun as a measure for anything, but you see several chin pod configurations through the movie, including the bullet fairing and ALQ-only, and it was filmed in 1985, indicating that procurement hadn't caught up with demand by that point.

Heatblur has repeatedly stated that the Iranian and US Navy models will be identical, but that the Iranian F-14 will have certain features disabled. The F-14A will also have the option of a bullet fairing in place of the TCS camera, but not removal of the whole chinpod. Shame, too. I'd rather have a late A if I only got to choose one, but I'd like to see a -90-GR as well.

I have a ridiculous list of hoped for A liveries: VF-41, VF-14, and VF-211 from OEF VF-154 circa 1999 and OIF VF-2, VF-102, and VF-114 from ODS VF-74 and VF-103 from the mid 1980s I know we aren't getting a -75-GR, but VF-1 first cruise and Ferris schemes VF-194, 202, and 302 low vis. We'll probably only get one or two out of this list. The rest will have to be created by the community.

Yeah, just because the compressor stall issue was overblown doesn't mean the TF-30 wasn't still a poor match for the F-14. It undoubtedly was. The data proves it. But the data also proves that the reputation for flying apart when you sneezed down the intake is also erroneous.

Aside the deletion of a few sensitive systems, they were structurally the same F-14s the US Navy got, so they probably could at time of delivery. The 80th F-14 built for Iran never got delivered and was remanded to US Navy service, but I think it was used as a testbed and never served in a fleet squadron.

And the fleet tends to disseminate important information to the warfighters. Also, he was a pilot, in the fleet. Maybe it didn't happen to him, but how big is the F-14 community? If someone had a wildly different experience than him, he would have heard about it at least 3rd hand. He was in the community. The community's information passed through him. If he says the reputation is overblown, then it's overblown. That doesn't mean the engine upgrade was unnecessary. It just means someone who made a career of flying that aircraft with that engine, and didn't do it in a vacuum, says it's overblown.

The only thing that keeps me from getting one is not being able to see my keyboard. I'm a decent stick so long as I don't need to fly ground reference maneuvers. Which VR set do you use?

Awesome flying. Seeing these is further driving home the fact that if I'm ever going to get consistently good at carrier landings in either the Tomcat or Hornet, I probably need to bite and get a VR headset. Just being able to look around freely has got to help a TON with the visual cues.

That's correct. A lot of folks assume that the early IRST was the same system that was on the F-14D chinpod and it's not. The IRST from the F-14D was actually a useful system, whereas the F-14A IRST was pretty poor.

The F-14A-70-GR and -75-GR as introduced in 1972 had different gun gas vents, different rear fuselage structure, no tail stiffeners, and IRST that didn't work very well, and the notoriously finicky TF30-P412. These variants only ever served with VF-1, VF-2, VF-14, VF-32, and training squadron VF-124 in those early years before eventually being assigned to reserve units. The later -80GR is the structurally mature variant that every other 70's Tomcat squadron converted to. In terms of capability, the F-14A between 1975 and 1989 really only got TARPS, TCS, and some ECM upgrades. The LANTIRN wasn't introduced to the F-14 community until 1995. Structurally, stiffeners were installed on the tails and the fuselage was reworked to mediate fatigue cracking that also plagued the early F-14s. The F-14A never lost capability, so the Heatblur F-14A will be able to perform in the strike role but not lose its edge in air-to-air. Disable the TCS and load the right weapons, what you'll have won't be any different from an F-14 in 1977.

I think what we're getting is an F-14A that is a contemporary of the F-14B we already have. While HB's F-14A will be more capable than the F-14A from the late 1970s or mid 1980s, it hasn't lost any of the air-to-air functionality from that period, so aside some minor aesthetic details (gun gas vents, TACAN antennae, ECM blisters, and TCS pod) it'll fit right in to period scenarios. Many squadrons, (including the most historically significant VF-41), only ever flew the A model and retired in it. Heck, in the mid-1990s, most squadrons were only using the A. Make no mistake, the F-14B was the superior airplane, but only 9 out of 30 fleet VF squadrons ever flew it, and not all at once. It wasn't as rare as the D model, but it was only equipping at most 6 squadrons at a time out of 30. At most the F-14D ever equipped 3 squadrons at a time, and for a very brief period in 1997 just 2. Until the mid-90s budget cuts were completed, the F-14A was the most common model, and was the only F-14 at all until 1989.

