Swordsman422

*Puts on comically serious guy face* I actually prefer the F-14B. Never did like the twin chin pod aesthetically.

Think again. Lol. https://www.f-117a.com/texas.html

Airfield? Like, on the land? Where the zoomies fly out of? Ha! Whatever CATOBAR carrier is available. And probably blasting some Moondragon while I'm at it. Maybe this track.

Some Vietnam-era and late Cold War US Navy stuff. A Vietnam module with maybe FC3 complexity could include theF-8C/D/E/H/J/K, A-4C/E/F, and A-7A/B/C. Add in an AI RIO/BN and we could have F-4B/J and A-6A/B. Late CW F-4N/S, A-6E/(TRAM), and A-7E. Most likely to happen, though, and I won't protest, is the F-16, probably the C-40 and C-52 models. It's too popular an airplane and would get tons of European and Mediterranean users, as well as possibly steal some players from that other sim.

Could and did, but when in the FAC(A) role, F-14s designated targets with lasers as opposed to smoke rockets.

I moved to standalone just to be able to prepurchase this module. Moved my other modules over easily enough with no extra cost. The whole procedure was painless, and I highly recommend it.

This is true. Five of VF-154's twelve F-14As were detattched to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, working closely with USAF, RAF, and RAAF assets to provide close air support for special operations forces. The F-14s primarily functioned in the FAC-A role, buddy lasing or quarterbacking CAS assets during engagements.

In the mid 1980's the serious defects of the P&W TF30-P-412 were recognized. By the introduction of the F-14B, 83 F-14As had been lost to accidents, with a majority of those due to engine-related issues. The frequency of in-flight engine explosions was shockingly common. While F-14Bs and Ds got the new GE-F-110s, A-model Tomcats were fitted from some point with TF30-P-414A engines and measures that were better able to withstand and contain catastrophic blade separation. The problems of being underpowered and sensitive didn't go away but at least when an engine came apart, the airframe wasn't ripped up along with it. Engine issues continued to plague A-model Tomcats regardless of other upgrades. There is a terrifying story of a VF-154 F-14A having an engine flameout at night while plugging into a tanker. It wasn't as disastrous as it could have been, but it was a rather near thing.

The PWs were a lot more shrill and piercing to my ears than the GEs, especially when facing the suck end. Not that it will make much gameplay difference, but I wonder if there will be an option to remove the refueling probe door. The door was flimsy and could get knocked off, especially when tanking from the KC-135 "Iron maiden." It would go right down the right intake and FOD the engine, so it was often removed for long missions.

"...the most detailed rendition of an F-14 Tomcat ever created (and perhaps, any digital aircraft ever!)..." NFS. How many other F-14 study sims have there been? This project is obviously a labor of love, and we all can't wait to see it. Thanks for the update.

I just thought of something about the LTS that I'm curious about. Is there going to be some kind of flag or limiter restricting the loading of both the AN/AAQ-14 and the TARPS pod at the same time or preventing the use of one or the other if both are loaded. The F-14A and F-14B had to be wired specifically for TARPS or specifically for the LTS. F-14Ds were wired for both but still couldn't use both because the control set for the LTS occupied the same space on the RIO's panel as that for the TARPS. Theoretically, any F-14 could carry both in the ferry configuration, but could only make use of one system. Operationally even in D squadrons, you saw two or three dedicated TARPS birds while the remainder were standard/LTS. This leads to another question: with the selected loading of the LTS or TARPS, will the RIO's control panel change in accordance?

It would be cool to see the yellowshirts directing planes on the flight deck, troubleshooters banging and knocking on the jet before it's shot off, greenshirts hooking it up to the catapult, and ordies pulling arming pins. Very immersive. However, there has to be some kind of limit. I mean, not everyone knows what flight deck hand and wand signals mean, so there might need to be some kind of text indicator of what the yellowshirt is telling you, or even a highlight aura indicating who you are supposed to be watching. Pretty easy to understand it's the guy in front of your nose when you start off, but when he hands you off to the next guy in the chain, some of us might need a little help there. Be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Did. Answer stands. I didn't know that about the WWII objects pack but I think it would be the exception seeing as how a lot of those objects are usable by players with Combined Arms. The 3rd party aircraft and some of their related assets were added in to DCS for free. Maybe the WWII assets will be rolled in after 2.5 but not be "playable" like the Viggen, Harrier, and Tiger if the player lacked the module to use it.

Fairly minor, I'm sure, as none of us make a habit of trolling the highways and shooting cars and busses, but I've noticed that the AI road traffic cannot be destroyed. A hit on a vehicle counts as a kill in the log, but the vehicle continues its merry journey down the road with nary a bother instead of becoming the smoking, fiery wreck an incidental hit from, say an AGM-65D or a GAU-8 deserves. Commuter and freight trains, on the other hand, crash and burn just fine.

Shouldn't be a problem. DCS has added other 3rd part aircraft like the Viggen and Harrier.

Sounds like Campaign #1 going to be VF-74 and/or VF-103 from USS Saratoga, maybe right before the introduction of LTS and while -103 was still the Sluggers.

And exposure suits to add extra misery to the 40 pounds of gear you've already got on. Lol.

I'm getting both and don't care which one comes first, so long as they are both quality products, which I'm sure they will be.

I'm hoping for VFA-34 with CVW-17, VFA-131 with CVW-7, and VMFA-232 with CVW-11 to be either in the release or skinned later.

Right. But meaningful, mature discussion like what most of us are having here about the aircraft and missile, their capabilities, load-outs, vulnerabilities, and tactics make for good speculation in the meantime, especially if Heatblur is aiming for maximum realism. It'll be interesting to see the actual impact on MP.

Could, yes. You saw it all the time in attack loadouts with a Phoenix and Sidewinder on the left glove rail, but in the 6-all config the winders were normally left out. I don't think I've seen an F-14 with 6 phoenixes and anything else. Phoenix performance in the Iran-Iraq war was probably even better than reported. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard liked to take credit for things they didn't do, like claiming they shot down Iraqi planes with SAM and AAA fire that F-14s actually got. I hope one day we'll know the real tally.

No reason to walk away from your wingman and operate as a single. Stick with loose deuce until the shooting starts: 1.5-2 miles abeam at same altitude. If someone sneaks behind or beneath one of you, the other can cover in a snap.

Real life, the F-14 only ever did a six-off in testing scenarios. On ALL occasions US Navy F-14s fired the AIM-54 in combat (4 shots, no kills), the missiles were fired singly. Typical F-14 CAP loads were 2/2/2 or 2/3/2 Phoenix, Sparrow, and Sidewinder early on. Later it became 1/2/2 or sometimes 1/1/2 depending on the situation. After the advent of LANTIRN, and especially after 1998, it was rather unusual for the LTS pod to be downloaded, so you'd see an F-14 with 1 Phoenix and 1 Sparrow in the tunnel, and then a Sparrow and 2 Winders on the glove rails, with the LTS still there on the right side. The LANTIRN actually did the TCS job better than the TCS. Sharper imagery and multiple modes. Far as I'm aware, the F-14 wasn't ever shot from a carrier toting 6 Phoenix, and certainly couldn't come back in this configuration. if I were wanting to be as realistic as possible in DCS MP, I'd go with one of the above loadouts and not even consider the 6-all Phoenix load as potentially carrying 3-tons of useless metal with nothing to back it up.

From Multiservice Tactical Brevity Code: Weeds - Indicates that fixed-wing aircraft are operating below 2,000 ft (610 m) AGL. Uh, yeah, I'm not talking about getting grass stains on your wingtips. Positioning your aircraft so that the enemy radar has to look down at you and sort you from the clutter is absolutely a valid real-world tactic. The AWG-9 looking down at a target 10,000 ft below superimposed against the terrain had serious issues picking it up in pulse search. If this same target was also in the beam, this was a huge problem for a RIO to solve unless he knew exactly where to look. This is part of the reason why the F-14s intercepting the MiG-23s in 1989 descended below the Floggers' altitude. They were giving their radar the best possible picture looking up against the sky while the MiG-23's had to sort the Tomcats from the waves below. Going back a bit earlier than F-14s, but in Vietnam, it was pretty common for MiGs with GCI assistance to come blasting out of valleys to bounce strike packages. High speed, low altitude air defense penetration (that means GCI, SAM, and fighter radars) was pretty much bread-and-butter before the advent of low observable platforms. Absolutely using the terrain's effects on the enemy radar is real. Anything that can create a headache for the other guy is going to be put to use.

From what I understand, the RIO controls all functions of the LTS. It's his job to find and designate the target and help get the pilot set up on a delivery profile. The pilot's job is to get the jet pointed in the right direction and pickle off the bomb on cue, then make sure he doesn't block the laser with any part of the airplane.