Probably never. Not unless they can do the PTID, which they can't.

I would avoid slips in the F-14 as a general rule. The F-14B with its stronger GE-F110 engines can handle the resulting disturbed air down the intakes, but when you start flying the F-14A, its engines can't. If I remember right, slipping at slow speeds was a big no-no in the F-14. Using it to correct poor lineup on a carrier approach was fatal on more than one occasion.

They've repeatedly said they're unable. Documentation for the PTID menus isn't available and they're unwilling to just make stuff up.

Thank you. Real life got in the way for a while. Skins are done, but I haven't had time to get good screen shots and package them all up. Should be this week I hope.

Which afforded the F-14 another decade of service. Diversify or die. And OEF and OIF would not have gone as well for the Navy if the F-14 hadn't been available as the premier carrier-borne strike fighter. They made the right choice.

Visually, the -68 used by Tomcat crews looks almost exactly the same as the -55. That VF-201 image is unusual in that the -68s still have their 600 kt visors installed, but I don't supposed 201 was using ANVIS, which was incompatible with the 600 kt visor. It isn't unknown to see an F-14 crewman wearing a 600 kt visor, but it is pretty rare. On occasion in the F/A-18 you saw pilots wearing the bugeye visors from HGU-84s, but same general story there. A low profile helmet with a bungee visor should cover the majority of scenarios from ~1988 to 2006. HGU-33's with bungee visors, eared edgerolls, and light weight bayo receivers, HGU-55s, and HGU-68s with bungee visors are fairly indistinguishable at distance. But that 600 kt visor just looks cool, so I wouldn't balk at seeing it as well.

Those are both unmodified -68s. The TacAir helmet elephant ears were cut short beneath the 600kt track and the visor cover snaps were higher and further forward. The HGU-68 cover snaps are in the same place as the visor snaps on the -55, which is why the modification to a bungee visor was so easy. TacAir helmet.

Pretty much all US Navy tacair assets were using some variety of low-profile helmets after ODS, first the HGU-55, and then the HGU-68, so Tomcat crews of all models were using it. The differences between the HGU-55 and HGU-68 is primarily in the material of the helmet shell. The -55 is graphite/aramid and the -68 is nylon graphion and laminated graphite. Stock, the HGU-68 is issued with a 600kt low-profile track visor, but in fleet F-14 squadrons, the PRs removed these as they were incompatible with night vision systems like the ANVIS and replaced them with the same bungee visor you see on the -55. It's US Navy regulation to cover the helmet shell with 3M reflective tape, which hides the darker material of the -68 shell, making it indistinguishable at DCS view distance from the -55. Perhaps one of the only ways to tell is the screw holes for the 600kt visor track are often visible in the leather elephant ears and on the left side of the helmet forehead, though these latter screw holes are sometimes covered with tape dots. If you see a fighter crew with what looks like an offset streak of dark grey or black on the helmet, it's likely a -68. This VF-143 crew are wearing -68s, and you can see the details I mentioned. Small things like that can be handled with texture work.

Since my favorite F-14B livery has been covered by someone else, I figured I would produce a second favorite. This is VF-143 circa 2004, covering the workup for and early deployment for OEF, which was VF-143's final cruise in the F-14. This skin pack will cover 9 of VF-143's 10 aircraft from 2004. The 10th, AG100, was covered by 59th_Jack's VF-143 2005 skin pack and unlike the remainder of the squadron, probably wasn't painted differently in the first half of the cruise than the last half, so I saw no purpose in covering this aircraft twice. Per usual due to limited information, no crew names will appear on canopy rails.

Considering the F-14B we have, it actually should be an HGU-68/P to be period accurate. Though considering the common tacair configuration used by F-14 crews, the -68 and -55 would be indistinguishable at view range. And it would be appropriate for the F-14A as well. Heck, the HGU-33 in the configuration we have was already on its way out by 1987, and Navy PRs were altering existing -33s to be cosmetically similar to the then new -55, removing the EEK-4 visor and replacing it with a bungee visor. From what I know, there are plans to add the newer helmet as an option, and I guess the option will be triggered by a line in the description.lua for each livery. I look forward to this change. Navy HGU-55s and -68s are my favorite helmet types.